Orange County 2014-2015 - California Grand Jury Reports

September 15, 2015 — Board of Directors September 15, 2015 President Barbara Ott Brea Olinda Unified SD*

136 pages 2 findings 1 recommendations

Findings & Recommendations 2 findings

F4: Vertical Joint Powers Authorities with a single controlling entity, such as a city council, have the potential to use this organizational structure as a shell company to avoid other legal constraints on the controlling entity and to obfuscate taxpayer visibility.

F5: Vertical Joint Powers Authorities in which the controlling entity transfers assets from itself to a Joint Powers Authority for the purpose of obtaining additional funding, or signs a long-term lease to a Joint Powers Authority to obtain assets, are avoiding transparency and are not acting in the best financial interest of the taxpayers. Central to the application of these Findings as to WOCJPA is the Grand Jury's preliminary conclusion that WOCJPA is a Vertical Joint Powers Authority. While again respecting the efforts of the Grand Jury, the true fact is that WOCJPA is and always has been a Horizontal Joint Powers Authority. That is readily capable of being confirmed by looking to the definitions of "Horizontal" and "Vertical" Joint Powers Authorities, and then fairly and objectively applying them to the structure and operation of the Governing Board of WOCJPA. The Grand Jury Report describes Horizontal Joint Powers Authorities as follows: [Horizontal] JPAs provide shared services such as insurance pools, training, area transportation, communication systems, workers compensation, area flood protection, and water supply to the community. JPAs were determined to be horizontal if their members were composed of similar entities that shared a common problem or opportunity. That is, each of the members was looking to delegate a function of their authority to a JPA in order to either improve the service that is provided or to reduce the cost through economies of scale. Each member in the JPA is motivated to have the JPA perform better than the individual member could do it alone. A JPA member is motivated to be looking out for their entity's best interest. As a result, if the JPA is not providing the desired results or improvements, then the member can withdraw from the JPA and go it alone. As a result, there are organizational checks and balances that tend to allow for self-correction and accountability. Many of these horizontal JPAs also tend to provide a real service to the community. Secondary authorities define horizontal forms of governance in much the same way. A research brief entitled "Understanding Horizontal Governance" by Daniel Ferguson, a research partner at Connecting the Dots: Accountability and Adult Literacy, offers: 200 Kalmus Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone (714) 966-4059, Fax (714) 549-4812 Western Orange County Self-Funded The Honorable Glenda Sanders Presiding Judge, Orange County Superior Court Workers' Compensation Agency Orange County Grand Jury Report Joint Powers Authorities: Issues of Viability, Control, Transparency, and Solvency September 15, 2015 A horizontal initiative may take place across levels of government, across boundaries between units of a single department or agency or among multiple departments or agencies, or across public, private and voluntary sectors. It replaces hierarchical leadership with collaboration, coordination, shared responsibility for decisions and outcomes, and a willingness to work through consensus. (Id. at 1.) (A copy of the Ferguson research brief is attached as Exhibit A for convenient reference.) Ferguson compares horizontal forms with vertical organizations: Horizontal governance contrasts with the "vertical" or "ministerial" ... structure of authority where decisions over policy development and service implementation are made in a centralized hierarchical manner. In a horizontal approach issues are dealt with by actors who collaborate and share power and responsibility. (Ibid.) Matthew R. DalSanto of the Berkeley Center for Law, Business and the Economy, explained in a working paper how these considerations apply to Joint Powers Authorities: Intrastate governments, referred to in the California Government Code as public agencies, are authorized by state statute to enter into JPAs. This statutory authorization permits the signatory governments to enter into contractual relationships and exercise any power common to them, which allows intrastate governments to enter into agreements concerning a wide array of issues. The statute requires that certain provisions are addressed in the agreement. If the agreement has a specific purpose, then it must specify what that purpose is and how it will be accomplished. If, on the other hand, the agreement states the power that is to be jointly exercised, it must state the manner in which it will be exercised. *** An entirely separate entity independent of the signatory governments can be created pursuant to the terms of the JPA. Cal. Gov't Code 6507. Regional governments can thus create an administrative agency that is charged with executing the agreement. The administration agency "possess[es] the common power specified in the agreement and may exercise it in the manner or according to the method provided in the agreement." Id. This agency can "make and enter contracts, ... employ agents and employees, ... acquire, construct, manage, maintain or operate any building, works or improvements, or to 200 Kalmus Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone (714) 966-4059, Fax (714) 549-4812 Western Orange County Self-Funded The Honorable Glenda Sanders Presiding Judge, Orange County Superior Court Workers' Compensation Agency Orange County Grand Jury Report Joint Powers Authorities: Issues of Viability, Control, Transparency, and Solvency September 15, 2015 acquire, hold or dispose of property or to incur debts, liabilities or obligations, [and it] ... shall have the power to sue and be sued in its own name." Id. at 6508. The agency may have a governing body such as a commission or board that oversees it. Id. Such a body would have members representing the various agencies or legislative bodies that enacted the JPA. Despite the fact that these representatives are supposed to represent the wishes of their constituents, they are not obligated to vote in line with the position of the "legislative body" which appointed them. Cal. Op. Att'y Gen. 267 (2000). DalSanto, Matthew R., "The Economic of Horizontal Government Cooperation," at 16-17. (A copy of the DalSanto working paper is attached as Exhibit B for convenient reference.) WOCJPA meets the definition of a horizontal organization in every way possible. WOCJPA's Joint Powers Authority Agreement (attached as Exhibit C for convenient reference) provides in Paragraph 2 that its purpose is one of those the Grand Jury expressly mentions approvingly as to those of Horizontal Joint Powers Authorities: The Agency is established to operate and shall operate for the purpose of administering this Agreement pursuant to the joint powers provisions of the Government Code of the State of California, and to exercise such common powers jointly by creating a regional authority that will provide the Members with a comprehensive program for the establishment and operation of cooperative self-funded or insured workers' compensation The functions of WOCJPA are to design and implement and related programs. cooperative self-funded or insured workers' compensation programs, to provide ancillary services and related programs, and to perform such other functions and provide such other services as may be necessary or appropriate to the purpose of this Agreement. (Western Orange County Self-Funded Workers' Compensation Agency Joint Powers Authority Agreement ("Agreement"), p. 2, ¶2.) The responsibilities of WOCJPA also meet the Grand Jury's cited examples of horizontal organizations: The Agency, through the Board of Directors, shall: (a) provide for a plan and system for self-insured, insured and other workers' compensation program[.] (Agreement, p. 2-3, \P 5.) Separate from the Joint Powers Authority Agreement, the Bylaws – effectively the operational document of WOCJPA - is entirely reflective of a horizontal organization. The Preamble of the By-Laws of the Western Orange County Self-Funded Workers' Compensation Agency ("By-Laws") (attached as 200 Kalmus Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone (714) 966-4059, Fax (714) 549-4812 Western Orange County Self-Funded The Honorable Glenda Sanders Presiding Judge, Orange County Superior Court Workers' Compensation Agency Orange County Grand Jury Report Joint Powers Authorities: Issues of Viability, Control, Transparency, and Solvency September 15, 2015 Exhibit D for convenient reference) confirms the purpose of WOCJPA fits within the parameters of a horizontal organization as outlined by the Grand Jury: The Western Orange County Self-Funded Workers' Compensation Agency, a California joint powers authority, is established for the purpose of providing the services, facilities, and items necessary and appropriate for the establishment, operation, and maintenance of a self insurance program for workers' compensation claims against and involving member public educational agencies (the "Members"), and to provide a forum for discussion, study, development, and implementation of recommendations of mutual interest in the self-insuring or insuring of workers' compensation-related risks and ancillary programs and services. (By-Laws, Preamble, p. 1.) The composition and operation of the Board of Directors of the WOCJPA also effectively demonstrates the horizontal nature of WOCJPA: The Agency shall be under the direction and control of a Board of Directors comprised of one authorized representative from each Member appointed or otherwise designated by the Member's governing board. (Agreement, p. 2, ¶ 3.) This is confirmed by how the Board of Directors does its work as shown through a review of its Minutes. The roll call in each month's Minutes lists the members of the WOCJPA Board, demonstrating that each of the directors comes from a different school district and all of them handle governance. The votes on each item on the Agenda are listed not just in terms of whether a motion was passed, but exactly who voted how, showing governance by all members, not by one person or entity. The rules of order are followed scrupulously, so that, for instance, the Minutes from the June 3, 2015 meeting show the second reading of a proposed Investment Policy before any vote would be held, while the April 20, 2015 Minutes show the first reading. (June 3, 2015 Minutes at 3; April 20, 2015 Minutes at 9.) Financial reports are reviewed by the Board in detail. (June 3, 2015 Minutes at 4-5; April 20, 2015 Minutes at 9-11; March 16, 2015 Minutes at 8-10; January 26, 2015 Minutes at 7-9; December 18, 2014 Minutes at 8-9.) The attention to detail by the Board is impressive, i.e., the March 16, 2015 Minutes reflect the correction of a typographical error in the previous meeting's Minutes, while the December 18, 2015 Minutes reflect the holiday wishes of one of the Board members. (March 16, 2015 Minutes at 1; December 18, 2015 Minutes at 10.) (Copies of the Minutes of the last five meetings of the Board of WOCJPA are attached as Exhibit E for convenient reference.) The By-Laws further provide that a member may leave WOCJPA and "go it alone," something the Grand Jury indicated is required for it to be considered a Horizontal Joint Powers Authority: 200 Kalmus Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone (714) 966-4059, Fax (714) 549-4812 Western Orange County Self-Funded The Honorable Glenda Sanders Presiding Judge, Orange County Superior Court Workers' Compensation Agency Orange County Grand Jury Report Joint Powers Authorities: Issues of Viability, Control, Transparency, and Solvency September 15, 2015 Any Member may withdraw from WOCJPA and terminate its membership status after having completed three full fiscal years as a Member by Notifying the Board of Directors in writing not later than December 31. Such a withdrawal shall be deemed effective on the following June 30 provided that (and subject to) the withdrawing Member has discharged or arranged for the discharge of its known or potential obligations to the satisfaction of the remaining representatives of the Board of Directors of WOCJPA. (By-Laws, Article XII, ¶ 1, p. 10.) The structure of WOCJPA, as set forth in its organizational chart (attached as Exhibit F for convenient reference), also confirms its horizontal nature. There are four member school districts in WOCJPA, each of which is an equal voting member of WOCJPA. All four organizations govern WOCJPA. The hierarchy is nearly completely flat, with only two levels: WOCJPA and its members. This is as horizontal as a Joint Powers Authority can possibly get. Recommendations The Grant Jury Report applied only one of its Recommendations to WOCJPA. Designated in the Report as Recommendation 3, it provides: All Joint Powers Authorities should take the following actions to insure transparency to the taxpayers: (1) have an annual outside audit, (2) post the complete audit on their city website as a separate Joint Powers Authority entity, (3) send the audit to the County Controller and the State Auditor, and (4) ensure the required reports are filed annually to the County and the State. WOCJPA appreciates this Recommendation, but requests it be withdrawn as to WOCJPA. The reason is that WOCJPA has followed the applicable law regarding auditing and reports throughout its existence. As such, it is requested that Recommendation 3 not be applied to WOCJPA since it is, in effect, already followed. The WOCJPA Agreement requires an annual audit: The Board of Directors shall cause an annual audit to be made with respect to all receipts and disbursements by a certified public accountant or public accountant, and a report of such audit shall be filed as a public record with each of the Members and also with the county auditor of each county in which the participating public agency is located. Such report shall be filed no later than twelve (12) months after the end of the fiscal year under examination. All costs of such audit shall be approved by the Board of Directors and 200 Kalmus Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone (714) 966-4059, Fax (714) 549-4812 Western Orange County Self-Funded The Honorable Glenda Sanders Presiding Judge, Orange County Superior Court Workers' Compensation Agency Orange County Grand Jury Report Joint Powers Authorities: Issues of Viability, Control, Transparency, and Solvency September 15, 2015 paid by WOCJPA as a charge against funds established in the Bylaws for administrative costs and services. (Agreement, p. 3, ¶ 7.) Article VII of the Bylaws of WOCJPA provides greater detail regarding the required audit: The Board of Directors shall make, or contract with a certified public accountant or other qualified public accountant for an annual audit of the accounts and records of WOCJPA. The minimum requirements of the audit shall be those prescribed by the State Controller for Special Districts under Section 26909 of the Government Code of the State of California, and the audit shall conform to generally acceptable auditing standards of public agencies like or comparable to WOCJPA. The audit report shall be completed and filed within twelve months of the end of the fiscal year under examination, and the report shall be filed as a public record with each of the Members and with the County Auditor of the County of Orange. All costs of the audit shall be borne by WOCJPA and shall constitute a permissible and authorized charge against any unencumbered funds of WOCJPA otherwise available for such expenses and purposes. (Bylaws, Article VII, ¶ 3, p. 7.) Government Code section 26909, with which WOCJPA has always complied, requires that a report of the annual audit be filed with the Controller and with the county auditor of the county in which WOCJPA is located. (Gov. Code, § 26909(a)(2).) Article VII of the Bylaws also makes all of WOCJPA's books and records open to examination by representatives of the members: The Agency is strictly accountable for all funds received and disbursed by it, and to that end, WOCJPA shall establish and maintain such funds and accounts as may be required by good accounting practices or by any provision of law or any resolution of WOCJPA. Books and records of WOCJPA shall be open to inspection at all reasonable times by representatives of the Members. The Board of Directors, as soon as practical after the close of each fiscal year, shall give a complete written report of all financial activities for such fiscal year to each of the Members. (Bylaws, Article VII, ¶ 1, p. 7.) The Grand Jury's Recommendation 3 asks that all Joint Powers Authorities "post the complete audit on their city website." WOCJPA is not a subdivision of any city, does not have a website, and this portion of the Recommendation does not appear to have any application to it. The Grand Jury also recommends 200 Kalmus Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone (714) 966-4059, Fax (714) 549-4812 The Honorable Glenda Sanders Western Orange County Self-Funded Presiding Judge, Orange County Superior Court Workers' Compensation Agency Orange County Grand Jury Report Joint Powers Authorities: Issues of Viability, Control, Transparency, and Solvency September 15, 2015 that all Joint Powers Authorities provide "all required reports" to the State of California. California statutes do not ask that any reports be sent by WOCJPA to the State; instead, by law and governance documents, they are filed as a public record with all members and with the County Auditor of the County of Orange. Recommendation 3 is not applicable to WOCJPA. Conclusion Respectfully, WOCJPA notes that Findings 4 and 5, and Recommendation 3, were made as to all Joint Powers Authorities in Orange County. It does not appear that the Grand Jury made any specific findings as to which Joint Powers Authorities are horizontal entities and which are vertical entities, nor as to whether a specific Joint Powers Authority was in compliance with the applicable law regarding annual audits. The facts are that WOCJPA is and always has been a horizontal entity that has always complied with its Agreement, Bylaws and California law regarding an annual audit and public filing. Accordingly, WOCJPA submits that Findings 4 and 5 and Recommendation 3 do not apply to it, and asks that the Grand Jury modify its report to so state. Respectfully submitted, Garbara Ott Barbara Ott, President Board of Directors Western Orange County Self-Funded Workers' Compensation Agency Enclosures: Exhibit A: "Understanding Horizontal Governance" by Daniel Ferguson; DalSanto, Matthew R., "The Economic of Horizontal Government Exhibit B: Cooperation" by Matthew R. DalSanto; Exhibit C: Western Orange County Self-Funded Workers' Compensation Agency Joint Powers Authority Agreement; Western Orange County Self-Funded Workers' Compensation Agency Exhibit D: Bylaws; Minutes of the Western Orange County Self-Funded Workers' Exhibit E: Compensation Agency Board of Directors for June 3, 2015; April 20, 2015; March 16, 2015; January 26, 2015; and December 18, 2015; and Exhibit F: Western Orange County Self-Funded Workers' Compensation Agency Organizational Chart. Kalmus Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone (714) 966-4059, Fax (714) 549-4812 The Honorable Glenda Sanders Western Orange County Self-Funded Presiding Judge, Orange County Superior Court Workers' Compensation Agency Orange County Grand Jury Report Joint Powers Authorities: Issues of Viability, Control, Transparency, and Solvency September 15, 2015 ( . Connecting RESEARCH BRIEF Accountability and Adult Literacy Understanding Horizontal Governance by Daniel Ferguson, M.Phil., Research Partner, Newfoundland and Labrador, Action Research Team Editorial consultation by Nathalie Burlone, Assistant Professor, School of Political Studies, University of Ottawa Connecting the Dots: Improving WHAT IS HORIZONTAL GOVERNANCE? Accountability in the Adult Horizontal governance is an umbrella term that covers a range of approaches to policy Literacy Field in Canada is a two- development, service delivery issues, and management practices. A horizontal year pan-Canadian project funded initiative may take place across levels of government, across boundaries between units by the Office of Literacy and Essential Skills (HRSDC) Canada. of a single department or agency or among multiple departments or agencies, or The goals are to examine the impact across public, private and voluntary sectors. It replaces hierarchical leadership with of accountability policies and collaboration, coordination, shared responsibility for decisions and outcomes, and a practices on the adult literacy field in willingness to work through consensus. Over the years, horizontal governance has every province and territory; to help appeared under different names and guises including "interdepartmental actions, create a common language for alliances, joint ventures, co-actions [and] especially partnerships" (Bourgault, J. & practitioners and funders to talk Lapierre, R. 2000). about accountability; and to explore innovative approaches to Horizontal governance has evolved from the trend of contracting out public service accountability through action- delivery to private and not-for-profit partners, a characteristic of New Public research projects. This brief Management since the 1980s. Horizontal governance goes further in the sense that it connects to the third goal. also places some measure of influence over policy in the hands of partners who deliver service. Actors across and outside of government may contribute to policy-making on Author Daniel Ferguson was a issues for which they have shared responsibility (Phillips, S. 2006). However, it can be member of the Newfoundland difficult for actors in the voluntary sector to participate in the policy process and and Labrador action research team maintain their service delivery role. that designed a demonstration project to put horizontal governance processes into action and evaluate HOW IS HORIZONTAL GOVERNANCE PRACTICED? the effectiveness. Participants from While some commentators suggest that "there are no hard and fast rules for leading a Literacy Newfoundland and Labrador horizontal initiative, [or ...] a simple formula to successful horizontal management" and the provincial Department of (Hopkins et al, 2001), the literature does define some common characteristics. These Education collaborated with include: researchers to create a process for stakeholder consultations to inform Non-hierarchical structures: Horizontal governance contrasts with the "vertical" • the provincial strategic plan for adult or "ministerial" (Fitzpatrick, 2000) structure of authority where decisions over literacy and improve communication policy development and service implementation are made in a centralized between funder and provider. hierarchical manner. In a horizontal approach issues are dealt with by actors who This brief is not a comprehensive collaborate and share power and responsibility. However, within government, review of all research on horizontal horizontal initiatives cannot replace or operate without final review and approval governance but a summary of the by the department or agency. Canadian literature as it relates to Partnership over competition: Bourgault, J. & Lapierre, R. (2000) suggest that in the project conducted by this team. "authentic" horizontal initiatives, a person or organization considers who else has To learn more about the findings and an interest in a particular case, and attempts to include those actors in developing tools from this and four other action a response. Horizontal initiatives take a markedly different approach from a research projects funded through Connecting the Dots, visit traditional "silo" view of governance by prioritizing partnership and common www.literacyandaccountability.ca. interest over competition and individual recognition. Coordination: Peters (1998) roots horizontal practice in the concept of "coordinated government", emphasizing the need for departments to "work together" and "not produce either redundancy or gaps in services." www.literacyandaccountability.ca Research Brief: Understanding Horizontal Governance 1 RESEARCH BRIEF: CONNECTING Understanding Horizontal Governance Accountability and Adult Literacy The 1996 Deputy Minister's Task Force established a focus on A horizontal approach to an issue can happen along a continuum of complexity and scope. For instance, Hopkins et horizontal governance in service delivery and policy al (2001) identify three "degrees" of horizontal efforts, development. It recommended a strong role for the Privy Council Office to champion the management of horizontal distinguishing coordination from collaboration: issues. This coordinating role included: Individual attitudes - at a micro level, a horizontal initiative is grounded by individuals making "a conscious to identify horizontal issues; effort to work horizontally" and building "informal ties to set priorities for work around those issues; that facilitate sharing". to establish mechanisms to support interdepartmental Coordination - at an organizational level, coordination • work; reduces duplication and divides tasks and responsibilities. to provide stimulation for policy work; and Collaboration - at the macro level, resources, decision- making and services are integrated across organizations. to develop processes to support system-wide consensus. Phillips (2004) summarizes horizontal governance as working By 2000, horizontal policy-making was included in annual through networks in place of hierarchies; through reports by the Clerk of the Privy Council. interdependence rather than power relationships; negotiation rather than control; and enablement rather than Following the 1996 report, a number of horizontal initiatives management. emerged in the federal government resulting in several "how- to" promotional guides. Lessons from some initiatives in that period are captured in "Moving from the Heroic to the HOW IS HORIZONTAL GOVERNANCE Everyday: Lessons Learned from Leading Horizontal Projects", PRACTICED? the report of the Canadian Centre for Management Collaboration and partnerships between federal departments Development (CCMD) Roundtable on the Management of and agencies internal to government are not altogether new. Horizontal Initiatives (Hopkins et al, 2001). Another example In Canada, the term was used in the context of public policy is "Using Horizontal Tools to Work across Boundaries: Lessons in a 1995 article (Peters, B.G., & Savoie, D.J., 1995). The Learned and Signposts for Success" (Rounce & Beaudry, 2002). move to horizontal governance was given impetus by a 1996 Assistant Deputy Minister's Task Force. A Strong Foundation, One example of a large-scale horizontal project was the the Task Force report, frames the issue of horizontality Voluntary Sector Initiative (VSI) that brought the government around a "whole of government" approach that starts with of Canada as a whole together with the voluntary sector, the public interest: requiring consultation with a vast array of not-for-profit organizations (Voluntary Sector Initiative, 2009). This five- "One of the principal challenges is to overcome the year project was launched in 2000 with the intent to vertical stovepipes that divide government somewhat "strengthen the voluntary sector's capacity to engage in artificially into separate domains either of service policy dialogue and to enhance the relationship between the delivery or of policy, and to knit them up again in a sector and the federal government." (HRSDC, 2004). In holistic fashion that reflects the real life of real pursuit of this goal, the VSI accomplished several tasks, people." including: developing an accord and codes of good practice on THE CENTRE FOR LITERACY OF QUEBEC funding and policy between the federal government and Research Brief on Understanding the voluntary sector; Horizontal Governance improving sector access to technology; Writer: Daniel Ferguson, M.Phil. raising the profile of the sector; and Editorial Consultation: Nathalie Burlone . Editorial by: The Centre for Literacy of Quebec increasing sector participation in developing policy. Publisher: The Centre for Literacy of Quebec, 2009 Thanks to the Office of Literacy and Essential Skills (OLES), Human The horizontal nature of the VSI marked an important shift in Resources and Skills Development Canada for funding this publication. policy development. The government practice of contracting ISBN 978-0-9784752-5-3 out services to voluntary sector organizations raised the stake ISSN 1921-5568 (online), ISSN 1921-555X (print) www.literacyandaccountability.ca 2 · Research Brief: Understanding Horizontal Governance RESEARCH BRIEF: CONNECTING Understanding Horizontal Governance (hel) Accountability and Adult Literacy A related challenge is that "outcomes and deliverables of those organizations in influencing policy direction. As a may not be able to be specified with precision in advance" model of horizontal governance, the VSI created an of a horizontal project, and so measures of accountability opportunity for service-providing organizations to have input into policies governing those services. Phillips (2004) may be unclear. suggests that "establishing stronger connections with citizens High turnover in the public service also creates challenges and their organizations, was seen to be a means of restoring because horizontal collaborations depend on relationship- some of the visibility and legitimacy that the federal building. government had lost" during the 1980s and 1990s. A perhaps more serious challenge unique to the voluntary sector is the issue of advocacy. Bureaucrats are obliged BENEFITS, LIMITATIONS AND THE FUTURE to meet the vertical accountabilities associated with OF HORIZONTAL GOVERNANCE ministerial priorities, and these accountabilities can The term "horizontal governance" has been used less strongly influence what can and cannot happen within a frequently in Canadian public administration since the mid- collaborative project. By working within these point of the 2000s, because it has been replaced by the term constraints, voluntary sector actors may risk weakening "governance". However, studies on the concept remain their own advocacy agendas if they do not coincide with abundant in the public administration literature. Horizontal government priorities. governance has much to commend its continued practice, LITERACY AS A HORIZONTAL ISSUE provided that it is effective in producing and delivering "public goods that are better adapted to the needs of Literacy appears to be a good fit for a horizontal approach. citizens, of a superior quality and at a lower cost" (Bourgault It does not fall neatly under the priorities of a single and Lapierre, 2000). As Hopkins, et al (2001) contend: government department. It is a "government-wide" issue in that it has broad social and economic implications bearing on Horizontal management is often the only or the best policy development across many departments. A way to get results. It may not be the most efficient comprehensive approach to developing literacy policy method, especially in the short run, but over time it requires many partners to collaborate across traditional can be the most effective. It responds to public departmental boundaries and private and not-for-profit service challenges that are increasingly complex and organizations. However, the literacy field faces many of being analyzed afresh from horizontal perspectives. the challenges apparent in initiatives such as the VSI. For instance, accountability for literacy is complicated by the Nevertheless, a major challenge to horizontal governance is fact that partners must negotiate between multiple the multiplicity of accountabilities. At a minimum, partners accountabilities across departments, sectors and the in a horizontal initiative have dual accountabilities — those community. Government bureaucrats may be limited in holding between partners, and the vertical accountabilities their commitments to a horizontal project because of the each partner has to their governing authorities (Fitzpatrick, vertical accountabilities within their departments. Non- 2000). The trade-off for highly effective outputs from a governmental partners may be limited in committing to horizontal initiative may be a decrease in efficiency. A government priorities, even through a horizontal number of authors have identified additional problems, collaboration, if those commitments do not reflect their namely turf protection (Bardach, 1996); power distribution own mandates. Finally, a horizontal project that depends for (Bryson and Einsweiler, 1991); and competition for resources success on the personal working relationships of partners is (Peters, 1998). jeopardized if one or more of those partners leaves the project. A challenge for any horizontal project is to find a Phillips (2004) raises this issue in her discussion of the working structure that remains intact and survives changes in limitations and challenges that emerged in the VSI - personnel. Recent research, such as that carried out through challenges that may apply to other horizontal projects: Connecting the Dots in the NL project, is exploring the possibilities of creating effective horizontal governance The accountability structure of a contracting system may . structures for adult literacy. undermine attempts at collaborative relationships. This is because a system of results-based management "with its emphasis on system-wide controls and efficiency has not been adapted to joint processes that unfold and evolve at the direction of the partners." www.literacyandaccountability.ca Research Brief: Understanding Horizontal Governance 3 CONNECTING RESEARCH BRIEF: Understanding Horizontal Governance Accountability and Adult Literacy REFERENCES Institute on Governance (1996). Trampling the Turf: Enhancing Auditor General of Canada (2005). Report of the Auditor General of Collaboration in the Public Service of Canada, Study prepared for the Canada to the House of Commons. Chapter 4: Managing Horizontal Deputy Minister Task Force on Horizontal Issues and the Deputy Initiatives. Retrieved April, 2009, from Minister Task Force on Service Delivery, 55 pages. http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/docs/20051104ce.pdf Juillet, L. (2000). The Federal Regional Councils and Horizontal Bakvis, H. & Juillet, L. (2004). The Horizontal Challenge: Line Governance: A Report Prepared for the Regional Federal Councils and Departments, Central Agencies and Leadership. Retrieved April, 2009, Treasury Board Secretariat. Retrieved April, 2009, from from http://www.csps-efpc.gc.ca/pbp/pub/pdfs/P124_e.pdf http://www.csps-efpc.gc.ca/pbp/pub/pdfs/W4_e.pdf Bardach, E. (1996). Turf Barriers to Interagency Collaboration. In Kettl, Lindquist, E. (2004). Strategy, Capacity and Horizontal Governance: D. F., Milward, H. Binton, dirs., The State of Public Management, (pp. Perspectives from Australia and Canada. Optimum Online, 39, 2-12. 168-192). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Peters, B.G. (1998). Managing Horizontal Government: The Politics of Bennett, C., Lenihan, D., Williams, J. & Young, W. (2001). Measuring Coordination. Retrieved April, 2009, from Quality of Life: The Use of Societal Outcomes by Parliamentarians. http://www.csps-efpc.gc.ca/pbp/pub/pdfs/P78_e.pdf Retrieved April, 2009, from http://www.kta.on.ca/pdf/cg3.pdf Peters, B.G., Savoie, D. J. (1995) Managing Incoherence: The Bourgault, J. & Lapierre, R. (2000). Horizontality and Public Coordination and Empowerment Conundrum. Public Administration Management: Final Report to the Canadian Centre for Management Review, 56 (3), 282-283, 288. Development, the Leadership Network, the Federal Regional Council — Quebec and the École nationale d'administration publique. Retrieved April, 2009, from http://www.csps-efpc.gc.ca/pbp/pub/pdfs/P96_e.pdf Phillips, S. (2004). The Myths of Horizontal Governance: Is the Third Sector Really a Partner? Retrieved April, 2009, from http://www.istr.org/conferences/toronto/workingpapers/phillips.susan.pdf Bryson, J. M., Einsweiler, R. C. (1991). Shared Power: What Is It? How Does It Work? How Can We Make It Better?, Lanham: University Press of America. Phillips, S. & Levasseur, K. (2004). The Snakes and Ladders of Accountability: Contradictions Between Contracting and Collaboration for Canada's Voluntary Sector. Canadian Public Administration, Canada (1996a). Deputy Minister Task Forces Report: From Studies to 47, 451-474. Action. Retrieved April, 2009, from http://www.csps-efpc.gc.ca/pbp/pub/pdfs/actiona_e.pdf Phillips, S., (2006). The Intersection of Governance and Citizenship in Canada: Not Quite the Third Way. IRPP Policy Matters. Montreal: Canada (1996b). Deputy Minister Task Forces Report: Managing Institute for Research on Public Policy. Retrieved August, 2009 from Horizontal Policy Issues. Retrieved April, 2009, from http://www.irpp.org/pm/archive/pmvol7no4.pdf http://www.csps-efpc.gc.ca/pbp/pub/pdfs/actionc_e.pdf Policy Research Initiative (2008). "Background." Retrieved April, 2009, Canada (1996c). Deputy Minister Task Forces Report: Strengthening our from http://www.policyresearch.gc.ca/page.asp?pagenm=pri_bck Policy Capacity. Retrieved April, 2009, from http://www.csps-efpc.gc.ca/pbp/pub/pdfs/actionb_e.pdf Rounce, A. & Beaudry, N. (2002). Using Horizontal Tools to Work Across Boundaries: Lessons Learned and Signposts for Success. Canadian Environment Canada and the Synthesis Workshop on Horizontality. Centre for Management Development Roundtable on Horizontal (2000). Guide to Building Dialogues on Horizontality: Discussion Paper. Mechanisms. Retrieved April, 2009, from Canadian Centre for Management Development Action Research http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/SC94-90-2002E.pdf Roundtable on the Management of Horizontal Issues. Retrieved April, 2009, from http://www.csps-efpc.gc.ca/pbp/pub/pdfs/W5_e.pdf Sproule-Jones, M. (2000). Horizontal Management: Implementing Programs Across Interdependent Organizations. Canadian Public Fitzpatrick, T. (2000). Horizontal Management: Trends in Governance Administration, 43, 93-109. and Accountability. Canadian Centre for Management Development Action Research Roundtable on the Management of Horizontal Issues. Retrieved April, 2009, from Task Force on Public Service Values and Ethics (1996). A Strong http://www.csps-efpc.gc.ca/pbp/pub/pdfs/W2_e.pdf Foundation: Report of the Task Force on Public Service Values and Ethics. Canadian Public Administration, 40, 1-22. Hopkins, M., Couture, C. & Moore, E. (2001). Moving from the Heroic to the Everyday: Lessons Learned from Leading Horizontal Projects. Voluntary Sector Initiative Process Evaluation (2009). Final Evaluation Retrieved April, 2009, from Report. Retrieved April, 2009, from http://www.vsi-isbc.org/eng/ http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/SC94-81-2001E.pdf relationship/process_evaluation/doc2.cfm. Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (2004). The Voluntary Sector Initiative Process Evaluation. Retrieved April, 2009, from http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/cs/sp/sdc/evaluation/ sp-ah213e/page00.shtml www.literacyandaccountability.ca 4 · Research Brief: Understanding Horizontal Governance Ä. Ţ . (4) 8 6 9 9 . th . .5 Law and Economics Workshop UC Berkeley Title: The Economics of Horizontal Government Cooperation Author: DalSanto, Matthew R., Berkeley Law School Publication Date: 04-11-2011 Series: Law and Economics Workshop Permalink: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2rf820md Copyright Information: All rights reserved unless otherwise indicated. Contact the author or original publisher for any necessary permissions. eScholarship is not the copyright owner for deposited works. Learn more at of New Work Author SelectedWorks Available at: http://works.bepress.com/dalsanto/1 ECTEDIN The Economics of Horizontal Government Cooperation* Matthew R. DalSanto, Ph.D. Berkeley Center for Law, Business and the Economy University of California, Berkeley, School of Law (Boalt Hall) April 2011 Abstract This paper analyzes the ability of intrastate and interstate cooperative agreements to either minimize or capitalize on interjurisdictional externalities. These agreements are commonly referred to as compacts or joint powers agreements (intrastate compacts). The compact mech- anism allows regional governments to enter into contractual agreements with one another to co- ordinate policy choices and to engage in cooperative endeavors. Given the inter-jurisdictional nature of the issues that affect horizontally situated governments, this mechanism is a powerful tool to achieve welfare-enhancing outcomes for citizens. A review of the legal case law surrounding compacts is conducted to analyze the legal prop- erties from an economic perspective. These economic properties are used to develop a simple game-theoretic environment and a neoclassical growth model. In these two environments, be- havior under the compact is compared with regional governments acting in a non-cooperative manner where they take the period actions of the other governments as given. The models demonstrate that the compact mechanism can lead to Pareto-superior outcomes for the signa- tory governments' citizenry. *This is a working paper. Please do not cite nor distribute without author's permission. Introduction 1 The legal and political economy literature is replete with articles discussing the benefits of compet- itive horizontal federalism. However, virtually nonexistent is a serious examination of whether and under what circumstances it may be beneficial for horizontally situated governments to cooperate. This paper begins this line of research by examining how cooperation among horizontal regional governments in certain circumstances may potentially increase the welfare of their citizens either through lower taxes or increased quality or quantity of beneficial public services. Most discussions regarding intrastate or interstate interactions among regional governments in the United States are based on the belief that competition among regional governments leads to the efficient production of public goods. The basic argument for competition is that through the process of regional governments competing with one another for citizens and firms, they are incentivized to provide efficient levels of public goods. While the literature has embraced this idea, there has been little discussion about cooperative agreements among horizontally situated regional governments. The problem in applying this competitive model to all interstate and intrastate interjurisdic- tional issues is that it does not take into account the fact that the decisions of one government affect the welfare and decisions of other governments in ways other than merely through compe- tition. For instance, a problem that has plagued many states is the issue of how to allocate water among different interstate regions. Illinois' decision to divert more water out of Lake Michigan for the purpose of increasing certain services within its territory can have profound effects on the lake levels of the other Great Lakes states. To offer these better public services, Illinois is not the only state to incur costs, the other Great Lakes States will incur a cost as well - a reduction in their lake levels and the corresponding effects that has on their economies. While compactual agreements between regional governments have the potential to lead to Pareto superior1 outcomes for their citizens, interstate and intrastate compacts are seldom dis- 1An outcome or economic allocation is Pareto superior if there does not exist another feasible outcome or allocation that makes at least one economic agent better off without making any other agent worse off. If an outcome or allocation is not Pareto superior, it is Pareto inferior and it is Pareto dominated by another feasible allocation that makes at least one agent better off while making the other agent(s) no worse off. cussed in the academic literature. The reasons often cited for a lack of serious consideration of their use are the high costs associated with negotiating them and the belief that regional govern- ments should always compete with one another, not cooperate. However, according to data collected by the Council of State Governments on interstate com- pacts, the supposed high negotiation costs associated with their enactment has not stopped states from entering into numerous compacts with one another. There are approximately 200 compacts that are currently in effect in the United States. On average each state is a member of 25 com- pacts. Over 20 compacts are national in scope, with several having more than 35 member states. And approximately 20 compacts are regional in scope and have more than eight signatory states (National Center for Interstate Compacts 2010). No organization tracks intrastate agreements, so there is scant data on the number of such agreements in effect today. However, at least one state's association of cities has recently surveyed its members and found that such agreements are widely used. The League of Minnesota Cities conducted a survey of its member cities regarding how many cooperative endeavors they were currently engaged in with other cities. These cooperative endeavors, as with most other states, are statutorily authorized and are commonly referred to as joint powers agreements.2 The cities re- sponded that they were party to 1,682 "current cooperative efforts." 433 of those related to police or fire services, 265 related to parks and recreation, and 245 were "general government" agreements, which included planning and joint purchasing agreements (League of Minnesota Cities 2008). The second argument against compacts often invokes the cornerstone of modern economic thought: competition between potential competitors leads to the efficient allocation of resources, or in this case the efficient provision of public goods. It is generally accepted in the economic literature that competition among economic actors, including governments, generally enhances consumer or citizen welfare through the efficiencies that competition generates. This economic ra- tionale is similar to the underlying justifications for our national policy to encourage competition as embodied in the U.S. antitrust laws. These laws prohibit any (unreasonable) contract, combination, 2Since this paper addresses the economics of these agreements and there is no substantial economic difference whether they are interstate or intrastate, all such agreements will be refered to as "compacts." Compacts thus refer to all contractual or administrative cooperative agreements between regional governments commonly referred to as joint powers agreements. or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce.3 Economic theory recognizes, however, that there are situations where competition, or even just a basic lack of cooperation, can lead to suboptimal outcomes. Over time federal courts have also come to realize that not all cooperative endeavors among competitors should be per se violations of the antitrust laws, including certain informa- tion sharing arrangements among competing firms, industry standards, firms bundling intellectual property rights, and firms engaging in joint cooperative endeavors. These agreements have been found to actually increase consumer welfare even though they diminish or altogether prohibit cer- tain aspects of competition. The lesson to take away from antitrust jurisprudence and economic theory is that competition is generally good, but there are some situations when cooperation will enhance consumer welfare. This same strand of theoretical argument can also be applied to relationships between regional governments. There are situations in which it is beneficial for regional governments to coordinate their actions or engage in cooperative endeavors even though it is usually optimal for them to compete against one another both for citizens and firms. It should be noted here that this paper doesn't delve into how compacts are negotiated, and its author doubts that a reliable theory can be developed that would accurately describe all such situations and resolutions. Some economic theories predict that such agreements are impossible to negotiate due to high negotiations costs, hold-out problems, etc. Since, as already shown, regional governments do enter into such agreements, what is needed is a comprehensive general theory that examines the benefits and costs of these agreements once enacted. This paper merely seeks to begin this important line of research. This paper also does not propose to craft a general rule which prescribes when compacts should be permitted in lieu of encouraging competition (or at least non-cooperation) among regional gov- ernments.4 That is a topic for a paper in and of itself. Rather, this paper does demonstrate that there 3"Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal." 15 U.S.C. 1 (West). 4This paper should not be construed as arguing that all compacts are welfare enhancing. Compacts can be used to "legalize" inefficiencies that provide no benefit except for the special interest groups who are responsible for lobbying for their enactment. The recently enacted and now defunct Northeast (Interstate) Dairy Compact is a good example of an anticompetitive compact that led to financial harm for consumers in the form of higher prices. The following is an excerpt from the website of the Commission created pursuant to the terms of the compact: are circumstances where cooperation leads to better outcomes than non-cooperation. It analyzes the efficacy of compacts to (1) act as a legal commitment technology for optimal policy choices, (2) solve prisoner dilemma-type situations faced by regional governments, and (3) allow regions to internalize productivity spillovers in a neoclassical growth environment. Legal Review 2 While there has been economic research on specific compacts, there has been no in-depth analysis of the legal properties of an interstate compact or joint powers agreement from an economic per- spective. Both a complete legal analysis and an economic framework are both necessary to arrive at credible conclusions about the ability of a compact to function as a cooperative commitment mechanism for regional governments. This review of compact law considers the legal implications of compact jurisprudence from an economic perspective. This requires a direct review of the rele- vant law involving interstate and intrastate compacts, the latter being commonly referred to as joint powers agreements. A major theme flows through the reviewed law - both state and federal courts have a strong disposition to uphold the terms of a compact. Federal courts have held a state to its compactual The Northeast Dairy Compact was established in an effort to restore the authority of the six New Eng- land states to set prices for Class 1 fluid milk sold in the region. Recognizing the regional character of the northeast dairy industry, the Compact serves several major functions. These functions include assuring the region of an adequate supply of milk, recognizing the cultural and economic benefits of a viable dairy industry in the region and facilitating the Constitutional rights of individual states to act collectively in order to regulate milk prices. The participating states concluded that their ability to control the price that dairy farmers in the region receive for their product is essential to the public interest. Assurance of a fair and equitable price for dairy farmers ensures their ability to provide milk to the market as well as encouraging the vitality of the northeast economy and preserving open spaces. The commission attempts to justify the compact as in the public interest, but it is no more than a legally sanctioned price cartel among the representatives of dairy farmers. As with all cartels, the benefits are to the producers for artificially restricting supply and driving up the price. Thus, if the public interest is solely the profitability of the dairy farmers and not the consumers who are forced to pay the competitive market price plus a cartel premium, then the public interest would certainly be served. Compacts such as these not only hurt consumers but they retard growth in more productive areas of the economy. Due to the artificially inflated profitability of the dairy farmers investments will be inefficiently made in the industry when they otherwise would have been made in more productive sectors. Inefficient investments such as these lead to diminished economic growth. Decreased growth rates are an often overlooked dynamic consequence of misallocations of resources - an often overlooked consequence of a predominant analysis on static economic effects. obligations even in instances where the state's obligations are in conflict with a plain-meaning reading of its constitution.5 This strong disposition allows a compact to serve as a commitment technology for cooperative government policies. The fact that the judiciary, with or without the assistance of the other two branches of the federal or state government, will step in to enforce the mutually agreed terms of the compact, implies that regional governments are bound to the terms, or are at least strongly discouraged by an external authority from breaching their obligations. Signatory governments correctly believe that the other governments will adhere to the terms of the compact, and they know they are obligated to do so as well. Interstate Compacts 2.1 An interstate compact is a constitutional mechanism through which states commit themselves to a legally binding contractual agreement. The following legal analysis is an examination of relevant case law pertaining to interstate compacts from their inception to their termination. While a few legal treatises have been written by interstate compact experts, their analyses focused solely on the political or legal nature of interstate compacts - not the economics. This section is a thorough examination of the landmark cases that define interstate compact jurisprudence analyzed from an economic perspective. 2.1.1 Mechanisms for Resolving Interstate Disputes An interstate compact is one of two legal mechanisms provided by the Framers of the Constitution for states to resolve interstate controversies in our federal system of government.6 Hinderlider v. La Plata, 304 U.S. 92, 104 (1938). The other is for the states to bring their dispute before the Supreme Court for resolution: "[t]he judicial power [of the Supreme Court] shall extend to ... controversies between two or more states..." ("The Constitution of the United States," Article III, 5See Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth. v. One Parcel of Land in Montgomery County, Md., 706 F.2d 1312, 1316 (4th Cir. 1983). 6A third is Congress enacting legislation to remedy the problem. However, the solutions to interstate and intrastate controversies in this paper are limited to those by the regional governments themselves either through litigation or entering into a compact. 7When citing to court decisions, this paper follows the Bluebook 19th ed. citation format. Section 2, Clause 1). While the two mechanisms both lead to a final resolution of the dispute, in one, the states themselves control the outcome; in the other, a third party is the controlling legal authority. The Supreme Court has stated that the interstate compact, at least some of the time, is the preferred mechanism for resolving such disputes. In a case regarding New Jersey's release of sewage into the Upper Bay of New York Harbor, the Court stated: We cannot withhold the suggestion, inspired by the consideration of this case, that [this] grave problem ... is one more likely to be wisely solved by co-operative study and by conference and mutual concession on the part of representatives of the states so vitally interested in it than by proceedings in any court however constituted. People of State of New York v. State of New Jersey, 256 U.S. 296, 313 (1921). 2.1.2 Interstate Administrative Compacts Originally, the interstate compact was primarily used to resolve border disputes between states. Consequently, case law up through the early 20th century is predominantly related to state bor- der compacts. Since then the purposes for enacting an interstate compact and the number of signatories to the agreement have greatly expanded. Recent interstate compacts encompass a multitude of states and a multitude of issues - not merely disputes, but cooperative endeavors (Zimmermann and Wendell 1976). The legality of the relatively recent inception of states entering into a compact that delegates administrative authority to an interstate agency has been specifically recognized and unanimously upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. State ex rel. Dyer v. Sims, 341 U.S. 22, 30-31 (1951). When entering into the agreement the signatories cede a specified part of their sovereignty by constraining their activities to comply with the decisions of an interstate administrative agency created by the terms of the compact. 2.1.3 Compact Ratification and Congressional Consent A compact is generally ratified when the identical terms of the compact agreement are enacted into law by each state's legislature and signed into law by the governor and, if necessary, after congressional consent has been granted (Zimmermann and Wendell 1976, p. 16). The Compact Clause of the US Constitution requires that "[n]o State shall, without the Consent of Congress, ..., enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State..." ("The Constitution of the United States," Article I, Section 10, Clause 1). A plain language reading seems to indicate that every interstate compact requires express congressional consent. However, as Virginia v. Tennessee suggested, congressional consent may be implied or not even necessary at all in some cases. 2.1.3.1 The Requirement of Congressional Consent In Com. of Va. v. State of Tenn., 148 U.S. 503, 519 (1893), the Court in dicta stated the test to determine when congressional consent for a compact is necessary: when the compact's enactment would "[tend] to the increase of political power in the states, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States." The Court provided an example of states entering into a compact to drain a malarious and disease-producing district that overlaps both of their boundaries, and stated that there could be no basis for requiring congressional consent. Id. The Court stated "[i]t would be at the height of absurdity to hold that the threatened states could not unite in providing means to prevent and repel the invasion of the pestilence without obtaining the consent of congress, which might not be at the time in session." Id. at 518. The "Virginia v. Tennessee" congressional consent rule was referenced in a number of cases, but became controlling when it was applied in New Hampshire v. Maine, 426 U.S. 363 (1976).8 In cases where Congressional consent is necessary, Congress can attach specific conditions that the group of states must meet before its consent is given. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of congressional imposition of such conditions in Cuyler v. Adams, 449 U.S. 433, 440-441 (1981). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals later held that Congress can even require the signatory states to establish a compact agency as a condition necessary for its consent. Seattle Master Builders Ass'n v. Pac. Nw. Elec. Power & Conservation Planning Council, 786 F.2d 1359, 1364 (9th Cir. 1986) (cert. denied 479 U.S. 1059 (1987)). 8For a thorough discussion of the evolution of the Compact Clause's interpretation see U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Comm'n, 434 U.S. 452 (1978). "Alter, Amend, or Repeal" Consent? If consent is necessary and is granted, a ques- 2.1.3.2 tion arises over whether it can be altered, amended, or repealed.9 While the Supreme Court has never addressed this particular question itself, federal courts have visited, though not ruled on, the issue. In Tobin v. United States, the court in dicta reasoned that despite Congress's express reservation of the right to "alter, amend, or repeal" when granting its original consent for the cre- ation of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, such a condition is meaningless unless the Constitution gives Congress that authority. Tobin v. United States, 306 F.2d 270, 273 (D.C. Cir. 1962). The Compact Clause of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress no such express power, and there is no case which the court could locate which either supports or rejects the proposition that Congress has such authority. To be valid, it must be an implied power of Congress. Id. The Tobin court believed that the federal plenary powers, such as regulation of interstate commerce, that the Constitution does grant to Congress are sufficient "to supervise and regulate the activities of operational compacts in such a way as to insure that no violence is done by these compacts to more compelling federal concerns." 10 Id. The court is thus strongly suggesting that Congress has no authority to withdraw its consent. Compacts as Contracts between States 2.1.4 The substantive law of interstate compacts is mostly contract law (Zimmerman and Wendell 7). An interstate compact was first explicitly recognized as a contract in Green v. Biddle, 21 U.S. 1, 39 (1823). In Texas v. New Mexico the Supreme Court said "[a] Compact is, after all, a contract." Texas v. New Mexico, 482 U.S. 124, 128 (1987) (quoting Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Comm'n, 359 U.S. 275, 285 (1959) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting)). The Court explained that a com- 9This is a separate question from whether the Compact restrains Congress's legislative authority after congressional consent has been granted. For a more thorough discussion of this issue see State of Ariz. v. State of Cal., 373 U.S. 546 (1963). pact remains a legal document that must be construed and applied in accordance with its terms." Id. at 128 (quoting State ex rel. Dyer v. Sims, 341 U.S. 22, 28 (1951)). All contracts require an offer and acceptance to be legally binding. The offer component for an interstate compact is almost always satisfied by each signatory state adopting the exact language of the compact agreement as a statute. However, a state legislature can authorize a state administrative agency to enter into an agreement with another state's administrative agency as long as the terms are sufficiently spelled out in the adopted legislation. This setup means, though, that the exact terms of the compact agreement are not contained in the adopted legislation. Once a state has ratified the terms of the compact, the acceptance requirement is satisfied (Zimmermann and Wendell 1976, p. 8).12 Breach of the "Contract" Often a compact is likened to a treaty among states instead 2.1.4.1 of foreign powers. In fact the Supreme Court used principles of treaty interpretation in its discus- sion of an interstate compact between Arizona and California. However, unlike a treaty between nations, where unilateral action in violation of treaty terms is a feasible action of all signatories, a compact's unique legal standing does not allow for such unilateral actions, unless the compact itself provides for it. In Green v. Biddle, after establishing that a compact was a contract, the Supreme Court quoted a previous holding in which it declared "a State has no more power to impair an obligation into which she herself has entered, than she can the contracts of individuals..." Green v. Biddle, 21 U.S. 1, 39 (1823). While the Court's declaration was based on the Contract Clause jurisprudence of the era, which has since fallen out of favor, it illustrates the Court's long-standing tradition of holding states to their compactual obligations. The Court's disposition to enforce the terms of interstate compacts are now based on other legal theories such as the transformation of the terms into federal law. 11See Western States Vehicle Proration and Reciprocity Agreement, and also several bilateral agreements between the states of Kansas and Oklahoma, and North Dakota and Montana. 12A compact may not immediately go into effect. Most compacts require a threshold number of states, or a critical mass, to enact the compact implementing legislation before the terms of the compact are in effect. 13See Arizona v. California, 292 U.S. 341, 359-360 (1934). 2.1.4.2 Basis for Enforcement of Contract: Compacts as Federal Law An interstate com- pact is transformed into federal law, and thus may preempt state action, if it passes the test laid out in Cuyler v. Adams, 449 U.S. 433, 440 (1981). "[W]here Congress has authorized the States to en- ter into a cooperative agreement, and where the subject matter of that agreement is an appropriate subject for congressional legislation, the consent of Congress transforms the States' agreement into federal law under the Compact Clause." Id. "When approved by Congress, a compact becomes a statute of the United States and must be construed and applied according to its terms." Nebraska v. Cent. Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Comm'n, 207 F.3d 1021, 1023 (8th Cir. 2000) (quoting Oklahoma v. New Mexico, 501 U.S. 221, 236 n. 5 (1991)). Federal supremacy would prohibit any action by a state in conflict with the terms of the compact. 14 2.1.4.3 Remedies for Breach of Compact The question of remedy for other compact signatory states if a state does not meet its obligations has been specifically addressed in Texas v. New Mexico, 482 U.S. 124 (1987). The controversy in the case surrounded the bi-state Pecos River Compact that divides the water from the Pecos River between New Mexico and Texas. Id. at 126. The water flow of the Pecos River is irregular and the compact did not specify a particular amount of water that New Mexico was to deliver to Texas annually. Id. Rather, the compact stipulated that New Mexico could not deplete the water flow of the river below that which was available to Texas under the 1947 condition by "man's activities." Id. The Supreme Court appointed a Special Master to define what the 1947 condition meant. Id. at 126-127. The Special Master's report was approved by the Court and later the methodology was accepted to determine Texas's entitlement. Id. at 127. The Special Master determined that New Mexico should have delivered 340,100 acre-feet more water to Texas than it received. Id. New Mexico was found to have breached the compact for a period of over thirty years and was continuing to do so. Id. The Court disagreed with New Mexico's assertion that it should not have to remedy the short 14"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding" ("The Constitution of the United States," Article VI, Section 2). , 10 deliveries of the past thirty plus years, holding that it could "find no merit in [New Mexico]'s submission that we may order only prospective relief, that is, requiring future performance of compact obligations without a remedy for past breaches. If that were the case, New Mexico's defaults could never be remedied." Id. at 128. The Court continued "[t]here is nothing in the nature of compacts generally ... that counsels against rectifying a failure to perform in the past as well as ordering future performance called for by the Compact." Id. Once it was decided that New Mexico could be ordered to remedy its historic non-compliance, the question became what form such a remedy would take, since the compact itself did not detail any remedies for a breach. Id. at 129-130. The Special Master concluded that monetary damages were inconsistent with the Compact's terms and thus could not be ordered by the Court. Texas v. New Mexico, 482 U.S. 124, 130 (1987). However, the Court held that this was incorrect, and that while there was no specific provision for what type of remedy could be awarded in the case of a breach, the compact did not mandate repayment in water as opposed to money damages. Id. The Court requested the Special Master to calculate the money damages for New Mexico's default. Id. at 132. Enforcing the Supreme Court's Ruling The Court noted two potential problems in enforcing its order to provide monetary relief for the past harm caused by the breach. The first was that monetary relief would allow New Mexico to continue to default on its compactual obligation if it determined the benefit associated with its deviation from the terms of the Compact exceeded the cost of the monetary relief to Texas. Id. at 132. This outcome, sometimes referred to as efficient breach, is permitted in contracts between private parties. However, the discussion of this concern 15 In general, when two non-governmental parties contract, the default remedy for breach of the agreement is an award of "expectation damages" to the breached against party (promisee) by the breaching party (promisor). Expecta- tion damages are a monetary award equivalent to the minimum amount necessary to put the promisees in the position they expected they would have been in when the contract was formed, if the promisor had adhered to the contract's terms. "[A]ny greater sum operates to punish the breaching promisor and results in an unwarranted windfall to the promisee, while any lesser sum rewards the promisor for his or her wrongful act in breaching the contract and fails to provide the promisee with the benefit of the bargain he or she made" (Williston 2009, Ch. 64:1). "Even if the breach is deliberate, it is not necessarily blameworthy. The promisor may simply have discovered that his performance is worth more to someone else. If so, efficiency is promoted by allowing him to break his promise, provided he makes good the promisee's actual losses. If he is forced to pay more than that, an efficient breach may be deterred, and the law doesn't want to bring about such a result." Patton v. Mid-Continent Systems, Inc., 841 F.2d 742, 750 (7th Cir. 1988) (emphasis added). by the Court suggests that it differentiated between a permissible efficient contract breach between private parties and an impermissible compact breach between states. The Court determined that New Mexico's continued breach of the compact was not a substantial concern, since it could continue to "order remedying shortfalls to be made up in kind, with what- ever additional sanction might be thought necessary for deliberate failure to perform." Id. Thus the Court was prepared to order "specific performance," or the performance that was specifically called for in the agreement, if New Mexico continued to breach the compact. Specific performance is almost always disfavored as a remedy for breach of a contract between private parties, 16 but in this instance the Court indicated it would not hesitate to order such an extraordinary remedy for breach of a compact between states. The second potential problem was the difficulty of enforcing judgment against a state. Id. at 130-131. The Court was not concerned about this in the present case, because if a problem arose with money damages, a specific order would be entered for repayment in water. Id at 131. The problem arises when there is no other remedy available to substitute for money damages. This was the situation addressed by the Court in Com. of Virginia v. State of W. Virginia, 246 U.S. 565 (1918). In a suit by Virginia against West Virginia, the Court ordered a judgment of over $12 million to be paid by West Virginia to Virginia pursuant to the original compactual agreement between the states. The compact states the amount of debt West Virginia would assume from Virginia when it was granted statehood. Id. at 589. The case was brought by Virginia, invoking the original jurisdiction of the Court to enforce the judgment. The Court noted its authority specifically to enforce judgments between two states. Id. at 591. It also noted this is a universally recognized doctrine that has been accepted and applied since the foundation of the United States. Id. at 592. West Virginia claimed that the Court could not enforce the judgment if it impeded the authority that the Constitution left to the states. Id. at 595-596. The Court, however, affirmed through its holding that it can enforce such judgments even though the appropriate remedy may "operate upon the governmental powers of the State." Id. at 600. The final issue the Court addressed in the proceeding was what remedies are appropriate for 16See Williston (2009, Ch. 64:1). enforcement. Id. "As the powers to render a judgment and to enforce it arise from the grant in the Constitution on that subject, looked at from a generic point of view, both are federal powers, and comprehensively considered are sustained by every authority of the federal government, judicial, legislative or executive, which may be appropriately exercised." Id. at 601. The Court continued to detail various means that both Congress and the Judiciary under current legislation can use for enforcement. Id. The Compact Clause gives Congress the power to consent to a contract between states. The agreement becomes operative by the will of Congress. Id. This gives Congress the authority to assure that the contract is enforced by appropriate legislation. Id. The judiciary may have the power to levy a tax either directly or by an order commanding the legislature of the state of West Virginia to levy a tax, to pay the judgment. Id. at 603-604. However, the Court declined to address this issue in its ruling. Id. at 604. The Court decided not to act so as to give Congress the "full opportunity" to act on its own behalf. Id. at 605. Damages and Interest In Kansas v. Colorado, 533 U.S. 1 (2001), the Court addressed the issue of damages, specifically the issue of how to calculate the appropriate amount of interest for the damages. The compact at issue was the Arkansas River Compact. It had been negotiated by the two states to apportion the water from the John Martin Reservoir. Id. at 5. Colorado had breached the compact and Kansas was claiming damages. Id. at 4-5. The Court was split on how to award prejudgment interest (i.e., the amount of interest to be awarded from the time of the breach of the compact to the resolution of the case). Four of the justices felt that interest should begin accruing from the time the compact was breached. Id. at 15 n. 5. However, to gain the necessary fifth vote to reach a majority opinion they decided to let the accrual begin at the time the complaint was filed. Id. at 15 n. 5, 16. Several justices were concerned that the modern rule to award interest on damages from the time of the actual breach was not the law at the time the compact was enacted and thus Colorado was not on notice that it would be liable for such damages if it breached the compact (See O'Connor, J. concurring and dissenting). 2.1.5 Amendment and Termination of a Compact A compact may lay out specific terms for termination or withdrawal of a signatory. An example of a termination clause is Article X of the Colorado River Compact: "[t]his compact may be terminated at any time by the unanimous agreement of the signatory States. In the event of such termination all rights established under it shall continue unimpaired." An example of a withdrawal clause that has a temporal restriction is provided in Article VI of the Potomac River Compact: "[a]ny signatory body may by legislative act, after one year's notice to the Commission, withdraw from this compact." A compact may be terminated even if there is no specific termination clause if each signatory state, through the same legal means used to adopt the compact, declares it to be dissolved (Zimmermann and Wendell 1976, p. 10). A compact may also include specific provisions for its amendment or none at all. The recent trend has been for interstate compacts to include specific provisions detailing an amendment pro- cess (Zimmermann and Wendell 1976, p. 84). An example of a compact with a specified amend- ment process is the Yellowstone River Compact. Article VI of the compact states: "[w]hen the Commission has made such determination for any interstate stream, it shall report its findings to the President of the United States and to the Governor of each State in the form of an agreement supplemental to this compact, which agreement shall be in full force and effect from the time of its approval by the Commission until disapproval by the Congress of the United States or by the Legislature of Wyoming or by the Legislature of Montana" (Zimmermann and Wendell 1976, p. 10). 2.1.6 Interstate Compact Legal Conclusions The purpose in reviewing these cases and some of their factual details is to emphasize that the Supreme Court attempts whenever feasible to hold each state to their agreed upon obligations under the compact. The terms of a compact once ratified by Congress and if related to a federal concern are federal law. While the Court would likely never allow any absolute commitment technology between states, the interstate compact comes as close as a legal mechanism can. The Supreme Court enforces the terms of a compact by granting monetary damages or an order of specific performance for past breaches, and by ordering states to adhere to their obligations in the future. The Court has even suggested that it would enlist the powers of the other two branches of government to force a state into compliance if necessary. This strong disposition for upholding the terms of a compact makes an interstate compact a powerful commitment technology for interstate government cooperation and coordination. 2.2 Intrastate Compacts: Joint Powers Agreements This section examines the intrastate analog of the interstate compact mechanism, joint powers agreements ("JPAs"). As a baseline for discussion, since there are numerous provisions in dif- ferent state codes that authorize JPAs, this paper examines California's Joint Exercise of Authority Act.18 This section is markedly shorter than the last section on interstate compacts because there is little authoritative case law concerning the interpretation of the Act. Due to the lack of such a well- developed case law, this section primarily relies on a plain meaning interpretation of the sections of the Act. However, this plain meaning interpretation is supplemented where an authoritative case does exist. 2.2.1 Authority to Enter into JPA Intrastate governments, referred to in the California Government Code as public agencies, 19 are authorized by state statute to enter into JPAs. This statutory authorization permits the signatory governments to enter into contractual relationships and exercise any power common to them, which 17Throughout the remaining sections of this paper, JPAs will be referred to as compacts between intrastate govern- ments, so as to not confuse the reader that the economic analyses regarding interstate compacts also apply to JPAs. 18See Cal. Gov't Code 6500 et seq. 19 "As used in this article, 'public agency' includes, but is not limited to, the federal government or any federal department or agency, this state, another state or any state department or agency, a county, county board of education, county superintendent of schools, city, public corporation, public district, regional transportation commission of this state or another state, or any joint powers authority formed pursuant to this article by any of these agencies." Cal. Gov't Code 6500. 20"If authorized by their legislative or other governing bodies, two or more public agencies by agreement may jointly exercise any power common to the contracting parties, even though one or more of the contracting agencies may be located outside this state..." Cal. Govt. Code Section 6502. allows intrastate governments to enter into agreements concerning a wide-array of issues. The statute requires that certain provisions are addressed in the agreement. If the agreement has a specific purpose, then it must specify what that purpose is and how it will be accomplished. If, on the other hand, the agreement states the power that is to be jointly exercised, it must state the manner in which it will be exercised. Cal. Gov't Code 6503. For example, in Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Auth. v. Hensler, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 729 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000), the court of appeal held that three cities, which had entered into a JPA that created an airport authority, had the ability to delegate their eminent domain powers to the authority. The court reached this conclusion because each city already possessed the power of eminent domain and the JPA merely exercised that which was common to all parties. A JPA "grants no new powers but merely sets up a new procedure for the exercise of existing powers." City of Oakland v. Williams, 103 P.2d 168, 172 (Cal. 1940). Creation of an Administrative Agency 2.2.2 An entirely separate entity independent of the signatory governments can be created pursuant to the terms of the JPA. Cal. Gov't Code 6507. Regional governments can thus create an administrative agency that is charged with executing the agreement. The administrative agency "possess[es] the common power specified in the agreement and may exercise it in the manner or according to the method provided in the agreement." Id. This agency can "make and enter contracts, ... employ agents and employees, ... acquire, construct, manage, maintain or operate any building, works or improvements, or to acquire, hold or dispose of property or to incur debts, liabilities or obligations, [and it] ... shall have the power to sue and be sued in its own name." Id. at 6508. The agency may have a governing body such as a commission or board that oversees it. Id. Such a body would have members representing the various agencies or legislative bodies that enacted the JPA. Despite the fact that these representatives are supposed to represent the wishes of their constituents, they are not obligated to vote in line with the position of the "legislative body" which appointed them. Cal. Op. Att'y Gen. 267 (2000). The agreement can specify how the debts, liabilities, and obligations of the agency are shared among the signatory governments and JPA. Cal. Gov't Code 6508.1. By default, the JPA's debts, liabilities, and obligations are those of the signatory governments. However, the signatories are allowed to specify that the JPA alone bears these responsibilities independent of the signatories. Id. The agreement does not need to specify any entity beyond the agency itself that will assume the burden if the agency is unable to do so.21 JPA Conclusions 2.2.3 As the previous section detailed, there has been significant Supreme Court case law that illumi- nates the legal properties of interstate compacts. Yet, in spite of their widespread popularity, there is little state case law involving JPAs. Thus the majority of this legal analysis has consisted of a plain-meaning interpretation of the Joint Exercise of Authority Act supplemented by the few cases where a court has had to interpret the meeting of the statute. This review suggests that the interpretations of JPAs in many ways mirrors that of interstate compacts. If signatory intrastate governments renege on their obligations under the terms of the JPA, contract law will operate as the legal framework in which damages should be apportioned and injunctive relief granted. Similarly, just as interstate compacts can create interstate administrative agencies, JPAs can also establish administrative agencies that are independent of the government bodies that entered into the JPA. Legal Conclusions 2.3 Often scholars state that the main problem with enacting welfare enhancing treaties between sovereign powers is a lack of a third-party external authority that will force the signatories to adhere to the terms of the agreement. Compacts are in some sense treaties between subnational or substate sovereign powers with one exception - the federal or state government can force each to adhere to their obligations under the terms of their compact. The power of the federal or state gov- ernment to remedy past breaches and enforce compliance with future obligations allows regional 21“[S]ection 6805.1 ... mean[s] [nothing] ... other than what it plainly says, that the debts of the JPA are the debts of the constituent entities unless the agreement specifies otherwise. Here, the agreement specified otherwise, i.e. that the constituent entities would not be responsible for the debts of the JPA. [W]e find [no] ... implication that liability should be imposed because the constituent agencies did not specify an alternative to liability being solely vested in the JPA." Tucker Land Co. v. State of California, 114 Cal. Rptr. 2d 891, 897 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001). governments to avoid the potential pitfalls associated with the unenforceability of international treaty obligations. As it has been shown through the review of interstate compact case law and the review of JPA law, the federal and state governments will uphold the terms of a compact either under the principles of the supremacy of federal law or contract law. Under federal law, states are obligated to adhere to the terms of the compacts they have entered into under contract law principles and the judicial theory that the terms of the compact are transformed into federal law, and thus are the "supreme" law of the land under the Supremacy Clause. Under state law JPAs are committed to their obligations under the agreement through the principles of contract law. The next section of this paper examines regional governments that face a prisoners' dilemma type situation. While the compact mechanism is offered as a tool to reach the welfare enhanc- ing cooperative equilibrium, the section concludes that there are situations in which a regional government may rationally wish to breach its compactual obligations despite the knowledge that it will be forced into compliance. This is a consequence of how damages are calculated for the breach of a compact. As already noted, this possibility was acknowledged by the Supreme Court in Texas v. New Mexico. The section concludes that the signatory governments, given that they are sophisticated parties relative to private contractual parties, should be able to decide in the compact agreement itself how to calculate damages in the event of a breach. Compacts as a Solution to the Prisoner's Dilemma States manage their water resources under statutory schemes or common law water doctrines. However, legislators, judges, and other state officials are responsible only to their state's electorate. By the design of our federal system they are not positioned to internalize the effects of their actions on other states. If their goal is to maximize the likelihood of their (re)election, then their only considerations should be to take into account the preferences and welfare of their states' citizens. This can lead to potentially great costs being imposed on the citizens of another state if the resource at issue is common to both states. For example, in the late 19th century, Chicago experienced an outbreak of several illnesses at- tributable to its drinking water supply from Lake Michigan. Lake Michigan had been contaminated by Chicago releasing its sewage into the Chicago River, which then flowed into the lake (Lynde 1930, p. 243-246). In 1900, Chicago reversed the flow of the Chicago River, so that it flowed into the Illinois River thus eliminating the contamination problem for Illinois, but thereby inflicting it on other states (Percival 2004, p. 720). The state of Illinois's project to alter the direction of the Chicago River has been called "an epic environmentally unsound public works project" (Hall 2006). This is because the Illinois River flows into the Mississippi then on downstream into the Gulf of Mexico. Thus states that border the Mississippi as it flows south were affected by Illinois's release of sewage. From 1900 to 1906, Missouri unsuccessfully litigated the flow diversion under a public nuisance claim before the Supreme Court (Percival 2004, p. 721-726). By the mid-1920s, Chicago had increased the flow diversion by over four-fold. In 1924, Wis- consin along with Michigan and New York filed a complaint against Illinois requesting injunctive relief. Wisconsin v. Illinois, 278 U.S. 367 (1929). A special master appointed by the Supreme Court concluded that the Illinois diversion had lowered the levels of Lake Michigan and Huron by six inches, and Lake Erie and Ontario by five inches. Id. at 407-408. The special master's report stated that the increased diversion had caused damage "to navigation and commercial interests, to structures, to the convenience of summer resorts, to fishing and hunting grounds, to public parks and other enterprises, and to riparian property generally." Id. at 408. The special master concluded that this caused "great losses" to the plaintiff states.22 Id. at 409. Thus while benefitting Illinois and specifically the citizens of the City of Chicago, the diversion imposed severe negative externalities on other states both in terms of its sewage release and the accompanying increased flow diversion which lowered the level of the Great Lakes. However, the Illinois legislators (or CoC officials) who passed the enabling legislation were not responsible to the citizens of the other states. There was no need for them to take into account the effects on the welfare of the the Great Lakes states or the other states downstream. There are numerous instances of other Great Lakes states imposing similar negative exter- nalities on one another. Such an environment is well-represented by the often noted prisoner's 22See also Hall (2006, p. 419-420) dilemma, or a special case of it known as the Tragedy of the Commons. Each state is in an envi- ronment where it takes the actions of the other states as given. Given these actions, a state chooses its optimal response. While a theoretical benevolent social planner charged with maximizing the welfare of the affected states would take into account, or internalize, the costs and benefits to the states when deciding the appropriate course of action or policy, in this non-cooperative environ- ment each state only takes into account its own costs and benefits. This lack of cooperation, as illustrated by the example of the Great Lakes, where there is a negative externality by one government imposed on another, results in too much of the negative activity being undertaken. Conversely, in the case of a positive externality such as technological spillovers or productivity gains from investment in shared public infrastructure, governments invest too little in the beneficial activity. In either situation, the fact that a state does not take into account the costs or benefits to all other states leads to a socially suboptimal or Pareto inferior outcome. Absent some agreement that commits states to cooperate with one another over the management of the Great Lakes, they are relegated to the Pareto inferior outcome that plagued them and the Lakes for decades. The potential for a compact to bind the Great Lakes states, or any group of states that share a common resource, to cooperate in the preservation and use of that resource was discussed in 1925 by future Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter with his colleague Professor James Landis: Even before the Constitution we find that the common interest in natural resources, of a region embracing two States, was furthered by an agreement between such States. . . . An exploration of the possibilities of the compact idea furnishes a partial answer to one of the most intricate and comprehensive of all American problems (Frankfurter and Landis 1925, p. 696). The Great Lakes states did recently make use of the "compact idea." The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact requires the states to adhere to minimum reg- ulatory standards to which all signatory states have agreed. The compact imposes requirements on all the Great Lakes states for new withdrawals of water and in general prohibits transfers of water outside of the Great Lakes Basin. If a state is allowed to make a new withdrawal of water, that state is required to ensure that the water will be returned to the watershed less an allotment . 21 for consumptive uses and that the purpose for the withdrawal meets a "reasonableness" standard. The withdrawal is also to be done in an economic and environmentally sound manner so as to conserve as much water as possible (Hall 2006, p. 435-441). These regulations will improve and then maintain the quality of the Great Lakes watershed and its surrounding ecosystem. This is not only aesthetically pleasing, but necessary for a continuation of the beneficial commercial activity that the Great Lakes generate for their regional economies. The following sections analyze the general properties of states locked into a prisoners' dilemma environment and under what circumstances a compact can be used to improve the welfare of the states' citizens. Recommendations for how federal and state courts should calculate damages for breach of a compact are discussed in light of a rational regional government's incentive for doing SO. One Shot PD 3.1 The Prisoner's Dilemma (PD) is well-known in both economics and other social sciences. Each "player" in the "game" has two feasible strategies - either cooperate (C) with the other player or defect (D). Despite the fact that both players know that their individual payoff from the situation where both cooperate is strictly greater, or Pareto superior, than the payoffs in the event both defect, both players' dominant strategy is to always defect, regardless of what they expect the other to do. This can be seen by examining the payoffs in the 2x2 payoff matrix in Figure 1, which is representative of a PD game for two players. Suppose that the players are two regional governments - Government 1 and Government 2. Government 1's best response to Government 2 playing cooperate (C) is to play defect (D), since it would receive a payoff of 2 as opposed to 1. Government 1's best response to Government 2 playing defect is to play defect (D), since it would receive a payoff of 0 as opposed to -1. Thus, Government 1's dominant strategy is always to defect (D). By the symmetry of the problem, Government 2's dominant strategy is always to defect (D) as well. A Nash Equilibrium is an equilibrium strategy profile for all players, where for each player its chosen strategy is its best response to the given strategies of all the other players. In the PD Government 2 D \frac{1,1}{2,-1} -1, 2 Government 1 \frac{C}{D} 0, 0 Figure 1: Two Governments in a Prisoner's Dilemma game, since the dominant strategy is always to defect, because it is always the best response to any strategy played by the other player, the Nash Equilibrium is (D;D). This equilibrium outcome is not Pareto optimal: there is another feasible strategy profile that leads to a strictly higher, or Pareto superior, payoff for both players; they could both Cooperate (C;C). Prisoners Dilemmas come up in many different situations involving horizontally related gov- ernments. For example, the fact pattern surrounding New York v. New Jersey discussed in the introduction is one such foul case.23 New Jersey had been disposing of its sewage by releasing it into the Upper Bay of New York Harbor. This created a public nuisance to New York residents and New York filed suit in the U.S. Supreme Court. The following example is a slight variation of the situation in New York v. New Jersey. It details how regional governments can face PD type situations. Suppose that New York and New Jersey each have two options: either dump their respective sewage into the Upper Bay of New York Harbor (D) or transport it to another location (C). The resulting four feasible outcomes would generate payoffs of a PD game. If both New Jersey and New York cooperate (C), then each receives a payoff of 0, the payoff from maintaining the status quo of neither dumping their sewage into New York Harbor. If only one state dumps (D), the defector receives a payoff of 1 and the other government receives a payoff of -2. When both dump (D) sewage they each receive a payoff of 1 but incur a payoff of -2 from the dumping of the other government, resulting in each having a net payoff of -1. These payoffs are represented in Figure 2. In this game, the Nash equilibrium is for New York and New Jersey to dump their sewage into the bay. This equilibrium leads to reductions in the welfare of both states. These welfare losses could have been avoided had the states cooperated. 23See People of State of New York v. State of New Jersey, 256 U.S. 296 (1921). New Jersey New York \begin{array}{c|cc} C & 0,0 & -2,1 \\ D & 1,-2 & -1,-1 \end{array} Figure 2: Sewage If this game accurately captures the dynamics of interaction among governments, regional governments facing a PD type situation are relegated to achieve suboptimal outcomes absent some external mechanism to mandate cooperation. However, such a mechanism does exist, of course, it is the compact. A compact could be used to commit the governments to follow the cooperative strategy thereby achieving the Pareto superior outcome. In the event of a defection, the terms of the compact could specify how damages would be awarded against the breaching government. Most intrastate and interstate interactions occur over the course of many year, decades, or even centuries. Thus, the next section further explores the compact solution in an environment where regional governments do not interact merely once, but for the foreseeable future in a Repeated Prisoners' Dilemma environment. Infinitely Repeated PD 3.2 Regional governments typically interact with one another repeatedly over the course of many years with no foreseeable ending. In fact, each year governors and legislatures, county boards, and city councils make decisions about how to interact with one another on a number of policy issues. In the example above, New Jersey might decide to not dump its sewage this year, but next year the governor and legislature are free to change their policy. Likewise City 1 may decide to continue paying City 2 for fire department services this year, but next year decrease or cut its payments due to other funding obligations and expect to free-ride on City 2's services. Thus, a single period or "one-shot" PD does not fully capture the relevant repeated interactions of regional governments. The Repeated Prisoner's Dilemma (RPD) more accurately represents these continuous interactions. For the purposes of modeling interregional government interactions, it is assumed that each government believes that it will be in existence forever and thus there are an infinite number of periods of interaction. Each government j discounts future payoffs at the geometric rate \beta_j, i.e. the discount factor. For readers more familiar with the notion of a discount rate, the discount factor is inversely related to the discount rate. That is, as the discount factor, \beta_j, increases, the discount rate, r_j, decreases and vice versa. Formally, the two are related by r_j = \frac{1-\beta_j}{\beta_j}. There are two possible ways that cooperation can arise in this environment. The first way is to make it so that both governments cooperate because if they act otherwise by deviating or defecting for a period - the cost will outweigh the benefit. Thus it would be irrational for the government to defect. Such a trigger strategy could involve a strategy rule saying: if you defect, even once, I will defect for T periods. The other way is for an external agent to enforce ex post a compact that governments had agreed to ex ante and award damages equal to the harm caused by the breach. The first solution could have New York dump sewage for some sufficiently high T periods if New Jersey dumps sewage even once. This would punish New Jersey by not allowing it to gain the higher payoffs it would have received if both governments had cooperated. Of course this assumes that such a sufficiently high T even exists. Proposition 3.1 below emphasizes that even in the case of a severe punishment such as minimaxing the other government (playing D for T periods), there may not exist a finite length of punishment T such that it is irrational for the other government to defect. However, it likewise may be the case that the resulting costs from invoking the punishment of the trigger strategy on New Jersey may be potentially greater than its benefit from defecting one period. Under this scenario, if New Jersey knows that this is New York's strategy and also believes that it is committed to following this policy if a deviation occurs, it may not be rational for it to deviate from the terms of the agreement. It should be emphasized that this grim-trigger strategy is only effective if New Jersey cares sufficiently about its future payoffs from the repeated interactions, that is \beta_2 is sufficiently close to 1, and New York can commit to adhering to this policy ex post if a defection occurs. The following proposition illustrates this formally. Proposition 3.1 As \beta_2 tends towards 0, there does not exist a finite number of periods of punish- ment, T, such that would induce New Jersey to cooperate every period.24 24Proof. In this model, New York's only means to induce New Jersey to cooperate is to punish it by playing D if Thus repeated interactions may or may not lead to cooperative behavior on the part of regional governments if (1) either government cares more about short-term benefits rather than long term ones (\beta_j is relatively close to 0), or if (2) the other regional government believes that the other will not be able to commit to the T periods of punishment if such a suitable time period even exists. General Framework The framework described above is useful if there are just two governments and the game is symmetrical. However, real interregional government interactions can occur be- tween numerous governments and their payoffs are not necessarily symmetric. The following framework generalizes the arguments discussed above, in which case two or more governments interact in a RPD framework with different discount factors and different payoffs. However, for ease of exposition it is still assumed that regional governments can only play their pure strategies C and D. That is, they are prohibited from playing mixed strategies that randomize their decision to cooperate or defect in any one period. Let the set of governments who are affected by one another's interactions be \mathcal P and let the number of such governments be denoted by P. V_j(S_{-i}, S_i) is the period game value to government it does not. New York's strategy would then be to play C in the first period and every period after unless New Jersey played D in the last period, in which case New York will play D for T < \infty periods. Thus New York's strategy is to minmax New Jersey for T periods unless New Jersey cooperates. If in period t New Jersey defects and dumps its sewage, its discounted payoff from that period and the resulting T periods when New York also dumps its sewage is: \beta_2^t \cdot 1 + \beta_2^{t+1} \cdot -1 + \beta_2^{t+2} \cdot -1 + \dots + \beta_2^{t+T} \cdot -1 = \beta_2^t \left( 1 + \beta_2 \cdot -1 + \beta_2^2 \cdot -1 + \dots \beta_2^T \cdot -1 \right). If New Jersey had instead adhered to the agreement not to dump sewage, and played C in period t through at least period t + T, its discounted payoff would have been \beta_2^t \cdot 0 + \beta_2^{t+1} \cdot 0 + \beta_2^{t+2} \cdot 0 + \dots + \beta_2^{t+T} \cdot 0 = 0. Therefore for it to be rational for New Jersey to defect and dump in period t, its gain from the one period deviation must be greater than the loss it incurs from New York dumping for the subsequent T periods. That is: \beta_2^t \left( 1 + \beta_2 \cdot -1 + \beta_2^2 \cdot -1 + \dots \beta_2^T \cdot -1 \right) > 0, which is equivalent to \frac{\beta_2 - \beta_2^{T+1}}{1 - \beta_2} < 1. As \beta_2 gets closer to 0 New Jersey cares more about the present and less about the future. Defection will always be beneficial regardless of the number of periods New York commits to punishing New Jersey, T. j when government i plays S_i \in \{C, D\} and the other P-1 governments (-i) play S_{-i} \in \{C, D\} \{C, D\}^{P-1}. Assumption 3.1 The period payoff to each government j from all P governments cooperating exceeds the payoff to government j from all P governments defecting. That is, V_i(C_{-i}, C_i) > V_i(D_{-i}, D_i) \ \forall j \in P Assumption 3.2 State j's best response to all other governments' strategies in the period game is to defect (D), i.e. for all S_{-j} \in \{C, D\}^{P-1}, D = \arg \max_{S_j \in \{C, D\}} V_j(S_j, S_{-j}) Assumption 3.3 If any government defects in a given period the payoff to all other players in that period decreases, ceteris paribus. These assumptions yield an environment that is equivalent to a P-regional government RPD. In this P-government RPD environment, cooperation may be possible absent any agreement enforced by an external party if governments can commit to the agreed to punishment for defection and all governments care sufficiently about the future (\beta_j) is close to 1 for all j). The following proposition 3.2 states an existence result: cooperation can be attained if all governments are sufficiently patient and agree and can commit to a sufficiently long number of periods of punishment under a trigger strategy. Proposition 3.2 There exists a T^* and a 0 < \beta < 1 such that if T \ge T^* and \beta_j \ge \beta for all j \in P the cooperative equilibrium can be achieved.25 25 Proof. Assumptions 3.2 and 3.3 imply that the lowest payoff that any group of governments can impose on another government is V_j(D_{-j}, D_j). That is (D_{-i}, D_i) This is the minimax value. = \arg \min_{S_{-i} \in \{C,D\}^{P-1}} \max_{S_i \in \{C,D\}} V_j(S_{-j},S_j). Assume each government agrees to the following: in the first period it will play C and in each subsequent period it will play C as long as all other governments played C in the preceding period. If one or more governments in the preceding period play D, then the government will play D for T periods. Without loss of generality, examining the case of government j, its discounted payoff from defecting in period t and That is, there exists an equilibrium in the P-government RPD game in which the Pareto optimal cooperative outcome can be achieved each period if the length of punishment for defection from playing the cooperative strategy is higher than some number of periods T^* and all governments value the future sufficiently, \beta_j \geq \beta for some \beta sufficiently close to unity. Corollary 3.1 emphasizes the limitation of this result. Corollary 3.1 There exists a 0 < \beta < 1, such that if \beta_i \leq \beta the dominant strategy for government j will always be to play D.26 the resulting T periods of defection by all other governments is, \beta_i^t V_j(C_{-j}, D_j) + \beta_i^{t+1} \cdot V_j(D_{-j}, D_j) + \ldots + \beta_i^{t+T} \cdot V_j(D_{-j}, D_j). State j's discounted payoff from cooperating in period t and the subsequent T periods that it would have been punished had it defected is, \beta_i^t V_i(C_{-i}, C_i) + \beta_i^{t+1} \cdot V_i(C_{-i}, C_i) + \ldots + \beta_i^{t+T} \cdot V_i(C_{-i}, C_i). Therefore for defection not to have been advantageous, it must be the case that: \beta_{i}^{t}V_{j}(C_{-j}, C_{j}) + \beta_{i}^{t+1} \cdot V_{j}(C_{-j}, C_{j}) + \ldots + \beta_{i}^{t+T} \cdot V_{j}(C_{-j}, C_{j}) > \beta_i^t V_j(C_{-j}, D_j) + \beta_i^{t+1} \cdot V_j(D_{-j}, D_j) + \dots + \beta_i^{t+T} \cdot V_j(D_{-j}, D_j), which can be simplified to the following condition, \frac{1 - \beta_j^{T+1}}{1 - \beta_i} V_j(C_{-j}, C_j) - \frac{\beta_j - \beta_j^{T+1}}{1 - \beta_i} V_j(D_{-j}, D_j) > V_j(C_{-j}, D_j). As \beta_j \to 1, not defecting is rational for government j when, T[V_i(C_{-i}, C_i) - V_i(D_{-i}, D_i)] > V_i(C_{-i}, D_i) - V_i(C_{-i}, C_i). By Assumption 3.1 V_j(C_{-j}, C_j) - V_j(D_{-j}, D_j) > 0 and by Assumption 3.2 V_j(C_{-j}, D_j) - V_j(C_{-j}, C_j) \ge 0. Therefore a time period T can always be found that will cause State j to not Defect, i.e. Cooperate. By letting \beta_i \geq \beta, where \beta is sufficiently close to 1, and by letting T^* be the maximum of the T periods that satisfies the above condition for each government j, there necessarily exists a (T^*,\beta) \in \mathbb{N} \times (0,1) such that if all \beta_j \geq \beta and T \geq T^* the governments cooperate. ^{26}Proof. Given that the other governments would punish a government for T periods after it defected even once, it would not be advantageous for it to defect if \frac{1-\beta_j^{T+1}}{1-\beta_j}V_j(C_{-j},C_j) - \frac{\beta_j-\beta_j^{T+1}}{1-\beta_j}V_j(D_{-j},D_j) > V_j(C_{-j},D_j) As \beta_i \to 0, the inequality approaches V_j(C_{-j}, C_j) > V_j(C_{-j}, D_j) which by Assumption 3.2 is never true. Thus government j will defect as \beta_j gets arbitrarily close to 0 regardless of the number of periods of punishment, T. It implies that it is not the case that for all 0 < \beta < 1, there exists a T such that the cooperative equilibrium can be reached. That is, it is not the case that a suitable T can always be found to induce cooperation among the governments even if they could commit to the punishment strategy. If the governments care little about future payoffs relative to payoffs today, their dominant strategy will always be to defect regardless of the length of punishment T. This is an unfortunate result given that benevolent regional governments do not determine the preferences over future versus current payoffs of the citizens that they are elected to represent, and non-benevolent regional government officials may have their own agenda that effectively reduces the value of \beta_j. Therefore, in some circumstances, cooperation among governments absent an agreement enforced by an external third party may not be possible even in a RPD environment. Moreover, even if cooperation is possible given some length of punishment T for the trigger strategy, governments may not punish a defecting government for the full length of T, because they might have a strong incentive themselves to cooperate again before the T periods of punish- ment have passed. The would-be defecting government realizes this and thus believes the other governments will not act on their threats after a defection occurs, which will make it more likely to defect in the first place. Regional governments that would have cooperated know this and will be likely to refuse to enter an agreement. However, an agreement enforced by an external third party could allow the governments to overcome these obstacles to cooperation. The Compact Solution Consider another possible way to induce cooperation: the regional gov- ernments enter into a compact. Such a compact could take two forms. The first depends on whether there is a suitable T for each government that if enforced would make defection in any one period irrational. If there is such a value for T, then the compact could be used to force all the partici- pating governments to adhere to the punishment policy of defecting for T periods after a member government defects. The compact would commit the participating governments to the T periods of punishment, even if a government has a strong desire to begin cooperating before then. This would require the federal or state government to be able to force the signatory governments to adhere to the punishment laid out in the terms of the compact. Whether or not this is feasible would depend on the subject of the compact and the agreed to punishment for defection. The second possibility, and the one studied in this paper, is for the terms of the compact to stipulate that a government will be liable for the damages of all the other governments in the compact if it deviates from the terms of the compact (defects). As explained in the legal review section, damages for compacts are based on damages for breach of contracts. The default measure of damages are "expectation damages" - a monetary award equivalent to the minimum amount necessary to put the breached parties in the position they expected they would have been in when the contract was formed, assuming governments had adhered to the compact's terms.27 However, as the Supreme Court discussed in the case of Texas v. New Mexico, 28 it may be the case that a regional government wants to breach its compactual obligations despite the fact that it knows it will be forced back into compliance in some future period. In this infinitely repeated prisoners' dilemma environment, a rational regional government j will breach the terms of the compact if the benefits from doing so, B_j, exceed the liability it would incur \Delta_j. Thus it may be rational for a government to breach a compact for a few periods even if it knows the court will force it back into compliance and order it to pay damages. The court can influence the value of \Delta_j which will affect the cost to regional government j for breaching the compact as well as the amount of compensation that the other regional governments receive for the breach. The Court can do this through controlling the period in which it begins awarding interest on past damages. In the case considered in the interstate compact legal review section, the Court began awarding interest from the time the complaint was filed by the other state, instead of from the time the breaching state knew or should have known it was in breach of its compactual obligations, or from the time the breach actually occurred. This decision made it less costly for the breaching state to breach the compact and it also inadequately compensated the breached against state for its losses. The Supreme Court and state courts, or alternatively by state statute, should announce at their next opportunity that interest will accrue from the time a compact is breached in all future cases. This will increase the cost associated with breaching a compact, deterring regional governments from breaching their compactual obligations. It will also more completely compensate breached against governments. 27See section 2.1.4.3, p. 11. 28See section 2.1.4.3. Another alternative is that regional governments, as relatively sophisticated parties, could be permitted to determine how damages are calculated even if that means that the total damage award would exceed the default expectation damages amount under common law contract prin- ciples. As noted in the legal review section, when there is a large degree of uncertainty over the amount of damages, courts hesitate to award damages in an any amount. This lessens the expected liability, \Delta_j, from a compactual breach making a state more likely to breach the compact, and also completely precludes the possibility of an efficient breach by the breached against state(s) because they can never recover their true losses. Allowing unbounded liquidated damages would allow states to mutually determine ex ante how to deal with such uncertainties rather than granting such authority to courts ex post. Conclusion In a prisoners' dilemma or Tragedy of the Commons type environment, regional governments that are unable to reach the Pareto superior outcome even when they interact with each other repeatedly either due to being impatient or lacking the ability to commit to punish a defecting government, can obtain the social welfare maximizing result by entering into a compact that requires cooperation on the part of all governments. This compact will be enforced by the federal or state government in the event of a breach through the awarding of damages and the imposition of an injunction to order the breaching government back into compliance. Because the damages for breach of a compact will likely be calculated based on the expectation damages measure, it is important to analyze the incentives that determine whether a signatory government will breach the compact by examining its benefit and liability from doing so. If such an analysis concludes that damages from a breach will be difficult to calculate because of large uncertainties, then the parties should be able to contract freely for liquidated damages that may exceed the ex- pectation damages amount. Negotiations over a liquidated damages scheme would also likely be intertwined with negotiations over the ability of a regional government to withdraw from or termi- nate its compactual obligations. This is because unlike private parties, regional governments will likely be ordered to adhere to their compactual obligations in the future. Regional governments should determine ex ante how to deal with a regional government that does not meet its obligations or wishes to withdraw from the compact. Government Commitment 4 Kydland and Prescott (1977) showed that if consumers and firms are rational when forming their expectations about future government policies, changes in government policy in the future will be anticipated by consumers and firms today negating the welfare maximizing benefits of the "welfare maximizing" policy choice. Selecting an optimal policy and having some mechanism commit the government(s) to the policy indefinitely is welfare maximizing, because consumers and firms expect that the government policy will be in effect in the future and will thus make the choices that the policymaker sought when announcing the policy instrument in the first instance. This allows the policymaker to correctly evaluate the benefits and costs of each policy and select the optimal one. The concept of the welfare losses and gains to be had from the adoption of a welfare maxi- mizing policy, and commitment to it, can best be illustrated by an example. Specifically, a slight modification of one of the examples provided in Kydland and Prescott (1977). This modified ex- ample is motivated by the substantial property destruction that occurred during "The Great Flood of 1993." In 1993, the Mississippi River flooded significant portions of land along its course in the midwest. The destruction from the flood was estimated at around $20 billion. Entire towns were flooded, fertile farmland was destroyed, and 50,000 homes were either swept away by the cur- rents or severely damaged by the standing water (Johnson et al. 2004). While the destruction was extensive and resulted from a realization of low probability events, it illustrated the unavoidable problems of property ownership along the Mississippi flood plain. Suppose that a group of states along the Mississippi River decide that the government costs associated with the periodic flooding of homes and businesses in certain regions near the river could be minimized by interstate cooperation. Professional response teams might be formed and obligations for their perpetual funding developed. The response teams would be comprised of flood plain experts and relief workers who could be deployed to the affected areas in the event of a flood. Further, the state governments, concerned about the total cost of the significant property damage and the heightened risks associated with large populations living in the flood plain, could enact a set of uniform laws stating that if consumers or businesses build structures in an affected area, they will not receive any state financial aid when the river floods and destroys their property. A policy such as this will prevent rational citizens from building structures in the area only if the citizens expect the state to adhere to the stated policy in the future. However, if citizens expect state government to provide assistance to them if they build in the flood plain and then face flood losses, they will go ahead and build and the suboptimal outcome will occur - citizens will build homes and businesses in the flood plain. Now suppose that instead the states enter into a hypothetical "Flood Plain Compact." The terms of the compact are exceedingly straightforward: (1) each signatory state shares the cost of funding the response teams according to a cost-sharing scheme that induces each state to desire the same amount of aggregate investment in the program, and (2) signatory states are prohibited from providing state assistance to those residents and firms who choose to build new structures in the Mississippi's designated flood plain no-build zone. The enactment of the compact forces each state's citizens and firms to realize that their state is bound by the terms of the compact. Each signatory state knows that it must fund the response teams at the amount it agreed to under the terms of the compact. If it does not, it knows that the federal government will force it into compliance and mandate that it pay damages for the breach of its obligations. Citizens and firms know that their state cannot provide them assistance if they build in the plain and a flood subsequently damages or destroys their property. Therefore, they do not build homes or businesses in the flood plain. This example illustrates how compacts are not merely a tool for the implementation of a re- gional policy, but also a tool with a commitment technology that prohibits regional governments from wavering from that policy in the future. This, in particular, makes compacts more than a system of uniform laws adopted by several regional governments, but a mechanism that commits the governments to the desired policy, enhancing its welfare maximizing potential. signed to provide for "the common harbor interests of New York and New Jersey." The compact established what is now referred to as the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Due to the close proximity of the New York and New Jersey ports, there are significant spillover effects to New Jersey from investment by New York and to New York by investment from New Jersey. Absent any coordination, each would be taking the investment decisions of the other as a given, and then choosing its optimal investment amount. While the investment alone would lead to increases in productivity for both regions, greater increases in productivity could be realized by the coordination of investment in both regions. That is, if the spillover effects between the jurisdictions could be internalized, both regions could be made strictly better off. This potential benefit from coordination was recognized by the states and was the impetus for the compact. In the preamble to the compact both states acknowledged this by reciting the following reasons for entering into the agreement: they shared a common resource - the port; coordination was preferred to unilateral action; investment in the infrastructure of the port and surrounding area would lead to "great economies;" and this investment would require significant resources on the part of both states (New Jersey Statutes, Title 32, Chapter 1, Article 1). This section addresses the ability of regional governments to coordinate their activity so as to internalize beneficial productivity spillovers that cross jurisdictional boundaries. These spillovers affect households' welfare indirectly through the productivity effects on the region's inputs of pro- duction such as capital and labor. This paper adopts the view that in certain circumstances regional governments can invest in "public capital" that benefits the region's economy. For instance, a state may invest in roads, bridges, airports, and seaports that reduce the resource costs associated with the transport of capital from one location to another, or make it less costly for laborer's to commute to work thereby increasing the geographical radius of which they can be employed.29 The following model analyzes two mechanisms for public capital investment by the regional governments. They can tax their representative household and invest in their region's public cap- ital stock, taking as given the investment decisions of the other governments, or the regions can enter into a compact that can coordinate their spending on public capital investment. Both the re- 29Such labor search costs have recently been recognized as an important aspect of economic development by the Nobel Committee when it awarded the 2010 Economics Memorial Prize to Diamond, Mortensen and Pissarides. gional governments' and compact authority's objective is to maximize the welfare or utility of the representative household in their particular region or the welfare of all compact signatories' repre- sentative households according to the terms of the compact. The terms of the compact are modeled as a social welfare functional that takes as inputs the net discounted utility of all the signatories' regional government's representative households. Model 5.1 A group of P regional governments is denoted by \mathcal{P} = \{1, \dots, P\}. The productivity of their private capital and labor, that is, their total factor productivity (TFP), is affected by their region's public capital as well as the spillover effects from the other P-1 regions' public capital. The degree by which each region i's public capital benefits, or spills over into, region j's public capital is given by \omega_{j,i}, where \omega_{j,j}=1 by definition. The public capital in each region depreciates at the uniform rate \delta_h and is most easily thought of as consisting of public infrastructure or essential government services. Each region has a representative household that lives forever and whose preferences over con- sumption in any period are represented by the utility function u^{j}(\cdot). The household discounts next period utility at the rate \beta and is endowed with an amount of private capital in period 0, k_{j,0}. The household owns all shares of the representative firm's stock in its region. All profits from the firm are remitted to the firm's shareholder - the household. The household accumulates private capital by purchasing an investment good on an aggregate market that consists of all the regions. Private capital depreciates at the uniform rate \delta_k and is rented to the region's firm at the regional rental rate r_{j,t}. The household receives wage income at the regional market wage rate w_{j,t}. The price of the consumption and investment goods on the aggregate market in period t is p_t. Each region's representative firm rents capital from the regional rental market and in conjunc- tion with the inelastically supplied labor from its own representative household produces output which it sells on the aggregate market at the unit price p_t. Representative Household's Problem 5.1.1 The objective of the household is to maximize its net discounted future utility stream subject to its budget and capital investment constraints. Each period, taking as given the regional, (r_{j,t}, w_{j,t}), and aggregate market, (p_t), prices, the household purchases a consumption good c_{j,t}^h, that is taxed at the rate \tau_j, and it also purchases an amount of private capital investment x_{j,t}. The consumption and investment goods are purchased on the aggregate market consisting of all regions. The household's purchases of its consumption and investment goods are constrained by the income it receives each period from the return on its accumulated private capital, the amount of labor it supplies in the regional labor market, and the dividends paid by the region's firm. The unit return the household receives on its accumulated private capital stock, k_{j,t}^h, is r_{j,t}. The household supplies labor l_{j,t} up to an amount l_j in the regional labor market and receives in return payment at the wage rate w_{j,t}. Since the household is the sole shareholder of the region's firm, it receives all, if any, of the profits each period, \pi_{j,t}. The amount of private capital next period, k_{j,t+1}, is the sum of the non-depreciated private capital this period (1 - \delta_k)k_{j,t} plus the amount of investment x_{j,t}. Definition of Household's Problem Given the regional sales tax rate \tau_j and regional (r_{j,t}, w_{j,t})_{t=0}^{\infty} and aggregate market prices (p_t)_{t=0}^\infty, each household j\in\mathcal{P} chooses (c_{j,t}^h,x_{j,t}^h,k_{j,t+1}^h,l_{j,t}^h)_{t=0}^\infty to solve \max_{(c_{j,t}^h, x_{j,t}^h, k_{j,t+1}^h, l_{j,t}^h)_{t=0}^{\infty}} \sum_{t=0}^{\infty} \beta^t u^j(c_{j,t}^h) (1+\tau_j)p_tc_{j,t}^h + p_tx_{j,t}^h \le r_{j,t}k_{j,t}^h + w_{j,t}l_{j,t}^h + \pi_{j,t} s. to k_{i,t+1}^h \le (1 - \delta_k) k_{i,t}^h + x_{i,t}^h l_{j,t}^h \leq l_j c_{it}^h, x_{it}^h, k_{it+1}^h, l_{it}^h \geq 0 l_j = 1 k_{i,0}^h given. 5.1.2 Representative Firm's Problem The objective of each region's representative firm is to maximize its profit each period. Given the aggregate market price for its output, p_t, and the regional prices of capital and labor, (r_{j,t}, w_{j,t}), the firm chooses the amount of private capital k_{j,t}^f and the amount of labor l_{j,t}^f to use in the production of its output y_{j,t}. The firm receives an increase in the productivity of its inputs, that is an increase in TFP, from the amount of investment in public capital by the regional government, h_{j,t} as well as the spillover productivity effects from the other regions’ public capital investments \sum_{i \in \mathcal{P} - \{j\}} \omega_{j,i} h_{j,t}. Definition of Firm's Problem Each period given regional (r_{j,t}, w_{j,t}) and aggregate market prices (p_t) and the effective amount of the public capital in the region h'_{j,t}, each regional firm j \in \mathcal{P} chooses y_{j,t}^f, k_{j,t}^f, and l_{j,t}^f to solve \max_{y_{j,t}^f, k_{j,t}^f, l_{j,t}^f} \pi_{j,t} \equiv p_t y_{j,t}^f - r_{j,t} k_{j,t}^f - w_{j,t} l_{j,t}^fy_{j,t}^f = F^j(h_{j,t}^f, k_{j,t}^f, l_{j,t}^f) s. to y_{i,t}^f, k_{i,t}^f, l_{i,t}^f \ge 0 where h'_{i,t} = \sum_{i=1}^{P} \omega_{j,i} h_{j,t}. Balanced Regional Government Budget 5.1.3 The regional government runs a balanced budget each period. That is the cost of investment in the region's public capital stock p_t i_{j,t} is exactly equal to the tax revenue from the government levying a consumption tax on the household \tau_j p_t c_{j,t}. The region’s public capital stock next period is the sum of the non-depreciated amount of public capital this period, (1-\delta_h)h_{j,t} plus the amount of period investment i_{j,t}. Definition of Balanced Regional Government Budget For all regional governments j \in \mathcal{P}, p_t i_{j,t} = \tau_j p_t c_{j,t} h_{j,t+1} = (1 - \delta_h)h_{j,t} + i_{j,t}. Market Clearing 5.1.4 The output from all of the regional firms, \sum_{i \in \mathbb{R}} y_{j,t}^f, is sold on the aggregate market. This supply of output is equal to the amount of consumption and investment goods demanded by all of the regions’ households, \sum_{j \in P} c^h_{j,t} + \sum_{j \in P} x^h_{j,t}, plus the amount of investment goods for all of the regions’ public capital stocks by their respective governments, \sum_{i} i_{j,t}. The amount of capital demanded by each region's firm, k_{j,t}^f, is equal to the amount supplied by that region's household, k_{j,t}^h. Similarly, the amount of labor demanded by each region's firm, l_{j,t}, is equal to the amount supplied by that region's household, l_{j,t}^f. Definition of Market Clearing \sum_{j \in \mathcal{P}} y_{j,t}^f = \sum_{j \in \mathcal{P}} c_{j,t}^h + \sum_{j \in \mathcal{P}} x_{j,t}^h + \sum_{j \in \mathcal{P}} i_{j,t} k_{j,t}^f = k_{j,t}^h \ \forall j \in \mathcal{P} l_{j,t}^f = l_{j,t}^h \ \forall j \in \mathcal{P}. 5.1.5 Assumptions Each region's household experiences diminishing marginal utility of consumption.30 Second, there is diminishing marginal productivity of the inputs of production.31 Third, regional production is homogenous of degree one in private and public capital.32 Fourth, there will be some non-zero amount of each production input used by each region's representative firm.33 It is further assumed that all regions are on a balanced growth path in equilibrium34 and that the necessary interior first order conditions for each regional economy, j \in \mathcal{P}, hold. Result 5.1 The ad-valorem consumption tax is equivalent to a lump-sum tax on the household. Given Result 5.1, and for the ease of exposition and calculation, the sales tax will be replaced 30 Assumption 5.1 u^j: \mathbb{R}_+ \to \mathbb{R}_+ is strictly concave. Assumption 5.2 F^j: \mathbb{R}^3_+ \to \mathbb{R} is concave. Assumption 5.3 F^{j}(h, k, l) is homogenous of degree one in (h, k). Assumption 5.4 \lim_{h\to 0} F_h^j(h,k,l) = \infty and \lim_{h\to \infty} F_h^j(h,k,l) = 0. Assumption 5.5 \lim_{k\to 0} F_k^j(h,k,l) = \infty and \lim_{k\to \infty} F_k^j(h,k,l) = 0. Assumption 5.6 \lim_{l\to 0} F_l^j(h,k,l) = \infty and \lim_{l\to \infty} F_l^j(h,k,l) = 0. 34That is, for each region j \in P in equilibrium there exists a g_j > 0 such that \frac{c_{j,t+1}}{c_{j,t}} = g_j, \frac{x_{j,t+1}}{x_{j,t}} = g_j, \frac{k_{j,t+1}}{k_{j,t}} = g_j, and \frac{h_{j,t+1}}{h_{j,t}} = g_j for all t. 35Proof. The first order necessary conditions for the household's problem require \frac{u_c^j(c_{j,t}^h)}{\beta u_c^j(c_{j,t+1}^h)} = r_{j,t+1} + (1 - \delta_k). This is also the condition that is required by the household's problem where the sales tax is replaced with the lump- sum tax. Further, on the balanced growth path, the household's budget constraint and law of capital accumulation remain unchanged and the government budget and resource constraints are also unchanged when p_tT_{j,t} is substituted for \tau_j p_t c_{j,t}^h. The firms problem and the market clearing conditions are unaffected as well. Therefore, a lump-sum tax that is defined to be p_t T_{j,t} = \tau_j p_t c_{j,t}^h is equivalent to the consumption tax on a balanced growth path. with a lump-sum tax, T_j from this point forward. It should be noted, however, that any of the results obtained also hold when the \tau_j p_t c_{j,t} is substituted for T_{j,t}. Result 5.2 Each region's household will purchase an amount of goods from the aggregate market equal to the amount of goods that the regions's firm produces and sells on the aggregate market.36 That is, c_{i,t}^h + x_{i,t}^h + T_{j,t} = F^j(h'_{i,t}, k_{i,t}^h, l_{i,t}^h). Thus, while each region participates in the aggregate market for consumption and investment goods, the regional economies may be modeled as though the household purchases only those goods which are produced in its region. This paper will use this result to simplify the analysis by writing each region's problem as though it is a closed economy, except for the increase in productivity it receives from the spillovers from the other regions' public capital stocks. Each regional government that has not ceded its decision making sovereignty to a compact authority is assumed to be benevolent. That is, its objective is to maximize the net discounted utility of its representative household, \sum_{t=0}^{\infty} \beta^t u^j(c_{j,t}). Each is also assumed to have complete ^{36}Proof. The household's period t budget constraint is (1+\tau_j)p_tc_{i,t}^h + p_tx_{i,t}^h \le r_{j,t}k_{i,t}^h + w_{j,t}l_{i,t}^h + \pi_{j,t}. Given Result 5.1 and Assumption 5.1, the household budget constraint can be rewritten as p_t c_{i,t}^h + p_t x_{i,t}^h = r_{j,t} k_{i,t}^h + w_{j,t} l_{i,t}^h + \pi_{j,t} - p_t T_{j,t}. Given the definition of \pi_{j,t} from the firm's problem, \pi_{j,t} = p_t y_{j,t}^f - r_{j,t} k_{j,t}^f - w_{j,t} l_{j,t}^f where y_{i,t}^f = F^j(h'_{i,t}, k_{i,t}^f, l_{i,t}^f), the firm's budget constraint can be written as r_{j,t}k_{j,t}^f + w_{j,t}l_{j,t}^f + \pi_{j,t} = p_t F^j(h'_{j,t}, k_{j,t}^f, l_{j,t}^f). And from the market clearing condition k_{j,t}^h = k_{j,t}^f and l_{j,t}^h = l_{j,t}^f. Therefore, c_{j,t}^h + x_{j,t}^h + T_{j,t} = F^j(h'_{j,t}, k_{j,t}^h, l_{j,t}^h). and perfect information about the representative household and firm in its region. That is, each knows, given the tax amounts, how each sector of the regional economy will respond in terms of making allocative decisions. Formally, this means that each regional government knows that through its choice of taxes it implicitly selects the equilibrium allocation for its region according to the characterization in Result 5.3 below. Result 5.3 Letting f^j(h,k) = F^j(h,k,1) and given ((T_{i,t})_{t=0}^{\infty})_{i\in\mathcal{P}}, each region's, for j\in\mathcal{P}, equilibrium allocation is characterized by \frac{u_c^j(c_{j,t})}{\beta u_c^j(c_{j,t+1})} = f_k^j(h'_{j,t+1}, k_{j,t+1}) + (1 - \delta_k) c_{j,t} + x_{j,t} + T_{j,t} = f^j(h'_{i,t}, k_{j,t}) k_{j,t+1} = (1 - \delta_k)k_{j,t} + x_{j,t} h_{q,t+1} = (1 - \delta_h)h_{q,t} + T_{q,t} \forall q \in \mathcal{P} k_{j,0} given h_{j,0} given. where h'_{i,t} = \sum_{i=1}^{P} \omega_{j,i} h_{j,t}. 5.2 Non-Cooperative v. Cooperative Equilibria There are two possible ways in which the regions can choose the optimal tax amount each period: (1) the regions can either make decisions without cooperating with the other regions, or (2) the regions to enter into a compact that details an investment schedule for all signatory regions. Non-Cooperative Equilibrium 5.2.1 In the non-cooperative equilibrium, each period regions choose the tax rate that maximizes their welfare given that they know, based on the observable decisions of the other regions, what the spillover effects of the other regions will be next period. This may be criticized as a strong as- sumption. However, it captures the assumption of non-coordination among regional governments in their investment decisions. Region j's Government's Problem Each government j \in \mathcal{P} takes as given the investments of the other P-1 governments, ((T_{i,t})_{t=0}^{\infty})_{i\in\mathcal{P}-\{j\}} and thus the value of their public capital stocks ((h_{i,t})_{t=0}^{\infty})_{i\in\mathcal{P}-\{j\}}. In each period t, regional government j chooses its optimal value of public capital in period t + 1, h_{j,t+1}, so as to satisfy \max_{(T_{j,t},h_{j,t+1},c_{j,t},x_{j,t},k_{j,t+1})_{t=0}^{\infty}} \sum_{t=0}^{\infty} \beta^t u^j(c_{j,t}) (1) s. to \frac{u_c^j(c_{j,t})}{\beta u_c^j(c_{j,t+1})} = f_k^j(h'_{j,t+1}, k_{j,t+1}) + (1 - \delta_k) (2) c_{j,t} + x_{j,t} + T_{j,t} = f^j(h'_{i,t}, k_{j,t}) (3) k_{i,t+1} = (1 - \delta_k)k_{i,t} + x_{i,t} (4) h_{q,t+1} = (1 - \delta_h)h_{q,t} + T_{q,t} \forall q \in P (5) c_{i,t}, k_{i,t+1}, x_{i,t} \ge 0 (6) k_{j,0} given (7) \forall q \in \mathcal{P} - \{j\} T_{q,t} given (8) \forall q \in P. h_{q,0} given (9) where h'_{i,t} = \sum_{i=1}^{P} \omega_{j,i} h_{j,t}. Definition of Non-Cooperative Equilibrium A Non-Cooperative equilibrium is a set of regions \mathcal{P}, and for each region j \in \mathcal{P} an allocation (c_{j,t}, x_{j,t}, k_{j,t+1}, h_{j,t})_{t=0}^{\infty} and a system of taxes (T_{j,t})_{t=0}^{\infty} that satisfy Region j's Government's Problem. Result 5.4 Noting that \omega_{j,j} = 1 by definition, the regional government's problem, given ((T_{i,t})_{t=0}^{\infty})_{i \in \mathcal{P}-\{j\}}, is characterized by \frac{u_c^j(c_{j,t})}{\beta u_c^j(c_{j,t+1})} = f_k^j \left( \left( h_{j,t+1} + \sum_{i \in P - \{j\}} \omega_{j,i} h_{i,t+1} \right), k_{j,t+1} \right) + (1 - \delta_k) \frac{u_c^j(c_{j,t})}{\beta u_c^j(c_{j,t+1})} = f_h^j \left( \left( h_{j,t+1} + \sum_{i \in P - \{j\}} \omega_{j,i} h_{ c_{j,t} + x_{j,t} + T_{j,t} = f^{j} \left( \left( h_{j,t+1} + \sum_{i \in P - \{i\}} \omega_{j,i} h_{i,t+1} \right), k_{j,t} \right) k_{j,t+1} = (1 - \delta_k)k_{j,t} + x_{j,t} h_{q,t+1} = (1 - \delta_h)h_{q,t} + T_{q,t} \forall q \in P k_{j,0} given h_{q,0} given \forall q \in P. Compact Equilibrium 5.2.2 The other option is for regional governments to enter into a compact where each agrees to a pre- scribed level of investment either by the terms of the compact, or according to investment decisions made by an administrative agency created pursuant to the compact. The compact would specify the tax rate at which consumption should be taxed in each region with the proceeds to be invested in that region's public capital stock. Unlike the non-cooperative equilibrium where regions make decisions individually taking as given the period investment decisions of the other regions, this op- tion would internalize the productivity spillovers of each region's public capital investments into the others.37 To analyze this environment, a few assumptions must be made. Assume that there is a subset of regions S \subset \mathcal{P} that enter into a compact. Each affected region that is not a member of the compact never engages in any public capital investment (i.e., h_{j,t} = 0 for all t and for all j \in \mathcal{P} - S). The compact authority's objective is to maximize \mathcal{U}: \mathbb{R}^S \to \mathbb{R}, the "terms of the compact," which is a 37For purposes of this analysis, it is implicitly assumed that the regions cannot renege on their compactual obliga- tions. strictly increasing function that takes as its inputs the net discounted period 0 utility of each region that is a signatory to the compact, j \in S. The compact authority has the same information available to it that the signatory regional governments possess - complete and perfect information about the representative household and firm in each of the signatory regions. Formally, this means that the compact authority knows that through its choice of taxes it implicitly selects the equilibrium allocation for each signatory region according to the characterization in Result 5.3. Definition of Compact Authority's Problem The compact authority's problem is to choose taxes ((T_{j,t})_{t=0}^{\infty})_{j\in S} and thus ((h_{j,t+1},c_{j,t},x_{j,t},k_{j,t+1})_{t=0}^{\infty})_{j\in S}, so as to solve, \max_{((T_{j,t},h_{j,t+1},c_{j,t},x_{j,t},h_{j,t+1})_{t=0}^{\infty})_{j\in S}} \mathcal{U}((\sum_{t=0}^{\infty} \beta^{t} u^{j}(c_{j,t}))_{j\in S}) (10) \frac{u_c^j(c_{j,t})}{\beta u_c^j(c_{j,t+1})} = f_k^j(h'_{j,t+1}, k_{j,t+1}) + (1 - \delta_k) s. to (11) c_{j,t} + x_{j,t} + T_{j,t} = f^j(h'_{i,t}, k_{j,t}) (12) k_{i,t+1} = (1 - \delta_k)k_{i,t} + x_{i,t} (13) h_{i,t+1} \leq (1 - \delta_h)h_{i,t} + T_{i,t} (14) c_{i,t}, k_{i,t+1}, x_{i,t} \ge 0 (15) k_{j,0} given (16) h_{j,0} given. (17) where h'_{j,t} = \sum_{i=1}^{P} \omega_{j,i} h_{j,t}. 5.3 Non-Cooperative Equilibrium v. Compact Equilibrium Since the objective of this paper is not to empirically estimate the specific benefits of a particular compact on a given region, but rather to analyze the general effects of a compact on the growth rate of a regional economy relative to a non-cooperative agreement, this subsection assumes that all regions are identical, so that general results can be proved. Symmetric Environment 5.3.1 In a Symmetric Environment all regions have identical preferences u^l(c) = u^m(c), identical pro- duction technologies f^l(h,k)=f^m(h,k), identical initial endowments of public and private capi- tal h_{l,0} = h_{m,0} and k_{l,0} = k_{m,0}, and identical productivity spillovers which are normalized to unity \omega_{j,i} = 1 \text{ for all } l, m \in \mathcal{P}. It is further assumed that since all regions are identical, that in any compact equilibrium the terms of the compact are such that all compact regions will be taxed the same amount by the compact authority each period, that is, T_{l,t} = T_{m,t} for all periods t and for all l, m \in S. Proposition 5.1 In a Symmetric Non-Cooperative Equilibrium, all compact regions' j \in \mathcal{P} equi- librium allocations are characterized by the following system of equations, 38 \frac{u_c(c_t)}{\beta u_c(c_{t+1})} = f_k \left( Ph_{t+1}, k_{t+1} \right) + (1 - \delta_k) \frac{u_c(c_t)}{\beta u_c(c_{t+1})} = f_h(Ph_{t+1}, k_{t+1}) + (1 - \delta_h) c_t + x_t + T_t = f(Ph_t, k_t) k_{t+1} = (1 - \delta_k)k_t + x_t h_{t+1} = (1 - \delta_h)h_t + T_t k_0 given h_0 given. Proposition 5.2 In a Symmetric Compact Equilibrium, all compact regions' j \in S equilibrium 38Proof. The above assumptions along with the definition of a Non-Cooperative Equilibrium guarantee that con- straints 3 through 9 in Region j's Problem are equivalent. Further, since u_j(\cdot) is a strictly increasing function and all region's problems are equivalent, the Region j's Problem can be written equivalently as \max_{(T_t, h_{t+1}, c_t, x_t, k_{t+1})_{t=0}^{\infty}} \sum_{t=0}^{\infty} \beta^t u^j(c_{j,t}) \frac{u_c(c_t)}{\beta u_c(c_{t+1})} = f_k(h_{t+1} + h'_{t+1}, k_{t+1}) + (1 - \delta_k) s. to c_t + x_t + T_t = f(h_t + h_t', k_t) k_{t+1} = (1 - \delta_k)k_t + x_t h_{t+1} \le (1 - \delta_h)h_t + T_t c_t, k_{t+1}, x_t \ge 0 h'_t given \forall t k_0 given h_0 given. where h'_t = (P-1)h_t. The first order necessary conditions and the resource constraints for this problem give the characterization. allocations are characterized by the following system of equations, 39 \frac{u_c(c_t)}{\beta u_c(c_{t+1})} = f_k(Sh_{t+1}, k_{t+1}) + (1 - \delta_k) \frac{u_c(c_t)}{\beta u_c(c_{t+1})} = Sf_h(Sh_{t+1}, k_{t+1}) + (1 - \delta_h) c_t + x_t + T_t = f(Sh_t, k_t) k_{t+1} = (1 - \delta_k)k_t + x_t h_{t+1} = (1 - \delta_h)h_t + T_t k_0 given h_0 given. 5.3.2 Results Proposition 5.3 The growth rate of regional governments in a Symmetric Compact Equilibrium, where S \subset P with S > 1, is greater along a balanced growth path than any region in a Symmetric Non-Cooperative Equilibrium. Corollary 5.1 As the number of signatory regions, S, increases all regions grow at a faster rate. 39Proof. The above assumptions along with the definition of a Symmetric Compact Equilibrium guarantee that constraints 12 through 17 in the Compact Authority’s Problem are equivalent. Further since \mathcal U is a strictly increasing function and all regions' problems are equivalent, the Compact Authority's Problem can be written equivalently as \max_{(T_t, h_{t+1}, c_t, x_t, k_{t+1})_{t=0}^{\infty}} \sum_{t=0}^{\infty} \beta^t u^j(c_{j,t}) \frac{u_c(c_t)}{\beta u_c(c_{t+1})} = f_k(Sh_{t+1}, k_{t+1}) + (1 - \delta_k) s. to c_t + x_t + T_t = f(Sh_t, k_t) k_{t+1} = (1 - \delta_k)k_t + x_t h_{t+1} \leq (1-\delta_h)h_t + T_t c_t, k_{t+1}, x_t \ge 0 k_0 given h_0 given. The first order necessary conditions and the resource constraints for this problem give the characterization. 40Proof. The "effective" public to private capital ratio, \frac{Sh_{t+1}}{k_{t+1}} for the Symmetric Compact Equilibrium along the balanced growth path is given by f_k(Sh_{t+1}, k_{t+1}) - Sf_h(Sh_{t+1}, k_{t+1}) = \delta_k - \delta_h. . Proposition 5.4 If S = \mathcal{P}, the regions are strictly better off by entering into a compact than if they had not. 5.4 Conclusions: Compacts Internalizing Productivity Spillovers The models in this section demonstrate that the compact can be a useful mechanism for regions to coordinate their investment in public capital that has spillover effects into other regions. As Proposition 5.3 states, the compact leads the regions to a strictly higher rate of growth than if each had acted independently. Further, this higher rate of growth leads to increases in welfare for all of the signatory regional economies as proven by Proposition 5.4. Thus interregional coordination through a coordinating compact can be a powerful tool to achieve greater economic growth and Let this ratio be denoted by \kappa_{\text{Com}}. Due to the fact that f is homogenous of degree one, the above condition can be rewritten as f_k(\kappa_{\text{Com}}, 1) - Sf_h(\kappa_{\text{Com}}, 1) = \delta_k - \delta_h. The growth rate for the regional economies in a Symmetric Compact Equilibrium can be found from the following necessary first order condition \frac{u_c(c_t)}{\beta u_c(c_{t+1})} = f_k(\kappa_{\text{Com}}, 1) + (1 - \delta_k) Similarly the capital to labor ratio Ph/k for the Symmetric Non-Cooperative Equilibrium along the balanced growth path is given by f_k(Ph_{t+1}, k_{t+1}) - f_h(Ph_{t+1}, k_{t+1}) = \delta_k - \delta_h. Let this ratio be denoted by \kappa_{NA}. Due to the fact that f is homogenous of degree one, the above condition can be rewritten as f_k(\kappa_{NA}, 1) - f_k(\kappa_{NA}, 1) = \delta_k - \delta_h. The growth rate of the regional economies in a Symmetric Non-Cooperative Equilibrium can be found from the following necessary first order condition \frac{u_c(c_t)}{\beta u_c(c_{t+1})} = f_k(\kappa_{\text{NA}}, 1) + (1 - \delta_k) Thus given the strict concavity of u and f, if \kappa_{\mathrm{Com}} > \kappa_{\mathrm{NA}}, the growth rate will be higher under the Symmetric Compact Equilibrium. Given that f is strictly concave, it is straightforward to see that f_k(\kappa_{\text{Com}}, 1) - Sf_h(\kappa_{\text{Com}}, 1) = \delta_k - \delta_h and f_k(\kappa_{NA}, 1) - f_h(\kappa_{NA}, 1) = \delta_k - \delta_h imply \kappa_{\mathrm{Com}} > \kappa_{\mathrm{NA}}. greater prosperity for interaffected regional economies. Conclusion 6 The compact is a valuable mechanism for regional governments to engage in cooperative endeav- ors or as a coordination mechanism for interjurisdictional policies. Compacts are more than just the adoption of a uniform set of laws or regulations by a group of regional governments. They are binding legal agreements that are enforced by an external authority. They cannot be altered or repealed unilaterally unless the agreement permits such actions. Compacts are legally analogized to contracts between private parties. When a regional government enters into a compactual agree- ment it assumes a duty to uphold its obligations to the other regional governments. If a regional government breaches its obligations, the other signatories may plead for injunctive or monetary relief before either state or federal courts. The compact is a useful tool to deal with interjurisdictional externalities whether they be neg- ative or positive. They can be used to overcome prisoner's dilemma or tragedy of the common's type situations by the terms of the agreement or by establishing an authority or regulatory body to make decisions on signatory governments' behalf. An administrative agency compact can be used to coordinate spending on productive activities that have spillover effects into other regional governments' jurisdictions, such as a government's investment in public capital or other services. Absent a compact or other agreemnt regional governments acting independently do not internal- ize the total benefits or costs that their actions have on other regions. A compact can be used to internalize these effects leading the regional governments to a Pareto superior outcome over non-cooperation. References Frankfurter, F. and J. M. Landis (1925). The Compact Clause of the Constitution - A Study in Interstate Adjustments. Yale Law Journal 34, 685–758. Hall, N. D. (2006, Spring). Toward a New Horizontal Federalism: Interstae Water Management in the Great Lakes Region. University of Colorado Law Review 77, 405–456. Johnson, G. P., J. Homles, Robert R., and L. A. Waite (2004, The May). Great Flood of 1993 on the Upper Mississippi 10 Years River Later. http://il.water.usgs.gov/pubs/fs2004-3024.pdf. (last visited February 13, 2010). Kydland, F. E. and E. C. Prescott (1977). Rules Rather than Discretion: The Inconsistency of Optimal Plans. The Journal of Political Economy 85(3), 473–492. League of Minnesota Cities (2008, May). Cities Across Minnesota Cooperating to Provide Ser- vices and Perform Functions: A Review of Cooperative Agreements. Lynde, C. (1930, November). The Controversy Concerning the Diversion of Water from Lake Michigan by the Sanitary District of Chicago. Illinois Law Review 25(3), 243–260. National Center for Interstate Compacts (2010). Frequently Asked Questions. Percival, R. V. (2004, Spring). The Clean Water Act and the Demise of the Federal Common Law of Interstate Nuissance. Alabama Law Review 55, 717–774. Williston, S. (2009). A Treatise on the Law of Contracts (4th ed.). St. Paul, MN: West Group. Zimmermann, F. L. and M. Wendell (1976). The Law and Use of Interstate Compacts. Lexington, KY: Council of State Governments. Appendix: Court Decisions Involving Interstate Compacts Arizona v. California, 292 U.S. 341 (1934). Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546 (1963). Cuyler v. Adams, 449 U.S. 433 (1981). Green v. Biddle, 21 U.S. 1 (1823). Hayes v. State Property and Buildings Commission, 731 S.W.2d 797 (Ky. 1987). Hinderlider v. La Plata, 304 U.S. 92 (1938). Kansas v. Colorado, 533 U.S. 1 (2001). Maready v. City of Winston-Salem, 467 S.E.2d 615 (N.C. 1996). Mineo v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 779 F.2d 939 (1985). Mitchell v. North Carolina Industrial Development Financing Authority, 159 S.E.2d 745 (N.C. 1968). Nebraska v. Central Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Commission, 207 F.3d 1021 (8th Cir. 2000). New Hampshire v. Maine, 426 U.S. 363 (1976). New York v. New Jersey, 256 U.S. 296 (1921). Oklahoma v. New Mexico, 501 U.S. 221 (1991). Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Oregon, 223 U. S. 118 (1912) Patton v. Mid-Continent Systems, Inc., 841 F.2d 742 (7th Cir. 1988). Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Commission, 359 U.S. 275 (1959). Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 37 U.S. 657 (1838). Seattle Master Builders v. Pacific N.W. Electric Power, 786 F.2d 1359 (9th Cir. 1986) (cert. denied 479 U.S. 1059 (1987)). Texas v. New Mexico, 482 U.S. 124 (1987). Tobin v. United States, 306 F.2d 270 (1962). U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission, 434 U.S. 452 (1978). Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503 (1893). Virginia v. West Virginia, 246 U.S. 565 (1918). Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority v. One Parcel of Land in Montgomery County, Maryland, 706 F.2d 1312 (4th Cir. 1983). West Virginia ex rel. Dyer v. Sims, 341 U.S. 22 (1951). Wisconsin v. Illinois, 278 U.S. 367 (1929). 9 l l ( 6 5. 2 9 = 9 9 RECEIVED FEB 2 7 2001 WESTERN ORANGE COUNTY SELF-FUNDED WORKERS' COMPENSATION AGENCY JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY AGREEMENT This Agreement is made and entered into by those participating public educational agencies comprising the Western Orange County Self-Funded Workers' Compensation Agency, a California joint powers authority, amending and superseding all provisions of the existing Joint Powers Agreement (as previously amended). RECITALS WHEREAS, Title I, Division 7, Chapter 5 of the Government Code of the State of California generally authorizes public educational agencies in the State of California to agree to the joint exercise of any power common to them; WHEREAS, Sections 39603 and 81603 of the Education Code of the State of California authorize the governing boards of the participating public agencies to establish a separate joint powers authority pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 6500 of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1) of the Government Code of the State of California; WHEREAS, Section 3602 of the Education Code of the State of California authorizes the expenditure of public agency resources for the purpose of self-funding against liabilities associated with workers' compensation claims and coverage for employees; WHEREAS, the governing boards of the participating public educational agencies have determined that it is beneficial to establish and operate a self-funded program for workers' compensation claims; and WHEREAS, it has been further determined by the governing boards of the participating public agencies that a joint powers authority is a necessary and appropriate means to maximize the operation and cost-effectiveness of a self-funded workers' compensation program on an individual and on a mutual basis. NOW THEREFORE, the participating public educational agencies, for and in consideration of the mutual benefits, promises, and agreements set forth, individually and mutually agree as follows: AGREEMENT 1. CREATION OF THE JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY Pursuant to the provision of Article 1, Chapter, 5, Division 7, Title 1 of the Government Code of the State of California (commencing with Section 6500) the participating public educational agencies (the "Members") create and elect to continue a public agency and joint powers authority, separate and apart from the Members, to now be known as the Western Orange County Self-Funded Workers' Compensation Agency (referred to as the "Agency" in this Agreement). FUNCTIONS OF THE JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY 2. The Agency is established to operate and shall operate for the purpose of administering this Agreement pursuant to the joint powers provisions of the Government Code of the State of California, and to exercise such common powers jointly by creating a regional authority that will provide the Members with a comprehensive program for the establishment and operation of cooperative self-funded or insured workers' compensation and related programs. The functions of the Agency are to design and implement cooperative self-funded or insured workers' compensation programs, to provide ancillary services and related programs, and to perform such other functions and provide such other services as may be necessary or appropriate to the purpose of this Agreement. 3. FORMATION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS The Agency shall be under the direction and control of a Board of Directors comprised of one authorized representative from each Member appointed or otherwise designated by the Member's governing board. In addition, each Member shall appoint or otherwise designate an alternate who may attend, participate in, and vote at any meeting of the Board of Directors where the authorized representative is absent. The Board of Directors shall act to implement this Agreement in accordance with its provisions and pursuant to the Bylaws of the Agency. BYLAWS OF THE JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY 4. The Agency will be maintained, operated, and governed pursuant to Bylaws adopted by the Board of Directors. These Bylaws will contain the terms and conditions under which each Member will participate in the Agency and in the Agency's self-insured or other workers' compensation programs, including, but not limited to, provisions for the allocation of losses, the establishment of reserves, administrative costs, withdrawal, and distribution of any unobligated funds upon dissolution of the Agency. A copy of the Bylaws will be provided to each of the Members, and each Member agrees to comply with and to be bound by the provisions of the Bylaws. 5. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY The Agency shall be responsible for the operation of the joint powers authority, for the implementation of this Agreement, and for the protection of the interests of the Members. The Agency, through the Board of Directors, shall: (a) provide for a plan and system for self-insured, insured and other workers' compensation programs; (b) provide for the administration of Agency, and may designate, retain, or terminate administrative staff or third party administrative personnel or agencies for such service; (c) be responsible for public funds placed on deposit and to establish and administer such funds as necessary to the self-insured, insured and other programs; (d) have the authority to make and enter into contracts, and to incur debts, liabilities and obligations necessary to accomplish the purpose of this Agreement; (e) have the authority to acquire, hold or dispose of real and personal property, and acquire, construct, manage, maintain and rent buildings or facilities as necessary for the operation of the Agency; (f) be able to receive gifts, contributions and donations of property, funds, services or other forms of assistance; (g) have the authority and capacity to sue and be sued in its own name; (h) be able to take actions that serve the best interests of the collective membership of the Agency; (i) have the authority to ensure that timely and appropriate communications are maintained with the Members; (j) join, participate with or enter into other arrangements with other joint power authorities and governmental agencies to provide services, coverage or other benefits and programs to or for the benefit of Members; and (k) may further exercise any power common to the Members in furtherance of the purposes of this Agreement. 6. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE MEMBERS Each Member shall: (a) cooperate in research and development activities conducted by the Agency by furnishing all statistical data, experience data, and other information as may be requested by the Agency; (b) pay such amounts as are determined to be due to cover premiums, self-insured or other losses until concluded, and other costs or obligations incurred by the Agency; (c) cooperate and participate in self-insured, insured and other workers' compensation programs and related programs and services offered by the Agency; (d) comply with the terms of the Agreement and the Bylaws; and (e) provide input to the Board of Directors on the Agency's programs and operations so as to continue to assure and promote needed programs and responsiveness to cultural sensitivity and diversity in program management and operation. 7. ANNUAL AUDIT AND AUDIT REPORTS The Board of Directors shall cause an annual audit to be made with respect to all receipts and disbursements by a certified public accountant or public accountant, and a report of such audit shall be filed as a public record with each of the Members and also with the county auditor of each county in which the participating public agency is located. Such report shall be filed no later than twelve (12) months after the end of the fiscal year under examination. All costs of such audit shall be approved by the Board of Directors and paid by the Agency as a charge against funds established in the Bylaws for administrative costs and services. 8. ACCOUNTS AND RECORDS The Agency is strictly accountable for all funds received and disbursed, and shall maintain such funds and accounts as are required by law and as directed by the Board of Directors. The Treasurer of Orange County is the Treasurer and the designated depository of the Agency, and shall have custody of all of the funds of the Agency and assume all duties and responsibilities in accordance with Section 6505.5 of the Government Code of the State of California. 9. AMENDMENTS This Agreement may be amended at any time by a subsequent writing approved by three quarters of the Members, which amendment(s) shall be effective upon execution of the writing by three-quarters of the Members. 10. SEVERABILITY Should any portion, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement be decided by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal or in conflict with any law of the State of California, or be otherwise rendered unenforceable or ineffectual, the validity of the remaining portions, terms, conditions, and provisions shall not be affected thereby. 11. TERM This Agreement shall become effective as of the date hereof and shall continue in full force and effect until revoked by an affirmative vote of three-quarters of the then existing Members following a determination that there are insufficient members to continue an actuarially sound program for self-insured workers' compensation benefits or other Agency programs. In the event of a dissolution of the Agency, any funds or interests remaining in the Agency, after satisfaction or other discharge of all remaining obligations, shall be returned to those participating public educational agencies which were Members of the Agency during its final three years based on their pro rata share of premiums paid during the three final years of the Agency. 12. EXECUTION This Agreement may be executed by each current as well as future Member on a separate copy thereof with the same force and effect as though all Members had executed a single original copy. The collection of such separately executed copies shall be treated as a single copy executed by all Members. BREA OLINDA UNIFIED SCHOOL OCEANVIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT, DISTRICT, a public agency a public agency Gary D. Goff Patricia L. Young Typed or Printed Name Typed or Printed Name Title: Asst. Supt., Business Svcs. Title: Asst. Supt., Business Date: July 7, 1997 Date: July 16, 1997 Date Approved by Date Approved July 7, 1997 July 15, 1997 Board of Education: by Board of Trustees: HUNTINGTON BEACH SCHOOL ORANGE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DISTRICT, a public agency EDUCATION, a public agency By By Jerry Buchanan Lynn April Hartline Typed or Printed Name Typed or Printed Name Title: Asst. Supt., Admin. Svcs. Title:_ Deputy Superintendent October 6, 1997 Date: June 3, 1997 Date: Date Approved by Date Approved June 3, 1997 September 25, 1997 Board of Trustees: by Board of Trustees: LAGUNA BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, a public agency By Dena Graves Typed or Printed Name Chief Business Official Title:__ August 26, 1997 Date: Date Approved by Board of Trustees: August 26, 1997 * 8 8 55 - * BYLAWS OF THE WESTERN ORANGE COUNTY SELF-FUNDED WORKERS' COMPENSATION AGENCY, A CALIFORNIA JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY PREAMBLE The Western Orange County Self-Funded Workers' Compensation Agency, a California joint powers authority, is established for the purpose of providing the services, facilities, and items necessary and appropriate for the establishment, operation, and maintenance of a self insurance program for workers' compensation claims against and involving member public educational agencies (the "Members"), and to provide a forum for discussion, study, development, and implementation of recommendations of mutual interest in the self-insuring or insuring of workers' compensation-related risks and ancillary programs and services. ARTICLE I - NAME The name of this joint powers authority and organization is the Western Orange County Self- Funded Workers' Compensation Agency, a California joint powers authority (the "Agency"). ARTICLE II – POWERS The Agency shall have the power to: 1. Exercise any power common to the Members which are parties to the Joint Powers Agreement, and any power available to joint power authorities under California law, provided that such powers are exercised in the furtherance of the purposes and functions of the Agency and in the manner that such powers could be exercised by public educational agencies and joint power authorities of the State of California. Provide the Members with a plan and system of self-funding for workers' compensation 2. claims and related programs whereby the Agency will pay for or provide, and maintain self-insurance or insured programs and ancillary programs as to such claims against Members as are set forth in the programs adopted by the Board of Directors, using funds provided by the Members for this purpose. 3. To handle any and all aspects of workers' compensation claims against participating Members arising out of actions or omissions to act occurring during their period of membership in the Agency. 4. Directly or by contract with third parties, to financially administer and oversee the workers' compensation claims and related programs, to develop and formulate policies and procedures, to provide comprehensive claims handling services, to provide legal representation for Members on workers' compensation claims, to provide advices on safety engineering and controls, and to otherwise develop and implement such programs and services as are necessary to a comprehensive self-funded workers' compensation program for the Members. 5. Establish and maintain a fund or funds to pay self-insured or other losses under a workers' compensation self-insured or insured program, to establish and maintain a fund or funds to pay for such programs, and for ancillary programs and services. 6. Acquire, hold, and dispose of property, real or personal, all for the purpose of providing the Members with the necessary education, study, development, and implementation of the self-funded workers' compensation program or programs, including, but not limited to, the acquisition of necessary facilities and equipment, the retention of staff, the making and entering into contracts, the operations and maintenance of a system for the handling of the self-funded plan or plans, and the incurring of debts, liabilities, or obligations. 7. Receive, accept, and utilize the services of personnel offered by any Member or its representatives or agents; to receive, accept, and utilize property, real or personal, from any Member or its agents or representatives; to receive, hold, dispose of, to construct, operate, and maintain buildings and other improvements; and to receive, accept, expend, and disburse funds, by contract or otherwise, for the purposes consistent with the provisions of the Joint Powers Agreement and Bylaws. Such funds may be provided by any Member or its agents or representatives. 8. Pursue any Members right of subrogation when, in the discretion of the Board of Directors, such subrogation may inure to the benefit of the Member incurring the loss and/or the Agency. 9. Perform such other functions as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes and programs of the Agency. ARTICLE III - MEMBERSHIP Public educational agencies located within the State of California are eligible for 1. membership in the Agency provided that membership is contingent upon being a signatory to the Joint Powers Agreement and satisfaction of Article III, Section 2, of the Bylaws. A "public educational Agency" is defined as a school district, a community college district, a county superintendent of schools, a county department of education, a regional occupational program, a regional occupational center, a charter school, a joint powers authority, or any other public agency as defined in the California Government Code. [Bylaw4.doc Rev. December 17, 2012] 2. Public educational agencies shall be required to apply for membership in the Agency prior to April 1 of any year to be effective on July 1 of that year (unless otherwise determined by the Board of Directors), and prospective Members shall be subject to the following conditions for review and approval: a. Submission of a completed Agency questionnaire or other provision of information as requested by the Agency; b. Review of the prospective Member's appropriate insurance and claims experience by the Agency or its authorized representatives; C. Determination of eligibility by the Agency and the conditions and terms under which the applicant may be admitted to membership; d. Execution of the Joint Powers Agreement together with a resolution formally adopted by the applicant's governing body; Payment to the Agency of the Agency's determined contribution from the c. prospective Member; and f. The applicant shall become a Member upon receiving the approval of two-thirds of the Board of Directors of the Agency. 3. Upon admission to membership, each new Member shall be entitled to appoint an authorized representative and an alternate to the Board of Directors of the Agency. The appointed representative and alternate shall be a management-level employee of the Member. 4. Should any Member reorganize in accordance with state statutes, the successor-in-interest or successors-in-interest to the obligation of any such reorganized Member shall be substituted as a Member, provided that the Member continues to be a public educational agency under California law, meets the terms and conditions of the Joint Powers Agreement and Bylaws, and executes the Joint Powers Agreement. ARTICLE IV - FORMATION OF THE GOVERNING BOARD The Agency shall be under the direction and control of, and shall be governed by, a 1. Board of Directors in accordance with Section 3 of the Joint Powers Agreement. 2. No one serving on the Board of Directors shall receive any salary or compensation from the Agency. 3. The Board of Directors shall elect from its Member representatives a President, Vice President, and Secretary-Treasurer to serve as officers. Elections shall be held in June of each year unless otherwise scheduled by the Board of Directors. 4. Representation on the Board of Directors may cease for any of the reasons stated below, provided that the Board of Directors takes specific action to ratify the termination of any representative by a two-thirds vote of the remaining Member representatives: Voluntary resignation; a. b. If the Member represented by the individual ceases to be a Member of the Agency; or c. If the representative's Member no longer qualifies as a public educational agency as required for membership in the Agency. 5. Each representative on the Board of Directors shall have one vote. No proxy or absentee votes shall be permitted. A vote of the majority of a quorum (as defined in Article VI, Section 5) present at a meeting shall be sufficient to constitute action, except actions concerning adoption or amendment of Bylaws and membership in the Agency, which requires a two-thirds vote of the total membership of the Board of Directors, and dissolution or termination, which requires a three-quarters vote of the total representatives of the Board of Directors. ARTICLE V - POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS The Board of Directors shall have the authority to exercise the powers of the Agency as set forth in the Joint Powers Agreement, and the Board of Directors is specifically empowered to: 1. Establish Bylaws, rules, and regulations of and for the Agency not inconsistent with applicable law or with the Agency's Joint Powers Agreement, as may be necessary for the conduct of the Agency's business and programs. 2. Provide for the management and administration of the Agency and its programs in a manner that is in the best interests of the Members. This power shall include the power to employ and terminate a management firm or firms (or other third party vendors) for such purpose or to directly employ staff. 3. To create and provide for the appointment or election of an Executive Committee and to delegate to the Executive Committee such powers and functions as deemed appropriate and necessary by the Board of Directors, and to further designate a representative of the Executive Committee as the Executive Director and to require such bonding or other protection as legally required and in the best interests of the Agency. 4. Determine annual premium or contribution rates and the formulas and the method by which such contributions will be paid to the fund or funds created pursuant to the Agency's purpose. 5. Provide for additional assessments during the year, if necessary, to allow for payment or reserving of funds for the payment of the Agency's costs or other obligations. 6. Determine whether, and by what method, new Members shall be allowed to join the Agency and to participate in existing or contemplated programs consistent with Article III of the Bylaws. 7. Appoint and dissolve working committees from its active membership and contract vendors, or by contracting for such services consistent with the purpose of the Agency. 8. Assure that a complete, accurate, and supervised system of accounting for all Member funds is maintained at all times. 9. Determine the manner in which the workers' compensation programs shall be operated. including (but not limited to) defining the scope of the Agency's benefits and coverages under the programs and notifying Members of the scope and limitations of the programs. 10. Maintain, or cause to be maintained, accurate case records for all risks insured against and accurate records of all claims paid. 11. Provide for loss control services. 12. Enter into contracts consistent with the terms of the Joint Powers Agreement. 13. As appropriate and necessary, make periodic reports to the Members on the status of the Agency and its programs, including (but not limited to) loss reports on at least a quarterly basis. 14. Adopt an annual budget for the Agency. 15. Annually evaluate, or cause to be evaluated, the performance of the Agency staff and third-party vendors. 16. Perform any and all other functions necessary or appropriate to accomplish the purpose of the Agency. ARTICLE VI - MEETINGS, SECTION 1 1. The Board of Directors shall meet regularly but not less than four times per year. Member-designated representatives and alternates to the Board of Directors, to be entitled to participate in Board of Directors' meetings, shall be designated in accordance with Article III, Section 3, and be management-level employees of the Member. 2. The Board of Directors shall, at its June meeting, approve the date and time for its regular meetings. All Members shall be promptly notified of the meeting schedule. 3. Special Meetings of the Board of Directors may be called as necessary, provided 24-hour advance notice is given and the legal requirements for Special Meetings satisfied. 4. All meetings of the Board of Directors shall be called, noticed, held, and conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act (commencing with Section 54950 of the Government Code of the State of California). 5. A majority of the total representatives of the Board of Directors shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, except that less than a quorum shall be sufficient to adjourn or conclude any meeting of the Board of Directors. 6. A majority of a quorum shall be required to transact business, except as to changes to the Bylaws and membership (which shall require an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the representatives of the Board of Directors). No proxy or absentee votes shall be permitted, and each representative on the Board of Directors (including alternates in the event the representative is absent) shall have one vote. 7. An Agenda shall be prepared for all meetings in compliance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and shall be made available to all Agency Members at least three (3) working days prior to regularly scheduled meetings. 8. Minutes shall be kept of all Open Sessions of meetings held by the Board of Directors and made available to each Member of the Agency. 9. Items may be placed on the Agenda provided a written request is received by the President of the Board of Directors at least ten working days prior to the regularly scheduled meeting. Any member of the public desiring to make a personal appearance before the Board of 10. Directors to discuss an item of interest shall be limited to a maximum of five (5) minutes, unless otherwise provided for by the Board of Directors. ARTICLE VII – FINANCE 1. The Agency is strictly accountable for all funds received and disbursed by it, and to that end, the Agency shall establish and maintain such funds and accounts as may be required by good accounting practices or by any provision of law or any resolution of the Agency. Books and records of the Agency shall be open to inspection at all reasonable times by representatives of the Members. The Board of Directors, as soon as practical after the close of each fiscal year, shall give a complete written report of all financial activities for such fiscal year to each of the Members. 2. The Treasurer of the County of Orange shall be the depository and custodian of all Agency funds, from whatever source, except that a separate trust fund may be established for payment of claims for a thirty (30) day period, as authorized by Sections 39602, 39603, and 81602 of the Education Code of the State of California. Funds placed with the County Treasurer shall be handled in accordance with Sections 39602, 39603, and 81602 of the Education Code and Section 6505.5 of the Government Code of the State of California. The County of Orange shall be reimbursed by the Agency for such services by the County Treasurer in an amount or in amounts as determined by the Orange County Board of Supervisors as the actual expenses of the services described. Such expenses shall also be required to be approved by the Board of Directors of the Agency. 3. The Secretary-Treasurer shall, unless otherwise designated by the Board of Directors, be the Chief Financial Officer of the Agency. The Secretary-Treasurer shall draw warrants to pay demands against the Agency when such demands have been duly approved by the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors shall make, or contract with a certified public accountant or other qualified public accountant for an annual audit of the accounts and records of the Agency. The minimum requirements of the audit shall be those prescribed by the State Controller for Special Districts under Section 26909 of the Government Code of the State of California, and the audit shall conform to generally acceptable auditing standards of public agencies like or comparable to the Agency. The audit report shall be completed and filed within twelve months of the end of the fiscal year under examination, and the report shall be filed as a public record with each of the Members and with the County Auditor of the County of Orange. All costs of the audit shall be borne by the Agency and shall constitute a permissible and authorized charge against any unencumbered funds of the Agency otherwise available for such expenses and purposes. ARTICLE VIII - ANNUAL PREMIUMS 1. Each Member shall pay the Agency each fiscal year the annual premium calculated pursuant to Section 2, provided that the Board of Directors, in its sole discretion, may consider additional factors in setting the annual premium and may accept other advance partial payments or installments in amounts and on a schedule as approved by the Board of Directors and made the subject of a formal written resolution, provided that any Member's excess premiums paid in connection with prior fiscal year(s) coverage may not be used as a credit against a current or future fiscal year(s) premium (as any credit arising from any excess premium paid will instead be separately rebated to the Members for accounting purposes). The Board of Directors (unless delegated to the Executive Committee) shall inform Members of the estimated annual premiums for the upcoming fiscal year not later than April 1. 2. The annual premium for each Member shall be calculated as follows: An Actuarial Report shall be performed on an annual basis and this report shall have a derived method of calculating rates for Members using the Member's estimated annual payroll which is then multiplied by the Member's current experience modification factor, which is then subject to adjustments by any factors determined by the Board of Directors to be reasonable and appropriate. Estimated annual premiums shall be adjusted by the Board of Directors to the actual earned annual premium following the close of the fiscal year and the completion of the required accounting. A. The Board of Directors may at its discretion, modify the annual premium provided to the Members. B. The experience modification factor for each Member shall be calculated and determined by the Board of Directors based primarily upon the Member's verifiable experience of the most recent five completed fiscal years of comparable experience. C. The Member's annual premium shall be paid to the Agency in installment payments in August, December, and April prior to the commencement of the Agency's next fiscal year, with the amount of the installment to be set by the Board of Directors. Payment shall be due upon the Member's receipt of the Agency's invoice. In the event the Member fails to timely pay the premium installment due, the Agency shall charge the Member a late charge of one percent (1%) of the amount of the overdue premium installment for each month it is overdue after sixty (60) days, unless otherwise determined or waived by the Board of Directors. D. Should workers' compensation claims against the Members of the Agency exceed the total yearly premiums billed to the Members and received by the Agency, each Member may be assessed by the Board of Directors an additional premium based upon the percentage of yearly premiums paid by each Member relative to the total yearly premiums paid by all Members. E. Each Member hereby authorizes the Orange County Superintendent of Schools and the Treasurer of the County of Orange to transfer to the Agency from the Member's funds all amounts sufficient to pay the Member's required premium, and each Member agrees to further execute any and all documents to effectuate such transfers (if any). [Bylaw4.doc Rev. December 17, 2012] ARTICLE IX – FUNDS 1. An Operating Fund shall be established and maintained by the Agency out of the contributions of the Members and shall be for the purpose of paying for the following: (a) insurance premiums; (b) claims management expenses; (c) administrative costs; (d) safety engineering; (e) data processing and information management expenses; (f) investigation-related expenses; (g) legal fees and related expenses; (h) fund transfer expenses; and (i) such other expenses as are necessary and reasonably incurred and/or paid by the Agency. In addition, the Agency shall accept and deposit in the Operating Fund additional funds received from interest and other investment income, refunds of excess workers' compensation insurance premiums, workers' compensation subrogation recoveries, grants, or other contributions from any Member or third party. 2. A Claims Fund shall be established and maintained by the Agency out of the contributions of the Members into which may be deposited sums determined by the Board of Directors or a service company or management firm contracted to administer the self-funded program to be sufficient to provide for the settlement of claims for a sixty (60) day period. 3. The Board of Directors shall have the power to invest, or cause to be invested, in compliance with Sections 6509.5 and 6505.5 of the California Government Code, such reserves as are not necessary for the immediate operation of the Claims Fund in such securities as allowed by Section 53601 of the California Government Code. The level of funds to be retained in the Operating Fund or Claims Fund shall be determined by the Board of Directors. ARTICLE X – BYLAWS These Bylaws shall be deemed the operational provisions by which the Agency is 1. governed. 2. These Bylaws shall not be inconsistent with the provision of the Joint Powers Agreement of the Agency. ARTICLE XI - FISCAL YEAR The fiscal year of the Agency shall begin at 12:01 a.m. on July 1 and end June 30 at midnight. ARTICLE XII - WITHDRAWAL AND TERMINATION 1. Any Member may withdraw from the Agency and terminate its membership status after having completed three full fiscal years as a Member by notifying the Board of Directors in writing not later than December 31. Such a withdrawal shall be deemed effective on the following June 30 provided that (and subject to) the withdrawing Member has discharged or arranged for the discharge of its known or potential obligations to the satisfaction of the remaining representatives of the Board of Directors of the Agency. 2. Upon any withdrawal, or involuntary termination of a Member, the withdrawing or terminated Member shall continue to be responsible for the amount of any additional assessments or contingencies required because of costs incurred while the withdrawing or terminating Member was a Member of the Agency. However, a withdrawing or terminated Member shall incur no additional liability after the effective date of withdrawal or termination. The Agency shall continue to be responsible for the reported claims of the terminated or withdrawing Member provided that (and subject to) the claims having been incurred while membership was still in force. A withdrawing or terminated Member shall not be entitled to participation in any net assets of the Agency unless otherwise determined by a two-thirds vote of the remaining representatives of the Board of Directors. 3. A Member may be involuntarily terminated from continued membership in the Agency, provided the Board of Directors so recommends and two-thirds of the Members agree. Grounds for involuntary termination include, but are not limited to, nonpayment of premiums, intentional wrongdoing, breach of the Agreement or Bylaws of the Agency, and failure to address safety concerns communicated to the Member by the Agency. Involuntary termination shall have the effect of eliminating the party as a signatory to the Joint Powers Agreement and as a Member of the Agency effective upon the date of involuntary termination set by the Board of Directors. The Member being terminated shall be so notified at least ninety (90) days prior to the end of the fiscal year with termination becoming effective on the last day of the fiscal year unless otherwise agreed to between the terminated Member and the Board of Directors. 4. This Agreement may be terminated at the end of any fiscal year by the affirmative vote of three-quarters of the then participating Members. However, termination shall require that the affirmative vote be taken on or before January 1 of the fiscal year then in force and a resolution of all obligations of the Agency (directly or through a paid-up contract or other instrument removing and resolving any further obligations of and from the Agency), which resolution may include individual Member acceptance of responsibility for its outstanding claims. 5. In the event of a dissolution, complete rescission or other final termination of the Agency, any property interest remaining in the Agency following a discharge or other satisfaction of all existing and potential obligations shall be returned to the participating public educational agencies that were Members of the Agency during its final three years based on their pro rata share of premiums paid during the three final years of the Agency. ARTICLE XIII - LIABILITY 1. Except as otherwise provided by individual contract, pursuant to the provisions of Section 895, et seq., of the Government Code of the State of California, each Member of the Agency shall be liable for its pro rata share of all debts and liabilities of the Agency and its pro rata share of all debts and liabilities for workers' compensation claims against the Agency arising out of facts occurring while a Member of the Agency. A Member's pro rata share shall be determined based upon that Member's premium in proportion to the total premiums paid by all participating Members in the Agency. To achieve such purpose, each Member agrees to and shall indemnify and hold harmless the other Members of the Agency for any liability, loss, cost, or expense that may be imposed upon such other Member in excess of the other members' pro rata liability pursuant to Civil Code Section 2778, which is incorporated by reference and made a part of these Bylaws. 2. The independent tort liability of the Agency, representatives of the Board of Directors and Executive Committee, and any officers, employees, or agents of the Agency shall be controlled and governed by the provisions of Division 3.6 of Title I of the Government Code of the State of California. ARTICLE XIV – AMENDMENT Amendments to these Bylaws may be proposed by any Member in writing and made the 1. subject of consideration as an Agenda item by the Board of Directors at its next regularly scheduled meeting (unless a Special Meeting is required). All amendments must be approved by two thirds (2/3) of the Board of Directors before 2. the amendment shall become effective. £ . . 5 2 . 2 100 0.0 * 2 MINUTES WESTERN ORANGE COUNTY SELF-FUNDED WORKERS' COMPENSATION AGENCY BOARD MEETING MONDAY, JUNE 3, 2015, 9:00 a.m. Orange County Department of Education 200 Kalmus Dr., Esplanade 5-108B Costa Mesa, CA 92626 I. CALL TO ORDER Action 14/15 - 229 The meeting was called to order by President Ott at 9:04 a.m. II. ROLL CALL Action 14/15 - 230 PRESENT: Brea Olinda Unified School District Ms. Barbara Ott Laguna Beach Unified School District Ms. Leisa Winston Ocean View School District Mr. Felix Avila Orange County Department of Education Ms. Ann Kantor Manager: York Risk Services Group Ms. Angela Hatley Ms. Kim Michels Ms. Suzie Carmona Ms. Erika Schwartz Ms. Jessica Blushi Ms. Chris Retama APPROVAL OF AGENDA - June 3, 2015 III. Action 14/15 - 231 A motion was made by Ann Kantor, seconded by Leisa Winston, and cartied by a 4-0-0 vote to approve the agenda, moving item 14/15-235 to follow item 14/15-232. AYES: Ms. Ott, Mr. Avila, Ms. Kantor, Ms. Winston NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None APPROVAL OF MINUTÉS - April 20, 2015 IV. Action 14/15 - 232 A motion was made by Ann Kantor, seconded by Felix Avila, and carried by a 4-0-0 vote to approve the Minutes of April 20, 2015. AYES: Ms. Ott, Mr. Avila, Ms. Kantor, Ms. Winston NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None VI. JPA ADMINISTRATION APPROVE EXCESS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COVERAGE Action 14/15 - 235 FOR 2015/16 John Chino of Arthur J. Gallagher presented options for 2015/16 coverage, including buy-down and pool retention options, noting that a more competitive market has resulted in lower rate offerings. Arch offered coverage at a rate of .1354 per $100 of payroll, the lowest offer in the JPA's history, resulting in a premium reduction of approximately $20,000. Mr. Chino also noted that the escalation exclusion in the proposal is not correct (Arch has no such exclusion), and he would send a corrected proposal. A motion was made by Ann Kantor, seconded by Leisa Winston, and carried by a 4-0-0 vote to accept the Arch proposal at .1354 per $100 of payroll. AYES: Ms. Ott, Mr. Avila, Ms. Kantor, Ms. Winston NOES: None None ABSENT: ABSTAIN: None V. CLOSED SESSION - CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION Action 14/15 - 233 The Board convened in closed session at 9:37 to discuss the following claims: Settlement Ratifications Claim Number Claimant District WOCA-006745 Elizabeth Sellers HBCSD WOCA-006984 OCDE Ramona Vosburg Settlement Authority Requests Claim Number Claimant District WOCX-008432 Evangeline Navarro BOUSD WOCX-008271 Kimberly Leeds LBUSD WOCX-008325 Regina Wood OCDE A motion was made by Ann Kantor, seconded by Felix Avila, and carried by a 4-0-0 vote to ratify/approve settlement of the claims listed in the agenda. AYES: Ms. Ott, Mr. Avila, Ms. Kantor, Ms. Winston NOES: Nône ABSENT: None' ABSTAIN: None The Board convened in open session at 9:42 a.m. VI. JPA ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL MANAGED CARE: SUITE OF REPORTING Information 14/15 - 234 York presented and discussed the Managed Care Suite of Reporting covering March and April 2015 activities A question was raised regarding utilization review for prescriptions; Kim Michels of York responded that it is only used for new prescriptions. There were no further questions. MEDICAL PROVIDER NETWORK (MPN) IMPLEMENTATION Action 14/15 - 236 This item was deferred to the next meeting. BICKMORE SERVICES Action 14/15 - 237 This item was deferred to the next meeting. INVESTMENT POLICY (SECOND READING) Action 14/15 - 238 A motion was made by Ann Kantor, seconded by Leisa Winston, and carried by a 4-0-0 vote to approve the second reading of the Investment Policy. AYES: Ms. Ott, Mr. Avila, Ms. Kantor, Ms. Winston NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None DATE AND TIME OF JPA MEETINGS Action 14/15 - 239 After discussion, it was decided the previously scheduled June and July meetings would not be necessary. The next meeting will be held on August 17th, which Laguna Beach Unified School District offered to host, with lunch preceding the meeting at a location to be determined. ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 2015/16 Action 14/15 - 240 The current officers are Barbara Ott, President, Leisa Winston, Vice President, and Ann Kantor, Secretary/Treasurer. After a brief discussion, it was recommended to leave the current officers in place for 2015/16. A motion was made by Ann Kantot, seconded by Felix Avila, and carried by a 4-0-0 vote to continue with Barbara Ott, President Leisa Winston, Vice President, and Ann Kantor, Secretary/Treasurer for 2015/16. AYES: Ms. Ott, Mr. Avila, Ms. Kantor, Ms. Winston NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Nonè ESTABLISH MEETING SCHEDULE FOR 2015/16 Action 14/15 – 241 After discussion, it was decided Monday afternoons at 1:00 p.m. would be a more convenient time for members. Ann Kantor will schedule new meeting dates and forward to staff. DESIGNATE OFFICIAL ADDRESS AND CORRESPONDENCE Action 14/15 – 242 ADDRESS FOR 2015/16 A motion was made by Leisa Winston, seconded by Felix Avila, and carried by a 4-0-0 vote to designate Orange County Department of Education, 200 Kalmus Dr., Costa Mesa, CA 92626 as WOC JPA's address for 2015/16. AYES: Ms. Ott, Mr. Avila, Ms. Kantor, Ms. Winston NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None AUTHORIZE WARRANT SIGNATURES FOR 2015/16 Information 14/15 - 243 It was determined that no vote was required to authorize warrant signatures. DESIGNATE MEDICARE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE Information 14/15 - 244 FOR 2015/16 It was reported that Ann Kantor will continue as the authorized representative. QUARTERLY SELF-IMPOSED INCREASE REPORT Information 14/15 - 245 Kim Michels, from York, reported that there were no self-imposed increases during the quarter. SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP Action 14/15 - 246 FOR CLAIMS AND JPA ADMINISTRATION FOR 2015/16 York representatives stepped out while the Board discussed the contract renewal. Members were provided with a draft of changes to the contract proposal, including multi-year pricing. Requests were made for tiered pricing according to who was working on the file, a reduction in the bill review cap, and an addition of a $65,000 utilization review cap. This item will be added to the next agenda for additional discussion. VII. FINANCIAL FINANCIAL REPORTS Action 14/15 – 247 Ann Kantor reported excess recoveries of $16,530 for a year-to-date total of $152,000. Reimbursement was received from the excess carrier to account for actual payroll being lower than what was estimated at the policy's inception. The ending bank balance for April was $18 million. A motion was made by Felix Avila, seconded by Leisa Winston, and carried by a 4-0-0 vote to approve the Financial Report. AYES: Ms. Ott, Mr. Avila, Ms. Kantor, Ms. Winston NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None REIMBURSEMENTS TO JPA IMPREST ACCOUNT Action 14/15 – 248 Reimbursement requests to the JPA Imprest account were corrected to reflect a total of $422,445.19. Payments of $110.935.23 were made during the period of May 8 – 31, 2015. April 1, 2015 - April 16, 2015 $117,746.35 April 17, 2015 – April 30, 2015 $165,114.30 May 1, 2015 – May 7, 2015 $ 28,649.31 May 8, 2015 – May 31, 2015 $110,935.23 Total: $422,445.19 A motion was made by Ann Kantor, seconded by Leisa Winston, and carried by a 4-0-0 vote to ratify the adjusted reimbursements to the JPA Imprest account for April and May 2015. AYES: Ms. Ott, Mr. Avila, Ms. Kantor, Ms. Winston NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None BANK RECONCILLIATION Action 14/15 - 249 No errors were reported in the March or April bank statement reconciliation. A motion was made by Ann Kantor, seconded by Felix Avila, and carried by a 4-0-0 vote to accept the March and April 2015 bank reconciliations. AYES: Ms. Ott, Mr. Avila, Ms. Kantor, Ms. Winston NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None APPROVAL OF PAYMENTS Action 14/15 - 250 One approval for payment was submitted for the 2014/15 annual fee for staff services in the amount of $21,000. A motion was made by Leisa Winston, seconded by Ann Kantor, and carried by a 4-0-0 vote to approve the payment. AYES: Ms. Ott, Mr. Avila, Ms. Kantor, Ms. Winston, NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None APPROVE FINAL BUDGET FOR 2015 16 Action 14/15 - 251 The budget was presented by the Treasurer prior to knowledge of a decrease in premium. An adjusted, final budget will be presented at the August meeting. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORTS Information 14/15 - 252 It was noted that WOC JPA's investments are currently earning .01%, and investments with higher returns should be considered. VIII. REIMBURSEMENT PROGRAMS SAFETY CREDIT PROGRAM Action 14/15 – 253 Expenses were submitted by Ocean View School District in the amount of $25,271 and Brea Olinda School District in the amount of 6,772.56 for costs associated with loss control. A motion was made by Ann Kantor, seconded by Leisa Winston, and carried by a 4-0-0 vote to approve the safety credit reimbursements. AYES: Ms. Ott, Mr. Avila, Ms. Kantor, Ms. Winston NOES: None None ABSENT: ABSTAIN: None FIRST AID PROGRAM Action 14/15 - 254 Requests for reimbursement for first aid claims were submitted by Brea Olinda School District in the amount of $2,893.90 and the Orange County Department of Education in the amount of $192.63. A motion was made by Ann Kantor, seconded by Felix Avila, and carried by a 4-0-0 vote to approve the requests for reimbursement for first aid claims. AYES: Ms. Ott, Mr. Avila, Ms. Kantor, Ms. Winston NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None IX. INFORMATION REPORTS VISITOR COMMENTS Information 14/15 - 255 There were no visitor comments. BOARD COMMENTS Information 14/15 - 256 There were no Board comments. AUTHORITY CORRESPONDENCE Information 14/15 – 257 There was no Authority correspondence. CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR/MANAGER COMMENTS Information 14/15 - 258 Kim Michels of York reported that claims administrator caseloads as of April 30, 2015 were 149 for Suzie Carmona, and 130 for Erika Schwartz. Suzie Carmona closed 2 claims in April, and Erika Schwartz closed 4. May, June and July numbers will be reported at the August meeting. X. CONFERENCES REQUESTS FOR CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE Information 14/15 - 259 There were no requests for conference attendance, however, representatives from Ocean View and Laguna Beach-Unified School Districts and the Orange County Department of Education plan on attending the California Association of Joint Powers Authorities (CAJPA) conference in the Fall. XI. OTHER BOARD DISCUSSION Information 14/15 - 260 Jessica Blushi from York encourage that CAJPA conference attendees provide feedback on the speakers so that she may relay their feedback to CAJPA's Conference Committee. FOLLOW-UP FROM PREVIOUS MEETING XII. Information 14/15 - 261 There was no follow-up from the previous meeting. AGENDA ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING Information 14/15 - 262 XIII. Agenda items for the August meeting will include the Quarterly Self Imposed Increase Report and the Quarterly Investment Report. XIV. CLOSED SESSION – CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION CLAIMS OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT Information 14/15 - 263 All claims were reviewed, and direction was given to staff. EXCESS INSURANCE CLAIMS REPORTING/SELF EXCESS Information 14/15 - 264 CLAIMS REPORT All claims on the excess report were reviewed, and direction was given to staff. LARGE LOSS FILE REVIEW REGARDING BREA OLINDA Information 14/15 - 265 AND LAGUNA BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND THE ORANGE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION All claims were reviewed, and direction was given to staff. XV. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Ann Kantor, seconded by Felix Avila, and carried by a 4-0-0 vote to adjourn the meeting at 11:46 and to reconvene in August 2015. AYES: Ms. Ott, Mr. Avila, Ms. Kantor, Ms. Winston NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Respectfully Submitted, Chris Retama . . . MINUTES Member Training Session 8:30am to 9:00am MEDICAL PROVIDER NETWORK (MPN) By Devora Brainard, Vice President, Services and Development WellComp/York Risk Services Group WESTERN ORANGE COUNTY SELF-FUNDED WORKERS' COMPENSATION AGENCY BOARD MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 20, 2015 9:00 a.m. Orange County Department of Education 200 Kalmus Dr., Room D-1003 I. CALL TO ORDER Action 14/15-198 The meeting was called to order by President Barbara Ott at 9:03 a.m. Ms. Hatley reported to the Board that Laguna Beach Unified School District will arrive late. II. ROLL CALL Action 14/15-199 PRESENT: BREA OLINDA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Ms. Barbara Ott OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT Mr. Felix Avila ORANGE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Ms. Ann Kantor Manager: York Risk Services Group Ms. Angela Hatley Ms. Devora Brainard (arrived at 9:32) Ms. Kim Michels Ms. Suzie Carmona NOT PRESENT Laguna Beach Unified School District III. APPROVAL / CHANGES TO AGENDA – April 20, 2015 Action 14/15-200 The Room location for the meeting should be Room A-1010/11 and not Room D-1003. WESTERN ORANGE COUNTY SELF-FUNDED WORKERS' COMPENSATION AGENCY MINUTES - April 20, 2015 There were two Requests for Settlement Authority added to item 14/15-202; WOCT-007837 and WOCX-008511. Items 14/15-203 and 209 were moved after item 14/15-227, Large Loss File Review Regarding Ocean View School District. Item 14/15-224, Agenda Items for Next Meeting, item Solicit Financial Audit Bid should be removed as the JPA entered in to a three year contract beginning FY 2013-14. With those changes a motion was made by Ms. Kantor, seconded by Mr. Avila, to approve the Agenda for April 20, 2015. The motion was approved by a 3-0-1 vote. AYES: Ms. Ott, Mr. Avila, Ms. Kantor NOES: None ABSENT: Laguna Beach Unified School District ABSTAIN: IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - March 16, 2015 Action 14-15-201 Item 14/15-187, Board Comments, should state, "Ms. Ott discussed the Volunteer Policy," and not the "Bond Policy." With that change a motion was made by Ms. Kantor, seconded by Mr. Avila, to approve the minutes of March 16, 2015. The motion was approved by a 3-0-1 vote: Ms. Ott, Mr. Avila, Ms. Kantor AYES: NOES: None ABSENT: Laguna Beach Unified School District ABSTAIN: V. CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION Closed Session The Board adjourned to Closed Session at 9:06a.m. Ms. Carmona presented the following claims: CLAIMS Information/Action 14/15-202 WESTERN ORANGE COUNTY SELF-FUNDED WORKERS' COMPENSATION AGENCY MINUTES – April 20, 2015 Settlement Ratifications Claim Number Claimant District WOCU-008000 Bobette Hagedorn Brea-Olinda Unified School District WOCU-007941 Yolanda Quinones Brea-Olinda Unified School District WOCT-007837 Jennifer Spehar Huntington Beach City School District WOCX-008463 Jennifer Gamal Ocean View School District WOCX-008511 Debra Lew Ocean View School District WOCX-008575 Maria Atteberry Orange County Department of Education WOCW-008404 Arthur Fordin Orange County Department of Education WOCT-007842 Christine Sanderson Orange County Department of Education WOCU-007901 Traci Torres Orange County Department of Education Settlement Authority Requests Claimant District WOCX-008434 Christie Hopkins Brea-Olinda Unified School District WOCX-008432 Evangeline Navarro Brea Olinda Unified School District WOCX-008572 Amy Foreman Ocean View School District WOCX-008511 Debra Kew Ocean View School District A motion was made by Mr. Avila, seconded by Ms. Kantor, to approve/ratify settlement of the claims listed in the agenda. The motion was approved by a 3-0-1 vote: AYES: Ms. Ott, Mr. Avila, Ms. Kantor NOES: None ABSENT: Laguna Beach Unified School District ABSTAIN: None The Board returned to Open Session at 9:26a.m. Ms. Ott reported that during Closed Session, action was taken on the claims referenced in the agenda. VI. JPA ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL MANAGED CARE: SUITE OF REPORTING Information 14/15-205 York presented and discussed the Managed Care Suite of Reporting covering February 2015 activities, including Table of Contents, Program Overviews, Bill Review Fees by Claim File, Review Fee Breakdown by Bill, Utilization Review Savings Report, New Pricing Structure comparison, Pay Code Register, and Zero Pay with Fees. Certain documents contain confidential information and the members are to safeguard the contents. Ms. Kantor had several claims where clarification is needed. Ms. Brainard will present the reports for the 2014 calendar year summary and also to provide follow up information regarding the PBM first fill cards when she arrives at the meeting. This was an information item. WESTERN ORANGE COUNTY SELF-FUNDED WORKERS' COMPENSATION AGENCY MINUTES – April 20, 2015 DISCUSSION / ACTION REGARDING MEDICAL PROVIDER NETWORK (MPN) IMPLEMENTATION Information/Action 14/15-206 Ms. Hatley advised the MPN has been approved. Ms. Hatley distributed some MPN pamphlets as well as the information for the MPN training. The Board discussed a possible date for implementation. This was an information item. DISCUSSION / ACTION REGARDING BICKMORE SERVICES Information/Action 14/15-206 Ms. Hatley discussed the Return To Work Program. Ms. Hatley is awaiting receipt of the first draft to review with Ms. Bals of Bickmore Risk Services. Ms. Hatley will email the Board with the draft for editing and will then send it to Bickmore Risk Services. This was an information item. DISCUSSION / ACTION RE INVESTMENT POLICY (FIRST READING) Information/Action 14/15-207 Ms. Ott presented and discussed the proposed Investment Policy. Following discussion motion made by Ms. Kantor, seconded by Mr. Avila to carry this item to the next meeting for the required Second Reading and possible adoption as submitted. The motion was approved by a 3-0-1 vote: AYES: Ms. Ott, Mr. Avila, Ms. Kantor NOES: None ABSENT: Laguna Beach Unified School District ABSTAIN: None DISCUSSION/ACTION RE DATE AND TIME OF JPA MEETING Information/Action 14/15-208 This item was carried to the next meeting. QUARTERLY STALE DATED CHECKS REPORT Information 14/15-210 Ms. Michels discussed the report which was based on the reconciliation dated April 20, 2015. Ms. Ott inquired if the Payees have been contacted. Ms. Michels advised they have been contact via U.S. mail. This was an information item. VII. FINANCIAL FINANCIAL REPORTS Information/Action 14/15-211 WESTERN ORANGE COUNTY SELF-FUNDED WORKERS' COMPENSATION AGENCY MINUTES – April 20, 2015 The Board discussed the reports covering February 2015. Ms. Kantor reported Excess Recoveries are $134,000.00. Motion was made by Mr. Avila, seconded by Ms. Kantor, to accept the Financial Reports, as presented. The motion was approved by a 3-0-1 vote: AYES: Ms. Ott, Mr. Avila Ms. Kantor NOES: None ABSENT: Laguna Beach Unified School District ABSTAIN: None REIMBURSEMENTS TO JPA IMPREST ACCOUNT Information/Action 14/15-212 A motion was made by Ms. Kantor, seconded by Mr. Avila, to approve the following Reimbursements to JPA Imprest Account for March 2015: The motion was approved by a 3-0-1 vote: AYES: Ms. Ott, Mr. Avila, Ms. Kantor NOES: None ABSENT: Laguna Beach Unified School District ABSTAIN: None March 1, 2015 - March 17, 2015 $ 94,690.45 March 18, 2015 - March 31, 2015 $ 78,440.27 Total: $173,130.72 BANK RECONCILIATION Information/Action 14/15-213 A motion was made by Mr. Avila, seconded by Ms. Kantor, to accept the Bank Reconciliation for February 2015. The motion was approved by a 3-0-1 vote: AYES: Ms. Ott, Mr. Avila, Ms. Kantor NOES: None ABSENT: Laguna Beach Unified School District ABSTAIN: None APPROVAL OF PAYMENTS Information/Action 14/15-214 Ms. Kantor discussed the Approval of Payments dated April 20, 2015. A motion was made by Ms. Kantor, seconded by Mr. Avila, to approve/ratify payment of invoices itemized below. The motion was approved by a 3-0-1 vote: AYES: Ms. Ott, Mr. Avila, Ms. Kantor NOES: None ABSENT: Laguna Beach Unified School District ABSTAIN: None WESTERN ORANGE COUNTY SELF-FUNDED WORKERS' COMPENSATION AGENCY MINUTES – April 20, 2015 Mileage expenses to attend 2015 PARMA Joie Phillips Conference. Disneyland Hotel, Anaheim $ 51.75 Ocean View School Membership Dues and PARMA Conference District Registration for Joie Phillips 600.00 Ocean View School PARMA Conference Registration for Cindy District Pulfer 420.00 Workers' Compensation Claims York Risk Services Administration Fee 3/1/15 - 5/31/15 52,685.50 Workers' compensation JPA Administration York Risk Services Fee 3/1/15 - 5/31/15 1,600.00 Total $55,357.25 VIII. REIMBURSEMENT PROGRAMS SAFETY CREDIT PROGRAM Information/Action 14/15-215 Ms. Kantor presented a Safety Credits Usage Report as of April 17, 2015, for FY ending June 30, 2015. The following Safety Credit request for reimbursement was presented: Orange County Department of Education April 13, 2015 $7,350.81 A motion was made by Ms. Kantor, seconded by Mr. Avila, to approve the safety credits, as presented. The motion was approved by a 3-0-1 vote: AYES: Ms. Ott, Mr. Avila, Ms. Kantor NOES: None ABSENT: Laguna Beach Unified School District ABSTAIN: None FIRST AID PROGRAM Information/Action 14/15-216 The following First Aid request for reimbursement was presented: Brea Olinda Unified School District April 16, 2015 $322.20 A motion was made by Ms. Kantor, seconded by Mr. Avila, to approve the First Aid Claim request for reimbursement, as presented. The motion was approved by a 3-0-1 vote. AYES: Ms. Ott, Mr. Avila, Ms. Kantor NOES: None Laguna Beach Unified School District ABSENT: ABSTAIN: None WESTERN ORANGE COUNTY SELF-FUNDED WORKERS' COMPENSATION AGENCY MINUTES – April 20, 2015 IX. INFORMATION REPORTS VISITOR COMMENTS Information 14/15-217 There were no Visitor Comments. BOARD COMMENTS Information 14/15-218 There were no Board Comments. AUTHORITY CORRESPONDENCE Information 14/15-219 1. Letter from, Ms. Elea Sanchez, MPN Program, Medical Unit, State of California, Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Workers' Compensation, Medical Unit, dated March 20, 2015, regarding Approval of the Medical Provider Network, (MPN). This was an information item. CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR / MANAGER COMMENTS Information 14/15-220 The Board reviewed York's Case Counts for March 2015. York discussed it's Perspectives for March 2015. Ms. Hatley discussed the SIU results. Ms. Hatley advised OSIP will be in the Upland office next week conducting reserving training. Ms. Sandra Sloan is the presenter. This was an information item. X. CONFERENCES REQUESTS FOR CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE Information/Action 14/15-221 There were no items presented for the Board's consideration. Ms. Hatley advised the Annual PARMA Conference will be February 23 - 26, 2016, in Indian Wells, CA. The Annual CAJPA Conference will be September 15 – 18, 2015, in South Lake Tahoe, CA. XI. OTHER BOARD DISCUSSION Information 14/15-222 There was no other Board discussion XII. FOLLOW-UP FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Information/Action 14/15-223 There were no directives from the March 16, 2015 meeting. No action was taken. WESTERN ORANGE COUNTY SELF-FUNDED WORKERS' COMPENSATION AGENCY MINUTES – April 20, 2015 XIII. AGENDA ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING – May 18, 2015 Information 14/15-224 The next meeting will be held on Monday, May 18, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. at Orange County Department of Education, 200 Kalmus Drive, A-1010/11, Costa Mesa, California. Items to be included on the Agenda for discussion and possible action are: Carried from this meeting: A. MPN Implementation B. Bickmore Services C. Investment Policy D. Date and Time of JPA Meetings E. Request for Proposal for or Quote for Claims Administration, Managed Care, and JPA Administration. F. Service Agreement with York Risk Services Group Regarding Claims and JPA Administrations. Per JPA Timeline for April 2015: 1. Prepare Preliminary Budget. (Secy-Treas) 2. Quarterly Self-Imposed Increase Report. (York) 3. Quarterly Investment Report. (President) 4. Designated Medicare Authorized Representative. (Board) XIV. CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION Closed Session (2 of 2) The Board reconvened Closed Session. Ms. Carmona presented and discussed the open indemnity claims for former member Huntington Beach City School District. Ms. Kantor directed York to obtain the Curriculum Vitae of Attorney Tappin. This was an information item. CLAIMS OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT Information 14/15-225 EXCESS INSURANCE CLAIMS REPORTING/ SELF EXCESS CLAIMS REPORT Information 14/15-226 The Board reviewed the monthly excess matrix report. The Board directed York to include an item showing the outstanding amount reported to the report. This was an information item. WESTERN ORANGE COUNTY SELF-FUNDED WORKERS' COMPENSATION AGENCY MINUTES - April 20, 2015 LARGE LOSS FILE REVIEW REGARDING BREA-OLINDA AND LAGUNA BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICTS. Information 14/15-227 Ms. Carmona discussed the large loss file review. The Board returned to Open Session at 10:57 a.m. The Board did not take action on these information items. DISCUSSION / ACTION REGARDING REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) OR REQUEST FOR QUOTE (RFQ) FOR CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION, MANAGED CARE AND JPA ADMINISTRATION Information/Action 14/15-203 The Board dismissed York for further discussion and then requested this item be carried to the next meeting. REVIEW / RENEW SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH YORK INSURANCE SERVICES GROUP RE CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION AND JPA ADMINISTRATION Information/Action 14/15-209 The Board dismissed York for further discussion and then requested this item be carried to the next meeting. XV. ADJOURNMENT Action 14/15-228 There being no further business to discuss, a motion was made by Ms. Kantor, seconded by Mr. Avila, to adjourn the meeting at 11:55a.m. The motion passed with a 3-0-1 vote. AYES: Ms. Ott, Mr. Avila, Ms. Kantor NOES: None ABSENT: Laguna Beach Unified School District ABSTAIN: None e MINUTES WESTERN ORANGE COUNTY SELF-FUNDED WORKERS' COMPENSATION AGENCY BOARD MEETING MONDAY, MARCH 16, 2015 9:00 a.m. Orange County Department of Education 200 Kalmus Dr., Room A-1010/11 I. CALL TO ORDER Action 14/15-169 The meeting was called to order by President Barbara Ott at 9:05 a.m. II. ROLL CALL Action 14/15-170 PRESENT: BREA OLINDA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Ms. Barbara Ott LAGUNA BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Ms. Leisa Winston OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT Mr. Felix Avila ORANGE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Ms. Ann Kantor Manager: York Risk Services Group Ms. Jody Gray Ms. Angela Hatley Ms. Kim Michels Ms. Suzie Carmona III. APPROVAL / CHANGES TO AGENDA - March 16, 2015 Action 14/15-171 The Room location for the meeting should be Room A-1010/11 and not Room D-1003. With that change a motion was made by Ms. Kantor, seconded by Mr. Avila, to approve the Agenda for March 16, 2015. The motion was approved by a 4-0-0 vote. AYES: Ms. Ott, Ms. Winston, Mr. Avila, Ms. Kantor NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - January 26, 2015 Action 14-15-172 The first page, under the title, it should be corrected to January and not Januar. _^^- WESTERN ORANGE COUNTY SELF-FUNDED WORKERS' COMPENSATION AGENCY MINUTES - March 16, 2015 With that change a motion was made by Ms. Kantor, seconded by Ms. Winston, to approve the minutes of January 26, 2015. The motion was approved by a 4-0-0 vote: AYES: Ms. Ott. Ms. Winston, Mr. Avila, Ms. Kantor NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None V. CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION Closed Session The Board adjourned to Closed Session at 9:06a.m. Ms. Carmona presented the following claims: CLAIMS Information/Action 14/15-173 Settlement Ratifications Claim Number Claimant District WOCA-006893 Monica Johannsen Orange County Department of Education WOCY-008642 Orange County Department of Education Valarie Patterson Settlement Authority Requests Claim Number Claimant District WOCW-008469 Pamela Cramer Ocean View School District WOXC-008575 Marla Atteberry Orange County Department of Education WOCX-008372 Rose Cote Orange County Department of Education WOCX-008532 Julie Neiswonger Orange County Department of Education WOCY-008642 Valarie Patterson Orange County Department of Education WOCA-007227 Virginia Taylor Orange County Department of Education Ms. Kantor advised to correct in the agenda package. A motion was made by Ms. Kantor, seconded by Mr. Avila, to approve/ratify settlement of the claims listed in the agenda. The motion was approved by a 4-0-0 vote; AYES: Ms. Ott, Ms. Winston, Mr. Avila, Ms. Kantor NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The Board returned to Open Session at 9:16 a.m. Ms. Ott reported that during Closed Session, action was taken on the claims referenced in the agenda. WESTERN ORANGE COUNTY SELF-FUNDED WORKERS' COMPENSATION AGENCY MINUTES - March 16, 2015 VI. JPA ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL MANAGED CARE: SUITE OF REPORTING Information 14/15-174 York presented and discussed the Managed Care Suite of Reporting covering December 2014 and January 2015 activities, including Table of Contents, Program Overviews, Bill Review Fees by Claim File, Review Fee Breakdown by Bill. Utilization Review Savings Report, New Pricing Structure comparison, Pay Code Register, and Zero Pay with Fees Certain documents contain confidential information and the members are to safeguard the contents. Ms. Hatley advised Ms. Brainard was not able to attend the meeting and will present the reports for the 2014 calendar year summary and also to provide follow up information regarding the PBM first fill cards at the next meeting. This was an information item. DISCUSSION / ACTION REGARDING MEDICAL PROVIDER NETWORK (MPN) IMPLEMENTATION Information/Action 14/15-175 Ms. Hatley advised the MPN has been submitted for approval. This was an information item. DISCUSSION / ACTION REGARDING BICKMORE SERVICES Information/Action 14/15-176 This item was carried to the next meeting. DISCUSSION / ACTION ON ACTUARIAL STUDY WITH EXPERIENCE MODIFICATIONS (EX-MODS) FOR 2015-16 Information/Action 14/15-177 A motion was made by Ms. Kantor, seconded by Ms. Winston, to receive the Actuarial Study as discussed. The motion was approved by a 4-0-0 vote: AYES: Ms. Ott, Ms. Winston, Mr. Avila, Ms. Kantor NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The Board discussed the procedure for establishing funding rates and premiums for the next fiscal year. Ms. Kantor presented X-Mods with a Five-Year History. Following discussion, a motion was made by Ms. Kantor, seconded by Ms. Winston, to adopt Plan 5 WESTERN ORANGE COUNTY SELF-FUNDED WORKERS' COMPENSATION AGENCY MINUTES - March 16, 2015 which is a 70-80% split, with a manual rate of $1.890 per $100 of payroll, and a 3% contribution to safety credits. The motion was approved by a 4-0-0 vote: AYES: Ms. Ott, Ms. Winston. Mr. Avila, Ms. Kantor NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None QUARTERLY SELF-IMPOSED INCREASES REPORT Information 14/15-178 Ms. Michels advised there were no self-imposed increases to report. This was an information item. VII. FINANCIAL FINANCIAL REPORTS Information/Action 14/15-179 The Board discussed the reports covering December 2014 and January 2015 Ms. Kantor reported a change for the December 2014, line 0004, Excess Recoveries, should state $24,716 instead of $228,569. With that change a motion was made by Ms. Kantor, seconded by Mr. Avila, to accept the Financial Reports, as presented. The motion was approved by a 4-0-0 vote: AYES: Ms. Ott, Ms. Winston, Mr. Avila Ms. Kantor NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None REIMBURSEMENTS TO JPA IMPREST ACCOUNT Information/Action 14/15-180 A motion was made by Ms. Kantor, seconded by Mr. Avila, to approve the following Reimbursements to JPA Imprest Account for January and February 2015. The motion was approved by a 4-0-0 vote: AYES: Ms. Ott, Ms. Winston, Mr. Avila, Ms. Kantor NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None January 1, 2015 - January 16, 2015 $110,582.82 January 17, 2015 - January 31, 2015 $ 44,872.09 February 1, 2015 - February 12, 2015 $157,038.13 February 13, 2015 - February 28, 2015 $ 59,767.58 Total: $372,260.62 WESTERN ORANGE COUNTY SELF-FUNDED WORKERS' COMPENSATION AGENCY MINUTES - March 16, 2015 BANK RECONCILIATION Information/Action 14/15-181 A motion was made by Ms. Kantor, seconded by Ms. Winston, to accept the Bank Reconciliation for December 2014 and January 2015. The motion was approved by a 4-0-0 vote: AYES: Ms. Ott, Ms. Winston, Ms. Kantor NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None APPROVAL OF PAYMENTS Information/Action 14/15-182 Ms. Kantor presented and discussed the Approval of Payments dated March 16, 2015. A motion was made by Ms. Kantor, seconded by Ms. Winston, to approve/ratify payment of invoices itemized below. The motion was approved by a 4-0-0 vote: AYES: Ms. Ott, Ms. Winston, Mr. Avila, Ms. Kantor NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Registration and mileage expenses for attending 2015 Barbara Ott PARMA Conference. $312.65 Total $312.65 QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT Information 14/15-183 Ms. Ott presented and discussed the Quarterly Investment Report. VIII. REIMBURSEMENT PROGRAMS SAFETY CREDIT PROGRAM Information/Action 14/15-134 Ms. Kantor presented a Safety Credits Usage Report as of January 27, 2015, for FY ending June 30, 2015. The following Safety Credit request for reimbursement was presented: Brea Olinda Unified School District March 12, 2015 $1,465.58 Laguna Beach Unified School District January 30, 2015 $14,369.00 Orange County Department of Education March 11, 2015 $1,134.37 A motion was made by Ms. Kantor, seconded by Ms. Winston, to approve the safety credits, as presented. The motion was approved by a 4-0-0 vote: WESTERN ORANGE COUNTY SELF-FUNDED WORKERS' COMPENSATION AGENCY MINUTES - March 16, 2015 AYES: Ms. Ott, Ms. Winston, Mr. Avila, Ms. Kantor NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None FIRST AID PROGRAM Information/Action 14/15-135 There were no requests for the Board's consideration. IX. INFORMATION REPORTS VISITOR COMMENTS Information 14/15-186 Why broad There were no Visitor Comments. BOARD COMMENTS Information 14/15-187 Ms. Ott requested clarification regarding PARMA membership Ms. Kantor advised it is based on individual membership and not as 4 JPA. Ms. Kantor suggested the Board go out for bid regarding the Claims and JPA Administration. She will prepare a Request for Proposal, (RFP). Ms. Ott discussed the Board Policy, if an unsalaried person is injured, are they covered under the workers' compensation policy? Ms. Hatley advised under the Education Code it would go under the workers' compensation policy. Ms. Winston and Ms. Kantor advised they will share the policy they have in place for their respective Department and District. Ms. Ott advised she will prepare an investment policy and include it as an agenda item for the next meet. AUTHORITY CORRESPONDENCE Information 14/15-188 There were no items for the Board's consideration. CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR / MANAGER COMMENTS Information 14/15-189 The Board reviewed York's Case Counts for January and February 2015. York discussed it's Perspectives for January and February 2015. RJN Special Investigations Quarterly Newsletter and the Overpayment log for March 2015. This was an information item. X. CONFERENCES WESTERN ORANGE COUNTY SELF-FUNDED WORKERS: COMPENSATION AGENCY MINUTES - March 16, 2015 REQUESTS FOR CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE Information/Action 14/15-190 There were no items presented for the Board's consideration. Ms. Hatley discussed several area Chapter meetings the Board is invited to attend at no cost to them. XI. OTHER BOARD DISCUSSION Information 14/15-191 There was no other Board discussion XII. FOLLOW-UP FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Information/Action 14/15-192 There were no directives from the January 26, 2014 meeting. No action was taken. XIII. AGENDA ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING - April 20, 2015 Information 14/15-193 The next meeting will be held on Monday, April 20, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. at Orange County Department of Education, 200 Kalmus Drive, Room D-1003, Costa Mesa, California. Items to be included on the Agenda for discussion and possible action are: Carried from this meeting: 1. Discussion/Action re Medical Provider Network (MPN) Implementation. (Board) 2. Discussion/Action Regarding Bickmore Services. (York/Board) 3. Discussion/Action Regarding Request for Proposal (RFP), for Claims and JPA Administration. (Board) 4. Investment Policy, First Reading. (Board) Per JPA Timeline for April 2015: 1 Quarterly Stale Dated Checks Report. (York) 2. Discussion / Action for Service Agreement with York Risk Services Group regarding JPA Administration. (York) XIV. CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION Closed Session (2 of 2) The Board reconvened Closed Session. Ms. Carmona presented and discussed the open indemnity claims for former member Huntington Beach City School District. This was an information item. WESTERN ORANGE COUNTY SELF-FUNDED WORKERS' COMPENSATION AGENCY MINUTES - March 16, 2015 CLAIMS OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT Information 14/15-194 EXCESS INSURANCE CLAIMS REPORTING/ SELF EXCESS CLAIMS REPORT Information 14/15-195 The Board reviewed the monthly excess matrix report. Ms. Michels presented and discussed the claims regarding claim numbers WOCA-001394 and WOCA-006745. The Board discussed retaining Counsel regarding the claims. Ms. Michels advised she will have Counsel review and advise what the estimated cost will be to litigate. This was an information item. LARGE LOSS FILE REVIEW REGARDING BREA-OLINDA AND LAGUNA BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICTS. Information 14/15-196 Ms. Carmona discussed the large loss file review. The Board returned to Open Session at 10:54 a.m. The Board did not take action on these information items. XV. ADJOURNMENT Action 14/15-197 There being no further business to discuss, a motion was made by Ms. Kantor, seconded by Mr. Avila, to adjourn the meeting at 10:58 a.m. The motion passed with a 4-0-0 vote. AYES: Ms. Ott. Ms. Winston, Mr. Avila, Ms. Kantor NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None * . 0 70 AGENDA WESTERN ORANGE COUNTY SELF-FUNDED WORKERS' COMPENSATION AGENCY BOARD MEETING MONDAY, JANUAR 26, 2015 9:00 a.m. Orange County Department of Education 200 Kalmus Dr., Room A-1010/11 CALL TO ORDER Action 14/15-142 I. The meeting was called to order by President Barbara Ott at 9:09 a.m. II. ROLL CALL Action 14/15-143 PRESENT: BREA OLINDA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Ms. Barbara Ott LAGUNA BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Ms. Leisa Winston ORANGE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Ms. Ann Kantor Manager: York Risk Services Group Ms. Angela Hatley Ms. Devora Brainard Ms. Kim Michels Ms. Erika Schwartz NOT PRESENT Ocean View School District III. APPROVAL / CHANGES TO AGENDA - January 26, 2015 Action 14/15-144 A motion was made by Ms. Kantor, seconded by Ms. Winston, to approve the Agenda for January 26, 2015. The motion was approved by a 3-0-1 vote. AYES: Ms. Ott, Ms. Winston, Ms. Kantor NOES: None Ocean View School District ABSENT: ABSTAIN: None IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - December 18, 2014 Action 14-15-145 A motion was made by Ms. Winston, seconded by Ms. Kantor, to approve the minutes of December 18, 2014. The motion was approved by a 3-0-1 vote: WESTERN ORANGE COUNTY SELF-FUNDED WORKERS' COMPENSATION AGENCY MINUTES - January 26, 2015 AYES: Ms. Ott, Ms. Winston, Ms. Kantor NOES: None ABSENT: Ocean View School District ABSTAIN: None V. CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION Closed Session The Board adjourned to Closed Session at 9:10 a.m. Ms. Schwartz presented the following claims: CLAIMS Information/Action 14/15-146 Settlement Ratifications Claim Number Claimant District WOCS-007552 Johnny Thompson Brea Olinda Unified School District WOCT-007866 Joni Hyland Ocean View School District WOCX-008592 Lisa Garrett Orange County Department of Education Settlement Authority Requests Claim Number Claimant District WOCX-008463 Jenniser Gamal Ocean View School District WOCA-006893 Monica Johannsen Orange County Department of Education WOCT-007842 Christine Sanderson Orange County Department of Education A motion was made by Ms. Kantor, seconded by Ms. Winston, to approve/ratify settlement of the claims listed in the agenda. The motion was approved by a 3-0-1 vote: AYES: Ms. Ott, Ms. Winston, Ms. Kantor NOES: None Ocean View School District ABSENT: ABSTAIN: None The Board returned to Open Session at 9:14 a.m. Ms. Ott reported that during Closed Session, action was taken on the claims referenced in the agenda. VI. JPA ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL MANAGED CARE: SUITE OF REPORTING Information 14/15-147 York presented and discussed the Managed Care Suite of Reporting covering November activities, including Table of Contents, Program Overviews, Bill Review Fees by Claim File, Review Fee Breakdown by Bill, Utilization Review Savings Report, New Pricing WESTERN ORANGE COUNTY SELF-FUNDED WORKERS' COMPENSATION AGENCY MINUTES – January 26, 2015 Structure comparison, Pay Code Register, and Zero Pay with Fees. Certain documents contain confidential information and the members are to safeguard the contents. Ms. Brainard distributed and discussed a report regarding the Prescription Intervention. There have been reviews of nine patients with the physician reviewing medications, containing the Primary Treating Physician, (PTP) and discussing future treatment; if the PTP will speak with our physician. The Board directed Ms. Brainard to present reports for the 2014 calendar year summary and also to provide follow up information regarding the PBM first fill cards at the next meeting. This was an information item. DISCUSSION / ACTION REGARDING MEDICAL PROVIDER NETWORK (MPN) IMPLEMENTATION Information/Action 14/15-148 The Board Directed York and WellComp to implement Kaiser On-The-Job as a provider in their Medical Provider Network (MPN). Ms. Ott stated she has concerns regarding creating a letter to employees about the MPN and pre-designation. Ms. Hatley advised she will send an email to the Members regarding the Pre-Designation FAQ's which includes questions concerning how the MPN and pre-designation interact. This was an information item. DISCUSSION / ACTION REGARDING BICKMORE SERVICES Information/Action 14/15-149 This item was carried to the next meeting. DESIGNATE MEDICARE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE Information/Action 14/15-150 Ms. Kantor updated her signature and returned the form for the Medicare Authorized Representative. This was an information item. VII. FINANCIAL FINANCIAL REPORTS Information/Action 14/15-151 The Board discussed the reports covering November 2014. Ms. Kantor reported a $106,000 year-to-date in SELF reimbursements. Ms. Ott requested a list of outstanding reimbursements for the JPA. A motion was made by Ms. Kantor, seconded by Ms. Winston, to accept the Financial Reports, as presented. The motion was approved by a 3- 0-1 vote: WESTERN ORANGE COUNTY SELF-FUNDED WORKERS' COMPENSATION AGENCY MINUTES – January 26, 2015 AYES: Ms. Ott, Ms. Winston, Ms. Kantor NOES: None ABSENT: Ocean View School District ABSTAIN: None REIMBURSEMENTS TO JPA IMPREST ACCOUNT Information/Action 14/15-152 Ms. Kantor advised there were no checking errors this month. A motion was made by Ms. Kantor, seconded by Ms. Winston, to approve the following Reimbursements to JPA Imprest Account for December 2014: The motion was approved by a 3-0-1 vote: AYES: Ms. Ott, Ms. Winston, Ms. Kantor NOES: None ABSENT: Ocean View School District ABSTAIN: None 12/1/2014 through 12/16/2014 $198,619.39 12/17/2014 through 12/31/2014 $105,537.35 Total: $304,156,74 BANK RECONCILIATION Information/Action 14/15-153 A motion was made by Ms. Kantor, seconded by Ms. Winston, to accept the Bank Reconciliation for December 2014. The motion was approved by a 3-0-1 vote: AYES: Ms. Ott, Ms. Winston, Ms. Kantor NOES: None ABSENT: Ocean View School District ABSTAIN: None APPROVAL OF PAYMENTS Information/Action 14/15-154 Ms. Kantor presented and discussed the Approval of Payments dated December 18, 2014. A motion was made by Ms. Kantor, seconded by Ms. Winston, to approve/ratify payment of invoices itemized below. The motion was approved by a 3-0-1 vote: AYES: Ms. Ott, Ms. Winston, Ms. Kantor NOES: None ABSENT: Ocean View School District ABSTAIN: None WESTERN ORANGE COUNTY SELF-FUNDED WORKERS' COMPENSATION AGENCY MINUTES – January 26, 2015 Workers' Compensation. JPA Administration Fee, York 12/1-14 -1 2/28/15 $ 1,600.00 Workers' Compensation, Claims Administration Fec, York $52,685.50 12/1/14 - 2/28/15 Department of Industrial Relations, Office of Self- 2014-2015 Assessment based on 2013-2014 Public Insurance Plans $44,200.47 Annual Report $98,485.97 Total VIII. REIMBURSEMENT PROGRAMS SAFETY CREDIT PROGRAM Information/Action 14/15-155 Ms. Kantor presented a Safety Credits Usage Report as of December 11, 2014, for FY ending June 30, 2015. The following Safety Credit request for reimbursement was presented: Brea Olinda Unified School District December 11, 2014 $9,109.86 A motion was made by Ms. Kantor, seconded by Ms. Winston, to approve the safety credits, as presented. The motion was approved by a 3-0-1 vote: AYES: Ms. Ott, Ms. Winston, Ms. Kantor NOES: None ABSENT: Ocean View School District ABSTAIN: None FIRST AID PROGRAM Information/Action 14/15-156 The following First Aid request for reimbursement was presented: Brea Olinda Unified School district December 10, 2014 $1,817.53 A motion was made by Ms. Kantor, seconded by Ms. Winston, to approve the First Aid Claim request for reimbursement, as presented. The motion was approved by a 3-0-1 vote. AYES: Ms. Ott, Ms. Winston, Ms. Kantor NOES: None ABSENT: Ocean View School District ABSTAIN: None IX. INFORMATION REPORTS VISITOR COMMENTS Information 14/15-157 WESTERN ORANGE COUNTY SELF-FUNDED WORKERS' COMPENSATION AGENCY MINUTES – January 26, 2015 There were no Visitor Comments. BOARD COMMENTS Information 14/15-158 Ms. Ott advised she has a new email address, Ms. Kantor requested information regarding reimbursement on a claim regarding Western Medical Center and an update on the contact by and/or reimbursement from the excess carrier on Claim # WOCA-006745. QBE/Midlands have provided information to Ms. Michels and the examiner stating they could not locate the Medicarc Set Aside. Ms. Michels will email the Board with an update after the meeting. AUTHORITY CORRESPONDENCE Information 14/15-159 There were no items for the Board's consideration. CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR / MANAGER COMMENTS Information 14/15-160 The Board reviewed York's Case Counts for December 2014. York discussed it's Perspectives for December 2014, RJN Special Investigations Quarterly Newsletter and the Overpayment log for December 2014. This was an information item. Х. CONFERENCES REQUESTS FOR CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE Information/Action 14/15-161 There were no items presented for the Board's consideration. XI. OTHER BOARD DISCUSSION Information 14/15-162 Ms. Kantor distributed the Actuarial Report ending June 30, 2014, for the Board's review. The Actuarial Report will be brought back at the next JPA meeting. XII. FOLLOW-UP FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Information/Action 14/15-163 There were no directives from the December 18, 2014 meeting. No action was taken. XIII. AGENDA ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING - March 16, 2015 Information 14/15-164 "Historically the Board does not meet in February. WESTERN ORANGE COUNTY SELF-FUNDED WORKERS' COMPENSATION AGENCY MINUTES – January 26, 2015 The next meeting will be held on Monday, March 16, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. at Orange County Department of Education, 200 Kalmus Drive, Room A-1010/11, Costa Mesa, California. Items to be included on the Agenda for discussion and possible action are: Carried from this meeting: 1. Discussion/Action re Medical Provider Network (MPN) Implementation. (Board) 2. Discussion/Action Regarding Bickmore Services. (York/Board) Per JPA Timeline for February 2015: 1. Receive Actuarial Report. (Secy-Treas) 2. Prepare and Approve Ex-Mods. (Actuary & Board) 3. Quarterly Self-Imposed Increase Report. (York) 4. Quarterly Investment Report. (President) Per JPA Timeline for March 2015 1. Initiate Excess Insurance Renewal. (Sccy-Treas) 2. Obtain Estimated Payrolls for next FY. (Secy-Treas) XIV. CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION Closed Session (2 of 2) The Board reconvened Closed Session. Ms. Schwartz presented and discussed the open indemnity claims for former member Huntington Beach City School District. This was an information item. CLAIMS OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT Information 14/15-165 EXCESS INSURANCE CLAIMS REPORTING/ SELF EXCESS CLAIMS REPORT Information 14/15-166 The Board reviewed the monthly excess matrix report. Ms. Michels reported the Excess Carrier, Genesis, advised they will not reimburse on the claim number WOCA-001394 and that York's Claims Director is reviewing the claim and the issue. This was an information item. LARGE LOSS FILE REVIEW REGARDING OCEAN VEW SCHOOL DISTRICT Information 14/15-167 Ms. Schwartz discussed the large loss file review. WESTERN ORANGE COUNTY SELF-FUNDED WORKERS' COMPENSATION AGENCY MINUTES - January 26, 2015 The Board returned to Open Session at 10:57 a.m. The Board did not take action on these information items. XV. ADJOURNMENT Action 14/15-141 There being no further business to discuss, a motion was made by Ms. Kantor, seconded by Ms. Winston, to adjourn the meeting at 11:58 a.m. The motion passed with a 3-0-1 vote. AYES: Ms. Ott, Ms. Winston, Ms. Kantor NOES: None Ocean View School District ABSENT: ABSTAIN: None . Member Training Session 8:30am to 9:00am TBD MINUTES WESTERN ORANGE COUNTY SELF-FUNDED WORKERS' COMPENSATION AGENCY BOARD MEETING THURSDAY, DECEMBER 18, 2014 9:00 a.m. Orange County Department of Education 200 Kalmus Dr., Room A-1010/11 T. CALL TO ORDER Action 14/15-115 The meeting was called to order by President Barbara Ott at 9:10 a.m. II. ROLL CALL Action 14/15-116 PRESENT: BREA OLINDA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Ms. Barbara Ott LAGUNA BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Ms. Leisa Winston OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT Mr. Felix Avila ORANGE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Ms. Ann Kantor Manager: York Risk Services Group Ms. Angela Hatley Ms. Kim Michels Ms. Susie Carmona ALSO PRESENT N/A III. APPROVAL / CHANGES TO AGENDA - December 18, 2014 Action 14/15-117 The Agenda was approved as presented. A motion was made by Ms. Kantor, seconded by Ms. Winston, to approve the Agenda for December 18, 2014. The motion was approved by a 4-0-0 vote. AYES: Ms. Ott, Ms. Winston, Mr. Avila, Ms. Kantor NOES: None ABSENT: None WESTERN ORANGE COUNTY SELF-FUNDED WORKERS' COMPENSATION AGENCY MINUTES – December 18, 2014 ABSTAIN: None IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – November 17, 2014 Action 14-15-118 A motion was made by Ms. Kantor, seconded by Mr. Avila, to approve the minutes of November 17, 2014. The motion was approved by a 4-0-0 vote: AYES: Ms. Ott, Ms. Winston, Mr. Avila, Ms. Kantor NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None V. CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION Closed Session The Board adjourned to Closed Session at 9:11 a.m. CLAIMS Information/Action 14/15-119 Settlement Ratifications Claim Number Claimant District None Settlement Authority Requests Claim Number Claimant District None Ms. Kantor presented two claims, Monica Johannsen Claim # WOCA-006893 and Christine Sanderson Claim # WOCT-007842. A motion was made by Ms. Winston, seconded by Mr. Avila, to approve/ratify Settlement of the claims listed. The motion was approved by a 4-0-0 vote: AYES: Ms. Ott, Ms. Winston, Ms. Kantor, Mr. Avila NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None The Board returned to Open Session at 9:14 a.m. Ms. Ott reported that during Closed Session, action and/or direction was taken on the claims referenced. WESTERN ORANGE COUNTY SELF-FUNDED WORKERS' COMPENSATION AGENCY MINUTES – December 18, 2014 VI. JPA ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL MANAGED CARE: SUITE OF REPORTING Information 14/15-120 York presented and discussed the Managed Care Suite of Reporting covering November activities, including Table of Contents, Program Overviews, Bill Review Fees by Claim File, Review Fee Breakdown by Bill, Utilization Review Savings Report, New Pricing Structure comparison, Pay Code Register, and Zero Pay with Fees. Certain documents contain confidential information and the members are to safeguard the contents. Ms. Kantor requested that York initiate a review of future medical claims for use of medications for chronic injuries to implement home delivery through the PBM. Ms. Hatley indicated she would initiate that project by contacting Ms. Brainard who will work with staff to identify appropriate cases. This was an information item. DISCUSSION / ACTION REGARDING MEDICAL PROVIDER NETWORK (MPN) IMPLEMENTATION Information/Action 14/15-121 Ms. Hatley conveyed to the Board, in response to their question from the last meeting, that York would offer the MPN access fees at $48.00 per claim, a 50/50 split of contracted savings (savings are contracted from zero to 8%) and the Application Fee Would be $1,500.00. York will update MPN status/progress at the January meeting. This item will be carried to the next meeting. DISCUSSION / ACTION REGARDING BICKMORE SERVICES Information/Action 14/15-122 Ms. Hatley presented the offer of a Bickmore service at no charge to the JPA. At the December meeting, the members wished to review the material presented listing the services offered. The Board discussed and decided to offer the service to Ocean View School District to use, which would benefit all the members. Ms. Hatley was directed to have Bickmore contact Mr. Avila directly. A motion was made by Ms. Kantor, seconded by Ms. Winston, to allow member Ocean View School District the service provided by Bickmore. Mr. Avila was asked to report back to the Board with a status. WESTERN ORANGE COUNTY SELF-FUNDED WORKERS' COMPENSATION AGENCY MINUTES – December 18, 2014 The motion was approved by a 4-0-0 vote: AYES: Ms. Ott, Ms. Winston, Ms. Kantor, Mr. Avila NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None DESIGNATE MEDICARE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE Information/Action 14/15-123 The Board requested this item be deferred until the January 26, 2015 meeting. VII. FINANCIAL FINANCIAL REPORTS Information/Action 14/15-124 The Board discussed the reports covering October 2014. A motion was made by Ms. Kantor, seconded by Ms. Winston, to accept the Financial Reports, as presented. The motion was approved by a 4-0-0 vote: AYES: Ms. Ott, Ms. Winston, Mr. Avila, Ms. Kantor NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None REIMBURSEMENTS TO JPA IMPREST ACCOUNT Information/Action 14/15-125 A motion was made by Ms. Kantor, seconded by Ms. Winston, to approve the following Reimbursements to JPA Imprest Account for November 2014: The motion was approved by a 4-0-0 vote: AYES: Ms. Ott, Ms. Winston, Mr. Avila, Ms. Kantor NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 11/1/2014 through 11/17/2014 $156,325.72 11/18/2014 through 11/30/2014 $ 10,322.34 10 WESTERN ORANGE COUNTY SELF-FUNDED WORKERS' COMPENSATION AGENCY MINUTES – December 18, 2014 Total: $166,648.06 BANK RECONCILIATION Information/Action 14/15-126 A motion was made by Ms. Kantor, seconded by Ms. Avila, to accept the Bank Reconciliation for October 2014. The motion was approved by a 4-0-0 vote: AYES: Ms. Ott, Ms. Winston, Mr. Avila, Ms. Kantor NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None APPROVAL OF PAYMENTS Information/Action 14/15-127 Ms. Kantor presented and discussed the Approval of Payments dated December 18, 2014. A motion was made by Ms. Kantor, seconded by Ms. Winston, to approve/ratify payment of invoices itemized below. The motion was approved by a 4-0-0 vote: AYES: Ms. Ott, Ms. Winston, Mr. Avila, Ms. Kantor NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Payee Purpose Amount Department of Industrial Relations, Office of Self- Insurance Plans 2014-2015 Assessment based on the 2013-2014 Annual Report 44,200.47 Workers' Compensation JPA Administration Fee, York 12/1/14 - 2/28/15 $1,600.00 Workers' Compensation Claims Administration Fee, York 12/1/14 - 2/28/15 52,685,50 Total $98,485.97 VIII. REIMBURSEMENT PROGRAMS SAFETY CREDIT PROGRAM Information/Action 14/15-128 Ms. Kantor presented a Safety Credits Usage Report as of December 11, 2014, for FY ending June 30, 2015. The following Safety Credit request for reimbursement was presented: Brea-Olinda USD December 11, 2014 $9,109.86 WESTERN ORANGE COUNTY SELF-FUNDED WORKERS' COMPENSATION AGENCY MINUTES – December 18, 2014 A motion was made by Ms. Kantor, seconded by Ms. Winston, to approve the safety credits, as presented. The motion was approved by a 4-0-0 vote: AYES: Ms. Ott, Ms. Winston, Mr. Avila, Ms. Kantor NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None FIRST AID PROGRAM Information/Action 14/15-129 The following First Aid Claims request for reimbursement was presented: Brea-Olinda USD December 10, 2014 $1,817.53 A motion was made by Ms. Kantor, seconded by Ms. Winston, to approve the First Aid Claims request for reimbursement, as presented. The motion was approved by a 4-0-0 vote: AYES: Ms. Ott, Ms. Winston, Mr. Avila, Ms. Kantor NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None IX. INFORMATION REPORTS VISITOR COMMENTS Information 14/15-130 There were no Visitor Comments. BOARD COMMENTS Information 14/15-131 Ms. Kantor: Merry Christmas to all. Ms. Ott: There is a Grand Jury investigation taking place of a P&L JPA in Orange county. Ms. Ott distributed a draft of an investment policy for the Board's review. Ms. Ott also attached for reference the Education Code sections. Ms. Winston inquired of the Board members who conducts their ergonomic evaluations and does trainings. Ms. Kantor indicated she manages the ergonomic evaluations and trainings at Orange County Department of Education. Ms. Ott suggested ASCIP may have the name of someone or information. Ms. Kantor indicated Rachel Shaw does an excellent job. WESTERN ORANGE COUNTY SELF-FUNDED WORKERS' COMPENSATION AGENCY MINUTES - December 18, 2014 This was an information item. AUTHORITY CORRESPONDENCE Information 14/15-132 1. Email from Deborah O'Neill, Assistant Vice President, Sales Support Associate, Commercial Banking, Bank of America Merrill Lynch, dated December 5, 2014, regarding prior account. This was an information item. CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR / MANAGER COMMENTS Information 14/15-133 The Board reviewed York's Case Counts for November 2014. York discussed it's Perspectives for November 2014, and the Overpayment log for November 2014. This was an information item. X. CONFERENCES REQUESTS FOR CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE Information/Action 14/15-134 Mr. Avila indicated Ocean View SD would have a representative attending PARMA in February 2015, Ms. Pulfer. Ms. Kantor indicated she would send out the Board's PARMA membership number. Ms. Kantor indicated she will coordinate registration. There was no action taken. XI. OTHER BOARD DISCUSSION Information 14/15-135 There was no other Board discussion. XII. FOLLOW-UP FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Information/Action 14/15-136 There were no directives from the November 17, 2014 meeting. No action was taken. XIII. AGENDA ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING – January 26, 2015 Information 14/15-137 WESTERN ORANGE COUNTY SELF-FUNDED WORKERS' COMPENSATION AGENCY MINUTES - December 18, 2014 The next meeting will be held on Monday, January 26, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. at Orange County Department of Education, 200 Kalmus Drive, Room A-1010/11, Costa Mesa, California. Items to be included on the Agenda for discussion and possible action are: Carried from this meeting: 1. Designate Authorized Medicare Representative 2. Medical Provider Network Implementation. (York) Items to be included on the Agenda for discussion and possible action are: Investment Policy XIV. CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION Closed Session (2 of 2) The Board reconvened Closed Session at 10:01 a.m., Ms. Carmona presented and discussed the open indemnity claims for former member Huntington Beach City School District. This was an information item. CLAIMS OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT Information 14/15-138 EXCESS INSURANCE CLAIMS REPORTING/ SELF EXCESS CLAIMS REPORT Information 14/15-139 The Board reviewed the monthly excess matrix report. This was an information item. LARGE LOSS FILE REVIEW REGARDING OCEAN VEW SCHOOL DISTRICT Information 14/15-140 Ms. Carmona discussed the large loss file review. The Board returned to Open Session at 10:28 a.m. The Board did not take action on these information items. XV. ADJOURNMENT Action 14/15-141 There being no further business to discuss, a motion was made by Ms. Kantor, seconded by Ms. Winston, to adjourn the meeting at 10:28 a.m. The motion passed with a 4-0-0 vote. . WESTERN ORANGE COUNTY SELF-FUNDED WORKERS' COMPENSATION AGENCY MINUTES - December 18, 2014 ă. To an 6 20 *** 40 .... Western Orange County Joint Powers Authority 200 Kalmus Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Member Member Member Member Ocean View Brea-Olinda USD Laguna Beach USD Orange County School District Elected Board Elected Board Office of Education Voting Member President Elected Board Vice-President & Voting Member Treasurer/Secretary & Voting Member & Voting Member Western Orange County Joint Powers Authority . - 6 (4)

Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R3: apply to WOCJPA. While greatly respecting the role and efforts of the Grand Jury, and respecting the importance of the issues reviewed, WOCJPA respectfully disagrees with the Findings and the Recommendation as to WOCJPA for the reasons set forth below. In summary, with the aid of further information and records, it is clear that WOCJPA is a horizontal, not a vertical Joint Powers Authority, rendering Findings 4 and 5 inappropriate. As to

June 26, 2015 — Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO): It's Time to Redraw the Lines*

31 pages 7 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 7 findings

F1: OC LAFCO's has failed to effectively fulfill its legislative mandate to proactively pursue efficiency of local governmental organizations by restructuring them and reshaping their boundaries in a logical, orderly, and timely manner.

F2: OC LAFCO has failed to use its latent power to initiate, let alone obtain, a single consolidation since the Legislature delegated this authority to it 22 years ago.

F3: OC LAFCO discontinued its Unincorporated Islands Program, Unincorporated Islands Incentive Program, and Stakeholder Plan, all of which enabled it to streamline and fast-track the annexation process.

F4: The County of Orange has withdrawn assistance to OC LAFCO in its effort to annex unincorporated islands by terminating its robust Unincorporated Islands Revitalization and Annexation Strategy and by withdrawing the assigned analyst who previously was on loan to OC LAFCO to provide fiscal analysis and data in support of island annexations.

F5: The County of Orange has failed to facilitate and assist OC LAFCO in its annexation efforts by not offering greater incentives to both the annexing cities and the islands to be annexed, such as infrastructure improvements, property-tax exchange, and cost-sharing agreements, through memoranda of understanding and pre-annexation agreements.

F6: By requiring staff to check with the Orange County supervisor in whose district an island lies before commencing an annexation proposal OC LAFCO is risking a loss of independence and objectivity. .

F7: OC LAFCO discontinued the Islands Community Task Force, which has impacted its annexation efforts. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the 2014-2015 Grand Jury requires responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO): It's Time to Redraw the Line Based on its investigation titled "Orange County Local Agency Formation" Commission (LAFCO): It's Time to Redraw the Line," the 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following six recommendations: Orange County LAFCO should proceed to identify and prioritize special district

Additional Recommendations 6

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: consolidations and mergers, commence the necessary studies, and then initiate the appropriate petitions or proposals. (F.1., F.2.)

R2: Orange County LAFCO should revive and reinstate its Unincorporated Islands Program and Community Islands Task Force, and it should expand its Unincorporated Islands Incentive Program and Stakeholder Plan to streamline and fast-track the annexation effort. (F.3.)

R3: The Orange County Board of Supervisors should revive and reinstate its Community Revitalization and Annexation Strategy and dedicate an analyst from the County Finance Office, whose sole duties would be to assist Orange County LAFCO with its efforts to promote annexation of the remaining unincorporated islands. (F.4.)

R4: The Orange County Board of Supervisors should assist OC LAFCO in facilitating and expediting the annexation effort by offering greater incentives to both the annexing cities and the islands to be annexed, such as infrastructure improvements, fiscal subsidies, MOUs, and cost-sharing agreements. In addition, the County should consider imposing a special assessment on the island property to help defray the County's costs of providing municipal services to those islands. (F.5.)

R5: Orange County LAFCO's practice of deferring to the Orange County Supervisor in whose district an island lies should be changed to better allow OC LAFCO to fulfill its role independently and objectively. (F.6.)

R6: Orange County LAFCO should revive and reconstitute the Unincorporated Islands Community Task Force and set specific goals to expedite annexations of all remaining small islands by a certain date and annexations of all large islands by another date certain. (F.7.)

June 19, 2015 — Joint Powers Authorities: Issues of Viability, Control, Transparency, and Solvency*

22 pages 10 findings 8 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 10 findings

F1: activity, revenue, expenditure, assets, or liabilities. The Grand Jury determined that these Joint Powers Authorities serve no benefit to the public or the taxpayers and have the potential for misuse or obfuscation of public funds.

F2: Horizontal Joint Powers Authorities among peer organizations appear to meet the intent of State laws to delegate a common service for a city or other legal entity for the purpose of reducing cost on behalf of the taxpayers.

F3: Orange County has 18 vertical Joint Powers Authorities created by a city along with its redevelopment agency that no longer exists. The Grand Jury determined Joint Powers Authorities: Issues of Viability, Control, Transparency, and Solvency that these Joint Powers Authorities serve no benefit to the public or the taxpayers and have the potential for misuse or obfuscation of public funds.

F4: Vertical Joint Powers Authorities with a single controlling entity, such as a city council, have the potential to use this organizational structure as a shell company to avoid other legal constraints on the controlling entity and to obfuscate taxpayer visibility.

F5: Vertical Joint Powers Authorities in which the controlling entity transfers assets from itself to a Joint Powers Authority for the purpose of obtaining additional funding, or signs a long-term lease to a Joint Powers Authority to obtain assets, are avoiding transparency and are not acting in the best financial interest of the taxpayers.

F6: 32 of the Joint Powers Authorities identified in Orange County are not complying with the California State reporting requirements in code Section 6500 and SB 282 according to the latest information available from the year 2013.

F7: The Orange County Auditor-Controller knows of the Joint Powers Authorities in which the County is a member, but does not have a list of all of the Joint Powers Authorities in Orange County and cannot confirm compliance of their submittal for public access. The Orange County Auditor-Controller does not provide easy- to-use online access to the data submitted to it by the Joint Powers Authorities that are compliant with the requirement to submit.

F8: The Foothill Transportation Corridor Agency and the San Joaquin Transportation Corridor Agency have a joint debt level of over $4.5 billion. The Grand Jury has determined that this debt level is excessive based on their revenues, and it threatens to render them insolvent.

F9: The Orange County Fire Authority has an off-the-books unfunded debt liability of $577 million which the Grand Jury has determined to be of concern since it is a real liability on the County taxpayers.

F10: The Anaheim Pubic Financing Authority has a debt exposure of $1.2 billion which the Grand Jury has determined to be excessive in light of the fact that it was incurred without voter approval. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the 2014- 2015 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled "Joint Powers Authorities in Orange County," the 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following eight recommendations:

Additional Recommendations 8

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: All Orange County Joint Powers Authorities that are "inactive" should submit the official paperwork with the State of California requesting termination of their Joint Powers Authorities: Issues of Viability, Control, Transparency, and Solvency existence or provide at the next public meeting the justification for continuing the Joint Powers Authority. (F.1.)

R2: All Vertical Joint Powers Authorities created by a city along with its redevelopment agency should submit the necessary paperwork with the State of California requesting termination of their existence. (F.3.)

R3: All Joint Powers Authorities should take the following actions to insure transparency to the taxpayers: (1) have an annual outside audit, (2) post the complete audit on their city website as a separate Joint Powers Authority entity, (3) send the audit to the County Controller and the State Auditor, and (4) ensure the required reports are filed annually to the County and the State. (F.4., F.5.)

R4: The 32 Joint Powers Authorities that are not complying with the California State Law requiring annual reporting should become compliant by submitting their 2014 report by December 31, 2015, and submitting the required reports annually thereafter. (F.6.)

R5: R6 1 7 City of Anaheim Χ Χ Χ Χ 1 Mayor & City Council City of Brea Mayor & Χ Χ 2 City Council City of Buena Park Χ Χ Χ Χ 3 Mayor & City Council City of Costa Mesa Χ Χ 4 Mayor & City Council City of Fullerton Χ Χ Χ Χ 5 Mayor & City Council City of Fountain Valley Mayor & City Χ Χ 6 Council City of Garden Grove Mayor & City Χ Χ Χ Χ 7 Council City of Huntington Beach Mayor & City Χ Χ 8 Council City of La Habra Χ Χ 9 Mayor & City Council City of Lake Forest Χ Χ 10 Mayor & City Council City of Mission Viejo Χ Χ 11 Mayor & City Council City of San Clemente Mayor & Χ Χ 12 City Council City of San Juan Capistrano Mayor & Χ Χ 13 City Council City of Santa Ana Χ Х 14 Mayor & City Council City of Seal Beach Χ Χ 15 Mayor & City Council City of Stanton Χ Χ Χ Χ 16 Mayor & City Council City of Tustin Mayor Χ Χ Joint Powers Authorities: Issues of Viability, Control, Transparency, and Solvency Required Respondents

R6: City of Westminster Χ Χ Х Χ 18 Mayor & City Council City of Yorba Linda Χ Χ 19 Mayor & City Council Orange County Χ Χ 20 Auditor-Controller Matrix 2 REQUIRED RESPONDENTS (Joint Powers Authorities)

R7: R6 Anaheim Community 1 Х Χ Χ Center Authority Anaheim Housing and 2 Х Χ Χ Public Improve. Auth. Anaheim Public 3 Х Χ Х Χ Χ Χ Χ Financing Authority Big Independent Cities 4 Χ Х Χ Excess Pool Bonita Canyon Public 5 Х Χ Χ Facilities Fin. Auth. Brea Community 6 Х Χ Х Benefits Financing Auth. Brea Public Financing 7 Χ Χ Χ Х Χ Authority Buena Park Public 8 Χ Х Х Χ Χ Χ Χ Financing Authority California Insurance Pool 9 Х Χ Х Authority Capistrano Unified Public 10 Χ Χ Χ Χ Х Х Χ Financing Auth. Central Net Operations 11 Χ Χ Χ Χ Χ Authority City of Brea Midbury 12 Χ Х Х Χ Х Х Assessment Auth. City of Fullerton Public 13 Χ Х Χ Χ Χ Χ Χ Financing Auth. City of San Clemente 14 Χ Χ Х Х Χ Х Χ Public Fin. Auth. Coastal Animal Services Joint Powers Authorities: Issues of Viability, Control, Transparency, and Solvency Required Respondents

R8: Anaheim Pubic Financing Authority under its direction by an aggressive plan to reduce their public debt. (F.10.)

June 19, 2015 — Mello-Roos: Perpetual Debt Accumulation and Tax Assessment Obligation*

26 pages 3 findings 2 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 3 findings

F1: There is a lack of transparency to homeowners relative to how CFD funds are being used.

F2: There does not seem to be appropriate oversight and auditing of CFDs and special tax expenditures within the County of Orange.

F3: While the assumption is that the CFD debt would be repaid in a finite period of time, there is a mechanism available to controlling entities to extend debt obligations and thereby extend the CFD special tax in perpetuity. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the 2014- 2015 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled "Community Facilities Districts (Mello-Roos): Perpetual Debt Accumulation and Tax Assessment Obligation", the 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following two recommendations: Each local agency that established the CFD should create an oversight

Additional Recommendations 2

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: committee and an audit committee to provide for an independent, transparent view of the manner in which CFD funds are being expended. (F.1, F.2)

R2: Audit report information, as delineated in California Government Code, 1982 § 53343.1, should be made available to the CFD taxpayers on a website after each fiscal year for each CFD number. (F.1, F.2)

June 10, 2015 — If Animals Could Talk About the Orange County Animal Shelter*

16 pages 10 findings 10 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 10 findings

F1: There are serious morale issues among Animal Shelter staff, many of which can be attributed to poor management practices and lack of effective leadership.

F2: The trap, neuter, and return practice is reportedly delaying the spaying, neutering, and treatment of domestic dogs and cats awaiting adoption and is evidence that the domestic animals have been assigned a lower priority for surgery than the spaying, neutering, and micro-chipping of the feral cats.

F3: Feral cats have been allowed to roam freely in and around the Animal Shelter and have been fed by Animal Shelter staff, possibly contributing to human and animal exposure to zoonotic diseases.

F4: Animal Control Officers do not have effective equipment or appropriate procedural options to deal with unique, emergency circumstances that may require special procedures such as tranquilizing and euthanizing in the field.

F5: OC Animal Care is currently operating with a shortage of personnel, including Animal Control Officers (ACOs), thereby making it much more difficult for them to respond to calls in a timely manner throughout such a large county, especially since there is only one shelter to serve all of Orange County.

F6: There is little evidence that the Feral Free Program has been successful in reducing the feral cat population, which could be a contributing factor to the spread of zoonotic diseases.

F7: Kennels are hosed down with dogs still present in the kennels, resulting in the dogs getting soaked and becoming more susceptible to disease. If Animals Could Talk About the Orange County Animal Shelter

F8: Kennel attendants were observed leaving the large water hoses running when not being used for cleaning purposes, thereby wasting large quantities of water.

F9: There is limited airflow and no air conditioning in the cat trailers. The conditions in these trailers increase the vulnerability to disease.

F10: There is a rodent problem, creating additional risk of humans and animals contracting zoonotic diseases. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the 2014- 2015 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled "If Animals Could Talk About the Orange County Animal Shelter," the 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following ten recommendations: Consider a change of leadership within the Orange County Community

Additional Recommendations 10

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Resources Department and arrange for mandatory leadership training for all managers and supervisors that includes a curriculum of leadership skills, people skills, and diversity (F.1.).

R2: Discontinue the practice of giving feral cats priority for surgery over the domestic dogs and cats awaiting adoption (F.2.).

R3: Discontinue feeding feral cats and allowing feral cats to roam freely in and around the Animal Shelter (F.3.).

R4: Develop proper protocols for Animal Control Officers to follow when confronted with unique circumstances in the field that require tranquilizing or euthanizing animals and take all measures necessary to ensure that the Animal Control Officers can be given the proper equipment and training in that regard (F.4.).

R5: Establish a more aggressive approach in hiring qualified personnel on a timely basis, especially with the position of Animal Control Officer (F.5.). Conduct an evaluation of the Feral Free Program to determine its effectiveness

R6: in the reduction of zoonotic diseases. (F.6.).

R7: Utilize the "move-one-down" method for cleaning kennels to avoid soaking the animals. (F.7.).

R8: Place nozzles on all water hoses and direct kennel attendants to turn off the water when not being used. (F.8.).

R9: Improve the ventilation system in all cat trailers for the health and survival of the cats (F.9.). If Animals Could Talk About the Orange County Animal Shelter

R10: Promptly control the rodent population in order to reduce the possibility of spreading diseases to human beings and animals (F.10.).

June 02, 2015 — Orange County Real Estate:*

12 pages 4 findings 17 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 4 findings

F1: While the Board of Supervisors has officially recognized the need to have comprehensive management of County real estate, there does not appear to exist any sense of priority or urgency in the County relative to the development of a complete, up-to-date database.

F2: Management of County real estate assets is decentralized, and individual departments track property under their purview. Orange County Real Estate: Do They Know What They Have?

F3: The County does not have a single, comprehensive, accurate real estate database with information that can be used by the County departments.

F4: Having a comprehensive County real estate database would be beneficial in managing County real estate assets and support prudent decision making. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the 2014- 2015 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation of Real Estate in Orange County, the 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following three recommendations:

Additional Recommendations 17

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The County should create a regularly updated database that includes information that will improve the stewardship of County real estate. This database should include a comprehensive, uniform list of data elements so that all County departments can benefit from its use. The Grand Jury recommends the following data items be included at a minimum: Building address 2. Assessor's Parcel Number 3. Description of property 4. Date of acquisition 5. Building Number 6. Relationship to other properties, if appropriate 7. Property size: a. Building square footage b. Leased space square footage c. Land square footage or acres 8. Condition of land or building (e.g., not suitable for building, not suitable for building occupancy, refurbishing, open land, reserved open space) 9. Occupancy and use of buildings by square footage 10. Non-occupied space by square footage 11. Ownership details, such as: a. County of Orange owned b. Owned under Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) Leased to County by private owner d. Leased to OCFCD by private owner e. Leased to private party by the County of Orange f. Leased to private party by the OCFCD 12. Contract terms for County income-generating property 13. Maintenance information, including responsibility 14. Lease terms, such as: a. Start and end dates b. Monthly lease payments Orange County Real Estate: Do They Know What They Have? c. Cost per square foot d. Restrictions e. Options 15. Is the property vacant land or open space? 16. Is the property not available for use? If so, why? 17. Transaction Value 18. Depreciated Value 19. Information on upgrades, remodeling 20. Insurance coverage 21. Environmental risks such as asbestos, underground storage tanks or soil contamination 22. Deed Restrictions (F.2., F.3., F.4.)

R2: The County should establish a person or position to be accountable for the ongoing accuracy of the real estate database. The County should also consider the feasibility of performing an annual inventory of the County's real estate to help to ensure the information in the database is accurate. (F.3., F.4.)

R3: The County should establish a timeline with realistic deadlines for its project to create and populate a comprehensive real estate database. This timeline should include target completion dates for major stages of the project. (F.1.)

R6: Relationship to other properties, if appropriate

R7: Property size: a. Building square footage b. Leased space square footage c. Land square footage or acres

R8: Condition of land or building (e.g., not suitable for building, not suitable for building occupancy, refurbishing, open land, reserved open space)

R9: Occupancy and use of buildings by square footage

R10: Non-occupied space by square footage

R11: Ownership details, such as: a. County of Orange owned b. Owned under Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD)

R12: Contract terms for County income-generating property

R13: Maintenance information, including responsibility

R14: Lease terms, such as: a. Start and end dates b. Monthly lease payments Orange County Real Estate: Do They Know What They Have? c. Cost per square foot d. Restrictions e. Options

R15: Is the property vacant land or open space?

R16: Is the property not available for use? If so, why?

R19: Information on upgrades, remodeling

R21: Environmental risks such as asbestos, underground storage tanks or soil contamination

R22: Deed Restrictions (F.2., F.3., F.4.) R.2. The County should establish a person or position to be accountable for the ongoing accuracy of the real estate database. The County should also consider the feasibility of performing an annual inventory of the County's real estate to help to ensure the information in the database is accurate. (F.3., F.4.) R.3. The County should establish a timeline with realistic deadlines for its project to create and populate a comprehensive real estate database. This timeline should include target completion dates for major stages of the project. (F.1.)

May 21, 2015 — Orange County Mental Health: Crisis Intervention Programs*

20 pages 6 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 6 findings

F1: The County's Evaluation Treatment Services facility does not provide needed medical stabilization services such as those included in the Psychiatric Emergency Services model.

F2: The current need and demand for involuntary psychiatric emergency services in South Orange County is not being met. Orange County Mental Health: Crisis Intervention Programs

F3: The County has an insufficient number of psychiatric beds to provide in-patient care to mentally ill clients who are not able to be referred to less restrictive treatment.

F4: Although a plan is in place at CHOC for an 18-bed unit to open in 2017, there are currently no psychiatric beds in Orange County for children under the age of 12.

F5: The Mental Health Services Act Steering Committee has no direct representation from local designated private hospitals.

F6: Given the language in the California Code of Regulations and the Welfare and Institutions Code regarding funding for involuntary treatment, the issue of using Mental Health Services Act funds for involuntary psychiatric clients who are gravely disabled or a danger to self or others, is unclear. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2014- 2015 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled "Orange County Mental Health: Crisis Intervention Programs", the 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following six recommendations: Continue with the planned expansion of the Evaluation Treatment Services

Additional Recommendations 6

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: facility in Santa Ana and convert it to a Psychiatric Evaluation Services model of care that includes basic medical services currently provided 5150 clients by private hospital emergency departments. (F.1.)

R2: Add an additional Evaluation Treatment Services facility to be located in South Orange County and initiate substantive, concrete efforts to do so in Fiscal Year 2015-2016. (F.2.)

R3: Continue efforts to locate and secure commitments for additional psychiatric beds in Orange County and nearby adjacent counties in order to increase the number of beds available for County use. (F.3.)

R4: Follow-up on the planned children's psychiatric unit at CHOC and continue to work with appropriate private hospitals in Orange County in an effort to provide additional psychiatric beds for children in Orange County. (F.4.)

R5: Add Mental Health Services Act Steering Committee representation from designated private hospitals that have demonstrated effectiveness in evaluating and treating Welfare and Institutions Code 5150 clients in crisis situations. (F.5.)

R6: Request an opinion from County Counsel regarding the purported restrictions on using Mental Health Services Act funds for involuntary mental health programs. (F.6.) Orange County Mental Health: Crisis Intervention Programs

April 29, 2015 — Grand Jury 2014-2015 Increasing Water Recycling: a Win-Win for Orange County

12 pages 8 findings 4 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 8 findings

F1: The Orange County Sanitation District processes an average of 198 million gallons per day of wastewater and sends 121 million gallons per day of secondary treated wastewater to the ocean.

F2: The Orange County Water District receives an average of 92 million gallons per day of treated wastewater from Orange County Sanitation District and recycles 70 million gallons per day of water treated to potable water standards that is then returned to the groundwater basin aquifers.

F3: From the 92 million gallons per day from Orange County Sanitation District the Orange County Water District recycles 7 million gallons per day of water treated to plant irrigation standards.

F4: The Irvine Ranch Water District processes 21.9 million gallons per day of wastewater and recycles 20.2 million gallons per day for purple pipe use. 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury Increasing Water Recycling: A Win-Win for Orange County

F5: The South OC Wastewater Authority (SOCWA) processes 22.7 million gallons per day of wastewater, treats 8 million gallons per day to purple pipe standards, and sends 14.7 million gallons per day to the ocean.

F6: The El Toro Water District, the City of San Clemente, the Santa Margarita Water District and the Trabuco Canyon Water District process a combined average total of 19.3 million gallons per day and send to the ocean 9.5 million gallons per day. The remaining 9.8 million gallons per day are used for landscape irrigation.

F7: In north and central Orange County, the cost to create potable recycled water is $1,468 per million gallons or $1,133 less than the current cost per million gallons of imported water.

F8: The South OC Wastewater Authority (SOCWA) cost to recycle wastewater currently exceeds the cost of imported water, however the Grand Jury believes that the cost of imported water will increase. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the 2014- 2015 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation of Wastewater Processing in Orange County, the 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following four recommendations:

Additional Recommendations 4

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Orange County Sanitation District should conduct a study of possible methods of increasing the amount of processed wastewater sent to Orange County Water District, including timelines and noting any barriers that may prevent increasing flow, and implement the most cost effective method to reduce the amount of imported water to Orange County. (F.1.) (F.2.) (F.7.)

R2: Orange County Water District should conduct a study of possible methods of increasing the amount of processed wastewater and implement the most cost effective method to reduce the amount of imported water to Orange County. (F.2.) (F.3.) (F.7.)

R3: South Orange County Wastewater Authority should conduct a study of possible methods of increasing the amount of processed wastewater and implement the most cost effective method to reduce the amount of imported water to Orange County. (F. 5.) (F. 8.)

R4: The El Toro Water District, the City of San Clemente, the Santa Margarita Water District, and the Trabuco Canyon Water District should conduct a study of possible methods of increasing the amount of processed wastewater and implement the most cost effective method to reduce the amount of imported water to Orange County. (F.6.) 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury Increasing Water Recycling: A Win-Win for Orange County

December 31, 2014 — Child Abuse Hotline: Unanswered Cries for Help*

19 pages 7 findings 4 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 7 findings

F1: Since 2012, the percentage of dropped calls has increased significantly to an unacceptable level.

F2: Significant improvement in dropped call rates is a reasonable expectation because during the last three years, there have been months when the Child Abuse Registry achieved dropped call rates in the range of 5%-7%.

F3: The new requirement to document all Information-Only calls from mandated reporters contributed to increased waiting time on Child Abuse Registry calls because most social workers do not answer waiting calls while doing the additional documentation.

F4: The volume of child abuse calls coming into the Child Abuse Registry has significantly increased, which necessitates changing management strategies for dealing with the increased amount and complexity of the activity.

F5: The Adult Protective Services hotline was absorbed into the Child Abuse Registry. Most social workers interviewed reported that they felt competent and enjoyed taking the calls for the agency from which they came (child or adult), but still felt unsure, slower, and less confident taking calls for the other agency.

F6: Hotline social workers are required to input the same repeated data on multiple forms for the same call. Manual data entry is duplicated, which requires additional time away from being available to take waiting calls.

F7: CAR management does not appear to have specific policies or strategies for dealing with peak periods when there are long wait times and high dropped call rates. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the 2014- 2015 Grand Jury requires responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Child Abuse Hotline: Unanswered Cries for Help Based on its investigation titled "Child Abuse Hotline - Unanswered Cries for Help," the 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following four recommendations: The Child Abuse Registry should examine the feasibility of utilizing an

Additional Recommendations 4

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: abbreviated report for mandated Information-Only calls to expedite completion of these reports, thus freeing up the hotline worker to take waiting calls. (F.3.)

R2: Additional training of all Child Abuse Registry social workers should continue until all workers feel equally competent taking both adult and child calls. While training is disruptive and time consuming, the formal training should continue as a priority. (F.5.)

R3: All documentation completed by hotline social workers should be examined with the goal of eliminating redundancies in order to allow quicker completion of the paperwork, thus freeing up social workers for waiting calls. (F.6.)

R4: The Social Services Agency and the Child Abuse Registry should become more proactive in addressing the excessive number of dropped calls and establish strategies and policies to reduce the dropped-call rate with an initial goal of returning to less than 5%. A partial list of strategies that could be considered for dealing with spike volume periods include: a) training and requiring staff to multitask (taking a waiting call prior to completing the post-call work on the previous call); b) designating supervisors to answer waiting calls; and c) specifying staff members to triage calls to determine the level of urgency and potentially taking a message for call-back. (F.1., F.2., F.4., F.7)

📋Ab109 Offenders: Are Current Probation Strategies Effective?

30 pages 4 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 4 findings

F1: Orange County Probation Department’s Policies and Procedures Manual is REPORT officer supervised 83 cases. Considering the caseload standards of the APPA, the consistent with professional standards for use of risk assessment tools and 8 current caseload size for 23 of the officers may be considered manageable. However, determination of classification levels for each AB109 offender. the 10 remaining officers are supervising more than the APPA recommended for optimal service and community safety. F.2. Orange County Probation Department’s Policies and Procedures Manual is not REPORT consistent with professional standards for development of supervision plans for 9 Conclusion AB109 offenders, including frequency and types of contacts. REPORT Historically, probation departments have two major roles: social work or the

Page 272

F3: Orange County Probation Department’s Policies and Procedures Manual does 10 rehabilitation role, and the law enforcement role, assuring compliance with the not identify the maximum caseload size for Probation Officers supervision of conditions of probation, and holding the probationer accountable—all aimed at the AB109 offenders. ultimate goal of community protection. While most agencies tend to gravitate toward REPORT one end of the social work-law enforcement continuum (rehabilitation v. enforcement), F.4. Orange County Probation Department's Policies and Procedures Manual does 11 ideally, departments will possess a proper balance, providing both treatment services, not provide adequate requirements for drug-testing classifications or frequency while assuring compliance with the conditions of probation. guidelines. REPORT 12 The Grand Jury observed that the OCPD provides considerable drug treatment F.5. Orange County Probation Department's Policies and Procedures Manual does opportunities to its AB109 offenders. Treatment services can always be improved, and not provide adequate requirements to address the issue of drug-testing we observed a shortage of residential resources. Specifically, the Health Care Agency avoidance or recommend responses for AB109 probationers who attempt to REPORT in October 2014, implemented a change in policy to reduce availability of residential avoid positive drug tests by failing to appear or by diluting their urine samples. 13 treatment beds, thereby creating a waiting list. The number of beds for AB109 offenders was limited to 25 per month. Several of the OCPD staff indicated that this restriction F.6. Orange County Probation Department does not incorporate current technology REPORT prevented the reform of AB109 offenders who would greatly benefit by residential drug (refractometer) in its drug testing system. Including such technology may assist 14 treatment. There were also indications of a need for more sober-living beds, and more in the ability to quickly detect diluted urine samples provided by probationers. housing for identified sex offenders. REPORT

Page 272

F7: The Orange County Probation Department and Health Care Agency have lost an 15 The Grand Jury observed that the intensity of supervision for AB109 offenders opportunity to reduce recidivism by not increasing residential drug treatment fell short of recognized standards. The number of supervision contacts was inconsistent options for AB109 probationers over outpatient treatment or incarceration. REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 AB109 Offenders: Are Current Probation Strategies Effective? REPORT

Page 272

F8: There exists a need for increased housing availability for AB109 probationers 2 who are homeless. REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS 3 In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the 2014- 2015 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected REPORT by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are submitted to the 4 Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled “AB109 Offenders: Are Current Probation REPORT Strategies Effective?” the 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following 5 six recommendations: REPORT

Page 273

Additional Recommendations 5

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Standards and guidelines for AB109 offender supervision, such as number of 6 contacts, home visits, drug tests, and collateral contacts based on the risk-needs assessment should be included in the Orange County Probation Department's REPORT Policy and Procedures (F.1., F.2.) 7

Page 273

R2: The Orange County Probation Department should take steps to lower caseload sizes consistent with American Probation and Parole Association standards of no REPORT more than a 40:1 ratio caseload per officer for high-risk offenders. (F.3.) 8

Page 273

R3: Standards and guidelines should be included in the Policies and Procedures REPORT Manual to address failures to report for drug testing. (F.5.) 9

Page 273

R4: The Orange County Probation Department should implement standards and guidelines in its Policy and Procedures Manual to address the frequently used REPORT technique of "flushing" to avoid drug detection and a refractometer or other 10 dilution-measuring device should be used to improve the integrity of the drug- testing program. (F.4., F.5., F.6.) REPORT 11 R.5. The Health Care Agency and the Probation Department should assess current funding priorities and options to seek additional residential drug treatment beds. (F.7.) REPORT 12

Page 273

R6: The Social Services Agency should address the needs of the AB109 offenders who are homeless or who experience instability in housing. (F.8.) REPORT 13 REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code section 933 requires the governing body of any public REPORT agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, 14 to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such REPORT comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report 15 (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected official shall comment REPORT on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT AB109 Offenders: Are Current Probation Strategies Effective? 1 REPORT official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to 2 the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code section 933.05, subdivisions (a), (b), and (c), REPORT provides as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: 3 (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of REPORT the following: 4 (1) The respondent agrees with the finding REPORT (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case 5 the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. REPORT (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report 6 one of the following actions: REPORT (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the 7 implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented REPORT in the future, with a time frame for implementation. 8 (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the REPORT scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be 9 prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when REPORT applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of 10 the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or REPORT is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. 11 (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the REPORT agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by 12 the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The REPORT response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the 13 findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. REPORT Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal 14 Code section 933.05 are required from: Responses Required: REPORT 15 Orange County Board of Supervisors: Findings F.1., F.2., F.3., F.4., F.5., F.6.,

Page 273

📋AB 109-Realignment: Are the Public and Probation Officers at Greater Risk?

20 pages 5 findings 2 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 5 findings

F1: AB109 has not resulted in an overall increase in crime in Orange County.

Page 104

F2: Although AB109 offenders must meet requirements for no convictions of serious, REPORT violent, or sexual crimes, this is only true for their latest offense. Many AB109 14 offenders do have prior convictions for serious, violent, or sexual crimes in their criminal background. REPORT 15

Page 104

F3: AB109 offenders continue to pose a danger to the community at the current recidivism rate of approximately 30%, especially as it relates to property crimes. REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 AB109-Realignment: Are the Public and Probation Officers at Greater Risk? REPORT

Page 104

F4: AB109 offenders are at a higher risk for reoffending with 88% of them having a 2 drug abuse history. Orange County does not have adequate residential drug treatment beds available for the number of AB109 offenders, thus limiting the use REPORT of this preventative alternative. 3

Page 105

F5: AB109 has placed Probation Officers at greater risk, however the Orange County Probation Department has placed a high priority on officer safety by providing REPORT adequate defensive tools to the officers including firearms, batons, pepper spray, 4 and protective vests. REPORT F.6. OCPD has provided many additional tools to probation officers under AB109 to 5 ensure officer safety, with the exception of a Taser. RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT 6 In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the 2014- 2015 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are submitted to the REPORT Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation of AB109 and Community Safety in Orange County, REPORT the 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following two recommendations: 8

Page 105

Additional Recommendations 2

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The Health Care Service Agency and/or the Probation Department should review the cost of services provided to probationers, and/or on enforcement actions, to REPORT determine if any of these services or actions provide less consistent benefits 9 toward reduced recidivism than residential treatment beds and, using funds that would otherwise be spent on those services or actions, increase the number of REPORT residential drug treatment beds. (F.4.) 10

Page 105

R2: The OCPD should provide Tasers as an option for AB109 probation officers. REPORT (F.6.) 11 REQUIRED RESPONSES REPORT The California Penal Code section 933 requires the governing body of any public 12 agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such REPORT comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report 13 (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected REPORT County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected official shall comment 14 on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to REPORT the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code section 933.05, subdivisions (a), (b), and (c), provides as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT AB109-Realignment: Are the Public and Probation Officers at Greater Risk? 1 REPORT (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of 2 the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding REPORT 3 (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an REPORT explanation of the reasons therefore. 4 (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: REPORT 5 (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. REPORT (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented 6 in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. REPORT (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the 7 scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when REPORT applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of 8 the Grand Jury report. REPORT (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or 9 is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel REPORT matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the 10 agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those REPORT budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The 11 response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. REPORT Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code 12 section 933.05 are required from: REPORT Required Reponses 13 Orange County Board of Supervisors: F.1., F.2., F.3., F.4., F.5., F.6., R.1., R.2. REPORT Requested Responses 14 Orange County Probation Department: F.1., F.2., F.3., F.4., F.5., F.6., R.1., R.2. REPORT Health Care Agency (HCA): F.4., R.1. REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 AB109-Realignment: Are the Public and Probation Officers at Greater Risk? REPORT REFERENCES 2 Bird, M. & Grattet, R. A (2014). Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC): Do local realignment policies affect recidivism in California? Retrieved from: REPORT http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_814MBR.pdf 3 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). (2013). Realignment REPORT Report: An examination of offenders released from state prison in the first year of 4 public safety realignment. Retrieved from: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/adult_research_branch/ REPORT California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). (2011). 2011 adult 5 institutions outcome evaluation report. Retrieved from : http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/adult_research_branch/ REPORT 6 Crime in the United States January to June 2012-2013. (2013). In FBI Uniform Crime Reports. Retrieved from: http://www.gbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the u.s/2013/preliminary REPORT 7 California Penal Code Section 3450-3465. Retrieved from: http://.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi- bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=03001-04000&file=34... REPORT 8 FBI: Overall Crime Dropped Across Orange County in 2013. In Orange County Register: (November, 2014). Retrieved from: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/crime-641562-county-saw.html REPORT 9 Hernandez, S. (2014, November). FBI: Overall Crime Dropped Across Orange County in 2013. In Orange County Register: Retrieved from REPORT http://www.ocregister.com/articles/crime-641562-county-saw.htm 10 Orange County Community Corrections Partnership (OCCCP) meeting handouts, September 24, 2014, Santa Ana, CA: OC Probation Office, Grand Ave Office. REPORT 11 Orange County Grand Jury. (2012). AB109: Public safety realignment: a paradigm change .Retrieved from: REPORT http://www.ocgrandjury.org/pdfs/artic_anti_abreport/ab109report.pdf 12 Orange County Public Safety Realignment and Postrelease : Community Supervision: 2013 Update Report (2013). Retrieved from: REPORT http://www.bscc.ca.gov/downloads/Orange_County_2013-14.pdf 13 Orange County Probation Department. (2012). Authorization to Carry Firearms: REPORT Procedures Manual Item 1-4-107. Santa Ana, CA: Author 14 Orange County Probation Department. (2011). Field Officer Safety Information/Required for Field Activities: Procedures Manual Item 1-4-119. Santa Ana, CA: Author. REPORT 15 Orange County Probation Department (2014). April-June Realignment Prerelease Community Supervision (PRCS) Quarterly Report. Santa Ana, CA: Author. REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT AB109-Realignment: Are the Public and Probation Officers at Greater Risk? 1 REPORT Rubin, J. and Poston, B. (2014, October 3). L.A.'s long-declining violent crime total on 2 pace to rise this year. Retrieved from: http://www.latimes.com/local/crime/la-me- crime-stats-20141004-stor. REPORT Skeem, J.L. & Manchak, Sarah (2014). Back to the future: fFrom Klockars' model of 3 effective supervision to evidence-based practice in probation. Journal of Juvenile Offender Rehabilitation,47(3), 220-247. REPORT 4 REPORT 5 REPORT 6 REPORT 7 REPORT 8 REPORT 9 REPORT 10 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 AB109-Realignment: Are the Public and Probation Officers at Greater Risk? REPORT

Page 105

📋Alternate Emergency Operations Center

2 findings

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 2 findings

F1: The Grand Jury finds that all previous recommendations by prior Grand Juries concerning the physical status of the primary Emergency Operations Center have been adequately addressed.

Page 9

F2: The Grand Jury finds that the backup system for Internet data communications at the Loma Ridge Emergency Operations Center is a limited capability satellite link, which is far less capable than the primary system and may prove to be inadequate.

Page 9

📋Annual Inquiry on Jails and Juvenile Detention Facilities

28 pages 6 findings 7 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 6 findings

F1: The condition and management of the Orange County Adult Jail facilities are REPORT acceptable and in overall compliance with state and local standards. 6

Page 169

F2: The James A. Musick Facility offers a commendable and highly beneficial program called Canines Offering Life Lessons and Rewards (COLLAR). REPORT 7 F.3. The OCSD is taking advantage of the recent decrease in jail population to perform needed maintenance and upgrades to a countywide aging facilities infrastructure. REPORT 8

Page 169

F4: Although the jails still have outdated and inadequate video equipment, a viable upgrade plan with committed funding and priorities has been approved for REPORT implementation over the next five years. Juvenile Facility Findings REPORT

Page 169

F5: The condition and management of the Orange County Juvenile Detention 10 facilities are acceptable and in overall compliance with state and local standards

Page 169

F6: The need for a gymnasium at Juvenile Hall/Youth Leadership Academy will be REPORT met, now that a State grant via Senate Bill 81 has been received to fund this 11 project. REPORT F.7. Some deputy juvenile correctional officers do not wear uniforms, providing an 12 overall appearance that is less than professional and making it difficult to differentiate deputy juvenile correctional officers from other staff. REPORT

Page 169

F8: The reduction in population at the various Juvenile facilities provides 13 opportunities to conduct maintenance, repairs, and upgrades. REPORT F.9. Two of the Juvenile facilities have inadequate video surveillance systems. The 14 Joplin Youth Center and the Youth Guidance Center have no video surveillance systems. REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS: 15 In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the 2014- REPORT 2015 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Annual Inquiry on Jails and Juvenile Detention Facilities 1 REPORT by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted 2 to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled “Annual Inquiry on Jail and Juvenile Detention REPORT Facilities,” the 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following three Adult 3 Jail recommendations and four Juvenile detention facility recommendations: REPORT Adult Jail Recommendations 4

Page 169

Additional Recommendations 7

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Consider expanding the Canines Offering Life Lessons and Rewards (COLLAR) program at James A. Musick facilty. (F.2.) REPORT 5

Page 170

R2: In the event of any future decrease in jail population, continue to utilize that time to conduct the needed maintenance work on the various facilities. (F.3.) REPORT

Page 170

R3: OCSD should closely monitor and expedite the five year plan for installing video 6 surveillance system upgrades. (F.4.) REPORT Juvenile Facility Recommendations 7

Page 170

R4: The new facility at Juvenile Hall should serve multiple purposes, including a gymnasium, capability for vocational training, and a visitation center. (F.6.) REPORT 8

Page 170

R5: Deputy juvenile correctional officers working with juveniles should be required to dress uniformly in order to look more professional and to be more easily identifiable (F.7.) REPORT 9

Page 170

R6: During periods of population reduction, the OCPD should conduct maintenance projects as done by the OCSD. (F.8.) REPORT 10

Page 170

R7: Upgrade the video surveillance system in all of the juvenile facilities by installing modern equipment and increase retention capacity to one year (F.9.) REPORT REQUIRED RESPONSES 11 The California Penal Code section 933 requires the governing body of any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, REPORT to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and 12 recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report REPORT (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings 13 and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected official shall comment REPORT on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected 14 official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. REPORT Furthermore, California Penal Code section 933.05, subdivisions (a), (b), and (c), 15 provides as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Annual Inquiry on Jails and Juvenile Detention Facilities REPORT (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of 2 the following: REPORT (1) The respondent agrees with the finding 3 (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an REPORT explanation of the reasons therefore. 4 (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: REPORT 5 (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. REPORT 6 (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. REPORT (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the 7 scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being REPORT investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when 8 applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. REPORT (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or 9 is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. REPORT (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel 10 matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by REPORT the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those 11 budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. REPORT 12 Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code section 933.05 are required from: REPORT Responses Required: 13 Responses are required from the Orange County Sheriff-Coroner for Adult Jail REPORT Findings F.1., F.2., F.3., F.4., and Adult Jail Recommendations R.1., R.2., and R.3., 14 Responses are required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors for Juvenile Facility Findings F.5., F.6., F.7., F.8., F.9 and Juvenile Facility REPORT Recommendations R.4., R.5., R.6., and R.7. Responses Requested: REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Annual Inquiry on Jails and Juvenile Detention Facilities 1 REPORT Responses are requested from the Orange County Probation Department for 2 Juvenile Facility Findings F.5., F.6., F.7., F.8., F.9., and Juvenile Facility Recommendations R.4., R.5., R.6, and R.7. REPORT 3 REPORT 4 REPORT 5 REPORT 6 REPORT 7 REPORT 8 REPORT 9 REPORT 10 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Annual Inquiry on Jails and Juvenile Detention Facilities REPORT REFERENCES 2 Board of State and Community Corrections. (2014, August 21). Detention facilities inspections. Orange County Grand Jury Training. [Slides]. Santa Ana, CA REPORT 3 Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) California (n.d.). Data and research. Retrieved from http://www.bscc.ca.gov/data&research REPORT Board of State and Community Corrections. (2015, April 1). 2012 -2014 biennial 4 inspection Orange County Type II, and court holding facilities penal code section 6031; welfare and institutions code section 209 juvenile justice and delinquency REPORT prevention act. Sacramento, CA 5 California Assembly Bill 109, 2011 Public Safety Realignment REPORT California Proposition 47, Reduced Penalties for Some Crimes Initiative 6 Cuniff, M.M. (2014, April 5). Sheriff using GPS to keep jails clear for repairs. The REPORT Orange County Register, Local section, 1,13 &14. Joplin Youth Center. Retrieved January 21, 2015, from http://ocgov.com/gov/probation/contact/institutions/joplin REPORT 8 Juvenile Hall. Retrieved October 7, 2014, from http://ocgov.com/probation/contact/institutions/juvehall REPORT 9 Orange County Sheriff’s Department. Central Jail Complex brochure received September 24, 2014, from Jail personnel. REPORT Orange County Sheriff’s Department. ICE/ERO Detention Contract. Retrieved April 3, 10 2015, from ocsd.org/divisions/custody/ocsd_ice_ero_detention_contract Orange County Sheriff’s Department. Intake Release Center brochure received REPORT September 24, 2014, from Jail personnel. Orange County Sheriff’s Department. James A Musick brochure received December 18, REPORT 2014, from Jail personnel 12 Orange County Sheriff’s Department. Theo Lacy Facility Grand Jury brochure, received October 21, 2014, from Jail personnel. REPORT 13 Youth Guidance Center. Retrieved December 9, 2014, from http://ocgov.com/gov/probation/contact/institutions/youthguide REPORT 14 Youth Leadership Academy. Retrieved December 9, 2014, from http://ocgov.com/gov/probation/contact/institutions/yla REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Annual Inquiry on Jails and Juvenile Detention Facilities 1 REPORT COMMENDATIONS 2 The OCGJ received full cooperation from all personnel at every facility. The OCGJ was given complete access to each facility. Staff members throughout the adult REPORT jails and the juvenile detention facilities were cordial, professional, and knowledgeable. REPORT 4 REPORT 5 REPORT 6 REPORT 7 REPORT 8 REPORT 9 REPORT 10 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Annual Inquiry on Jails and Juvenile Detention Facilities REPORT APPENDIX: INQUIRY CRITERIA AND CHECKLISTS 2 With regard to each area of jail and juvenile facility inquiries, the criteria were: REPORT 1. Condition of the facility 3 2. Cleanliness 3. Staff presence REPORT 4. Overall safety and security 4 5. Orderliness of operation The OCGJ applied the above criteria on the Adult Evaluation Checklist in the REPORT following areas: 5 1. Booking REPORT 2. Intake-Release Center 6 3. Safety Cell 4. Sobering Cell 5. Kitchen REPORT 6. Dining Hall 7 7. Housing 8. Laundry REPORT 9. Exercise Area / Recreation 8 10. Visiting Area 11. Medical Area REPORT 12. Court Holding Area 9 13. Administrative Segregation (Anti-social / Poor behavior) 14. Segregation of AB 109 Inmates REPORT 15. Segregation of ICE Detainees 10 16. Housing for the Mentally ill / Medication / Suicide Watch 17. Protective Custody (Child Molesters / Law Enforcement Family) 18. Segregation of Gang Members REPORT 19. Disciplinary Isolation (Up to 10 days) 11 20. Operational Condition of Surveillance Cameras REPORT Similarly, the OCGJ thoroughly applied the same criteria to each area on the 12 Juvenile Evaluation Checklist. These areas included: 1. Booking REPORT 2. Intake-Release Center 13 3. Safety Cell 4. Kitchen REPORT 5. Dining Hall 14 6. Housing 7. Laundry REPORT 8. Schools/Classrooms/Programs 15 9. Exercise Area / Recreation Area 10. Visiting Area REPORT 11. Medical Area 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Annual Inquiry on Jails and Juvenile Detention Facilities 1 REPORT 12. Court Holding Area 2 13. Administrative Segregation (Anti-social / Poor behavior) 14. Segregation of ICE Detainees 15. Housing for the Mentally ill / Medication / Suicide Watch REPORT 16. Protective Custody (Child Molesters / Law Enforcement Family) 3 17. Segregation of Gang Members 18. Disciplinary Isolation (Up to 10 Days) REPORT 19. Operational Condition of Surveillance Cameras 4 20. Maintenance of Grounds 21. Overall Condition of Buildings REPORT 5 REPORT 6 REPORT 7 REPORT 8 REPORT 9 REPORT 10 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury

Page 170

📋Child Abuse Hotline: Unanswered Cries for Help

20 pages 4 findings 4 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 4 findings

F2: Significant improvement in dropped call rates is a reasonable expectation REPORT because during the last three years, there have been months when the Child 7 Abuse Registry achieved dropped call rates in the range of 5%-7%. REPORT F.3. The new requirement to document all Information-Only calls from mandated 8 reporters contributed to increased waiting time on Child Abuse Registry calls because most social workers do not answer waiting calls while doing the additional documentation. REPORT 9

Page 67

F4: The volume of child abuse calls coming into the Child Abuse Registry has significantly increased, which necessitates changing management strategies for REPORT dealing with the increased amount and complexity of the activity. 10

Page 67

F5: The Adult Protective Services hotline was absorbed into the Child Abuse Registry. Most social workers interviewed reported that they felt competent and REPORT enjoyed taking the calls for the agency from which they came (child or adult), but 11 still felt unsure, slower, and less confident taking calls for the other agency. REPORT F.6. Hotline social workers are required to input the same repeated data on multiple 12 forms for the same call. Manual data entry is duplicated, which requires additional time away from being available to take waiting calls. REPORT

Page 67

F7: CAR management does not appear to have specific policies or strategies for 13 dealing with peak periods when there are long wait times and high dropped call rates. REPORT 14 RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the 2014- REPORT 2015 Grand Jury requires responses from each agency affected by the 15 recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Child Abuse Hotline: Unanswered Cries for Help 1 Based on its investigation titled “Child Abuse Hotline – Unanswered Cries for REPORT Help,” the 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following four 2 recommendations: REPORT

Page 67

Additional Recommendations 4

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The Child Abuse Registry should examine the feasibility of utilizing an 3 abbreviated report for mandated Information-Only calls to expedite completion of these reports, thus freeing up the hotline worker to take waiting calls. (F.3.) REPORT

Page 68

R2: Additional training of all Child Abuse Registry social workers should continue until 4 all workers feel equally competent taking both adult and child calls. While training is disruptive and time consuming, the formal training should continue as a REPORT priority. (F.5.) 5

Page 68

R3: All documentation completed by hotline social workers should be examined with REPORT the goal of eliminating redundancies in order to allow quicker completion of the 6 paperwork, thus freeing up social workers for waiting calls. (F.6.)

Page 68

R4: The Social Services Agency and the Child Abuse Registry should become more REPORT proactive in addressing the excessive number of dropped calls and establish 7 strategies and policies to reduce the dropped-call rate with an initial goal of returning to less than 5%. A partial list of strategies that could be considered for REPORT dealing with spike volume periods include: 8 a) training and requiring staff to multitask (taking a waiting call prior to completing the post-call work on the previous call); REPORT b) designating supervisors to answer waiting calls; and 9 c) specifying staff members to triage calls to determine the level of urgency and potentially taking a message for call-back. REPORT 10 (F.1., F.2., F.4., F.7) REQUIRED RESPONSES REPORT 11 The California Penal Code section 933 requires the governing body of any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, REPORT to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and 12 recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings REPORT and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected 13 County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected official shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected REPORT official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to 14 the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code section 933.05, subdivisions (a), (b), and (c), REPORT provides as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Child Abuse Hotline: Unanswered Cries for Help REPORT (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of 2 the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding REPORT 3 (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an REPORT explanation of the reasons therefore. 4 (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: REPORT 5 (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. REPORT 6 (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. REPORT (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the 7 scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being REPORT investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when 8 applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. REPORT (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or 9 is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. REPORT (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel 10 matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those REPORT budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The 11 response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. REPORT 12 Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code section 933.05 are required from: REPORT Responses Required 13 Orange County Board of Supervisors: F.1., F.2., F.3., F.4., F.5., F.6., F.7., R.1., REPORT R.2., R.3., R.4. Responses Requested: REPORT Social Services Agency: F.1., F.2., F.3., F.4., F.5., F.6., F.7., R.1., R.2., R.3., R.4. REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Child Abuse Hotline: Unanswered Cries for Help 1 REPORT COMMENDATION 2 The Grand Jury wishes to commend all of the CAR managers and social workers who were interviewed during the course of this investigation. Their responsiveness to REPORT requests for information and coordination of interviews facilitated the work of the Grand 3 Jury. The commitment to their work in addressing the difficult task of preventing child abuse was most notable. REPORT 4 REPORT 5 REPORT 6 REPORT 7 REPORT 8 REPORT 9 REPORT 10 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Child Abuse Hotline: Unanswered Cries for Help REPORT

Page 68

📋Communications at Loma Ridge

Quick View Full Details →

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

📋Emergency Operation Makeup and Mission

Quick View Full Details →

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

📋"Irvine" Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris?

48 pages 11 findings 8 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 11 findings

F1: The Irvine City Council originally had a vision of a metropolitan park that would REPORT rival Central Park in New York, Golden Gate Park in San Francisco, and Balboa 12 Park in San Diego but neglected to follow standard industry practices in managing such a large project. REPORT

Page 310

F2: From the outset, with the City of Irvine assuming a land developer role, the 13 project was poorly managed and did not follow conventional program management principles. There was excessive political control, influence, and REPORT interference over the Great Park project. The City allowed individuals, including 14 some elected officials to make technical decisions without ensuring that these individuals were qualified or experienced to make such decisions. Basically, the REPORT City abandoned sound project management principles. REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris REPORT

Page 310

Related Recommendations (1)

R4: The City of Irvine should develop and publish a new 10-year comprehensive REPORT strategic plan for all of the development activities beyond the ALA II plan with 8 time commitments for the Cultural Terrace, including the library, lake, museums, etc. along with all of the funding and expenditure plans (F2, F7, F11). REPORT 9

F3: The organizational structure established by the Irvine City Council was such that 2 total control over the project rested with the City Council and the Orange County Great Park Corporation was relegated to an advisory role. REPORT 3 F.4. Many California communities, including Mission Viejo, Belmont, Watsonville, and Norwalk have ordinances restricting elected officials from interfering in REPORT operational activities under a city manager. 4

Page 311

F5: Appropriate transparency over the project was lacking. The City Council and the OCGPC did not publicly reveal the estimated true costs to build the park as REPORT originally designed as well as other non-capital expenditures. 5

Page 311

F6: There were serious questions about the ability of the City to implement the original design based on the City’s available financing and U.S. Navy constraints. REPORT 6

Page 311

F7: Many of the contracts of the Great Park were open-ended and without defined deliverables, minor oversight, or safeguards. There seemingly was no effective REPORT oversight over invoices, contract compliance, or quality control. 7

Page 311

Related Recommendations (3)

R4: The City of Irvine should develop and publish a new 10-year comprehensive REPORT strategic plan for all of the development activities beyond the ALA II plan with 8 time commitments for the Cultural Terrace, including the library, lake, museums, etc. along with all of the funding and expenditure plans (F2, F7, F11). REPORT 9

R6: The City should review and ensure compliance with its policies and guidelines REPORT regarding contracts and appropriately restricting the use of sole source and no- 11 bid contracts. (F7) REPORT

R7: The City of Irvine should create a master document that lays out all of the terms 12 and conditions of the ALA, ARDA, ALA II contracts and alterations to the Master Plan and Land Use Agreements. These need to be consolidated into one document of record which clearly indicates each party’s obligations under the REPORT contract (F7). 13

F8: There seemed to be over-use of no-bid and sole source contracts without full justification which possibly violates the City’s processes and procedures. There REPORT are also questions of clarity relative to terms and conditions of current contracts. 8

Page 311

F9: Orange County Great Park financial statements indicated that less than 50% of REPORT expenses incurred were spent on capital, i.e., on the actual design and 9 construction of the Great Park, which is well outside industry standards. The remaining expenses were on salaries, overhead, and contract services. REPORT

Page 311

F10: The complexity of financial transactions relative to the Great Park made it difficult 10 to understand the flow of funds relative to sources and uses of monies. The lack of clarity on such basic issues as the number of units authorized to be REPORT constructed raises concerns about other issues in the contract that are unclear. This was a major flaw in the reporting system. REPORT F.11. An inordinate amount of funds were spent on public relations and lobbying, “free” 12 public events, exhibitions, food, and a balloon whose benefits did not justify its costs. REPORT

Page 311

Related Recommendations (1)

R5: The City of Irvine should discontinue extravagant expenditures in favor of more cost conscious public events. As an example, the City should consider REPORT “grounding” the balloon or severely limiting its use, as this expensive attraction 10 costs over $1 million per year to operate (F10).

F12: The current plan for the construction of the Great Park will require less funding 13 than the original plan but will still require a high cost of construction and operations and maintenance that will be passed on to home buyers. REPORT

Page 311

F13: There was no explanation by the City Council as to where the tax increment of 14 $43 million received by the IRDA from 2005-2011 was utilized. REPORT F.14. The OCGPC has become a “shell” corporation and serves no intrinsic function as 15 members of the Board of Directors are the same as members of the Irvine City Council. REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris 1 REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS 2 In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the 2014- 2015 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected REPORT by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted 3 to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. REPORT Based on its investigation titled “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris,” the 4 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following eight recommendations:

Page 311

Related Recommendations (2)

R2: The City of Irvine should give serious consideration to dissolving the Orange County Great Park Corporation as it serves no intrinsic purpose (F13). REPORT 6

R8: The City of Irvine needs to provide an explanation as to where the tax increment REPORT of $43 million received by the IRDA from 2005-2011 was utilized. (F13). REQUIRED RESPONSES REPORT The California Penal Code section 933 requires the governing body of any public 15 agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris REPORT comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report 2 (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected REPORT County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected official shall comment 3 on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to REPORT the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code section 933.05, subdivisions (a), (b), and (c), provides as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: REPORT 5 (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: REPORT (1) The respondent agrees with the finding 6 (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case REPORT the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an 7 explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report REPORT one of the following actions: 8 (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the REPORT implemented action. 9 (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. REPORT 10 (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be REPORT prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being 11 investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of REPORT the Grand Jury report. 12 (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. REPORT 13 (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by REPORT the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those 14 budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the REPORT findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal REPORT Code section 933.05 are required from: 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris 1 REPORT Responses Required: 2 Irvine City Council – All Findings and Recommendations REPORT : 3 REPORT 4 REPORT 5 REPORT 6 REPORT 7 REPORT 8 REPORT 9 REPORT 10 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris REPORT COMMENDATIONS 2 The Grand Jury is very appreciative of the cooperation and efforts of the staff of REPORT the City of Irvine and the Orange County Great Park Corporation. They could not have 3 been more courteous, professional, and helpful. Appreciation also goes out to the Office of the Orange County District Attorney for their assistance. REPORT 4 REPORT 5 REPORT 6 REPORT 7 REPORT 8 REPORT 9 REPORT 10 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris 1 REPORT ENDNOTES 2 1. Measure W: County Parks Initiative: REPORT Shall the initiative measure: 1) eliminating planned airport uses at the closed 3 El Toro Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS El Toro) by repealing Measure A, and 2) amending the Orange County General Plan to authorize an urban regional park and REPORT a variety of agricultural, material recovery/recycling, recreational, cultural, 4 educational, employment, public and housing land uses at MCAS El Toro, be adopted.” REPORT The intention of the initiative was to cease all activities to transform the 5 former air base into a commercial airport and to “provide Orange County’s three million residents with an opportunity to enjoy a park on par with Golden Gate Park REPORT and The Presidio in San Francisco, Griffith Park in Los Angeles, and Balboa Park in 6 San Diego.” Further rationale included: “The park will generate regional and state- wide economic benefits from tourism, education, and the attraction of businesses to the area.” (Orange County, California Measure W. Retrieved August 13, 2014 from REPORT http://airportnoiselaw.org/orangew.html para H) 7 2. Bosque: The term bosque is from the Spanish meaning “woodlands.” It refers to REPORT clumps of trees found along flood plains of stream and river banks in the 8 southwestern United States. REPORT 3. The Irvine City Manager stated in 2003: 9 “The financial plan for the OC GP will fulfill the promise our City made to the people of Orange County when we drafted Measure W nearly two years ago. REPORT 10 “Working in cooperation with the Navy, we have created a sound financial plan for building and maintaining the Great Park without any federal, state, or local REPORT taxpayer subsidies. 11 “Master-planned communities throughout Southern California, including Irvine, maintain high standards and amenities by requiring developers and property REPORT buyers to contribute to the construction and maintenance of public facilities. 12 “Real estate experts who have reviewed the Orange County GP Plan all REPORT agree that the sale of the developable property will more than support the $200 13 million in development fees. The assessments and special maintenance levies, plus the basic 1% property tax, will not exceed the overall 2% property tax levied on property owners in most master-planned communities. REPORT 14 “The most exciting feature of this plan is the speed in which it allows the GP to be developed. REPORT “We will begin tearing up the runways within days of the completion of the 15 sale of the property. Our children will be playing in the county’s largest Sports Park, and people will be able to enjoy the first phase of the Meadows Park within three REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris REPORT years. Within only five years of the sale of the property, the OCGP will be fully 2 landscaped and will serve all of our county for many generations to come.” (p. 1) REPORT 4. According to Orange County Great Park Planning Report (2003): “Other great 3 metropolitan parks have required fifty years or more to develop. By contrast, the Orange County Great Park development strategy—harnessing the power of private REPORT capital and the benefit of enlightened public planning—will enable all key elements 4 of the Great Park to be developed within five to seven years of the sale of the property.” REPORT 5 5. The 2005-2006 Grand Jury stated in their report “Orange County Great Park: Whose Park Is It?”: “By merging the operations of the City of Irvine and the GPC, employees REPORT of the GPC are now employees of the City of Irvine and everything from job 6 assignments to raises and other factors are at the behest of the City of Irvine. It raises the question, what exactly is the purpose or function of the OCGPC if the City of Irvine collects all park related revenue, hires employees whose duties are related REPORT to the park, and pays the other expenses related to the park.” (p. 9) 7 REPORT 8 6. This is not in violation of public law. According to the Health & Safety Code (§33200, sub d). [a]) a city council, in activating the redevelopment agency in its community, is authorized under State law to name itself to members of the redevelopment agency REPORT board, as the Irvine City Council did when it adopted Ordinance 99-04 in 1999 9 activating the Irvine Redevelopment Agency. REPORT 10 7. City of Irvine Contract Award Process: A contract can primarily be awarded in the following three methods. REPORT • Use of Consultant Team Member 11 • Request for Proposal (RFP)/Formal Bidding Process • Sole Sourced REPORT 12 The city creates a list of business needs and establishes a list of Consultant Team Members who have been properly vetted. When a need is REPORT discovered the responsible manager is to go to the Consultant Team first, next 13 option is to request a RFP from any and all vendors, and last option is sole sourcing. REPORT The following is a summary of the key levels of contract authority and 14 signature levels contained in the Great Park Procurement policies. Authority to sign a contract must be preceded by approval of the contractor, program or expenditure, either through the budget process or through separate action of the REPORT Corporation’s Board of Directors. The levels and amounts are consistent with 15 comparable functions in the City of Irvine. REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris 1 REPORT Contract Amount Contract Authority 2 $100,000 or less Orange County Great Park Managers >$100,000 up to $1,000,000 Chief Executive Officer and REPORT Deputy Chief Executive Officer 3 >$1,000,000 Chief Executive Officer and Chairman* *Any contract requiring the Chairman’s signature must first be approved by the Board of Directors. REPORT Additional highlights of the revised Orange County Great Park 4 Procurement Policies include: REPORT Purchases or contracts in excess of $5,000 for supplies, equipment, or 5 construction require three qualified bids or quotes. Professional services or consultants require a formal proposal process for REPORT contracts expected to be greater than $5,000. In this case, three qualified 6 proposals are also required. Pricing, however, is of secondary consideration to qualifications (as required by applicable State law). REPORT The use of a Consultant Team Program whereby certain professional 7 consultants are pre-qualified through a competitive selection process and have master agreements which extend for a period of up to three years. (Consultant REPORT Teams pre-approved by the City are available for use by the Orange County 8 Great Park.) REPORT Sole source—the policies allow for sole source purchase or contract 9 where a competitive bidding or selection process cannot be accomplished. Such situations could occur due to time constraints, proximity, highly specialized knowledge, or unique product. Sole source request, in all cases, must be REPORT accompanied by a justification memo to the Chief Executive Officer. REPORT 8. The following is an excerpt from the Mission Viejo Municipal Code: 11 “The city council and its members shall deal with the administrative services of the city only through the city manager, except for the purpose REPORT of inquiry, and neither the city council nor any member thereof shall give 12 orders to any subordinate of the city manager. For purposes hereof, “inquiry” means any and all communications short of giving orders, directions, or instruction to any member of the administrative staff. Such REPORT members shall provide all information reasonably requested by any 13 councilmember. The city manager shall take his orders and instructions from the city council only when sitting in a duly convened meeting of the REPORT city council and no individual councilmember shall give any orders or 14 instructions to the city manager. The city council shall instruct the city manager in matters of policy. Any action, determination or omission of the REPORT city manager shall be subject to review by the city council. The city council 15 may not overrule, change or modify any such action, determination or omission except by the affirmative vote of at least three members of the REPORT city council.” (Code 1988, § 2.08.070) 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris REPORT REFERENCES 2 Aleshire & Wynder Memorandum. (2014a, October). Great Park Audit: Status update. REPORT Irvine, CA. Aleshire & Wynder Memorandum. (2014b, October 14). Great Park Audit: Status update. Irvine, CA. REPORT 4 Aleshire & Wynder (2015, March 24). Report of Special Counsel. Irvine, CA. Author. American Institute of Architects (AIA). (2007, August 27). Standard for of agreement REPORT between owner and architect: Document B141-1997 Part I. Irvine, CA. BLL/PBS&J Program Management Team. (2006, November 17). Review of the Great REPORT Park Design Studio invoices (#2-#7, #9). Irvine, CA. BLL/PBS&J Program Management Team. (2006, October). Review and Comments: Great Park Design Studio contract no. 2 monthly report: October 2007. Irvine, REPORT CA. Bovis Lend Lease. (2008, July 16). Orange County Great Park: Program Management REPORT Team: Schematic Design 70% milestone submitted review and comments. Irvine, 8 CA. Burgess, M.A. (2014, June 24). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. REPORT Newport Beach, CA. City Manager. (2013). 2014 Reorganization plan. City of Irvine, CA. REPORT Clark, C. (2014, April 23). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. Newport 10 Beach, CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp REPORT 11 County Executive Officer, County of Orange. (2006). Response to Orange County Grand Jury Report, “The Orange County Great Park: Whose park is it.” Santa Ana, CA. REPORT 12 Cowan, J. (2014, October 19). Yet another flare-up over Great Park. Los Angeles Times, p. A33. REPORT 13 Design Studio. (2006). Orange County Great Park Preliminary Master Plan. Irvine, CA. Ellzey, M.D. (2014, June 18). Deposition: Orange County Great Park. Newport Beach, REPORT CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp 14 Elmahrek, A. (2014a, September 7). Video derides findings of Great Park audit. Voice of Orange County, http://ww.voiceofoc.org. REPORT 15 Elmahrek, A. (2014b, November 6). Is it the end of an era in Irvine politics? Voice of Orange County, http://ww.voiceofoc.org. REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris 1 REPORT Elmahrek, A. (2015, February 19). Auditor sees bias in Irvine’s Great Park investigation. 2 http://voiceofoc.org. Ford, A. (2014, August 5). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. Irvine, REPORT CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp 3 Fuscoe, P. (2014, July 14). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. Irvine, REPORT CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp 4 Gaffen, Y. (2014, August 8). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. San Diego, CA. Retrieved from: REPORT http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp 5 Gibbs Giden (2014). Orange County Great Park audit. Los Angeles, CA. Author. REPORT Great Park Corporation. (2007, August 9). Transcript from OCGP Board Meeting on 6 August 9, 2007. Irvine, CA. REPORT Great Park Corporation. (2010, June 17). Notice of termination without cause of 7 agreement for contract services for the Orange County Great Park for marketing and communication services (No. 7469) dated September 7, 2012. Irvine, CA. REPORT Great Park Corporation. (2013, January 10). Schematic design contract close-out. Irvine, CA. REPORT Great Park Conservancy. (n.d.). Foundation for the Great Park. 9 http://www.orangecountygreatpark.org Hagan, Streiff, Newton, & Ohiro (HSNO). (2014). Orange County Great Park forensic REPORT contract performance review. Newport Beach, CA. Hagan, Streiff, Newton, & Ohiro (HSNO). (2015, March 23). Orange County Great Park REPORT forensic contract performance review. Newport Beach, CA. Irvine, City of. (2006a). Response of City of Irvine - 2006 Report (“The Orange County Great Park: Whose park is it”). Irvine, CA. REPORT 12 Irvine, City of. (2006b). City Council Resolution No. 06-42: A resolution of the City Council of the City of Irvine restating and clarifying the governing structures and REPORT responsibilities relating to the Orange County Great Park. Irvine, CA. Irvine, City of. (2010a). Response of City of Irvine - 2010 Grand Jury Report dated June 3, 2010. Irvine, CA. REPORT 14 Irvine, City of. (2010b, September 13). Agreement concerning close-out of schematic design contract. Irvine, CA. REPORT Irvine, City of. (2012a, August 14). Dismissal agreement in connection with State of 15 California Department of Finance settlement negotiations by and between City of Irvine Successor Agency to the dissolved Redevelopment Agency and Irvine REPORT Community Land Trust. Irvine, CA. 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris REPORT Irvine, City of. (2012b). Heritage Fields Project 2012 GPA/ZC: Draft Second 2 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSSEIR). Irvine, CA. REPORT Irvine, City of. (2013a, March 26). Formation of community facilities district no. 2013-3. Irvine, CA. Irvine, City of. (2013b, November 11). Second agreement with City of Irvine as adjacent REPORT landowner (ALAII). Irvine, CA. Irvine, City of. (2013c, November 26). Irvine City Council meeting minutes. Irvine, CA. REPORT Irvine, City of. (2014, January 28). Resolution of the City Council of City of Irvine 5 authorizing an investigation into the financial management of the Orange County Great Park, approving a scope of work for a forensic investigation, and REPORT authorizing the City Council subcommittee and retained special counsel to 6 facilitate the investigation and issue subpoenas. Irvine, CA. REPORT Irvine, City of. (2014b, July 9). Settlement agreement and release of claims. Irvine, CA. Irvine, City of. (2014c). Accounts paid listing: 2012-2013. Irvine, CA. REPORT Irvine, City of. (2014d, March 18). Irvine City Council meeting minutes. Irvine, CA. Jow, L. (2014a, October 28). Irvine ballot measures: Great Park transparency, term limits. Orange County Register, p. L-4. REPORT 9 Jow, L. (2014b, November 4). Irvine voters approve Great Park fiscal reform, term limits. Orange County Register. Retrieved from: http://www.ocregister.com REPORT Jow, L. (2014, November 6). Agran is out after 16 years; Republicans look set for Irvine 10 supermajority. Orange County Register, pp. L1, L5. REPORT Joyce, S. (2014a, February 2). Memo: Reorganization plan. Irvine, CA 11 Joyce, S. (2014b, July 18). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. Irvine, CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp REPORT 12 King, T., & Butow, R. (2011, November 27). So far all the Orange County got was a big ugly balloon. Salem-News. Retrieved from http;//www.salem-news.com REPORT 13 Kogerman, W.G. (2014, June 26). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. Newport Beach, CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp REPORT 14 Kohn, P.D. (2014, August 11). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. Irvine, CA. REPORT 15 Kreutzen, W. (2014, April 29). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. Newport Beach, CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris 1 REPORT Krom, B. (2006, September 13). Response of City of Irvine to Orange County Grand 2 Jury 2005-2006 Report (“The Orange County Great Park: Whose Park Is It?”). City of Irvine, CA. REPORT Krom, B. (2015, April 19). Great park now about profits, not people. Orange County 3 Register, Opinion 6. REPORT Landers, S. (2014, July 9). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. Newport Beach, CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp REPORT Lough, M. (2011). Design development quality management checklist. American 5 Institute of Architects. New York. REPORT McDevitt, B. (2014, July 8). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. Newport Beach, CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp REPORT McDonnell, K. (2014, October 22). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. Irvine, CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp REPORT 8 Maxwell-Miller, T. (2014, October 2). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. Newport Beach, CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp REPORT 9 Mollrich, S. (2014, July 30). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. Irvine, CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp REPORT 10 Mission Viejo, City of. (1988). Municipal Code Sec 2.08.070. Mission Viejo, CA. Orange County Great Park Corp. Board of Directors (2008, June 19). Agenda. Irvine, REPORT CA. Orange County Grand Jury Report. (2006). The Orange County Great Park: Whose REPORT park Is it? Santa Ana, CA. Orange County Great Park. (n.d.a.). History of land. Irvine, CA. REPORT Orange County Great Park Corp. (n.d.b.). FY 2009-2020: Strategic business plan. Irvine, CA. Orange County Grand Jury Report. (2010). Financing the Great Park: Now you see it, REPORT now you don’t. Santa Ana, CA. Orange County (2002). Measure W: County Parks Initiative. Retrieved from: REPORT http://www.smartvoter.org/2002/03/05/ca/or/meas/W/.html 15 Orange County Great Park Design Studio. (2007). Major milestone review: 30% schematic estimate construction elements. Irvine, CA. REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris REPORT Schulman, M. (n.d.). California without redevelopment monies: The ethical issues. Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, Santa Clara University, CA. Retrieved from http://www.scu.edu. REPORT 3 Sim, R. (2005, March 14). Great Park Audit: Statement of Richard Sim to Conservancy. Irvine, CA. REPORT Sim, R. (2014, July 29). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. Irvine, CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp REPORT Smith, K. (2014, September 5). Deposition: Orange County Great Park. San Clemente, 5 CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp Smith, G. (n.d.). Declaration of Greg Smith regarding City of Irvine Great Park. Irvine, REPORT CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp 6 Starnes, J.L. (2014, June 30). Deposition: Orange County Great Park. Newport Beach, REPORT CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp 7 Urch, G.T. (2014, August 26). Orange County Great Park Corporation [Deposition]. Newport Beach, CA. Retrieved from: REPORT http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp 8 Wood, T. (2014, July 28). Arnold Forde: Half century of big time politics. Voice of REPORT Orange County, Retrieved from: http://ww.voiceofoc.org. Worthington, G. (n.d.). Declaration of Glen Worthington regarding City of Irvine Great Park. Irvine, CA REPORT 10 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris 1 REPORT APPENDIX A: 2 ORANGE COUNTY GREAT PARK CHRONOLOGY REPORT 1993 July Department of Defense places MCAS El Toro on the BRAC closure list. 3 2002, March 5 Orange County voters approve Measure W that creates the Orange County Central Park and Nature Preserve to replace MCAS El Toro. REPORT 2002, March 6 The Department of the Navy announces its intention to sell MCAS El Toro on a 4 bid basis. 2003, January 28 Irvine City Council announces in a press release that the Great Park would cost a projected $353 million to construct. REPORT 5 2003, July 7 The Orange County Great Park is incorporated. 2003, November 12 The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) approves the City of Irvine’s REPORT annexation of the former MCAS El Toro, putting the City of Irvine in control of land use decisions for the entire property. 6 2003, December 5 The Orange County Great Park Corporation (OCGPC) holds its first public meeting and adopts a resolution that expands the Board of Directors to nine (9) REPORT members. 7 2004, January 14 City of Irvine officially annexes former MCAS El Toro. 2004, September The Department of the Navy invites bids for MCAS El Toro. REPORT 8 2004, December 16 The OCGPC approves the 2004-2005 business plan with an anticipated budget to build the park at $401 million. REPORT 2005, March 8 Redevelopment funding for the Great Park is authorized by ordinance. 9 2005, April The OCGPC inaugurates design contest for the Great Park. 2005, June 23 Based on design submittals and recommendation by a “Design Jury,” seven REPORT finalists are selected and each is given $50,000 to develop and Conceptual 10 Master Design Plan. 2005, July 12 Lennar had the winning bid for MCAS El Toro of $649.5 million. Lennar REPORT contributes 1,347 acres to the City of Irvine, pays $200 million in developer fees, and pledges an additional $201 million for joint infrastructure and facilities 11 intended to be funded by a Community Facilities District (CFD) bond sale. 2005, September Finalists present their design plans during the OCGPC public meetings. REPORT 12 2006, January 23 OCGPC board selects the project designer and architect of the Orange County Great Park. 2006, March 9 OCGPC enters into Agreement for Master Designer Services to develop a Great REPORT Park Master Plan for $372 million. The main purpose of the contract is to develop 13 a conceptual design of the Great Park that would be approved by the OCGPC Board and the Irvine City Council. REPORT 2006, March 23 A contractor is selected from among five bidding firms to be the program 14 manager for the Great Park. 2006, October 26 OCGPC Board approves the Preliminary Master Plan in concept. REPORT 2007, January 9 Irvine City Council authorizes approximately $4.1 million in expenditures for 15 design, construction, operations, and insurance for the Great Park balloon. REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris REPORT 2007, January 25 Original plan designer makes proposal to OCGPC Board to continue services for 2 the design development of the entire park, including park schematics, mass grading, and construction documents for the initial park construction. REPORT 2007, July 14 The Great Park Balloon opens to the public. Features include parking, lighting, 3 temporary visitor center, construction of the observation balloon, and associated infrastructure and utilities. REPORT 2007, July 24 OCGPC Board and Irvine City Council approve a schematic design contract 4 (Contract #5759) for $27.3 million. The purpose of the contract is to develop construction documents in accordance with the Master Design Plan and to establish reasonable cost estimates for the Great Park features included in the REPORT Schematic Design. 5 2007, September 27 The OCGPC Board adopts the Comprehensive Master Plan. Contractor estimates total cost to build park at $979.8 million. REPORT 2007, December 11 Irvine City Council authorizes $11.4 million for design and construction of the 6 Balloon Enhancement Project and $2.5 million for first year operating costs, totaling $13.9 million. Features include new signage and lighting, parking and site access, night flights, a revised multipurpose 5-acre landscaping, and REPORT cleaning and painting an existing hangar that will be used for future events. 7 2008, January 8 Decision to proceed with the Schematic Design to ultimately develop construction documents for the improvements. REPORT 2008, March 25 Balloon Enhancement Project is expanded by Irvine City Council to become the 8 27.5-acre “Preview Park.” Irvine budgets approximately $6.97 million for construction of the entire Preview Park. Balloon project is considered Phase One. REPORT 9 2008, July Second phase of Preview Park is completed. This phase consists of a lawn, trees, park furnishings, additional lighting, timeline prototype, shade structures, and a relocated and improved visitor center. REPORT 10 2008, July 11 Program Manager estimates the cost of horizontal construction (not including buildings) to be over $1.6 billion. 2008, August The City of Irvine hires an independent public accounting firm to audit contract REPORT compliance under the Agreement for Master Designer Services (Contract 1). 11 2009, January OCGP Board commissions consulting firm to evaluate the merits and feasibility of a major fundraising effort to generate private funds for selected facilities and REPORT programs within the Great Park Master Plan. 12 2009, February Schematic design is halted by CEO and states no further work necessary on the design. Staff concludes that the project budget to be approximately $1.4 billion. REPORT 2009, March 19 Contractor presents a 36-month construction plan to develop 500 acres for $61 13 million. 2009, April 23 OCGP Board votes to recommend that the Irvine City Council appropriate $61.2 REPORT million for the 500-acre park from development proposal. 14 2009, May 21 Contractor presents Phase 1 plan of the 500-acre plan and attains an additional $4.7 million to implement Phase 1. REPORT 2009, July Phase 3 of the Preview Park is completed. Third phase included transplanting 15 mature trees into the lawn area and the Farm and Food Lab. REPORT 16 2009, October Accounting firm auditing contract compliance under the Agreement for Master 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris 1 REPORT Designer Services delivered their report. 2 2009, October 22 GP CEO submitted a proposal for $65.5 million to develop 200 acres (Western Sector) and to replace the 500-acre plan The proposal was approved by the REPORT OCGPC Board . This area is adjacent to Park Preview. 3 2009, November 10 The City of Irvine approves a sole source contract with WRNS Studio, an architectural firm, for $10.1 million for design and pre-construction services for the Western Sector. Construction design of Western Sector began shortly REPORT thereafter. 4 2009, November 12 Consulting firm delivered its report to the OCGP Board, concluding that it is infeasible to raise enough private funds to construct facilities for the Great Park REPORT due to many obstacles. 5 2010, June 17 A Close Out Agreement between the original designer and the City of Irvine is presented at a joint meeting with OCGPC and Irvine City Council. REPORT 2010, August 13 Final Close Out Agreement with the original designer and City of Irvine is 6 executed. 2011, January Governor Brown proposes statewide elimination of Redevelopment Agencies REPORT (RDA) beginning with 2011-2012 budgets. 7 2011, June 15 California Legislature passes ABX1 26 which eliminates RDAs and sets up Successor Agencies and Oversight Boards to wind down dissolved RDAs. REPORT 2011, November An independent public accounting firm, is engaged by the City of Irvine to review 8 contract compliance of the Schematic Design contract (Contract 2). 2012, June 7 Irvine enters into a contract with USS Cal Builders, Inc. for $22 million to REPORT complete construction of 30 acres of the Western Sector. 9 2012, June 21 Independent accounting firm delivered Schematic Design Contract Compliance Review to Board and city. The report did not reveal any significant or material findings. REPORT 10 2012, November City Council election was held resulting in the composition of the council being significantly changed. Four of the at-large members were dismissed. REPORT 2013, January City Council cancelled the park public relations contract. 11 2013, June 17 The City of Irvine retained Hagen, Streiff, Newton, & Oshiro Accountants, PC (HSNO) for $240,000 to perform a forensic audit of the planning, development, and construction of the Great Park. REPORT 12 2013, November The Prime Contractor proposed 688-acre park project to the Irvine City Council. 2014, August City of Irvine readjusts its Master Plan and Design Review to be in concert with the Prime Contractor proposal. REPORT 13 2014, November The 5-year Master Plan for 688 acres is approved by the City Council. REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris REPORT APPENDIX B: 2 PROBLEMS WITH FORMER CONTRACTS REPORT The Grand Jury found many inconsistencies and problems in managing contracts 3 involving the Great Park. An examination of the previous largest contracts revealed that many of them REPORT contained no deliverables or milestones. Several were open-ended, had minor 4 oversights, and provided for no true safeguards. It seems that there was never an outside audit of finances or contracts. REPORT 5 No-Bid Contracts. Very early in the life of the project, the 2005-2006 Grand Jury had recommended that “The Irvine City Council should review current practices involving no-bid contracts to ensure that appropriate business controls are in place to REPORT protect the citizens of the City of Irvine” (p. 11). In the response from the City of Irvine, 6 they “wholly” disagreed with this finding. In the City’s response they referenced the current policy on purchasing8 which they claimed they were following. REPORT 7 However the practice of no-bid contracts continued over the years. In projects costing over $100,000, 29 of 83 (35%) were sole source contracts according to records from the Office of the Irvine City Clerk. This seems extraordinarily high; however, the REPORT law does not prohibit these contracts if they are for highly specialized services. As an 8 example, the Western Sector was built with sole source contracts, but to management’s credit, the project was completed within 10% of its budget ($69.9 million actual versus REPORT budgeted $65.5 million). Change Orders. A review of several contracts revealed an extensive use of REPORT change orders. These change orders allowed for additional expenditures. A cursory 10 review determined that over $15 million was spent on change orders alone. The forensic auditor found strong evidence of a lack of definition of scope in REPORT contracts until after the work had begun (HSNO, 2014). Also found was significant 11 confusion concerning scope of work. There were various testimonies in sworn dispositions that one contractor was performing work outside of its scope. Other REPORT testimony stated that the same contractor would begin work prior to the contract being 12 approved. The magnitude of change orders indicated a lack of definition of scope of work or poor project management by the City. REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris 1 REPORT APPENDIX C: 2 CITY OF IRVINE ORGANIZATION CHART REPORT Residents of 3 Irvine REPORT Orange County 4 Great Park Board City Council of Directors REPORT 5 City Manager REPORT 6 Assistant City Assistant City Manager Manager OCGP REPORT 7 Administrative REPORT Services Public Safety 8 Department Department REPORT Community Public 9 Development Communication Department REPORT 10 City Clerk Community Services REPORT Department 11 City Treasurer REPORT Public Works 12 Department City Attorney REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris REPORT APPENDIX D: 2 OCGP ORGANIZATION STRUCTURES REPORT 3 Single Organization Staffing Structure (Approved by Irvine City Council) REPORT 4 REPORT 5 OCGP Board City Council RDA REPORT 6 Executive City Manager REPORT Director (RDA) 7 REPORT 8 Assistant City Assistant City Manager/CEO Manager REPORT 9 Deputy CEO/GM (CFO) REPORT City Departments 10 REPORT 11 Manager of Manager of Manager of Manager of Communications Engineering Planning Operations REPORT and Public Affairs 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris 1 REPORT Traditional Structure (Rejected by Irvine City Council) 2 REPORT 3 REPORT 4 REPORT 5 REPORT 6 REPORT 7 REPORT 8 REPORT 9 REPORT 10 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris REPORT APPENDIX E: 2 CITY OF IRVINE COUNCIL RESOLUTION OF APRIL, 2006 REPORT Organization 3 • The Orange County Great Park Corporation Board of Directors consists of five members of the Irvine City Council and four appointed directors. REPORT • Employees serving the Corporation are employees of the City of Irvine, working 4 within the City’s organizational structure, (i.e., as a distinct operating department of the City) and functioning under the general direction and supervision of the REPORT City Manager. Funding REPORT • Funds for the development of the Park are managed by the City of Irvine in a 6 separate city fund. Operations and Maintenance REPORT 7 • Operation and maintenance of the Park shall be based on a self-sustaining budget. REPORT 8 The Great Park Board of Directors REPORT • May develop policies for presentation for City Council adoption. 9 • Is responsible for direction and oversight with respect to planning, designing, and constructing the Park. REPORT • Is responsible for ensuring that applicable policy guidelines and design principles 10 are implemented. • Will oversee construction of the Park and will provide recommendations to the City Council for approval of all contracts and change orders. REPORT 11 The Irvine City Council REPORT • Must initiate and approve all land use modifications. 12 • Has final authority over all financial matters, including contracts for construction, operation, and maintenance of the Park. REPORT • Is responsible for the management, dispensation, and investment of funds 13 available for the park. REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris 1 REPORT

Additional Recommendations 2

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: All of the funds related to Great Park financial activity should be presented as a REPORT separate section in the City’s CAFR to allow for greater transparency (F4; F9). 5

Page 312

R3: The City of Irvine should create and consider adopting an ordinance similar to that adopted in other cities, such as Mission Viejo8, that limits the interference REPORT and influence of City Council members with the operational aspects of the city. 7 (F1; F2; F4).

Page 312

📋Joint Powers Authorities: Issues of Viability, Control, Transparency, and Solvency

24 pages 9 findings 5 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 9 findings

F1: Orange County has nine “inactive” Joint Powers Authorities that have no viable REPORT activity, revenue, expenditure, assets, or liabilities. The Grand Jury determined 13 that these Joint Powers Authorities serve no benefit to the public or the taxpayers and have the potential for misuse or obfuscation of public funds. REPORT

Page 191

F2: Horizontal Joint Powers Authorities among peer organizations appear to meet 14 the intent of State laws to delegate a common service for a city or other legal entity for the purpose of reducing cost on behalf of the taxpayers. REPORT 15 F.3. Orange County has 18 vertical Joint Powers Authorities created by a city along with its redevelopment agency that no longer exists. The Grand Jury determined REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Joint Powers Authorities: Issues of Viability, Control, Transparency, and Solvency 1 REPORT that these Joint Powers Authorities serve no benefit to the public or the taxpayers 2 and have the potential for misuse or obfuscation of public funds.

Page 191

F4: Vertical Joint Powers Authorities with a single controlling entity, such as a city REPORT council, have the potential to use this organizational structure as a shell company 3 to avoid other legal constraints on the controlling entity and to obfuscate taxpayer visibility. REPORT 4

Page 192

F5: Vertical Joint Powers Authorities in which the controlling entity transfers assets from itself to a Joint Powers Authority for the purpose of obtaining additional funding, or signs a long-term lease to a Joint Powers Authority to obtain assets, REPORT are avoiding transparency and are not acting in the best financial interest of the 5 taxpayers. REPORT

Page 192

F6: 32 of the Joint Powers Authorities identified in Orange County are not complying 6 with the California State reporting requirements in code Section 6500 and SB 282 according to the latest information available from the year 2013. REPORT

Page 192

F7: The Orange County Auditor-Controller knows of the Joint Powers Authorities in 7 which the County is a member, but does not have a list of all of the Joint Powers Authorities in Orange County and cannot confirm compliance of their submittal REPORT for public access. The Orange County Auditor-Controller does not provide easy- 8 to-use online access to the data submitted to it by the Joint Powers Authorities that are compliant with the requirement to submit. REPORT

Page 192

F8: The Foothill Transportation Corridor Agency and the San Joaquin Transportation 9 Corridor Agency have a joint debt level of over $4.5 billion. The Grand Jury has determined that this debt level is excessive based on their revenues, and it REPORT threatens to render them insolvent. 10

Page 192

F9: The Orange County Fire Authority has an off-the-books unfunded debt liability of REPORT $577 million which the Grand Jury has determined to be of concern since it is a 11 real liability on the County taxpayers.

Page 192

F10: The Anaheim Pubic Financing Authority has a debt exposure of $1.2 billion which REPORT the Grand Jury has determined to be excessive in light of the fact that it was 12 incurred without voter approval. REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS 13 In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the 2014- 2015 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected REPORT by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted 14 to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled “Joint Powers Authorities in Orange County,” the REPORT 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following eight recommendations: 15

Page 192

Additional Recommendations 5

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: All Orange County Joint Powers Authorities that are “inactive” should submit the REPORT official paperwork with the State of California requesting termination of their 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Joint Powers Authorities: Issues of Viability, Control, Transparency, and Solvency REPORT existence or provide at the next public meeting the justification for continuing the 2 Joint Powers Authority. (F.1.) REPORT R.2. All Vertical Joint Powers Authorities created by a city along with its 3 redevelopment agency should submit the necessary paperwork with the State of California requesting termination of their existence. (F.3.) REPORT

Page 192

R3: All Joint Powers Authorities should take the following actions to insure 4 transparency to the taxpayers: (1) have an annual outside audit, (2) post the complete audit on their city website as a separate Joint Powers Authority entity, REPORT (3) send the audit to the County Controller and the State Auditor, and (4) ensure 5 the required reports are filed annually to the County and the State. (F.4., F.5.)

Page 193

R4: The 32 Joint Powers Authorities that are not complying with the California State REPORT Law requiring annual reporting should become compliant by submitting their 6 2014 report by December 31, 2015, and submitting the required reports annually thereafter. (F.6.) REPORT 7 R.5. The Orange County Auditor-Controller should maintain a current list of all of the Joint Powers Authorities in Orange County, confirm that reports have been submitted annually, and post the completed reports with all the details on an REPORT easy-to-use Internet public access website. (F.7.) 8

Page 193

R6: The Foothill Transportation Corridor Agency and the San Joaquin Transportation REPORT Corridor Agency should address their solvency by an aggressive plan to reduce 9 their public debt. (F.8.)

Page 193

R7: The Orange County Fire Authority should address their lack of transparency by REPORT providing public disclosure of their off-the-books unfunded public liability in their 10 financial statements and address their solvency by an aggressive plan to reduce their unfunded liabilities. (F.9.) REPORT 11 R.8. The City of Anaheim City Council should redress the debt incurred by the Anaheim Pubic Financing Authority under its direction by an aggressive plan to REPORT reduce their public debt. (F.10.) 12 REQUIRED RESPONSES REPORT The California Penal Code section 933 requires the governing body of any public 13 agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such REPORT comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report 14 (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected REPORT County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected official shall comment 15 on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to REPORT the Board of Supervisors. 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Joint Powers Authorities: Issues of Viability, Control, Transparency, and Solvency 1 REPORT Furthermore, California Penal Code section 933.05, subdivisions (a), (b), and (c), 2 provides as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of REPORT the following: 3 (1) The respondent agrees with the finding REPORT (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case 4 the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. REPORT 5 (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: REPORT (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the 6 implemented action. REPORT (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented 7 in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the REPORT scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be 8 prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when REPORT applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of 9 the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or REPORT is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. 10 (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel REPORT matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the 11 agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those REPORT budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The 12 response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. REPORT Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal 13 Code section 933.05 and Penal Code 933(c) are required from the respondents listed in the following two Response Matrices (one for cities and County and one for Joint REPORT Powers Authorities): 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Joint Powers Authorities: Issues of Viability, Control, Transparency, and Solvency REPORT Matrix 1 REQUIRED RESPONDENTS (Cities & County) 2 Required Respondents Findings Recommendations REPORT F F F F F F F F F F R R R R R R R R 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 City of Anaheim REPORT 1 X X X X Mayor & City Council 4 City of Brea Mayor & 2 X X City Council REPORT City of Buena Park 5 3 X X X X Mayor & City Council City of Costa Mesa 4 X X REPORT Mayor & City Council 6 City of Fullerton 5 X X X X Mayor & City Council REPORT City of Fountain 7 6 Valley Mayor & City X X Council City of Garden REPORT 7 Grove Mayor & City X X X X 8 Council City of Huntington REPORT 8 Beach Mayor & City X X 9 Council City of La Habra 9 X X REPORT Mayor & City Council 10 City of Lake Forest 10 X X Mayor & City Council REPORT City of Mission Viejo 11 X X 11 Mayor & City Council City of San REPORT 12 Clemente Mayor & X X 12 City Council City of San Juan 13 Capistrano Mayor & X X REPORT City Council 13 City of Santa Ana 14 X X Mayor & City Council REPORT City of Seal Beach 14 15 X X Mayor & City Council City of Stanton 16 X X X X REPORT Mayor & City Council 15 City of Tustin Mayor 17 X X X X & City Council REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Joint Powers Authorities: Issues of Viability, Control, Transparency, and Solvency 1 REPORT Required Respondents Findings Recommendations 2 F F F F F F F F F F R R R R R R R R 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 REPORT 0 3 City of Westminster 18 X X X X Mayor & City Council REPORT City of Yorba Linda 19 X X 4 Mayor & City Council Orange County 20 X X REPORT Auditor-Controller 5 Matrix 2 REQUIRED RESPONDENTS (Joint Powers Authorities) REPORT 6 Required Respondents Findings Recommendations F F F F F F F F F F R R R R R R R R REPORT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 7 0 1 Anaheim Community X X X Center Authority REPORT 2 Anaheim Housing and 8 X X X Public Improve. Auth. Anaheim Public X X X X X X X REPORT Financing Authority 9 4 Big Independent Cities X X X Excess Pool 5 Bonita Canyon Public REPORT X X X Facilities Fin. Auth. 10 6 Brea Community X X X Benefits Financing Auth. REPORT 7 Brea Public Financing X X X X X 11 Authority 8 Buena Park Public Financing Authority X X X X X X X REPORT 9 California Insurance Pool 12 X X X Authority 10 Capistrano Unified Public REPORT X X X X X X X Financing Auth. 13 11 Central Net Operations X X X X X Authority REPORT 12 City of Brea Midbury X X X X X X 14 Assessment Auth. City of Fullerton Public X X X X X X X Financing Auth. REPORT 14 City of San Clemente 15 X X X X X X X Public Fin. Auth. Coastal Animal Services REPORT X X X X X Authority 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Joint Powers Authorities: Issues of Viability, Control, Transparency, and Solvency REPORT 2 Required Respondents Findings Recommendations F F F F F F F F F F R R R R R R R R REPORT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 3 0 16 Coastal District X X X Financing Authority REPORT 17 Co-Op- Org. Develop. Employee Selec.Proced. X X X 18 Costa Mesa Public X X X X X REPORT Finance Authority 5 19 Countywide Public X X X X X X X X Finance Authority 20 Fountain Valley REPORT X X X X X X X Financing Authority 6 21 Fullerton Arboretum X X X Authority REPORT 22 Fullerton Library Building X X X X X X X 7 Authority 23 Fullerton School District X X X X X REPORT Financing Auth. 8 24 Garden Grove Public X X X X X X X X X Financing Authority 25 Huntington Beach Public REPORT X X X X X Financing Auth. 9 26 Independent Cities Risk X X X X X Management Auth. REPORT 27 Integrated Law and X X X X X 10 Justice Agency for OC 28 Irvine Child Care Project X X X X X REPORT 29 Irvine Unified School 11 X X X District Financing Auth. Joint Powers Employee REPORT Benefit Authority X X X 12 31 La Habra Civic X X X X X X X Improvement Authority REPORT 32 Metro Cities Fire X X X X X 13 Authority 33 Mission Viejo Commu. X X X X X X X Devel. Fin. Auth. REPORT 34 National Water Research 14 X X X X X Institute 35 Newport-Mesa United X X X X X X X REPORT School Fin. Auth. 15 36 North Net Joint Powers X X X X X Training Agree. REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Joint Powers Authorities: Issues of Viability, Control, Transparency, and Solvency 1 REPORT Required Respondents Findings Recommendations 2 F F F F F F F F F F R R R R R R R R 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 REPORT 0 3 37 Northern OC Self- Funded Workers X X X Comp..Auth. REPORT 38 Northern OC Lia. & 4 X X X Property Self-Insu.Auth. Orange County Cities X X X REPORT Airport Authority 5 40 Orange County Civic X X X X X Center Authority REPORT 41 Orange County Council X X X X X of Governments 6 42 Orange County Fire X X X X X Authority REPORT 43 Orange County Fringe X X X 7 Benefits Agreement 44 Orange County Public X X X Financing Authority REPORT 45 Orange County-City X X X 8 Hazardous Matl. Auth. Orange Uni. School X X X X X Distr. Public Fin. Auth. REPORT 47 Public Cable Television 9 X X X Authority 48 Rancho Canada X X X X X Financing Authority REPORT 49 Rancho Santa Margarita 10 X X X X X Public Fin. Auth 50 Saddleback Valley X X X REPORT Unified Sch. Fin. Auth. San Joaquin Trans. X X X X X Corridor Agency 52 San Juan Basin Authority X X X REPORT 53 Santa Ana Financing 12 X X X X X X X Authority 54 Santa Ana River Flood X X X Protection Agency REPORT 55 Santa Margarita-Dana 13 X X X Point Authority 56 Santiago Aqueduct X X X REPORT Commission 57 School Employers 14 X X X Association of California 58 Seal Beach Public X X X X X X X REPORT Financing Authority 15 59 South Coast Water X X X District Financing Auth. South Orange County X X X REPORT Public Financing Auth. 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Joint Powers Authorities: Issues of Viability, Control, Transparency, and Solvency REPORT 2 Required Respondents Findings Recommendations F F F F F F F F F F R R R R R R R R REPORT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 3 0 61 South Orange County X X X Wastewater Auth. REPORT 62 Southern Orange County X X X 4 Prop/Lia. Self Insu. Stanton Public Financing X X X X X X X X X Authority REPORT 64 The Foothill Trans. X X X X X 5 Corridor Agency 65 Trabuco Canyon Public X X X Financing Authority REPORT 66 Tustin Public Financing 6 X X X X X X X X X Authority 67 Tustin Unified School X X X X X District Fin. Auth. REPORT 68 West Cities Commun. X X X X X Cntr. Joint Powers Auth. Western Orange County X X X REPORT Self-Funded Comp 70 Westminster Public 8 X X X X X X X X X Finance Authority 71 Yorba Linda Public X X X X X X X REPORT Finance Authority 9 REPORT 10 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Joint Powers Authorities: Issues of Viability, Control, Transparency, and Solvency 1 REPORT REFERENCES 2 Cypher, T. & Grinnell, C. (2007). Governments Working Together: A Citizen’s Guide to Joint Powers Agreements. California State Legislature, Senate Local REPORT Government Committee Report. State of California Constitution. Article XVI. Section 18. “Debt”. REPORT State of California Government Code Section 6500. Joint Exercise of Powers Act 4 State of California Senate Bill No. 282. (2001). Chapter 288, Amended Section REPORT 12463.1 [Government Code]. REPORT 6 REPORT 7 REPORT 8 REPORT 9 REPORT 10 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury

Page 193

📋Mello-Roos: Perpetual Debt Accumulation and Tax Assessment Obligation

28 pages 3 findings 2 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 3 findings

F1: There is a lack of transparency to homeowners relative to how CFD funds are 3 being used. REPORT

Page 212

F2: There does not seem to be appropriate oversight and auditing of CFDs and 4 special tax expenditures within the County of Orange.

Page 212

F3: While the assumption is that the CFD debt would be repaid in a finite period of REPORT time, there is a mechanism available to controlling entities to extend debt 5 obligations and thereby extend the CFD special tax in perpetuity. REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS 6 In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the 2014- 2015 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency REPORT affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be 7 submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled “Community Facilities Districts (Mello-Roos): REPORT Perpetual Debt Accumulation and Tax Assessment Obligation”, the 2014-2015 Orange 8 County Grand Jury makes the following two recommendations: REPORT

Page 212

Additional Recommendations 2

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Each local agency that established the CFD should create an oversight 9 committee and an audit committee to provide for an independent, transparent view of the manner in which CFD funds are being expended. (F.1, F.2) REPORT

Page 212

R2: Audit report information, as delineated in California Government Code, 1982 § 10 53343.1, should be made available to the CFD taxpayers on a website after each fiscal year for each CFD number. (F.1, F.2) REPORT 11 REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code § 933 requires the governing body of any public REPORT agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, 12 to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such REPORT comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report 13 (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected REPORT County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected official shall comment 14 on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. REPORT 15 Furthermore, California Penal Code § 933.05, subdivisions (a), (b), and (c), provides as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Mello-Roos: Perpetual Debt Accumulation and Tax Assessment Obligation REPORT (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of 2 the following: REPORT (1) The respondent agrees with the finding 3 (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an REPORT explanation of the reasons therefore. 4 (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report REPORT one of the following actions: 5 (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. REPORT 6 (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. REPORT (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the 7 scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being REPORT investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when 8 applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. REPORT (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or 9 is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. REPORT (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel 10 matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by REPORT the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those 11 budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. REPORT 12 Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code section 933.05 are required for Findings F.1, F.2 and F.3 and for REPORT Recommendations R.1 and R.2 from the following organizations: 13 Orange County Board of Supervisors REPORT The mayors and city councils of the following cities: 14 City of Anaheim REPORT City of Brea 15 City of Buena Park REPORT City of Cypress 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Mello-Roos: Perpetual Debt Accumulation and Tax Assessment Obligation 1 REPORT City of Dana Point 2 City of Fullerton REPORT City of Hunting Beach 3 City of Irvine REPORT City of Mission Viejo 4 City of Orange REPORT City of Placentia 5 City of San Clemente REPORT 6 City of Seal Beach City of Tustin REPORT 7 Public Agencies: Bonita Public Facilities Financing Authority– REPORT 8 A Joint Powers Authority under the Newport Mesa Unified School District and the City of Newport Beach REPORT Brea Olinda Unified School District 9 Capistrano Unified School District REPORT 10 Fullerton Joint Union High School District Fullerton School District REPORT 11 Irvine Unified School District La Habra Redevelopment Agency – REPORT 12 A Redevelopment Agency under the City of La Habra Laguna Beach Unified School District REPORT 13 Los Alamitos Unified School District REPORT Newport-Mesa Unified School District 14 Orange Unified School District REPORT Placentia – Yorba Linda Unified School District 15 Saddleback Unified School District REPORT Tustin Unified School District 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Mello-Roos: Perpetual Debt Accumulation and Tax Assessment Obligation REPORT REFERENCES 2 California Government Code (1982). Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982. Sacramento, CA. REPORT 3 REPORT 4 REPORT 5 REPORT 6 REPORT 7 REPORT 8 REPORT 9 REPORT 10 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Mello-Roos: Perpetual Debt Accumulation and Tax Assessment Obligation 1 REPORT APPENDIX: ORANGE COUNTY CFDS LONG TERM DEBT 2 Community Name/ REPORT Facilities Original Bond Principal Governance/Control CFD 3 Districts - Mello Value Outstanding Number Roos REPORT 4 Multiple capital Aliso Viejo improvements,public 2005-01 $34,070,000 $33,945,000 REPORT works (Glenwood) 5 Multiple capital REPORT improvements,public 6 06-2 $9,060,000 $8,250,000 works (Platinum Triangle) REPORT 7 Multiple capital improvements, public 08-1 $28,630,000 $27,095,000 REPORT works (Platinum 8 Triangle) Multiple capital REPORT Anaheim improvements, public 1989-1 $4,220,000 $1,045,000 9 works((Sycamore Canyon) REPORT Multiple capital 10 improvements, public 1989-2 $6,990,000 $1,725,000 works((The Highlands) REPORT 11 Multiple capital improvements, public 1989-3 $9,085,000 $1,530,000 REPORT works((The Summit) 12 REPORT 13 Bonita Canyon Public Facilities K-12 School Facility 98-1 $38,330,000 $37,735,000 REPORT Financing 14 Authority REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Mello-Roos: Perpetual Debt Accumulation and Tax Assessment Obligation REPORT 2 Community Name/ Facilities Original Bond Principal Governance/Control CFD REPORT Districts - Mello Value Outstanding Number 3 Roos REPORT Multiple capital 4 improvements, public 1988-1 $2,580,000 $1,900,000 works((Fairway Ctr) REPORT Multiple capital 5 improvements, public 1990-1 $1,478,000 $158,000 works(Imperial Ctr REPORT East) 6 Multiple capital Brea improvements, public 1996-1 $3,235,000 $1,765,000 REPORT works(Downtown) 7 Multiple capital improvements, public 1997-1 $6,665,000 $5,165,000 REPORT works(Olinda Heights) 8 Multiple capital REPORT improvements, public 2008-2 $8,145,000 $8,095,000 9 works(Brea Plaza area) REPORT 10 K-12 School Facility 95-1 $2,300,000 $2,300,000 Brea Olinda Unified School K-12 School Facility ( REPORT District Olinda 95-1 $6,440,444 $4,995,000 11 Height)Refunding REPORT Multiple capital 12 Buena Park improvements, public 2001-1 $7,655,000 $6,655,000 works(Mall) REPORT 13 K-12 School Facility 87-1 $71,810,000 $41,025,000 REPORT (Refunding) 14 Capistrano Unified School K-12 School Facility 88-1 $12,755,000 $2,570,000 District (Refunding) REPORT 15 K-12 School Facility 90-2 $49,675,000 $47,335,000 (Talega) REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Mello-Roos: Perpetual Debt Accumulation and Tax Assessment Obligation 1 REPORT 2 Community Name/ Facilities Original Bond Principal Governance/Control CFD REPORT Districts - Mello Value Outstanding Number 3 Roos REPORT K-12 School Facility 90-2 $44,980,000 $40,820,000 4 (Talega)Refunding K-12 School Facility REPORT 92-1 $31,360,000 $18,410,000 (Las Flores) 5 K-12 School Facility 98-2 $119,099,491 $107,499,491 (Ladera) REPORT 6 K-12 School Facility (Rancho Madrina Sch. 2004-1 $7,085,000 $6,725,000 Facs & Cap Imp) REPORT 7 Multiple capital REPORT improvements, public Cypress 1 $9,705,000 $3,785,000 8 works (Sorrento Homes) REPORT 9 Multiple capital improvements, public REPORT Dana Point 2006-1 $8,710,000 $0 works (Headlands Rev 10 Dev.) Multiple capital REPORT improvements, public 11 2006-1 $17,885,000 $17,885,000 works (Headlands Rev Dev)(Refunding) REPORT 12 Multiple capital REPORT improvements, public 1 $21,375,000 $0 13 works (Amerige Heights) Fullerton REPORT Multiple capital 14 improvements, public 1 $19,040,000 $19,040,000 works (Amerige Heights) (Refunding) REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Mello-Roos: Perpetual Debt Accumulation and Tax Assessment Obligation REPORT 2 Community Name/ Facilities Original Bond Principal Governance/Control CFD REPORT Districts - Mello Value Outstanding Number 3 Roos REPORT 4 Fullerton Joint K-12 School Facility Union High (District & Buena Park 2005-1 $2,050,000 $1,785,000 School District Sch. Facs ) REPORT 5 Other, multiple REPORT 2000-1 $1,195,000 $960,000 educational use 6 Fullerton School District K-12 School Facility 2001-1 $9,725,000 $7,757,500 REPORT Parks, open space 2001-1 $9,725,000 $3,878,750 7 Multiple capital REPORT improvements, public 8 works 1990-1 $2,155,000 $1,145,000 (Goldenwest/Ellis REPORT Area)(Refunding) 9 Multiple capital improvements, public 2000-1 $16,000,000 $13,330,000 REPORT works(Grand Coast 10 Resort) Huntington Beach Multiple capital REPORT improvements, public 11 2002-1 $4,900,000 $4,670,000 works(McDonnell Centre Business PK) REPORT 12 Multiple capital improvements, public 2003-1 $25,000,000 $21,595,000 REPORT works(Huntington Ctr 13 Bella Terra) REPORT 14 Multiple capital improvements, public Irvine 2005-2 $24,375,000 $21,540,000 works(Columbus REPORT Grove) 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Mello-Roos: Perpetual Debt Accumulation and Tax Assessment Obligation 1 REPORT 2 Community Name/ Facilities Original Bond Principal Governance/Control CFD REPORT Districts - Mello Value Outstanding Number 3 Roos Multiple capital REPORT improvements, public 4 2005-2 $16,975,000 $16,975,000 works(Columbus Grove) Refunding REPORT 5 K-12School facility 86-1 $96,565,000 $73,685,000 REPORT (Bond) Refunding 6 K-12School facility (S Irvine Communities) 01-1 $103,475,000 $99,715,000 REPORT Refunding 7 Multiple capital improvements, public REPORT works(Northwood 04-1 $9,000,000 $8,745,000 8 Master Planned Community) REPORT Multiple capital 9 improvements, public works (Woodbury 04-2 $38,000,000 $35,903,130 REPORT Master IA A Planned 10 Irvine Unified Community) School District REPORT Multiple capital 11 improvements, public works (Woodbury 04-2 $23,935,000 $21,610,000 Master IA B Planned REPORT Community) 12 K-12 School facility (Portola Springs) 06-1 $13,075,000 $6,715,000 REPORT (Refunding) 13 K-12 school facility (Qualified School 09-1 $25,000,000 $25,000,000 REPORT Construction Bond ) 14 K-12 school facility 09-1 $63,640,000 $63,640,000 REPORT (Series A) 15 K-12 school facility 09-1 $50,000,000 $50,000,000 (Series B) REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Mello-Roos: Perpetual Debt Accumulation and Tax Assessment Obligation REPORT 2 Community Name/ Facilities Original Bond Principal Governance/Control CFD REPORT Districts - Mello Value Outstanding Number 3 Roos REPORT Multiple capital La Habra 4 improvements, public Redevelopment 1990-1 $3,185,000 $154,000 works (Marketplace) Agency REPORT (Refunding) 5 K-12 school facility REPORT 98-1 $9,970,000 $0 (Refunding) 6 Laguna Beach Multiple capital Unified School improvements, public District 98-1 $9,330,000 $9,330,000 REPORT works (Crystal Cove) 7 (Refunding) REPORT K-12School facility 90-1 $3,240,000 $0 8 Los Alamitos Refunding Unified School K-12School facility REPORT District 90-1 $3,240,000 $0 Refunding Measure K 9 REPORT Flood Control, Storm 10 Mission Viejo Drainage(LaPaz 92-1 $2,060,000 $1,670,000 channel) (Refunding) REPORT 11 K-12School facility REPORT Newport-Mesa 90-1 $20,735,000 $0 Refunding 12 Unified School K-12School facility District 90-1 $9,720,000 $9,720,000 Refunding REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Mello-Roos: Perpetual Debt Accumulation and Tax Assessment Obligation 1 REPORT 2 Community Name/ Facilities Original Bond Principal Governance/Control CFD REPORT Districts - Mello Value Outstanding Number 3 Roos Multiple capital REPORT improvements, public 4 works(Serrano 91-2 $35,330,000 $0 Heights Pub Imp) REPORT (Series A) Refund 5 Multiple capital improvements, public REPORT works (Serrano 91-2 $2,200,000 $0 6 Heights Pub Imp) Orange (Series B) Refund Multiple capital REPORT improvements, public 7 works (Serrano 91-2 $28,810,000 $28,810,000 Heights Pub Imp) REPORT Refund 8 Multiple capital improvements, public 06-1 $24,975,000 $24,945,000 REPORT works (Del Rio) 9 Multiple capital REPORT improvements, public 10 86-1 $32,335,000 $11,665,000 works (Rancho Santa Margarita) Refund REPORT 11 Multiple capital improvements, public REPORT works(Rancho Santa 86-2 $10,975,000 $598,000 12 Margarita/Saddleback) Refund REPORT Orange County Bridges and 13 Highways(Rancho 86-2 $8,005,000 $1,100,000 Santa Margarita) Refund REPORT Commercial 14 development Bus Pk 87-1 $762,808 $743,414 (Refunding) REPORT Multiple capital 15 improvements, public 87-2 $24,080,000 $4,530,000 works(Portola Hills) REPORT Refund 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Mello-Roos: Perpetual Debt Accumulation and Tax Assessment Obligation REPORT 2 Community Name/ Facilities Original Bond Principal Governance/Control CFD REPORT Districts - Mello Value Outstanding Number 3 Roos REPORT Multiple capital 4 improvements, public 87-3 $49,697,035 $10,988,000 works(Mission Viejo) Refund REPORT Multiple capital 5 improvements, public 87-4 $71,435,333 $25,179,820 works(Foothill Ranch) REPORT Refund 6 K-12 School 87-4 $10,815,000 $5,865,000 facility(Foothill Ranch) REPORT 7 Multiple capital improvements, public 87-5A $8,863,770 $924,268 REPORT works(Rancho Santa 8 Margarita) Refund Multiple capital REPORT improvements, public 9 87-5B $27,396,720 $7,639,334 works(Rancho Santa Margarita) Refund REPORT 10 Multiple capital improvements, public 87-5C $15,221,979 $5,363,907 works(Rancho Santa REPORT Margarita) Refund 11 Multiple capital REPORT improvements, public 87-5D $12,042,509 $4,746,180 12 works(Rancho Santa Margarita) Refund REPORT Multiple capital 13 improvements, public 87-5E $12,780,000 $5,385,000 works(Rancho Santa REPORT Margarita) Refund 14 Multiple capital improvements, public 87-6 $9,330,000 $1,860,000 REPORT works(Baker Ranch) 15 Refund REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Mello-Roos: Perpetual Debt Accumulation and Tax Assessment Obligation 1 REPORT 2 Community Name/ Facilities Original Bond Principal Governance/Control CFD REPORT Districts - Mello Value Outstanding Number 3 Roos Multiple capital REPORT improvements, public 4 87-7 $17,425,000 $3,475,000 works(Los Alisos) Refund REPORT Street construction 5 and improvement 87-8 $30,412,976 $10,894,283 (Coto de Caza) REPORT Refunding 6 Multiple capital improvements, public 87-9 $4,050,000 $805,000 works(Los Alisos) REPORT Refund 7 Multiple capital REPORT improvements, public 87-9 $2,335,000 $475,000 8 works(Santa Teresita) Multiple capital REPORT improvements, public 88-1 $207,845,000 $31,455,000 9 works(Aliso Viejo) Refund Multiple capital REPORT improvements, public 10 88-2 $1,775,000 $340,000 works(Lomas Laguna) Refund REPORT Multiple capital 11 improvements, public 99-1 $22,560,000 $19,505,000 works(Lomas Laguna) REPORT Refund 12 Multiple capital improvements, public 2001-1 $28,890,000 $25,130,000 REPORT works(Ladera Ranch) 13 Refund Multiple capital REPORT improvements, public 2001-1 $32,565,000 $29,315,000 14 works(Ladera Ranch) Refund REPORT Multiple capital 15 improvements, public 2002-1 $68,280,000 $64,495,000 works(Ladera Ranch) REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Mello-Roos: Perpetual Debt Accumulation and Tax Assessment Obligation REPORT 2 Community Name/ Facilities Original Bond Principal Governance/Control CFD REPORT Districts - Mello Value Outstanding Number 3 Roos REPORT Multiple capital 4 improvements, public 2003-1 $57,185,000 $54,825,000 works(Ladera Ranch) REPORT Multiple capital 5 improvements, public 2004-1 $75,645,000 $71,745,000 works(Ladera Ranch) REPORT 6 K-12 school facility REPORT (Santiago Hills) 88-1 $4,625,000 $900,000 7 Refunding K-12 school facility (Sycamore Canyon) 89-1 $4,250,000 $740,000 REPORT Refunding 8 K-12 school facility Orange Unified 89-2 $9,095,000 $1,780,000 Refunding REPORT School District K-12 school facility 9 Tremont School & City 2005-1 $654,000 $6,385,000 Facs REPORT K-12 school facility 10 (Del Rio Riverbend) 2005-2 $5,920,000 $5,785,000 Refunding REPORT 11 Placentia 89-1 $0 REPORT 12 Placentia - K-12 school facility 1 $5,505,000 $0 Yorba Linda K-12 school facility REPORT Unified School 1 $6,730,000 $6,730,000 Refunding 13 District REPORT K-12 school facility 88-1 $2,365,000 $1,490,000 14 K-12 school facility Saddleback 88-1 $8,635,000 $5,280,000 (Town Center) Valley Unified REPORT K-12 school facility School District 15 (Rancho Cielo) 88-2 $3,525,000 $1,270,000 Refunding REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Mello-Roos: Perpetual Debt Accumulation and Tax Assessment Obligation 1 REPORT 2 Community Name/ Facilities Original Bond Principal Governance/Control CFD REPORT Districts - Mello Value Outstanding Number 3 Roos K-12 school facility REPORT (Robinson Ranch) 89-1 $8,250,000 $3,190,000 4 Refunding K-12 school facility 89-2 $15,686,602 $6,731,602 REPORT Refunding 5 K-12 school facility (Rancho Trabuco) 89-2 $3,208,398 $1,890,000 REPORT Refunding 6 K-12 school facility 89-3 $12,213,718 $5,238,718 Refunding REPORT K-12 school facility 7 (Rancho Trabuco) 89-3 $891,282 $525,000 Refunding K-12 school facility REPORT (Dove Canyon) 89-4 $4,465,000 $535,000 8 Refunding K-12 school facility REPORT (Dove Canyon) 89-4 $970,000 $955,000 9 Refunding REPORT Multiple capital 10 San Clemente improvements, public 99-1 $5,005,000 $4,850,000 works Refund REPORT 11 K-12 school facility Santa Ana Central Park(School REPORT Unified School Facs, Irvine Ranch 2004-1 $11,785,000 $11,355,000 12 District WD & Orange County Fire Authority) REPORT 13 Water supply, storage, REPORT 99-1 $63,480,000 $58,290,000 distribution (Talega) 14 Santa Refunding Margarita Multiple capital REPORT Water District improvements, public 99-1 $38,710,000 $37,920,000 15 works(Talega A&B) Refund REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Mello-Roos: Perpetual Debt Accumulation and Tax Assessment Obligation REPORT 2 Community Name/ Facilities Original Bond Principal Governance/Control CFD REPORT Districts - Mello Value Outstanding Number 3 Roos REPORT Multiple capital 4 improvements, public 2002-01 $3,985,000 $3,610,000 works(Heron Point) REPORT Seal Beach Multiple capital 5 improvements, public works(Pacific 2005-01 $8,800,000 $8,595,000 REPORT Gateway Business 6 Ctr.) REPORT Flood control, storm 7 drainage (Tustin 04-1 $11,415,000 $9,845,000 Legacy/ john Laing REPORT Homes) 8 Multiple capital improvements, public REPORT 04-1 $9,350,000 $9,350,000 works (Tustin Legacy/ 9 john Laing Homes)Refunding REPORT Multiple capital 10 improvements, public 06-1 $53,570,000 $52,580,000 Tustin works (Legacy & REPORT Columbia Villages 11 Zones 1&2) Multiple capital REPORT improvements, public 12 06-1 $1,675,000 $1,600,000 works (Legacy & Columbia Villages REPORT Zones 1&2) 13 Multiple capital REPORT improvements, public 07-1 $13,680,000 $13,550,000 14 works (Legacy/Retail Center) REPORT 15 K-12 Schools Facility- Tustin Unified (Tustin 88-1 $64,615,000 $47,955,000 School District Ranch)Refunding REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Mello-Roos: Perpetual Debt Accumulation and Tax Assessment Obligation 1 REPORT 2 Community Name/ Facilities Original Bond Principal Governance/Control CFD REPORT Districts - Mello Value Outstanding Number 3 Roos REPORT K-12 Schools Facility- 97-1 $87,697,675 $83,332,675 4 Sr Series A Refunding REPORT K-12 Schools Facility- 97-1 $14,090,000 $13,220,000 5 Sr Series B Refunding K-12 Schools Facility- REPORT Elementary, Middle, 06-1 $13,560,000 $13,545,000 6 High (Columbus Square) K-12 school facility REPORT 07-1 $90,500,000 $90,500,000 Refunding 7 Total Total Original Bond Principal REPORT Districts CFDs Value Outstanding 8 32 119 $2,701,562,740 $1,909,301,072 (Grand Jury, 2014-2015) REPORT 9 REPORT 10 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury

Page 212

📋Orange County Emergency Operations

16 pages 3 findings 3 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 3 findings

F1: The Grand Jury finds that all previous recommendations by prior Grand Juries 13 concerning the physical status of the primary Emergency Operations Center have been adequately addressed. REPORT 14 F.2. The Grand Jury finds that the backup system for Internet data communications at the Loma Ridge Emergency Operations Center is a limited capability satellite link, which is far less capable than the primary system and may prove to be REPORT inadequate. REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Orange County Emergency Operations 1

Page 49

F3: The Grand Jury finds that a comprehensive, feasible alternate Emergency REPORT Operations Center plan with multiple site options and activation instructions has 2 not been developed. REPORT

Page 50

F4: The Grand Jury finds that a mock exercise to test the alternate plan and to teach 3 participants what to do in the event of a loss of the primary Emergency Operations Center at Loma Ridge has not been held in over ten years. REPORT 4 RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the 2013- REPORT 2014 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected 5 by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. REPORT Based on its investigation of Orange County Emergency Operations in Orange 6 County, the 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following three recommendations: REPORT 7

Page 50

Additional Recommendations 3

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The Grand Jury recommends that an additional high-speed network connection to Loma Ridge be installed to provide Internet redundancy to mitigate risk of degraded communications. Consider installing a separate underground fiber REPORT optic cable feed to the Emergency Operations Center. (F.2.) 8

Page 50

R2: The Grand Jury recommends that a comprehensive, feasible alternate REPORT Emergency Operations Center plan be developed, with multiple site options and 9 activation instructions. (F.3.)

Page 50

R3: The Grand Jury recommends that regularly scheduled exercise drills be held to REPORT test the alternate Emergency Operations Center backup plan and train all 10 participants in the procedures to be followed in the event of loss of the primary Emergency Operations Center at Loma Ridge. (F.4.) REPORT 11 REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code section 933 requires the governing body of any public REPORT agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, 12 to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such REPORT comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report 13 (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected REPORT County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected official shall comment 14 on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. REPORT 15 Furthermore, California Penal Code section 933.05, subdivisions (a), (b), and (c), provides as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Orange County Emergency Operations REPORT (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of 2 the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding REPORT 3 (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall REPORT include an explanation of the reasons therefore. 4 (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: REPORT 5 (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. REPORT (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented 6 in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. REPORT (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the 7 scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department REPORT being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency 8 when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. REPORT (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or 9 is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. REPORT (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel 10 matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those REPORT budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The 11 response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. REPORT 12 Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code section 933.05 are required from: REPORT Responses Required: 13

Page 50

📋Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO): It's Time to Redraw the Lines

32 pages 7 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 7 findings

F1: OC LAFCO’s has failed to effectively fulfill its legislative mandate to proactively pursue efficiency of local governmental organizations by restructuring them and reshaping their boundaries in a logical, orderly, and timely manner.

Page 454

F2: OC LAFCO has failed to use its latent power to initiate, let alone obtain, a single consolidation since the Legislature delegated this authority to it 22 years ago.

Page 454

F3: OC LAFCO discontinued its Unincorporated Islands Program, Unincorporated Islands Incentive Program, and Stakeholder Plan, all of which enabled it to streamline and fast-track the annexation process.

Page 454

F4: The County of Orange has withdrawn assistance to OC LAFCO in its effort to annex unincorporated islands by terminating its robust Unincorporated Islands Revitalization and Annexation Strategy and by withdrawing the assigned analyst who previously was on loan to OC LAFCO to provide fiscal analysis and data in support of island annexations.

Page 454

F5: The County of Orange has failed to facilitate and assist OC LAFCO in its annexation efforts by not offering greater incentives to both the annexing cities and the islands to be annexed, such as infrastructure improvements, property-tax exchange, and cost-sharing agreements, through memoranda of understanding and pre-annexation agreements.

Page 454

F6: By requiring staff to check with the Orange County supervisor in whose district an island lies before commencing an annexation proposal OC LAFCO is risking a loss of independence and objectivity. .

Page 454

F7: OC LAFCO discontinued the Islands Community Task Force, which has impacted its annexation efforts. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the 2014-2015 Grand Jury requires responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. REPORT 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury 17 Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO): It’s Time to Redraw the Line Based on its investigation titled “Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO): It’s Time to Redraw the Line,” the 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following six recommendations:

Page 454

Additional Recommendations 6

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Orange County LAFCO should proceed to identify and prioritize special district consolidations and mergers, commence the necessary studies, and then initiate the appropriate petitions or proposals. (F.1., F.2.)

Page 455

R2: Orange County LAFCO should revive and reinstate its Unincorporated Islands Program and Community Islands Task Force, and it should expand its Unincorporated Islands Incentive Program and Stakeholder Plan to streamline and fast-track the annexation effort. (F.3.)

Page 455

R3: The Orange County Board of Supervisors should revive and reinstate its Community Revitalization and Annexation Strategy and dedicate an analyst from the County Finance Office, whose sole duties would be to assist Orange County LAFCO with its efforts to promote annexation of the remaining unincorporated islands. (F.4.)

Page 455

R4: The Orange County Board of Supervisors should assist OC LAFCO in facilitating and expediting the annexation effort by offering greater incentives to both the annexing cities and the islands to be annexed, such as infrastructure improvements, fiscal subsidies, MOUs, and cost-sharing agreements. In addition, the County should consider imposing a special assessment on the island property to help defray the County’s costs of providing municipal services to those islands. (F.5.)

Page 455

R5: Orange County LAFCO’s practice of deferring to the Orange County Supervisor in whose district an island lies should be changed to better allow OC LAFCO to fulfill its role independently and objectively. (F.6.)

Page 455

R6: Orange County LAFCO should revive and reconstitute the Unincorporated Islands Community Task Force and set specific goals to expedite annexations of all remaining small islands by a certain date and annexations of all large islands by another date certain. (F.7.) REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code section 933 requires the governing body of any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected official shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. REPORT 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury 17 Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO): It’s Time to Redraw the Line Furthermore, California Penal Code section 933.05, subdivisions (a), (b), and (c), provides as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code section 933.05 are required from: Responses Required: The Orange County LAFCO Board of Commissioners is required to respond to Findings F.1, F.2., F.3., F.6., and F.7.; and Recommendations R.1., R.2., R.5., and R.6. The Orange County Board of Supervisors is required to respond to Findings F.4. and F.5.; and Recommendations R.3., and R.4. REPORT 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury 17 Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO): It’s Time to Redraw the Line

Page 455

📋Orange County Mental Health: Crisis Intervention Programs

22 pages 5 findings 6 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 5 findings

F2: The current need and demand for involuntary psychiatric emergency services in South Orange County is not being met. REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Orange County Mental Health: Crisis Intervention Programs 1 REPORT

Page 143

F3: The County has an insufficient number of psychiatric beds to provide in-patient 2 care to mentally ill clients who are not able to be referred to less restrictive treatment. REPORT

Page 144

F4: Although a plan is in place at CHOC for an 18-bed unit to open in 2017, there are 3 currently no psychiatric beds in Orange County for children under the age of 12.

Page 144

F5: The Mental Health Services Act Steering Committee has no direct representation REPORT from local designated private hospitals. 4

Page 144

F6: Given the language in the California Code of Regulations and the Welfare and REPORT Institutions Code regarding funding for involuntary treatment, the issue of using 5 Mental Health Services Act funds for involuntary psychiatric clients who are gravely disabled or a danger to self or others, is unclear. REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS 6 In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2014- 2015 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected REPORT by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted 7 to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. REPORT Based on its investigation titled “Orange County Mental Health: Crisis 8 Intervention Programs”, the 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following six recommendations: REPORT

Page 144

Additional Recommendations 6

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: Continue with the planned expansion of the Evaluation Treatment Services 9 facility in Santa Ana and convert it to a Psychiatric Evaluation Services model of care that includes basic medical services currently provided 5150 clients by REPORT private hospital emergency departments. (F.1.) 10

Page 144

R2: Add an additional Evaluation Treatment Services facility to be located in South Orange County and initiate substantive, concrete efforts to do so in Fiscal Year REPORT 2015-2016. (F.2.) 11

Page 144

R3: Continue efforts to locate and secure commitments for additional psychiatric beds in Orange County and nearby adjacent counties in order to increase the REPORT number of beds available for County use. (F.3.) 12

Page 144

R4: Follow-up on the planned children’s psychiatric unit at CHOC and continue to REPORT work with appropriate private hospitals in Orange County in an effort to provide 13 additional psychiatric beds for children in Orange County. (F.4.)

Page 144

R5: Add Mental Health Services Act Steering Committee representation from REPORT designated private hospitals that have demonstrated effectiveness in evaluating 14 and treating Welfare and Institutions Code 5150 clients in crisis situations. (F.5.)

Page 144

R6: Request an opinion from County Counsel regarding the purported restrictions on REPORT using Mental Health Services Act funds for involuntary mental health programs. 15 (F.6.) REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Orange County Mental Health: Crisis Intervention Programs REPORT REQUIRED RESPONSES 2 The California Penal Code section 933 requires the governing body of any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, REPORT to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and 3 recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report REPORT (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings 4 and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected official shall comment REPORT on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected 5 official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. REPORT Furthermore, California Penal Code section 933.05 (a), (b), (c), details, as 6 follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of REPORT the following: 7 (1) The respondent agrees with the finding REPORT (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case 8 the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. REPORT 9 (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: REPORT (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the 10 implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented REPORT in the future, with a time frame for implementation. 11 (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the REPORT scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be 12 prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of REPORT the Grand Jury report. 13 (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or REPORT is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. 14 (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the REPORT agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by 15 the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Orange County Mental Health: Crisis Intervention Programs 1 REPORT response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the 2 findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal REPORT Code section 933.05 are required from: 3 Responses Required: REPORT Responses to Findings F.1. through F.6. and Recommendations R.1. through 4

Page 144

📋Orange County Real Estate: Do They Know What They Have?

14 pages 4 findings 14 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 4 findings

F1: While the Board of Supervisors has officially recognized the need to have REPORT comprehensive management of County real estate, there does not appear to 14 exist any sense of priority or urgency in the County relative to the development of a complete, up-to-date database. REPORT

Page 84

F2: Management of County real estate assets is decentralized, and individual 15 departments track property under their purview. REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Orange County Real Estate: Do They Know What They Have? REPORT

Page 84

F3: The County does not have a single, comprehensive, accurate real estate 2 database with information that can be used by the County departments.

Page 85

F4: Having a comprehensive County real estate database would be beneficial in REPORT managing County real estate assets and support prudent decision making. RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the 2014- 4 2015 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted REPORT to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation of Real Estate in Orange County, the 2014-2015 REPORT Orange County Grand Jury makes the following three recommendations: 6

Page 85

Additional Recommendations 14

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The County should create a regularly updated database that includes information that will improve the stewardship of County real estate. This database should REPORT include a comprehensive, uniform list of data elements so that all County 7 departments can benefit from its use. The Grand Jury recommends the following data items be included at a minimum: REPORT 8 1. Building address 2. Assessor’s Parcel Number 3. Description of property REPORT 4. Date of acquisition 9 5. Building Number 6. Relationship to other properties, if appropriate REPORT 7. Property size: 10 a. Building square footage b. Leased space square footage REPORT c. Land square footage or acres 11 8. Condition of land or building (e.g., not suitable for building, not suitable for building occupancy, refurbishing, open land, reserved open space) REPORT 9. Occupancy and use of buildings by square footage 12 10. Non-occupied space by square footage 11. Ownership details, such as: a. County of Orange owned REPORT b. Owned under Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) 13 c. Leased to County by private owner d. Leased to OCFCD by private owner REPORT e. Leased to private party by the County of Orange 14 f. Leased to private party by the OCFCD 12. Contract terms for County income-generating property REPORT 13. Maintenance information, including responsibility 15 14. Lease terms, such as: a. Start and end dates REPORT b. Monthly lease payments 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Orange County Real Estate: Do They Know What They Have? 1 REPORT c. Cost per square foot 2 d. Restrictions e. Options 15. Is the property vacant land or open space? REPORT 16. Is the property not available for use? If so, why? 3 17. Transaction Value 18. Depreciated Value REPORT 19. Information on upgrades, remodeling 4 20. Insurance coverage 21. Environmental risks such as asbestos, underground storage tanks or soil REPORT contamination 5 22. Deed Restrictions (F.2., F.3., F.4.) REPORT 6

Page 85

R2: The County should establish a person or position to be accountable for the ongoing accuracy of the real estate database. The County should also consider REPORT the feasibility of performing an annual inventory of the County’s real estate to 7 help to ensure the information in the database is accurate. (F.3., F.4.)

Page 86

R3: The County should establish a timeline with realistic deadlines for its project to REPORT create and populate a comprehensive real estate database. This timeline should 8 include target completion dates for major stages of the project. (F.1.) REPORT REQUIRED RESPONSES 9 The California Penal Code section 933 requires the governing body of any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, REPORT to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and 10 recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report REPORT (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings 11 and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected official shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under that elected official’s REPORT control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board 12 of Supervisors. REPORT Furthermore, California Penal Code section 933.05 (a), (b), (c), details, as 13 follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate REPORT one of the following: 14 (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. REPORT (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which 15 case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Orange County Real Estate: Do They Know What They Have? REPORT (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall 2 report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding REPORT the implemented action. 3 (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be REPORT implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. 4 (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for REPORT the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the 5 agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame REPORT shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury 6 report. REPORT (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted 7 or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or REPORT personnel matters of a County agency or department headed by an elected 8 officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board REPORT of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over 9 which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. REPORT 10 Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code section 933.05 are required from: REPORT 11 Responses Required: Board of Supervisors (BOS): F.1., F.2., F.3., F.4., R.1., R.2., R.3. REPORT 12 Responses Requested: REPORT 13 County Executive Officer (CEO): F.1., F.2., F.3., F.4., R.1., R.2., R.3. REPORT Chief Real Estate Officer (CREO): F.1., F.2., F.3., F.4., R.1., R.2., R.3. REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Orange County Real Estate: Do They Know What They Have? 1 REPORT REFERENCES 2 Alliant Insurance Services. (n.d.). CSAC-EIA property schedule: Orange County. Newport Beach, CA: Author. REPORT Flock, E. (2012, June 15). Thousands of costly federal buildings lie unused-And 3 problem could be worse than we thought. U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved from of-costly-federal-buildings-lie-unused--and-problem-could-be-worse-than- REPORT we-thought. Ingraham, C. (2014, March 14). The U.S. government owns thousands of unused REPORT buildings it doesn’t know what to do with. Washington Post. Retrieved from 5 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/03/14/the-u-s- government-owns-thousands-of-unused-buildings-it-doesnt-know-what-to-do- with/ REPORT 6 LA Consulting. (2012, May). Orange County Public Works: OC Facilities & Real Estate: Operations. Final report. Manhattan Beach, CA: Author. REPORT 7 Orange County Executive Office. (2014, September 24). Organizational chart (Budget control & position unit no. 017-6050). Santa Ana, CA. Author REPORT 8 REPORT 9 REPORT 10 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury

Page 86

R4: Date of acquisition 9

Page 78

R6: Relationship to other properties, if appropriate REPORT

Page 78

R7: Property size: 10 a. Building square footage b. Leased space square footage REPORT c. Land square footage or acres 11 8. Condition of land or building (e.g., not suitable for building, not suitable for building occupancy, refurbishing, open land, reserved open space) REPORT 9. Occupancy and use of buildings by square footage 12 10. Non-occupied space by square footage

Page 78

R11: Ownership details, such as: a. County of Orange owned REPORT b. Owned under Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) 13 c. Leased to County by private owner d. Leased to OCFCD by private owner REPORT e. Leased to private party by the County of Orange 14 f. Leased to private party by the OCFCD

Page 78

R12: Contract terms for County income-generating property REPORT 13. Maintenance information, including responsibility 15 14. Lease terms, such as: a. Start and end dates REPORT b. Monthly lease payments 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Orange County Real Estate: Do They Know What They Have? 1 REPORT c. Cost per square foot 2 d. Restrictions e. Options

Page 78

R15: Is the property vacant land or open space? REPORT

Page 78

R16: Is the property not available for use? If so, why? 3

Page 78

R18: Depreciated Value REPORT

Page 78

R19: Information on upgrades, remodeling 4

Page 78

R21: Environmental risks such as asbestos, underground storage tanks or soil REPORT contamination 5

Page 78

R22: Deed Restrictions (F.2., F.3., F.4.) REPORT 6 R.2. The County should establish a person or position to be accountable for the ongoing accuracy of the real estate database. The County should also consider REPORT the feasibility of performing an annual inventory of the County’s real estate to 7 help to ensure the information in the database is accurate. (F.3., F.4.) R.3. The County should establish a timeline with realistic deadlines for its project to REPORT create and populate a comprehensive real estate database. This timeline should 8 include target completion dates for major stages of the project. (F.1.) REPORT

Page 78

📋Orange County Sheriff Medical Insurance: County Failures in Negotiation, Documentation, Oversight, and Transparency

38 pages 8 findings 10 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 8 findings

F1: Numerous provisions contained in the Memorandum of Understanding are 12 ambiguous as they relate to medical insurance coverage for Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs active and retiree members. REPORT 13 F.2. There are no limitations in the Memorandum of Understanding on how the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs Trust’s reserves are to be used, REPORT what should be done if the reserve is over-funded, or what would happen to the 14 funds in the Blue Cross Stabilization Fund when the agreement between the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs Trust and Blue Cross is terminated. REPORT 15

Page 357

F3: The County has not insisted that the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs Trust have a formal anti-fraud program, accounting policy and procedure REPORT manuals, or disaster recovery plan. 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Orange County Sheriff Medical Insurance: County Failures in Negotiation, Documentation, Oversight, and Transparency REPORT

Page 357

F4: The jointly retained auditor selection process does not guarantee that the three 2 auditor candidates are qualified, willing to do the work if selected, and will actually do the work if selected. REPORT

Page 358

F5: The Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs Trust has subsidized retirees’ 3 health benefits. REPORT

Page 358

F6: Contrary to the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, Association of 4 Orange County Deputy Sheriffs employees are receiving health care coverage from the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs Trust. REPORT

Page 358

F7: Auditors have noted a number of internal control deficiencies related to the 5 Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs Trust. REPORT

Page 358

F8: Allowing only one Reserve study and one Administrative fee study during the 6 entire term of the Memorandum of Understanding is inadequate.

Page 358

F9: There is a general lack of transparency in the Memorandum of Understanding REPORT negotiation and approval process. RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the 2014- 8 2015 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted REPORT to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled “Orange County Sheriff Medical Insurance: Transparency Problems Abound,” the 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury makes the REPORT 10 following ten recommendations:

Page 358

Additional Recommendations 10

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The County should retain a qualified, experienced, and independent negotiator to REPORT assist in the next negotiations between Orange County and the Association of 11 Orange County Deputy Sheriffs and require that entity to prepare an internally consistent Memorandum of Understanding that, for example, makes it clear REPORT whether the Orange County contributions are to be used only for active 12 employees. (F.1.)

Page 358

R2: The County should retain a qualified, experienced, and independent negotiator to REPORT incorporate clear terms in the Memorandum Of Understanding that define 13 limitations on the use of Orange County contributions that become reserve funds, specify how to deal with over-funding, and resolve what is to become of the funds REPORT in the Premium Stabilization Fund if the Trust’s agreement with Blue Cross is 14 terminated. (F.2.)

Page 358

R3: The County should ensure that an anti-fraud program, accounting policies and REPORT procedures manuals, and a disaster recovery plan are developed, implemented, 15 and maintained by the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs Trust. (F.3.) REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Orange County Sheriff Medical Insurance: County Failures in Negotiation, Documentation, Oversight, and Transparency REPORT 2

Page 358

R4: The County should require the County and the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs Trust to have each of the three-candidate auditor firms sign a REPORT firm commitment that the nominees meet specified qualifications, want the 3 business, and will do the business, if selected. (F.4.)

Page 359

R5: If the County is convinced that Sheriff retirees should not be benefiting from REPORT monthly County contributions to the Trust, the County should seek 4 reimbursement from the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs Trust for funds that the County believes are inappropriately used, e.g., Trust funds used to REPORT subsidize retirees medical insurance premiums. (F.5) 5

Page 359

R6: The County should seek reimbursement from the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs Trust for funds that the County believes are inappropriately used, REPORT e.g., Trust funds used to pay for Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs 6 employees’ medical insurance. (F.6) REPORT

Page 359

R7: The County should seek to include terms in the next Orange County and 7 Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs Memorandum of Understanding that require that the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs Trust have REPORT specific additional appropriate and necessary controls in place, and require that 8 the Trust fully implement and maintain the Memorandum of Understanding controls the Trust currently has. (F.7.) REPORT

Page 359

R8: The County should seek to include provisions in the next Orange County and 9 Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs Memorandum of Understanding, requiring that Administrative Fees Assessments and Reserve Studies be REPORT performed more often than once a term and contain specifications and 10 guarantees of active, equal control/access/involvement by Orange County. (F.8.)

Page 359

R9: The County should support and take full advantage of Orange County’s Civic REPORT Openness in Negotiations - “COIN” ordinance in future Orange County and 11 Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriff’s Memorandum of Understanding negotiations and approval processes. (F.9.) REPORT 12 R.10. The County, at the conclusion of the term of the current Memorandum of Understanding, should seriously consider discontinuing its agreement with the REPORT Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs and instead take back its rightful 13 responsibility for administering the medical insurance program(s) for all qualified County of Orange employees. (F.1. through F.9.) REPORT REQUIRED RESPONSES 14 The California Penal Code section 933 requires the governing body of any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, REPORT to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and 15 recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report REPORT (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings 16 and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Orange County Sheriff Medical Insurance: Orange County Sheriff Medical Insurance: County Failures in Negotiation, Documentation, Oversight, and Transparency County Failures in Negotiation, Documentation, Oversight, and Transparency REPORT County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected official shall comment 2

Page 359

R10: The County, at the conclusion of the term of the current Memorandum of (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel 12 Understanding, should seriously consider discontinuing its agreement with the matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs and instead take back its rightful agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by REPORT responsibility for administering the medical insurance program(s) for all qualified the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those 13 County of Orange employees. (F.1. through F.9.) budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the REPORT REQUIRED RESPONSES findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. The California Penal Code section 933 requires the governing body of any public Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, REPORT section 933.05 are required from: to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and 15 recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such Responses Required: comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report REPORT (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings 16 and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Orange County Sheriff Medical Insurance: County Failures in Negotiation, Documentation, Oversight, and Transparency REPORT Responses to Findings F.1. through F.9. and to Recommendations R.1. through 2

Page 360

📋Required Responses

21 pages 8 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Additional Recommendations 2

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: All of the funds related to Great Park financial activity should be presented as a separate section in the City’s CAFR to allow for greater transparency (F4; F9).

Page 26

R3: The City of Irvine should create and consider adopting an ordinance similar to that adopted in other cities, such as Mission Viejo8, that limits the interference and influence of City Council members with the operational aspects of the city. (F1; F2; F4).

Page 26

📋Required Responses

2 findings 3 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 2 findings

F3: The Grand Jury finds that a comprehensive, feasible alternate Emergency Operations Center plan with multiple site options and activation instructions has not been developed.

Page 10

F4: The Grand Jury finds that a mock exercise to test the alternate plan and to teach participants what to do in the event of a loss of the primary Emergency Operations Center at Loma Ridge has not been held in over ten years. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the 2013- 2014 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation of Orange County Emergency Operations in Orange County, the 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following three recommendations:

Page 10

Additional Recommendations 3

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The Grand Jury recommends that an additional high-speed network connection to Loma Ridge be installed to provide Internet redundancy to mitigate risk of degraded communications. Consider installing a separate underground fiber optic cable feed to the Emergency Operations Center. (F.2.)

Page 10

R2: The Grand Jury recommends that a comprehensive, feasible alternate Emergency Operations Center plan be developed, with multiple site options and activation instructions. (F.3.)

Page 10

R3: The Grand Jury recommends that regularly scheduled exercise drills be held to test the alternate Emergency Operations Center backup plan and train all participants in the procedures to be followed in the event of loss of the primary Emergency Operations Center at Loma Ridge. (F.4.) REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code section 933 requires the governing body of any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected official shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code section 933.05, subdivisions (a), (b), and (c), provides as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: Orange County Emergency Operations 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code section 933.05 are required from: Responses Required:

Page 10

📋Required Responses

3 findings 2 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 3 findings

F4: AB109 offenders are at a higher risk for reoffending with 88% of them having a drug abuse history. Orange County does not have adequate residential drug treatment beds available for the number of AB109 offenders, thus limiting the use of this preventative alternative.

Page 15

F5: AB109 has placed Probation Officers at greater risk, however the Orange County Probation Department has placed a high priority on officer safety by providing adequate defensive tools to the officers including firearms, batons, pepper spray, and protective vests.

Page 15

F6: OCPD has provided many additional tools to probation officers under AB109 to ensure officer safety, with the exception of a Taser. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the 2014- 2015 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation of AB109 and Community Safety in Orange County, the 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following two recommendations:

Page 15

Additional Recommendations 2

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The Health Care Service Agency and/or the Probation Department should review the cost of services provided to probationers, and/or on enforcement actions, to determine if any of these services or actions provide less consistent benefits toward reduced recidivism than residential treatment beds and, using funds that would otherwise be spent on those services or actions, increase the number of residential drug treatment beds. (F.4.)

Page 15

R2: The OCPD should provide Tasers as an option for AB109 probation officers. (F.6.) REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code section 933 requires the governing body of any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected official shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code section 933.05, subdivisions (a), (b), and (c), provides as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: AB109-Realignment: Are the Public and Probation Officers at Greater Risk? 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code section 933.05 are required from: Required Reponses Orange County Board of Supervisors: F.1., F.2., F.3., F.4., F.5., F.6., R.1., R.2. Requested Responses Orange County Probation Department: F.1., F.2., F.3., F.4., F.5., F.6., R.1., R.2. Health Care Agency (HCA): F.4., R.1. AB109-Realignment: Are the Public and Probation Officers at Greater Risk? 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury

Page 15

📋The Orange County Animal Shelter: The Facility, The Function, The Future

16 pages 3 findings 3 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 3 findings

F2: The 18 cities that contract with Orange County Animal Care for shelter services REPORT have not had an opportunity to contribute to capital costs for a new Animal 6 Shelter facility, or facilities, because they have not been shown any conceptual plans or drawings of planned projects with cost estimates. REPORT

Page 33

F3: The County has not developed any viable conceptual plan for a new animal 7 shelter facility at the Marine Corps Air Station-Tustin, or at any other location, for presentation to the 18 contracting cities despite the cities’ need to see plans REPORT before committing to support the project. 8

Page 33

F4: Multiple county animal shelters are the standard throughout California counties of REPORT similar geographic size and population. In the event of a shutdown at the Orange 9 County Animal Shelter because of quarantine, earthquake, or other disaster, animal-care services in the unincorporated areas of Orange County and the contract cities would cease. REPORT 10 RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2014-15 REPORT Grand Jury requires responses from each agency affected by the recommendations 11 presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. REPORT 12 Based on its investigation of Orange County Animal Care, the 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following four recommendations: REPORT

Page 33

Additional Recommendations 3

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The Orange County Board of Supervisors, County Executive Officer, and Director 13 of Community Resources should place a high priority on the design and construction of new, adequately sized, staffed, and funded animal shelter REPORT facilities; and should pursue this long overdue project until such time that 14 construction is completed. (F-1, F-4) REPORT R-2 The Orange County Board of Supervisors should investigate and analyze the 15 advisability and feasibility of selecting two or three sites for construction of animal care shelters to provide services accessible to all parts of the County. (F-4) REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT The Orange County Animal Shelter: the Facility, the Function, the Future 1

Page 33

R3: The Orange County Executive Officer should seriously evaluate designating a REPORT staff member with the assignment of facilitating the construction of a new Animal 2 Shelter. This individual’s tasks should include negotiating with the contracting cities for their capital contributions, release of requests for proposals for building REPORT and site designs, coordination with the Board of Supervisors for the County to 3 self-finance the project, and any other project-manager tasks needed for the successful creation of a new shelter or shelters. (F-1, F-2, F-3, F-4) REPORT 4

Page 34

R4: The 18 contracting cities need to review their long-term commitment to be part of Orange County Animal Care as opposed to pursuing animal-care opportunities on their own or joining with neighboring cities that have shelters. The contracting REPORT cities need to demand that the County provide them a viable plan with cost and 5 schedule estimates for a new facility or facilities to evaluate as part of their commitment review. (F-4) REPORT 6 REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code section 933 requires any public agency which the REPORT Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to 7 the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no REPORT later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the 8 Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District REPORT Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made within 60 days to the Presiding 9 Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code section 933.05 (a), (b), (c), details, as REPORT follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: 10 (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate REPORT one of the following: 11 (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. REPORT (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which 12 case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. REPORT (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall 13 report one of the following actions: REPORT (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding 14 the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be REPORT implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. 15 (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and REPORT the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT The Orange County Animal Shelter: the Facility, the Function, the Future 1 REPORT the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the 2 agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame REPORT shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury 3 report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted REPORT or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. 4 (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected REPORT officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors 5 shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over REPORT which it has some decision making aspects of the findings or 6 recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. REPORT Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal 7 Code section 933.05 are required from: Requested Responses: REPORT 8 Responses to F-1 and F-4 are requested from the County Executive Officer. Responses to F-1, F-2, F-3, and F-4 are requested from the Director of Orange REPORT County Community Resources. Responses to Recommendations R-1 and R-3 are requested from the County REPORT Executive Officer. Required Responses: REPORT Response to F-4 is required from the Orange County Board of Supervisors. Responses to Recommendations R-1 and R-2 are required from the County Board of Supervisors. REPORT 12 Responses to Recommendation R-4 are required from the Mayors of the 18 Animal Shelter contract cities (listed below): REPORT 13 The City of Anaheim The City of Brea REPORT 14 The City of Cypress The City of Fountain Valley REPORT 15 The City of Fullerton REPORT The City of Garden Grove 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT The Orange County Animal Shelter: the Facility, the Function, the Future 1 The City of Huntington Beach REPORT 2 The City of Laguna Hills REPORT The City of Lake Forest 3 The City of Orange REPORT The City of Placentia 4 The City of Rancho Santa Margarita REPORT The City of San Juan Capistrano 5 The City of Santa Ana REPORT The City of Stanton 6 The City of Tustin REPORT The City of Villa Park 7 The City of Yorba Linda REPORT 8 See also Response Matrix below for summary of required responses. REPORT 9 REPORT 10 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT The Orange County Animal Shelter: the Facility, the Function, the Future 1 REPORT The Orange County Animal Shelter: The Facility, The Function, The Future 2 RESPONSE MATRIX REPORT 3 Findings Recommendations REPORT RESPONDENTS F1 F2 F3 F4 R1 R2 R3 R4 4 1 County Chief Executive Officer X X X X REPORT 2 Director of Orange County Community Resources X X X X 5 3 Orange County Board of Supervisors X X X REPORT 4 Mayor City of Anaheim X 6 5 Mayor City of Brea X REPORT 6 Mayor City of Cypress X 7 7 Mayor City of Fountain Valley X REPORT 8 Mayor City of Fullerton X 8 9 Mayor City of Garden Grove X REPORT 10 Mayor City of Huntington Beach X 9 11 Mayor City of Laguna Hills X REPORT 12 Mayor City of Lake Forest X 10 13 Mayor City of Orange X REPORT 14 Mayor City of Placentia X 11 15 Mayor City of Rancho Santa Margarita X 16 Mayor City of San Juan Capistrano X REPORT 12 17 Mayor City of Santa Ana X 18 Mayor City of Stanton X REPORT 13 19 Mayor City of Tustin X 20 Mayor City of Villa Park X REPORT 14 21 Mayor City of Yorba Linda X REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT The Orange County Animal Shelter: the Facility, the Function, the Future 1 REFERENCES REPORT 2 Alphabetical List of California Counties. Retrieved December 2, 2014, from: REPORT http://www.alphalists.com 3 Orange County Grand Jury (2000). We Can Do Better…Improving Animal Care In Orange County. Santa Ana, CA. REPORT 4 Orange County Grand Jury (2004). The Orange County Animal Shelter—Are Improvements Needed? Santa Ana, CA. REPORT 5 Orange County Grand Jury (2008). Is Orange County Going To The Dogs? Santa Ana, CA. REPORT 6 Robertson, J., Aziz, C., Butler, V.(2014, June 16). Orange County Animal Care Shelter Consultation Summary June 16, 2014. JVR Shelter Strategies, LLC. REPORT 7 UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine (2007, February 2). The UC Davis Koret Shelter Medicine Program: Orange County Animal Care Services Division REPORT U.S. Census Bureau (2010, 2013). Retrieved from: www.census.gov 2010 and 8 www.census.gov 2010 REPORT U.S. Census State & County Quick Facts (2013). Retrieved from: 9 www.quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html REPORT 10 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury

Page 34

📋Transparency in Irvine Great Park Project

2 pages 14 findings

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 14 findings

F1: The Irvine City Council originally had a vision of a metropolitan park that would rival Central Park in New York, Golden Gate Park in San Francisco, and Balboa Park in San Diego but neglected to follow standard industry practices in managing such a large project.

Page 24

F2: From the outset, with the City of Irvine assuming a land developer role, the project was poorly managed and did not follow conventional program management principles. There was excessive political control, influence, and interference over the Great Park project. The City allowed individuals, including some elected officials to make technical decisions without ensuring that these individuals were qualified or experienced to make such decisions. Basically, the City abandoned sound project management principles. 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury “Irvine” Great Park: A Legacy of Hubris

Page 24

F3: The organizational structure established by the Irvine City Council was such that total control over the project rested with the City Council and the Orange County Great Park Corporation was relegated to an advisory role.

Page 25

F4: Many California communities, including Mission Viejo, Belmont, Watsonville, and Norwalk have ordinances restricting elected officials from interfering in operational activities under a city manager.

Page 25

F5: Appropriate transparency over the project was lacking. The City Council and the OCGPC did not publicly reveal the estimated true costs to build the park as originally designed as well as other non-capital expenditures.

Page 25

F6: There were serious questions about the ability of the City to implement the original design based on the City’s available financing and U.S. Navy constraints.

Page 25

F7: Many of the contracts of the Great Park were open-ended and without defined deliverables, minor oversight, or safeguards. There seemingly was no effective oversight over invoices, contract compliance, or quality control.

Page 25

F8: There seemed to be over-use of no-bid and sole source contracts without full justification which possibly violates the City’s processes and procedures. There are also questions of clarity relative to terms and conditions of current contracts.

Page 25

F9: Orange County Great Park financial statements indicated that less than 50% of expenses incurred were spent on capital, i.e., on the actual design and construction of the Great Park, which is well outside industry standards. The remaining expenses were on salaries, overhead, and contract services.

Page 25

F10: The complexity of financial transactions relative to the Great Park made it difficult to understand the flow of funds relative to sources and uses of monies. The lack of clarity on such basic issues as the number of units authorized to be constructed raises concerns about other issues in the contract that are unclear. This was a major flaw in the reporting system.

Page 25

F11: An inordinate amount of funds were spent on public relations and lobbying, “free” public events, exhibitions, food, and a balloon whose benefits did not justify its costs.

Page 25

F12: The current plan for the construction of the Great Park will require less funding than the original plan but will still require a high cost of construction and operations and maintenance that will be passed on to home buyers.

Page 25

F13: There was no explanation by the City Council as to where the tax increment of $43 million received by the IRDA from 2005-2011 was utilized.

Page 25

F14: The OCGPC has become a “shell” corporation and serves no intrinsic function as members of the Board of Directors are the same as members of the Irvine City Council. 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury

Page 25

📋Unfunded Retiree Healthcare Obligations - a Problem for Public Agencies?

26 pages 3 findings 3 recommendations

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 3 findings

F1: F2 F3 F4 R1 R2 R3 R4 REPORT 20 Lake Forest x x 4 21 Los Alamitos x x x x x x REPORT 22 Mission Viejo x x x x 5 23 Newport Beach x x x x 24 Orange x x x x x x REPORT 6 25 Orange County Fire Authority x x x x 26 Placentia x x x x x x REPORT 27 Rancho Santa Margarita x x x x x x 7 28 San Clemente x x x x x x 29 San Juan Capistrano x x x x x x REPORT 8 30 Santa Ana x x x x x x 31 Seal Beach x x x x REPORT 32 Stanton x x 9 33 Tustin x x x x x x REPORT 34 Villa Park x x 10 35 Westminster x x x x x x 36 Yorba Linda x x x x x x REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Unfunded Retiree Health Care Obligations-A Problem for Public Agencies? REPORT REFERENCES 2 California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission. OPEBs &GASB 45, A Question and Answer Guide CDIAC # 06-09(2009) REPORT 3 Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports for FY 2012-13, as retrieved from the following city/agency web sites: REPORT Aliso Viejo 4 Anaheim Brea REPORT Buena Park 5 Costa Mesa Cypress Dana Point REPORT Fountain Valley 6 Fullerton Garden Grove REPORT Huntington Beach 7 Irvine Laguna Beach REPORT Laguna Hills 8 Laguna Niguel Laguna Woods REPORT La Habra 9 Lake Forest La Palma Los Alamitos REPORT Mission Viejo 10 Newport Beach Orange REPORT Placentia 11 Rancho Santa Margarita San Clemente REPORT San Juan Capistrano 12 Santa Ana Seal Beach REPORT Stanton 13 Tustin Villa Park Westminster REPORT Yorba Linda 14 County of Orange Orange County Fire Authority REPORT 15 Governmental Accounting Standards Board GASB (2004). Summary of Statement No.45, as retrieved from : REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Unfunded Retiree Health Care Obligations-A Problem for Public Agencies? 1 REPORT http://www.gasb.org/jsp/GASB/Pronouncement_C/GASBSummaryPage&cid=117 2 6156700943 Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB)(2004). GASB Statement 45 on REPORT OPEB accounting by governments, A few basic questions and answers as 3 retrieved from: http://www.gasb.org/project_pages/gasb_st45_basic_q&a.pdf REPORT 4 Legislative Analyst Office. Consider phasing out retiree health care. (2015): as retrieved from: http://calpensions.com/2015/03/23/lao-consider-phasing-out-retiree-health- care. REPORT 5 New Reports Detail Pension Fund Finances(2015) as retrieved from: https://www.calpers.ca.gov/index.jsp?bc=/about/newsroom/news/new-report- REPORT fund-finances.xml 6 Torres, Zahira (2015, March 7). Health benefits are a promise school districts find hard REPORT to keep. Los Angeles Times. REPORT 8 REPORT 9 REPORT 10 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Unfunded Retiree Health Care Obligations-A Problem for Public Agencies? REPORT APPENDIX: GLOSSARY OF TERMS 2 Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB): GASB is the source of REPORT generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) used by state and local governments 3 in the United States. As with most of the entities involved in creating GAAP in the United States, it is a private, non-governmental organization. REPORT 4 The GASB is subject to oversight by the Financial Accounting Foundation (FAF), which selects the members of the GASB and the Financial Accounting Standards Board and funds both organizations. REPORT 5 The mission of the GASB is to establish and improve standards of state and local governmental accounting and financial reporting that will result in useful information for REPORT users of financial reports and guide and educate the public, including issuers, auditors, 6 and users of those financial reports. REPORT The GASB has issued Statements, Interpretations, Technical Bulletins, and Concept 7 Statements, defining GAAP for state and local governments since 1984. GAAP for the Federal government is defined by the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board. REPORT 8 Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB): are part of total compensation offered by employers to attract and retain employees. OPEB includes postemployment health care, as well as other postemployment benefits e.g. life insurance when provided REPORT separately from a Pension Plan. The applicable GASB statements are: REPORT 10 • Statement No. 25, Financial Reporting for Defined Benefit Pension Plans and Note Disclosures for Defined Contribution Plans REPORT • Statement No. 26, Financial Reporting for Post-employment Healthcare Plans 11 Administered by Defined Benefit Pension Plans • Statement No. 43, Financial Reporting for Post-employment Benefit Plans, Other REPORT Than Pension Plans 12 • Statement No. 45, Accounting and Financial Reporting by Employers for Post- employment Benefits, Other Than Pensions REPORT GASB pronouncements apply to governmental entities, public benefit entities, public 13 employee retirement systems, and public utilities, hospitals and other healthcare providers, and colleges and universities. REPORT 14 Unfunded Accrued Actuarial Liability (UAAL) is the amount of retirement benefits that are owed to employees in future years that exceed current assets and their REPORT projected growth. Annual Required Contribution (ARC)is the employer’s required contributions for the REPORT year, calculated in accordance with certain parameters and includes (a) the normal cost 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Unfunded Retiree Health Care Obligations-A Problem for Public Agencies? 1 REPORT for the year and (b) a component for amortization of total unfunded actuarial accrued 2 liabilities(or funding excess) of the plan over a period not to exceed thirty years. REPORT 3 REPORT 4 REPORT 5 REPORT 6 REPORT 7 REPORT 8 REPORT 9 REPORT 10 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury

Page 250

F3: Anaheim, Buena Park, County of Orange, Huntington Beach, Lake Forest, and REPORT Stanton were in compliance with the requirement to contribute a full 100% or 9 more of their Annual Required Contribution in the FY 2012-13. The remaining 26 agencies were not in compliance. REPORT

Page 247

F4: All agencies surveyed (except Anaheim) do not disclose retiree health benefits 10 as part of employee compensation per GAAP standards. REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS 11 In accordance with California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the 2014- 2015 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected REPORT by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted 12 to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled “Unfunded Retiree Health Care Obligations-A REPORT Problem for Public Agencies?,” the 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury makes the 13 following four recommendations: REPORT R.1. The cities of Aliso Viejo, Dana Point, Laguna Hills, Villa Park, and Laguna Woods 14 should measure and disclose their liability in accordance with Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 45. (F.1.) REPORT

Page 247

Additional Recommendations 3

Not linked to specific findings.

R2: The 21 agencies that have not contributed into an irrevocable trust fund to 15 finance their retiree health obligations should begin to put aside monies to fund this obligation and reduce their unfunded public liabilities (F.2.) REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Unfunded Retiree Health Care Obligations-A Problem for Public Agencies? 1 REPORT

Page 247

R3: The 26 agencies that are not recognizing the full amount of their Annual 2 Required Contribution as expense in the current period and should comply with the requirement to do so. (F.3.) REPORT

Page 248

R4: All agencies surveyed should recognize retiree health care benefits in employee 3 compensation in conformity with GAAP. (F.4.) REPORT REQUIRED RESPONSES 4 The California Penal Code section 933 requires the governing body of any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, REPORT to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and 5 recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report REPORT (filed with the Clerk of the Court). Additionally, in the case of a report containing findings 6 and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected official shall comment REPORT on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected 7 official’s control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. REPORT Furthermore, California Penal Code section 933.05, subdivisions (a), (b), and (c), 8 provides as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of REPORT the following: 9 (1) The respondent agrees with the finding REPORT 10 (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. REPORT 11 (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: REPORT 12 (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. REPORT (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented 13 in the future, with a time frame for implementation. REPORT (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the 14 scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when REPORT applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of 15 the Grand Jury report. REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Unfunded Retiree Health Care Obligations-A Problem for Public Agencies? REPORT (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or 2 is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. REPORT (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel 3 matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those REPORT budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The 4 response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. REPORT 5 Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code section 933.05 are required from Orange County, the Orange County Fire Authority, and REPORT the Mayors of the cities as denoted in the following Response Matrix: 6 RESPONSE MATRIX REPORT 7 Findings Recommendations REPORT 8 F1 F2 F3 F4 R1 R2 R3 R4 1 Aliso Viejo x x REPORT 2 Anaheim 9 3 Brea x x x x x x REPORT 4 Buena Park x x 10 5 Costa Mesa x x x x x x 6 County of Orange (BOS) x x REPORT 7 Cypress x x x x x x 11 8 Dana Point x x REPORT 9 Fountain Valley x x x x 12 10 Fullerton x x x x x x 11 Garden Grove x x x x x x REPORT 13 12 Huntington Beach x x 13 Irvine x x x x x x REPORT 14 La Habra x x x x x x 14 15 La Palma x x x x x x 16 Laguna Beach x x x x x x REPORT 15 17 Laguna Hills x x 18 Laguna Niguel x x x x x x REPORT 19 Laguna Woods x x x x x x x x 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Unfunded Retiree Health Care Obligations-A Problem for Public Agencies? 1 REPORT RESPONSE MATRIX 2 REPORT Findings Recommendations 3 F1 F2 F3 F4 R1 R2 R3 R4 REPORT 20 Lake Forest x x 4 21 Los Alamitos x x x x x x REPORT 22 Mission Viejo x x x x 5 23 Newport Beach x x x x 24 Orange x x x x x x REPORT 6 25 Orange County Fire Authority x x x x 26 Placentia x x x x x x REPORT 27 Rancho Santa Margarita x x x x x x 7 28 San Clemente x x x x x x 29 San Juan Capistrano x x x x x x REPORT 8 30 Santa Ana x x x x x x 31 Seal Beach x x x x REPORT 32 Stanton x x 9 33 Tustin x x x x x x REPORT 34 Villa Park x x 10 35 Westminster x x x x x x 36 Yorba Linda x x x x x x REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Unfunded Retiree Health Care Obligations-A Problem for Public Agencies? REPORT REFERENCES 2 California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission. OPEBs &GASB 45, A Question and Answer Guide CDIAC # 06-09(2009) REPORT 3 Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports for FY 2012-13, as retrieved from the following city/agency web sites: REPORT Aliso Viejo 4 Anaheim Brea REPORT Buena Park 5 Costa Mesa Cypress Dana Point REPORT Fountain Valley 6 Fullerton Garden Grove REPORT Huntington Beach 7 Irvine Laguna Beach REPORT Laguna Hills 8 Laguna Niguel Laguna Woods REPORT La Habra 9 Lake Forest La Palma Los Alamitos REPORT Mission Viejo 10 Newport Beach Orange REPORT Placentia 11 Rancho Santa Margarita San Clemente REPORT San Juan Capistrano 12 Santa Ana Seal Beach REPORT Stanton 13 Tustin Villa Park Westminster REPORT Yorba Linda 14 County of Orange Orange County Fire Authority REPORT 15 Governmental Accounting Standards Board GASB (2004). Summary of Statement No.45, as retrieved from : REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT Unfunded Retiree Health Care Obligations-A Problem for Public Agencies? 1 REPORT http://www.gasb.org/jsp/GASB/Pronouncement_C/GASBSummaryPage&cid=117 2 6156700943 Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB)(2004). GASB Statement 45 on REPORT OPEB accounting by governments, A few basic questions and answers as 3 retrieved from: http://www.gasb.org/project_pages/gasb_st45_basic_q&a.pdf REPORT 4 Legislative Analyst Office. Consider phasing out retiree health care. (2015): as retrieved from: http://calpensions.com/2015/03/23/lao-consider-phasing-out-retiree-health- care. REPORT 5 New Reports Detail Pension Fund Finances(2015) as retrieved from: https://www.calpers.ca.gov/index.jsp?bc=/about/newsroom/news/new-report- REPORT fund-finances.xml 6 Torres, Zahira (2015, March 7). Health benefits are a promise school districts find hard REPORT to keep. Los Angeles Times. REPORT 8 REPORT 9 REPORT 10 REPORT 11 REPORT 12 REPORT 13 REPORT 14 REPORT 15 REPORT 16 2014-2015 Orange County Grand Jury REPORT 1 Unfunded Retiree Health Care Obligations-A Problem for Public Agencies? REPORT APPENDIX:

Page 248

📋While Interacting with the Higher-level Offender?

3 findings

Quick View Full Details →

Findings & Recommendations 3 findings

F1: AB109 has not resulted in an overall increase in crime in Orange County.

Page 14

F2: Although AB109 offenders must meet requirements for no convictions of serious, violent, or sexual crimes, this is only true for their latest offense. Many AB109 offenders do have prior convictions for serious, violent, or sexual crimes in their criminal background.

Page 14

F3: AB109 offenders continue to pose a danger to the community at the current recidivism rate of approximately 30%, especially as it relates to property crimes.

Page 14