Score: +1
(1/179/0)
Santa Cruz County Grand Jury
• 2020-2021
Managers of Risk or Victims of Risk Rocked by the Shocks
Published: June 19, 2020
60 pages
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 13 findings
F1
RISK ASSESSMENT: As the Auditor’s Office is an authoritative source of studies and assessments for the State Legislature, we find that the risk assessment methodology used by the Auditor’s Office is a valid and valuable approach to assessing financial risk for all SCC city jurisdictions and communicating that risk to stakeholders.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should become familiar with and adopt the Auditor’s Office risk assessment framework or a similar framework to assess financial risk. (F1)
F2
RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities did not fully consider the calculated high risk indicators from the Auditor’s Office and their potential impacts on city operations, services, and capital assets/infrastructure.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should evaluate and communicate the implications of the financial risk trends indicated in the analyses calculated from the Auditor’s Office methodology. (F2, F3)
F3
RISK ASSESSMENT: The state of risk determined for all SCC Cities by the Auditor’s Office in 2017 remained largely unchanged through 2019.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should evaluate and communicate the implications of the financial risk trends indicated in the analyses calculated from the Auditor’s Office methodology. (F2, F3)
F4
RISK ASSESSMENT: Pension costs contribute a higher level of financial risk to all SCC Cities than is accounted for by city documents.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should publish a standard report annually that is an understandable summary of pension risk, including a narrative on the implications of market valuation versus actuarial valuation of accrued total liabilities. (F4, F12, F13)
F5
RISK ASSESSMENT: Financial Risk Indicators alone are not adequate to effectively understand the risks facing all SCC Cities.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should identify a suite of risk indicators that support an integrated assessment of all risk types that can inhibit the ability of the city to meet its objectives. Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) provides an example of the risk types that should be considered. (F5, F6)
R5
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should adopt the practice of Bowtie Analysis, or an equivalent method, to support the understanding of risk interactions, the establishment of risk controls, and the communication of a city risk profile. (F7,
F6
RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities do not fully identify, assess, track, and report key risk indicators that reflect the state of strategic, financial, operational, or hazard risk.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should identify a suite of risk indicators that support an integrated assessment of all risk types that can inhibit the ability of the city to meet its objectives. Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) provides an example of the risk types that should be considered. (F5, F6)
F7
RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities do not adequately evaluate the possible interactions between risks that may inhibit or enhance the objectives of each city.
No recommendations for this finding
F8
RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities either do not maintain or do not publish a report card on the state of key infrastructure that can be used to set funding priorities and manage operational and hazard risk.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should publish their own infrastructure risk report cards and any data they make available to county and state level risk assessments. (F8)
F9
RISK MANAGEMENT: Although all of the cities of SCC are preparing for increased pension costs due to current amortization schedules, they are not adequately preparing for risk associated with significant or sustained investment shortfalls in CALPERS due to economic shocks (e.g. caused by Coronavirus) or a recession.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9
By January 1, 2021: all SCC Cities should develop or adopt contingency plans for realistic negative financial performance scenarios associated with CALPERS investment shortfalls (for shock and sustained downturns). (F9)
F10
RISK MANAGEMENT: Except for the area of hazard (i.e. loss) risk management, in all SCC Cities, there is no formal method to define, track, manage, and communicate risks at the enterprise level of SCC city government.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should evaluate the costs and benefits of implementing an Enterprise Risk Management Framework to better integrate risk management across all types of risks (Strategic, Financial, Operational, Hazard). This could take many forms, one being a shared capability through a risk sharing Joint Powers Authority (JPA). The key will be designating clear authority and responsibility for integrated risk management. (F10)
F11
GOVERNANCE: All SCC Cities do not have a publicly articulated pension Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL) funding policy that recognizes potential pension cost risks and community expenditure/revenue priorities.
Related Recommendations (2)
R10
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should develop and publish a policy regarding control of retirement costs (pension and Other Pension Employee Benefits) and funding remedies for unexpected bills presented by CalPERS. (F11)
R11
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should develop a plan to align with the Government Financial Officers Association (GFOA) Financial Transparency Initiative. This should be extended to risk management transparency. (F6, F8,
F12
TRANSPARENCY: All SCC Cities do not adequately meet key requirements for transparency as defined by the GFOA.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should publish a standard report annually that is an understandable summary of pension risk, including a narrative on the implications of market valuation versus actuarial valuation of accrued total liabilities. (F4, F12, F13)
F13
TRANSPARENCY: All SCC Cities do not provide standard and understandable reporting with regard to: Pension Costs and Associated Impacts (past, current, and projected); Service Level Performance Metrics; State of Key Infrastructure; Risk Assessments and Mitigation Plans for Finance, Operational, and Hazard Risks.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should publish a standard report annually that is an understandable summary of pension risk, including a narrative on the implications of market valuation versus actuarial valuation of accrued total liabilities. (F4, F12, F13)
R8
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should develop financial models that project the possibilities of realistic financial scenarios; and use these projections in their risk management practices. (F13)
Conclusions 1
-
CL1 Page 38In this report, the Grand Jury has articulated authoritative and consensus requirements for robust risk identification, assessment, management, and communication. These requirements and standards were then used to evaluate the risk profile for each of the cities in SCC and the state of risk management practices currently in place. Our findings indicate that all of our cities are just one economic shock away from serious financial distress and that their current approach to risk management is not adequate to effectively manage and mitigate the range of risks that are typically confronted by local governments. With the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting economic consequences, the financial risk and associated operational risks we discussed will likely be realized. We will soon see how the cities move forward to minimize the impacts of the current crisis. It is also the time to ask if there are ways that we can better prepare for the future shocks that will come our way. The Grand Jury hopes that our findings and recommendations contribute positively to this discussion.
Agency Responses 33
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.
▶
City Council of Capitola
September 10, 2020
•
29 pages
• 22 responses
•
Score: 0
(+0, 22, 0)
View Details ▾
22 responses to findings and recommendations
F2
RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities did not fully consider the calculated high risk indicators from the Auditor’s Office and their potential impacts on city operations, services, and capital assets/infrastructure.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities did not fully consider the calculated high risk indicators from the Auditor's Office and their potential impacts on city operations, services, and capital assets/infrastructure. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion X DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The City of Capitola's high-risk indicators from the SCC Grand Jury Report are Revenue Trends, Pension Obligations, Future Pension Funding, and Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) Funding. The City has made deliberate and concerted efforts ...
R2
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should evaluate and communicate the implications of the financial risk trends indicated in the analyses calculated from the Auditor’s Office methodology. (F2, F3)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should evaluate and communicate the implications of the financial risk trends indicated in the analyses calculated from the Auditor's Office methodology. (F2, F3) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The Auditor's risk analysis very heavily focuses on reserves, pension ...
F3
RISK ASSESSMENT: The state of risk determined for all SCC Cities by the Auditor’s Office in 2017 remained largely unchanged through 2019.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. RISK ASSESSMENT: The state of risk determined for all SCC Cities by the Auditor's Office in 2017 remained largely unchanged through 2019. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree):
F4. RISK ASSESSMENT: Pension costs contribute a higher level of financial risk to all SCC Cities than is accounted for by city documents. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion X DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): City documents report pension...
R3
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should publish a standard report annually that is an understandable summary of pension risk, including a narrative on the implications of market valuation versus actuarial valuation of accrued total liabilities. (F4, F12, F13)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should publish a standard report annually that is an understandable summary of pension risk, including a narrative on the implications of market valuation versus actuarial valuation of accrued total liabilities. (F4, F12, F13) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: Pensio...
F4
RISK ASSESSMENT: Pension costs contribute a higher level of financial risk to all SCC Cities than is accounted for by city documents.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
the Auditor's Office in 2017 remained largely unchanged through 2019. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree):
F4.
R4
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should identify a suite of risk indicators that support an integrated assessment of all risk types that can inhibit the ability of the city to meet its objectives. Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) provides an example of the risk types that should be considered. (F5, F6)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should identify a suite of risk indicators that support an integrated assessment of all risk types that can inhibit the ability of the city to meet its objectives. Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) provides an example of the risk types that should be considered. (F5, F6) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response...
F5
RISK ASSESSMENT: Financial Risk Indicators alone are not adequate to effectively understand the risks facing all SCC Cities.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. RISK ASSESSMENT: Financial Risk Indicators alone are not adequate to effectively understand the risks facing all SCC Cities. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree):
F6. RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities do not fully identify, assess, track, and report key risk indicators that reflect the state of strategic, financial, operational, or hazard risk. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree)...
R5
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should adopt the practice of Bowtie Analysis, or an equivalent method, to support the understanding of risk interactions, the establishment of risk controls, and the communication of a city risk profile. (F7,
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should adopt the practice of Bowtie Analysis, or an equivalent method, to support the understanding of risk interactions, the establishment of risk controls, and the communication of a city risk profile. (F7, F10, F12, F13) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: We do not...
F6
RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities do not fully identify, assess, track, and report key risk indicators that reflect the state of strategic, financial, operational, or hazard risk.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
the risks facing all SCC Cities. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree):
F6.
R6
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should publish their own infrastructure risk report cards and any data they make available to county and state level risk assessments. (F8)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should publish their own infrastructure risk report cards and any data they make available to county and state level risk assessments. (F8) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: Based on the responses given in section F8, the City believes it has adequately communicated ...
F7
RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities do not adequately evaluate the possible interactions between risks that may inhibit or enhance the objectives of each city.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree):
F7.
R7
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should evaluate the costs and benefits of implementing an Enterprise Risk Management Framework to better integrate risk management across all types of risks (Strategic, Financial, Operational, Hazard). This could take many forms, one being a shared capability through a risk sharing Joint Powers Authority (JPA). The key will be designating clear authority and responsibility for integrated risk management. (F10)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should evaluate the costs and benefits of implementing an Enterprise Risk Management Framework to better integrate risk management across all types of risks (Strategic, Financial, Operational, Hazard). This could take many forms, one being a shared capability through a risk sharing Joint Powers Authority (JPA). The key will be designating clear authority and responsibility for integrated risk management. (F10) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and th...
F8
RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities either do not maintain or do not publish a report card on the state of key infrastructure that can be used to set funding priorities and manage operational and hazard risk.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities either do not maintain or do not publish a report card on the state of key infrastructure that can be used to set funding priorities and manage operational and hazard risk. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion X DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The City of Capitola has completed extensive assessments of its infrastructure over many years, and is constantly evaluating and preparing for replacement of key infrastructure, including long-term capital improvement planning, financial planning ...
R8
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should develop financial models that project the possibilities of realistic financial scenarios; and use these projections in their risk management practices. (F13)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should develop financial models that project the possibilities of realistic financial scenarios; and use these projections in their risk management practices. (F13) X HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: This is done each year as part of the budget process. Our budget pro...
F9
RISK MANAGEMENT: Although all of the cities of SCC are preparing for increased pension costs due to current amortization schedules, they are not adequately preparing for risk associated with significant or sustained investment shortfalls in CALPERS due to economic shocks (e.g. caused by Coronavirus) or a recession.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. RISK MANAGEMENT: Although all of the cities of SCC are preparing for increased pension costs due to current amortization schedules, they are not adequately preparing for risk associated with significant or sustained investment shortfalls in CALPERS due to economic shocks (e.g. caused by Coronavirus) or a recession. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The City of Capitola has spent several years deliberately building up reserves and making payments into the trust accounts for pension ...
R9
By January 1, 2021: all SCC Cities should develop or adopt contingency plans for realistic negative financial performance scenarios associated with CALPERS investment shortfalls (for shock and sustained downturns). (F9)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. By January 1, 2021: all SCC Cities should develop or adopt contingency plans for realistic negative financial performance scenarios associated with CALPERS investment shortfalls (for shock and sustained downturns). (F9) X HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The City of Capitola's contingency and emergen...
F10
RISK MANAGEMENT: Except for the area of hazard (i.e. loss) risk management, in all SCC Cities, there is no formal method to define, track, manage, and communicate risks at the enterprise level of SCC city government.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. RISK MANAGEMENT: Except for the area of hazard (i.e. loss) risk management, in all SCC Cities, there is no formal method to define, track, manage, and communicate risks at the enterprise level of SCC city government. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The annual budget is adopted through a formal, open to the public process in which various risks are communicated and discussed. The largest financial risk to the City in the unfunded actuarial pension liability which has been one of t...
R10
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should develop and publish a policy regarding control of retirement costs (pension and Other Pension Employee Benefits) and funding remedies for unexpected bills presented by CalPERS. (F11)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should develop and publish a policy regarding control of retirement costs (pension and Other Pension Employee Benefits) and funding remedies for unexpected bills presented by CalPERS. (F11) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: Given the lack of control that Cities have ...
F11
GOVERNANCE: All SCC Cities do not have a publicly articulated pension Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL) funding policy that recognizes potential pension cost risks and community expenditure/revenue priorities.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. GOVERNANCE: All SCC Cities do not have a publicly articulated pension Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL) funding policy that recognizes potential pension cost risks and community expenditure/revenue priorities. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Response Required by September 17, 2020 Page 4 of 28
F12. TRANSPARENCY: All SCC Cities do not adequately meet key requirements for transparency as defined by the GFOA. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion X DISAG...
R11
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should develop a plan to align with the Government Financial Officers Association (GFOA) Financial Transparency Initiative. This should be extended to risk management transparency. (F6, F8,
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should develop a plan to align with the Government Financial Officers Association (GFOA) Financial Transparency Initiative. This should be extended to risk management transparency. (F6, F8, F10, F12, F13) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The City of Capitola meets t...
F12
TRANSPARENCY: All SCC Cities do not adequately meet key requirements for transparency as defined by the GFOA.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Response Required by September 17, 2020 Page 4 of 28
F12.
F13
TRANSPARENCY: All SCC Cities do not provide standard and understandable reporting with regard to: Pension Costs and Associated Impacts (past, current, and projected); Service Level Performance Metrics; State of Key Infrastructure; Risk Assessments and Mitigation Plans for Finance, Operational, and Hazard Risks.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. TRANSPARENCY: All SCC Cities do not provide standard and understandable reporting with regard to: Pension Costs and Associated Impacts (past, current, and projected); Service Level Performance Metrics; State of Key Infrastructure; Risk Assessments and Mitigation Plans for Finance, Operational, and Hazard Risks. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion X DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): All information and reports on the above topics are made available to the public and are reported on as required. Response Required by Sept...
▶
City Council of Santa Cruz
February 23, 2021
•
27 pages
• 22 responses
•
Score: 0
(+0, 22, 0)
View Details ▾
22 responses to findings and recommendations
F2
RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities did not fully consider the calculated high risk indicators from the Auditor’s Office and their potential impacts on city operations, services, and capital assets/infrastructure.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Response Requested by September 17, 2020 Page 2 of 25
F2.
R2
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should evaluate and communicate the implications of the financial risk trends indicated in the analyses calculated from the Auditor’s Office methodology. (F2, F3)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. By June 30, 2021: All SCC Cities should evaluate and communicate the implications of the financial risk trends indicated in the analyses calculated from the Auditor's Office methodology. (F2, F3) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) x WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: Under the current economic, health, and social mandates, the City does...
F3
RISK ASSESSMENT: The state of risk determined for all SCC Cities by the Auditor’s Office in 2017 remained largely unchanged through 2019.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Response Requested by September 17, 2020 Page 3 of 25
F3.
R3
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should publish a standard report annually that is an understandable summary of pension risk, including a narrative on the implications of market valuation versus actuarial valuation of accrued total liabilities. (F4, F12, F13)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. By June 30, 2021: All SCC Cities should publish a standard report annually that is an understandable summary of pension risk, including a narrative on the implications of market valuation versus actuarial valuation of accrued total liabilities. (F4, F12, F13) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) x WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The Ci...
F4
RISK ASSESSMENT: Pension costs contribute a higher level of financial risk to all SCC Cities than is accounted for by city documents.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. RISK ASSESSMENT: Pension costs contribute a higher level of financial risk to all SCC Cities than is accounted for by city documents. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion x DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The City includes current pension liabilities in the annual Adopted Budget. The City also has a financial model that forecasts over the next 10 years that includes estimated pension costs. Actuarially determined pension liabilities are included in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report as required by the Governmen...
R4
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should identify a suite of risk indicators that support an integrated assessment of all risk types that can inhibit the ability of the city to meet its objectives. Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) provides an example of the risk types that should be considered. (F5, F6)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. By June 30, 2021: All SCC Cities should identify a suite of risk indicators that support an integrated assessment of all risk types that can inhibit the ability of the city to meet its objectives. Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) provides an example of the risk types that should be considered. (F5, F6) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) x WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response...
F5
RISK ASSESSMENT: Financial Risk Indicators alone are not adequate to effectively understand the risks facing all SCC Cities.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. RISK ASSESSMENT: Financial Risk Indicators alone are not adequate to effectively understand the risks facing all SCC Cities. x AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Response Requested by September 17, 2020 Page 6 of 25
F6. RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities do not fully identify, assess, track, and report key risk indicators that reflect the state of strategic, financial, operational, or hazard risk. AGREE x PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response ...
R5
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should adopt the practice of Bowtie Analysis, or an equivalent method, to support the understanding of risk interactions, the establishment of risk controls, and the communication of a city risk profile. (F7,
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. By June 30, 2021: All SCC Cities should adopt the practice of Bowtie Analysis, or an equivalent method, to support the understanding of risk interactions, the establishment of risk controls, and the communication of a city risk profile. (F7, F10, F12, F13) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) x WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The City ...
F6
RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities do not fully identify, assess, track, and report key risk indicators that reflect the state of strategic, financial, operational, or hazard risk.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
the risks facing all SCC Cities. x AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Response Requested by September 17, 2020 Page 6 of 25
F6.
R6
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should publish their own infrastructure risk report cards and any data they make available to county and state level risk assessments. (F8)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. By June 30, 2021: All SCC Cities should publish their own infrastructure risk report cards and any data they make available to county and state level risk assessments. (F8) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) x WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The City reports on infrastructure risk to various agencies that may need to know. The types ...
F7
RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities do not adequately evaluate the possible interactions between risks that may inhibit or enhance the objectives of each city.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities do not adequately evaluate the possible interactions between risks that may inhibit or enhance the objectives of each city. AGREE x PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Some evaluation of possible interactions between risk are evaluated on a citywide level, but most evaluations are done at the program level. Response Requested by September 17, 2020 Page 8 of 25
F8. RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities either do not maintain or do not publish a report card on the st...
R7
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should evaluate the costs and benefits of implementing an Enterprise Risk Management Framework to better integrate risk management across all types of risks (Strategic, Financial, Operational, Hazard). This could take many forms, one being a shared capability through a risk sharing Joint Powers Authority (JPA). The key will be designating clear authority and responsibility for integrated risk management. (F10)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. By June 30, 2021: All SCC Cities should evaluate the costs and benefits of implementing an Enterprise Risk Management Framework to better integrate risk management across all types of risks (Strategic, Financial, Operational, Hazard). This could take many forms, one being a shared capability through a risk sharing Joint Powers Authority (JPA). The key will be designating clear authority and responsibility for integrated risk management. (F10) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and th...
F8
RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities either do not maintain or do not publish a report card on the state of key infrastructure that can be used to set funding priorities and manage operational and hazard risk.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities either do not maintain or do not publish a report card on the state of key infrastructure that can be used to set funding priorities and manage operational and hazard risk. AGREE x PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The City tracks the age and condition of its infrastructure and prioritizes annual capital funding in the budget based on that evaluation. The City does not publish a report card on the state of the infrastructure as not all types of infrastructur...
R8
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should develop financial models that project the possibilities of realistic financial scenarios; and use these projections in their risk management practices. (F13)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. By June 30, 2021: All SCC Cities should develop financial models that project the possibilities of realistic financial scenarios; and use these projections in their risk management practices. (F13) x HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The City recently contracted with a consulting firm to develop a lon...
F9
RISK MANAGEMENT: Although all of the cities of SCC are preparing for increased pension costs due to current amortization schedules, they are not adequately preparing for risk associated with significant or sustained investment shortfalls in CALPERS due to economic shocks (e.g. caused by Coronavirus) or a recession.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. RISK MANAGEMENT: Although all of the cities of SCC are preparing for increased pension costs due to current amortization schedules, they are not adequately preparing for risk associated with significant or sustained investment shortfalls in CALPERS due to economic shocks (e.g., caused by Coronavirus) or a recession. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion x DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Along with the City's CalPERS actuary, the City of Santa Cruz has factored in a risk assessment for CalPERS future investment shortfal...
R9
By January 1, 2021: all SCC Cities should develop or adopt contingency plans for realistic negative financial performance scenarios associated with CALPERS investment shortfalls (for shock and sustained downturns). (F9)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. By January 1, 2021: All SCC Cities should develop or adopt contingency plans for realistic negative financial performance scenarios associated with CALPERS investment shortfalls (for shock and sustained downturns). (F9) x HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The City has included CalPERS investment short...
F10
RISK MANAGEMENT: Except for the area of hazard (i.e. loss) risk management, in all SCC Cities, there is no formal method to define, track, manage, and communicate risks at the enterprise level of SCC city government.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. RISK MANAGEMENT: Except for the area of hazard (i.e., loss) risk management, in all SCC Cities, there is no formal method to define, track, manage, and communicate risks at the enterprise level of SCC city government. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE- explain the disputed portion x DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The formal method to define, track, manage, and communicate risks at the enterprise level is at the mid-year and annual Council budget meetings. Response Requested by September 17, 2020 Page 11 of 25
F11. GOVERNANCE: All SCC Cities do...
R10
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should develop and publish a policy regarding control of retirement costs (pension and Other Pension Employee Benefits) and funding remedies for unexpected bills presented by CalPERS. (F11)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. By June 30, 2021: All SCC Cities should develop and publish a policy regarding control of retirement costs (pension and Other Pension Employee Benefits) and funding remedies for unexpected bills presented by CALPERS. (F11) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) x WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The City has taken many steps to control pe...
F11
GOVERNANCE: All SCC Cities do not have a publicly articulated pension Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL) funding policy that recognizes potential pension cost risks and community expenditure/revenue priorities.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. GOVERNANCE: All SCC Cities do not have a publicly articulated pension Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL) funding policy that recognizes potential pension cost risks and community expenditure/revenue priorities. AGREE x PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The UAAL is not publicly articulated but CalPERs provides 5-year forecasts that are used to prepare the City's long-range forecast. The total unfunded liability is also provided by CalPERS and reported in the Comprehensive Annual Fi...
R11
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should develop a plan to align with the Government Financial Officers Association (GFOA) Financial Transparency Initiative. This should be extended to risk management transparency. (F6, F8,
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. By June 30, 2021: All SCC Cities should develop a plan to align with the Government Financial Officers Association (GFOA) Financial Transparency Initiative. This should be extended to risk management transparency. (F6, F8, F10, F12, F13) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) x WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: Under the current economic, ...
F12
TRANSPARENCY: All SCC Cities do not adequately meet key requirements for transparency as defined by the GFOA.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. TRANSPARENCY: All SCC Cities do not adequately meet key requirements for transparency as defined by the GFOA. AGREE x PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The City's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and Annual Adopted Budget meet GFOA standards for communicating financial information. Both documents have received awards from GFOA for the last several years. Response Requested by September 17, 2020 Page 13 of 25
F13. TRANSPARENCY: All SCC Cities do not provide standard and understandable...
F13
TRANSPARENCY: All SCC Cities do not provide standard and understandable reporting with regard to: Pension Costs and Associated Impacts (past, current, and projected); Service Level Performance Metrics; State of Key Infrastructure; Risk Assessments and Mitigation Plans for Finance, Operational, and Hazard Risks.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. TRANSPARENCY: All SCC Cities do not provide standard and understandable reporting with regard to: Pension Costs and Associated Impacts (past, current, and projected); Service Level Performance Metrics; State of Key Infrastructure; Risk Assessments and Mitigation Plans for Finance, Operational, and Hazard Risks. AGREE x PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The pension information is reported in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Other service level performance metrics are reported in t...
▶
City Council of Scotts Valley
September 16, 2020
•
29 pages
• 22 responses
•
Score: 0
(+0, 22, 0)
View Details ▾
22 responses to findings and recommendations
F2
RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities did not fully consider the calculated high risk indicators from the Auditor’s Office and their potential impacts on city operations, services, and capital assets/infrastructure.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities did not fully consider the calculated high risk indicators from the Auditor's Office and their potential impacts on city operations, services, and capital assets/infrastructure. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion X DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The City of Scotts Valley developed a fiscal sustainability plan in 2017 that identified a fiscal gap that the City's General Fund was going to experience without corrective action. The impacts on operations, services and capital assets/infra...
R2
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should evaluate and communicate the implications of the financial risk trends indicated in the analyses calculated from the Auditor’s Office methodology. (F2, F3)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should evaluate and communicate the implications of the financial risk trends indicated in the analyses calculated from the Auditor's Office methodology. (F2, F3) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: As indicated in R1, we do not have the capacity to implement the AO fr...
F3
RISK ASSESSMENT: The state of risk determined for all SCC Cities by the Auditor’s Office in 2017 remained largely unchanged through 2019.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. RISK ASSESSMENT: The state of risk determined for all SCC Cities by the Auditor's Office in 2017 remained largely unchanged through 2019. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Response Required by September 17, 2020 Page 5 of 27
F4. RISK ASSESSMENT: Pension costs contribute a higher level of financial risk to all SCC Cities than is accounted for by city documents. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion X DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a resp...
R3
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should publish a standard report annually that is an understandable summary of pension risk, including a narrative on the implications of market valuation versus actuarial valuation of accrued total liabilities. (F4, F12, F13)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should publish a standard report annually that is an understandable summary of pension risk, including a narrative on the implications of market valuation versus actuarial valuation of accrued total liabilities. (F4, F12, F13) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The Ci...
F4
RISK ASSESSMENT: Pension costs contribute a higher level of financial risk to all SCC Cities than is accounted for by city documents.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
the Auditor's Office in 2017 remained largely unchanged through 2019. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Response Required by September 17, 2020 Page 5 of 27
F4.
R4
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should identify a suite of risk indicators that support an integrated assessment of all risk types that can inhibit the ability of the city to meet its objectives. Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) provides an example of the risk types that should be considered. (F5, F6)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should identify a suite of risk indicators that support an integrated assessment of all risk types that can inhibit the ability of the city to meet its objectives. Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) provides an example of the risk types that should be considered. (F5, F6) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response...
F5
RISK ASSESSMENT: Financial Risk Indicators alone are not adequate to effectively understand the risks facing all SCC Cities.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. RISK ASSESSMENT: Financial Risk Indicators alone are not adequate to effectively understand the risks facing all SCC Cities. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Response Required by September 17, 2020 Page 7 of 27
F6. RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities do not fully identify, assess, track, and report key risk indicators that reflect the state of strategic, financial, operational, or hazard risk. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response e...
R5
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should adopt the practice of Bowtie Analysis, or an equivalent method, to support the understanding of risk interactions, the establishment of risk controls, and the communication of a city risk profile. (F7,
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should adopt the practice of Bowtie Analysis, or an equivalent method, to support the understanding of risk interactions, the establishment of risk controls, and the communication of a city risk profile. (F7, F10, F12, F13) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: As indica...
F6
RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities do not fully identify, assess, track, and report key risk indicators that reflect the state of strategic, financial, operational, or hazard risk.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
the risks facing all SCC Cities. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Response Required by September 17, 2020 Page 7 of 27
F6.
R6
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should publish their own infrastructure risk report cards and any data they make available to county and state level risk assessments. (F8)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should publish their own infrastructure risk report cards and any data they make available to county and state level risk assessments. (F8) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: As indicated in F8, the City evaluates its key infrastructure in the form of third party stud...
F7
RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities do not adequately evaluate the possible interactions between risks that may inhibit or enhance the objectives of each city.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Response Required by September 17, 2020 Page 8 of 27
F7.
R7
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should evaluate the costs and benefits of implementing an Enterprise Risk Management Framework to better integrate risk management across all types of risks (Strategic, Financial, Operational, Hazard). This could take many forms, one being a shared capability through a risk sharing Joint Powers Authority (JPA). The key will be designating clear authority and responsibility for integrated risk management. (F10)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should evaluate the costs and benefits of implementing an Enterprise Risk Management Framework to better integrate risk management across all types of risks (Strategic, Financial, Operational, Hazard). This could take many forms, one being a shared capability through a risk sharing Joint Powers Authority (JPA). The key will be designating clear authority and responsibility for integrated risk management. (F10) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and th...
F8
RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities either do not maintain or do not publish a report card on the state of key infrastructure that can be used to set funding priorities and manage operational and hazard risk.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities either do not maintain or do not publish a report card on the state of key infrastructure that can be used to set funding priorities and manage operational and hazard risk. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): While the City does not publish a "score card" of its infrastructure, per se, the City does evaluate its key infrastructure in the form of third party studies or analyses on its infrastructure. For example, the City conducts pavement management st...
R8
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should develop financial models that project the possibilities of realistic financial scenarios; and use these projections in their risk management practices. (F13)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should develop financial models that project the possibilities of realistic financial scenarios; and use these projections in their risk management practices. (F13) X HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The City's existing five-year forecast, supplemented by the recent r...
F9
RISK MANAGEMENT: Although all of the cities of SCC are preparing for increased pension costs due to current amortization schedules, they are not adequately preparing for risk associated with significant or sustained investment shortfalls in CALPERS due to economic shocks (e.g. caused by Coronavirus) or a recession.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. RISK MANAGEMENT: Although all of the cities of SCC are preparing for increased pension costs due to current amortization schedules, they are not adequately preparing for risk associated with significant or sustained investment shortfalls in CALPERS due to economic shocks (e.g. caused by Coronavirus) or a recession. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): As mentioned in F4, the City contracted with a consultant to develop an updated recessionary fiscal model that was presented to the Cit...
R9
By January 1, 2021: all SCC Cities should develop or adopt contingency plans for realistic negative financial performance scenarios associated with CALPERS investment shortfalls (for shock and sustained downturns). (F9)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. By January 1, 2021: all SCC Cities should develop or adopt contingency plans for realistic negative financial performance scenarios associated with CALPERS investment shortfalls (for shock and sustained downturns). (F9) X HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: As indicated in R8 and F9, our financial forec...
F10
RISK MANAGEMENT: Except for the area of hazard (i.e. loss) risk management, in all SCC Cities, there is no formal method to define, track, manage, and communicate risks at the enterprise level of SCC city government.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. RISK MANAGEMENT: Except for the area of hazard (i.e. loss) risk management, in all SCC Cities, there is no formal method to define, track, manage, and communicate risks at the enterprise level of SCC city government. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Financial risks at the enterprise level are discussed as part of the key assumptions and policy choices indicated in the City's annual budget adopted by the City Council after public hearing, and were discussed relative to the developm...
R10
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should develop and publish a policy regarding control of retirement costs (pension and Other Pension Employee Benefits) and funding remedies for unexpected bills presented by CalPERS. (F11)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should develop and publish a policy regarding control of retirement costs (pension and Other Pension Employee Benefits) and funding remedies for unexpected bills presented by CalPERS. (F11) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The City has taken steps to control pension...
F11
GOVERNANCE: All SCC Cities do not have a publicly articulated pension Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL) funding policy that recognizes potential pension cost risks and community expenditure/revenue priorities.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. GOVERNANCE: All SCC Cities do not have a publicly articulated pension Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL) funding policy that recognizes potential pension cost risks and community expenditure/revenue priorities. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The City adheres to the CalPERS funding methodology for UAAL and incorporates fully funding the annual actuarially required contribution to the plan in its annual budget. This is disclosed in the CAFR per GASB requirements. Those co...
R11
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should develop a plan to align with the Government Financial Officers Association (GFOA) Financial Transparency Initiative. This should be extended to risk management transparency. (F6, F8,
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should develop a plan to align with the Government Financial Officers Association (GFOA) Financial Transparency Initiative. This should be extended to risk management transparency. (F6, F8, F10, F12, F13) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The City meets the GFOA stan...
F12
TRANSPARENCY: All SCC Cities do not adequately meet key requirements for transparency as defined by the GFOA.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. TRANSPARENCY: All SCC Cities do not adequately meet key requirements for transparency as defined by the GFOA. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The City's CAFR and annual adopted budget principally meet GFOA elements for communicating financial information. The only GFOA element lacking is a searchable, live data set. Response Required by September 17, 2020 Page 14 of 27
F13. TRANSPARENCY: All SCC Cities do not provide standard and understandable reporting with regard to: Pension ...
F13
TRANSPARENCY: All SCC Cities do not provide standard and understandable reporting with regard to: Pension Costs and Associated Impacts (past, current, and projected); Service Level Performance Metrics; State of Key Infrastructure; Risk Assessments and Mitigation Plans for Finance, Operational, and Hazard Risks.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. TRANSPARENCY: All SCC Cities do not provide standard and understandable reporting with regard to: Pension Costs and Associated Impacts (past, current, and projected); Service Level Performance Metrics; State of Key Infrastructure; Risk Assessments and Mitigation Plans for Finance, Operational, and Hazard Risks. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Response Required by September 17, 2020 Page 15 of 27
Recommendations R1. By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should become familiar with and...
▶
City Council of Watsonville
August 25, 2020
•
35 pages
• 21 responses
•
Score: 0
(+0, 21, 0)
View Details ▾
21 responses to findings and recommendations
F2
RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities did not fully consider the calculated high risk indicators from the Auditor’s Office and their potential impacts on city operations, services, and capital assets/infrastructure.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities did not fully consider the calculated high risk indicators from the Auditor's Office and their potential impacts on city operations, services, and capital assets/infrastructure. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion X DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The City of Watsonville's high risk indicators from the Auditor's Office are General Fund Reserves, Future Pension Funding, and OPEB Funding. The City has made deliberate and concerted efforts over the past few years to increase its level of ...
R2
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should evaluate and communicate the implications of the financial risk trends indicated in the analyses calculated from the Auditor’s Office methodology. (F2, F3)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should evaluate and communicate the implications of the financial risk trends indicated in the analyses calculated from the Auditor's Office methodology. (F2, F3) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The Auditor's risk analysis very heavily focuses on reserves, pension ...
F3
RISK ASSESSMENT: The state of risk determined for all SCC Cities by the Auditor’s Office in 2017 remained largely unchanged through 2019.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. RISK ASSESSMENT: The state of risk determined for all SCC Cities by the Auditor's Office in 2017 remained largely unchanged through 2019. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Response Requested by September 17, 2020 Page 5 of 30
F4. RISK ASSESSMENT: Pension costs contribute a higher level of financial risk to all SCC Cities than is accounted for by city documents. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion X DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a res...
R3
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should publish a standard report annually that is an understandable summary of pension risk, including a narrative on the implications of market valuation versus actuarial valuation of accrued total liabilities. (F4, F12, F13)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should publish a standard report annually that is an understandable summary of pension risk, including a narrative on the implications of market valuation versus actuarial valuation of accrued total liabilities. (F4, F12, F13) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: Pensio...
F4
RISK ASSESSMENT: Pension costs contribute a higher level of financial risk to all SCC Cities than is accounted for by city documents.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
the Auditor's Office in 2017 remained largely unchanged through 2019. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Response Requested by September 17, 2020 Page 5 of 30
F4.
R4
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should identify a suite of risk indicators that support an integrated assessment of all risk types that can inhibit the ability of the city to meet its objectives. Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) provides an example of the risk types that should be considered. (F5, F6)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should identify a suite of risk indicators that support an integrated assessment of all risk types that can inhibit the ability of the city to meet its objectives. Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) provides an example of the risk types that should be considered. (F5, F6) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe X REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response...
F5
RISK ASSESSMENT: Financial Risk Indicators alone are not adequate to effectively understand the risks facing all SCC Cities.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. RISK ASSESSMENT: Financial Risk Indicators alone are not adequate to effectively understand the risks facing all SCC Cities. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Response Requested by September 17, 2020 Page 7 of 30
F6. RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities do not fully identify, assess, track, and report key risk indicators that reflect the state of strategic, financial, operational, or hazard risk. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response ...
R5
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should adopt the practice of Bowtie Analysis, or an equivalent method, to support the understanding of risk interactions, the establishment of risk controls, and the communication of a city risk profile. (F7,
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should adopt the practice of Bowtie Analysis, or an equivalent method, to support the understanding of risk interactions, the establishment of risk controls, and the communication of a city risk profile. (F7, F10, F12, F13) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: We do not...
F6
RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities do not fully identify, assess, track, and report key risk indicators that reflect the state of strategic, financial, operational, or hazard risk.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
the risks facing all SCC Cities. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Response Requested by September 17, 2020 Page 7 of 30
F6.
R6
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should publish their own infrastructure risk report cards and any data they make available to county and state level risk assessments. (F8)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should publish their own infrastructure risk report cards and any data they make available to county and state level risk assessments. (F8) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: Based on the responses given in section F8, the City believes it has adequately communicated ...
R7
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should evaluate the costs and benefits of implementing an Enterprise Risk Management Framework to better integrate risk management across all types of risks (Strategic, Financial, Operational, Hazard). This could take many forms, one being a shared capability through a risk sharing Joint Powers Authority (JPA). The key will be designating clear authority and responsibility for integrated risk management. (F10)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should evaluate the costs and benefits of implementing an Enterprise Risk Management Framework to better integrate risk management across all types of risks (Strategic, Financial, Operational, Hazard). This could take many forms, one being a shared capability through a risk sharing Joint Powers Authority (JPA). The key will be designating clear authority and responsibility for integrated risk management. (F10) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and th...
F8
RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities either do not maintain or do not publish a report card on the state of key infrastructure that can be used to set funding priorities and manage operational and hazard risk.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities either do not maintain or do not publish a report card on the state of key infrastructure that can be used to set funding priorities and manage operational and hazard risk. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion X DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The City of Watsonville has completed extensive assessments of its infrastructure over many years, and is constantly evaluating and preparing for replacement of key infrastructure, including long-term capital improvement planning, financial planni...
R8
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should develop financial models that project the possibilities of realistic financial scenarios; and use these projections in their risk management practices. (F13)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should develop financial models that project the possibilities of realistic financial scenarios; and use these projections in their risk management practices. (F13) X HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: This is done each year as part of the budget process. Our budget doc...
F9
RISK MANAGEMENT: Although all of the cities of SCC are preparing for increased pension costs due to current amortization schedules, they are not adequately preparing for risk associated with significant or sustained investment shortfalls in CALPERS due to economic shocks (e.g. caused by Coronavirus) or a recession.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. RISK MANAGEMENT: Although all of the cities of SCC are preparing for increased pension costs due to current amortization schedules, they are not adequately preparing for risk associated with significant or sustained investment shortfalls in CALPERS due to economic shocks (e.g. caused by Coronavirus) or a recession. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The City of Watsonville has spent several years deliberately building up reserves and making extra payments toward pension UAL to be be...
R9
By January 1, 2021: all SCC Cities should develop or adopt contingency plans for realistic negative financial performance scenarios associated with CALPERS investment shortfalls (for shock and sustained downturns). (F9)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. By January 1, 2021: all SCC Cities should develop or adopt contingency plans for realistic negative financial performance scenarios associated with CALPERS investment shortfalls (for shock and sustained downturns). (F9) X HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The City of Watsonville's emergency reserve po...
F10
RISK MANAGEMENT: Except for the area of hazard (i.e. loss) risk management, in all SCC Cities, there is no formal method to define, track, manage, and communicate risks at the enterprise level of SCC city government.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. RISK MANAGEMENT: Except for the area of hazard (i.e. loss) risk management, in all SCC Cities, there is no formal method to define, track, manage, and communicate risks at the enterprise level of SCC city government. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Response Requested by September 17, 2020 Page 15 of 30
F11. GOVERNANCE: All SCC Cities do not have a publicly articulated pension Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL) funding policy that recognizes potential pension cost risks ...
R10
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should develop and publish a policy regarding control of retirement costs (pension and Other Pension Employee Benefits) and funding remedies for unexpected bills presented by CalPERS. (F11)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should develop and publish a policy regarding control of retirement costs (pension and Other Pension Employee Benefits) and funding remedies for unexpected bills presented by CalPERS. (F11) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: Given the lack of control that City's have ...
F11
GOVERNANCE: All SCC Cities do not have a publicly articulated pension Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL) funding policy that recognizes potential pension cost risks and community expenditure/revenue priorities.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
the enterprise level of SCC city government. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Response Requested by September 17, 2020 Page 15 of 30
F11.
R11
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should develop a plan to align with the Government Financial Officers Association (GFOA) Financial Transparency Initiative. This should be extended to risk management transparency. (F6, F8,
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should develop a plan to align with the Government Financial Officers Association (GFOA) Financial Transparency Initiative. This should be extended to risk management transparency. (F6, F8, F10, F12, F13) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The City of Watsonville meet...
F12
TRANSPARENCY: All SCC Cities do not adequately meet key requirements for transparency as defined by the GFOA.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Response Requested by September 17, 2020 Page 16 of 30
F12.
F13
TRANSPARENCY: All SCC Cities do not provide standard and understandable reporting with regard to: Pension Costs and Associated Impacts (past, current, and projected); Service Level Performance Metrics; State of Key Infrastructure; Risk Assessments and Mitigation Plans for Finance, Operational, and Hazard Risks.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. TRANSPARENCY: All SCC Cities do not provide standard and understandable reporting with regard to: Pension Costs and Associated Impacts (past, current, and projected); Service Level Performance Metrics; State of Key Infrastructure; Risk Assessments and Mitigation Plans for Finance, Operational, and Hazard Risks. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Response Requested by September 17, 2020 Page 18 of 30
Recommendations R1. By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should become familiar with an...
▶
City Finance Director/Risk Manager of Santa Cruz
December 07, 2020
•
2 pages
View Details ▾
No structured response data extracted yet.
View the PDF for full details.
▶
City Finance Director/Risk Manager of Scotts Valley
November 23, 2020
•
2 pages
View Details ▾
No structured response data extracted yet.
View the PDF for full details.
▶
City Finance Director/Risk Manager of Watsonville
November 30, 2020
•
2 pages
View Details ▾
No structured response data extracted yet.
View the PDF for full details.
▶
City Manager of Capitola
December 11, 2020
•
1 pages
View Details ▾
No structured response data extracted yet.
View the PDF for full details.
▶
City Manager of Capitola
December 11, 2020
•
1 pages
View Details ▾
No structured response data extracted yet.
View the PDF for full details.
▶
City Manager of Santa Cruz
December 30, 2020
•
2 pages
View Details ▾
No structured response data extracted yet.
View the PDF for full details.
▶
City Manager of Santa Cruz
December 14, 2020
•
1 pages
View Details ▾
No structured response data extracted yet.
View the PDF for full details.
▶
City Manager of Scotts Valley
November 23, 2020
•
2 pages
View Details ▾
No structured response data extracted yet.
View the PDF for full details.
▶
City Manager of Watsonville
August 25, 2020
•
34 pages
• 21 responses
•
Score: 0
(+0, 21, 0)
View Details ▾
21 responses to findings and recommendations
F2
RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities did not fully consider the calculated high risk indicators from the Auditor’s Office and their potential impacts on city operations, services, and capital assets/infrastructure.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities did not fully consider the calculated high risk indicators from the Auditor's Office and their potential impacts on city operations, services, and capital assets/infrastructure. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion X DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The City of Watsonville's high risk indicators from the Auditor's Office are General Fund Reserves, Future Pension Funding, and OPEB Funding. The City has made deliberate and concerted efforts over the past few years to increase its level of ...
R2
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should evaluate and communicate the implications of the financial risk trends indicated in the analyses calculated from the Auditor’s Office methodology. (F2, F3)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should evaluate and communicate the implications of the financial risk trends indicated in the analyses calculated from the Auditor's Office methodology. (F2, F3) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The Auditor's risk analysis very heavily focuses on reserves, pension ...
F3
RISK ASSESSMENT: The state of risk determined for all SCC Cities by the Auditor’s Office in 2017 remained largely unchanged through 2019.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. RISK ASSESSMENT: The state of risk determined for all SCC Cities by the Auditor's Office in 2017 remained largely unchanged through 2019. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Response Requested by September 17, 2020 Page 5 of 30
F4. RISK ASSESSMENT: Pension costs contribute a higher level of financial risk to all SCC Cities than is accounted for by city documents. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion X DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a res...
R3
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should publish a standard report annually that is an understandable summary of pension risk, including a narrative on the implications of market valuation versus actuarial valuation of accrued total liabilities. (F4, F12, F13)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should publish a standard report annually that is an understandable summary of pension risk, including a narrative on the implications of market valuation versus actuarial valuation of accrued total liabilities. (F4, F12, F13) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: Pensio...
F4
RISK ASSESSMENT: Pension costs contribute a higher level of financial risk to all SCC Cities than is accounted for by city documents.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
the Auditor's Office in 2017 remained largely unchanged through 2019. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Response Requested by September 17, 2020 Page 5 of 30
F4.
R4
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should identify a suite of risk indicators that support an integrated assessment of all risk types that can inhibit the ability of the city to meet its objectives. Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) provides an example of the risk types that should be considered. (F5, F6)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should identify a suite of risk indicators that support an integrated assessment of all risk types that can inhibit the ability of the city to meet its objectives. Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) provides an example of the risk types that should be considered. (F5, F6) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe X REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response...
F5
RISK ASSESSMENT: Financial Risk Indicators alone are not adequate to effectively understand the risks facing all SCC Cities.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. RISK ASSESSMENT: Financial Risk Indicators alone are not adequate to effectively understand the risks facing all SCC Cities. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Response Requested by September 17, 2020 Page 7 of 30
F6. RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities do not fully identify, assess, track, and report key risk indicators that reflect the state of strategic, financial, operational, or hazard risk. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response ...
R5
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should adopt the practice of Bowtie Analysis, or an equivalent method, to support the understanding of risk interactions, the establishment of risk controls, and the communication of a city risk profile. (F7,
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should adopt the practice of Bowtie Analysis, or an equivalent method, to support the understanding of risk interactions, the establishment of risk controls, and the communication of a city risk profile. (F7, F10, F12, F13) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: We do not...
F6
RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities do not fully identify, assess, track, and report key risk indicators that reflect the state of strategic, financial, operational, or hazard risk.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
the risks facing all SCC Cities. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Response Requested by September 17, 2020 Page 7 of 30
F6.
R6
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should publish their own infrastructure risk report cards and any data they make available to county and state level risk assessments. (F8)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should publish their own infrastructure risk report cards and any data they make available to county and state level risk assessments. (F8) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: Based on the responses given in section F8, the City believes it has adequately communicated ...
R7
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should evaluate the costs and benefits of implementing an Enterprise Risk Management Framework to better integrate risk management across all types of risks (Strategic, Financial, Operational, Hazard). This could take many forms, one being a shared capability through a risk sharing Joint Powers Authority (JPA). The key will be designating clear authority and responsibility for integrated risk management. (F10)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should evaluate the costs and benefits of implementing an Enterprise Risk Management Framework to better integrate risk management across all types of risks (Strategic, Financial, Operational, Hazard). This could take many forms, one being a shared capability through a risk sharing Joint Powers Authority (JPA). The key will be designating clear authority and responsibility for integrated risk management. (F10) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and th...
F8
RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities either do not maintain or do not publish a report card on the state of key infrastructure that can be used to set funding priorities and manage operational and hazard risk.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities either do not maintain or do not publish a report card on the state of key infrastructure that can be used to set funding priorities and manage operational and hazard risk. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion X DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The City of Watsonville has completed extensive assessments of its infrastructure over many years, and is constantly evaluating and preparing for replacement of key infrastructure, including long-term capital improvement planning, financial planni...
R8
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should develop financial models that project the possibilities of realistic financial scenarios; and use these projections in their risk management practices. (F13)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should develop financial models that project the possibilities of realistic financial scenarios; and use these projections in their risk management practices. (F13) X HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: This is done each year as part of the budget process. Our budget doc...
F9
RISK MANAGEMENT: Although all of the cities of SCC are preparing for increased pension costs due to current amortization schedules, they are not adequately preparing for risk associated with significant or sustained investment shortfalls in CALPERS due to economic shocks (e.g. caused by Coronavirus) or a recession.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. RISK MANAGEMENT: Although all of the cities of SCC are preparing for increased pension costs due to current amortization schedules, they are not adequately preparing for risk associated with significant or sustained investment shortfalls in CALPERS due to economic shocks (e.g. caused by Coronavirus) or a recession. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The City of Watsonville has spent several years deliberately building up reserves and making extra payments toward pension UAL to be be...
R9
By January 1, 2021: all SCC Cities should develop or adopt contingency plans for realistic negative financial performance scenarios associated with CALPERS investment shortfalls (for shock and sustained downturns). (F9)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. By January 1, 2021: all SCC Cities should develop or adopt contingency plans for realistic negative financial performance scenarios associated with CALPERS investment shortfalls (for shock and sustained downturns). (F9) X HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The City of Watsonville's emergency reserve po...
F10
RISK MANAGEMENT: Except for the area of hazard (i.e. loss) risk management, in all SCC Cities, there is no formal method to define, track, manage, and communicate risks at the enterprise level of SCC city government.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. RISK MANAGEMENT: Except for the area of hazard (i.e. loss) risk management, in all SCC Cities, there is no formal method to define, track, manage, and communicate risks at the enterprise level of SCC city government. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Response Requested by September 17, 2020 Page 15 of 30
F11. GOVERNANCE: All SCC Cities do not have a publicly articulated pension Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL) funding policy that recognizes potential pension cost risks ...
R10
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should develop and publish a policy regarding control of retirement costs (pension and Other Pension Employee Benefits) and funding remedies for unexpected bills presented by CalPERS. (F11)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should develop and publish a policy regarding control of retirement costs (pension and Other Pension Employee Benefits) and funding remedies for unexpected bills presented by CalPERS. (F11) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: Given the lack of control that City's have ...
F11
GOVERNANCE: All SCC Cities do not have a publicly articulated pension Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL) funding policy that recognizes potential pension cost risks and community expenditure/revenue priorities.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
the enterprise level of SCC city government. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Response Requested by September 17, 2020 Page 15 of 30
F11.
R11
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should develop a plan to align with the Government Financial Officers Association (GFOA) Financial Transparency Initiative. This should be extended to risk management transparency. (F6, F8,
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should develop a plan to align with the Government Financial Officers Association (GFOA) Financial Transparency Initiative. This should be extended to risk management transparency. (F6, F8, F10, F12, F13) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The City of Watsonville meet...
F12
TRANSPARENCY: All SCC Cities do not adequately meet key requirements for transparency as defined by the GFOA.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Response Requested by September 17, 2020 Page 16 of 30
F12.
F13
TRANSPARENCY: All SCC Cities do not provide standard and understandable reporting with regard to: Pension Costs and Associated Impacts (past, current, and projected); Service Level Performance Metrics; State of Key Infrastructure; Risk Assessments and Mitigation Plans for Finance, Operational, and Hazard Risks.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. TRANSPARENCY: All SCC Cities do not provide standard and understandable reporting with regard to: Pension Costs and Associated Impacts (past, current, and projected); Service Level Performance Metrics; State of Key Infrastructure; Risk Assessments and Mitigation Plans for Finance, Operational, and Hazard Risks. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Response Requested by September 17, 2020 Page 18 of 30
Recommendations R1. By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should become familiar with an...
▶
City Manager of Watsonville
August 25, 2020
•
14 pages
• 5 responses
•
Score: 0
(+0, 5, 0)
View Details ▾
5 responses to findings and recommendations
F2
RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities did not fully consider the calculated high risk indicators from the Auditor’s Office and their potential impacts on city operations, services, and capital assets/infrastructure.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. County and City administrations lack a process to review content accuracy and currency and thereby assure timely correction and revision of content. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The City does have a process to review content and assures that the majority of content displayed is accurate. We try to ensure there is no unapproved content on the website by limiting the number of employees who have access to make such updates. Anytime inaccurate information is found or reported, it...
R2
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should evaluate and communicate the implications of the financial risk trends indicated in the analyses calculated from the Auditor’s Office methodology. (F2, F3)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. The County Administrative Officer and the City Managers should establish a protocol to be exercised quarterly, beginning January 2021, which requires department heads to confirm via documentation (initial a spreadsheet, for example) that they have verified the accuracy of their department's web information (F1, F2, F3) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - exp...
F3
RISK ASSESSMENT: The state of risk determined for all SCC Cities by the Auditor’s Office in 2017 remained largely unchanged through 2019.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. County and City goals for website redesign or quality improvement are not sufficiently "SMART": Specific + Measurable + Attainable + Relevant + Time- Bound. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): We believe that the City does have SMART goals in place for website redesign and quality improvement. Our current contract with CivicPlus, the company that designed our website, has a website redesign option set in place to take effect this year. We have already begun gathering ideas as to what...
R3
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should publish a standard report annually that is an understandable summary of pension risk, including a narrative on the implications of market valuation versus actuarial valuation of accrued total liabilities. (F4, F12, F13)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. The County Administrative Officer and the City Managers should establish 'SMART' goals for website quality assurance and manage these goals beginning in 2021. (F3, F4, F5) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done X HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: As explained above, a system is already in place. Based on the complexity of the website and t...
F5
RISK ASSESSMENT: Financial Risk Indicators alone are not adequate to effectively understand the risks facing all SCC Cities.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. County and City website content providers do not provide an explanation in content for incorrect or out-of-date information, even though they appear to know the reasons. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion X DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): When the City becomes aware of incorrect or out of date information on the website, it is corrected. We don't believe there is any piece of inaccurate information being displayed to the public which we are aware of and have not taken the steps to correct it. New tools continue to b...
▶
Local Agency Formation Commission of Santa Cruz County
September 02, 2020
•
8 pages
• 24 responses
•
Score: +1
(+1, 0, 0)
View Details ▾
24 responses to findings and recommendations
F1
RISK ASSESSMENT: As the Auditor’s Office is an authoritative source of studies and assessments for the State Legislature, we find that the risk assessment methodology used by the Auditor’s Office is a valid and valuable approach to assessing financial risk for all SCC city jurisdictions and communicating that risk to stakeholders.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R1
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should become familiar with and adopt the Auditor’s Office risk assessment framework or a similar framework to assess financial risk. (F1)
Response: Will Implement
Due: June 30, 2021
Scheduled: Comprehensive service review for all fire districts to be considered by the Commission in October 2021.
Score: +1
HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE: As previously mentioned, the Commission will consider a comprehensive service review for all the fire districts in October 2021. It is staff's goal to develop a thorough report that highlights best practices, evaluates areas of improvement, identifies ways to maximize resources, and explores opportunities to improve levels of efficiency.
F2
RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities did not fully consider the calculated high risk indicators from the Auditor’s Office and their potential impacts on city operations, services, and capital assets/infrastructure.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R2
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should evaluate and communicate the implications of the financial risk trends indicated in the analyses calculated from the Auditor’s Office methodology. (F2, F3)
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F3
RISK ASSESSMENT: The state of risk determined for all SCC Cities by the Auditor’s Office in 2017 remained largely unchanged through 2019.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R3
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should publish a standard report annually that is an understandable summary of pension risk, including a narrative on the implications of market valuation versus actuarial valuation of accrued total liabilities. (F4, F12, F13)
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F4
RISK ASSESSMENT: Pension costs contribute a higher level of financial risk to all SCC Cities than is accounted for by city documents.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R4
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should identify a suite of risk indicators that support an integrated assessment of all risk types that can inhibit the ability of the city to meet its objectives. Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) provides an example of the risk types that should be considered. (F5, F6)
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F5
RISK ASSESSMENT: Financial Risk Indicators alone are not adequate to effectively understand the risks facing all SCC Cities.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R5
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should adopt the practice of Bowtie Analysis, or an equivalent method, to support the understanding of risk interactions, the establishment of risk controls, and the communication of a city risk profile. (F7,
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F6
RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities do not fully identify, assess, track, and report key risk indicators that reflect the state of strategic, financial, operational, or hazard risk.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R6
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should publish their own infrastructure risk report cards and any data they make available to county and state level risk assessments. (F8)
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F7
RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities do not adequately evaluate the possible interactions between risks that may inhibit or enhance the objectives of each city.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R7
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should evaluate the costs and benefits of implementing an Enterprise Risk Management Framework to better integrate risk management across all types of risks (Strategic, Financial, Operational, Hazard). This could take many forms, one being a shared capability through a risk sharing Joint Powers Authority (JPA). The key will be designating clear authority and responsibility for integrated risk management. (F10)
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F8
RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities either do not maintain or do not publish a report card on the state of key infrastructure that can be used to set funding priorities and manage operational and hazard risk.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R8
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should develop financial models that project the possibilities of realistic financial scenarios; and use these projections in their risk management practices. (F13)
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F9
RISK MANAGEMENT: Although all of the cities of SCC are preparing for increased pension costs due to current amortization schedules, they are not adequately preparing for risk associated with significant or sustained investment shortfalls in CALPERS due to economic shocks (e.g. caused by Coronavirus) or a recession.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R9
By January 1, 2021: all SCC Cities should develop or adopt contingency plans for realistic negative financial performance scenarios associated with CALPERS investment shortfalls (for shock and sustained downturns). (F9)
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F10
RISK MANAGEMENT: Except for the area of hazard (i.e. loss) risk management, in all SCC Cities, there is no formal method to define, track, manage, and communicate risks at the enterprise level of SCC city government.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R10
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should develop and publish a policy regarding control of retirement costs (pension and Other Pension Employee Benefits) and funding remedies for unexpected bills presented by CalPERS. (F11)
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F11
GOVERNANCE: All SCC Cities do not have a publicly articulated pension Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL) funding policy that recognizes potential pension cost risks and community expenditure/revenue priorities.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R11
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should develop a plan to align with the Government Financial Officers Association (GFOA) Financial Transparency Initiative. This should be extended to risk management transparency. (F6, F8,
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F12
TRANSPARENCY: All SCC Cities do not adequately meet key requirements for transparency as defined by the GFOA.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F13
TRANSPARENCY: All SCC Cities do not provide standard and understandable reporting with regard to: Pension Costs and Associated Impacts (past, current, and projected); Service Level Performance Metrics; State of Key Infrastructure; Risk Assessments and Mitigation Plans for Finance, Operational, and Hazard Risks.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
▶
Santa Cruz City Manager
December 30, 2020
•
2 pages
View Details ▾
No structured response data extracted yet.
View the PDF for full details.
▶
Santa Cruz City Manager
December 30, 2020
•
2 pages
View Details ▾
No structured response data extracted yet.
View the PDF for full details.
▶
Santa Cruz City Manager
December 30, 2020
•
2 pages
View Details ▾
No structured response data extracted yet.
View the PDF for full details.
▶
Santa Cruz City Manager
December 30, 2020
•
2 pages
View Details ▾
No structured response data extracted yet.
View the PDF for full details.
▶
Santa Cruz County Director of General Services
September 23, 2020
•
11 pages
• 5 responses
•
Score: 0
(+0, 5, 0)
View Details ▾
5 responses to findings and recommendations
R2
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should evaluate and communicate the implications of the financial risk trends indicated in the analyses calculated from the Auditor’s Office methodology. (F2, F3)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. Fire agencies serving the incorporated and unincorporated areas of Santa Cruz County should, as soon as possible, ensure inspection plans reflect all facilities that fall under California Health and Safety Code sections 13146.2, 13156.3, and 171921(b). (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5,F8) X HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response explanation, summary, and ...
R3
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should publish a standard report annually that is an understandable summary of pension risk, including a narrative on the implications of market valuation versus actuarial valuation of accrued total liabilities. (F4, F12, F13)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. Fire agencies serving the incorporated and unincorporated areas of Santa Cruz County should, by January 2021, publish a summary of annual inspection findings on their websites. (F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F7, F8) X HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: In reference to F4, Santa Cruz County Fire will be providing...
R4
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should identify a suite of risk indicators that support an integrated assessment of all risk types that can inhibit the ability of the city to meet its objectives. Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) provides an example of the risk types that should be considered. (F5, F6)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. The County of Santa Cruz and the City Fire Departments in the County should notify appropriate County or City leadership of the resources necessary to be compliant with inspection requirements early enough to be addressed during the agency's annual budgeting process. (F7) X HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response explanation, summary, and time...
F5
RISK ASSESSMENT: Financial Risk Indicators alone are not adequate to effectively understand the risks facing all SCC Cities.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. Fire Agencies serving the incorporated and unincorporated areas of Santa Cruz County have not adequately reported inspection performance and the inherent risk associated with a performance gap to residents and leadership external to the governing body. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Response Requested by September 23, 2020 Page 4 of 9
Recommendations R1. Fire agencies serving the incorporated and unincorporated areas of Santa Cruz County should comply, as soon as possible, with...
F9
RISK MANAGEMENT: Although all of the cities of SCC are preparing for increased pension costs due to current amortization schedules, they are not adequately preparing for risk associated with significant or sustained investment shortfalls in CALPERS due to economic shocks (e.g. caused by Coronavirus) or a recession.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
the governing body. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Response Requested by September 23, 2020 Page 4 of 9
Recommendations R1.
▶
Santa Cruz County Emergency Services Manager
December 10, 2020
•
2 pages
View Details ▾
No structured response data extracted yet.
View the PDF for full details.
▶
Santa Cruz County Executive Officer
October 01, 2020
•
47 pages
• 17 responses
•
Score: 0
(+0, 17, 0)
View Details ▾
17 responses to findings and recommendations
F2
RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities did not fully consider the calculated high risk indicators from the Auditor’s Office and their potential impacts on city operations, services, and capital assets/infrastructure.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. Santa Cruz County residents are at increased risk of fire danger due to the lack of risk management for wildfire. Specific risks are not formally identified, tracked, assessed for impact, nor is progress reported by fire departments in the County. Therefore, leaders responsible for budgets and accountability are left unprepared to manage risk, impact, or performance. AGREE x PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Responsibility for wildlife fire management is held with each fire agency within S...
R2
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should evaluate and communicate the implications of the financial risk trends indicated in the analyses calculated from the Auditor’s Office methodology. (F2, F3)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors should require CAL FIRE and County Fire to provide quarterly and annual reports to the County General Services Department with specified data and success metrics for each of the contract requirements, beginning with the current fiscal year. (F2, F24, F26, F29) x HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response...
F3
RISK ASSESSMENT: The state of risk determined for all SCC Cities by the Auditor’s Office in 2017 remained largely unchanged through 2019.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. City and County officials have not collaborated with PG&E to identify the location of high risk PG&E electrical equipment, and so are left uninformed as to how to manage their responsibilities or how to instruct residents about potential danger due to proximity to this equipment. AGREE x PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): County officials have worked with PG&E to identify the locations of high-risk electrical equipment in the county and will continue to engage with PG&E to identify high-ris...
R3
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should publish a standard report annually that is an understandable summary of pension risk, including a narrative on the implications of market valuation versus actuarial valuation of accrued total liabilities. (F4, F12, F13)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors should require CAL FIRE, in conjunction with the General Services Department, to provide annual operations reviews with performance metrics and annual improvement objectives, beginning with the current fiscal year. (F2, F24, F26, F29) x HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response explanation, summary, and...
F4
RISK ASSESSMENT: Pension costs contribute a higher level of financial risk to all SCC Cities than is accounted for by city documents.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. Most of Santa Cruz County in addition to the City of Santa Cruz with its large eucalyptus groves are not being monitored by the ALERTWildfire Imaging Surveillance system and would be well served by the installation of cameras capable of monitoring coastal areas occupied by eucalyptus groves in areas harboring potential sources of ignition. AGREE x PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Eucalyptus groves are a problem in general due to the abundant fuel loading they provide, but one fuel type in...
F6
RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities do not fully identify, assess, track, and report key risk indicators that reflect the state of strategic, financial, operational, or hazard risk.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. Response time data for fire departments in Santa Cruz County is challenging to obtain. Santa Cruz Regional 9-1-1 previously reported response time data in their annual reports, but did not do so in the 2018 or 2019 annual reports. x AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Response Requested by October 1, 2020 Page 7 of 45
F7. Residents living in the CSA-48 receive a lower level of emergency medical support than those living in more urban areas where ALS is provided. AGREE x PARTIALLY DISA...
R6
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should publish their own infrastructure risk report cards and any data they make available to county and state level risk assessments. (F8)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. The County Board of Supervisors should request that the County Fire Chief submit an analysis and a recommended plan to assess whether to provide Advanced Life Support (ALS) year round to the County Fire service area by the 2021-2022 budget. (F7) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe x REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: This would require s...
F7
RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities do not adequately evaluate the possible interactions between risks that may inhibit or enhance the objectives of each city.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
the 2018 or 2019 annual reports. x AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Response Requested by October 1, 2020 Page 7 of 45
F7.
R7
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should evaluate the costs and benefits of implementing an Enterprise Risk Management Framework to better integrate risk management across all types of risks (Strategic, Financial, Operational, Hazard). This could take many forms, one being a shared capability through a risk sharing Joint Powers Authority (JPA). The key will be designating clear authority and responsibility for integrated risk management. (F10)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. County Fire should provide a plan to the County Board of Supervisors by September 30, 2020 identifying how and when the new CSA 48 tax revenue will result in the addition of six more firefighters to the response team, enabling the required "two in, two out" in a fire emergency. (F8) x HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response explanation, summar...
F8
RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities either do not maintain or do not publish a report card on the state of key infrastructure that can be used to set funding priorities and manage operational and hazard risk.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. Santa Cruz County Fire, through its contract with CAL FIRE, has not been meeting the "two in, two out" requirement, reducing their ability to respond effectively and quickly to individuals or structures needing attention in a fire emergency. Proposition 218 was proposed and passed to be able to satisfy the "two in, two out" requirement, without a clear commitment by County Fire that that standard will be consistently met in all CSA-48 locations. In addition, no analysis was presented to quantify the effect on response time. x AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE -...
R9
By January 1, 2021: all SCC Cities should develop or adopt contingency plans for realistic negative financial performance scenarios associated with CALPERS investment shortfalls (for shock and sustained downturns). (F9)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. Each year, during the budget presentation, the County Board of Supervisors should require County Fire to provide a vegetation management plan, including a priority list of projects and a timeframe for their completion. (F1, F10, F16, F29) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe x REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: There is currently no fundi...
F10
RISK MANAGEMENT: Except for the area of hazard (i.e. loss) risk management, in all SCC Cities, there is no formal method to define, track, manage, and communicate risks at the enterprise level of SCC city government.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
the effect on response time. x AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Response Requested by October 1, 2020 Page 9 of 45
F10.
R10
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should develop and publish a policy regarding control of retirement costs (pension and Other Pension Employee Benefits) and funding remedies for unexpected bills presented by CalPERS. (F11)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. Santa Cruz County and Cities should create and/or update Hazard Mitigation Plans by July 1, 2021. Any new or existing plans should be updated a minimum of every three years. All plans should address wildfire risk, evacuation and shelter in place plans, emergency alerts, vegetation management, and confirm compliance with California SB 821. (F1, F2, F10, F11, F14-F16, F29) x HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (no...
F11
GOVERNANCE: All SCC Cities do not have a publicly articulated pension Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL) funding policy that recognizes potential pension cost risks and community expenditure/revenue priorities.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Response Requested by October 1, 2020 Page 10 of 45
F11.
R11
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should develop a plan to align with the Government Financial Officers Association (GFOA) Financial Transparency Initiative. This should be extended to risk management transparency. (F6, F8,
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. The CAL FIRE Ready for Wildfire website should be actively promoted and shared within the community via all available means, including printed descriptive materials inserted into utility and property tax bills, by December 31, 2020. (F19-F21) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe x REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: This will require addit...
F12
TRANSPARENCY: All SCC Cities do not adequately meet key requirements for transparency as defined by the GFOA.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Response Requested by October 1, 2020 Page 11 of 45
F12.
F13
TRANSPARENCY: All SCC Cities do not provide standard and understandable reporting with regard to: Pension Costs and Associated Impacts (past, current, and projected); Service Level Performance Metrics; State of Key Infrastructure; Risk Assessments and Mitigation Plans for Finance, Operational, and Hazard Risks.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. High risk communities in the County are left unnecessarily vulnerable due to the lack of easily accessible, published information of refuge/assembly areas and structures. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion x DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The vulnerability of the community is more directly related to the located and preventative maintenance of the home and surrounding site and less so related to published information regarding refuge and assembly areas. All communities refuge and assembly areas are commonly churche...
▶
Santa Cruz County Executive Officer
September 28, 2020
•
23 pages
• 6 responses
•
Score: 0
(+0, 6, 0)
View Details ▾
6 responses to findings and recommendations
R6
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should publish their own infrastructure risk report cards and any data they make available to county and state level risk assessments. (F8)
Response: Implemented
Due: June 30, 2021
Scheduled: Fiscal Year 2021-2022
Score: 0
. The Santa Cruz County Administrative Officer (CAO) and the County's City Managers should identify parcels of land within their jurisdictions that could be utilized to supply homeless services and/or temporary or permanent housing, and report such sites to their governing bodies by December 31, 2020. (F9, F21) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe x REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why R...
R7
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should evaluate the costs and benefits of implementing an Enterprise Risk Management Framework to better integrate risk management across all types of risks (Strategic, Financial, Operational, Hazard). This could take many forms, one being a shared capability through a risk sharing Joint Powers Authority (JPA). The key will be designating clear authority and responsibility for integrated risk management. (F10)
Response: Implemented
Due: June 30, 2021
Scheduled: Fiscal Year 2021-2022
Score: 0
. In the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 budget, the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors should direct the agencies that provide grant funding for homeless services to prioritize more funding for case managers, diversion and prevention programs, and the extension of supportive services to more than one year when appropriate. (F8, F10, F11) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) x WILL NOT BE IMPLE...
F8
RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities either do not maintain or do not publish a report card on the state of key infrastructure that can be used to set funding priorities and manage operational and hazard risk.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Response Requested by September 28, 2020 Page 3 of 21
F8.
F9
RISK MANAGEMENT: Although all of the cities of SCC are preparing for increased pension costs due to current amortization schedules, they are not adequately preparing for risk associated with significant or sustained investment shortfalls in CALPERS due to economic shocks (e.g. caused by Coronavirus) or a recession.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. The lack of Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) results in the significant compounding of the homeless issue. x AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Response Requested by September 28, 2020 Page 5 of 21
F10. Supportive services are limited to one year; this limitation can contribute to instability, a loss of housing, and a return to homelessness. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion x DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agre...
F10
RISK MANAGEMENT: Except for the area of hazard (i.e. loss) risk management, in all SCC Cities, there is no formal method to define, track, manage, and communicate risks at the enterprise level of SCC city government.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
the significant compounding of the homeless issue. x AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Response Requested by September 28, 2020 Page 5 of 21
F10.
F11
GOVERNANCE: All SCC Cities do not have a publicly articulated pension Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL) funding policy that recognizes potential pension cost risks and community expenditure/revenue priorities.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. A lack of case managers and outreach results in homeless individuals not having timely access to necessary supportive services. AGREE x PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The County of Santa Cruz Health Services Agency (HSA) manages over half of all HUD funded permanent supportive housing programs within our Continuum of Care. The collaborative efforts of outreach workers across all of HSA's departments, and the inclusion of community-based agencies in these efforts, contributed to a three-...
▶
Santa Cruz County Executive Officer
September 17, 2020
•
11 pages
• 4 responses
•
Score: 0
(+0, 4, 0)
View Details ▾
4 responses to findings and recommendations
R3
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should publish a standard report annually that is an understandable summary of pension risk, including a narrative on the implications of market valuation versus actuarial valuation of accrued total liabilities. (F4, F12, F13)
Response: Implemented
Due: June 30, 2021
Scheduled: fiscal year 2020-21
Score: 0
. The Sheriff's Department leadership and the County Administrative Officer and General Services Director should work together to provide regular communications as soon as possible with all personnel (detention, general services, leadership) who have a need to know, to provide status, project planning, and goal completion. (F2, F4) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEM...
R6
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should publish their own infrastructure risk report cards and any data they make available to county and state level risk assessments. (F8)
Response: Implemented
Due: June 30, 2021
Scheduled: fiscal year 2020-21
Score: 0
. The Board of Supervisors should direct the County Administrative Officer to immediately define a risk management position, hire a qualified individual, and review all risk areas, mitigation plans and capabilities with the Board of Supervisors by June 30, 2021. (F8) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: ...
F7
RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities do not adequately evaluate the possible interactions between risks that may inhibit or enhance the objectives of each city.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. The failure to escalate critical issues by key County General Services and Sheriff's department personnel is very concerning. Procedures for escalation are lacking and this creates unwanted risk. AGREE _ PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion X DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Staff are aware of how to raise concerns and escalate issues. Response Requested by September 17, 2020 Page 4 of 9
F8. Robust risk management and mitigation is lacking in the County and correctional facility organizations. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - exp...
F8
RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities either do not maintain or do not publish a report card on the state of key infrastructure that can be used to set funding priorities and manage operational and hazard risk.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. Robust risk management and mitigation is lacking in the County and correctional facility organizations. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion X DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): While operating a correctional facility has inherent risks, there is always room for evaluation and improvement to risk management and mitigation practices. The SO maintains many policies and procedures relating to risk management, and these are updated as needs are identified. Response Requested by September 17, 2020 Page 5 of 9
Recommendations...
▶
Santa Cruz County Executive Officer
September 14, 2020
•
14 pages
• 7 responses
•
Score: 0
(+0, 7, 0)
View Details ▾
7 responses to findings and recommendations
F2
RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities did not fully consider the calculated high risk indicators from the Auditor’s Office and their potential impacts on city operations, services, and capital assets/infrastructure.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. County and City administrations lack a process to review content accuracy and currency and thereby assure timely correction and revision of content. AGREE X PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The County administration does not have a centralized process to review content accuracy and currency. The County website has a great deal of content, which changes with some regularity. County departments are expected to maintain their own website content because the departments possess the subject ma...
R2
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should evaluate and communicate the implications of the financial risk trends indicated in the analyses calculated from the Auditor’s Office methodology. (F2, F3)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. The County Administrative Officer and the City Managers should establish a protocol to be exercised quarterly, beginning January 2021, which requires department heads to confirm via documentation (initial a spreadsheet, for example) that they have verified the accuracy of their department's web information (F1, F2, F3) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - exp...
F3
RISK ASSESSMENT: The state of risk determined for all SCC Cities by the Auditor’s Office in 2017 remained largely unchanged through 2019.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. County and City goals for website redesign or quality improvement are not sufficiently "SMART": Specific + Measurable + Attainable + Relevant + Time- Bound. AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion X DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The County uses "SMART" (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, and Time- Bound. The objective cited in the report meets the SMART criteria used by County departments in creating the Operational Plan. Response Requested by September 14, 2020 Page 5 of 12
F4. The County does not have a not...
R3
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should publish a standard report annually that is an understandable summary of pension risk, including a narrative on the implications of market valuation versus actuarial valuation of accrued total liabilities. (F4, F12, F13)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. The County Administrative Officer and the City Managers should establish 'SMART' goals for website quality assurance and manage these goals beginning in 2021. (F3, F4, F5) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe X REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The current County Operational Plan concludes in June 2021. A second Operational Plan, with ne...
F4
RISK ASSESSMENT: Pension costs contribute a higher level of financial risk to all SCC Cities than is accounted for by city documents.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. The County does not have a notification system by which users can be alerted to updated web content. The County's website would be enhanced by the addition of a site-wide notification system. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): The County Information Services Department has developed a web feature by which users can be alerted to updated web content. The new functionality is under review for how to deploy it in a way that is most useful to the public. It is anticipated that the new f...
R4
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should identify a suite of risk indicators that support an integrated assessment of all risk types that can inhibit the ability of the city to meet its objectives. Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) provides an example of the risk types that should be considered. (F5, F6)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. County ISD should provide a notification system similar to the city of Santa Cruz by June 2021 whereby users receive email or text messages when updated web information is available. (F4) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done X HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: The County Information Services Department has developed a web feature by whic...
F5
RISK ASSESSMENT: Financial Risk Indicators alone are not adequate to effectively understand the risks facing all SCC Cities.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. County and City website content providers do not provide an explanation in content for incorrect or out-of-date information, even though they appear to know the reasons. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): County staff do not add explanations to the websites as to why information may be out of date or incorrect. When content managers identify out of date or incorrect content, the practice is to remove the incorrect content and replace it with correct and current information. Response...
▶
Santa Cruz Parks and Recreation Director
December 30, 2020
•
2 pages
View Details ▾
No structured response data extracted yet.
View the PDF for full details.
▶
Santa Cruz Regional 911 Board of Directors
July 16, 2020
•
7 pages
• 1 response
•
Score: 0
(+0, 1, 0)
View Details ▾
1 response to findings and recommendations
F11
GOVERNANCE: All SCC Cities do not have a publicly articulated pension Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL) funding policy that recognizes potential pension cost risks and community expenditure/revenue priorities.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. There are only approximately 17,000 accounts for the Santa Cruz County opt-in CodeRED™ emergency system, which implies that a significant portion of the County may not receive emergency alert messages, which potentially reduces residents' opportunity to take action in a timely, life-saving manner. AGREE _ PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion .X. DISAGREE -explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): CodeRed is the third "reverse 9-1-1" system that SCR9-1-1 has used in our history dating back to the early 2000's. Each of the previous systems needed...
▶
Scotts Valley Chief of Police
August 31, 2020
•
6 pages
• 1 response
•
Score: 0
(+0, 1, 0)
View Details ▾
1 response to findings and recommendations
F5
RISK ASSESSMENT: Financial Risk Indicators alone are not adequate to effectively understand the risks facing all SCC Cities.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
the resources and mental health training. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Response Requested by August 31, 2020 Page 3 of 5
Recommendations R18.
▶
Scotts Valley City Manager
November 23, 2020
•
2 pages
View Details ▾
No structured response data extracted yet.
View the PDF for full details.
▶
Scotts Valley Fire Protection District Board of Directors
January 22, 2021
•
12 pages
View Details ▾
No structured response data extracted yet.
View the PDF for full details.
▶
Scotts Valley Fire Protection District Board of Directors
October 01, 2020
•
35 pages
• 24 responses
•
Score: 0
(+0, 11, 0)
View Details ▾
24 responses to findings and recommendations
F1
RISK ASSESSMENT: As the Auditor’s Office is an authoritative source of studies and assessments for the State Legislature, we find that the risk assessment methodology used by the Auditor’s Office is a valid and valuable approach to assessing financial risk for all SCC city jurisdictions and communicating that risk to stakeholders.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R1
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should become familiar with and adopt the Auditor’s Office risk assessment framework or a similar framework to assess financial risk. (F1)
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F2
RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities did not fully consider the calculated high risk indicators from the Auditor’s Office and their potential impacts on city operations, services, and capital assets/infrastructure.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
AGREE _ PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion _ DISAGREE -explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Response Required by October 1, 2020 Page 3of33
F2.
R2
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should evaluate and communicate the implications of the financial risk trends indicated in the analyses calculated from the Auditor’s Office methodology. (F2, F3)
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F3
RISK ASSESSMENT: The state of risk determined for all SCC Cities by the Auditor’s Office in 2017 remained largely unchanged through 2019.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
AGREE _ PARTIALLY DISAGREE -explain the disputed portion _ DISAGREE -explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Response Required by October 1, 2020 Page 4 of33
Ready? Aim? Fire/ Scotts Valley Fire Protection District Board of Directors f 3.
R3
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should publish a standard report annually that is an understandable summary of pension risk, including a narrative on the implications of market valuation versus actuarial valuation of accrued total liabilities. (F4, F12, F13)
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F4
RISK ASSESSMENT: Pension costs contribute a higher level of financial risk to all SCC Cities than is accounted for by city documents.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R4
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should identify a suite of risk indicators that support an integrated assessment of all risk types that can inhibit the ability of the city to meet its objectives. Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) provides an example of the risk types that should be considered. (F5, F6)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. The fire districts of Santa Cruz County should establish a plan by January 2021, to develop actionable Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPP) that follow the framework established by the 2018 Santa Cruz County - San Mateo County CWPP. (F2, F5, F22) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED -summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE -summarize what will be done and the timeframe _ REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months} lL WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: Scotts Valle...
F5
RISK ASSESSMENT: Financial Risk Indicators alone are not adequate to effectively understand the risks facing all SCC Cities.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
AGREE _ PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion _ DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation {required for a response other than Agree): Response Required by October 1, 2020 Page 5 of 33
F5.
R5
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should adopt the practice of Bowtie Analysis, or an equivalent method, to support the understanding of risk interactions, the establishment of risk controls, and the communication of a city risk profile. (F7,
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F6
RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities do not fully identify, assess, track, and report key risk indicators that reflect the state of strategic, financial, operational, or hazard risk.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
the County. JL AGREE --· PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion _ DISAGREE -explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Response Required by October 1, 2020 Page 6 of 33
F6.
R6
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should publish their own infrastructure risk report cards and any data they make available to county and state level risk assessments. (F8)
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F7
RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities do not adequately evaluate the possible interactions between risks that may inhibit or enhance the objectives of each city.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R7
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should evaluate the costs and benefits of implementing an Enterprise Risk Management Framework to better integrate risk management across all types of risks (Strategic, Financial, Operational, Hazard). This could take many forms, one being a shared capability through a risk sharing Joint Powers Authority (JPA). The key will be designating clear authority and responsibility for integrated risk management. (F10)
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F8
RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities either do not maintain or do not publish a report card on the state of key infrastructure that can be used to set funding priorities and manage operational and hazard risk.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R8
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should develop financial models that project the possibilities of realistic financial scenarios; and use these projections in their risk management practices. (F13)
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F9
RISK MANAGEMENT: Although all of the cities of SCC are preparing for increased pension costs due to current amortization schedules, they are not adequately preparing for risk associated with significant or sustained investment shortfalls in CALPERS due to economic shocks (e.g. caused by Coronavirus) or a recession.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R9
By January 1, 2021: all SCC Cities should develop or adopt contingency plans for realistic negative financial performance scenarios associated with CALPERS investment shortfalls (for shock and sustained downturns). (F9)
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F10
RISK MANAGEMENT: Except for the area of hazard (i.e. loss) risk management, in all SCC Cities, there is no formal method to define, track, manage, and communicate risks at the enterprise level of SCC city government.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
the 2018 or 2019 annual reports. lL AGREE _ PARTIALLY DISAGREE -explain the disputed portion _ DISAGREE -explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Response Required by October 1, 2020 Page 7 of 33
F10.
R10
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should develop and publish a policy regarding control of retirement costs (pension and Other Pension Employee Benefits) and funding remedies for unexpected bills presented by CalPERS. (F11)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. Santa Cruz County and Cities should create and/or update Hazard Mitigation Plans by July 1, 2021. Any new or existing plans should be updated a minimum of every three years. All plans should address wildfire risk, evacuation and shelter in place plans, emergency alerts, vegetation management, and confirm compliance with California SB 821. (F1, F2, F10, F11, F14-F16, F29) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED -summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE -summarize what will be done and the timeframe lL REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS -explain scope and timeframe {not ...
F11
GOVERNANCE: All SCC Cities do not have a publicly articulated pension Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL) funding policy that recognizes potential pension cost risks and community expenditure/revenue priorities.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
AGREE -· _ PARTIALLY DISAGREE -explain the disputed portion _ DISAGREE -explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Response Required by October 1, 2020 Page 8of33
F11.
R11
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should develop a plan to align with the Government Financial Officers Association (GFOA) Financial Transparency Initiative. This should be extended to risk management transparency. (F6, F8,
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. The CAL FIRE Ready for Wildfire website should be actively promoted and shared within the community via all available means, including printed descriptive materials inserted into utility and property tax bills, by December 31, 2020. (F19-F21) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED -summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE -summarize what will be done and the timeframe JL REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS -explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) _ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED -explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: Scotts Valley Fire Prote...
F12
TRANSPARENCY: All SCC Cities do not adequately meet key requirements for transparency as defined by the GFOA.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
AGREE _ PARTIALLY DISAGREE -explain the disputed portion -·_ DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Response Required by October 1, 2020 Page 9of33
F12.
F13
TRANSPARENCY: All SCC Cities do not provide standard and understandable reporting with regard to: Pension Costs and Associated Impacts (past, current, and projected); Service Level Performance Metrics; State of Key Infrastructure; Risk Assessments and Mitigation Plans for Finance, Operational, and Hazard Risks.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
the risk to County residents. lL AGREE _ PARTIALLY DISAGREE -explain the disputed portion __ DISAGREE -explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Response Required by October 1, 2020 Page 10 of 33
F13.
▶
Watsonville City Manager
March 09, 2021
•
36 pages
• 24 responses
•
Score: 0
(+0, 10, 0)
View Details ▾
24 responses to findings and recommendations
F1
RISK ASSESSMENT: As the Auditor’s Office is an authoritative source of studies and assessments for the State Legislature, we find that the risk assessment methodology used by the Auditor’s Office is a valid and valuable approach to assessing financial risk for all SCC city jurisdictions and communicating that risk to stakeholders.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R1
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should become familiar with and adopt the Auditor’s Office risk assessment framework or a similar framework to assess financial risk. (F1)
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F2
RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities did not fully consider the calculated high risk indicators from the Auditor’s Office and their potential impacts on city operations, services, and capital assets/infrastructure.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R2
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should evaluate and communicate the implications of the financial risk trends indicated in the analyses calculated from the Auditor’s Office methodology. (F2, F3)
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F3
RISK ASSESSMENT: The state of risk determined for all SCC Cities by the Auditor’s Office in 2017 remained largely unchanged through 2019.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R3
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should publish a standard report annually that is an understandable summary of pension risk, including a narrative on the implications of market valuation versus actuarial valuation of accrued total liabilities. (F4, F12, F13)
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F4
RISK ASSESSMENT: Pension costs contribute a higher level of financial risk to all SCC Cities than is accounted for by city documents.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. Santa Cruz County elected officials have been unable to combat NIMBYism, which is a significant barrier to getting projects approved and built to support the homeless. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Response Requested by September 28, 2020 Page 4 of 23
F5. Inconsistent and unclear funding sources and processes inhibit the effective implementation of solutions that require long term planning and sustained operations. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISA...
R4
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should identify a suite of risk indicators that support an integrated assessment of all risk types that can inhibit the ability of the city to meet its objectives. Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) provides an example of the risk types that should be considered. (F5, F6)
Response: Implemented
Due: June 30, 2021
Scheduled: October 2020 (target date for charter and legal structure)
Score: 0
. Santa Cruz County and Cities should collaborate to develop a JPA that would be responsible for setting short and long term goals to reduce homelessness, measuring the cost of homelessness, allocating funding, and tracking the effectiveness of funding, by July 1, 2021. (F5, F6, F19) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe X REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response explanation, summary...
F5
RISK ASSESSMENT: Financial Risk Indicators alone are not adequate to effectively understand the risks facing all SCC Cities.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
the homeless. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Response Requested by September 28, 2020 Page 4 of 23
F5.
R5
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should adopt the practice of Bowtie Analysis, or an equivalent method, to support the understanding of risk interactions, the establishment of risk controls, and the communication of a city risk profile. (F7,
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F6
RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities do not fully identify, assess, track, and report key risk indicators that reflect the state of strategic, financial, operational, or hazard risk.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Response Requested by September 28, 2020 Page 5 of 23
F6.
R6
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should publish their own infrastructure risk report cards and any data they make available to county and state level risk assessments. (F8)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. The Santa Cruz County Administrative Officer (CAO) and the County's City Managers should identify parcels of land within their jurisdictions that could be utilized to supply homeless services and/or temporary or permanent housing, and report such sites to their governing bodies by December 31, 2020. (F9, F21) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe X REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) _ WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why...
F7
RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities do not adequately evaluate the possible interactions between risks that may inhibit or enhance the objectives of each city.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R7
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should evaluate the costs and benefits of implementing an Enterprise Risk Management Framework to better integrate risk management across all types of risks (Strategic, Financial, Operational, Hazard). This could take many forms, one being a shared capability through a risk sharing Joint Powers Authority (JPA). The key will be designating clear authority and responsibility for integrated risk management. (F10)
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F8
RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities either do not maintain or do not publish a report card on the state of key infrastructure that can be used to set funding priorities and manage operational and hazard risk.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R8
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should develop financial models that project the possibilities of realistic financial scenarios; and use these projections in their risk management practices. (F13)
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F9
RISK MANAGEMENT: Although all of the cities of SCC are preparing for increased pension costs due to current amortization schedules, they are not adequately preparing for risk associated with significant or sustained investment shortfalls in CALPERS due to economic shocks (e.g. caused by Coronavirus) or a recession.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. The lack of Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) results in the significant compounding of the homeless issue. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Response Requested by September 28, 2020 Page 7 of 23
F12. There are parcels of land throughout the county that appear to be unused or underutilized, and could possibly be used to build housing for the homeless. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response oth...
R9
By January 1, 2021: all SCC Cities should develop or adopt contingency plans for realistic negative financial performance scenarios associated with CALPERS investment shortfalls (for shock and sustained downturns). (F9)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. By December 31, 2020, the City of Santa Cruz should evaluate whether closing Coral Street permanently to thru traffic, to make more space available for additional housing and services for the homeless, would be a viable option. (F13) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - explain why Response explanation, summary, and timeframe: This is not within the jurisdict...
F10
RISK MANAGEMENT: Except for the area of hazard (i.e. loss) risk management, in all SCC Cities, there is no formal method to define, track, manage, and communicate risks at the enterprise level of SCC city government.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R10
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should develop and publish a policy regarding control of retirement costs (pension and Other Pension Employee Benefits) and funding remedies for unexpected bills presented by CalPERS. (F11)
Response: Implemented
Score: 0
. Beginning in December of 2020, the Santa Cruz County Administrative Officer and the County's City Managers should direct their agencies involved with homelessness to engage with local business leaders including Chambers of Commerce, to collaborate on innovative solutions that could reduce the number of homeless. (F14) HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED - summarize what has been done HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BUT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - summarize what will be done and the timeframe REQUIRES FURTHER ANALYSIS - explain scope and timeframe (not to exceed six months) X WILL NOT BE IMPLEMENTED - expl...
F11
GOVERNANCE: All SCC Cities do not have a publicly articulated pension Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL) funding policy that recognizes potential pension cost risks and community expenditure/revenue priorities.
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
R11
By June 30, 2021: all SCC Cities should develop a plan to align with the Government Financial Officers Association (GFOA) Financial Transparency Initiative. This should be extended to risk management transparency. (F6, F8,
Response: Unknown
Score: 0
F12
TRANSPARENCY: All SCC Cities do not adequately meet key requirements for transparency as defined by the GFOA.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
the significant compounding of the homeless issue. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Response Requested by September 28, 2020 Page 7 of 23
F12.
F13
TRANSPARENCY: All SCC Cities do not provide standard and understandable reporting with regard to: Pension Costs and Associated Impacts (past, current, and projected); Service Level Performance Metrics; State of Key Infrastructure; Risk Assessments and Mitigation Plans for Finance, Operational, and Hazard Risks.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
the homeless. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): Response Requested by September 28, 2020 Page 8 of 23
F13.
▶
Watsonville Fire Department
December 11, 2020
•
20 pages
• 4 responses
•
Score: 0
(+0, 4, 0)
View Details ▾
4 responses to findings and recommendations
F5
RISK ASSESSMENT: Financial Risk Indicators alone are not adequate to effectively understand the risks facing all SCC Cities.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. Santa Cruz County would greatly benefit if steps were taken to implement the CAL FIRE, San Mateo - Santa Cruz Unit 2018 recommendation of developing detailed, site specific Community Wildfire Protection Plans for communities throughout the County. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): 4 of 19
F6. Response time data for fire departments in Santa Cruz County is challenging to obtain. Santa Cruz Regional 9-1-1 previously reported response time data in their annual reports...
F6
RISK ASSESSMENT: All SCC Cities do not fully identify, assess, track, and report key risk indicators that reflect the state of strategic, financial, operational, or hazard risk.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
the County. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): 4 of 19
F6.
F11
GOVERNANCE: All SCC Cities do not have a publicly articulated pension Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL) funding policy that recognizes potential pension cost risks and community expenditure/revenue priorities.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
. There are only approximately 17,000 accounts for the Santa Cruz County opt-in CodeRED™ emergency system, which implies that a significant portion of the County may not receive emergency alert messages, which potentially reduces residents' opportunity to take action in a timely, life-saving manner. X AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): 6 of 19
F12. Long Range Acoustic Devices (LRADs), have been deployed in other areas of the state and have proven effective tools in aler...
F12
TRANSPARENCY: All SCC Cities do not adequately meet key requirements for transparency as defined by the GFOA.
Response: Disagree Partially
Score: 0
AGREE PARTIALLY DISAGREE - explain the disputed portion DISAGREE - explain why Response explanation (required for a response other than Agree): 6 of 19
F12.