📋

Extracted from Consolidated Report

This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.

Score: +3 (3/3/0)

Orange County Grand Jury • 2010-2011

Compensation Study of Orange County Cities

Published: June 21, 2011 44 pages

View PDF View Full Original

⚠️ 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 7 findings

F1 Page 146

Based on the data submitted, no position was found where the compensation or employment contract was considered to be abusive.

F2 Page 146

There is no discernable correlation between compensation levels in charter vs. general law cities.

F3 Page 146

Compensation of individual high-level positions bears no significant relationship to city population.

F4 Page 146

Public disclosure of municipal compensation levels is widely inconsistent, ranging from good to non-existent.

F5 Page 146

With the exceptions of Laguna Beach and Newport Beach, the number of high-level positions in each city is generally commensurate with its population.

F6 Page 146

The compensation of the City Manager and Assistant City Manager/Finance Director in the City of Laguna Hills exceeds levels in other comparably sized cities both inside and outside of Orange County.

F7 Page 146

There is currently no disclosure of written employment contracts on the majority of cities’ websites. 140 /2011 Compensation Study of Orange County Cities RECOMMENDATIONS: The 2010/2011 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following recommendations: In accordance with California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05, the 2010-2011 Grand Jury requires responses from each city affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation of the 34 cities in Orange County, the 2010-2011 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following four recommendations:

Recommendations 4

R1
Page 147

Transparency - All cities in Orange County report their compensation information to the public on the Internet in an easily accessible manner. The Compensation Disclosure Model (Appendix 4) provides a sample as to the items that should be included in determining total compensation.
R2
Page 147

Employment Contracts – Each city reveal any individual employment contracts in an easily accessible manner.
R3
Page 147

Upper level Employees – The cities of Newport Beach and Laguna Beach conduct a review of their organizations to reconcile the necessity of maintaining a relatively large number of upper level positions in relation to their populations.
R4
Page 147

Compensation Levels – The City of Laguna Hills conduct a compensation review of top officials. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS: The California Penal Code Section 933(c) requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such com- ment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section 933.05(a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. /2011 141 Compensation Study of Orange County Cities (b) As to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implement- ed action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for dis- cussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not rea- sonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall ad- dress all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with the Penal Code Section 933.05 are required from the city council of each of the following Orange County cities: Responding Agency Findings Recommendations All Orange County Cities

Agency Responses 7

Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.

City of City Council

August 23, 2011 • 6 pages • 6 responses • Score: +3 (+3, 3, 0) View Details ▾

PDF

6 responses to findings and recommendations

All jurisdictions should expedite the acquisition and distribution of residential containers that meet the CalRecycle standardized colors. Additionally, until the compliant containers can be distributed, all jurisdictions should ensure the distribution of labeling for non-compliant containers that explain the current SB 1383 requirements applicable to their jurisdiction by June 30, 2025. Response: The recommendation has been implemented. The City of Laguna Hills recently issued a joint RFP for w...

Response: Implemented

Score: 0

The City agrees with the finding. There is no standardized format among public agencies for the reporting of compensation. Moreover, there is widespread opinion about what constitutes total compensation. The City of Laguna Hills provides appropriate disclosure of its employees' compensation on its website through a complete Public Officials Compensation Report of all elected officials and management employees. This report is required by Municipal Code Section 244-010 and must be updated annually by February 28 pursuant to Municipal Code Section 244-020. 24035 El Toro Road Laguna Hills, Califor...

By December 31, 2024, all jurisdictions should ensure their waste hauling agreements are in compliance with State statute so that haulers may be designated to perform certain required tasks but are not improperly delegated overall responsibility for compliance. Additionally, all jurisdictions should ensure that any fines collected by a hauler are forwarded to the jurisdiction. Response: The recommendation has been implemented. The City of Laguna Hills adopted its SB 1383 enforcement ordinance in...

Response: Implemented

Score: 0

In most jurisdictions, education and outreach is a joint effort between jurisdiction, hauler, and sometimes consultants, with the jurisdiction reviewing the materials before publication. The methods of dissemination vary by jurisdiction and hauler but frequently rely on a resident actively seeking the information, which requires the resident to have some awareness of the new mandates in the first place. Most efforts primarily revolve around intermittent hard-copy paper mailings. Response: The Ci...

Response: Agree Score: +1

By December 31, 2024, all jurisdictions should diversify the methods and media used for education and outreach to include, among others, various social media platforms, emails to residents, newspaper, television, flyer mailings, community events, and appearances at other public gatherings. Response: The recommendation has been implemented. The City of Laguna Hills currently diversifies its methods of outreach including periodic Organic Waste Town Hall meetings. As mentioned in F4 above, the new ...

Response: Implemented

Score: 0

There is some concern that there are not enough composting facilities in Orange County to process all organic waste, forcing some jurisdictions/haulers to transport it long distances for processing. Response: The City of Laguna Hills disagrees partially with the finding. The City of Laguna Hills hauler is currently transporting organic waste out of Orange County for processing. However, the City's new Agreement has a designated composting facility which is located in South Orange County that tak...

Response: Agree Score: +1

There is currently no infrastructure in the county that is a State-approved source of Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) and energy from organic waste. Jurisdictions that use vehicles running on RNG procured from non-approved sources cannot count that RNG towards fulfillment of their procurement requirement. Response: The City of Laguna Hills agrees with the finding. The City of Laguna Hills notes that there is currently no infrastructure in Orange County that is a State-approved source of Renewable Na...

Response: Agree Score: +1

City of City Councilmem bers

July 19, 2011 • 2 pages View Details ▾

PDF

City of Aliso Viejo 9/1/11, 64K

September 01, 2011 • 2 pages • 1 response View Details ▾

PDF

1 response to findings and recommendations

By December 31, 2024, all jurisdictions should ensure their waste hauling agreements are in compliance with State statute so that haulers may be designated to perform certain required tasks but are not improperly delegated overall responsibility for compliance. Additionally, all jurisdictions should ensure that any fines collected by a hauler are forwarded to the jurisdiction. Response: The recommendation has been implemented. The City of Aliso Viejo’s franchise waste hauler agreement is in comp...

Response: Unknown

Score: 0

The City of Aliso Viejo has implemented this recommendation by providing the City Manager's employment contract on the City's website. Upon INCORPORATJEULDY 1. 2001 accessing the aforementioned salary and benefits information, a direct link PHONE 949.425.2500 FAX 949.425.3899 The Honorable Thomas J. Borris September 1, 201 1 Page Two to the City Manager's employment contract is conveniently provided. The City Manager is the only City err~ployeew ith a contract. I am pleased that our current practices are consistent with the recommendations of the Grand Jury. Please contact Glenn Yasui, Direct...

CITY OF GARDEN GROVE

October 11, 2011 • 5 pages View Details ▾

PDF

City of Orange 9/27/11, 78K

September 27, 2011 • 3 pages View Details ▾

PDF

City of Yorba Linda 8/30/11, 64K

August 30, 2011 • 2 pages View Details ▾

PDF

City of County of Orange -

June 21, 2011 • 1 pages View Details ▾

PDF

No Responses Found 1

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.

Orange County County