Los Angeles County 2012-2013 - California Grand Jury Reports

From the annual report

The consolidated year-end volume. The individual investigations it contains are listed separately below.

📑 Continuity Report

County of Los Angeles

From the consolidated annual report · 303 pages

Full Details →

📑 Year-End Report

Continuity Committee Responses

From the consolidated annual report · 71 pages

Full Details →

Individual reports (18)

📋June 06, 2013 — 9. Parks and Recreation Executive Summary The Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation and the Los Angeles

76 pages 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 5

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The City of Glendale obtain an independent legal opinion from outside legal counsel specializing in municipal tax law regarding its compliance with Propositions 218 and 26.

Page 85

R2: The City of Glendale hold a special election and obtain the authorization by two thirds of those voting approving the utility rates charged by Glendale Water & Power and the transfer of funds from Glendale Water & Power to the City’s general fund.

Page 85

R3: The City of Glendale consider alternate sources of revenue if it is unable or unwilling to obtain the requisite authorization of the City’s voters as suggested in 2 above.

Page 86

R4: All cities should adopt a method and practice of saving into a reserve or “rainy day” fund to supplement operating revenue in years of short fall. See Exhibit 12 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 130 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT GOVERNANCE AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT BEST PRACTICES The current fiscal health of cities is largely due to the economic downturn that began in 2008 and continues. However, the overall governance and management practices of each city contributed to how well each city was prepared for this downturn, and how effectively each has responded. The following sections of this report present information on best practices for local governments in the areas of governance and financial management. Current practices by the cities are compared to these best practices and recommendations made for improvements. These best practices and recommendations should be useful to the cities in addressing their current financial challenges, and preparing for the future. The Grand Jury identified best practices for local governments in the areas of governance and financial management to be used as a basis for comparison with the practice of cities. A questionnaire was developed and administered to identify the current practice of cities in each of these areas. As part of this questionnaire cities were requested to provide specific documentation in each of these areas and to provide comments or explanations regarding their responses and policies. In the following sections, the Grand Jury provides information on the best practices identified, and compares the current practices of cities with these best practices. A copy of the questionnaire is provided in

Page 130

R12: More information on each of these fiscal health criteria, and the results of the comparison, is contained within the sections following this exhibit. 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 98 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Exhibit 3: Results and Rankings of Cities on Fiscal Health Criteria All Funds General Fund Net Revenue Percent Ratio of Assets to Liabilities Change in Net Assets General Fund Net Revenue Change in General Fund Balance Unassigned General Fund Balance FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 City Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Ratio Rank Ratio Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Agoura Hills 79 (41.5%) 24 (.3%) 29 3.82 24 7.54 45 0.8% 70 (2.6%) 36 3.5% 16 8.1% 1 285.1% 74 (78.3%) 14 80.3% 9 85.5% Alhambra 12 3.9% 5 6.0% 52 2.48 52 3.77 6 8.1% 34 14.6% 44 1.5% 51 (2.3%) 13 24.3% 47 (5.2%) 67 4.7% 64 0.7% Arcadia 63 (15.3%) 37 (4.2%) 23 4.31 28 6.92 70 (3.5%) 74 (5.7%) 52 0.0% 58 (5.0%) 34 6.1% 42 (3.5%) 50 19.0% 45 20.3% Artesia 52 (8.4%) 70 (17.1%) 67 1.77 39 5.05 44 0.8% 37 8.8% 20 8.3% 54 (3.5%) 11 25.3% 51 (7.1%) 31 44.9% 32 35.0% Azusa 68 (19.8%) NA 0.0% 71 1.69 NA 0.00 73 (4.8%) NA 0.0% 30 4.7% NA 0.0% 3 68.8% NA 0.0% 83 (15.3%) 67 0.0% Baldwin Park 16 2.2% 33 (2.8%) 56 2.28 48 4.48 28 2.4% 15 39.9% 23 7.1% 35 3.8% 64 (9.7%) 49 (5.8%) 56 15.3% 56 8.1% Bell Gardens 33 (2.4%) 46 (7.3%) 41 2.93 25 7.25 72 (4.5%) 10 63.6% 15 10.0% 40 1.7% 36 5.0% 36 (1.9%) 18 73.2% 67 0.0% Bellflower 25 (.8%) 12 4.1% 36 3.29 46 4.64 5 8.2% 31 15.6% 29 4.7% 44 1.0% 41 2.3% 30 1.5% 20 70.0% 15 63.0% Beverly Hills 6 5.7% 3 8.5% 51 2.55 63 2.83 8 6.6% 38 8.2% 11 11.8% 9 11.1% 44 0.4% 11 9.4% 33 43.7% 24 45.5% Bradbury 82 (108.2%) NA 0.0% 2 49.28 NA 0.00 80 (10.1%) NA 0.0% 83 (59.2%) NA 0.0% 76 (23.9%) NA 0.0% 6 187.6% 67 0.0% Burbank 54 (1.5%) 69 (16.6%) 32 3.52 40 4.98 56 (.6%) 40 7.9% 74 (15.0%) 68 (13.0%) 61 (7.0%) 58 (14.2%) 43 31.1% 67 0.0% Calabasas 39 (4.0%) 22 0.2% 35 3.48 57 3.52 15 5.2% 59 (.0%) 33 4.3% 34 3.9% 52 (3.6%) 20 4.5% 13 86.8% 7 94.1% Carson 58 (11.7%) 74 (24.5%) 48 2.65 74 1.96 78 (9.5%) 73 (4.4%) 24 7.1% 18 7.6% 10 29.3% 4 26.0% 51 18.4% 38 26.4% Cerritos 55 (10.1%) 35 (3.2%) 45 2.83 6 39.19 61 (1.0%) 12 51.7% 72 (14.1%) 76 (44.0%) 53 (4.2%) 61 (16.1%) 9 103.1% 11 77.9% Claremont 5 8.5% 9 4.9% 22 4.45 41 4.93 21 3.1% 60 (.2%) 21 8.0% 14 8.7% 17 15.1% 10 14.4% 44 30.9% 34 31.7% Commerce 61 (12.1%) 31 (2.0%) 72 1.69 76 1.61 74 (5.0%) 42 6.6% 45 1.5% 20 6.6% 47 0.1% 19 5.3% 19 71.8% 12 77.1% Covina 66 (17.8%) 63 (13.7%) 49 2.61 53 3.69 76 (5.8%) 76 (8.2%) 42 1.9% 59 (5.0%) 23 9.4% 56 (9.2%) 39 36.3% 35 31.1% Cudahy 84 (170.3%) 58 (12.0%) 82 1.29 14 15.61 84 (72.8%) 1 260.9% 69 (9.8%) 67 (11.9%) 73 (15.6%) 55 (9.2%) 10 103.0% 8 88.5% Culver City 17 2.1% 68 (15.5%) 69 1.73 38 5.08 34 2.0% 7 80.9% 6 16.4% 53 (3.3%) 9 29.4% 39 (2.6%) 24 61.4% 17 58.4% Diamond Bar 76 (32.0%) 76 (65.8%) 4 24.92 8 25.49 63 (1.3%) 64 (1.3%) 82 (55.5%) 71 (24.1%) 78 (31.1%) 66 (19.4%) 25 60.2% 18 56.7% Downey 65 (17.8%) 62 (13.5%) 30 3.76 44 4.74 75 (5.1%) 44 5.7% 70 (10.9%) 62 (8.5%) 66 (9.9%) 60 (14.4%) 57 14.8% 55 8.8% Duarte 31 (1.6%) 19 1.0% 21 4.46 7 34.15 16 5.1% 22 27.0% 1 42.6% 19 6.7% 4 58.3% 21 3.8% 11 97.4% 6 109.0% El Monte 56 (10.4%) 28 (1.3%) 19 4.77 33 5.44 43 1.0% 49 4.1% 56 (1.9%) 56 (4.9%) 33 6.2% 32 0.8% 55 16.9% 48 16.3% El Segundo 35 (3.1%) 61 (13.5%) 16 5.47 47 4.49 65 (1.5%) 72 (3.4%) 60 (4.1%) 60 (7.0%) 51 (3.1%) 67 (19.5%) 62 9.8% 52 14.6% Gardena 8 4.8% 13 4.1% 42 2.89 62 2.91 55 (.4%) 66 (1.9%) 19 8.5% 31 5.2% 29 7.1% 16 7.5% 70 0.7% 66 0.5% Glendale 53 (9.1%) 56 (11.2%) 27 3.90 42 4.89 50 0.1% 62 (1.0%) 73 (14.8%) 70 (16.7%) 19 11.3% 70 (55.6%) 36 38.7% 40 23.3% Glendora 44 (5.6%) 36 (3.9%) 33 3.50 37 5.08 48 0.3% 47 4.7% 28 5.9% 52 (2.6%) 37 4.2% 57 (9.6%) 72 0.0% 67 0.0% Hawaiian Gardens 32 (2.3%) NA 0.0% 75 1.52 NA 0.00 52 0.0% NA 0.0% 59 (3.5%) NA 0.0% 54 (4.5%) NA 0.0% 7 120.3% 67 0.0% Hawthorne 20 1.4% 16 3.4% 79 1.38 67 2.51 13 5.7% 5 118.4% 10 14.0% 7 11.3% 15 19.4% 71 (59.0%) 41 33.1% 37 28.8% Hermosa Beach 13 3.7% 2 10.7% 12 7.44 31 5.89 39 1.5% 69 (2.4%) 14 10.6% 5 13.6% 18 11.7% 22 3.5% 49 23.2% 41 23.3% Hidden Hills 70 (23.3%) 8 5.6% 10 10.54 16 12.22 40 1.5% 57 0.2% 79 (32.0%) 21 6.5% 65 (9.8%) 25 2.3% 3 207.2% 2 291.9% Huntington Park 40 (4.5%) NA 0.0% 84 0.62 NA 0.00 83 (13.0%) NA 0.0% 39 2.4% NA 0.0% 38 3.5% NA 0.0% 45 30.7% 67 0.0% Industry 60 (12.0%) 51 (9.6%) 66 1.85 72 2.12 14 5.7% 75 (6.2%) 2 30.0% 41 1.4% 30 6.9% 48 (5.3%) 1 607.2% 1 454.7% Inglewood 9 4.7% NA 0.0% 74 1.60 NA 0.00 67 (2.8%) NA 0.0% 57 (2.7%) NA 0.0% 68 (12.5%) NA 0.0% 52 18.3% 67 0.0% Irwindale 7 5.3% 52 (9.8%) 58 2.25 5 40.08 3 8.5% 14 40.3% 37 3.1% 63 (9.1%) 2 143.7% 63 (17.0%) 72 0.0% 67 0.0% La Canada Flintridge 3 11.6% 26 (.8%) 50 2.60 65 2.66 10 6.0% 51 1.9% 5 16.6% 11 10.4% 28 7.3% 38 (2.1%) 8 119.3% 5 116.3% La Habra Heights 1 25.4% NA 0.0% 8 11.75 NA 0.00 60 (1.0%) NA 0.0% 49 0.6% NA 0.0% 48 (.6%) NA 0.0% 5 195.2% 67 0.0% La Mirada 27 (1.0%) 29 (1.3%) 65 1.85 17 11.38 2 11.8% 4 128.7% 16 9.6% 2 23.3% 42 2.0% 15 7.6% 17 73.2% 10 85.1% La Puente 50 (7.7%) 45 (7.0%) 59 2.23 64 2.82 38 1.5% 35 10.4% 63 (5.6%) 6 11.4% 50 (2.8%) 72 (59.6%) 28 54.8% 22 50.6% La Verne 11 4.3% 25 (.6%) 15 5.48 27 6.94 27 2.4% 54 1.3% 67 (7.7%) 50 (2.3%) 35 6.0% 6 19.3% 72 0.0% 67 0.0% 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 99 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Exhibit 3: Results and Rankings of Cities on Fiscal Health Criteria All Funds General Fund Net Revenue Percent Ratio of Assets to Liabilities Change in Net Assets General Fund Net Revenue Change in General Fund Balance Unassigned General Fund Balance FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 City Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Ratio Rank Ratio Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Lakewood 15 2.4% 21 0.7% 11 8.85 11 17.97 24 2.8% 24 24.5% 27 6.2% 29 5.7% 26 7.6% 17 6.7% 68 3.2% 59 6.5% Lancaster 69 (21.8%) 49 (9.2%) 28 3.88 10 18.04 64 (1.4%) 23 25.2% 76 (23.3%) 47 (.9%) 74 (17.0%) 69 (38.6%) 46 30.2% 43 21.5% Lawndale 77 (39.1%) NA 0.0% 44 2.85 NA 0.00 46 0.5% NA 0.0% 81 (36.5%) NA 0.0% 57 (5.6%) NA 0.0% 16 74.9% 67 0.0% Lomita 42 (5.1%) 48 (7.8%) 17 4.99 34 5.33 66 (1.7%) 65 (1.5%) 40 2.1% 33 4.0% 69 (13.0%) 24 2.5% 64 8.5% 60 5.1% Long Beach 26 (.9%) 75 (25.2%) 57 2.25 69 2.39 11 5.9% 53 1.5% 53 (.2%) 38 2.3% 82 (59.1%) 9 15.1% 71 0.2% 62 1.3% Los Angeles 43 (5.3%) 44 (6.6%) 68 1.74 75 1.77 26 2.7% 48 4.5% 25 6.4% 26 6.1% 16 19.1% 12 9.2% 66 6.5% 58 6.7% Lynwood 57 (11.5%) 40 (4.9%) 53 2.47 58 3.42 35 1.8% 63 (1.2%) 64 (5.7%) 48 (1.0%) 75 (21.2%) 59 (14.3%) 53 18.2% 47 18.5% Malibu 73 (29.2%) 55 (11.1%) 38 3.01 61 2.95 49 0.2% 71 (3.3%) 61 (4.2%) 57 (4.9%) 77 (23.9%) 54 (8.7%) 42 31.2% 28 36.2% Manhattan Beach 10 4.3% 17 3.2% 24 4.12 50 4.07 29 2.4% 45 5.3% 32 4.3% 28 5.7% 24 9.1% 33 (.2%) 37 36.7% 29 35.6% Monrovia 78 (40.3%) 53 (10.0%) 80 1.30 66 2.65 81 (10.8%) 3 163.7% 78 (31.8%) 72 (27.2%) 71 (14.0%) 76 (374.5%) 84 (27.1%) 76 (27.7%) Montebello 34 (2.5%) 27 (.9%) 77 1.51 68 2.43 9 6.3% 18 37.5% 77 (25.4%) 74 (31.8%) 83 (174.5%) 2 43.8% 61 10.5% 49 15.9% Monterey Park 36 (3.2%) 50 (9.4%) 70 1.72 60 3.01 25 2.7% 16 39.6% 58 (3.1%) 45 0.6% 55 (4.5%) 7 18.1% 65 8.3% 57 7.8% Norwalk 47 (6.9%) 10 4.6% 60 2.20 32 5.70 53 (.1%) 19 33.6% 4 17.6% 17 7.8% 8 36.0% 65 (19.0%) 48 25.4% 36 29.9% Palmdale 19 1.4% 41 (5.6%) 31 3.73 26 7.13 51 0.1% 32 15.3% 9 14.4% 39 1.8% 12 24.7% 52 (7.1%) 38 36.5% 33 34.6% Palos Verdes Estates 28 (1.0%) 39 (4.8%) 1 50.47 3 44.98 62 (1.1%) 68 (2.4%) 41 2.1% 32 4.9% 22 9.4% 44 (4.7%) 60 10.7% 50 15.7% Paramount 62 (12.5%) 38 (4.7%) 61 2.13 22 9.94 77 (6.3%) 17 39.5% 51 0.2% 42 1.4% 5 42.6% 29 1.6% 30 49.9% 23 49.6% Pasadena 51 (8.3%) 72 (18.0%) 63 2.01 73 2.04 23 3.0% 26 20.7% 22 7.3% 8 11.2% 67 (12.4%) 14 7.7% 78 (.8%) 75 (23.1%) Pico Rivera 64 (17.1%) 59 (12.4%) 54 2.32 54 3.67 20 3.2% 8 80.9% 68 (8.6%) 49 (1.7%) 60 (6.8%) 31 1.2% 59 11.5% 67 0.0% Pomona 48 (7.0%) 57 (11.2%) 78 1.48 71 2.22 57 (.7%) 13 41.0% 48 0.9% 24 6.2% 70 (13.0%) 73 (62.2%) 72 0.0% 67 0.0% Rancho Palos Verdes 4 10.4% 1 11.8% 7 12.25 4 41.90 22 3.0% 29 16.4% 3 25.5% 1 26.2% 49 (2.4%) 18 5.6% 22 66.7% 14 71.4% Redondo Beach 23 (.0%) 34 (3.0%) 20 4.57 36 5.13 32 2.2% 36 10.0% 34 4.1% 37 2.4% 6 38.0% 37 (1.9%) 72 0.0% 65 0.6% Rolling Hills 80 (45.6%) 66 (14.3%) 3 36.59 2 45.56 82 (12.9%) 52 1.5% 38 2.6% 69 (16.0%) 39 3.1% 50 (6.4%) 4 206.8% 3 177.0% Rolling Hills Estates 30 (1.6%) 11 4.5% 9 10.57 19 10.72 31 2.4% 39 8.1% 65 (7.3%) 22 6.3% 72 (15.1%) 8 17.0% 47 28.5% 30 35.2% Rosemead 71 (26.4%) 71 (17.3%) 64 1.98 15 15.41 4 8.4% 11 56.2% 66 (7.6%) 46 0.4% 63 (9.6%) 41 (3.3%) 26 57.6% 20 56.0% San Dimas 75 (30.5%) 6 5.9% 25 4.11 20 10.30 33 2.1% 20 33.2% 46 1.3% 36 2.5% 43 1.6% 35 (.9%) 27 55.2% 19 56.1% San Fernando 49 (7.5%) 30 (1.6%) 39 2.98 43 4.81 58 (.7%) 50 3.0% 80 (32.0%) 73 (30.0%) 84 (704.9%) 75 (99.7%) 81 (4.4%) 74 (10.0%) San Gabriel 45 (5.8%) 47 (7.7%) 18 4.81 45 4.70 69 (3.4%) 67 (2.2%) 75 (22.2%) 75 (33.4%) 46 0.2% 68 (25.9%) 79 (2.1%) 61 3.5% San Marino 72 (27.2%) 67 (15.0%) 5 15.44 9 21.50 47 0.4% 58 0.2% 18 9.1% 15 8.7% 62 (8.9%) 64 (18.1%) 15 79.8% 13 72.6% Santa Clarita 67 (19.7%) 32 (2.4%) 14 6.22 21 10.14 36 1.7% 43 6.1% 7 15.5% 61 (8.0%) 25 7.6% 62 (16.4%) 21 69.7% 16 58.4% Santa Fe Springs 24 (.7%) 73 (19.0%) 73 1.66 29 6.27 19 3.7% 9 72.8% 71 (11.4%) 65 (11.4%) 31 6.7% 5 25.4% 40 35.4% 25 43.1% Santa Monica 46 (6.7%) 42 (5.9%) 26 3.98 35 5.28 30 2.4% 30 16.3% 55 (1.7%) 3 23.2% 7 37.0% 3 41.0% 34 40.0% 31 35.1% Sierra Madre 37 (3.3%) 64 (13.7%) 6 12.97 12 16.57 59 (.8%) 61 (.4%) 12 11.3% 10 10.5% 27 7.5% 53 (7.4%) 23 65.2% 54 12.2% Signal Hill 81 (64.0%) 65 (14.2%) 76 1.52 18 11.31 41 1.3% 6 101.5% 31 4.5% 25 6.1% 20 9.8% 23 2.5% 35 39.1% 27 41.7% South El Monte 21 0.2% 15 3.5% 83 1.13 23 9.38 1 100.0% 2 237.1% 50 0.4% 12 9.6% 80 (51.7%) 1 59.7% 69 2.0% 53 13.2% South Gate 14 2.4% 14 3.6% 47 2.68 56 3.56 7 6.8% 33 14.6% 54 (1.0%) 43 1.2% 32 6.5% 26 2.0% 58 13.2% 46 19.5% South Pasadena 38 (3.9%) 4 7.7% 55 2.31 70 2.32 17 4.0% 55 0.9% 13 11.2% 30 5.5% 14 20.8% 13 9.0% 29 53.9% 21 55.6% Temple City 2 12.0% 18 2.2% 13 7.19 13 16.34 12 5.7% 41 7.7% 26 6.3% 27 5.8% 40 2.5% 45 (5.0%) 2 236.1% 42 22.5% Torrance 18 2.0% 7 5.8% 43 2.88 55 3.66 42 1.2% 27 18.6% 43 1.9% 23 6.2% 58 (6.0%) 27 1.9% 63 9.7% 44 21.4% Vernon 83 (110.4%) 77 (83.9%) 81 1.29 77 1.14 79 (9.7%) 77 (51.4%) 84 (100.3%) 77 (108.1%) 81 (58.5%) 77 (455.0%) 82 (8.2%) 77 (47.4%) Walnut 74 (29.3%) 23 (.0%) 34 3.49 1 48.92 54 (.2%) 21 31.7% 35 3.5% 64 (10.3%) 79 (31.7%) 46 (5.2%) 72 0.0% 63 0.7% West Covina 29 (1.2%) 43 (6.3%) 62 2.07 51 4.00 71 (3.9%) 25 21.8% 62 (5.5%) 66 (11.7%) 59 (6.2%) 40 (2.9%) 54 17.0% 39 24.4% 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 100 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Exhibit 3: Results and Rankings of Cities on Fiscal Health Criteria All Funds General Fund Net Revenue Percent Ratio of Assets to Liabilities Change in Net Assets General Fund Net Revenue Change in General Fund Balance Unassigned General Fund Balance FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 City Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Ratio Rank Ratio Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent West Hollywood 59 (11.8%) 20 1.0% 46 2.78 49 4.23 18 3.9% 46 5.0% 8 14.7% 4 17.4% 21 9.6% 28 1.7% 80 (2.2%) 51 15.6% Westlake Village 41 (4.6%) 54 (10.9%) 37 3.13 59 3.16 68 (3.3%) 56 0.3% 47 1.2% 13 9.4% 56 (5.4%) 34 (.9%) 12 92.7% 4 139.3% Whittier 22 (.0%) 60 (12.6%) 40 2.94 30 6.23 37 1.5% 28 18.2% 17 9.3% 55 (4.3%) 45 0.2% 43 (4.4%) 32 43.7% 26 42.0% Average - All Cities (12.5%) (6.2%) 5.45 8.92 0.8% 24.0% (1.7%) (1.5%) (3.8%) (14.5%) 51.4% 38.3% Source: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) or Basic Financial Statements obtained from each City. Financial information for FY 2010-11 or FY 2011-12 was not available from the cities of Avalon, Bell, Compton, and Maywood as of April 25, 2013. Financial information for FY 2011-12 was not available from the cities of Azusa, Bradbury, Hawaiian Gardens, Huntington Park, Inglewood, La Habra Heights, and Lawndale as of April 25, 2013. 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 101 CITIES OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 102 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Net Revenue Percent – All Funds Net Revenue Percent is the percent of all revenues remaining after all city expenditures. Revenues are the amount received by a city from taxes, fees, permits, licenses, interest, intergovernmental sources, and other sources during the fiscal year. Expenditures are the actual spending of governmental funds by each city. If a city spends less than received the net revenues and percentage would be positive. If a city spends more than received in revenues the net revenues and percentage would be negative. The net revenue percent is calculated by dividing net revenues by total revenues. All Funds include each city’s general fund as well as any other funds for proprietary or business- type activities which could include operating public utilities (power, water, parking, refuse collection, etc.) or other non-governmental type activities. As the following Exhibit shows, only 21 of the 84 cities spent less on all activities (governmental and business) during Fiscal 2010-11 than revenue received. The remaining 61 cities spent more than they received in revenue. Both the cities of Vernon and Bradbury spent more than twice what was received in revenues. On average, cities expended 12.5% more than they received in revenue during FY 2010-11. The exhibit also shows that only 22 of the 77 cities spent less on all activities (governmental and business) during Fiscal 2011-12 than revenue received. The remaining 55 cities spent more than they received in revenue. The City of Vernon spent nearly 84% more than it received in revenue. On average, cities expended 6.2% more than they received in revenue during FY 2011-

Page 93

📋June 06, 2013 — Cities Fiscal Health, Governance and Management Defined Retirement Health, Deferred

19 pages

Quick View Full Details →

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

📋June 06, 2013 — Board of Supervisors Request and Complaint Procedures Web Contact Form – It is available on the Ask Don page at the

303 pages

Quick View Full Details →

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

📋June 06, 2013 — County of Los Angeles

8 pages 56 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 56

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Most cities expended more than they received in revenues during FY 2011-12.

Page 138

R2: Most cities’ total net assets and general fund balances declined during FY 2011-12, and several cities’ ratios of total net assets to total liabilities are lower than desirable.

Page 138

R3: All cities should not use one-time revenues to fund recurring or on-going expenditures.

Page 139

R4: All cities should adopt a method and practice of saving into a reserve or “rainy day” fund to supplement operating revenue in years of short fall. See Exhibit 12 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 131 GOVERNANCE AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT BEST PRACTICES The current fiscal health of cities is largely due to the economic downturn that began in 2008 and continues. However, the overall governance and management practices of each city contributed to how well each city was prepared for this downturn, and how effectively each has responded. The following sections of this report present information on best practices for local governments in the areas of governance and financial management. Current practices by the cities are compared to these best practices and recommendations made for improvements. These best practices and recommendations should be useful to the cities in addressing their current financial challenges, and preparing for the future. The Grand Jury identified best practices for local governments in the areas of governance and financial management to be used as a basis for comparison with the practice of cities. A questionnaire was developed and administered to identify the current practice of cities in each of these areas. As part of this questionnaire cities were requested to provide specific documentation in each of these areas and to provide comments or explanations regarding their responses and policies. In the following sections, the Grand Jury provides information on the best practices identified, and compares the current practices of cities with these best practices. A copy of the questionnaire is provided in

Page 139

R5: Annual Exec. Evaluation

Page 139

R6: Conflict of Interest Policy

Page 139

R7: Most cities published their financial reports or CAFR to their website.

Page 149

R8: All cities maintained an adequate accounting system. Most issued timely financial statements and a CAFR in compliance with standards, and most made the CAFR readily accessible to the general public on their website. RECOMMENDATIONS – FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 3

Page 161

R9: Please provide any comments or explanations regarding your responses on governance: CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT

Page 171

R10: Formal Audit Committee

Page 139

R11: Is the audit committee directly responsible for the appointment, compensation, retention, and oversight of the work of independent accountants engaged to perform independent audit, review, or attestation services? o Yes o No

Page 172

R12: More information on each of these fiscal health criteria, and the results of the comparison, is contained within the sections following this exhibit. CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 99 Exhibit 3: Results and Rankings of Cities on Fiscal Health Criteria City All Funds General Fund Net Revenue Percent Ratio of Assets to Liabilities Change in Net Assets General Fund Net Revenue Change in General Fund Balance Unassigned General Fund Balance FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Ratio Rank Ratio Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Agoura Hills 79 (41.5%) 24 (.3%) 29 3.82 24 7.54 45 0.8% 70 (2.6%) 36 3.5% 16 8.1% 1 285.1% 74 (78.3%) 14 80.3% 9 85.5% Alhambra 12 3.9% 5 6.0% 52 2.48 52 3.77 6 8.1% 34 14.6% 44 1.5% 51 (2.3%) 13 24.3% 47 (5.2%) 67 4.7% 64 0.7% Arcadia 63 (15.3%) 37 (4.2%) 23 4.31 28 6.92 70 (3.5%) 74 (5.7%) 52 0.0% 58 (5.0%) 34 6.1% 42 (3.5%) 50 19.0% 45 20.3% Artesia 52 (8.4%) 70 (17.1%) 67 1.77 39 5.05 44 0.8% 37 8.8% 20 8.3% 54 (3.5%) 11 25.3% 51 (7.1%) 31 44.9% 32 35.0% Azusa 68 (19.8%) NA 0.0% 71 1.69 NA 0.00 73 (4.8%) NA 0.0% 30 4.7% NA 0.0% 3 68.8% NA 0.0% 83 (15.3%) 67 0.0% Baldwin Park 16 2.2% 33 (2.8%) 56 2.28 48 4.48 28 2.4% 15 39.9% 23 7.1% 35 3.8% 64 (9.7%) 49 (5.8%) 56 15.3% 56 8.1% Bell Gardens 33 (2.4%) 46 (7.3%) 41 2.93 25 7.25 72 (4.5%) 10 63.6% 15 10.0% 40 1.7% 36 5.0% 36 (1.9%) 18 73.2% 67 0.0% Bellflower 25 (.8%) 12 4.1% 36 3.29 46 4.64 5 8.2% 31 15.6% 29 4.7% 44 1.0% 41 2.3% 30 1.5% 20 70.0% 15 63.0% Beverly Hills 6 5.7% 3 8.5% 51 2.55 63 2.83 8 6.6% 38 8.2% 11 11.8% 9 11.1% 44 0.4% 11 9.4% 33 43.7% 24 45.5% Bradbury 82 (108.2%) NA 0.0% 2 49.28 NA 0.00 80 (10.1%) NA 0.0% 83 (59.2%) NA 0.0% 76 (23.9%) NA 0.0% 6 187.6% 67 0.0% Burbank 54 (1.5%) 69 (16.6%) 32 3.52 40 4.98 56 (.6%) 40 7.9% 74 (15.0%) 68 (13.0%) 61 (7.0%) 58 (14.2%) 43 31.1% 67 0.0% Calabasas 39 (4.0%) 22 0.2% 35 3.48 57 3.52 15 5.2% 59 (.0%) 33 4.3% 34 3.9% 52 (3.6%) 20 4.5% 13 86.8% 7 94.1% Carson 58 (11.7%) 74 (24.5%) 48 2.65 74 1.96 78 (9.5%) 73 (4.4%) 24 7.1% 18 7.6% 10 29.3% 4 26.0% 51 18.4% 38 26.4% Cerritos 55 (10.1%) 35 (3.2%) 45 2.83 6 39.19 61 (1.0%) 12 51.7% 72 (14.1%) 76 (44.0%) 53 (4.2%) 61 (16.1%) 9 103.1% 11 77.9% Claremont 5 8.5% 9 4.9% 22 4.45 41 4.93 21 3.1% 60 (.2%) 21 8.0% 14 8.7% 17 15.1% 10 14.4% 44 30.9% 34 31.7% Commerce 61 (12.1%) 31 (2.0%) 72 1.69 76 1.61 74 (5.0%) 42 6.6% 45 1.5% 20 6.6% 47 0.1% 19 5.3% 19 71.8% 12 77.1% Covina 66 (17.8%) 63 (13.7%) 49 2.61 53 3.69 76 (5.8%) 76 (8.2%) 42 1.9% 59 (5.0%) 23 9.4% 56 (9.2%) 39 36.3% 35 31.1% Cudahy 84 (170.3%) 58 (12.0%) 82 1.29 14 15.61 84 (72.8%) 1 260.9% 69 (9.8%) 67 (11.9%) 73 (15.6%) 55 (9.2%) 10 103.0% 8 88.5% Culver City 17 2.1% 68 (15.5%) 69 1.73 38 5.08 34 2.0% 7 80.9% 6 16.4% 53 (3.3%) 9 29.4% 39 (2.6%) 24 61.4% 17 58.4% Diamond Bar 76 (32.0%) 76 (65.8%) 4 24.92 8 25.49 63 (1.3%) 64 (1.3%) 82 (55.5%) 71 (24.1%) 78 (31.1%) 66 (19.4%) 25 60.2% 18 56.7% Downey 65 (17.8%) 62 (13.5%) 30 3.76 44 4.74 75 (5.1%) 44 5.7% 70 (10.9%) 62 (8.5%) 66 (9.9%) 60 (14.4%) 57 14.8% 55 8.8% Duarte 31 (1.6%) 19 1.0% 21 4.46 7 34.15 16 5.1% 22 27.0% 1 42.6% 19 6.7% 4 58.3% 21 3.8% 11 97.4% 6 109.0% El Monte 56 (10.4%) 28 (1.3%) 19 4.77 33 5.44 43 1.0% 49 4.1% 56 (1.9%) 56 (4.9%) 33 6.2% 32 0.8% 55 16.9% 48 16.3% El Segundo 35 (3.1%) 61 (13.5%) 16 5.47 47 4.49 65 (1.5%) 72 (3.4%) 60 (4.1%) 60 (7.0%) 51 (3.1%) 67 (19.5%) 62 9.8% 52 14.6% Gardena 8 4.8% 13 4.1% 42 2.89 62 2.91 55 (.4%) 66 (1.9%) 19 8.5% 31 5.2% 29 7.1% 16 7.5% 70 0.7% 66 0.5% Glendale 53 (9.1%) 56 (11.2%) 27 3.90 42 4.89 50 0.1% 62 (1.0%) 73 (14.8%) 70 (16.7%) 19 11.3% 70 (55.6%) 36 38.7% 40 23.3% Glendora 44 (5.6%) 36 (3.9%) 33 3.50 37 5.08 48 0.3% 47 4.7% 28 5.9% 52 (2.6%) 37 4.2% 57 (9.6%) 72 0.0% 67 0.0% Hawaiian Gardens 32 (2.3%) NA 0.0% 75 1.52 NA 0.00 52 0.0% NA 0.0% 59 (3.5%) NA 0.0% 54 (4.5%) NA 0.0% 7 120.3% 67 0.0% Hawthorne 20 1.4% 16 3.4% 79 1.38 67 2.51 13 5.7% 5 118.4% 10 14.0% 7 11.3% 15 19.4% 71 (59.0%) 41 33.1% 37 28.8% Hermosa Beach 13 3.7% 2 10.7% 12 7.44 31 5.89 39 1.5% 69 (2.4%) 14 10.6% 5 13.6% 18 11.7% 22 3.5% 49 23.2% 41 23.3% Hidden Hills 70 (23.3%) 8 5.6% 10 10.54 16 12.22 40 1.5% 57 0.2% 79 (32.0%) 21 6.5% 65 (9.8%) 25 2.3% 3 207.2% 2 291.9% Huntington Park 40 (4.5%) NA 0.0% 84 0.62 NA 0.00 83 (13.0%) NA 0.0% 39 2.4% NA 0.0% 38 3.5% NA 0.0% 45 30.7% 67 0.0% Industry 60 (12.0%) 51 (9.6%) 66 1.85 72 2.12 14 5.7% 75 (6.2%) 2 30.0% 41 1.4% 30 6.9% 48 (5.3%) 1 607.2% 1 454.7% Inglewood 9 4.7% NA 0.0% 74 1.60 NA 0.00 67 (2.8%) NA 0.0% 57 (2.7%) NA 0.0% 68 (12.5%) NA 0.0% 52 18.3% 67 0.0% Irwindale 7 5.3% 52 (9.8%) 58 2.25 5 40.08 3 8.5% 14 40.3% 37 3.1% 63 (9.1%) 2 143.7% 63 (17.0%) 72 0.0% 67 0.0% La Canada Flintridge 3 11.6% 26 (.8%) 50 2.60 65 2.66 10 6.0% 51 1.9% 5 16.6% 11 10.4% 28 7.3% 38 (2.1%) 8 119.3% 5 116.3% La Habra Heights 1 25.4% NA 0.0% 8 11.75 NA 0.00 60 (1.0%) NA 0.0% 49 0.6% NA 0.0% 48 (.6%) NA 0.0% 5 195.2% 67 0.0% La Mirada 27 (1.0%) 29 (1.3%) 65 1.85 17 11.38 2 11.8% 4 128.7% 16 9.6% 2 23.3% 42 2.0% 15 7.6% 17 73.2% 10 85.1% La Puente 50 (7.7%) 45 (7.0%) 59 2.23 64 2.82 38 1.5% 35 10.4% 63 (5.6%) 6 11.4% 50 (2.8%) 72 (59.6%) 28 54.8% 22 50.6% La Verne 11 4.3% 25 (.6%) 15 5.48 27 6.94 27 2.4% 54 1.3% 67 (7.7%) 50 (2.3%) 35 6.0% 6 19.3% 72 0.0% 67 0.0% CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 100 Exhibit 3: Results and Rankings of Cities on Fiscal Health Criteria City All Funds General Fund Net Revenue Percent Ratio of Assets to Liabilities Change in Net Assets General Fund Net Revenue Change in General Fund Balance Unassigned General Fund Balance FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Ratio Rank Ratio Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Lakewood 15 2.4% 21 0.7% 11 8.85 11 17.97 24 2.8% 24 24.5% 27 6.2% 29 5.7% 26 7.6% 17 6.7% 68 3.2% 59 6.5% Lancaster 69 (21.8%) 49 (9.2%) 28 3.88 10 18.04 64 (1.4%) 23 25.2% 76 (23.3%) 47 (.9%) 74 (17.0%) 69 (38.6%) 46 30.2% 43 21.5% Lawndale 77 (39.1%) NA 0.0% 44 2.85 NA 0.00 46 0.5% NA 0.0% 81 (36.5%) NA 0.0% 57 (5.6%) NA 0.0% 16 74.9% 67 0.0% Lomita 42 (5.1%) 48 (7.8%) 17 4.99 34 5.33 66 (1.7%) 65 (1.5%) 40 2.1% 33 4.0% 69 (13.0%) 24 2.5% 64 8.5% 60 5.1% Long Beach 26 (.9%) 75 (25.2%) 57 2.25 69 2.39 11 5.9% 53 1.5% 53 (.2%) 38 2.3% 82 (59.1%) 9 15.1% 71 0.2% 62 1.3% Los Angeles 43 (5.3%) 44 (6.6%) 68 1.74 75 1.77 26 2.7% 48 4.5% 25 6.4% 26 6.1% 16 19.1% 12 9.2% 66 6.5% 58 6.7% Lynwood 57 (11.5%) 40 (4.9%) 53 2.47 58 3.42 35 1.8% 63 (1.2%) 64 (5.7%) 48 (1.0%) 75 (21.2%) 59 (14.3%) 53 18.2% 47 18.5% Malibu 73 (29.2%) 55 (11.1%) 38 3.01 61 2.95 49 0.2% 71 (3.3%) 61 (4.2%) 57 (4.9%) 77 (23.9%) 54 (8.7%) 42 31.2% 28 36.2% Manhattan Beach 10 4.3% 17 3.2% 24 4.12 50 4.07 29 2.4% 45 5.3% 32 4.3% 28 5.7% 24 9.1% 33 (.2%) 37 36.7% 29 35.6% Monrovia 78 (40.3%) 53 (10.0%) 80 1.30 66 2.65 81 (10.8%) 3 163.7% 78 (31.8%) 72 (27.2%) 71 (14.0%) 76 (374.5%) 84 (27.1%) 76 (27.7%) Montebello 34 (2.5%) 27 (.9%) 77 1.51 68 2.43 9 6.3% 18 37.5% 77 (25.4%) 74 (31.8%) 83 (174.5%) 2 43.8% 61 10.5% 49 15.9% Monterey Park 36 (3.2%) 50 (9.4%) 70 1.72 60 3.01 25 2.7% 16 39.6% 58 (3.1%) 45 0.6% 55 (4.5%) 7 18.1% 65 8.3% 57 7.8% Norwalk 47 (6.9%) 10 4.6% 60 2.20 32 5.70 53 (.1%) 19 33.6% 4 17.6% 17 7.8% 8 36.0% 65 (19.0%) 48 25.4% 36 29.9% Palmdale 19 1.4% 41 (5.6%) 31 3.73 26 7.13 51 0.1% 32 15.3% 9 14.4% 39 1.8% 12 24.7% 52 (7.1%) 38 36.5% 33 34.6% Palos Verdes Estates 28 (1.0%) 39 (4.8%) 1 50.47 3 44.98 62 (1.1%) 68 (2.4%) 41 2.1% 32 4.9% 22 9.4% 44 (4.7%) 60 10.7% 50 15.7% Paramount 62 (12.5%) 38 (4.7%) 61 2.13 22 9.94 77 (6.3%) 17 39.5% 51 0.2% 42 1.4% 5 42.6% 29 1.6% 30 49.9% 23 49.6% Pasadena 51 (8.3%) 72 (18.0%) 63 2.01 73 2.04 23 3.0% 26 20.7% 22 7.3% 8 11.2% 67 (12.4%) 14 7.7% 78 (.8%) 75 (23.1%) Pico Rivera 64 (17.1%) 59 (12.4%) 54 2.32 54 3.67 20 3.2% 8 80.9% 68 (8.6%) 49 (1.7%) 60 (6.8%) 31 1.2% 59 11.5% 67 0.0% Pomona 48 (7.0%) 57 (11.2%) 78 1.48 71 2.22 57 (.7%) 13 41.0% 48 0.9% 24 6.2% 70 (13.0%) 73 (62.2%) 72 0.0% 67 0.0% Rancho Palos Verdes 4 10.4% 1 11.8% 7 12.25 4 41.90 22 3.0% 29 16.4% 3 25.5% 1 26.2% 49 (2.4%) 18 5.6% 22 66.7% 14 71.4% Redondo Beach 23 (.0%) 34 (3.0%) 20 4.57 36 5.13 32 2.2% 36 10.0% 34 4.1% 37 2.4% 6 38.0% 37 (1.9%) 72 0.0% 65 0.6% Rolling Hills 80 (45.6%) 66 (14.3%) 3 36.59 2 45.56 82 (12.9%) 52 1.5% 38 2.6% 69 (16.0%) 39 3.1% 50 (6.4%) 4 206.8% 3 177.0% Rolling Hills Estates 30 (1.6%) 11 4.5% 9 10.57 19 10.72 31 2.4% 39 8.1% 65 (7.3%) 22 6.3% 72 (15.1%) 8 17.0% 47 28.5% 30 35.2% Rosemead 71 (26.4%) 71 (17.3%) 64 1.98 15 15.41 4 8.4% 11 56.2% 66 (7.6%) 46 0.4% 63 (9.6%) 41 (3.3%) 26 57.6% 20 56.0% San Dimas 75 (30.5%) 6 5.9% 25 4.11 20 10.30 33 2.1% 20 33.2% 46 1.3% 36 2.5% 43 1.6% 35 (.9%) 27 55.2% 19 56.1% San Fernando 49 (7.5%) 30 (1.6%) 39 2.98 43 4.81 58 (.7%) 50 3.0% 80 (32.0%) 73 (30.0%) 84 (704.9%) 75 (99.7%) 81 (4.4%) 74 (10.0%) San Gabriel 45 (5.8%) 47 (7.7%) 18 4.81 45 4.70 69 (3.4%) 67 (2.2%) 75 (22.2%) 75 (33.4%) 46 0.2% 68 (25.9%) 79 (2.1%) 61 3.5% San Marino 72 (27.2%) 67 (15.0%) 5 15.44 9 21.50 47 0.4% 58 0.2% 18 9.1% 15 8.7% 62 (8.9%) 64 (18.1%) 15 79.8% 13 72.6% Santa Clarita 67 (19.7%) 32 (2.4%) 14 6.22 21 10.14 36 1.7% 43 6.1% 7 15.5% 61 (8.0%) 25 7.6% 62 (16.4%) 21 69.7% 16 58.4% Santa Fe Springs 24 (.7%) 73 (19.0%) 73 1.66 29 6.27 19 3.7% 9 72.8% 71 (11.4%) 65 (11.4%) 31 6.7% 5 25.4% 40 35.4% 25 43.1% Santa Monica 46 (6.7%) 42 (5.9%) 26 3.98 35 5.28 30 2.4% 30 16.3% 55 (1.7%) 3 23.2% 7 37.0% 3 41.0% 34 40.0% 31 35.1% Sierra Madre 37 (3.3%) 64 (13.7%) 6 12.97 12 16.57 59 (.8%) 61 (.4%) 12 11.3% 10 10.5% 27 7.5% 53 (7.4%) 23 65.2% 54 12.2% Signal Hill 81 (64.0%) 65 (14.2%) 76 1.52 18 11.31 41 1.3% 6 101.5% 31 4.5% 25 6.1% 20 9.8% 23 2.5% 35 39.1% 27 41.7% South El Monte 21 0.2% 15 3.5% 83 1.13 23 9.38 1 100.0% 2 237.1% 50 0.4% 12 9.6% 80 (51.7%) 1 59.7% 69 2.0% 53 13.2% South Gate 14 2.4% 14 3.6% 47 2.68 56 3.56 7 6.8% 33 14.6% 54 (1.0%) 43 1.2% 32 6.5% 26 2.0% 58 13.2% 46 19.5% South Pasadena 38 (3.9%) 4 7.7% 55 2.31 70 2.32 17 4.0% 55 0.9% 13 11.2% 30 5.5% 14 20.8% 13 9.0% 29 53.9% 21 55.6% Temple City 2 12.0% 18 2.2% 13 7.19 13 16.34 12 5.7% 41 7.7% 26 6.3% 27 5.8% 40 2.5% 45 (5.0%) 2 236.1% 42 22.5% Torrance 18 2.0% 7 5.8% 43 2.88 55 3.66 42 1.2% 27 18.6% 43 1.9% 23 6.2% 58 (6.0%) 27 1.9% 63 9.7% 44 21.4% Vernon 83 (110.4%) 77 (83.9%) 81 1.29 77 1.14 79 (9.7%) 77 (51.4%) 84 (100.3%) 77 (108.1%) 81 (58.5%) 77 (455.0%) 82 (8.2%) 77 (47.4%) Walnut 74 (29.3%) 23 (.0%) 34 3.49 1 48.92 54 (.2%) 21 31.7% 35 3.5% 64 (10.3%) 79 (31.7%) 46 (5.2%) 72 0.0% 63 0.7% West Covina 29 (1.2%) 43 (6.3%) 62 2.07 51 4.00 71 (3.9%) 25 21.8% 62 (5.5%) 66 (11.7%) 59 (6.2%) 40 (2.9%) 54 17.0% 39 24.4% CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 101 Exhibit 3: Results and Rankings of Cities on Fiscal Health Criteria City All Funds General Fund Net Revenue Percent Ratio of Assets to Liabilities Change in Net Assets General Fund Net Revenue Change in General Fund Balance Unassigned General Fund Balance FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Ratio Rank Ratio Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent West Hollywood 59 (11.8%) 20 1.0% 46 2.78 49 4.23 18 3.9% 46 5.0% 8 14.7% 4 17.4% 21 9.6% 28 1.7% 80 (2.2%) 51 15.6% Westlake Village 41 (4.6%) 54 (10.9%) 37 3.13 59 3.16 68 (3.3%) 56 0.3% 47 1.2% 13 9.4% 56 (5.4%) 34 (.9%) 12 92.7% 4 139.3% Whittier 22 (.0%) 60 (12.6%) 40 2.94 30 6.23 37 1.5% 28 18.2% 17 9.3% 55 (4.3%) 45 0.2% 43 (4.4%) 32 43.7% 26 42.0% Average - All Cities (12.5%) (6.2%) 5.45 8.92 0.8% 24.0% (1.7%) (1.5%) (3.8%) (14.5%) 51.4% 38.3% Source: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) or Basic Financial Statements obtained from each City. Financial information for FY 2010-11 or FY 2011-12 was not available from the cities of Avalon, Bell, Compton, and Maywood as of April 25, 2013. Financial information for FY 2011-12 was not available from the cities of Azusa, Bradbury, Hawaiian Gardens, Huntington Park, Inglewood, La Habra Heights, and Lawndale as of April 25, 2013. CITIES OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 102 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 103 Net Revenue Percent – All Funds Net Revenue Percent is the percent of all revenues remaining after all city expenditures. Revenues are the amount received by a city from taxes, fees, permits, licenses, interest, intergovernmental sources, and other sources during the fiscal year. Expenditures are the actual spending of governmental funds by each city. If a city spends less than received the net revenues and percentage would be positive. If a city spends more than received in revenues the net revenues and percentage would be negative. The net revenue percent is calculated by dividing net revenues by total revenues. All Funds include each city’s general fund as well as any other funds for proprietary or business- type activities which could include operating public utilities (power, water, parking, refuse collection, etc.) or other non-governmental type activities. As the following Exhibit shows, only 21 of the 84 cities spent less on all activities (governmental and business) during Fiscal 2010-11 than revenue received. The remaining 61 cities spent more than they received in revenue. Both the cities of Vernon and Bradbury spent more than twice what was received in revenues. On average, cities expended 12.5% more than they received in revenue during FY 2010-11. The exhibit also shows that only 22 of the 77 cities spent less on all activities (governmental and business) during Fiscal 2011-12 than revenue received. The remaining 55 cities spent more than they received in revenue. The City of Vernon spent nearly 84% more than it received in revenue. On average, cities expended 6.2% more than they received in revenue during FY 2011-

Page 106

R13: Please provide a copy of the action formally establishing the audit committee.

Page 172

R14: Please provide any comments or explanations regarding your responses on audit committees:

Page 172

R15: Independence Standard

Page 139

R16: In selecting independent auditors does your city undertake a full-scale competitive process at the end of the term of each audit contract? o Yes o No

Page 172

R17: Years with Current Auditor

Page 154

R18: Audit Contract Term Agoura Hills 3 3 + 2 one year renewals Alhambra 7 5 Arcadia 2 4 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 145 Exhibit 11: Responses to Questions on Independent Auditor Contract Term City

Page 154

R19: Does your city have a formal policy requiring that the independent auditor be replaced at the end of the audit contract? o Yes o No CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT

Page 172

R20: Does your city allow the independent auditor to provide nonaudit services to the city? o Yes o No

Page 172

R21: If yes, does the Audit Committee review and approve these services? o Yes o No

Page 172

R22: Please provide a copy of the formal policies related to audit procurement.

Page 172

R23: Please provide any comments or explanations regarding your responses on audit procurement:

Page 172

R24: Are accounting policies and procedures formally documented in an accounting policies and procedures manual? o Yes o No

Page 172

R25: Are accounting policies and procedures reviewed annually and updated at least once every three years on a predetermined schedule? o Yes o No

Page 172

R26: Do the accounting policies and procedures specifically define the authority and responsibility of all employees, including the authority to authorize transactions and the responsibility for safekeeping of assets and records? o Yes o No

Page 172

R27: Please provide a copy of the accounting policies and procedures manual.

Page 172

R28: Please provide any comments or explanations regarding accounting policies and procedures: CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT

Page 172

R29: Policies / Procedures

Page 139

R30: Does your city have a formally adopted and widely distributed and publicized ethics policy? o Yes o No

Page 173

R31: Conf/Anon. Reporting

Page 139

R32: Are concerns received regarding fraud, abuse, or questionable practices reviewed by internal auditors, with documentation reviewed by the Audit Committee. o Yes o No

Page 173

R33: Please provide a copy of the ethics policy and information on mechanisms for reporting concerns of fraud, abuse, or questionable practices.

Page 173

R34: Please provide any comments or explanations regarding reporting of fraud, abuse, and questionable practices:

Page 173

R35: Are internal control procedures over financial management formally documented? o Yes o No

Page 173

R36: Do internal control procedures include practical means for lower level employees to report instances of management override of controls? o Yes o No

Page 173

R37: Are internal control procedures evaluated to determine if those controls are adequately designed to achieve their intended purpose, have actually been implemented, and continue to function as designed? o Yes o No CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT

Page 173

R38: Weaknesses Documented

Page 139

R39: Is there a process in place to identify changes in what is being controlled or controls themselves, and corrective action plans are developed with an appropriate timeline? o Yes o No

Page 173

R40: Please provide a copy of the internal control procedures over financial management.

Page 173

R41: Please provide any comments or explanations regarding your responses on internal controls:

Page 173

R42: Does your city have an internal audit function formally established by enabling resolution or other legal means? o Yes o No

Page 173

R43: Is the work of the internal audit function conducted in accordance with the U.S. General Accounting Office’s Government Auditing Standards? o Yes o No

Page 173

R44: Are all reports of the Internal Audit function provided to or available to the Audit Committee? o Yes o No

Page 173

R45: Please provide a copy of the formal action establishing the internal audit function.

Page 173

R46: Please provide any comments or explanations regarding your responses on internal audit: CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT

Page 173

R47: Does your city have a formal policy on the level of unrestricted fund balance to be maintained in the General Fund? o Yes o No

Page 173

R48: Does this policy require an unrestricted fund balance of no less than two months of regular general fund operating revenues or regular general fund operating expenditures? o Yes o No

Page 173

R49: Please provide a copy of the formal policy on the level of unrestricted fund balance to be maintained in the General Fund.

Page 174

R50: Please provide any comments or explanations regarding your responses on general fund unrestricted fund balance:

Page 174

R51: Adequate Acctg. System

Page 139

R52: Timely Fin. Statements

Page 139

R53: Independently Audited

Page 139

R54: CAFR on City Website

Page 139

R55: Participate in GFOA Number Positive Responses Percent Positive Responses Rank Among Cities Agoura Hills N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y N Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 25 78% 31 Alhambra Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y N N Y N Y N Y N N Y N Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y 21 66% 56 Arcadia N N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y N Y N Y N Y Y Y Y N Y N NA Y Y Y Y Y 20 63% 65 Artesia Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y N NA Y Y Y Y Y 18 56% 78 Avalon N N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N N N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N NA Y N Y Y Y 18 56% 78 Azusa N N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N N Y N Y N Y N NA N N Y Y Y N N NA Y Y Y Y Y 19 59% 74 Baldwin Park *1 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 29 91% 7 Bell Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Y N N N N N Y Y N N NA Y N Y Y Y 19 59% 74 Bell Gardens N N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N N Y N Y N N N N Y Y Y Y N N Y N Y Y Y Y Y 20 63% 65 Bellflower Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y N Y N Y N NA Y N Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 21 66% 56 Beverly Hills Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 27 84% 20 Bradbury Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N N N N Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y N Y Y Y 22 69% 50 Burbank Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N N N N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 25 78% 31 Calabassas N N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 27 84% 20 Carson N N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y N N Y Y Y Y N N N Y N N N Y N Y Y Y Y Y 18 56% 78 Cerritos Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N NA Y Y Y Y Y 28 88% 14 Claremont Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y N N NA Y Y Y Y Y 23 72% 42 Commerce Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N N N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 23 72% 42 Compton N N Y N N Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y 21 66% 56 Covina Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y N N N N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 26 81% 25 Cudahy N N Y N N Y Y N Y Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NA Y N Y N Y 9 28% 87 Culver City Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 30 94% 3 Diamond Bar Y N Y N Y N Y N Y Y N Y Y N Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 20 63% 65 Downey Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N NA Y Y Y Y Y 29 91% 7 Duarte Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N NA Y Y Y Y Y 28 88% 14 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 134 Exhibit 10: Overview of Governance and Financial Management Best Practices Questionnaire Reponses

Page 139

R56: Please provide any comments or explanations regarding your responses on financial and public reporting practices:

Page 174

📋June 06, 2013 — County of Los Angeles

8 pages

Quick View Full Details →

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

📋June 06, 2013 — County of Los Angeles

4 pages 6 findings

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 6 findings

F1: The office of each Supervisor helps constituents in dealing with Los Angeles County de- partments. The Grand Jury interviewed staff members in each office. Those directly involved with aiding constituents appear to be knowledgeable and dedicated.

Page 69

F2: Each supervisorial office enters complaints and requests into the Constituent Relationship Management system (CRM). Routinely, all correspondence regarding the case is recorded in this system. Thus anyone in the office has easy access to the information and can continue processing the case. When a conclusion is reached, that information is entered into the sys- tem. This allows generation of a report listing cases that have been open too long. A disad- vantage of the system is that it can be cumbersome. Requests not requiring follow-up are of- ten not recorded. 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 55 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REQUEST AND COMPLAINT PROCEDURES

Page 69

F3: There are a variety of ways to contact a Supervisor’s office: phone, letter, and email/web. Some of the other methods of making requests or complaints are fax, walk-in, board meeting, and at a community meeting. Letters are the best way to contact the Fourth and Fifth Dis- tricts. For information on the frequency of contacts through each source see Table 1 below. Table 1 Source of Contact by Supervisorial District4 (Oct 2011-Sept 2012) Source District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 Total Phone 1106 739 702 384 2931 Letter 76 249 148 *281 858 1612 Email/Web 331 483 133 1170 2117 Other 227 170 25 79 501 Total 1740 1641 1008 *281 2491 7161 *The Fourth District office provided CRM data only for requests submitted through letters. These tables were produced from data furnished by each District using the CRM system. The tables of the submitted data are in Exhibits 1-5. Exhibit 6 contains two tables submitted by the Fourth District. With the exception of actual data for letters received and entered into CRM, all other “data” are estimates which are vastly out of range from the CRM data pro- vided by the other offices. Through communication by a staff member of the Fourth District the Grand Jury learned that only information received by letter was available in CRM.

Page 70

F4: Another way of looking at the contacts is monthly, as in the table below. A quick review in- dicates no apparent seasonal trends. Table 2 Contacts by Month4 2011 2012 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Total District 1 169 165 121 113 131 116 166 187 173 152 158 89 1740 District 2 66 99 105 144 132 140 156 167 163 138 151 180 1641 District 3 60 51 65 101 102 95 96 94 117 97 58 72 1008 District 4* 33 11 17 30 13 46 24 21 26 25 27 8 281 District 5 283 213 189 179 231 186 198 173 138 187 260 **254 2491 Total 611 539 497 567 609 583 640 642 617 599 654 603 7161 * Fourth District—Office provided CRM data only for requests submitted through letters. ** Fifth District—September data was collected in 2011. In interpreting the above tables, note that only requests requiring follow-up are entered into CRM. Requests that can be satisfied immediately are usually not recorded. Phone requests are routinely under-reported. District data may differ because of these reporting issues as well as demographics and geography. Each Supervisorial District Office furnished data for these tables in response to a Grand Jury request. 56 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REQUEST AND COMPLAINT PROCEDURES

Page 70

F5: All of the Supervisorial districts have web contact forms on their websites. The Grand Jury was particularly impressed with the First District’s web form, which repeated the entire re- quest on submission. This allows the constituents to review their request and save it for their records. Figure 1 Sample Web Contact Form Figure 2 First District response when form is submitted. 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 57 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REQUEST AND COMPLAINT PROCEDURES

Page 71

F6: To maximize the use of the Supervisor’s office for requests, a constituent should: a. Determine if the problem is with a County department. b. If it is difficult to determine who to contact and the constituent suspects that the ap- propriate agency is a county department, the office of the supervisor is a good re- source to help you determine who to contact. c. Contact the appropriate county department and attempt to resolve the problem with them first. d. If the problem has still not been resolved the constituent can contact the office of the their supervisor for help. Responses are required from:

Page 72

March 05, 2013 — Glendale Water and Power and Propositions 218 and 26*

6 pages 2 findings 3 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 2 findings

F1: The City of Glendale obtain an independent legal opinion from outside legal counsel specializing in municipal tax law regarding its compliance with Propositions 218 and 26.

Related Recommendations (1)

R1: The City of Glendale obtain an independent legal opinion from outside legal counsel specializing in municipal tax law regarding its compliance with Propositions 218 and 26.

F2: The City of Glendale hold a special election and obtain the authorization by two thirds of those voting approving the utility rates charged by Glendale Water & Power and the transfer of funds from Glendale Water & Power to the City's general fund.

Related Recommendations (1)

Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R3: The City of Glendale consider alternate sources of revenue if it is unable or unwilling to obtain the requisite authorization of the City's voters as suggested in 2 above.

📋February 01, 2013 — Dual Track and Training The 2012 Citizen's Commission on Jail Violence Report County of Los Angres*

13 pages 7 findings 8 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 7 findings

F1: Individual officer's attitudes in the Department and internal Department cultural perception are the greatest factors in successfully implementing Dual Track and decreasing violence within the jails. Custody is currently viewed by many in the Department as a lesser position than Patrol.

F2: Quality leadership, regardless of structure, is the biggest factor in reducing violence. Training is therefore essential to groom leaders. This training needs to start early and build on itself over years so deputies will have internalized the training and be qualified for promotions. Given lim- ited resources, it may be best to focus on the leadership first before training rank and file. The potential for specialized training is a great benefit of Dual Track and without this component it is unlikely the structural change alone will affect violence in the jails.

F3: There is a difference in operating Men's Central Jail (MCJ) and the other large jail facilities like the Pitchess Ranch Complex or Century Regional Detention Facility (CRDF; the Women's facility). There is an even greater difference in operating a Type I jail facility (initial intake; in- mate held under 96 hours). The Commission's Report is based primarily on findings from MCJ. It may call for changes that are not necessarily appropriate department-wide. If MCJ is the prob- lem, it is better to use resources to fix that versus spreading resources throughout the department. Implementation Monitor Report, February 12, 2013 DUAL TRACK AND TRAINING 4. The proliferation of inmates with severe mental issues has turned some of the floors of the Twin Towers Correctional Facility into a de facto mental hospital. This may require a different model of staffing-possibly with more orderlies and civilians being used. Rotation of deputies is not encouraged on these floors. Given the tremendous resources it takes to house these in- mates in jail, the Board of Supervisors needs to focus as soon as possible on alternative hous- ing-either in mental hospitals or another type of housing.

F4: The Sheriff's Department must increase training for Custody positions (post Academy). But assuming limited resources, leadership should receive increased training before new deputies. The Department must look for ways to break down training into smaller units and possibly en- courage through incentives or promotion consideration, having deputies seek out education on their own time. The Department needs to resolve any labor issues that may hinder this goal.

F5: The Sheriff's Department needs to mentor and model behavior more effectively. Custody assignment is an opportunity to learn more about gangs, criminal techniques, and criminal net- works outside of the jails and how to cultivate potential informants.

F6: The Sheriff's Department in conjunction with the Department of Health needs to signifi- cantly increase mental health training Department-wide. The Department needs to work with other entities (Department of Mental Health, the county's e-education system, non-profits and private enterprise) to come up with ways to disseminate this training without causing positions to be backfilled while officers attend the training. Specifically, more needs to be taught relating to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), trauma and the behaviors that may result as well as de- escalation techniques.

F7: The Sheriff's Department must provide deputies who work directly with the mentally ill ex- This training should emphasize recognizing, reacting to, de- tensive, specialized training. escalating and preventing aggressive and hostile behavior that can occur in these settings. 2012-2013 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report DUAL TRACK AND TRAINING 8. The Sheriff's Department needs to use more Custody Assistants and investigate possibly contracting with private security forces for Type I facilities. It should also investigate using or- derlies and specialized health care workers when dealing with mentally ill inmates. METHODOLOGY The Grand Jury reviewed the Commission's Report and the Sheriff's Dual Track Career Path Plan (Sheriff's Plan), as issued and approved January 2013. We also conducted on-line research into approaches of other jurisdictions related to training. Statistical information is based on Janu- ary 2013 Custody Division accounting reports prepared by the Sheriff's Department. The Grand Jury attended multiple hearings of the Board of Supervisors and heard the reports of the Com- mission Report monitor. We also interviewed key upper level personnel in the Sheriff's De- partment with direct responsibility for the Dual Track system, training and mental health. But the biggest factor in reaching these conclusions has been the Grand Jury's visits to jail facili- ties in LA County and interviews with dozens of members of the Sheriff's Department. We had frank conversations with officers fresh out of the Academy as well as those with over 25 years of experience--both in Custody and in Patrol. Penal Code Section 919(b) requires the Grand Jury to "inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons within the county." Grand Jury members have visited over 70 jail facilities including those run by different police depart- ments as well as those run by the Sheriff's Department. The Grand Jury also visited state mental health facilities to compare the staffing and housing of inmates with mental health issues. FINDINGS I. Dual Track Defined2 As of February 1, 2013, the Sheriff's Department implemented Commission Report recommen- dation 6.6, the Dual Track.3 Dual Track separates the department into a Custody track and a Pa- trol track and allows for deputies to have a career in Custody--which includes promotion-- without having to go on Patrol. The Commission is advocating for a long term solution in which Deputy Sheriffs are specifically recruited, hired and trained within the Academy for Custody as- signments. (Commission's Report p. 138) This differs from both the current arrangement and the Sheriff's Plan. The Sheriff's Plan assumes minor changes in the Academy experience. Custody- specific training occurs following Academy graduation. Further, for the foreseeable future, new deputies will continue to be placed in Custody straight out of the Academy. Deputies waiting to go on Patrol will remain in their Custody positions for a period of time until positions within Pa- trol open. A. The current staffing situation in Custody 2 All statistical data in this section comes from the January 2013 Sheriff's Department Custody division accounting reports. Information on the structure and roles of officers within the department are from interviews with key Sher- iff's Department personnel. Implementation Monitor Report, February 12, 2013 DUAL TRACK AND TRAINING As of January 2013, 2949 sworn officers were assigned to Custody out of a total force of 9197 officers. This means that almost one third of all positions within the force are in Custody. There are 1302 Custody Assistants working in the jails. The Sheriff's Department has conducted sev- eral surveys in the last few months to assess this issue and in one survey, 42 % said they would like to remain in Custody. Even if this number rises to 50%, that still means that approximately 1500 positions need to open up in the Patrol division. This also means that 1500 Custody posi- tions need to be filled, either by new recruits or deputies already on Patrol. The County cannot nor should it increase Patrol positions within the force this much in a short time span. Also, given the ratio of positions, the assumption also has to be that the number of new Academy re- cruits has to consist of at least two-thirds who are ultimately interested in Patrol positions. Before a deputy can leave a Custody position to go to the field, several things need to happen. First, a Patrol position has to open at one of the three stations requested by the deputy. Second, no other deputy higher on the Patrol list or already in the field takes the position. And third, a new deputy either fresh from the Academy or from the field needs to fill the Custody position. Typically, most of the positions have been filled by new graduates. So the reality is that Custody positions will need to be filled and will need to stay filled by deputies coming out of the Acade- my for a period of time until attrition and staffing needs on Patrol can increase. B. Dual Track is Beneficial for the Department There are still benefits to creating a Custody track. Without question, at least short term, many deputies who are willing to stay in Custody will get off the waiting lists and those seeking to go on Patrol will move up. This will hopefully significantly shorten the wait time to go to Patrol from the current wait of anywhere from five years or more. Based on conversations with dozens of sworn officers at all levels, most felt that a period of up to two years in Custody was actually a benefit. Most felt their Patrol skills remained intact for this period. Further, observant deputies learned a great deal about gangs, criminal methodology and gained confidence in dealing with many of the kinds of criminals they would encounter on the job. Anecdotal evidence from ser- geants and captains included stories of encountering many of the same people on the streets that they had met in the jails who then were more likely to be informants and to give the officer re- spect. All this assumes of course the following: The deputy conducted him/herself in a way to earn the respect of the inmate within the facility. Either through their own initiative or through the men- torship of supervising personnel, deputies were actively encouraged to observe and learn and view their time as a learning experience. Having appropriate mentoring and supervision, and having a defined expectation of the length of time one will spend in Custody will go a long way to eliminating the bad attitudes of those officers who want to be on Patrol. Framing Custody as a positive experience and way to gather knowledge is essential. It is fine to think of time in Cus- tody as paying your dues; it should not be viewed as a waste of time until your real job can begin. II. Internal Perception Affects Dual Track's Effectiveness 4 2013 Sheriff's Department Dual Track Career Path Plan (Sheriff's Plan), p3 2012-2013 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report DUAL TRACK AND TRAINING One of the common threads running throughout every conversation with members of the Sher- iff's Department--from the newest deputy up to the Commander level--is the role of internal per- ception and pride. How one deputy perceives another or whether one officer respects another is critically important to the Department as an institution. The first step in creating a sense of equal- ity and shared experience is the Academy experience. The second step for several years now has been the experience of Custody and the third step has been the desire, and ultimately, the experi- ence of going out on Patrol. Dual Track takes away this third step. For many officers, in particular, many of the current su- pervising officers, this is a threat to the equality in the Department. The Sheriff's Department is stereotypically considered a macho5 culture as expressed by both male and female deputies. In our discussions with Sheriff's personnel, we heard variations of the following statements from all ranks: Patrol is the ultimate goal of every deputy. Patrol is harder but more rewarding. Those who choose to stay in Custody are not as hard working, afraid to face the challenges of Patrol, forced to consider Patrol because of personal hardship or family pressures and other excuses. One of the potential benefits of Dual Track that could feed into this negative perception is the fact that Custody, with its set schedule shifts, will be particularly attractive for females with fam- ilies. While it is positive that women will be able to stay longer with the Department, given the macho mindset stated above, Custody can be viewed as a negative position if it is filled with too many females. This is a sad reality and one the Department cannot ignore. This is not an attitude that will disappear overnight, especially since our observation has been that those in leadership ranks were more likely to have this attitude. The attitude will go away more quickly amongst the rank and file if the leadership from the top down really values Custody and conveys this through action and words on a regular basis. As more leaders are promoted from within Custody, pride in position will increase too. III. Assignment and Training of Leadership is Key to Dual Track Success A. Assignments of Leadership to Custody The reason for the Commission's Report was not efficiency or morale, but rather ways of de- creasing violence. When asked, "How do you think Dual Track will impact violence levels in the jails?" almost none of the dozens of officers we spoke to saw a clear connection. Almost consistently, when asked to state the biggest factor, the answer was leadership. In the words of one high ranking officer, issues related to unnecessary violence happened because, "supervisors lacked the courage to manage personnel." Over and over, we heard from sergeants and captains currently in Custody assignments state that sergeants were more focused on going back to Patrol than really leading in the custody assignment. The fact that sergeants only had to remain in the position for one year did not help. Many of the larger jails are complex environments with mul- 5 The Grand Jury uses the word macho as shorthand for qualities expressed as being part of the self-image of depu- ties such as toughness, assertiveness, bravery, strength, dominance and being in control. Sheriff's Plan, p9 DUAL TRACK AND TRAINING tiple shifts of employees. There is a large learning curve. By the time the sergeants learned the position and the characteristics of their staff, they were on to the new post. We applaud the Sheriff's Department for changing this situation in two ways: First, promotion will now occur directly through the Custody track and a pathway has been put into place for this. One area of concern here is that these sergeants still need to view their role as being mentors and preparing deputies for Patrol as well. Sergeants have to have the proper train- ing and support, not only to train these deputies but also to have their respect. The Department should help these sergeants, perhaps by allowing rotations through Patrol positions or by requir- ing a certain number of ride-alongs a year for Custody leadership who have not been on Patrol. Second, sergeants who are now assigned to Custody from Patrol or other divisions will be re- quired to stay for five years.7 This requirement will require careful watch and attention given the attitude issues mentioned above. Many of the sergeants who came in from outside of Custody did not view it as a first choice and were eager to leave after one year. Will they now come to custody with a new attitude given they have to stay for five years? Will they be disgruntled? Investing in training and development of these officers will help morale and allow them to see themselves as valued specialists. B. Training In the area of training for Custody Supervisors, we believe the Sheriff's Department has not gone far enough. The focus of pending improvement is on deputies. This is commendable but more needs to occur.

Additional Recommendations 7

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: wards those officers assigned to custody. This will also be critical if large numbers of women stay in custody positions.

R2: The Sheriff's Department in conjunction with the Board of Supervisors must come to a decision about MCJ. Many of MCJ's issues are unique to this facility. If problems at MCJ have to do with the architectural shortcomings, then funding needs to be provided to either rebuild or renovate the facility in accordance with current best practices. Different solutions may be need- ed for other large scale facilities like Pitchess Ranch or CRDF, as well as Court House Facilities.

R3: The Sheriff's Department should focus on keeping time spent in custody assignments to ide- ally no more than two years (for those wishing to go on Patrol) while increasing the learning op- portunities while on custody assignment.

R4: The Sheriff's Department must increase training for Custody positions (post Academy). But assuming limited resources, leadership should receive increased training before new deputies. The Department must look for ways to break down training into smaller units and possibly en- courage through incentives or promotion consideration, having deputies seek out education on their own time. The Department needs to resolve any labor issues that may hinder this goal.

R5: The Sheriff's Department needs to mentor and model behavior more effectively. Custody assignment is an opportunity to learn more about gangs, criminal techniques, and criminal net- works outside of the jails and how to cultivate potential informants.

R6: The Sheriff's Department in conjunction with the Department of Health needs to signifi- cantly increase mental health training Department-wide. The Department needs to work with other entities (Department of Mental Health, the county's e-education system, non-profits and private enterprise) to come up with ways to disseminate this training without causing positions to be backfilled while officers attend the training. Specifically, more needs to be taught relating to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), trauma and the behaviors that may result as well as de- escalation techniques.

R7: The Sheriff's Department must provide deputies who work directly with the mentally ill ex- This training should emphasize recognizing, reacting to, de- tensive, specialized training. escalating and preventing aggressive and hostile behavior that can occur in these settings. 2012-2013 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report DUAL TRACK AND TRAINING

📋November 23, 2012 — Lapd’s “skid Row” Station

12 pages

Quick View Full Details →

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

📋Chevron El Segundo Tax Revenue Investigation

8 pages 56 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 56

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Most cities expended more than they received in revenues during FY 2011-12.

Page 138

R2: Most cities’ total net assets and general fund balances declined during FY 2011-12, and several cities’ ratios of total net assets to total liabilities are lower than desirable.

Page 138

R3: All cities should not use one-time revenues to fund recurring or on-going expenditures.

Page 139

R5: Annual Exec. Evaluation

Page 139

R6: Conflict of Interest Policy

Page 139

R7: Most cities published their financial reports or CAFR to their website.

Page 149

Page 161

R9: Please provide any comments or explanations regarding your responses on governance: CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT

Page 171

R10: Formal Audit Committee

Page 139

Page 172

Page 106

R13: Please provide a copy of the action formally establishing the audit committee.

Page 172

R14: Please provide any comments or explanations regarding your responses on audit committees:

Page 172

R15: Independence Standard

Page 139

R16: In selecting independent auditors does your city undertake a full-scale competitive process at the end of the term of each audit contract? o Yes o No

Page 172

R17: Years with Current Auditor

Page 154

R19: Does your city have a formal policy requiring that the independent auditor be replaced at the end of the audit contract? o Yes o No CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT

Page 172

R20: Does your city allow the independent auditor to provide nonaudit services to the city? o Yes o No

Page 172

R21: If yes, does the Audit Committee review and approve these services? o Yes o No

Page 172

R22: Please provide a copy of the formal policies related to audit procurement.

Page 172

R23: Please provide any comments or explanations regarding your responses on audit procurement:

Page 172

R24: Are accounting policies and procedures formally documented in an accounting policies and procedures manual? o Yes o No

Page 172

R25: Are accounting policies and procedures reviewed annually and updated at least once every three years on a predetermined schedule? o Yes o No

Page 172

R27: Please provide a copy of the accounting policies and procedures manual.

Page 172

R28: Please provide any comments or explanations regarding accounting policies and procedures: CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT

Page 172

R29: Policies / Procedures

Page 139

R30: Does your city have a formally adopted and widely distributed and publicized ethics policy? o Yes o No

Page 173

R31: Conf/Anon. Reporting

Page 139

R32: Are concerns received regarding fraud, abuse, or questionable practices reviewed by internal auditors, with documentation reviewed by the Audit Committee. o Yes o No

Page 173

R33: Please provide a copy of the ethics policy and information on mechanisms for reporting concerns of fraud, abuse, or questionable practices.

Page 173

R34: Please provide any comments or explanations regarding reporting of fraud, abuse, and questionable practices:

Page 173

R35: Are internal control procedures over financial management formally documented? o Yes o No

Page 173

R36: Do internal control procedures include practical means for lower level employees to report instances of management override of controls? o Yes o No

Page 173

R38: Weaknesses Documented

Page 139

R39: Is there a process in place to identify changes in what is being controlled or controls themselves, and corrective action plans are developed with an appropriate timeline? o Yes o No

Page 173

R40: Please provide a copy of the internal control procedures over financial management.

Page 173

R41: Please provide any comments or explanations regarding your responses on internal controls:

Page 173

R42: Does your city have an internal audit function formally established by enabling resolution or other legal means? o Yes o No

Page 173

R43: Is the work of the internal audit function conducted in accordance with the U.S. General Accounting Office’s Government Auditing Standards? o Yes o No

Page 173

R44: Are all reports of the Internal Audit function provided to or available to the Audit Committee? o Yes o No

Page 173

R45: Please provide a copy of the formal action establishing the internal audit function.

Page 173

R46: Please provide any comments or explanations regarding your responses on internal audit: CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT

Page 173

R47: Does your city have a formal policy on the level of unrestricted fund balance to be maintained in the General Fund? o Yes o No

Page 173

R48: Does this policy require an unrestricted fund balance of no less than two months of regular general fund operating revenues or regular general fund operating expenditures? o Yes o No

Page 173

R49: Please provide a copy of the formal policy on the level of unrestricted fund balance to be maintained in the General Fund.

Page 174

R50: Please provide any comments or explanations regarding your responses on general fund unrestricted fund balance:

Page 174

R51: Adequate Acctg. System

Page 139

R52: Timely Fin. Statements

Page 139

R53: Independently Audited

Page 139

R54: CAFR on City Website

Page 139

R56: Please provide any comments or explanations regarding your responses on financial and public reporting practices:

Page 174

📋12. Cities of Los Angeles County

76 pages 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 5

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The City of Glendale obtain an independent legal opinion from outside legal counsel specializing in municipal tax law regarding its compliance with Propositions 218 and 26.

Page 85

R3: The City of Glendale consider alternate sources of revenue if it is unable or unwilling to obtain the requisite authorization of the City’s voters as suggested in 2 above.

Page 86

Page 130

Page 93

📋12. Cities of Los Angeles County

76 pages 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 5

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The City of Glendale obtain an independent legal opinion from outside legal counsel specializing in municipal tax law regarding its compliance with Propositions 218 and 26.

Page 85

R3: The City of Glendale consider alternate sources of revenue if it is unable or unwilling to obtain the requisite authorization of the City’s voters as suggested in 2 above.

Page 86

Page 130

Page 93

📋16. Detention Committee: Juvenile Facilities

19 pages

Quick View Full Details →

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

📋1. Dual Track and Training

12 pages 2 findings

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 2 findings

F1: Training of all Custody Personnel As stated before, the Sheriff proposes no significant changes to Academy training.8 This makes sense for many reasons. One, the Academy trains officers for other law enforcement agencies with no Custody responsibility. Further, most of the positions in the Sheriff’s Department are non- custody related. The Sheriff’s Department views the role of the Academy as providing more of a foundation with the probation period being one where the specifics of the job are learned while on the job. Finally, creating a separate Academy will degrade the perception of Custody deputies and Patrol deputies that they are one force. The Grand Jury supports the position of the Sheriff’s Department and does not believe a separate Academy experience needs to happen. That said, more should be and will be done under the Sheriff’s Plan. The Department will in- crease the amount of specific training post Academy from two to four weeks. Those additional two weeks will consist of a “Jail Operation Continuum.” Further, the amount of time spent as- sessing and evaluating deputies will increase from 12 to 16 weeks.

F2: Training of Leadership 7 Sheriff’s Plan, p6 8 Sheriff’s Plan p3 6 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT DUAL TRACK AND TRAINING Those at the sergeant level and above will continue to receive 24 hours of training over three days. This training has a largely administrative focus specific to the particular facility. The only additional training being proposed is eight hours of training that would revisit the topics proposed in the “Jail Operations Continuum”. These eight hours would most likely be given in two hour chunks of intense format training. The timing is meant to avoid backfilling a position.9 This may not be enough or the right emphasis. First of all, as conveyed to the Grand Jury and also found running through the Commission’s Report were issues of failure of leadership-- specifically as it relates to mentoring, managing, conveying expectation and communication. Running a jail, especially some of the larger facilities, is a complex operation that involves sev- eral skill sets and contingencies. A career as a deputy may provide the necessary education in jail operations but not necessarily in management. Too much seems to rest on the individual’s intuition when a little training coupled with that common sense could go a long way. Much of the focus on leadership training has been on forms and required paperwork. If a ser- geant is not provided any additional training in areas such as staff assessment, evaluation, men- toring or effective leadership, what will an additional four weeks of assessment time of deputies add? Training should be viewed broadly as not just conveying information but conveying expec- tation. Especially now that sergeants will have to command the respect and train both deputies staying in Custody and those going on Patrol, it is more imperative than ever that they have the tools to stress and continuously emphasize the Nobility Policing and Constitutional Jailing that are stated values of the Department. The idea of providing training in two hour portions is a smart one that will allow a position not to have to be backfilled but the Department, for both cost and for other practical reasons needs to be focused on other methods of teaching these key skills. It may, for example need to award merit points that are necessary for promotion to those deputies and those in leadership who seek out educational opportunities on their own time. The Department is starting and needs to devote more efforts to utilizing on line resources so that individual topics can be learned over a few days. C. Custody Division Training Bureau The Sheriff’s Department is proposing a whole new infrastructure called the Custody Division Training Bureau to focus specifically on training that currently assumes staffing with close to 80- 100 officers of all ranks.10 We appreciate the greater focus on training. Particularly, we applaud the fact that the eight large facilities will have staff exclusively focused on training. The remain- der of the staff being proposed will take a more centralized approach with some focused specifi- cally on violence related issues and others will focus on the already mandated STC (Standards and Training for Correctional Officers) training which is required annually by the state. Information provided by interviews with Sheriff’s Department personnel 10 Interview with key Sheriff Department personnel, report of Implementation Monitor to Board of Supervisors, Feb- ruary 12, 2013 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 7 DUAL TRACK AND TRAINING

📋4. Foster Care Hotline Investigation

12 pages

Quick View Full Details →

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

📋5. Foster Care Quality Assurance: Training Foster Parents

8 pages

Quick View Full Details →

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

📋9. Parks and Recreation

4 pages

Quick View Full Details →

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

📋Speakers and Events

71 pages

Quick View Full Details →

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

* 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.