⚠️ Aviso de traducción: Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings 5 findings
F1
Employment & Human Services Director - reports monthly to the County Administrator on collaboration within County Departments and with community organizations. The recent addition of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Call Center has required significant collaboration with both internal and external stakeholders.
F2
states that eight cities, including Concord, spend more than the county-wide average for salary md meeting fees. Response: The City of Concord has no independent information to verify this finding. With respect to Concord, the City agrees with this finding.
F3
County Administrator meets monthly with all the City Managers of Contra Costa County to discuss ways to cooperate between the Cities and the County. Recently these have resulted in closer collaboration in the areas of fue services and library activities. Sincerely, =era1 D. Glover, Chair Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors cc: Board of Supervisors The Board of Supervisors Contra David Twa County Administration Building Costa Clerk of the Board 651 Pine Street, Room 106 and Martinez, California 94553-1293 County County Administrator (925) 33819 00 John Gioia, Is t District Candice Anderson,pnd District Mary N. Piepho, 3rd District Karen Mltchoff, 4th District Federal D. Glover, 5th District October 2 1,20 13 Stephen D. Conlin, Foreperson Court Street Martinez, CA 94553-009 1 Dear Mr. Conlin, This letter is in response to your letter of October 8,2013 regarding Grand Jury Report No. 1 107. Grand Jury Report No. 1 107 recommended that the Board of Supervisors seek special legislation to enable the County to cap retirement income so that no employee receives a pension greater than the base salary earned. The Board of Supervisors' response was that the County was seeking implementation of such an action. Since Grand Jury Report No. 11 07 was issued, the landscape of Contra Costa County pensions has changed dramatically. Contra Costa did begin the process of negotiating pension reform. All of the contracts negotiated in the 201 0-20 12 negotiation cycle included language for implementation of new General and Safety pension tiers. Terms of the new tiers were negotiated, language was pending as Senate Bill 1494, and the County had requested new pension rates from the Contra Costa County Employees' Retirement Association (CCCERA) when AB 340 and AB 197 (Public Employees' Pension Reform Act of 2013) derailed the County's pending bill. Senate Bill 1494 included the following provisions: 1) Safety Tier D - 3% at 55 years of age, 2% COLA, 36 month final average compensation, and a 90% compensation cap, the tier was to be mandatory for new and rehired safety employees; and 2) General Tier N - 2% at 60 years of age, 2% COLA, 36 month final average compensation, and a 90% compensation cap, this tier was also to be mandatory for new and rehired safety employees. The County discontinued pursuit of this bill's adoption due to the adoption of the Public Employees' Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA). PEPRA includes the following provisions: 1) SafetyIOption 2 - 2.7% at 57 years of age, 2% COLA, 36 month final average compensation, a maximum salary for pension calculation of $132,120 (plus CPI), and elimination of terminal pays; and 2) General Tier - 2% at 62 years of age, 2% COLA, 36 month final average compensation, a maximum salary for pension calculation of $1 10,100 (plus CPI), and elimination of terminal pays. Another change since the implementation of PEPRA occurred due to a policy change by the CCCERA Board. The Board of Retirement adopted an updated Board Compensation Policy listing items of compensation that are included in "compensation", "compensation earnable", and "final compensation" as defined in Government Code Sections 3 1460, 31461, and 31462.1. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contract me. p9& era1 Glover -chair, Contra Costa County cc: Board of Supervisors -- ,C ONTRA COSTA W A T E R D ISTRICT m 1331 Concord Avenue P.O. Box H20 Concord, CA 94524 (925) 688-8000 FAX (925) 68&8122 www.ccwater.com November 4,20 13 Mr. Stephen D. Conlin, Foreperson Directors Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury Joseph L. Campbell P.O. Box 91 1A President Martinez, CA 94553-0091 Karl L. Wandry Vice President Dear Mr. Conlin: Bette Boatmun Lisa M. Borba John A. Burgh The following is Contra Costa Water District's (CCM'D) response to the Grand Jury's follow-up on Report Number 1104, entitled "Benefits for Elected Board Jerry Brown Geneml Manager Members". This letter addresses the follow-up for Recommendations #3 and #4 of the 20 1 1-201 2 Grand Jury Report.
F4
Bdth Care benefits are provided to elected Board members of twelve cities and nine special districts. Response: The City of Concord has no independent information to verify this finding. With respect to the City of Concord, the City agrees with this finding.
F5
Pension benefits, with potential long-term financial implications for the agency, are provided to Council and Board members by twelve cities and three special districts. Response: The City of Concord has no independent information to verify this finding. With respect to the City of Concord, the City agrees with this finding.
Recommendations 5
-
R1Employment & Human Services Director - reports monthly to the County Administrator on collaboration within County Departments and with community organizations. The recent addition of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Call Center has required significant collaboration with both internal and external stakeholders.
-
R2states that as part of the annual review in Recommendation #1, a review should be made to consider whether it would be appropriate to implement reductions of salary and meeting fee expenditures to bring them in line with the other cities. Response: As part of their annual review of the City's operating budget, including the Council's operating budget, Concord City Council members have individually decided to voluntarily reduce their pay & benefits, matching the sacrifices that regular employees have made in each of the last two years. Council members are continuing this practice into Fiscal Year 201 1-12. Tkg €kancLJtr~y's~e-Mm Mat the "appropriate"payom3 benefit level for Council members should be the average level of all cities in the county, is not supported by the Concord City Council. Each city within the County has differing levels of budget, population, and service responsibilities; therefore a "one- size-fits-all" solution hardly seems appropriate. As the Grand Jury's information mentions, Concord is the largest City in the County by population but its Council members are not the highest paidhnefited council members. Concord's City Council will continue to consider their individual pay and benefit levels at its annual budget reviews, and will continue to evaluate the appropriateness of those pay and benefit levels in light of prevailing fiscal conditions. Contact: Linda Chew Fareperson (925) 957-5638 Contra Costa County Grand Jury Report #I104 ELECTED BOARD MEMBERSHIP Public Service or Public Employment? TO: Cities and Towns in Contra Costa County (see distribution list) lndependent Special Districts (see distribution list)
-
R3These special districts, as part of the annual review in recommendation I, should consider whether it would be appropriate to implement a reduction ofsalary and meeting fee for expenditure to bring them in line with other special districts. CCWD agreed with this recommendation in its original response, and subsequently completed a review of Board member meeting fees (compensation) during the development of its 2013-2014 budget. Board members are currently compensated $100 per meeting attended, maximum of ten meetings per month, for total maximum compensation of $1,000 per month. Board members do not receive any salary. The District compared its Board member compensation practices to other comparable regional utility special districts with elected Boards, and noted that its Board compensation levels are at or below those of other regional special districts. Also, there has been no increase in the $100 per meeting compensation for over twelve years. These results were discussed by the Board at the Board Study Session held October 1 1, 20 13. The Board thoroughly evaluated but made no change in Board compensation practices with the adoption of the 2013-2014 budget in May 20 12.
-
R4The policy of paying health care insurance costs for Council and Board members should be reviewed to determine whether this practice is appropriate. Response: This recommendation has been implemented, in that the Concord City Council revie.ws its own and the entire City's operating budget annually through the budget adoption process. Concord continues to provide this benefit to its Council members because it is viewed as an appropriate Council benefit.
-
R5The policy of paying pension or deferred compensation for Council and Board members should be reviewed to detenine whether this practice is appropriate. Response: This reconimendation has been implemented, in that the Concord City Council reviews its own and the entire City's operating budget annually through the budget adoption process. Concord continues to provide this benefit to its Council members because it is viewed as an appropriate Council benefit. 1 appreciate the time and effort that you and the Grand Jury members have spent considering these matters. Should you have additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to con tact me. Very tnlly yours, Mayor