County of Los Angeles

Dual Track and Training....................................................................................1 2. LAPD’S “Skid Row” Station...........................................................................13 3. Probation Department Employee Misconduct.................................................19 4. Foster Care Hotline Investigation....................................................................23 5. Foster Care Quality Assurance: Training Foster Parents.................................35 6. Foster Care Transitional Aged Youth Vocational Training.............................43 7. Board of Supervisors Request and Complaint Procedures..............................51 8. Los Angeles Fire Department Response Time Lag.........................................63 9. Parks and Recreation........................................................................................69 10. Glendale Water and Power and Propositions 218 and 26................................73 11. Chevron – El Segundo.....................................................................................77 12. Cities of Los Angeles County..........................................................................85 Standing Committee Reports 13. Citizen Complaints Committee......................................................................161 14. Continuity Committee....................................................................................165 15. Detention Committee: Adult Facilities..........................................................185 16. Detention Committee: Juvenile Facilities......................................................213 Civil Grand Jury Internal Committees Audit....................................................................................................................231 Edit.......................................................................................................................231 Information Technology......................................................................................232 Publication...........................................................................................................232 Social Committee.................................................................................................233 Speakers and Events............................................................................................233 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT i ii 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT HOW TO RESPOND TO RECOMMENDATIONS IN THIS REPORT Pursuant to California Penal Code §933.05, the person or entity responding to each grand jury finding shall indicate one of the following: 1. The respondent agrees with the finding.

The respondent disagrees wholly with 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. The person or entity responding to each grand jury recommendation shall report one of the following actions: 1. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implementation action.

The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency where applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.

The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. SEND ALL RESPONSES TO: Presiding Judge Los Angeles County Superior Court Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 West Temple Street, Eleventh Floor, Room 11-506 Los Angeles, CA 90012 All responses for the 2012-2013 CGJ Final Report’s recommendations must be submitted to the above address on or before the end of business on October 1, 2013 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT iii DUAL TRACK AND TRAINING The 2012 Citizen’s Commission on Jail Violence Report COMMITTEE MEMBERS Caroline Kelly – Chair David Dahl Joseph Des Barres Frederick M. Piltz Elena Velarde 1. Dual Track and Training The 2012 Citizen’s Commission on Jail Violence Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Citizen’s Commission on Jail Violence Report (Commission’s Report) examines the issue of unreasonable force in the county jails making over sixty recommendations it believes will change the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department for the better. The Sheriff agreed to all of the rec- ommendations and has made significant strides in implementing them. This Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury) report discusses some of the recommendations relating to Chapter 5 (culture) and Chapter 6 (personnel). Specifically, we focus on the “Dual Track” system which was imple- mented February 1, 2013 dividing the Sheriff’s Department sworn officers into a Patrol track and a Custody track.1 Dual Track is about creating a specialized work force. Therefore, it becomes crucial to look at training and the cultural expectations that come with this system. This report also looks at Dual Track and training as it relates to inmates with mental health is- sues. The challenges posed by this group are vast. Special attention needs to be focused on men- tal health by every agency throughout the County. The Grand Jury applauds the thoroughness of the Commission Report. Because of the Grand Jury’s unique role in visiting so many of the jail facilities in Los Angeles, we feel our input can help the Sheriff’s Department, Implementation Monitor and the County as they continue implementing and fine-tuning these recommendations. Our findings include the following: 1. Individual officer’s attitudes in the Department and internal Department cultural perception are the greatest factors in successfully implementing Dual Track and decreasing violence within the jails. Custody is currently viewed by many in the Department as a lesser position than Patrol.

FOSTER CARE QUALITY ASSURANCE: TRAINING FOSTER PARENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Grand Jury declares foster parents as the backbone of the foster care system. Foster parents provide care 24/7, contending with the myriad problematic experiences of removed children. Foster parent training must be significantly enhanced to deal with the tremendous challenges fos- ter children present. The Grand Jury understands successful foster parenting is a complex under- taking requiring a high level of knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and skills. The Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) is the county agency responsible for the safety, well-being and permanence of foster children. Its charge is to place the child into a safe home. Often it does so with contracting agencies1 that recruit, select and train foster fami- lies meeting requirements set by state law and DCFS. DCFS must upgrade and standardize its current training curriculum with parent and instructor participation. DCFS must train a cadre of master teachers to devise, model and impart training modules and methodologies. Master teachers providing instruction must receive current evi- dence-based2 training and techniques in adult learning theory. These master teachers should then instruct foster parent trainers county-wide, differentiating instruction according to learning styles and modalities. With a DCFS-certified and modeled curriculum, DCFS can assure consistency and high standards to all stakeholders. Expert master teachers and expertly trained foster parents are central to the DCFS vision. DCFS articulates its responsibility as: …working towards its vision that ‘Children thrive in safe families and supportive communities’ with three overarching Goals: (1) Emphasize Child-Centered Practices; (2) Pursue Workforce Excellence; and (3) Strengthen Organizational Operations. Accomplishing the goals above will occur when caregivers are rigorously trained; share and ar- ticulate the DCFS vision; and work collaboratively. The Grand Jury commends DCFS for under- taking the 2012 Strategic Planning Process—transforming the way the Department functions—to make its vision a reality. Relative/Non-Relative Extended Family Member Homes; Foster Family Homes and, Foster Family Agency Certi- fied Homes. CWS/CMS Datamart History Table, December 31, 2012 2 Evidence-based practice is a combination of best research evidence, best clinical expertise and consistent with pa- tient values and preferences: Dr. David Sackett, 1996; www.hsl.unc.edu/servics 3 Letter to Stakeholders, Philip L. Browning, Director DCFS, September 28, 2012 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 35 QUALITY ASSURANCE: TRAINING FOSTER PARENTS COMMENDATIONS 5.1 DCFS is commended for implementing the Strategic Plan4 to transform itself.

FOSTER CARE TRANSITIONAL AGED YOUTH VOCATIONAL TRAINING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Aging out foster care youth are being shortchanged by the current education system. According to the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), in 2011, there were approximately 2,400 youth between the ages of 16 and 18 in the Los Angeles County Foster Care system. DCFS estimates approximately 50% of foster youth who exit from high school are without a di- ploma or GED certificate. Youth who are aging out of foster care receive instruction in life skills that are necessary for day to day functioning as a responsible citizen. This training does not ad- dress all of the needs of the foster child who ends up unemployed, homeless or incarcerated. These youth need to be encouraged to complete high school, obtain their diploma and receive vocational training so they have additional skills to help qualify and obtain employment. The 2012-2013 Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury) has identified several programs that provide voca- tional training and offer academic courses to obtain a diploma or GED certificate. Based on our findings, the following recommendations would accomplish this most important goal: RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 DCFS should assess all foster care youth under its jurisdiction, 16-24 years old who do not have a high school diploma to determine whether a dual track approach is beneficial. This would combine academic and vocational training in order to enhance opportunities for employ- ment. 6.2 DCFS should assign a coordinator to begin a pilot program to encourage a significant number of foster youth to participate in the YouthBuild Charter School of California (YouthBuild) or similar program. 6.3 DCFS should strive to enroll more students in the Los Angeles Unified School District’s (LAUSD) Alternative Education and Work Center Program (AEWC). The foster parent, guard- ian or DCFS case worker should work directly with the AEWC consultant at each location to en- roll youth in the AEWC program. 6.4 DCFS should begin training classes for case workers, group home supervisors, counselors and especially the foster parents to assure that all youth aging out without a high school diploma are on track to benefit from exposure to a vocational approach. 6.5 The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) should evaluate the construction skills training at the Los Angeles County Probation Department’s Challenger Camp in Lancas- ter to determine if similar training could be offered at AEWC locations that do not have easy ac- cess to skills centers. 6.6 LAUSD should expand the AEWC programs to include more students, teachers and loca- tions. 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 43 TRANSITIONAL AGED YOUTH VOCATIONAL TRAINING METHODOLOGY The Grand Jury met with the Los Angeles Probation Department staff at the Challenger Camp in Lancaster to discuss the use of video guided training in the construction trades. They also visited construction sites where contractors were using high school students at the sites and saw contrac- tors instructing high school students, both male and female, in classrooms at some of the YouthBuild schools. The committee visited all twelve YouthBuild sites in Los Angeles County and nine of the 26 AEWC schools. It found highly dedicated instructors at both. It also inter- viewed students, graduates, contractors, counselors and transition coordinators. All were highly dedicated to their work and told many success stories. The committee met with staff from DCFS, LAUSD AEWC, LA Conservation Corps and a wide variety of teachers and youth. BACKGROUND Harvard University’s School of Education published a 2011 study, “Pathways to Prosperity”1, which projected that only one-third of the 47 million jobs expected to be created between 2008 and 2018 will require a bachelor’s degree, upending the traditional notion that success is strictly defined by graduating from a four-year college. Also, the study pointed out that the nation’s high schools have extraordinarily high dropout rates. Every year some one million students leave before earning a high school diploma. Many drop out because they struggle academically. But large numbers say they dropped out because they felt their classes were not interesting and that high school was unrelentingly boring. Students drop out of high school and college for many reasons – a major reason is that too many are not able to see a clear, connection between their program of study and tangible opportunities in the labor market. Many students are frustrated by an education they often find irrelevant and removed from the world of work. As a result, ap- proximately 50% of students drop out of school or fail to obtain a diploma.2 A significant difference between the United States secondary education system and other coun- tries is that most advanced nations place far more emphasis on vocational education than the United States. Most other countries have an educational program that typically combines class- room and workplace learning. This culminates in a diploma or certificate, a “qualification” as it is called, with real currency in the labor market.3 1 Pathways to Prosperity Project by Harvard Graduate School of Education, Feb. 2011 2 Ibid, pp. 20 3 Ibid, pp. 15 44 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT TRANSITIONAL AGED YOUTH VOCATIONAL TRAINING Two reports by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and as noted in the Harvard Study provide “compelling evidence that a vocational education that integrates work and learning is a superior way to learn. The current system in the U.S. places far too much em- phasis on a single pathway to success: attending and graduating from a four-year college after completing an academic program of study in high school. Yet only 30% of young adults suc- cessfully complete this preferred pathway.” Students who are bored and at risk of dropping out need to be engaged more effectively. Many of these are foster care youth who have been moved from home to home and school to school and in this chaotic process have had their education seriously disrupted; thus they have become disillusioned. They eventually drop out of school. According to DCFS senior Staff, the average foster youth has been placed eight times or more in a home by the age of 18. Each placement change contributes to being four to six months further behind in school. All students should have plentiful opportunities to participate in work-linked learning, ranging from job shadowing to in- ternships. Due to present economic conditions, many school programs have been cut back or eliminated, including vocational training. Some school programs still function on a scaled back schedule. The Grand Jury believes that vocational training at the high school level is extremely important and can be accomplished on a wide-spread basis. This training will have a positive impact on foster youth who may become unemployed, homeless or incarcerated. FINDINGS Challenger Probation Camp The Los Angeles County Probation Department’s Challenger Memorial Youth Center in Lancas- ter is now utilizing a unique instruction method that appears to be extremely effective according to teachers and counselors who were interviewed by members of the Grand Jury. This method utilizes a video-guided step-by-step instructional approach in 20 areas in the construction trades. Each 10-day construction module begins with tool and material identification and an overview of the activity for the 10 days. The video then guides the students through the work and explains the best practices necessary to produce excellent results. Completion of this program provides the student with basic knowledge which may qualify the student for employment in the construc- tion trades. According to the teachers and counselors interviewed, students at the Challenger Center prefer the electrical, plumbing and tile-setting modules but there are 17 other courses of- fering the same basic approach using video. If this program is instituted on a wider basis at other locations, instructors and physical space must be provided according to Challenger Center staff. 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 45 TRANSITIONAL AGED YOUTH VOCATIONAL TRAINING Alternative Education and Work Center LAUSD has developed the Alternative Education and Work Center (AEWC), which is a dropout recovery program administered by the LAUSD Division of Adult and Career Education for youth 16 to 18 years of age. The Grand Jury met with senior staff of the AEWC program and then visited with outreach consultants at several school locations. The mode of instruction is in- dependent study. Students must report to school one day each week to turn in homework and get assignments for the next week. Students can work towards a high school diploma or GED while employed or caring for children. AEWC consultants emphasized that it is very important that a parent, foster parent or guardian become involved in monitoring the necessary homework and maintaining contact with the in- structors. This may be a concern if the foster parent works more than one job or lacks the neces- sary educational skills. Instructors strive to have the students complete the program to obtain a high school diploma or GED before the student loses interest in the program and drops out. The AEWC graduation rate is 20% to 40%. With many more high schools than AEWC locations, there are waiting lists at some locations. Some of the schools do not have occupational skills centers on site, requiring students to travel some distance to a skills center. All AEWC graduates must meet all district and state require- ments and pass the California High School Exit Exam. The outreach consultant at each site is the contact for enrollment in AEWC. The following chart compiled by the Grand Jury lists the locations of the twenty six (26) AEWC schools and the phone number of each of the outreach consultants at each location. It is not meant to be exhaustive as other resources may exist. 46 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 47 Los Angeles Unified School District (AEWC)Alternative Education and Work Center OUTREACH OUTREACH SCHOOL ADDRESS CONSULTANT TELEPHONE SCHOOL ADDRESS CONSULTANT TELEPHONE ABRAM FRIEDMAN OC 1646 S. Olive St. B. Baylis (213) 765‐2407 GARFIELD CAS‐ 3355 Michigan Carlos Gabaldon (323)729‐1800 BRANCH Avenue Los Angeles Fax(213)765‐2408 (323)223‐8622 BELMONT CAS – 1510 Cambria St. Sonia Arguelles (213)483‐0488 HOLLYWOOD CAS 5936 Santa Kathleen Petrini (323)871‐8957 BRANCH Monica Blvd. Los Angeles Fax(213)483‐8727 BRANCH Fax(323)871‐8760 LOS ANGELES 3721 West Gerry Gomez (323)732‐0153 JEFFERESON CAS 2830 S.Central Av Joe Alvarez (323)235‐6125 TECHNOLOGY CENTER Washington Blvd. Ext. BRANCH Los Angeles (323)233‐9964 EAST LOS ANGELES OC 2100 Marengo St. Dan Arrula (213)223‐1283 FRANKLIN CAS 820 N Ave 54, Suzanne Limbird (323)982‐6804 BRANCH Los Angeles Ext. 132/136 Bldg. Fax(323)982‐6805 EAST LOS ANGELES 3921 Selig Place Mac Velazquez (323)224‐5970 HUNTINGTON PARK 2945 Belgrave Dan Reyes (323)826‐2419 SKILLS CENTER Los Angeles Ext. 6221 CAS Huntington Park Fax(323)826‐2426 SAN PEDRO 920 West 36th St. Matt Matich (310)221‐4651 HARBOR CAS 1123W. 223rd St. Barbara C. Milling (310)320‐2419 BRANCH SKILLS CENTER Building 945 Fax(310)221‐4659 Torrance 90502 METROPOLITAN 1018 Mohawk St. Darin Gray (213)353‐5330 VAN NUYS CAS 15810 Saticoy St. Ramon Alaniz (818)988‐7297 SKILLS CENTER Los Angeles Fax(213)353‐5338 BRANCH Lake Balboa NORTH VALLEY OC 11450 Sharp Ave. Vladimir Tigno (818)365‐9645 GEORGE KIRIYAMA 18120 S Nor‐ Bryan Hunter (310)354‐4966 mandie Mission Hills Ext. 330/438 CAS –BRANCH Fax(310)354‐4956 PACOIMA 8604 Arleta Ave. Stephanie (818)759‐5840 WESTCHESTER CAS 8701 Park Hill Dr. Monica Medina (310)338‐2510 SKILLS CENTER Sun Valley 91352 Angel‐Gilliard Ext. 5845 BRANCH Room S‐15 Fax(310)338‐2513 VENICE SKILLS CENTER 611 Fifth Avenue Moises Gomez (310)664‐5824 BELL CAS – BRANCH 4328 Bell Ave. Alma Rubio (323)560‐7198 Venice 90291 Fax(310)392‐3461 (BELL HIGH SCHOOL) Bell 90201 MAXINE WATERS E.P.C 10925 S Central Dorthea Flenoil (323)564‐1431 ROOSEVELT CAS 456 s. Mathews Tony Manriquez (323)261‐2837 Avenue Street Ext. BRANCH (323)261‐5275 WEST VALLEY OC 6200 Winnetka Michele Stiehl (818)346‐3540 RESEDA CAS 18230 Kittridge Chris Petrini (818)758‐8018 Av Ext 254 Street Ext. 8019 MANUAL ‐ ARTS 3741 Stocker St. Robert Mason (323)292‐7313 FREMONT‐WASHING 501 East 66th St. Tracey Walker (323)758‐7593 CRENSHAW‐CAS Room 110 Fax(323)292‐0064 TON CAS BRANCH Los Angeles Fax(323)758‐8120 CAS – COMMUNITY ADULT SCHOOL OC – OCCUPATIONAL CENTER (THIS LIST WAS COMPILED FROM DATA PROVIDED BY OUTREACH CONSULT- ANTS AT SOME AEWC SCHOOLS. IT IS NOT MEANT TO BE EXHAUSTIVE). TRANSITIONAL AGED YOUTH VOCATIONAL TRAINING YouthBuild Charter School of California Another very successful program the Grand Jury has identified is the YouthBuild Charter School of California. The Grand Jury met with the founder of YouthBuild California and his staff to evaluate the status of the YouthBuild program. YouthBuild USA was started in the Harlem sec- tion of New York in the 1960’s for youth 16-24 years of age who had dropped out or aged out of high school and failed to obtain a high school diploma. The YouthBuild program has since spread to several other states and is supported by YouthBuild USA. YouthBuild Charter School of California was started in 2008 with support from YouthBuild USA and now has 12 sites in Los Angeles County with three more planned over the next 12 months. As stated before, youth between the ages of 16-24 enroll at YouthBuild after having dropped out, aged out or otherwise failed to graduate in the traditional school system according to YouthBuild staff. Unlike tradi- tional schools that employ standardized curriculum and classroom practices which can often dis- courage and alienate marginalized students, YouthBuild’s project-based approach allows young adults to take ownership of their education by pursuing meaningful academic and professional studies. An interesting and effective technique employed by the schools is a code of conduct which stresses respect, responsibility, equal treatment for all and the importance of timeliness. Some schools require a simple uniform (which may be provided by the school). Most of the schools have a drug testing program to promote safety while working with tools. Both male and female students participate in this program which generally takes 6 to 24 months for a student to graduate with a high school diploma. YouthBuild staff state the graduation rate for students who complete the program is approximately 85%. While being exposed to the vari- ous construction trades, the students also take traditional high school courses such as English, math, science, social science and technology (computers and related areas). In addition to class- room work and the training in the construction trades, students also work with independent con- tractors such as Habitat for Humanity, They are constructing and remodeling buildings for low income housing. The value of this program is that it enables youth 16 to 24 years of age to obtain their high school diploma and learn vocational skills. This may be the last chance for their success. The program also extends past the age of 24, if the student is enrolled by the age of 24 and working towards a diploma. The Grand Jury believes that this approach would be very beneficial for foster youth who are at risk of future failure. The following chart lists some of the vocational training classes offered at all 12 Los Angeles County YouthBuild high schools. This dual track approach allows students to study traditional high school courses such as English, math, science and technology while at the same time learn- ing vocational skills that could lead to employment. The chart was compiled by the Grand Jury from information provided by YouthBuild staff. It is not meant to by exhaustive as other re- sources may be available. 48 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT YOUTHBUILD CHARTER SCHOOL OF CALIFORNIA School Address Phone Academic Counseling/Life Skills Vocational Skills Off Site Work hsilgnE/htaM laicoS/ecneicS ygolonhceT pihsredaeL noitirtuN/htlaeH noitamrofnI larutluC tnemeganaM regnA htlaeH latneM esubA ecnatsbuS sweivretnI/emuseR sppA/pihsralohcS diA tnemecalP boJ slooT rewoP noitcurtsnoC noitacifitreC 01-ahsO noitacifitreC tfilkroF slairetaM suodrazaH diA tsriF/RPC ygrenE raloS gnisruN yraniluC ecivreS ytinummoC lavomeR itiffarG noitcurtsnoC ytinamuH rof tatibaH gnisuoH emocnI woL gniledomeR Antelope 37230 37th St. E 661 266-8900 Valley Palmdale, CA X X X X X XXXX X X X X X X X XXX XX YouthBuild Boyle Height 202 N Saratoga 323-261-2800 X X X X X X X X X X X X YouthBuild St. Los Angeles Y.E.S. E Palmer St. 310-631-2000 YouthBuild Compton X X X X X XXXXX X X Compassion 2614 Crenshaw 310-230-5574 Care Blvd. Los Ange- X X X X X XXXXXX X XXX YouthBuild les LA CAUSA 5400 E. Olympic 323-887-2500 YouthBuild Blvd. Los Ange- X X X X X XXXXXXX X X X XXX XX les CCOE 5021 Lennox Bl. 310-225-3060 X X X X X XXXXXXX X X X X X X XX XXXX YouthBuild Lennox Long Beach 690 North Stu 562-431-0203 YouthBuild debaker Rd. X X X X X XXXXXXX X X X X X X X XXXXXX Long Beach Field of 15014 562-409-5567 Dreams Studebaker Rd. X X X X X XXXXXX X X YouthBuild Norwalk San Fer- 11076 Norris Av. 818-794-5700 nando Pacoima X X X X XX XX X X X X X YouthBuild San Gabriel 3903 N Tyler Av. 626-444-5337 Conservation El Monte X X X X X XXXXXXX X X X X X XXX XX Corps. Slauson 1512 W Slauson 323-750-7035 Home Sweet Ave,Los Angeles X X X X X XXXXXX X Home CRCD 400 W Washing- 213-763-5562 Academy ton Bl X X X X X XXXXXXX X X X X X X XXXXXX Los Angeles 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 49 THIS CHART LISTS VOCATIONAL TRAINING FOR YOUTH, AGE 16-24, AS OF 2-1-13. CONTACT SCHOOL FOR ENROLLMENT AND OTHER CLASSES OFFERED. THIS CHART WAS COMPILED BY THE GRAND JURY FROM INFORMATION PROVIDED BY YOUTHBUILD STAFF. ( OTHER RESOURCES MAY BE AVAILABLE) TRANSITIONAL AGED YOUTH VOCATIONAL TRAINING Los Angeles Conservation Corps The Grand Jury learned the following information from a meeting with senior staff of the LA Conservation Corps (CORPS) and from CORPS brochures. CORPS has provided classes, ser- vice projects and work experience for more than 20,000 young people since 1986. Youth from 13 to 24 years of age participate in four major programs consisting of a Young Adults Corps, a Clean and Green Division (provides paid training to thousands of middle and high school stu- dents across greater Los Angeles who engage in community beautification activities during their school vacations and over the weekends). CORPS also has an After School Program and a SEA Lab Conservation program. CORPS teaches young people from 16 to 24 years of age to set and achieve academic goals through the CORPS’ Charter High Schools. CORPS has been successful as a job training and placement agency and at the same time provid- ing year-around charter high schools operating in Pico-Union and Watts serving students who had previously dropped out or been removed from their local high schools. CORPS over the past 20 years has planted over 50,000 trees, removed 10 million sq. ft. of graf- fiti, cleaned 400 blighted alleys, built 25 playgrounds for inner-city children, rescued 10,000 ma- rine animals at its SEA Lab in Redondo Beach, restored 900 acres of natural habitat, painted beautification murals and taught 15,000 school children about recycling. Young people are paid as they work on these types of projects and gain work experience and at- tend academic classes. With many projects CORPS itself acts as the general contractor. The CORPS maintains the SEA Lab in Redondo Beach to enable out-of-work youth to gain work skills and learn about the beach and ocean environments. Students at this facility restored a three acre bluff in Redondo Beach, planted more than 7,000 urban street trees, restored native vegeta- tion and coordinated beach clean-up events. At present approximately 400 young adults work at the CORPS’ school sites and they currently have a waiting list. REQUIRED RESPONSES Recommendation Responding Agency 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4 Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services 6.5, 6.6 Los Angeles Unified School District 50 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REQUEST AND COMPLAINT PROCEDURES COMMITTEE MEMBERS Mel Widawski – Chair James Bradford David Dahl Charles Dolcey Albert Handschumacher Ung Yol Yu Gilbert Zeal John Zehrung 7. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REQUEST AND COMPLAINT PROCEDURES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury) investigated the request and complaint procedures of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors District offices. In order to do this, the Grand Jury interviewed staff in each of the Supervisors’ main offices and a sample of their field offices. The Grand Jury also requested monthly data on the method of contact. This report aims to present information to constituents on how best to obtain help from the Board of Supervisors and their respective district offices. Constituent requests and complaints may be submitted by phone, letter, email, web form, walk-in, fax, etc. The Board of Supervisor’s website (http://bos.co.la.ca.us/) contains contact information for Supervisorial offices. That information has been compiled and presented in the body of this report. Through interviews with staff members of each office, those directly involved with aiding con- stituents seem to be knowledgeable and dedicated.

Reviewed and analyzed each city’s response to the questionnaire.

Requested supporting documentation and explanations of responses for each section of the questionnaire. 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 86 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT 9. Reviewed responses to the questionnaire, supporting documentation, and explanations and developed findings.

Please provide any comments or explanations regarding your responses on governance: PLEASE RETURN BY JANUARY 18, 2013 QUESTIONS? EMAIL [email protected] CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Audit Committee 10. Does your city have an audit committee that is formally established by enabling resolution or other appropriate legal means? o Yes o No 11. Is the audit committee directly responsible for the appointment, compensation, retention, and oversight of the work of independent accountants engaged to perform independent audit, review, or attestation services? o Yes o No 12. Do such independent accountants report directly to the audit committee? o Yes o No 13. Please provide a copy of the action formally establishing the audit committee.

Reviewed the reasonableness of salaries and compensation as obtained from the California State Controller’s Office. DISCUSSION Fiscal Health Cities in Los Angeles County, like local governments throughout California and the nation, have been severely impacted by the economic downturn that began in 2008 and continues. The cities have responded to the economic downturn and have made substantial efforts to reduce costs consistent with reduced revenues. Most cities expended more than they received in total revenues in all funds for both FY’s 2010-11 and 2011-12. The percentage of expenditures over revenues did decline, from 12.5% in FY 2010-11 to 6.2% in FY 2011-12. There are also signs cities’ financial health is improving in terms of net assets. Most cities (63 of 84) had a ratio of total assets to liabilities greater than 2.0 in FY 2010-11, with an average ratio of 5.45. This improved for FY 2011-12, with even more cities (73 of 77) with a ratio greater than 2.0, and an average ratio of 8.92. Most cities also had improvements in their total net assets during both FY 2010-11 and FY 2011-12. Most cities’ (53 of 84) total net assets increased in FY 2010-11, and even more cities’ (58 of 77) total net assets increased in FY 2011-12. The average change in net assets was 1.2% for FY 2010-11, and 24% for FY 2011-12. For city general funds, most cities (52 of 84) received more in revenues than they spent on general fund governmental activities during Fiscal Year 2010-11. On average, cities spent 1.7% more than received in general fund revenues. Most cities (46 of 77) also received more in revenues than spent on these activities during FY 2011-12. On average, cities spent 1.5% more than received in general fund revenues. The city general fund balance also increased for most cities (47 of 84) in FY 2010-11. The general fund balance increased for fewer than half the cities (32 of 77) for FY 2011- 12. On average, city general fund balance declined 3.8% in FY 2010-11, and declined 14.5% in FY 2011-12. Most cities (55 of 84) had an unassigned general fund reserve for emergencies and other unforeseen needs equal to 2 months of regular general fund revenues as recommended in FY 2010-11. Most cities (47 of 77) also had such a reserve in FY 2011- 12. The average unassigned general fund reserves percentage of regular general fund operating expenditures was 51.4% in FY 2010-11, and 38.3% in FY 2011-12. 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 87 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Governance Practices Governance describes the role of a city council in providing leadership for an organization. Strategic planning is a key tool for the city council to provide the overall direction for the city, and overseeing the city’s performance. Several cities had developed comprehensive strategic plans. Others held regular strategic planning sessions with the city council to discuss strategic issues and provide needed direction. Many other cities focused on short-term or budget related goals, which do not provide the appropriate strategic focus and direction for these cities. Cities that have not developed and adopted a strategic plan that articulates the mission, vision, core values and priorities (goals and objectives) for the city should do so. Another key tool is performance measures or indicators to evaluate progress on priorities. Most cities said they had adopted performance measures or indicators, but only a few cities provided documentation. Cities that have not developed and reported on performance measures or indicators to evaluate progress on priorities should do so. These performance measures should be quantified, focused on results, and information should be provided for several years to allow evaluation of progress over time. Formal definitions of roles and relationships are critical to effective governance, especially for the city council and executive (city manager or city administrator). It is also important for city councils to provide clear direction for the executive through specific goals and objectives and performance reviews of the executive. All cities had defined basic roles and provided the legal framework for the city council and executive through the charter and / or municipal code. A best practice is to go beyond this basic framework and develop a more detailed description of the relationship. This more extensive “governance framework” can improve the cohesion and effectiveness of both the city council and the executive. City councils should develop a “governance” policy that more specifically defines the relationship between the council and executive. City councils that do not develop specific annual goals for the city’s executive and conduct meaningful evaluations annually should do so. Adopting appropriate policies is another key element of effective governance. Two policies that cities are required to adopt by California Government Code are a “Conflict of Interest” policy and an “Investment” policy. All cities have adopted or are in the process of adopting a “Conflict of Interest” policy, and all have adopted an “Investment” policy. Financial Management Practices Financial management within each city is responsible for managing and protecting the financial resources and assets of the city. Effective financial management requires adequate systems of internal controls to ensure funds are used for intended purposes, and transparency and reliability 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 88 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT of financial reporting. The Government Finance Officers Association developed recommended best practices to provide guidance on sound financial management practices. These best practices in each of the following areas served as the basis for evaluating the financial management practices of the cities: Establishing an audit committee is a best practice for the city council to provide independent review and oversight of financial reporting processes, internal controls, and independent auditors. Most cities have not established a formal audit committee with the responsibility for monitoring and overseeing financial reporting. Cities should formally establish an audit committee and make it directly responsible for the work of the independent auditor. Annual independent audits are required by each city and are important in preserving the integrity of public finance functions and maintaining the public’s confidence. All cities require their auditors to comply with independence standards and most select their auditors through a competitive process. Most also preclude the auditor from providing non-audit services. Cities should continue requiring compliance with standards of independence for the external auditor. Cities that do not currently select the auditor through a competitive process should do so. Cities that allow the auditor to provide non- audit services should ensure appropriate review and approval of those services. Formal documentation of accounting policies and procedures is an essential component in providing effective controls over accounting and financial reporting. Several cities did not have documented accounting policies and procedures, and most of those that did could improve their documentation and maintenance of accounting policies and procedures. Cities should review and update accounting policies and procedures to ensure they are appropriately detailed and define the specific authority and responsibility of employees. Cities should also establish a policy requiring policies and procedures to be reviewed annually and updated at least once every three years. Most fraud, abuse, and questionable practices are identified through reporting by employees or members of the public. The Government Finance Officers Association recommends establishment of policies and procedures to encourage and facilitate reporting of fraud, abuse and questionable practices. This should include a formal ethics policy, and practical mechanisms for confidential and anonymous reporting. Several cities had very comprehensive and detailed policies and procedures including definitions of fraud and abuse, clear responsibilities for employees and management personnel, and guidelines and steps for investigating allegations and reporting the results. However, most cities could improve their policies and procedures for reporting fraud, abuse, and questionable practices. Cities should review and update policies and procedures for reporting fraud, abuse, and questionable practices including a practical mechanism, such as a hot line, to permit the confidential, anonymous reporting of concerns. Internal controls are important to safeguard city assets from error, loss, theft, misuse, misappropriation, and fraud. The Government Finance Officers Association recommends internal controls over financial management be documented, provide practical means for 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 89 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT employees to report management override of controls, periodic evaluation of internal control procedures, and development of corrective action plans to address identified weaknesses. Two cities had developed comprehensive procedures for internal controls. However, most cities provided no specific documentation of internal control procedures, or made minor mention of internal controls procedures as part of their financial and accounting policies and procedures. Most cities also relied on their external auditor for internal control reviews during the annual audit. These reviews are typically limited to review of internal controls over financial reporting and compliance, and do not include an opinion on internal controls. Internal controls to ensure there are adequate procedures in place to protect public funds are the responsibility of city financial management. Cities should develop comprehensive procedures for internal controls over financial management. The internal audit function serves as an additional level of control and helps improve the overall control and risk environment. Most cities do not have a formal internal audit function. Several state that, given the small size of their city, an internal audit function and staff could not be justified. All cities should establish a formal internal audit function. Setting aside adequate funds is necessary for use in emergencies, revenue shortages, or budget imbalances. The Government Finance Officers Association recommends that governments establish a formal policy on the level of unrestricted or unassigned fund balance that should be maintained in the general fund, and that this balance should provide no less than two months of regular general fund operating revenues or expenditures. Many cities do not have such a policy, and most who do have not established a minimum of two months of regular general fund operating revenues or expenditures. Cities that do not have policies and procedures regarding general fund unrestricted or unassigned fund balance should develop such policies. Ensuring transparency and reliability of financial reporting is a key responsibility of financial management. Financial statements and information provide the public with information on how their city is using its resources, as well as the financial stability and health of the city. The Government Finance Officers Association recommends maintaining an adequate accounting system, issue timely financial statements and a Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) in compliance with standards, and make the information readily accessible to the general public on the city’s website. All cities maintain an adequate accounting system, most issue timely financial statements and a CAFR, and most make the CAFR available on the city website. Cities that have not developed and published a CAFR should do so. Cities that have not published financial reports on the city’s website should do so. Summary of Fiscal Health and Best Practices Results The following exhibit shows a summary of each city’s average ranking and number and percentage of positive responses to the best practices questionnaire. For financial health, each 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 90 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT city’s rank on each of the six criteria for financial health is averaged for both FY 2011 and FY 2012. The best practices questionnaire included a total of 32 possible positive responses. The number and percentage of positive responses for each city is presented, as well as the ranking of each city compared to all the other cities. Exhibit 1: Summary of Fiscal Health and Best Practice Questionnaire Results Financial Health Best Practices Questionnaire Average Ranking Number Positive Percent Positive Rank Among City FY 2011 FY 2012 Responses Responses Cities Agoura Hills 34 36 25 78% 31 Alhambra 32 42 21 66% 55 Arcadia 49 47 20 63% 64 Artesia 38 47 18 56% 78 Avalon NA NA 18 56% 78 Azusa 55 NA 19 59% 73 Baldwin Park 41 39 29 91% 7 Bell 36 NA 19 59% 73 Bell Gardens 26 37 20 63% 64 Bellflower 26 30 21 66% 55 Beverly Hills 55 25 27 84% 20 Bradbury 53 NA 22 69% 49 Burbank 31 57 25 78% 31 Calabasas 45 33 27 84% 20 Carson 49 47 18 56% 78 Cerritos 22 34 28 88% 14 Claremont 53 28 23 72% 41 Commerce 49 33 23 72% 41 Compton 67 NA 21 66% 55 Covina 27 57 26 81% 25 Cudahy 55 34 9 28% 87 Culver City 61 37 30 94% 3 Diamond Bar 14 51 20 63% 64 Downey 44 55 29 91% 7 Duarte 48 16 28 88% 14 El Monte 37 41 22 69% 49 El Segundo 43 60 27 84% 20 Gardena 44 42 23 72% 41 Glendale 47 57 30 94% 3 Glendora 30 49 22 69% 49 Hawaiian Gardens 24 NA 19 59% 73 Hawthorne 45 34 20 63% 64 Hermosa Beach 55 28 24 75% 36 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 91 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Exhibit 1: Summary of Fiscal Health and Best Practice Questionnaire Results Financial Health Best Practices Questionnaire Average Ranking Number Positive Percent Positive Rank Among City FY 2011 FY 2012 Responses Responses Cities Hidden Hills 29 22 18 56% 78 Huntington Park 55 NA 21 66% 55 Industry 30 48 9 28% 87 Inglewood 17 NA 17 53% 83 Irwindale 29 44 26 81% 25 La Canada Flintridge 28 33 26 81% 25 La Habra Heights 48 NA 23 72% 41 La Mirada 38 13 21 66% 55 La Puente 29 41 24 75% 36 La Verne 60 38 26 81% 25 Lakewood 54 27 25 78% 31 Lancaster 50 40 24 75% 36 Lawndale 50 NA 23 72% 41 Lomita 41 44 20 63% 64 Long Beach 56 51 31 97% 1 Los Angeles 57 44 27 90% 13 Lynwood 26 53 29 91% 7 Malibu 79 54 26 81% 25 Manhattan Beach 57 34 20 63% 64 Maywood 52 NA 18 56% 78 Monrovia 37 58 26 81% 25 Montebello 27 40 19 59% 73 Monterey Park 36 39 29 91% 7 Norwalk 48 30 19 59% 73 Palmdale 51 37 29 91% 7 Palos Verdes Estates 54 39 20 63% 64 Paramount 62 29 21 66% 55 Pasadena 18 45 28 88% 14 Pico Rivera 31 45 28 88% 14 Pomona 41 51 29 91% 7 Rancho Palos Verdes 42 11 20 63% 64 Redondo Beach 49 41 31 97% 1 Rolling Hills 42 40 22 69% 49 Rolling Hills Estates 65 22 27 84% 20 Rosemead 55 34 23 72% 41 San Dimas 37 23 23 72% 41 San Fernando 28 58 14 44% 85 San Gabriel 43 61 23 72% 41 San Marino 33 38 22 69% 49 Santa Clarita 27 39 24 75% 36 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 92 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Exhibit 1: Summary of Fiscal Health and Best Practice Questionnaire Results Financial Health Best Practices Questionnaire Average Ranking Number Positive Percent Positive Rank Among City FY 2011 FY 2012 Responses Responses Cities Santa Fe Springs 47 34 17 53% 83 Santa Monica 51 24 20 63% 64 Sierra Madre 35 42 25 78% 31 Signal Hill 28 27 30 94% 3 South El Monte 16 18 22 69% 49 South Gate 45 36 21 66% 55 South Pasadena 82 32 21 66% 55 Temple City 58 31 25 78% 31 Torrance 56 31 28 88% 14 Vernon 39 77 30 94% 3 Walnut 44 36 27 84% 20 West Covina 32 44 14 44% 85 West Hollywood 55 33 28 88% 14 Westlake Village 41 37 24 75% 36 Whittier 36 40 21 66% 55 Employee Compensation Until recently, there has been a lack of transparency and accountability for actual annual compensation for some city employees. In 2010 reports revealed that some administrators in the cities of Bell and Vernon were receiving disproportionately high compensation. In response to these reports, the State Controller began requiring counties, cities, and special districts to report government compensation to be posted on the Controller’s website to promote transparency. The information provided includes the approved salary range, as well as the actual compensation received by each employee as reported to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. City councils and members of the public should annually review the actual compensation received by employees of their city. The taxable compensation for employees receiving over $200,000 in 2011 is listed by city and position title in Appendix C of this report. As part of this investigation the Grand Jury requested information on city employee compensation for those employees receiving over $200,000 in taxable compensation in calendar year 2011. The following exhibit shows the number of employees receiving over $200,000 in taxable compensation for each of the cities. The exhibit also shows the population of each city, and the number of employees with taxable compensation over $200,000 by department or function. 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 93 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Exhibit 2: Employees with Compensation over $200,000 With City Population and Employee Department / Function Employees by Department / Function City N Em um pl b o e y r e e o s f City Population y t iC r e g a n a M la g e L e c n a n iF e r iF e c ilo P & r e t a W r e w o P r e h t O Agoura Hills 1 23,387 1 Alhambra 1 89,501 1 Arcadia 1 56,719 1 Avalon 1 3,559 1 Azusa 3 49,207 1 1 1 Bell Gardens 1 77,312 1 Bellflower 1 47,002 1 Beverly Hills 64 36,224 1 4 21 18 9 11 Burbank 14 108,469 1 2 4 2 5 Calabasas 1 23,788 1 Carson 1 98,047 1 Cerritos 1 54,946 1 Claremont 1 37,608 1 Commerce 1 13,581 1 Compton 1 99,769 1 Covina 2 49,622 1 1 Cudahy 1 26,029 1 Culver City 14 40,722 2 1 1 5 3 1 1 Diamond Bar 1 61,019 1 Downey 9 113,715 3 4 1 1 Duarte 1 23,124 1 El Monte 5 126,464 1 4 El Segundo 10 17,049 7 3 Gardena 1 61,927 1 Glendale 15 207,902 1 2 6 4 2 Glendora 1 52,830 1 Hawaiian Gardens 1 15,884 1 Hawthorne 3 90,145 1 1 1 Hermosa Beach 2 19,599 1 1 Huntington Park 1 64,219 1 La Mirada 1 50,015 1 Lancaster 2 145,875 1 1 Long Beach 15 494,709 2 1 6 1 1 4 Los Angeles 411 4,094,764 11 1 115 20 224 40 Lynwood 2 73,295 2 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 94 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Exhibit 2: Employees with Compensation over $200,000 With City Population and Employee Department / Function Employees by Department / Function City N Em um pl b o e y r e e o s f City Population y t iC r e g a n a M la g e L e c n a n iF e r iF e c ilo P & r e t a W r e w o P r e h t O Malibu 1 13,765 1 Manhattan Beach 19 36,773 1 16 1 1 Monrovia 1 39,984 1 Norwalk 1 109,817 1 Palmdale 3 152,622 1 1 1 Pasadena 8 151,576 4 1 1 1 1 Pico Rivera 1 66,967 1 Pomona 2 163,683 2 Redondo Beach 7 68,105 1 1 4 1 Rosemead 1 57,756 1 San Dimas 1 36,946 1 San Fernando 1 25,366 1 San Gabriel 1 42,984 1 Santa Clarita 2 177,641 2 Santa Fe Springs 13 17,929 13 Santa Monica 64 92,703 2 17 1 29 12 1 2 Signal Hill 1 11,465 1 Temple City 1 35,892 1 Torrance 34 149,717 2 1 1 8 19 3 Vernon 5 96 1 1 1 2 Walnut 1 32,659 1 West Covina 6 112,890 1 3 2 West Hollywood 5 37,805 2 1 2 Westlake Village 1 8,872 1 Whittier 1 87,128 1 Totals 772 61 40 10 245 99 245 72 Sources: Compensation Information: California State Controller’s Office “Government Compensation in California.” (http://publicpay.ca.gov). City Population: California Department of Finance, January 2010. Note: Cities not listed did not have any employees with taxable compensation over $200,000. The taxable compensation for all employees receiving over $200,000 in 2011 is listed, by city and position title, in Appendix C of this report. 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 95 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT DETAILED ANALYSIS FISCAL HEALTH Cities in Los Angeles County, like local governments throughout California and the nation, have been severely impacted by the economic downturn that began in 2008. Property tax revenues received by these cities have declined substantially consistent with the decline in property values and the reduction in the sale and turnover of real property. Sales tax revenues have also declined substantially, with consumers reducing their spending in response to new economic realities and loss of consumer confidence. At the same time, the cost of funding public pensions for city employees has been impacted as well. The annual cost of pension obligations is partially determined by the earnings of pension funds, primarily the California Public Employees Retirement System (CALPERS). With the economic decline came market corrections, and substantial reductions in the investment earnings of CALPERS. This resulted in increased rates and costs for cities to fund their employee pension obligations. The Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 took effect on January 1, 2013. The reforms in this law mainly affect new employees hired after its effective date. Most new workers will have to work until age 67 to receive full benefits. Police and firefighters will have to work until age 57 to receive a maximum benefit that is less than what most safety workers currently receive. The amount of salary that qualifies for pension benefits will be capped at just under $114,000 per year for workers who are covered by Social Security and just over $136,000 for those who are not. Another important provision is equal cost sharing between the employer and the employee. New employees will pay at least half the cost of their pensions. Current employees who are not paying half may be required to pay more in the future. (Source: California Public Employees’ Retirement System) Cities have responded to the economic downturn and have made substantial efforts to reduce costs consistent with reduced revenues. These efforts include hiring and pay freezes for employees, furlough days for existing employees, increased cost to employees for benefits (health care and retirement), and in some cases significant employee layoffs. In some cases cities have also reduced the level of service provided to the community, with reduced hours of operations and other reductions for some services. To evaluate the financial health of the cities we obtained and reviewed the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) or Basic Financial Statements for each city for Fiscal Years 2010-11 and 2011-12, the most recent years of audited financial reporting available. We were able to obtain this information from 82 of the 88 cities. The cities of Avalon, Bell, Compton, Cudahy, La Habra Heights, and Maywood are in the process of completing their financial statements and audits for these fiscal years. We developed criteria for evaluating the fiscal health of these cities, and compiled and analyzed the information from the financial statements. Most of the cities had two primary types of activities – governmental and proprietary or business-type activities. Governmental activities include the core government activities such as government administration, public safety, 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 96 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT transportation, community development, and community services. These activities are reflected in each city’s general fund. Proprietary or business-type activities include operating public utilities (electrical power, water, parking, refuse collection, etc.) or other non-governmental activities. It is important to note that all financial information reported here is as presented by each city in their financial statements audited by each city’s independent financial auditor. The following are the criteria used, with definitions and explanations of each. Three of the criteria are applied to all city funds, and three of the criteria are applied only to city general funds. All Funds include each city’s general fund as well as any other funds for proprietary or business-type activities which include operating public utilities (electrical power, water, parking, refuse collection, etc.) or other non-governmental type activities. o Net Revenue Percent is the percent of all revenues remaining after all city expenditures. Revenues are the amount received by a city from taxes, fees, permits, licenses, interest, intergovernmental sources, and other sources during the fiscal year. Expenditures are the actual spending of governmental funds by each city. If a city spends less than received the net revenues and percentage would be positive. If a city spends more than received in revenues the net revenues and percentage would be negative. The net revenue percent is calculated by dividing net revenues by total revenues. o Ratio of Assets to Liabilities is the total assets of a city divided by the total liabilities of a city. City assets include funds available for use by the city, as well as the value of any capital assets such as land, buildings and improvements, machinery and equipment, and infrastructure. Liabilities include accounts payable and long-term debt such as bonds, certificates of participation, pension obligations, and insurance claims. Net assets are the total city assets less total city liabilities. The ratio of assets to liabilities is calculated by dividing a city’s total assets by its total liabilities. This ratio is an indicator of a city’s solvency and ability to meet long-term obligations, including financial obligations to creditors, employees, taxpayers, and suppliers; as well as its service obligations to its residents. Ideally, cities would at minimum, have twice as many assets as liabilities. This would give them an asset to liability ratio of 2.0 or better. o Change in Net Assets is the difference from the beginning of the fiscal year to the end of the fiscal year in the total city assets minus total city liabilities. This change indicates the extent to which total city assets are increasing or decreasing. Ideally, city net assets would be stable or increasing. Declining net assets indicate cities are spending down their assets in order to meet current financial obligations. The change in net assets is calculated by subtracting the previous fiscal year’s net assets for each city from the current year’s net assets. If the result is a positive number the net assets are increasing, if a negative number the net assets are decreasing. 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 97 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT General Funds are used to fund core government activities such as government administration, public safety, transportation, community development, and community services. o General Fund Net Revenue Percent is the percent of all general fund revenues remaining after all city general fund expenditures. Revenues are the amount received by a city from taxes, fees, permits, licenses, interest, intergovernmental sources, and other sources during the fiscal year. Expenditures are the actual spending of governmental general funds by each city. If a city spends less than received the general fund net revenues and percentage would be positive. If a city spends more than received in revenues the net general fund revenues and percentage would be negative. The general fund net revenue percent is calculated by dividing general fund net revenues by total general fund revenues. o Change in General Fund Balance is the difference from the beginning of the fiscal year to the end of the fiscal year in the total city general fund balance. This change indicates the extent to which a city’s general funds are increasing or decreasing. Ideally, city net general fund balance would be stable or increasing. A declining general fund balance indicates cities are spending down their general fund in order to meet current financial obligations. The change in general fund balance is calculated by subtracting the previous fiscal year’s general fund balance for each city from the current year’s general fund balance. If the result is a positive number the general fund balance is increasing, if a negative number the general fund balance is decreasing. o Unassigned General Fund Balance is the portion of a city’s general fund balance that is not assigned for a specific use and, therefore, available for appropriation. The Government Finance Officers Association recommends each city have an unassigned general fund reserve of no less than two months of regular general fund operating revenues or regular general fund operating expenditures. These are funds that have been formally set aside for use in emergencies, revenue shortages, or budget imbalances, as well as provide stable tax rates, maintain government services, and to facilitate long-term financial planning. The exhibits on the following pages provide an overview of the results of the financial information and criteria developed for each city. This includes the actual financial health criteria (ratio or percentage), as well as how each city compares or ranks against each of the other cities in Los Angeles County. This information is provided for both Fiscal Years 2010-11 and 2011- 12. More information on each of these fiscal health criteria, and the results of the comparison, is contained within the sections following this exhibit. 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 98 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Exhibit 3: Results and Rankings of Cities on Fiscal Health Criteria All Funds General Fund Net Revenue Percent Ratio of Assets to Liabilities Change in Net Assets General Fund Net Revenue Change in General Fund Balance Unassigned General Fund Balance FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 City Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Ratio Rank Ratio Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Agoura Hills 79 (41.5%) 24 (.3%) 29 3.82 24 7.54 45 0.8% 70 (2.6%) 36 3.5% 16 8.1% 1 285.1% 74 (78.3%) 14 80.3% 9 85.5% Alhambra 12 3.9% 5 6.0% 52 2.48 52 3.77 6 8.1% 34 14.6% 44 1.5% 51 (2.3%) 13 24.3% 47 (5.2%) 67 4.7% 64 0.7% Arcadia 63 (15.3%) 37 (4.2%) 23 4.31 28 6.92 70 (3.5%) 74 (5.7%) 52 0.0% 58 (5.0%) 34 6.1% 42 (3.5%) 50 19.0% 45 20.3% Artesia 52 (8.4%) 70 (17.1%) 67 1.77 39 5.05 44 0.8% 37 8.8% 20 8.3% 54 (3.5%) 11 25.3% 51 (7.1%) 31 44.9% 32 35.0% Azusa 68 (19.8%) NA 0.0% 71 1.69 NA 0.00 73 (4.8%) NA 0.0% 30 4.7% NA 0.0% 3 68.8% NA 0.0% 83 (15.3%) 67 0.0% Baldwin Park 16 2.2% 33 (2.8%) 56 2.28 48 4.48 28 2.4% 15 39.9% 23 7.1% 35 3.8% 64 (9.7%) 49 (5.8%) 56 15.3% 56 8.1% Bell Gardens 33 (2.4%) 46 (7.3%) 41 2.93 25 7.25 72 (4.5%) 10 63.6% 15 10.0% 40 1.7% 36 5.0% 36 (1.9%) 18 73.2% 67 0.0% Bellflower 25 (.8%) 12 4.1% 36 3.29 46 4.64 5 8.2% 31 15.6% 29 4.7% 44 1.0% 41 2.3% 30 1.5% 20 70.0% 15 63.0% Beverly Hills 6 5.7% 3 8.5% 51 2.55 63 2.83 8 6.6% 38 8.2% 11 11.8% 9 11.1% 44 0.4% 11 9.4% 33 43.7% 24 45.5% Bradbury 82 (108.2%) NA 0.0% 2 49.28 NA 0.00 80 (10.1%) NA 0.0% 83 (59.2%) NA 0.0% 76 (23.9%) NA 0.0% 6 187.6% 67 0.0% Burbank 54 (1.5%) 69 (16.6%) 32 3.52 40 4.98 56 (.6%) 40 7.9% 74 (15.0%) 68 (13.0%) 61 (7.0%) 58 (14.2%) 43 31.1% 67 0.0% Calabasas 39 (4.0%) 22 0.2% 35 3.48 57 3.52 15 5.2% 59 (.0%) 33 4.3% 34 3.9% 52 (3.6%) 20 4.5% 13 86.8% 7 94.1% Carson 58 (11.7%) 74 (24.5%) 48 2.65 74 1.96 78 (9.5%) 73 (4.4%) 24 7.1% 18 7.6% 10 29.3% 4 26.0% 51 18.4% 38 26.4% Cerritos 55 (10.1%) 35 (3.2%) 45 2.83 6 39.19 61 (1.0%) 12 51.7% 72 (14.1%) 76 (44.0%) 53 (4.2%) 61 (16.1%) 9 103.1% 11 77.9% Claremont 5 8.5% 9 4.9% 22 4.45 41 4.93 21 3.1% 60 (.2%) 21 8.0% 14 8.7% 17 15.1% 10 14.4% 44 30.9% 34 31.7% Commerce 61 (12.1%) 31 (2.0%) 72 1.69 76 1.61 74 (5.0%) 42 6.6% 45 1.5% 20 6.6% 47 0.1% 19 5.3% 19 71.8% 12 77.1% Covina 66 (17.8%) 63 (13.7%) 49 2.61 53 3.69 76 (5.8%) 76 (8.2%) 42 1.9% 59 (5.0%) 23 9.4% 56 (9.2%) 39 36.3% 35 31.1% Cudahy 84 (170.3%) 58 (12.0%) 82 1.29 14 15.61 84 (72.8%) 1 260.9% 69 (9.8%) 67 (11.9%) 73 (15.6%) 55 (9.2%) 10 103.0% 8 88.5% Culver City 17 2.1% 68 (15.5%) 69 1.73 38 5.08 34 2.0% 7 80.9% 6 16.4% 53 (3.3%) 9 29.4% 39 (2.6%) 24 61.4% 17 58.4% Diamond Bar 76 (32.0%) 76 (65.8%) 4 24.92 8 25.49 63 (1.3%) 64 (1.3%) 82 (55.5%) 71 (24.1%) 78 (31.1%) 66 (19.4%) 25 60.2% 18 56.7% Downey 65 (17.8%) 62 (13.5%) 30 3.76 44 4.74 75 (5.1%) 44 5.7% 70 (10.9%) 62 (8.5%) 66 (9.9%) 60 (14.4%) 57 14.8% 55 8.8% Duarte 31 (1.6%) 19 1.0% 21 4.46 7 34.15 16 5.1% 22 27.0% 1 42.6% 19 6.7% 4 58.3% 21 3.8% 11 97.4% 6 109.0% El Monte 56 (10.4%) 28 (1.3%) 19 4.77 33 5.44 43 1.0% 49 4.1% 56 (1.9%) 56 (4.9%) 33 6.2% 32 0.8% 55 16.9% 48 16.3% El Segundo 35 (3.1%) 61 (13.5%) 16 5.47 47 4.49 65 (1.5%) 72 (3.4%) 60 (4.1%) 60 (7.0%) 51 (3.1%) 67 (19.5%) 62 9.8% 52 14.6% Gardena 8 4.8% 13 4.1% 42 2.89 62 2.91 55 (.4%) 66 (1.9%) 19 8.5% 31 5.2% 29 7.1% 16 7.5% 70 0.7% 66 0.5% Glendale 53 (9.1%) 56 (11.2%) 27 3.90 42 4.89 50 0.1% 62 (1.0%) 73 (14.8%) 70 (16.7%) 19 11.3% 70 (55.6%) 36 38.7% 40 23.3% Glendora 44 (5.6%) 36 (3.9%) 33 3.50 37 5.08 48 0.3% 47 4.7% 28 5.9% 52 (2.6%) 37 4.2% 57 (9.6%) 72 0.0% 67 0.0% Hawaiian Gardens 32 (2.3%) NA 0.0% 75 1.52 NA 0.00 52 0.0% NA 0.0% 59 (3.5%) NA 0.0% 54 (4.5%) NA 0.0% 7 120.3% 67 0.0% Hawthorne 20 1.4% 16 3.4% 79 1.38 67 2.51 13 5.7% 5 118.4% 10 14.0% 7 11.3% 15 19.4% 71 (59.0%) 41 33.1% 37 28.8% Hermosa Beach 13 3.7% 2 10.7% 12 7.44 31 5.89 39 1.5% 69 (2.4%) 14 10.6% 5 13.6% 18 11.7% 22 3.5% 49 23.2% 41 23.3% Hidden Hills 70 (23.3%) 8 5.6% 10 10.54 16 12.22 40 1.5% 57 0.2% 79 (32.0%) 21 6.5% 65 (9.8%) 25 2.3% 3 207.2% 2 291.9% Huntington Park 40 (4.5%) NA 0.0% 84 0.62 NA 0.00 83 (13.0%) NA 0.0% 39 2.4% NA 0.0% 38 3.5% NA 0.0% 45 30.7% 67 0.0% Industry 60 (12.0%) 51 (9.6%) 66 1.85 72 2.12 14 5.7% 75 (6.2%) 2 30.0% 41 1.4% 30 6.9% 48 (5.3%) 1 607.2% 1 454.7% Inglewood 9 4.7% NA 0.0% 74 1.60 NA 0.00 67 (2.8%) NA 0.0% 57 (2.7%) NA 0.0% 68 (12.5%) NA 0.0% 52 18.3% 67 0.0% Irwindale 7 5.3% 52 (9.8%) 58 2.25 5 40.08 3 8.5% 14 40.3% 37 3.1% 63 (9.1%) 2 143.7% 63 (17.0%) 72 0.0% 67 0.0% La Canada Flintridge 3 11.6% 26 (.8%) 50 2.60 65 2.66 10 6.0% 51 1.9% 5 16.6% 11 10.4% 28 7.3% 38 (2.1%) 8 119.3% 5 116.3% La Habra Heights 1 25.4% NA 0.0% 8 11.75 NA 0.00 60 (1.0%) NA 0.0% 49 0.6% NA 0.0% 48 (.6%) NA 0.0% 5 195.2% 67 0.0% La Mirada 27 (1.0%) 29 (1.3%) 65 1.85 17 11.38 2 11.8% 4 128.7% 16 9.6% 2 23.3% 42 2.0% 15 7.6% 17 73.2% 10 85.1% La Puente 50 (7.7%) 45 (7.0%) 59 2.23 64 2.82 38 1.5% 35 10.4% 63 (5.6%) 6 11.4% 50 (2.8%) 72 (59.6%) 28 54.8% 22 50.6% La Verne 11 4.3% 25 (.6%) 15 5.48 27 6.94 27 2.4% 54 1.3% 67 (7.7%) 50 (2.3%) 35 6.0% 6 19.3% 72 0.0% 67 0.0% 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 99 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Exhibit 3: Results and Rankings of Cities on Fiscal Health Criteria All Funds General Fund Net Revenue Percent Ratio of Assets to Liabilities Change in Net Assets General Fund Net Revenue Change in General Fund Balance Unassigned General Fund Balance FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 City Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Ratio Rank Ratio Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Lakewood 15 2.4% 21 0.7% 11 8.85 11 17.97 24 2.8% 24 24.5% 27 6.2% 29 5.7% 26 7.6% 17 6.7% 68 3.2% 59 6.5% Lancaster 69 (21.8%) 49 (9.2%) 28 3.88 10 18.04 64 (1.4%) 23 25.2% 76 (23.3%) 47 (.9%) 74 (17.0%) 69 (38.6%) 46 30.2% 43 21.5% Lawndale 77 (39.1%) NA 0.0% 44 2.85 NA 0.00 46 0.5% NA 0.0% 81 (36.5%) NA 0.0% 57 (5.6%) NA 0.0% 16 74.9% 67 0.0% Lomita 42 (5.1%) 48 (7.8%) 17 4.99 34 5.33 66 (1.7%) 65 (1.5%) 40 2.1% 33 4.0% 69 (13.0%) 24 2.5% 64 8.5% 60 5.1% Long Beach 26 (.9%) 75 (25.2%) 57 2.25 69 2.39 11 5.9% 53 1.5% 53 (.2%) 38 2.3% 82 (59.1%) 9 15.1% 71 0.2% 62 1.3% Los Angeles 43 (5.3%) 44 (6.6%) 68 1.74 75 1.77 26 2.7% 48 4.5% 25 6.4% 26 6.1% 16 19.1% 12 9.2% 66 6.5% 58 6.7% Lynwood 57 (11.5%) 40 (4.9%) 53 2.47 58 3.42 35 1.8% 63 (1.2%) 64 (5.7%) 48 (1.0%) 75 (21.2%) 59 (14.3%) 53 18.2% 47 18.5% Malibu 73 (29.2%) 55 (11.1%) 38 3.01 61 2.95 49 0.2% 71 (3.3%) 61 (4.2%) 57 (4.9%) 77 (23.9%) 54 (8.7%) 42 31.2% 28 36.2% Manhattan Beach 10 4.3% 17 3.2% 24 4.12 50 4.07 29 2.4% 45 5.3% 32 4.3% 28 5.7% 24 9.1% 33 (.2%) 37 36.7% 29 35.6% Monrovia 78 (40.3%) 53 (10.0%) 80 1.30 66 2.65 81 (10.8%) 3 163.7% 78 (31.8%) 72 (27.2%) 71 (14.0%) 76 (374.5%) 84 (27.1%) 76 (27.7%) Montebello 34 (2.5%) 27 (.9%) 77 1.51 68 2.43 9 6.3% 18 37.5% 77 (25.4%) 74 (31.8%) 83 (174.5%) 2 43.8% 61 10.5% 49 15.9% Monterey Park 36 (3.2%) 50 (9.4%) 70 1.72 60 3.01 25 2.7% 16 39.6% 58 (3.1%) 45 0.6% 55 (4.5%) 7 18.1% 65 8.3% 57 7.8% Norwalk 47 (6.9%) 10 4.6% 60 2.20 32 5.70 53 (.1%) 19 33.6% 4 17.6% 17 7.8% 8 36.0% 65 (19.0%) 48 25.4% 36 29.9% Palmdale 19 1.4% 41 (5.6%) 31 3.73 26 7.13 51 0.1% 32 15.3% 9 14.4% 39 1.8% 12 24.7% 52 (7.1%) 38 36.5% 33 34.6% Palos Verdes Estates 28 (1.0%) 39 (4.8%) 1 50.47 3 44.98 62 (1.1%) 68 (2.4%) 41 2.1% 32 4.9% 22 9.4% 44 (4.7%) 60 10.7% 50 15.7% Paramount 62 (12.5%) 38 (4.7%) 61 2.13 22 9.94 77 (6.3%) 17 39.5% 51 0.2% 42 1.4% 5 42.6% 29 1.6% 30 49.9% 23 49.6% Pasadena 51 (8.3%) 72 (18.0%) 63 2.01 73 2.04 23 3.0% 26 20.7% 22 7.3% 8 11.2% 67 (12.4%) 14 7.7% 78 (.8%) 75 (23.1%) Pico Rivera 64 (17.1%) 59 (12.4%) 54 2.32 54 3.67 20 3.2% 8 80.9% 68 (8.6%) 49 (1.7%) 60 (6.8%) 31 1.2% 59 11.5% 67 0.0% Pomona 48 (7.0%) 57 (11.2%) 78 1.48 71 2.22 57 (.7%) 13 41.0% 48 0.9% 24 6.2% 70 (13.0%) 73 (62.2%) 72 0.0% 67 0.0% Rancho Palos Verdes 4 10.4% 1 11.8% 7 12.25 4 41.90 22 3.0% 29 16.4% 3 25.5% 1 26.2% 49 (2.4%) 18 5.6% 22 66.7% 14 71.4% Redondo Beach 23 (.0%) 34 (3.0%) 20 4.57 36 5.13 32 2.2% 36 10.0% 34 4.1% 37 2.4% 6 38.0% 37 (1.9%) 72 0.0% 65 0.6% Rolling Hills 80 (45.6%) 66 (14.3%) 3 36.59 2 45.56 82 (12.9%) 52 1.5% 38 2.6% 69 (16.0%) 39 3.1% 50 (6.4%) 4 206.8% 3 177.0% Rolling Hills Estates 30 (1.6%) 11 4.5% 9 10.57 19 10.72 31 2.4% 39 8.1% 65 (7.3%) 22 6.3% 72 (15.1%) 8 17.0% 47 28.5% 30 35.2% Rosemead 71 (26.4%) 71 (17.3%) 64 1.98 15 15.41 4 8.4% 11 56.2% 66 (7.6%) 46 0.4% 63 (9.6%) 41 (3.3%) 26 57.6% 20 56.0% San Dimas 75 (30.5%) 6 5.9% 25 4.11 20 10.30 33 2.1% 20 33.2% 46 1.3% 36 2.5% 43 1.6% 35 (.9%) 27 55.2% 19 56.1% San Fernando 49 (7.5%) 30 (1.6%) 39 2.98 43 4.81 58 (.7%) 50 3.0% 80 (32.0%) 73 (30.0%) 84 (704.9%) 75 (99.7%) 81 (4.4%) 74 (10.0%) San Gabriel 45 (5.8%) 47 (7.7%) 18 4.81 45 4.70 69 (3.4%) 67 (2.2%) 75 (22.2%) 75 (33.4%) 46 0.2% 68 (25.9%) 79 (2.1%) 61 3.5% San Marino 72 (27.2%) 67 (15.0%) 5 15.44 9 21.50 47 0.4% 58 0.2% 18 9.1% 15 8.7% 62 (8.9%) 64 (18.1%) 15 79.8% 13 72.6% Santa Clarita 67 (19.7%) 32 (2.4%) 14 6.22 21 10.14 36 1.7% 43 6.1% 7 15.5% 61 (8.0%) 25 7.6% 62 (16.4%) 21 69.7% 16 58.4% Santa Fe Springs 24 (.7%) 73 (19.0%) 73 1.66 29 6.27 19 3.7% 9 72.8% 71 (11.4%) 65 (11.4%) 31 6.7% 5 25.4% 40 35.4% 25 43.1% Santa Monica 46 (6.7%) 42 (5.9%) 26 3.98 35 5.28 30 2.4% 30 16.3% 55 (1.7%) 3 23.2% 7 37.0% 3 41.0% 34 40.0% 31 35.1% Sierra Madre 37 (3.3%) 64 (13.7%) 6 12.97 12 16.57 59 (.8%) 61 (.4%) 12 11.3% 10 10.5% 27 7.5% 53 (7.4%) 23 65.2% 54 12.2% Signal Hill 81 (64.0%) 65 (14.2%) 76 1.52 18 11.31 41 1.3% 6 101.5% 31 4.5% 25 6.1% 20 9.8% 23 2.5% 35 39.1% 27 41.7% South El Monte 21 0.2% 15 3.5% 83 1.13 23 9.38 1 100.0% 2 237.1% 50 0.4% 12 9.6% 80 (51.7%) 1 59.7% 69 2.0% 53 13.2% South Gate 14 2.4% 14 3.6% 47 2.68 56 3.56 7 6.8% 33 14.6% 54 (1.0%) 43 1.2% 32 6.5% 26 2.0% 58 13.2% 46 19.5% South Pasadena 38 (3.9%) 4 7.7% 55 2.31 70 2.32 17 4.0% 55 0.9% 13 11.2% 30 5.5% 14 20.8% 13 9.0% 29 53.9% 21 55.6% Temple City 2 12.0% 18 2.2% 13 7.19 13 16.34 12 5.7% 41 7.7% 26 6.3% 27 5.8% 40 2.5% 45 (5.0%) 2 236.1% 42 22.5% Torrance 18 2.0% 7 5.8% 43 2.88 55 3.66 42 1.2% 27 18.6% 43 1.9% 23 6.2% 58 (6.0%) 27 1.9% 63 9.7% 44 21.4% Vernon 83 (110.4%) 77 (83.9%) 81 1.29 77 1.14 79 (9.7%) 77 (51.4%) 84 (100.3%) 77 (108.1%) 81 (58.5%) 77 (455.0%) 82 (8.2%) 77 (47.4%) Walnut 74 (29.3%) 23 (.0%) 34 3.49 1 48.92 54 (.2%) 21 31.7% 35 3.5% 64 (10.3%) 79 (31.7%) 46 (5.2%) 72 0.0% 63 0.7% West Covina 29 (1.2%) 43 (6.3%) 62 2.07 51 4.00 71 (3.9%) 25 21.8% 62 (5.5%) 66 (11.7%) 59 (6.2%) 40 (2.9%) 54 17.0% 39 24.4% 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 100 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Exhibit 3: Results and Rankings of Cities on Fiscal Health Criteria All Funds General Fund Net Revenue Percent Ratio of Assets to Liabilities Change in Net Assets General Fund Net Revenue Change in General Fund Balance Unassigned General Fund Balance FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 City Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Ratio Rank Ratio Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent West Hollywood 59 (11.8%) 20 1.0% 46 2.78 49 4.23 18 3.9% 46 5.0% 8 14.7% 4 17.4% 21 9.6% 28 1.7% 80 (2.2%) 51 15.6% Westlake Village 41 (4.6%) 54 (10.9%) 37 3.13 59 3.16 68 (3.3%) 56 0.3% 47 1.2% 13 9.4% 56 (5.4%) 34 (.9%) 12 92.7% 4 139.3% Whittier 22 (.0%) 60 (12.6%) 40 2.94 30 6.23 37 1.5% 28 18.2% 17 9.3% 55 (4.3%) 45 0.2% 43 (4.4%) 32 43.7% 26 42.0% Average - All Cities (12.5%) (6.2%) 5.45 8.92 0.8% 24.0% (1.7%) (1.5%) (3.8%) (14.5%) 51.4% 38.3% Source: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) or Basic Financial Statements obtained from each City. Financial information for FY 2010-11 or FY 2011-12 was not available from the cities of Avalon, Bell, Compton, and Maywood as of April 25, 2013. Financial information for FY 2011-12 was not available from the cities of Azusa, Bradbury, Hawaiian Gardens, Huntington Park, Inglewood, La Habra Heights, and Lawndale as of April 25, 2013. 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 101 CITIES OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 102 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Net Revenue Percent – All Funds Net Revenue Percent is the percent of all revenues remaining after all city expenditures. Revenues are the amount received by a city from taxes, fees, permits, licenses, interest, intergovernmental sources, and other sources during the fiscal year. Expenditures are the actual spending of governmental funds by each city. If a city spends less than received the net revenues and percentage would be positive. If a city spends more than received in revenues the net revenues and percentage would be negative. The net revenue percent is calculated by dividing net revenues by total revenues. All Funds include each city’s general fund as well as any other funds for proprietary or business- type activities which could include operating public utilities (power, water, parking, refuse collection, etc.) or other non-governmental type activities. As the following Exhibit shows, only 21 of the 84 cities spent less on all activities (governmental and business) during Fiscal 2010-11 than revenue received. The remaining 61 cities spent more than they received in revenue. Both the cities of Vernon and Bradbury spent more than twice what was received in revenues. On average, cities expended 12.5% more than they received in revenue during FY 2010-11. The exhibit also shows that only 22 of the 77 cities spent less on all activities (governmental and business) during Fiscal 2011-12 than revenue received. The remaining 55 cities spent more than they received in revenue. The City of Vernon spent nearly 84% more than it received in revenue. On average, cities expended 6.2% more than they received in revenue during FY 2011- 12. Cities cannot sustain a pattern of spending more than received in revenue, and essentially not living within their means during the fiscal year. Cities can balance their budgets by spending down reserve funds, liquidating city assets, or increasing city debt or liabilities. Cities may also have to make even more substantial reductions in city services. 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 103 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Exhibit 4: Total Revenues, Expenditures and Net Revenues (Ranked Highest to Lowest % Net Revenue) Fiscal Year 2010-11 Fiscal Year 2011-12 Total Total Net Total % Net Total Total Net Total % Net Rank City Revenues Expenditures Revenues Revenue Rank City Revenues Expenditures Revenues Revenue 1 La Habra Heights $6,456,271 $4,814,020 $1,642,251 25.4% 1 Rancho Palos Verdes $29,011,389 $25,599,287 $3,412,102 11.8% 2 Temple City $16,420,245 $14,450,445 $1,969,800 12.0% 2 Hermosa Beach $31,902,779 $28,502,703 $3,400,076 10.7% 3 La Canada Flintridge $19,534,017 $17,277,831 $2,256,186 11.6% 3 Beverly Hills $183,970,715 $168,405,846 $15,564,869 8.5% 4 Rancho Palos Verdes $28,586,567 $25,621,465 $2,965,102 10.4% 4 South Pasadena $26,985,579 $24,903,588 $2,081,991 7.7% 5 Claremont $39,818,642 $36,444,001 $3,374,641 8.5% 5 Alhambra $77,589,141 $72,938,495 $4,650,646 6.0% 6 Beverly Hills $175,405,113 $165,446,753 $9,958,360 5.7% 6 San Dimas $27,917,381 $26,276,406 $1,640,975 5.9% 7 Irwindale $40,546,295 $38,405,113 $2,141,182 5.3% 7 Torrance $195,053,630 $183,716,160 $11,337,470 5.8% 8 Gardena $55,501,464 $52,863,734 $2,637,730 4.8% 8 Hidden Hills $1,986,620 $1,876,183 $110,437 5.6% 9 Inglewood $168,424,179 $160,475,460 $7,948,719 4.7% 9 Claremont $31,059,827 $29,552,680 $1,507,147 4.9% 10 Manhattan Beach $56,452,978 $54,010,853 $2,442,125 4.3% 10 Norwalk $67,602,693 $64,503,803 $3,098,890 4.6% 11 La Verne $43,289,901 $41,424,471 $1,865,430 4.3% 11 Rolling Hills Estates $7,471,225 $7,132,456 $338,769 4.5% 12 Alhambra $86,087,510 $82,733,851 $3,353,659 3.9% 12 Bellflower $36,546,102 $35,047,877 $1,498,225 4.1% 13 Hermosa Beach $30,816,246 $29,665,905 $1,150,341 3.7% 13 Gardena $60,252,815 $57,803,736 $2,449,079 4.1% 14 South Gate $73,042,672 $71,273,643 $1,769,029 2.4% 14 South Gate $68,837,572 $66,381,334 $2,456,238 3.6% 15 Lakewood $63,285,286 $61,764,234 $1,521,052 2.4% 15 South El Monte $17,648,546 $17,026,023 $622,523 3.5% 16 Baldwin Park $52,944,564 $51,798,267 $1,146,297 2.2% 16 Hawthorne $102,220,018 $98,760,719 $3,459,299 3.4% 17 Culver City $133,585,980 $130,820,129 $2,765,851 2.1% 17 Manhattan Beach $59,435,583 $57,509,547 $1,926,036 3.2% 18 Torrance $189,407,666 $185,597,318 $3,810,348 2.0% 18 Temple City $15,820,927 $15,475,107 $345,820 2.2% 19 Palmdale $141,356,940 $139,337,830 $2,019,110 1.4% 19 Duarte $19,196,567 $18,998,341 $198,226 1.0% 20 Hawthorne $186,430,835 $183,901,004 $2,529,831 1.4% 20 West Hollywood $91,152,934 $90,237,428 $915,506 1.0% 21 South El Monte $20,521,754 $20,476,305 $45,449 0.2% 21 Lakewood $54,708,076 $54,346,475 $361,601 0.7% 22 Whittier $78,336,992 $78,342,050 ($5,058) (.0%) 22 Calabasas $30,547,600 $30,485,913 $61,687 0.2% 23 Redondo Beach $88,177,849 $88,219,070 ($41,221) (.0%) 23 Walnut $20,430,639 $20,435,518 ($4,879) (.0%) 24 Santa Fe Springs $80,476,230 $81,024,809 ($548,579) (.7%) 24 Agoura Hills $17,919,772 $17,971,461 ($51,689) (.3%) 25 Bellflower $36,027,628 $36,332,559 ($304,931) (.8%) 25 La Verne $38,932,070 $39,181,093 ($249,023) (.6%) 26 Long Beach $744,321,000 $750,896,000 ($6,575,000) (.9%) 26 La Canada Flintridge $18,415,244 $18,566,862 ($151,618) (.8%) 27 La Mirada $48,688,901 $49,179,035 ($490,134) (1.0%) 27 Montebello $57,758,906 $58,306,019 ($547,113) (.9%) 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 104 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Exhibit 4: Total Revenues, Expenditures and Net Revenues (Ranked Highest to Lowest % Net Revenue) Fiscal Year 2010-11 Fiscal Year 2011-12 Total Total Net Total % Net Total Total Net Total % Net Rank City Revenues Expenditures Revenues Revenue Rank City Revenues Expenditures Revenues Revenue 28 Palos Verdes Estates $17,223,619 $17,403,826 ($180,207) (1.0%) 28 El Monte $90,057,014 $91,259,475 ($1,202,461) (1.3%) 29 West Covina $95,268,424 $96,437,051 ($1,168,627) (1.2%) 29 La Mirada $47,736,944 $48,379,569 ($642,625) (1.3%) 30 Rolling Hills Estates $7,712,444 $7,832,849 ($120,405) (1.6%) 30 San Fernando $24,146,351 $24,538,873 ($392,522) (1.6%) 31 Duarte $34,095,894 $34,632,208 ($536,314) (1.6%) 31 Commerce $67,986,383 $69,373,238 ($1,386,855) (2.0%) 32 Hawaiian Gardens $25,743,947 $26,346,129 ($602,182) (2.3%) 32 Santa Clarita $152,265,233 $155,915,292 ($3,650,059) (2.4%) 33 Bell Gardens $36,168,220 $37,050,365 ($882,145) (2.4%) 33 Baldwin Park $48,524,783 $49,903,793 ($1,379,010) (2.8%) 34 Montebello $66,692,379 $68,373,345 ($1,680,966) (2.5%) 34 Redondo Beach $91,638,205 $94,354,704 ($2,716,499) (3.0%) 35 El Segundo $56,848,924 $58,596,145 ($1,747,221) (3.1%) 35 Cerritos $109,564,187 $113,114,628 ($3,550,441) (3.2%) 36 Monterey Park $55,463,357 $57,263,879 ($1,800,522) (3.2%) 36 Glendora $30,977,345 $32,193,962 ($1,216,617) (3.9%) 37 Sierra Madre $12,843,017 $13,269,118 ($426,101) (3.3%) 37 Arcadia $56,153,430 $58,500,098 ($2,346,668) (4.2%) 38 South Pasadena $26,638,387 $27,690,116 ($1,051,729) (3.9%) 38 Paramount $37,787,256 $39,563,203 ($1,775,947) (4.7%) 39 Calabasas $36,731,853 $38,212,438 ($1,480,585) (4.0%) 39 Palos Verdes Estates $17,091,040 $17,908,727 ($817,687) (4.8%) 40 Huntington Park $63,437,740 $66,277,764 ($2,840,024) (4.5%) 40 Lynwood $45,862,239 $48,097,169 ($2,234,930) (4.9%) 41 Westlake Village $14,500,353 $15,172,774 ($672,421) (4.6%) 41 Palmdale $111,567,854 $117,835,268 ($6,267,414) (5.6%) 42 Lomita $10,296,872 $10,817,426 ($520,554) (5.1%) 42 Santa Monica $511,734,482 $542,070,392 ($30,335,910) (5.9%) 43 Los Angeles $6,318,612,000 $6,651,535,000 ($332,923,000) (5.3%) 43 West Covina $85,979,949 $91,360,471 ($5,380,522) (6.3%) 44 Glendora $36,854,996 $38,914,427 ($2,059,431) (5.6%) 44 Los Angeles $6,576,754,000 $7,011,640,000 ($434,886,000) (6.6%) 45 San Gabriel $38,303,555 $40,538,198 ($2,234,643) (5.8%) 45 La Puente $15,713,794 $16,816,779 ($1,102,985) (7.0%) 46 Santa Monica $396,641,357 $423,138,169 ($26,496,812) (6.7%) 46 Bell Gardens $33,200,350 $35,618,158 ($2,417,808) (7.3%) 47 Norwalk $89,562,951 $95,718,805 ($6,155,854) (6.9%) 47 San Gabriel $36,799,301 $39,631,027 ($2,831,726) (7.7%) 48 Pomona $176,700,431 $189,109,432 ($12,409,001) (7.0%) 48 Lomita $10,488,783 $11,312,101 ($823,318) (7.8%) 49 San Fernando $31,472,500 $33,826,270 ($2,353,770) (7.5%) 49 Lancaster $106,994,246 $116,817,014 ($9,822,768) (9.2%) 50 La Puente $15,486,398 $16,674,410 ($1,188,012) (7.7%) 50 Monterey Park $52,083,910 $56,967,467 ($4,883,557) (9.4%) 51 Pasadena $310,528,675 $336,154,767 ($25,626,092) (8.3%) 51 Industry $167,355,363 $183,339,067 ($15,983,704) (9.6%) 52 Artesia $10,989,185 $11,914,997 ($925,812) (8.4%) 52 Irwindale $29,430,380 $32,307,998 ($2,877,618) (9.8%) 53 Glendale $296,327,000 $323,168,000 ($26,841,000) (9.1%) 53 Monrovia $50,889,132 $55,958,172 ($5,069,040) (10.0%) 54 Burbank $230,591,000 $253,105,000 ($22,514,000) (9.8%) 54 Westlake Village $15,173,722 $16,828,541 ($1,654,819) (10.9%) 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 105 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Exhibit 4: Total Revenues, Expenditures and Net Revenues (Ranked Highest to Lowest % Net Revenue) Fiscal Year 2010-11 Fiscal Year 2011-12 Total Total Net Total % Net Total Total Net Total % Net Rank City Revenues Expenditures Revenues Revenue Rank City Revenues Expenditures Revenues Revenue 55 Cerritos $101,044,955 $111,246,026 ($10,201,071) (10.1%) 55 Malibu $28,421,773 $31,565,940 ($3,144,167) (11.1%) 56 El Monte $91,497,196 $101,031,712 ($9,534,516) (10.4%) 56 Glendale $258,957,000 $287,936,000 ($28,979,000) (11.2%) 57 Lynwood $51,010,935 $56,896,279 ($5,885,344) (11.5%) 57 Pomona $147,673,782 $164,237,168 ($16,563,386) (11.2%) 58 Carson $106,849,098 $119,326,096 ($12,476,998) (11.7%) 58 Cudahy $10,981,676 $12,298,062 ($1,316,386) (12.0%) 59 West Hollywood $93,069,529 $104,010,240 ($10,940,711) (11.8%) 59 Pico Rivera $63,549,162 $71,405,949 ($7,856,787) (12.4%) 60 Industry $192,308,249 $215,346,063 ($23,037,814) (12.0%) 60 Whittier $68,696,215 $77,344,117 ($8,647,902) (12.6%) 61 Commerce $75,567,672 $84,678,025 ($9,110,353) (12.1%) 61 El Segundo $56,220,110 $63,791,780 ($7,571,670) (13.5%) 62 Paramount $50,529,929 $56,826,715 ($6,296,786) (12.5%) 62 Downey $77,559,000 $88,020,000 ($10,461,000) (13.5%) 63 Arcadia $61,191,647 $70,570,837 ($9,379,190) (15.3%) 63 Covina $37,960,839 $43,156,145 ($5,195,306) (13.7%) 64 Pico Rivera $61,415,487 $71,893,503 ($10,478,016) (17.1%) 64 Sierra Madre $11,182,144 $12,712,931 ($1,530,787) (13.7%) 65 Downey $81,960,000 $96,542,000 ($14,582,000) (17.8%) 65 Signal Hill $27,749,195 $31,682,253 ($3,933,058) (14.2%) 66 Covina $44,510,982 $52,454,325 ($7,943,343) (17.8%) 66 Rolling Hills $1,634,820 $1,868,965 ($234,145) (14.3%) 67 Santa Clarita $133,197,193 $159,438,000 ($26,240,807) (19.7%) 67 San Marino $22,782,822 $26,206,773 ($3,423,951) (15.0%) 68 Azusa $45,373,595 $54,357,111 ($8,983,516) (19.8%) 68 Culver City $107,089,835 $123,637,733 ($16,547,898) (15.5%) 69 Lancaster $112,223,448 $136,732,232 ($24,508,784) (21.8%) 69 Burbank $212,012,000 $247,189,000 ($35,177,000) (16.6%) 70 Hidden Hills $1,941,845 $2,393,563 ($451,718) (23.3%) 70 Artesia $10,236,246 $11,988,734 ($1,752,488) (17.1%) 71 Rosemead $32,963,479 $41,668,718 ($8,705,239) (26.4%) 71 Rosemead $30,363,930 $35,614,356 ($5,250,426) (17.3%) 72 San Marino $23,745,622 $30,214,969 ($6,469,347) (27.2%) 72 Pasadena $296,816,607 $350,327,610 ($53,511,003) (18.0%) 73 Malibu $25,842,406 $33,393,351 ($7,550,945) (29.2%) 73 Santa Fe Springs $68,735,329 $81,778,621 ($13,043,292) (19.0%) 74 Walnut $20,725,302 $26,788,349 ($6,063,047) (29.3%) 74 Carson $99,831,047 $124,270,497 ($24,439,450) (24.5%) 75 San Dimas $31,327,423 $40,866,676 ($9,539,253) (30.5%) 75 Long Beach $678,093,000 $848,789,000 ($170,696,000) (25.2%) 76 Diamond Bar $25,035,214 $33,040,359 ($8,005,145) (32.0%) 76 Diamond Bar $26,330,887 $43,649,908 ($17,319,021) (65.8%) 77 Lawndale $21,006,256 $29,229,256 ($8,223,000) (39.1%) 77 Vernon $35,483,086 $65,241,372 ($29,758,286) (83.9%) 78 Monrovia $55,044,292 $77,249,492 ($22,205,200) (40.3%) NA Azusa 79 Agoura Hills $22,136,934 $31,318,579 ($9,181,645) (41.5%) NA Bradbury 80 Rolling Hills $1,805,117 $2,627,724 ($822,607) (45.6%) NA Hawaiian Gardens 81 Signal Hill $32,521,138 $53,326,400 ($20,805,262) (64.0%) NA Huntington Park 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 106 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Exhibit 4: Total Revenues, Expenditures and Net Revenues (Ranked Highest to Lowest % Net Revenue) Fiscal Year 2010-11 Fiscal Year 2011-12 Total Total Net Total % Net Total Total Net Total % Net Rank City Revenues Expenditures Revenues Revenue Rank City Revenues Expenditures Revenues Revenue 82 Bradbury $1,276,231 $2,656,941 ($1,380,710) (108.2%) NA Inglewood 83 Vernon $43,508,272 $91,538,194 ($48,029,922) (110.4%) NA La Habra Heights 84 Cudahy $12,766,738 $34,508,045 ($21,741,307) (170.3%) NA Lawndale Source: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) or Basic Financial Statements obtained from each City. Financial information for FY 2010-11 or FY 2011-12 was not available from the cities of Avalon, Bell, Compton, and Maywood as of April 25, 2013. Financial information for FY 2011-12 was not available from the cities of Azusa, Bradbury, Hawaiian Gardens, Huntington Park, Inglewood, La Habra Heights, and Lawndale as of April 25, 2013. 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 107 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Ratio of Assets to Liabilities – All Funds The Ratio of Assets to Liabilities is the total assets of a city divided by the total liabilities of a city. City assets include funds available for use by the city, as well as the value of any capital assets such as land, buildings and improvements, machinery and equipment, and infrastructure. Liabilities include accounts payable and long-term debt such as bonds, certificates of participation, pension obligations, and insurance claims. Net assets are the total city assets less total city liabilities. The ratio of assets to liabilities is calculated by dividing a city’s total assets by its total liabilities. This ratio is an indicator of a city’s solvency and ability to meet long-term obligations, including financial obligations to creditors, employees, taxpayers, and suppliers; as well as its service obligations to its residents. Ideally, cities would at minimum, have twice as many assets as liabilities. This would give them an asset to liability ratio of 2.0 or better. All Funds include each city’s general fund as well as any other funds for proprietary or business- type activities which could include operating public utilities (power, water, parking, refuse collection, etc.) or other non-governmental type activities. As the following Exhibit shows, 63 of the 84 cities ratio of total assets to total liabilities were greater than 2.0 in FY 2010-2011. The remaining 21 cities had total asset to total liability ratios less than 2.0. This indicates that several cities solvency may be at risk, as may their ability to meet future obligations. The City of Huntington Park had the lowest ratio at .62. The average ratio of total assets to liabilities was 5.45. The exhibit also shows that 73 of the 77 cities ratio of total assets to total liabilities was greater than 2.0 in FY 2011-2012. The remaining 4 cities had total asset to total liability ratios less than 2.0. The City of Vernon had the lowest ratio at 1.14. The average ratio of total assets to liabilities was 8.92. 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 108 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Exhibit 5: Ratio of Assets to Liabilities (Ranked Highest to Lowest Asset / Liability Ratio) Fiscal Year 2010-11 Fiscal Year 2011-12 Total Total Net Asset/Liab Total Total Net Asset/Liab Rank City Assets Liabilities Assets Ratio Rank City Assets Liabilities Assets Ratio 1 Palos Verdes Estates $88,420,940 $1,752,074 $86,668,866 50.47 1 Walnut $115,898,582 $2,369,123 $113,529,459 48.92 2 Bradbury $5,872,368 $119,172 $5,753,196 49.28 2 Rolling Hills $6,123,294 $134,391 $5,988,903 45.56 3 Rolling Hills $6,064,186 $165,740 $5,898,446 36.59 3 Palos Verdes Estates $84,101,994 $1,869,782 $82,232,212 44.98 4 Diamond Bar $427,954,451 $17,170,854 $410,783,597 24.92 4 Rancho Palos Verdes $205,133,651 $4,895,237 $200,238,414 41.90 5 San Marino $213,879,205 $13,848,139 $200,031,066 15.44 5 Irwindale $180,683,695 $4,508,093 $176,175,602 40.08 6 Sierra Madre $237,392,680 $18,307,775 $219,084,905 12.97 6 Cerritos $521,222,864 $13,299,104 $507,923,760 39.19 7 Rancho Palos Verdes $183,351,452 $14,962,024 $168,389,428 12.25 7 Duarte $99,124,139 $2,902,268 $96,221,871 34.15 8 La Habra Heights $13,077,532 $1,112,685 $11,964,847 11.75 8 Diamond Bar $422,435,232 $16,574,686 $405,860,546 25.49 9 Rolling Hills Estates $11,410,435 $1,079,312 $10,331,123 10.57 9 San Marino $209,846,258 $9,760,547 $200,085,711 21.50 10 Hidden Hills $7,803,640 $740,696 $7,062,944 10.54 10 Lancaster $1,186,102,650 $65,739,528 $1,120,363,122 18.04 11 Lakewood $196,928,360 $22,239,508 $174,688,852 8.85 11 Lakewood $230,380,255 $12,818,746 $217,561,509 17.97 12 Hermosa Beach $94,678,094 $12,733,849 $81,944,245 7.44 12 Sierra Madre $232,472,623 $14,030,072 $218,442,551 16.57 13 Temple City $70,306,143 $9,784,669 $60,521,474 7.19 13 Temple City $69,449,861 $4,249,629 $65,200,232 16.34 14 Santa Clarita $1,065,979,745 $171,394,178 $894,585,567 6.22 14 Cudahy $27,660,302 $1,772,078 $25,888,224 15.61 15 La Verne $159,341,073 $29,061,008 $130,280,065 5.48 15 Rosemead $84,020,443 $5,451,588 $78,568,855 15.41 16 El Segundo $180,643,289 $32,996,639 $147,646,650 5.47 16 Hidden Hills $7,709,555 $630,966 $7,078,589 12.22 17 Lomita $54,868,086 $10,991,133 $43,876,953 4.99 17 La Mirada $215,552,893 $18,941,473 $196,611,420 11.38 18 San Gabriel $70,957,616 $14,737,559 $56,220,057 4.81 18 Signal Hill $137,305,258 $12,138,801 $125,166,457 11.31 19 El Monte $588,985,234 $123,456,692 $465,528,542 4.77 19 Rolling Hills Estates $12,316,003 $1,148,403 $11,167,600 10.72 20 Redondo Beach $281,608,087 $61,583,267 $220,024,820 4.57 20 San Dimas $113,932,782 $11,061,620 $102,871,162 10.30 21 Duarte $97,086,406 $21,786,945 $75,299,461 4.46 21 Santa Clarita $1,053,397,301 $103,905,196 $949,492,105 10.14 22 Claremont $180,897,011 $40,689,331 $140,207,680 4.45 22 Paramount $144,711,469 $14,555,553 $130,155,916 9.94 23 Arcadia $250,144,554 $58,079,723 $192,064,831 4.31 23 South El Monte $19,907,415 $2,121,622 $17,785,793 9.38 24 Manhattan Beach $233,817,711 $56,806,938 $177,010,773 4.12 24 Agoura Hills $96,625,546 $12,809,549 $83,815,997 7.54 25 San Dimas $101,991,554 $24,826,864 $77,164,690 4.11 25 Bell Gardens $191,871,967 $26,447,660 $165,424,307 7.25 26 Santa Monica $2,099,921,023 $527,963,742 $1,571,957,281 3.98 26 Palmdale $990,239,602 $138,797,258 $851,442,344 7.13 27 Glendale $2,226,232,000 $570,565,000 $1,655,667,000 3.90 27 La Verne $154,179,006 $22,230,669 $131,948,337 6.94 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 109 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Exhibit 5: Ratio of Assets to Liabilities (Ranked Highest to Lowest Asset / Liability Ratio) Fiscal Year 2010-11 Fiscal Year 2011-12 Total Total Net Asset/Liab Total Total Net Asset/Liab Rank City Assets Liabilities Assets Ratio Rank City Assets Liabilities Assets Ratio 28 Lancaster $1,201,979,276 $309,840,170 $892,139,106 3.88 28 Arcadia $211,749,407 $30,596,842 $181,152,565 6.92 29 Agoura Hills $116,577,048 $30,528,813 $86,048,235 3.82 29 Santa Fe Springs $224,620,141 $35,848,313 $188,771,828 6.27 30 Downey $376,504,000 $100,120,000 $276,384,000 3.76 30 Whittier $324,214,159 $52,081,755 $272,132,404 6.23 31 Palmdale $999,515,730 $267,635,592 $731,880,138 3.73 31 Hermosa Beach $96,306,380 $16,337,945 $79,968,435 5.89 32 Burbank $1,880,182,000 $534,489,000 $1,345,693,000 3.52 32 Norwalk $274,460,360 $48,158,429 $226,301,931 5.70 33 Glendora $225,395,493 $64,330,673 $161,064,820 3.50 33 El Monte $594,012,036 $109,264,631 $484,747,405 5.44 34 Walnut $120,777,488 $34,584,543 $86,192,945 3.49 34 Lomita $53,189,162 $9,981,603 $43,207,559 5.33 35 Calabasas $142,042,050 $40,792,991 $101,249,059 3.48 35 Santa Monica $2,255,578,274 $427,105,828 $1,828,472,446 5.28 36 Bellflower $101,310,675 $30,777,138 $70,533,537 3.29 36 Redondo Beach $300,717,204 $58,608,458 $242,108,746 5.13 37 Westlake Village $58,313,392 $18,618,023 $39,695,369 3.13 37 Glendora $204,385,316 $40,221,117 $164,164,199 5.08 38 Malibu $149,475,186 $49,713,408 $99,761,778 3.01 38 Culver City $472,606,147 $93,084,870 $379,521,277 5.08 39 San Fernando $90,834,622 $30,503,287 $60,331,335 2.98 39 Artesia $20,335,920 $4,023,492 $16,312,428 5.05 40 Whittier $348,490,082 $118,356,840 $230,133,242 2.94 40 Burbank $1,815,963,000 $364,619,000 $1,451,344,000 4.98 41 Bell Gardens $153,430,820 $52,319,436 $101,111,384 2.93 41 Claremont $170,116,198 $34,524,762 $135,591,436 4.93 42 Gardena $180,905,947 $62,498,588 $118,407,359 2.89 42 Glendale $2,059,200,000 $420,737,000 $1,638,463,000 4.89 43 Torrance $650,556,692 $226,219,659 $424,337,033 2.88 43 San Fernando $78,474,183 $16,305,374 $62,168,809 4.81 44 Lawndale $81,868,788 $28,703,834 $53,164,954 2.85 44 Downey $369,282,000 $77,836,000 $291,446,000 4.74 45 Cerritos $518,137,390 $183,360,486 $334,776,904 2.83 45 San Gabriel $68,198,445 $14,507,466 $53,690,979 4.70 46 West Hollywood $365,313,019 $131,186,941 $234,126,078 2.78 46 Bellflower $103,767,025 $22,358,267 $81,408,758 4.64 47 South Gate $376,365,993 $140,614,854 $235,751,139 2.68 47 El Segundo $183,826,202 $40,961,299 $142,864,903 4.49 48 Carson $609,443,656 $229,799,077 $379,644,579 2.65 48 Baldwin Park $190,905,224 $42,620,143 $148,285,081 4.48 49 Covina $221,644,683 $84,990,065 $136,654,618 2.61 49 West Hollywood $322,446,228 $76,195,168 $246,251,060 4.23 50 La Canada Flintridge $109,044,832 $41,985,623 $67,059,209 2.60 50 Manhattan Beach $241,463,953 $59,289,301 $182,174,652 4.07 51 Beverly Hills $1,078,152,658 $422,582,158 $655,570,500 2.55 51 West Covina $330,435,933 $82,658,973 $247,776,960 4.00 52 Alhambra $296,469,828 $119,622,630 $176,847,198 2.48 52 Alhambra $276,233,851 $73,299,805 $202,934,046 3.77 53 Lynwood $238,731,698 $96,479,834 $142,251,864 2.47 53 Covina $176,604,781 $47,891,935 $128,712,846 3.69 54 Pico Rivera $347,770,725 $149,661,007 $198,109,718 2.32 54 Pico Rivera $412,274,202 $112,231,407 $300,042,795 3.67 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 110 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Exhibit 5: Ratio of Assets to Liabilities (Ranked Highest to Lowest Asset / Liability Ratio) Fiscal Year 2010-11 Fiscal Year 2011-12 Total Total Net Asset/Liab Total Total Net Asset/Liab Rank City Assets Liabilities Assets Ratio Rank City Assets Liabilities Assets Ratio 55 South Pasadena $144,547,447 $62,543,545 $82,003,902 2.31 55 Torrance $692,737,932 $189,521,542 $503,216,390 3.66 56 Baldwin Park $188,761,132 $82,777,566 $105,983,566 2.28 56 South Gate $351,583,719 $98,888,969 $252,694,750 3.56 57 Long Beach $7,893,542,000 $3,503,942,000 $4,389,600,000 2.25 57 Calabasas $141,403,315 $40,198,947 $101,204,368 3.52 58 Irwindale $227,433,081 $101,140,971 $126,292,110 2.25 58 Lynwood $198,530,985 $57,991,202 $140,539,783 3.42 59 La Puente $65,715,521 $29,478,455 $36,237,066 2.23 59 Westlake Village $58,271,190 $18,459,480 $39,811,710 3.16 60 Norwalk $310,876,969 $141,534,883 $169,342,086 2.20 60 Monterey Park $181,010,277 $60,123,631 $120,886,646 3.01 61 Paramount $176,074,523 $82,761,827 $93,312,696 2.13 61 Malibu $144,784,540 $49,149,344 $95,635,196 2.95 62 West Covina $393,668,391 $190,242,427 $203,425,964 2.07 62 Gardena $176,980,217 $60,851,921 $116,128,296 2.91 63 Pasadena $2,130,027,981 $1,057,963,954 $1,072,064,027 2.01 63 Beverly Hills $1,096,047,778 $386,615,376 $709,432,402 2.83 64 Rosemead $101,546,907 $51,231,316 $50,315,591 1.98 64 La Puente $61,958,667 $21,939,611 $40,019,056 2.82 65 La Mirada $187,410,425 $101,432,571 $85,977,854 1.85 65 La Canada Flintridge $109,404,743 $41,057,351 $68,347,392 2.66 66 Industry $1,318,370,797 $713,739,635 $604,631,162 1.85 66 Monrovia $147,325,528 $55,616,717 $91,708,811 2.65 67 Artesia $34,469,124 $19,520,803 $14,948,321 1.77 67 Hawthorne $210,886,565 $84,148,643 $126,737,922 2.51 68 Los Angeles $48,314,850,000 $27,828,798,000 $20,486,052,000 1.74 68 Montebello $187,942,699 $77,447,983 $110,494,716 2.43 69 Culver City $501,853,833 $290,221,863 $211,631,970 1.73 69 Long Beach $7,651,596,000 $3,195,961,000 $4,455,635,000 2.39 70 Monterey Park $206,689,014 $120,080,758 $86,608,256 1.72 70 South Pasadena $145,516,887 $62,739,288 $82,777,599 2.32 71 Azusa $309,924,813 $182,897,208 $127,027,605 1.69 71 Pomona $668,336,761 $300,869,530 $367,467,231 2.22 72 Commerce $239,293,851 $141,490,074 $97,803,777 1.69 72 Industry $1,072,760,770 $505,840,188 $566,920,582 2.12 73 Santa Fe Springs $274,645,725 $165,374,866 $109,270,859 1.66 73 Pasadena $2,238,931,695 $1,096,733,295 $1,142,198,400 2.04 74 Inglewood $567,569,063 $353,685,792 $213,883,271 1.60 74 Carson $123,719,473 $63,174,711 $60,544,762 1.96 75 Hawaiian Gardens $67,599,243 $44,331,328 $23,267,915 1.52 75 Los Angeles $49,152,203,000 $27,736,333,000 $21,415,870,000 1.77 76 Signal Hill $182,250,557 $120,132,168 $62,118,389 1.52 76 Commerce $218,084,817 $135,097,508 $82,987,309 1.61 77 Montebello $236,456,171 $156,110,153 $80,346,018 1.51 77 Vernon $690,600,768 $608,242,470 $82,358,298 1.14 78 Pomona $798,930,067 $538,256,843 $260,673,224 1.48 NA Azusa 79 Hawthorne $212,647,750 $154,609,911 $58,037,839 1.38 NA Bradbury 80 Monrovia $188,236,546 $144,333,135 $43,903,411 1.30 NA Hawaiian Gardens 81 Vernon $799,130,095 $617,439,595 $181,690,500 1.29 NA Huntington Park 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 111 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Exhibit 5: Ratio of Assets to Liabilities (Ranked Highest to Lowest Asset / Liability Ratio) Fiscal Year 2010-11 Fiscal Year 2011-12 Total Total Net Asset/Liab Total Total Net Asset/Liab Rank City Assets Liabilities Assets Ratio Rank City Assets Liabilities Assets Ratio 82 Cudahy $34,358,801 $26,643,892 $7,714,909 1.29 NA Inglewood 83 South El Monte $45,102,055 $39,775,366 $5,326,689 1.13 NA La Habra Heights 84 Huntington Park $151,871,161 $244,914,916 ($93,043,755) 0.62 NA Lawndale Source: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) or Basic Financial Statements obtained from each City. Financial information for FY 2010-11 or FY 2011-12 was not available from the cities of Avalon, Bell, Compton, and Maywood as of April 25, 2013. Financial information for FY 2011-12 was not available from the cities of Azusa, Bradbury, Hawaiian Gardens, Huntington Park, Inglewood, La Habra Heights, and Lawndale as of April 25, 2013. 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 112 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Change in Net Assets – All Funds Change in Net Assets is the difference from the beginning of the fiscal year to the end of the fiscal year in the total city assets minus total city liabilities. This change indicates the extent to which total city assets are increasing or decreasing. Ideally, city net assets would be stable or increasing. Declining net assets indicate cities are spending down their assets in order to meet current financial obligations. The change in net assets is calculated by subtracting the previous fiscal year’s net assets for each city from the current year’s net assets. If the result is a positive number the net assets are increasing, if a negative number the net assets are decreasing. All Funds include each city’s general fund as well as any other funds for proprietary or business- type activities which could include operating public utilities (power, water, parking, refuse collection, etc.) or other non-governmental type activities. As the following exhibit shows, 52 of the 84 cities total net assets increased during FY 2010-11. The remaining 32 cities net assets declined during FY 2010-11. The exhibit also shows that 58 of the 77 cities total net assets increased during FY 2011-12. The remaining 19 cities net assets declined during FY 2011-12. The average change in net assets was 0.8% in 2010-11, and 24% for FY 2011-12. A positive percentage change indicates that the city’s financial position is improving, while a negative percentage change indicates that the city’s financial position is deteriorating. 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 113 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Exhibit 6: Change in Net Assets (Ranked Positive to Negative Change in Net Assets) Fiscal Year 2010-11 Fiscal Year 2011-12 Beginning Ending Change in Change in Beginning Ending Change in Change in Rank City Net Assets Net Assets Net Assets Net Assets Rank City Net Assets Net Assets Net Assets Net Assets 1 South El Monte $2,663,813 $5,326,689 $2,662,876 100.0% 1 Cudahy $7,173,952 $25,888,224 $18,714,272 260.9% 2 La Mirada $76,937,205 $85,977,854 $9,040,649 11.8% 2 South El Monte $5,276,689 $17,785,793 $12,509,104 237.1% 3 Irwindale $116,423,063 $126,292,110 $9,869,047 8.5% 3 Monrovia $34,771,983 $91,708,811 $56,936,828 163.7% 4 Rosemead $46,401,401 $50,315,591 $3,914,190 8.4% 4 La Mirada $85,977,854 $196,611,420 $110,633,566 128.7% 5 Bellflower $65,202,419 $70,533,537 $5,331,118 8.2% 5 Hawthorne $58,037,839 $126,737,922 $68,700,083 118.4% 6 Alhambra $163,529,822 $176,847,198 $13,317,376 8.1% 6 Signal Hill $62,118,389 $125,166,457 $63,048,068 101.5% 7 South Gate $220,778,915 $235,751,139 $14,972,224 6.8% 7 Culver City $209,781,126 $379,521,277 $169,740,151 80.9% 8 Beverly Hills $614,725,670 $655,570,500 $40,844,830 6.6% 8 Pico Rivera $165,900,924 $300,042,795 $134,141,871 80.9% 9 Montebello $75,599,044 $80,346,018 $4,746,974 6.3% 9 Santa Fe Springs $109,270,859 $188,771,828 $79,500,969 72.8% 10 La Canada Flintridge $63,263,101 $67,059,209 $3,796,108 6.0% 10 Bell Gardens $101,111,384 $165,424,307 $64,312,923 63.6% 11 Long Beach $4,145,131,000 $4,389,600,000 $244,469,000 5.9% 11 Rosemead $50,315,591 $78,568,855 $28,253,264 56.2% 12 Temple City $57,233,673 $60,521,474 $3,287,801 5.7% 12 Cerritos $334,776,904 $507,923,760 $173,146,856 51.7% 13 Hawthorne $54,890,570 $58,037,839 $3,147,269 5.7% 13 Pomona $260,673,224 $367,467,231 $106,794,007 41.0% 14 Industry $571,843,610 $604,631,162 $32,787,552 5.7% 14 Irwindale $125,553,473 $176,175,602 $50,622,129 40.3% 15 Calabasas $96,242,704 $101,249,059 $5,006,355 5.2% 15 Baldwin Park $105,983,566 $148,285,081 $42,301,515 39.9% 16 Duarte $71,674,385 $75,299,461 $3,625,076 5.1% 16 Monterey Park $86,608,256 $120,886,646 $34,278,390 39.6% 17 South Pasadena $78,836,763 $82,003,902 $3,167,139 4.0% 17 Paramount $93,312,696 $130,155,916 $36,843,220 39.5% 18 West Hollywood $225,262,308 $234,126,078 $8,863,770 3.9% 18 Montebello $80,346,018 $110,494,716 $30,148,698 37.5% 19 Santa Fe Springs $105,335,804 $109,270,859 $3,935,055 3.7% 19 Norwalk $169,342,086 $226,301,931 $56,959,845 33.6% 20 Pico Rivera $191,918,476 $198,109,718 $6,191,242 3.2% 20 San Dimas $77,241,648 $102,871,162 $25,629,514 33.2% 21 Claremont $135,942,150 $140,207,680 $4,265,530 3.1% 21 Walnut $86,192,945 $113,529,459 $27,336,514 31.7% 22 Rancho Palos Verdes $163,468,852 $168,389,428 $4,920,576 3.0% 22 Duarte $75,750,203 $96,221,871 $20,471,668 27.0% 23 Pasadena $1,040,811,812 $1,072,064,027 $31,252,215 3.0% 23 Lancaster $894,735,818 $1,120,363,122 $225,627,304 25.2% 24 Lakewood $169,950,296 $174,688,852 $4,738,556 2.8% 24 Lakewood $174,688,852 $217,561,509 $42,872,657 24.5% 25 Monterey Park $84,302,457 $86,608,256 $2,305,799 2.7% 25 West Covina $203,425,964 $247,776,960 $44,350,996 21.8% 26 Los Angeles $19,954,256,000 $20,486,052,000 $531,796,000 2.7% 26 Pasadena $946,405,167 $1,142,215,257 $195,810,090 20.7% 27 La Verne $127,166,259 $130,280,065 $3,113,806 2.4% 27 Torrance $424,337,033 $503,216,390 $78,879,357 18.6% 28 Baldwin Park $103,455,582 $105,983,566 $2,527,984 2.4% 28 Whittier $230,133,242 $272,132,404 $41,999,162 18.2% 29 Manhattan Beach $172,842,329 $177,010,773 $4,168,444 2.4% 29 Rancho Palos Verdes $172,079,069 $200,238,415 $28,159,346 16.4% 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 114 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Exhibit 6: Change in Net Assets (Ranked Positive to Negative Change in Net Assets) Fiscal Year 2010-11 Fiscal Year 2011-12 Beginning Ending Change in Change in Beginning Ending Change in Change in Rank City Net Assets Net Assets Net Assets Net Assets Rank City Net Assets Net Assets Net Assets Net Assets 30 Santa Monica $1,535,362,226 $1,571,957,281 $36,595,055 2.4% 30 Santa Monica $1,571,957,281 $1,828,472,446 $256,515,165 16.3% 31 Rolling Hills Estates $10,091,850 $10,331,123 $239,273 2.4% 31 Bellflower $70,414,588 $81,408,758 $10,994,170 15.6% 32 Redondo Beach $215,266,893 $220,024,820 $4,757,927 2.2% 32 Palmdale $738,666,238 $851,442,344 $112,776,106 15.3% 33 San Dimas $75,610,910 $77,164,690 $1,553,780 2.1% 33 South Gate $220,449,150 $252,694,750 $32,245,600 14.6% 34 Culver City $207,459,913 $211,631,970 $4,172,057 2.0% 34 Alhambra $177,111,578 $202,934,046 $25,822,468 14.6% 35 Lynwood $139,691,580 $142,251,864 $2,560,284 1.8% 35 La Puente $36,237,066 $40,019,056 $3,781,990 10.4% 36 Santa Clarita $879,262,993 $894,585,567 $15,322,574 1.7% 36 Redondo Beach $220,008,247 $242,108,746 $22,100,499 10.0% 37 Whittier $226,622,628 $230,133,242 $3,510,614 1.5% 37 Artesia $14,988,321 $16,312,428 $1,324,107 8.8% 38 La Puente $35,699,326 $36,237,066 $537,740 1.5% 38 Beverly Hills $655,570,500 $709,432,402 $53,861,902 8.2% 39 Hermosa Beach $80,738,553 $81,944,245 $1,205,692 1.5% 39 Rolling Hills Estates $10,331,123 $11,167,600 $836,477 8.1% 40 Hidden Hills $6,960,798 $7,062,944 $102,146 1.5% 40 Burbank $1,345,693,000 $1,451,344,000 $105,651,000 7.9% 41 Signal Hill $61,339,935 $62,118,389 $778,454 1.3% 41 Temple City $60,521,475 $65,200,232 $4,678,757 7.7% 42 Torrance $419,292,996 $424,337,033 $5,044,037 1.2% 42 Commerce $77,866,876 $82,987,309 $5,120,433 6.6% 43 El Monte $461,076,559 $465,528,542 $4,451,983 1.0% 43 Santa Clarita $894,585,567 $949,492,105 $54,906,538 6.1% 44 Artesia $14,822,791 $14,948,321 $125,530 0.8% 44 Downey $275,778,000 $291,446,000 $15,668,000 5.7% 45 Agoura Hills $85,359,390 $86,048,235 $688,845 0.8% 45 Manhattan Beach $173,023,924 $182,174,652 $9,150,728 5.3% 46 Lawndale $52,877,922 $53,164,954 $287,032 0.5% 46 West Hollywood $234,567,423 $246,251,060 $11,683,637 5.0% 47 San Marino $199,264,839 $200,031,066 $766,227 0.4% 47 Glendora $156,845,282 $164,164,199 $7,318,917 4.7% 48 Glendora $160,580,571 $161,064,820 $484,249 0.3% 48 Los Angeles $20,486,052,000 $21,415,870,000 $929,818,000 4.5% 49 Malibu $99,601,111 $99,761,778 $160,667 0.2% 49 El Monte $465,528,542 $484,747,405 $19,218,863 4.1% 50 Glendale $1,654,023,000 $1,655,667,000 $1,644,000 0.1% 50 San Fernando $60,331,335 $62,168,809 $1,837,474 3.0% 51 Palmdale $731,360,888 $731,880,138 $519,250 0.1% 51 La Canada Flintridge $67,059,209 $68,347,392 $1,288,183 1.9% 52 Hawaiian Gardens $23,261,691 $23,267,915 $6,224 0.0% 52 Rolling Hills $5,898,446 $5,988,903 $90,457 1.5% 53 Norwalk $169,547,365 $169,342,086 ($205,279) (.1%) 53 Long Beach $4,389,600,000 $4,455,635,000 $66,035,000 1.5% 54 Walnut $86,393,828 $86,192,945 ($200,883) (.2%) 54 La Verne $130,280,065 $131,948,337 $1,668,272 1.3% 55 Gardena $118,827,858 $118,407,359 ($420,499) (.4%) 55 South Pasadena $82,003,902 $82,777,599 $773,697 0.9% 56 Burbank $1,353,345,000 $1,345,693,000 ($7,652,000) (.6%) 56 Westlake Village $39,695,369 $39,811,710 $116,341 0.3% 57 Pomona $262,449,409 $260,673,224 ($1,776,185) (.7%) 57 Hidden Hills $7,062,944 $7,078,589 $15,645 0.2% 58 San Fernando $60,778,589 $60,331,335 ($447,254) (.7%) 58 San Marino $199,706,593 $200,085,711 $379,118 0.2% 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 115 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Exhibit 6: Change in Net Assets (Ranked Positive to Negative Change in Net Assets) Fiscal Year 2010-11 Fiscal Year 2011-12 Beginning Ending Change in Change in Beginning Ending Change in Change in Rank City Net Assets Net Assets Net Assets Net Assets Rank City Net Assets Net Assets Net Assets Net Assets 59 Sierra Madre $220,802,817 $219,084,905 ($1,717,912) (.8%) 59 Calabasas $101,249,059 $101,204,368 ($44,691) (.0%) 60 La Habra Heights $12,082,251 $11,964,847 ($117,404) (1.0%) 60 Claremont $135,916,931 $135,591,436 ($325,495) (.2%) 61 Cerritos $338,239,068 $334,776,904 ($3,462,164) (1.0%) 61 Sierra Madre $219,400,219 $218,442,551 ($957,668) (.4%) 62 Palos Verdes Estates $87,668,455 $86,668,866 ($999,589) (1.1%) 62 Glendale $1,655,667,000 $1,638,463,000 ($17,204,000) (1.0%) 63 Diamond Bar $416,022,622 $410,783,597 ($5,239,025) (1.3%) 63 Lynwood $142,251,864 $140,539,783 ($1,712,081) (1.2%) 64 Lancaster $904,318,000 $891,819,345 ($12,498,655) (1.4%) 64 Diamond Bar $411,343,266 $405,860,546 ($5,482,720) (1.3%) 65 El Segundo $149,895,666 $147,646,650 ($2,249,016) (1.5%) 65 Lomita $43,876,953 $43,207,559 ($669,394) (1.5%) 66 Lomita $44,653,981 $43,876,953 ($777,028) (1.7%) 66 Gardena $118,407,359 $116,128,296 ($2,279,063) (1.9%) 67 Inglewood $220,134,814 $213,883,271 ($6,251,543) (2.8%) 67 San Gabriel $54,887,950 $53,690,979 ($1,196,971) (2.2%) 68 Westlake Village $41,067,970 $39,695,369 ($1,372,601) (3.3%) 68 Palos Verdes Estates $84,219,854 $82,232,212 ($1,987,642) (2.4%) 69 San Gabriel $58,199,540 $56,220,057 ($1,979,483) (3.4%) 69 Hermosa Beach $81,944,245 $79,968,435 ($1,975,810) (2.4%) 70 Arcadia $199,030,502 $192,064,831 ($6,965,671) (3.5%) 70 Agoura Hills $86,048,235 $83,815,997 ($2,232,238) (2.6%) 71 West Covina $211,787,517 $203,425,964 ($8,361,553) (3.9%) 71 Malibu $98,924,563 $95,635,196 ($3,289,367) (3.3%) 72 Bell Gardens $105,822,495 $101,111,384 ($4,711,111) (4.5%) 72 El Segundo $147,836,304 $142,864,903 ($4,971,401) (3.4%) 73 Azusa $133,485,442 $127,027,605 ($6,457,837) (4.8%) 73 Carson $379,644,579 $363,110,748 ($16,533,831) (4.4%) 74 Commerce $102,968,774 $97,803,777 ($5,164,997) (5.0%) 74 Arcadia $192,064,831 $181,152,565 ($10,912,266) (5.7%) 75 Downey $291,298,000 $276,384,000 ($14,914,000) (5.1%) 75 Industry $604,631,162 $566,920,582 ($37,710,580) (6.2%) 76 Covina $145,143,945 $136,654,618 ($8,489,327) (5.8%) 76 Covina $140,149,595 $128,712,846 ($11,436,749) (8.2%) 77 Paramount $99,609,482 $93,312,696 ($6,296,786) (6.3%) 77 Vernon $169,354,729 $82,358,298 ($86,996,431) (51.4%) 78 Carson $419,286,360 $379,644,579 ($39,641,781) (9.5%) NA Azusa 79 Vernon $201,108,074 $181,690,500 ($19,417,574) (9.7%) NA Bradbury 80 Bradbury $6,402,883 $5,753,196 ($649,687) (10.1%) NA Hawaiian Gardens 81 Monrovia $49,199,339 $43,903,411 ($5,295,928) (10.8%) NA Huntington Park 82 Rolling Hills $6,775,878 $5,898,446 ($877,432) (12.9%) NA Inglewood 83 Huntington Park ($82,332,367) ($93,043,755) ($10,711,388) (13.0%) NA La Habra Heights 84 Cudahy $28,414,815 $7,714,909 ($20,699,906) (72.8%) NA Lawndale Source: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) or Basic Financial Statements obtained from each City. Financial information for FY 2010-11 or FY 2011-12 was not available from the cities of Avalon, Bell, Compton, and Maywood as of April 25, 2013. Financial information for FY 2011-12 was not available from the cities of Azusa, Bradbury, Hawaiian Gardens, Huntington Park, Inglewood, La Habra Heights, and Lawndale as of April 25, 2013. 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 116 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT General Fund Net Revenue Percent General Fund Net Revenue Percent is the percent of all general fund revenues remaining after all city general fund expenditures. Revenues are the amount received by a city from taxes, fees, permits, licenses, interest, intergovernmental sources, and other sources during the fiscal year. Expenditures are the actual spending of governmental general funds by each city. If a city spends less than received the general fund net revenues and percentage would be positive. If a city spends more than received in revenues the net general fund revenues and percentage would be negative. The general fund net revenue percent is calculated by dividing general fund net revenues by total general fund revenues. As the following Exhibit shows, 52 of the 84 cities received more in general fund revenues than they expended on general funded governmental activities during Fiscal Year 2010-11. The remaining 32 cities spent more on these activities than revenue received. The exhibit also shows 46 of the 77 cities received more in general fund revenues than they expended on general funded governmental activities during Fiscal Year 2011-12. The remaining 31 cities spent more on these activities than revenue received. Cities spent an average of 1.7% more than received in revenue in FY 2010-11, and spent 1.5% more than received in revenue in FY 2011-12. General Funds are used to fund core government activities such as government administration, public safety, transportation, community development, and community services. Each city’s general fund is used to provide resources to provide for the basic city services including police, fire, parks, library, and administrative support services. A negative net general fund revenues and percentage means a city’s ability to provide these essential services in the future may be at risk, and they may have to make additional reductions in city services. 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 117 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Exhibit 7: General Fund Revenues, Expenditures and Net Revenues Fiscal Year 2010-11 Fiscal Year 2011-12 General Fund General Fund General Fund % Net GF General Fund General Fund General Fund % Net GF Rank City Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue Revenue Rank City Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue Revenue 1 Duarte $20,672,184 $11,859,298 $8,812,886 42.6% 1 Rancho Palos Verdes $23,670,857 $17,460,898 $6,209,959 26.2% 2 Industry $51,331,181 $35,935,257 $15,395,924 30.0% 2 La Mirada $37,134,080 $28,488,780 $8,645,300 23.3% 3 Rancho Palos Verdes $22,921,818 $17,081,270 $5,840,548 25.5% 3 Santa Monica $434,801,117 $334,088,752 $100,712,365 23.2% 4 Norwalk $51,364,870 $42,346,732 $9,018,138 17.6% 4 West Hollywood $72,214,859 $59,640,290 $12,574,569 17.4% 5 La Canada Flintridge $12,797,722 $10,676,861 $2,120,861 16.6% 5 Hermosa Beach $28,674,890 $24,769,924 $3,904,966 13.6% 6 Culver City $82,739,285 $69,164,968 $13,574,317 16.4% 6 La Puente $10,793,192 $9,563,650 $1,229,542 11.4% 7 Santa Clarita $79,670,171 $67,322,236 $12,347,935 15.5% 7 Hawthorne $55,129,557 $48,919,950 $6,209,607 11.3% 8 West Hollywood $68,722,966 $58,624,426 $10,098,540 14.7% 8 Pasadena $195,589,261 $173,738,846 $21,850,415 11.2% 9 Palmdale $55,974,288 $47,890,405 $8,083,883 14.4% 9 Beverly Hills $172,764,744 $153,657,321 $19,107,423 11.1% 10 Hawthorne $56,575,507 $48,639,631 $7,936,146 14.0% 10 Sierra Madre $7,979,366 $7,140,524 $838,842 10.5% 11 Beverly Hills $165,530,333 $146,061,614 $19,468,719 11.8% 11 La Canada Flintridge $11,839,400 $10,612,344 $1,227,056 10.4% 12 Sierra Madre $8,169,722 $7,242,599 $927,123 11.3% 12 South El Monte $10,886,615 $9,841,361 $1,045,254 9.6% 13 South Pasadena $22,014,073 $19,547,071 $2,467,002 11.2% 13 Westlake Village $9,920,560 $8,988,739 $931,821 9.4% 14 Hermosa Beach $27,196,751 $24,321,633 $2,875,118 10.6% 14 Claremont $21,530,877 $19,647,490 $1,883,387 8.7% 15 Bell Gardens $23,887,916 $21,497,729 $2,390,187 10.0% 15 San Marino $21,351,300 $19,494,858 $1,856,442 8.7% 16 La Mirada $31,266,046 $28,263,068 $3,002,978 9.6% 16 Agoura Hills $11,308,176 $10,392,563 $915,613 8.1% 17 Whittier $57,189,318 $51,856,441 $5,332,877 9.3% 17 Norwalk $38,712,928 $35,674,163 $3,038,765 7.8% 18 San Marino $21,952,839 $19,960,981 $1,991,858 9.1% 18 Carson $65,424,619 $60,481,818 $4,942,801 7.6% 19 Gardena $42,447,638 $38,830,154 $3,617,484 8.5% 19 Duarte $12,214,688 $11,398,359 $816,329 6.7% 20 Artesia $7,309,948 $6,700,829 $609,119 8.3% 20 Commerce $50,069,711 $46,783,647 $3,286,064 6.6% 21 Claremont $21,598,847 $19,872,514 $1,726,333 8.0% 21 Hidden Hills $1,754,705 $1,641,310 $113,395 6.5% 22 Pasadena $195,614,741 $181,402,037 $14,212,704 7.3% 22 Rolling Hills Estates $6,366,990 $5,966,474 $400,516 6.3% 23 Baldwin Park $24,076,977 $22,364,752 $1,712,225 7.1% 23 Torrance $152,938,399 $143,470,325 $9,468,074 6.2% 24 Carson $61,764,161 $57,407,400 $4,356,761 7.1% 24 Pomona $76,869,936 $72,122,780 $4,747,156 6.2% 25 Los Angeles $4,179,291,000 $3,913,044,000 $266,247,000 6.4% 25 Signal Hill $16,966,997 $15,928,094 $1,038,903 6.1% 26 Temple City $10,644,685 $9,972,639 $672,046 6.3% 26 Los Angeles $4,317,334,000 $4,053,262,000 $264,072,000 6.1% 27 Lakewood $42,507,652 $39,868,028 $2,639,624 6.2% 27 Temple City $11,091,731 $10,444,775 $646,956 5.8% 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 118 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Exhibit 7: General Fund Revenues, Expenditures and Net Revenues Fiscal Year 2010-11 Fiscal Year 2011-12 General Fund General Fund General Fund % Net GF General Fund General Fund General Fund % Net GF Rank City Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue Revenue Rank City Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue Revenue 28 Glendora $22,684,726 $21,338,243 $1,346,483 5.9% 28 Manhattan Beach $53,987,382 $50,930,438 $3,056,944 5.7% 29 Bellflower $23,607,679 $22,488,247 $1,119,432 4.7% 29 Lakewood $41,824,853 $39,459,224 $2,365,629 5.7% 30 Azusa $31,960,738 $30,462,297 $1,498,441 4.7% 30 South Pasadena $22,361,777 $21,141,001 $1,220,776 5.5% 31 Signal Hill $16,503,772 $15,763,663 $740,109 4.5% 31 Gardena $44,782,462 $42,454,549 $2,327,913 5.2% 32 Manhattan Beach $52,027,800 $49,765,852 $2,261,948 4.3% 32 Palos Verdes Estates $10,775,050 $10,242,790 $532,260 4.9% 33 Calabasas $20,437,186 $19,553,214 $883,972 4.3% 33 Lomita $7,606,304 $7,301,566 $304,738 4.0% 34 Redondo Beach $67,121,270 $64,350,055 $2,771,215 4.1% 34 Calabasas $19,628,049 $18,860,625 $767,424 3.9% 35 Walnut $11,794,092 $11,381,557 $412,535 3.5% 35 Baldwin Park $23,433,623 $22,548,214 $885,409 3.8% 36 Agoura Hills $11,031,740 $10,649,354 $382,386 3.5% 36 San Dimas $18,230,694 $17,775,563 $455,131 2.5% 37 Irwindale $17,891,101 $17,343,600 $547,501 3.1% 37 Redondo Beach $67,811,693 $66,183,617 $1,628,076 2.4% 38 Rolling Hills $1,620,797 $1,578,562 $42,235 2.6% 38 Long Beach $388,538,000 $379,466,000 $9,072,000 2.3% 39 Huntington Park $30,583,128 $29,862,365 $720,763 2.4% 39 Palmdale $48,252,632 $47,398,402 $854,230 1.8% 40 Lomita $7,429,243 $7,269,805 $159,438 2.1% 40 Bell Gardens $22,483,823 $22,108,676 $375,147 1.7% 41 Palos Verdes Estates $10,632,711 $10,406,520 $226,191 2.1% 41 Industry $46,085,842 $45,418,773 $667,069 1.4% 42 Covina $28,885,879 $28,329,627 $556,252 1.9% 42 Paramount $23,155,325 $22,836,405 $318,920 1.4% 43 Torrance $148,890,032 $146,087,069 $2,802,963 1.9% 43 South Gate $37,427,784 $36,974,158 $453,626 1.2% 44 Alhambra $50,980,178 $50,216,870 $763,308 1.5% 44 Bellflower $23,056,942 $22,816,147 $240,795 1.0% 45 Commerce $47,452,600 $46,748,647 $703,953 1.5% 45 Monterey Park $32,412,385 $32,217,428 $194,957 0.6% 46 San Dimas $19,188,807 $18,938,547 $250,260 1.3% 46 Rosemead $17,078,236 $17,001,740 $76,496 0.4% 47 Westlake Village $9,570,726 $9,452,130 $118,596 1.2% 47 Lancaster $54,034,215 $54,517,133 ($482,918) (.9%) 48 Pomona $76,597,406 $75,885,240 $712,166 0.9% 48 Lynwood $27,181,216 $27,466,586 ($285,370) (1.0%) 49 La Habra Heights $2,819,878 $2,803,953 $15,925 0.6% 49 Pico Rivera $32,595,768 $33,164,063 ($568,295) (1.7%) 50 South El Monte $9,866,559 $9,827,652 $38,907 0.4% 50 La Verne $25,272,727 $25,846,547 ($573,820) (2.3%) 51 Paramount $22,349,332 $22,304,041 $45,291 0.2% 51 Alhambra $50,575,102 $51,754,955 ($1,179,853) (2.3%) 52 Arcadia $45,970,881 $45,957,932 $12,949 0.0% 52 Glendora $22,167,417 $22,736,426 ($569,009) (2.6%) 53 Long Beach $383,824,000 $384,441,000 ($617,000) (.2%) 53 Culver City $70,610,080 $72,935,927 ($2,325,847) (3.3%) 54 South Gate $35,321,221 $35,686,831 ($365,610) (1.0%) 54 Artesia $7,440,483 $7,699,562 ($259,079) (3.5%) 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 119 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Exhibit 7: General Fund Revenues, Expenditures and Net Revenues Fiscal Year 2010-11 Fiscal Year 2011-12 General Fund General Fund General Fund % Net GF General Fund General Fund General Fund % Net GF Rank City Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue Revenue Rank City Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue Revenue 55 Santa Monica $266,324,593 $270,917,006 ($4,592,413) (1.7%) 55 Whittier $51,724,154 $53,935,356 ($2,211,202) (4.3%) 56 El Monte $48,936,211 $49,864,596 ($928,385) (1.9%) 56 El Monte $50,425,256 $52,901,819 ($2,476,563) (4.9%) 57 Inglewood $91,188,526 $93,635,491 ($2,446,965) (2.7%) 57 Malibu $22,864,947 $23,990,727 ($1,125,780) (4.9%) 58 Monterey Park $29,370,250 $30,285,009 ($914,759) (3.1%) 58 Arcadia $45,795,470 $48,079,568 ($2,284,098) (5.0%) 59 Hawaiian Gardens $16,140,191 $16,710,780 ($570,589) (3.5%) 59 Covina $28,167,072 $29,581,412 ($1,414,340) (5.0%) 60 El Segundo $52,261,377 $54,408,329 ($2,146,952) (4.1%) 60 El Segundo $50,276,959 $53,771,645 ($3,494,686) (7.0%) 61 Malibu $21,722,890 $22,641,708 ($918,818) (4.2%) 61 Santa Clarita $80,248,130 $86,681,522 ($6,433,392) (8.0%) 62 West Covina $49,055,522 $51,760,549 ($2,705,027) (5.5%) 62 Downey $63,810,000 $69,232,000 ($5,422,000) (8.5%) 63 La Puente $9,678,875 $10,219,907 ($541,032) (5.6%) 63 Irwindale $15,557,396 $16,970,554 ($1,413,158) (9.1%) 64 Lynwood $26,536,562 $28,057,344 ($1,520,782) (5.7%) 64 Walnut $10,855,654 $11,978,785 ($1,123,131) (10.3%) 65 Rolling Hills Estates $5,780,776 $6,204,793 ($424,017) (7.3%) 65 Santa Fe Springs $49,986,372 $55,669,656 ($5,683,284) (11.4%) 66 Rosemead $16,477,300 $17,730,943 ($1,253,643) (7.6%) 66 West Covina $48,345,460 $54,019,195 ($5,673,735) (11.7%) 67 La Verne $23,768,896 $25,588,297 ($1,819,401) (7.7%) 67 Cudahy $6,900,915 $7,723,621 ($822,706) (11.9%) 68 Pico Rivera $30,222,633 $32,819,053 ($2,596,420) (8.6%) 68 Burbank $134,937,000 $152,537,000 ($17,600,000) (13.0%) 69 Cudahy $5,930,943 $6,513,443 ($582,500) (9.8%) 69 Rolling Hills $1,463,120 $1,697,941 ($234,821) (16.0%) 70 Downey $61,269,000 $67,951,000 ($6,682,000) (10.9%) 70 Glendale $138,953,000 $162,117,000 ($23,164,000) (16.7%) 71 Santa Fe Springs $41,744,050 $46,483,379 ($4,739,329) (11.4%) 71 Diamond Bar $17,927,859 $22,239,717 ($4,311,858) (24.1%) 72 Cerritos $60,431,960 $68,949,923 ($8,517,963) (14.1%) 72 Monrovia $25,206,231 $32,055,155 ($6,848,924) (27.2%) 73 Glendale $142,582,000 $163,698,000 ($21,116,000) (14.8%) 73 San Fernando $12,144,406 $15,788,936 ($3,644,530) (30.0%) 74 Burbank $130,993,000 $150,679,000 ($19,686,000) (15.0%) 74 Montebello $33,716,297 $44,431,004 ($10,714,707) (31.8%) 75 San Gabriel $25,312,197 $30,919,864 ($5,607,667) (22.2%) 75 San Gabriel $24,543,179 $32,751,441 ($8,208,262) (33.4%) 76 Lancaster $44,307,303 $54,631,910 ($10,324,607) (23.3%) 76 Cerritos $59,970,701 $86,349,754 ($26,379,053) (44.0%) 77 Montebello $33,446,847 $41,947,119 ($8,500,272) (25.4%) 77 Vernon $27,460,829 $57,151,710 ($29,690,881) (108.1%) 78 Monrovia $23,488,715 $30,958,641 ($7,469,926) (31.8%) NA Azusa 79 Hidden Hills $1,710,883 $2,258,156 ($547,273) (32.0%) NA Bradbury 80 San Fernando $14,724,735 $19,438,178 ($4,713,443) (32.0%) NA Hawaiian Gardens 81 Lawndale $11,313,334 $15,437,446 ($4,124,112) (36.5%) NA Huntington Park 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 120 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Exhibit 7: General Fund Revenues, Expenditures and Net Revenues Fiscal Year 2010-11 Fiscal Year 2011-12 General Fund General Fund General Fund % Net GF General Fund General Fund General Fund % Net GF Rank City Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue Revenue Rank City Revenues Expenditures Net Revenue Revenue 82 Diamond Bar $17,882,284 $27,804,147 ($9,921,863) (55.5%) NA Inglewood 83 Bradbury $907,791 $1,444,788 ($536,997) (59.2%) NA La Habra Heights 84 Vernon $27,894,119 $55,868,389 ($27,974,270) (100.3%) NA Lawndale Source: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) or Basic Financial Statements obtained from each City. Financial information for FY 2010-11 or FY 2011-12 was not available from the cities of Avalon, Bell, Compton, and Maywood as of April 25, 2013. Financial information for FY 2011-12 was not available from the cities of Azusa, Bradbury, Hawaiian Gardens, Huntington Park, Inglewood, La Habra Heights, and Lawndale as of April 25, 2013. 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 121 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Change in General Fund Balance Change in General Fund Balance is the difference from the beginning of the fiscal year to the end of the fiscal year in the total city general fund balance. This change indicates the extent to which total a city’s general funds are increasing or decreasing. Ideally, city net general fund balance would be stable or increasing. A declining general fund balance indicates cities are spending down their general fund in order to meet current financial obligations. The change in general fund balance is calculated by subtracting the previous fiscal year’s general fund balance for each city from the current year’s general fund balance. If the result is a positive number than the general fund balance is increasing, if a negative number the general fund balance is decreasing. As the following Exhibit shows, 47 of the 84 cities had positive changes in their general fund balance in Fiscal Year 2010-11. The remaining 37 cities general fund balance declined. The exhibit also shows 32 of the 77 cities had positive changes in their general fund balance in Fiscal Year 2011-12. The remaining 45 cities general fund balance declined. The average change in general fund balance was -3.8% in 2010-11, and -14.5% for FY 2011-12. A positive percentage change indicates that the city’s financial position is improving, while a negative percentage change indicates that the city’s financial position is deteriorating. 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 122 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Exhibit 8: Change in General Fund Balance (Ranked Positive to Negative Change in General Fund Balance) Fiscal Year 2010-11 Fiscal Year 2011-12 Beginning Ending Change in % Change Beginning Ending Change in % Change Rank City GF Balance GF Balance GF Balance GF Balance Rank City GF Balance GF Balance GF Balance GF Balance 1 Agoura Hills $10,346,064 $39,846,641 $29,500,577 285.1% 1 Beverly Hills $39,846,641 $107,208,994 $67,362,353 169.1% 2 Irwindale $27,375,796 $66,721,671 $39,345,875 143.7% 2 South El Monte $1,836,365 $2,932,157 $1,095,792 59.7% 3 Azusa $9,656,687 $16,303,959 $6,647,272 68.8% 3 Montebello $4,975,576 $7,155,057 $2,179,481 43.8% 4 Duarte $14,583,081 $23,090,967 $8,507,886 58.3% 4 Santa Monica $295,275,716 $416,257,281 $120,981,565 41.0% 5 Paramount $14,177,317 $20,217,152 $6,039,835 42.6% 5 Carson $23,501,291 $29,618,905 $6,117,614 26.0% 6 Redondo Beach $9,894,077 $13,654,459 $3,760,382 38.0% 6 Santa Fe Springs $25,249,104 $31,662,518 $6,413,414 25.4% 7 Santa Monica $215,470,696 $295,275,716 $79,805,020 37.0% 7 La Verne $8,545,949 $10,197,783 $1,651,834 19.3% 8 Norwalk $21,682,417 $29,478,353 $7,795,936 36.0% 8 Monterey Park $13,145,236 $15,528,130 $2,382,894 18.1% 9 Culver City $38,893,637 $50,316,015 $11,422,378 29.4% 9 Rolling Hills Estates $2,392,970 $2,800,565 $407,595 17.0% 10 Carson $18,182,124 $23,501,291 $5,319,167 29.3% 10 Long Beach $66,993,000 $77,123,000 $10,130,000 15.1% 11 Artesia $3,163,243 $3,962,246 $799,003 25.3% 11 Claremont $11,531,871 $13,191,567 $1,659,696 14.4% 12 Palmdale $23,524,967 $29,325,007 $5,800,040 24.7% 12 Los Angeles $523,288,000 $571,684,000 $48,396,000 9.2% 13 Alhambra $8,080,126 $10,045,306 $1,965,180 24.3% 13 South Pasadena $13,532,500 $14,754,459 $1,221,959 9.0% 14 South Pasadena $11,199,357 $13,532,500 $2,333,143 20.8% 14 Pasadena $49,911,540 $53,775,868 $3,864,328 7.7% 15 Hawthorne $28,888,447 $34,484,777 $5,596,330 19.4% 15 La Mirada $48,228,160 $51,887,661 $3,659,501 7.6% 16 Los Angeles $436,484,000 $520,058,000 $83,574,000 19.1% 16 Gardena $9,267,031 $9,961,015 $693,984 7.5% 17 Claremont $10,158,269 $11,688,535 $1,530,266 15.1% 17 Lakewood $55,114,817 $58,824,823 $3,710,006 6.7% 18 Hermosa Beach $5,241,329 $5,853,457 $612,128 11.7% 18 Rancho Palos Verdes $18,900,262 $19,957,249 $1,056,987 5.6% 19 Glendale $120,471,000 $134,055,000 $13,584,000 11.3% 19 Commerce $48,742,675 $51,324,280 $2,581,605 5.3% 20 Signal Hill $24,525,625 $26,926,465 $2,400,840 9.8% 20 Calabasas $16,990,628 $17,760,172 $769,544 4.5% 21 West Hollywood $68,564,646 $75,148,519 $6,583,873 9.6% 21 Duarte $23,090,967 $23,966,286 $875,319 3.8% 22 Palos Verdes Estates $8,528,709 $9,332,667 $803,958 9.4% 22 Hermosa Beach $5,853,457 $6,056,563 $203,106 3.5% 23 Covina $10,608,489 $11,607,880 $999,391 9.4% 23 Signal Hill $26,926,465 $27,604,374 $677,909 2.5% 24 Manhattan Beach $18,245,833 $19,904,622 $1,658,789 9.1% 24 Lomita $4,919,713 $5,041,171 $121,458 2.5% 25 Santa Clarita $77,757,523 $83,690,219 $5,932,696 7.6% 25 Hidden Hills $5,038,232 $5,151,627 $113,395 2.3% 26 Lakewood $51,225,124 $55,114,817 $3,889,693 7.6% 26 South Gate $44,430,290 $45,305,175 $874,885 2.0% 27 Sierra Madre $5,136,891 $5,521,717 $384,826 7.5% 27 Torrance $51,737,301 $52,697,045 $959,744 1.9% 28 La Canada Flintridge $13,975,303 $14,997,521 $1,022,218 7.3% 28 West Hollywood $74,528,324 $75,775,059 $1,246,735 1.7% 29 Gardena $8,649,750 $9,267,031 $617,281 7.1% 29 Paramount $20,217,152 $20,536,072 $318,920 1.6% 30 Industry $204,929,546 $219,000,959 $14,071,413 6.9% 30 Bellflower $26,638,103 $27,034,507 $396,404 1.5% 31 Santa Fe Springs $23,665,295 $25,249,104 $1,583,809 6.7% 31 Pico Rivera $42,454,939 $42,945,527 $490,588 1.2% 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 123 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Exhibit 8: Change in General Fund Balance (Ranked Positive to Negative Change in General Fund Balance) Fiscal Year 2010-11 Fiscal Year 2011-12 Beginning Ending Change in % Change Beginning Ending Change in % Change Rank City GF Balance GF Balance GF Balance GF Balance Rank City GF Balance GF Balance GF Balance GF Balance 32 South Gate $41,736,638 $44,430,290 $2,693,652 6.5% 32 El Monte $27,313,295 $27,530,762 $217,467 0.8% 33 El Monte $25,716,836 $27,313,295 $1,596,459 6.2% 33 Manhattan Beach $19,904,622 $19,860,593 ($44,029) (.2%) 34 Arcadia $25,198,726 $26,733,547 $1,534,821 6.1% 34 Westlake Village $15,429,166 $15,287,538 ($141,628) (.9%) 35 La Verne $8,061,447 $8,545,949 $484,502 6.0% 35 San Dimas $30,886,489 $30,596,789 ($289,700) (.9%) 36 Bell Gardens $38,147,258 $40,042,997 $1,895,739 5.0% 36 Bell Gardens $40,042,997 $39,269,814 ($773,183) (1.9%) 37 Glendora $16,088,976 $16,766,521 $677,545 4.2% 37 Redondo Beach $13,654,459 $13,390,680 ($263,779) (1.9%) 38 Huntington Park $30,991,807 $32,074,080 $1,082,273 3.5% 38 La Canada Flintridge $14,997,521 $14,679,687 ($317,834) (2.1%) 39 Rolling Hills $3,221,894 $3,321,129 $99,235 3.1% 39 Culver City $50,316,015 $48,994,261 ($1,321,754) (2.6%) 40 Temple City $24,700,378 $25,313,718 $613,340 2.5% 40 West Covina $29,613,277 $28,767,970 ($845,307) (2.9%) 41 Bellflower $27,469,072 $28,098,159 $629,087 2.3% 41 Rosemead $15,319,072 $14,821,172 ($497,900) (3.3%) 42 La Mirada $47,554,646 $48,527,355 $972,709 2.0% 42 Arcadia $26,733,547 $25,799,162 ($934,385) (3.5%) 43 San Dimas $30,419,495 $30,900,448 $480,953 1.6% 43 Whittier $36,473,307 $34,873,937 ($1,599,370) (4.4%) 44 Beverly Hills $97,564,979 $97,984,156 $419,177 0.4% 44 Palos Verdes Estates $9,332,667 $8,891,466 ($441,201) (4.7%) 45 Whittier $36,392,331 $36,473,307 $80,976 0.2% 45 Temple City $25,313,718 $24,054,080 ($1,259,638) (5.0%) 46 San Gabriel $11,160,821 $11,182,894 $22,073 0.2% 46 Walnut $15,002,607 $14,215,976 ($786,631) (5.2%) 47 Commerce $48,716,793 $48,742,675 $25,882 0.1% 47 Alhambra $9,758,196 $9,245,955 ($512,241) (5.2%) 48 La Habra Heights $5,577,027 $5,546,038 ($30,989) (.6%) 48 Industry $219,000,959 $207,304,768 ($11,696,191) (5.3%) 49 Rancho Palos Verdes $19,373,042 $18,900,263 ($472,779) (2.4%) 49 Baldwin Park $17,077,153 $16,084,269 ($992,884) (5.8%) 50 La Puente $19,110,833 $18,569,801 ($541,032) (2.8%) 50 Rolling Hills $3,321,129 $3,110,058 ($211,071) (6.4%) 51 El Segundo $13,034,492 $12,628,952 ($405,540) (3.1%) 51 Artesia $3,962,246 $3,682,488 ($279,758) (7.1%) 52 Calabasas $17,617,282 $16,990,628 ($626,654) (3.6%) 52 Palmdale $31,932,082 $29,657,651 ($2,274,431) (7.1%) 53 Cerritos $183,100,074 $175,341,307 ($7,758,767) (4.2%) 53 Sierra Madre $5,521,717 $5,110,444 ($411,273) (7.4%) 54 Hawaiian Gardens $21,034,418 $20,095,731 ($938,687) (4.5%) 54 Malibu $20,352,411 $18,572,523 ($1,779,888) (8.7%) 55 Monterey Park $13,762,704 $13,145,236 ($617,468) (4.5%) 55 Cudahy $7,530,636 $6,838,969 ($691,667) (9.2%) 56 Westlake Village $16,308,401 $15,429,166 ($879,235) (5.4%) 56 Covina $11,607,880 $10,537,723 ($1,070,157) (9.2%) 57 Lawndale $24,655,831 $23,275,550 ($1,380,281) (5.6%) 57 Glendora $16,766,521 $15,158,169 ($1,608,352) (9.6%) 58 Torrance $55,023,286 $51,737,301 ($3,285,985) (6.0%) 58 Burbank $100,907,000 $86,565,000 ($14,342,000) (14.2%) 59 West Covina $31,567,950 $29,613,277 ($1,954,673) (6.2%) 59 Lynwood $6,533,260 $5,601,665 ($931,595) (14.3%) 60 Pico Rivera $45,530,767 $42,454,939 ($3,075,828) (6.8%) 60 Downey $23,227,000 $19,887,000 ($3,340,000) (14.4%) 61 Burbank $108,520,000 $100,907,000 ($7,613,000) (7.0%) 61 Cerritos $175,341,307 $147,153,641 ($28,187,666) (16.1%) 62 San Marino $19,107,936 $17,399,938 ($1,707,998) (8.9%) 62 Santa Clarita $83,690,219 $69,942,023 ($13,748,196) (16.4%) 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 124 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Exhibit 8: Change in General Fund Balance (Ranked Positive to Negative Change in General Fund Balance) Fiscal Year 2010-11 Fiscal Year 2011-12 Beginning Ending Change in % Change Beginning Ending Change in % Change Rank City GF Balance GF Balance GF Balance GF Balance Rank City GF Balance GF Balance GF Balance GF Balance 63 Rosemead $16,953,956 $15,319,072 ($1,634,884) (9.6%) 63 Irwindale $66,721,671 $55,367,683 ($11,353,988) (17.0%) 64 Baldwin Park $18,918,838 $17,077,153 ($1,841,685) (9.7%) 64 San Marino $17,399,938 $14,258,891 ($3,141,047) (18.1%) 65 Hidden Hills $5,585,505 $5,038,232 ($547,273) (9.8%) 65 Norwalk $29,478,353 $23,871,998 ($5,606,355) (19.0%) 66 Downey $23,119,000 $20,827,000 ($2,292,000) (9.9%) 66 Diamond Bar $21,268,415 $17,144,314 ($4,124,101) (19.4%) 67 Pasadena $53,177,187 $46,565,007 ($6,612,180) (12.4%) 67 El Segundo $12,628,952 $10,168,440 ($2,460,512) (19.5%) 68 Inglewood $19,569,028 $17,131,737 ($2,437,291) (12.5%) 68 San Gabriel $11,182,894 $8,289,717 ($2,893,177) (25.9%) 69 Lomita $5,651,721 $4,919,713 ($732,008) (13.0%) 69 Lancaster $63,342,372 $38,910,226 ($24,432,146) (38.6%) 70 Pomona $6,535,641 $5,689,100 ($846,541) (13.0%) 70 Glendale $134,055,000 $59,566,000 ($74,489,000) (55.6%) 71 Monrovia $3,739,203 $3,216,328 ($522,875) (14.0%) 71 Hawthorne $34,484,777 $14,153,974 ($20,330,803) (59.0%) 72 Rolling Hills Estates $2,816,987 $2,392,970 ($424,017) (15.1%) 72 La Puente $18,569,801 $7,508,388 ($11,061,413) (59.6%) 73 Cudahy $8,967,448 $7,567,550 ($1,399,898) (15.6%) 73 Pomona $5,689,100 $2,148,019 ($3,541,081) (62.2%) 74 Lancaster $76,270,787 $63,342,372 ($12,928,415) (17.0%) 74 Agoura Hills $41,569,987 $9,024,831 ($32,545,156) (78.3%) 75 Lynwood $8,288,968 $6,533,260 ($1,755,708) (21.2%) 75 San Fernando ($619,317) ($1,236,782) ($617,465) (99.7%) 76 Bradbury $2,247,759 $1,710,762 ($536,997) (23.9%) 76 Monrovia $3,216,328 ($8,827,446) ($12,043,774) (374.5%) 77 Malibu $26,751,198 $20,352,411 ($6,398,787) (23.9%) 77 Vernon ($4,526,031) ($25,120,702) ($20,594,671) (455.0%) 78 Diamond Bar $30,860,848 $21,268,415 ($9,592,433) (31.1%) NA Azusa 79 Walnut $21,952,372 $15,002,607 ($6,949,765) (31.7%) NA Bradbury 80 South El Monte $3,802,320 $1,836,365 ($1,965,955) (51.7%) NA Hawaiian Gardens 81 Vernon $18,832,079 $7,809,740 ($11,022,339) (58.5%) NA Huntington Park 82 Long Beach $163,702,000 $66,993,000 ($96,709,000) (59.1%) NA Inglewood 83 Montebello ($6,682,148) $4,975,576 $11,657,724 (174.5%) NA La Habra Heights 84 San Fernando $102,384 ($619,317) ($721,701) (704.9%) NA Lawndale Source: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) or Basic Financial Statements obtained from each City. Financial information for FY 2010-11 or FY 2011-12 was not available from the cities of Avalon, Bell, Compton, and Maywood as of April 25, 2013. Financial information for FY 2011-12 was not available from the cities of Azusa, Bradbury, Hawaiian Gardens, Huntington Park, Inglewood, La Habra Heights, and Lawndale as of April 25, 2013. 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 125 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Unassigned General Fund Reserve Unassigned General Fund Balance is the portion of a city’s general fund balance that is not assigned for a specific use and, therefore, available for appropriation. The Government Finance Officers Association recommends each city have an unassigned general fund reserve of no less than two months (16.6%) of regular general fund operating revenues or regular general fund operating expenditures. These are funds that have been formally set aside for use in emergencies, revenue shortages, or budget imbalances, as well as provide stable tax rates, maintain government services, and facilitate long-term financial planning. As the exhibit on the following pages shows, 55 of the 84 cities had unassigned general fund reserves greater than 16.6%, or two months, of regular general fund operating expenditures for Fiscal Year 2010-11. The exhibit also shows 47 of the 77 cities had unassigned general fund reserves greater than 16.6%, or two months, of regular general fund operating expenditures for Fiscal Year 2011-12. The average unassigned general fund reserves percentage of regular general fund operating expenditures was 51.4% in FY 2010-11, and 38.3% in FY 2011-12. 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 126 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Exhibit 9: General Fund Balance Indicators (Ranked Highest to Lowest % Unassigned GF Balance) Fiscal Year 2010-11 Fiscal Year 2011-12 GF Balance % Unassigned GF Unassigned GF GF Balance % Unassigned GF Unassigned GF Rank City of GF Exp's Balance % of GF Exp's Rank City of GF Exp's Balance % of GF Exp's 1 Industry 609.4% $218,205,140 607.2% 1 Industry 456.4% $206,508,950 454.7% 2 Temple City 253.8% $23,542,553 236.1% 2 Hidden Hills 313.9% $4,791,648 291.9% 3 Hidden Hills 223.1% $4,678,424 207.2% 3 Rolling Hills 183.2% $3,005,146 177.0% 4 Rolling Hills 210.4% $3,265,198 206.8% 4 Westlake Village 170.1% $12,525,377 139.3% 5 La Habra Heights 197.8% $5,472,642 195.2% 5 La Canada Flintridge 138.3% $12,346,098 116.3% 6 Bradbury 118.4% $2,710,762 187.6% 6 Duarte 210.3% $12,421,537 109.0% 7 Hawaiian Gardens 120.3% $20,095,731 120.3% 7 Calabasas 94.2% $17,746,565 94.1% 8 La Canada Flintridge 140.5% $12,734,288 119.3% 8 Cudahy 88.5% $6,838,969 88.5% 9 Cerritos 254.3% $71,056,060 103.1% 9 Agoura Hills 86.8% $8,883,578 85.5% 10 Duarte 194.7% $11,552,824 97.4% 10 La Mirada 182.1% $24,253,682 85.1% 11 Westlake Village 163.2% $8,761,505 92.7% 11 Cerritos 170.4% $67,305,842 77.9% 12 Calabasas 86.9% $16,972,163 86.8% 12 Commerce 109.7% $36,051,479 77.1% 13 Agoura Hills 374.2% $8,547,388 80.3% 13 San Marino 73.1% $14,152,605 72.6% 14 San Marino 87.2% $15,934,468 79.8% 14 Rancho Palos Verdes 114.3% $12,464,439 71.4% 15 Lawndale 150.8% $11,560,364 74.9% 15 Bellflower 118.5% $14,376,492 63.0% 16 La Mirada 171.7% $20,693,194 73.2% 16 Santa Clarita 80.7% $50,664,338 58.4% 17 Bell Gardens 186.3% $0 73.2% 17 Culver City 67.2% $42,583,643 58.4% 18 Commerce 104.3% $33,552,248 71.8% 18 Diamond Bar 77.1% $12,616,200 56.7% 19 Bellflower 124.9% $15,735,669 70.0% 19 San Dimas 172.1% $9,976,322 56.1% 20 Santa Clarita 124.3% $46,915,238 69.7% 20 Rosemead 87.2% $9,519,173 56.0% 21 Rancho Palos Verdes 110.6% $11,385,761 66.7% 21 South Pasadena 69.8% $11,757,341 55.6% 22 Sierra Madre 76.2% $4,721,717 65.2% 22 La Puente 78.5% $4,843,455 50.6% 23 Culver City 72.7% $42,492,244 61.4% 23 Paramount 89.9% $11,335,035 49.6% 24 Diamond Bar 76.5% $16,726,964 60.2% 24 Beverly Hills 69.8% $69,963,868 45.5% 25 Rosemead 86.4% $10,209,075 57.6% 25 Santa Fe Springs 56.9% $23,978,015 43.1% 26 San Dimas 163.2% $10,451,853 55.2% 26 Whittier 64.7% $20,875,491 42.0% 27 La Puente 181.7% $5,601,360 54.8% 27 Signal Hill 173.3% $6,642,291 41.7% 28 South Pasadena 69.2% $10,541,790 53.9% 28 Malibu 77.4% $8,680,522 36.2% 29 Artesia 59.1% $3,007,803 44.9% 29 Manhattan Beach 39.0% $18,134,492 35.6% 30 Whittier 70.3% $22,674,738 43.7% 30 Rolling Hills Estates 46.9% $2,101,763 35.2% 31 Beverly Hills 67.1% $63,862,068 43.7% 31 Santa Monica 124.6% $117,225,871 35.1% 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 127 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Exhibit 9: General Fund Balance Indicators (Ranked Highest to Lowest % Unassigned GF Balance) Fiscal Year 2010-11 Fiscal Year 2011-12 GF Balance % Unassigned GF Unassigned GF GF Balance % Unassigned GF Unassigned GF Rank City of GF Exp's Balance % of GF Exp's Rank City of GF Exp's Balance % of GF Exp's 32 Santa Monica 109.0% $108,382,191 40.0% 32 Artesia 47.8% $2,691,563 35.0% 33 Signal Hill 170.8% $6,167,408 39.1% 33 Palmdale 62.6% $16,415,346 34.6% 34 Glendale 81.9% $63,408,000 38.7% 34 Claremont 67.1% $6,227,688 31.7% 35 Manhattan Beach 40.0% $18,270,832 36.7% 35 Covina 35.6% $9,187,601 31.1% 36 Palmdale 61.2% $17,472,584 36.5% 36 Norwalk 66.9% $10,668,298 29.9% 37 Covina 41.0% $10,284,466 36.3% 37 Hawthorne 28.9% $14,100,610 28.8% 38 Santa Fe Springs 54.3% $16,439,102 35.4% 38 Carson 49.0% $15,971,310 26.4% 39 Cudahy 29.3% $6,707,195 33.6% 39 West Covina 53.3% $13,187,181 24.4% 40 Hawthorne 70.9% $16,077,846 33.1% 40 Glendale 36.7% $37,852,000 23.3% 41 Malibu 89.9% $7,058,095 31.2% 41 Hermosa Beach 24.5% $5,776,500 23.3% 42 Burbank 67.0% $46,871,000 31.1% 42 Temple City 230.3% $2,352,402 22.5% 43 Claremont 58.8% $6,149,503 30.9% 43 Lancaster 71.4% $11,700,986 21.5% 44 Huntington Park 107.4% $9,153,901 30.7% 44 Torrance 36.7% $30,771,557 21.4% 45 Lancaster 115.9% $16,502,115 30.2% 45 Arcadia 53.7% $9,745,454 20.3% 46 Rolling Hills Estates 38.6% $1,766,793 28.5% 46 South Gate 122.5% $7,216,043 19.5% 47 Norwalk 69.6% $10,736,919 25.4% 47 Lynwood 20.4% $5,079,182 18.5% 48 Hermosa Beach 24.1% $5,635,231 23.2% 48 El Monte 52.0% $8,644,339 16.3% 49 Paramount 30.9% $11,120,183 22.3% 49 Montebello 16.1% $7,047,301 15.9% 50 Arcadia 58.2% $8,711,216 19.0% 50 Palos Verdes Estates 86.8% $1,605,774 15.7% 51 Carson 40.9% $10,591,610 18.4% 51 West Hollywood 127.1% $9,295,313 15.6% 52 Inglewood 18.3% $17,131,737 18.3% 52 El Segundo 18.9% $7,839,124 14.6% 53 Lynwood 23.3% $5,115,452 18.2% 53 South El Monte 29.8% $1,294,223 13.2% 54 West Covina 57.2% $8,786,221 17.0% 54 Sierra Madre 71.6% $870,761 12.2% 55 El Monte 54.8% $8,440,216 16.9% 55 Downey 28.7% $6,123,000 8.8% 56 Baldwin Park 76.4% $3,429,025 15.3% 56 Baldwin Park 71.3% $1,826,473 8.1% 57 Downey 30.7% $10,070,000 14.8% 57 Monterey Park 48.2% $2,505,441 7.8% 58 South Gate 124.5% $4,716,524 13.2% 58 Los Angeles 14.1% $272,905,000 6.7% 59 Pico Rivera 129.4% $3,767,252 11.5% 59 Lakewood 149.1% $2,564,755 6.5% 60 Palos Verdes Estates 89.7% $1,111,013 10.7% 60 Lomita 69.0% $373,356 5.1% 61 Montebello 11.9% $4,394,672 10.5% 61 San Gabriel 25.3% $1,140,249 3.5% 62 El Segundo 23.2% $5,315,133 9.8% 62 Long Beach 20.3% $4,857,000 1.3% 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 128 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Exhibit 9: General Fund Balance Indicators (Ranked Highest to Lowest % Unassigned GF Balance) Fiscal Year 2010-11 Fiscal Year 2011-12 GF Balance % Unassigned GF Unassigned GF GF Balance % Unassigned GF Unassigned GF Rank City of GF Exp's Balance % of GF Exp's Rank City of GF Exp's Balance % of GF Exp's 63 Torrance 35.4% $14,156,365 9.7% 63 Walnut 118.7% $89,005 0.7% 64 Lomita 67.7% $619,957 8.5% 64 Alhambra 17.9% $374,673 0.7% 65 Monterey Park 43.4% $2,505,441 8.3% 65 Redondo Beach 20.2% $383,446 0.6% 66 Los Angeles 13.3% $253,882,000 6.5% 66 Gardena 23.5% $217,873 0.5% 67 Alhambra 20.0% $2,344,568 4.7% 67 Bell Gardens 177.6% $0 0.0% 68 Lakewood 138.2% $1,258,266 3.2% 67 Burbank 56.8% $47,098,000 0.0% 69 South El Monte 18.7% $197,862 2.0% 67 Glendora 66.7% $0 0.0% 70 Gardena 23.9% $257,210 0.7% 67 Irwindale 326.3% $0 0.0% 71 Long Beach 17.4% $682,000 0.2% 67 La Verne 39.5% $0 0.0% 72 Glendora 78.6% $0 0.0% 67 Pico Rivera 129.5% $0 0.0% 72 Irwindale 384.7% $0 0.0% 67 Pomona 3.0% $0 0.0% 72 La Verne 33.4% $0 0.0% 74 San Fernando (7.8%) ($1,572,548) (10.0%) 72 Pomona 7.5% $0 0.0% 75 Pasadena 31.0% ($40,129,137) (23.1%) 72 Redondo Beach 21.2% $0 0.0% 76 Monrovia (27.5%) ($8,874,464) (27.7%) 72 Walnut 131.8% $0 0.0% 77 Vernon (44.0%) ($27,064,820) (47.4%) 78 Pasadena 25.7% ($1,390,808) (.8%) NA Azusa 79 San Gabriel 36.2% ($639,868) (2.1%) NA Bradbury 80 West Hollywood 128.2% ($1,266,412) (2.2%) NA Hawaiian Gardens 81 San Fernando (3.2%) ($856,695) (4.4%) NA Huntington Park 82 Vernon 14.0% ($4,584,595) (8.2%) NA Inglewood 83 Azusa 53.5% ($4,662,967) (15.3%) NA La Habra Heights 84 Monrovia 10.4% ($8,392,252) (27.1%) NA Lawndale Source: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) or Basic Financial Statements obtained from each City. Financial information for FY 2010-11 or FY 2011-12 was not available from the cities of Avalon, Bell, Compton, and Maywood as of April 25, 2013. Financial information for FY 2011-12 was not available from the cities of Azusa, Bradbury, Hawaiian Gardens, Huntington Park, Inglewood, La Habra Heights, and Lawndale as of April 25, 2013. 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 129 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT FINDINGS – FISCAL HEALTH 1. Most cities expended more than they received in revenues during FY 2011-12.

Please provide any comments or explanations regarding your responses on audit committees: Audit Procurement 15. Do your city’s audit contracts require auditors of financial statements conform with the independence standard defined in the General Accounting Office’s Government Auditing Standards? o Yes o No 16. In selecting independent auditors does your city undertake a full-scale competitive process at the end of the term of each audit contract? o Yes o No 17. How many years has your current independent auditor conducted the annual city audit? __________Years 18. How long is the term of your current independent audit contract? __________Years 19. Does your city have a formal policy requiring that the independent auditor be replaced at the end of the audit contract? o Yes o No PLEASE RETURN BY JANUARY 18, 2013 QUESTIONS? EMAIL [email protected] CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT 20. Does your city allow the independent auditor to provide nonaudit services to the city? o Yes o No 21. If yes, does the Audit Committee review and approve these services? o Yes o No 22. Please provide a copy of the formal policies related to audit procurement.

DETENTION: ADULT FACILITIES INTRODUCTION The Los Angeles County Jail System houses over 19,000 inmates, making it the largest county jail complex in the country.1 In addition to the county system operated by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, many cities throughout the county operate jails. This report discusses several issues affecting jail and detention facilities generally and the condition of individual adult detention facilities specifically. There are a total of 115 active adult jail and detention facilities in Los Angeles County. The 2012-2013 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury) inspected 74. By definition, a jail is typically a local detention facility designed for either temporary housing of a detainee or for a misdemeanant sentenced for up to one year of confinement. A prison typically refers to confinement facilities operated by the state or federal government for felons sentenced to more than one year of confinement. The Grand Jury also visited all Juvenile Halls and Camps operated by the Los Angeles County Probation Department. A discussion of these visits and issues presented by these juvenile facilities is contained in a companion report. METHODOLOGY California Penal Code section 919(b) requires that the Grand Jury inspect and report on the condition of the jails. In accordance with this requirement, the Grand Jury formed a Detention Committee composed of substantially all of the members of the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury inspected facilities that were not inspected by the 2011-2012 Grand Jury, facilities that were noted in previous reports as unsatisfactory in some significant manner and those facilities found to be excellent. At least two Grand Jurors went on each inspection. After reviewing relevant sections of Title 15,2 an inspection report form was prepared for use during visits.3 The inspections focused on administrative processes and guidelines, emergency response procedures, conditions of the facility, and the quality of living conditions. The Grand Jury also spoke with detainees, law enforcement officers and custody assistants. BROADER ISSUES IMPACTING THE ADULT DETENTION SYSTEM Discussed below are the specific jail and detention centers visited by the Grand Jury along with specific recommendations for improvement to those facilities. Initially however, some broader issues relevant to multiple facilities and the overall jail system in 1 Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Correctional Services Division www.lasdhq.org/correctional/mj/ 2 California Administrative Code Title 15, Division 3, entitled Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, provides all the rules and regulations of adult operations and programs. Everything from the number of hours of recreation to types of permissible meals to be served is addressed in these sections. Title 24 sets forth physical plant regulations. See attached Detention Facilities Inspection Report Form. 2012-2013 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Report 185 DETENTION: ADULT FACILITIES Los Angeles County should be addressed. While there are certainly many complexities concerning incarceration, the Grand Jury has elected to focus on the following: 1. Realignment resulting from the passage of Assembly Bills 109 and 117(AB 109/117); 2. Mental health issues affecting inmates; 3. Privatizing of jails; 4. The use of trustees; 5. Operations manuals; 6. Aging of facilities; and 7. Education-Based Incarceration 1. AB 109 Realignment In response to the crisis caused by overcrowding in state prisons, the California legislature passed AB 109/117 on October 1, 2011. Felony inmates convicted of “non- sexual, non-violent and non-serious” (NNN) crimes are now incarcerated in county detention facilities instead of state prisons. Upon release, these inmates are now the responsibility of local county probation departments and not the state parole system. This “realignment” has significantly altered the Los Angeles County detention system. Over 30% of the Los Angeles County jail population is now here as a result of AB 109 and in the case of some facilities such as the four at Pitchess Ranch, closer to 40%.4 These inmates are housed for longer periods of time, in many cases, several years5 and are often more dangerous. The jail system in Los Angeles County was built to accommodate misdemeanants sentenced to no more than one year. Facilities like Men’s Central Jail lack outdoor access for recreation, among other features required for housing felons. The long term impact of realignment and the additional expense to the detention system should be vigilantly monitored by all affected county agencies. For example, county health officials state that 30% of AB 109 inmates often require costly mental health treatment and 60% face issues of addiction.6 Further, alternatives to incarceration for local low level offenders should be identified, e.g., split sentencing,7 in order to make available jail space for more serious offenders.

Please provide any comments or explanations regarding your responses on audit procurement: Accounting Policies and Procedures 24. Are accounting policies and procedures formally documented in an accounting policies and procedures manual? o Yes o No 25. Are accounting policies and procedures reviewed annually and updated at least once every three years on a predetermined schedule? o Yes o No 26. Do the accounting policies and procedures specifically define the authority and responsibility of all employees, including the authority to authorize transactions and the responsibility for safekeeping of assets and records? o Yes o No 27. Please provide a copy of the accounting policies and procedures manual.

Please provide any comments or explanations regarding accounting policies and procedures: PLEASE RETURN BY JANUARY 18, 2013 QUESTIONS? EMAIL [email protected] CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Reporting of Fraud, Abuse, and Questionable Practices 29. Does your city have policies and procedures to encourage and facilitate the reporting of fraud or abuse (whistleblowers) and questionable accounting or auditing practices? o Yes o No 30. Does your city have a formally adopted and widely distributed and publicized ethics policy? o Yes o No 31. Does your city have a practical mechanism, such as a fraud hot line, to permit the confidential, anonymous reporting of concerns about fraud, abuse, or questionable practices? o Yes o No 32. Are concerns received regarding fraud, abuse, or questionable practices reviewed by internal auditors, with documentation reviewed by the Audit Committee. o Yes o No 33. Please provide a copy of the ethics policy and information on mechanisms for reporting concerns of fraud, abuse, or questionable practices.

Please provide any comments or explanations regarding reporting of fraud, abuse, and questionable practices: Internal Controls 35. Are internal control procedures over financial management formally documented? o Yes o No 36. Do internal control procedures include practical means for lower level employees to report instances of management override of controls? o Yes o No 37. Are internal control procedures evaluated to determine if those controls are adequately designed to achieve their intended purpose, have actually been implemented, and continue to function as designed? o Yes o No PLEASE RETURN BY JANUARY 18, 2013 QUESTIONS? EMAIL [email protected] CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT 38. Are potential internal control weaknesses documented in exception reports? o Yes o No 39. Is there a process in place to identify changes in what is being controlled or controls themselves, and corrective action plans are developed with an appropriate timeline? o Yes o No 40. Please provide a copy of the internal control procedures over financial management.

Please provide any comments or explanations regarding your responses on internal controls: Internal Audit 42. Does your city have an internal audit function formally established by enabling resolution or other legal means? o Yes o No 43. Is the work of the internal audit function conducted in accordance with the U.S. General Accounting Office’s Government Auditing Standards? o Yes o No 44. Are all reports of the Internal Audit function provided to or available to the Audit Committee? o Yes o No 45. Please provide a copy of the formal action establishing the internal audit function.

Please provide any comments or explanations regarding your responses on internal audit: PLEASE RETURN BY JANUARY 18, 2013 QUESTIONS? EMAIL [email protected] CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT General Fund Unrestricted Fund Balance 47. Does your city have a formal policy on the level of unrestricted fund balance to be maintained in the General Fund? o Yes o No 48. Does this policy require an unrestricted fund balance of no less than two months of regular general fund operating revenues or regular general fund operating expenditures? o Yes o No 49. Please provide a copy of the formal policy on the level of unrestricted fund balance to be maintained in the General Fund.

Please provide any comments or explanations regarding your responses on general fund unrestricted fund balance: Financial and Public Reporting Practices 51. Does your city maintain an accounting system adequate to provide all the data needed for the timely preparation of financial statement in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP)? o Yes o No 52. Does your city issue timely financial statements for the entire financial reporting entity in conformity with GAAP as part of a Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR)? o Yes o No 53. Has your city’s financial statements been independently audited in accordance with either generally accepted auditing standards (GAAP) or Government Auditing Standards (GAS)? o Yes o No 54. Are the annual budget documents or CAFR for your city published and readily accessible to the general public on your city’s website? o Yes o No 55. Are city financial management staff members of and participate in the Government Finance Officers Association ? o Yes o No PLEASE RETURN BY JANUARY 18, 2013 QUESTIONS? EMAIL [email protected] CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT 56. Please provide any comments or explanations regarding your responses on financial and public reporting practices: Please provide the contact information for the individual with primary responsibility for completing this survey: Name: ___________________________________________ Title: ___________________________________________ Phone: ___________________________________________ Email: ___________________________________________ PLEASE RETURN BY JANUARY 18, 2013 QUESTIONS? EMAIL [email protected] CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT APPENDIX C: EMPLOYEES WITH COMPENSATION OVER $200,000 IN 2011 Defined Retirement Health, Deferred City Position Department Total Wages Benefit Cost Dental Comp Plan Covered & Vision Agoura Hills City Manager City Manager $243,581 $9,136 $13,318 $9,513 $18,011 Alhambra City Manager City Manager 209,942 33,318 17,568 -- 12,345 Arcadia City Manager City Manager $277,006 $34,841 $13,482 $3,486 $13,068 Avalon Fire Chief Fire $206,728 -- -- -- $16,862 Azusa City Manager Administration $248,227 $13,313 $8,006 $18,000 $8,076 Azusa Chief Of Police Police $233,960 $24,300 $9,366 $540 $8,076 Azusa Director Of Utilities Construction/Admin $209,222 $22,356 $12,920 $2,160 $16,152 Administrative Bell Gardens City Manager $241,141 $30,446 $15,711 -- $19,653 Services Bellflower City Manager Administration $267,807 $13,144 $8,609 $16,500 $987 Beverly Hills Police Officer Police Department $433,424 $48,319 $15,139 $285 $20,456 Assistant Director Administrative Beverly Hills $408,685 $22,328 $14,286 $360 -- Admin Services - Fin Services Beverly Hills Division Commander Police Department $374,778 $18,709 $12,058 $360 -- Chief Information Information Beverly Hills $356,956 $22,159 $14,014 $360 -- Officer Technology Assistant Chief Info Information Beverly Hills $352,101 $17,526 $11,188 $360 -- Officer Technology Beverly Hills Police Sgt Police Department $341,268 $34,994 $9,924 $4,513 $10,059 Assistant Director Administrative Beverly Hills $325,326 $22,292 $14,258 $360 -- Admin Services - Hr Services Beverly Hills City Clerk City Clerk $323,323 $18,334 $11,556 $360 -- Beverly Hills Fire Captain 80 Fire Department $311,321 $31,196 $8,252 $270 -- Beverly Hills City Manager City Manager $305,642 $36,454 $23,361 $16,500 -- Director/Project Beverly Hills Public Works $301,138 $17,191 $10,966 $360 -- Admin Beverly Hills Fire Chief Fire Department $294,728 $68,142 $20,576 $360 -- Beverly Hills Chief Of Police Police Department $284,299 $74,591 $22,542 $360 -- Deputy Director- Beverly Hills Public Works $280,372 $17,822 $11,415 $45 -- Transportation Fire Battalion Chief Beverly Hills Fire Department $279,819 $52,570 $13,778 $360 -- 80 Assistant Director Of Beverly Hills Public Works $279,444 $20,939 $13,446 $360 -- Pw And Trans Director Admin Administrative Beverly Hills $278,893 $25,813 $16,443 $360 -- Services-Coo Services Beverly Hills Police Officer Police Department $275,816 $34,064 $9,659 $4,513 $13,108 Beverly Hills City Engineer Public Works $274,579 $17,197 $10,946 $360 -- Beverly Hills Police Sgt Police Department $273,135 $45,198 $12,367 $5,700 $17,529 Beverly Hills Police Officer Police Department $269,545 $25,229 $7,673 $3,040 $5,407 Beverly Hills Deputy Fire Chief Fire Department $269,024 $60,723 $18,691 $360 -- Director Of Parking Beverly Hills Public Works $265,472 $18,510 $11,838 $360 -- Operations Fire Battalion Chief Beverly Hills Fire Department $264,620 $51,876 $12,721 $360 -- 80 Beverly Hills Police Officer Police Department $259,452 $31,797 $9,678 $4,513 $13,861 Parking Operations Beverly Hills Public Works $258,516 $3,708 $1,895 $150 -- Manager 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT C - 1 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Defined Retirement Health, Deferred City Position Department Total Wages Benefit Cost Dental Comp Plan Covered & Vision Assistant City Beverly Hills City Manager $255,230 $31,946 $20,089 $360 -- Manager Information Beverly Hills Art Director $255,157 $12,039 $7,952 $600 -- Technology Beverly Hills Police Officer Police Department $244,218 $35,288 $9,612 $4,513 $11,971 Beverly Hills Solid Waste Manager Public Works $242,717 $16,438 $9,870 $600 -- Fire Battalion Chief Beverly Hills Fire Department $242,422 $49,644 $13,239 $360 -- 112 Beverly Hills Police Officer Police Department $240,675 $28,663 $7,807 $3,040 $13,108 Beverly Hills Fire Captain 112 Fire Department $237,618 $42,176 $10,755 $360 -- Beverly Hills Street Superintendent Public Works $235,987 $11,938 $7,086 $600 -- Beverly Hills Police Captain Police Department $234,240 $62,768 $18,977 $360 $17,105 Community Beverly Hills Plan Reviewer $232,892 $11,474 $7,581 $600 -- Development Fire Battalion Chief Beverly Hills Fire Department $232,516 $50,778 $13,867 $360 -- 112 Beverly Hills Fire Captain 112 Fire Department $230,046 $44,647 $11,614 $360 -- Beverly Hills Police Officer Police Department $229,901 $35,825 $9,465 $3,840 $17,105 Beverly Hills Fire Engineer 112 Fire Department $228,362 $37,955 $9,868 $360 -- Director Of Public Beverly Hills Public Works $227,631 $26,176 $16,594 $600 -- Works Beverly Hills Fire Captain 112 Fire Department $226,817 $44,628 $11,707 $360 -- Beverly Hills Police Officer Police Department $222,214 $24,780 $7,082 $2,880 $12,529 Assistant Director Of Community Beverly Hills Community $220,924 $19,589 $12,554 $360 -- Development Development-C Beverly Hills Fire Captain 112 Fire Department $217,085 $43,486 $11,677 $360 -- Beverly Hills Police Officer Police Department $216,601 $26,733 $7,568 $3,040 $13,108 Beverly Hills Fire Captain 112 Fire Department $215,721 $43,512 $11,301 $360 -- Beverly Hills Fire Captain 112 Fire Department $215,476 $43,440 $11,676 $360 -- Beverly Hills Police Officer Police Department $215,355 $15,344 $4,480 $1,900 $2,420 Beverly Hills Fire Captain 112 Fire Department $214,771 $44,629 $11,707 $360 -- Beverly Hills Fire Captain 112 Fire Department $214,645 $44,650 $11,614 $360 -- Beverly Hills Police Captain Police Department $212,827 $57,725 $17,401 $360 $17,105 Beverly Hills Fire Engineer 112 Fire Department $212,669 $38,009 $9,661 $360 -- Director Community Community Beverly Hills $212,368 $25,832 $16,451 $360 -- Development Development Director Of Beverly Hills Community Services $211,831 $23,728 $14,973 $360 -- Community Services Beverly Hills Fire Engineer 112 Fire Department $208,536 $37,958 $9,868 $360 -- Assistant Director Of Beverly Hills Community Services- Community Services $208,424 $21,003 $13,495 $360 -- Lib Beverly Hills Fire Captain 112 Fire Department $206,568 $44,501 $11,703 $360 -- Administrative Beverly Hills Risk Manager $205,930 $18,395 $11,850 $360 -- Services Beverly Hills Fire Captain 112 Fire Department $205,710 $43,437 $11,676 $360 -- Beverly Hills Police Officer Police Department $205,668 $27,530 $7,589 $3,040 $10,653 Beverly Hills Fire Engineer 112 Fire Department $205,360 $37,942 $9,947 $360 -- Beverly Hills Police Captain Police Department $203,395 $56,473 $17,069 $360 $17,105 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT C - 2 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Defined Retirement Health, Deferred City Position Department Total Wages Benefit Cost Dental Comp Plan Covered & Vision Community Beverly Hills Senior Planner $200,128 $13,332 $8,010 $600 -- Development City Manager Burbank City Manager $259,919 $28,166 $16,526 $1,154 $14,010 Department General Manager- Burbank Water And Burbank Burbank Water & $240,003 $31,411 $18,196 $1,200 $11,765 Power Department Power Line Mechanic Burbank Water And Burbank $225,892 $19,390 -- -- $1,505 Supervisor-G Power Department Burbank Police Lieutenant Police Department $224,817 $36,166 $13,169 -- $13,753 Burbank Fire Chief Fire Department $218,057 $31,838 $17,180 $1,154 $15,305 Burbank Police Chief Police Department $217,734 $47,685 $16,373 $969 -- City Attorney Burbank City Attorney $215,238 $21,017 $13,514 -- $12,321 Department Chief Assistant City City Attorney Burbank $215,150 $26,769 $16,920 $900 $1,505 Attorney Department Assistant General Burbank Water And Burbank Manager-Burbank $214,340 $25,704 $16,283 $900 $183 Power Department Water & Power Chief Financial Burbank Water And Burbank $211,609 $23,805 $15,037 $780 $3,997 Officer Power Department Burbank Fire Captain Fire Department $209,554 $21,733 $12,145 -- $11,433 Burbank Fire Battalion Chief Fire Department $208,661 $23,023 $12,866 -- $12,010 Burbank Fire Battalion Chief Fire Department $205,053 $27,352 $15,382 -- $12,010 Assistant General Burbank Water And Burbank Manager-Burbank $200,566 $25,872 $16,357 $900 $15,140 Power Department Water & Power Calabasas City Manager City Manager $219,801 -- $15,386 $12,286 $4,318 Economic Economic Carson Development General $227,748 $36,891 $13,931 -- $13,174 Development Manager Cerritos City Manager City Manager $246,021 $18,164 $43,257 -- $14,197 Claremont City Manager Council/Manager $280,627 $36,408 $18,278 $23,226 $13,599 Director Of Parks & Commerce Community Services $219,641 $13,414 $8,602 $2,098 $11,461 Recreation Compton City Manager City Manager $258,041 -- $11,527 -- $1,250 Covina City Manager Administration $221,295 -- $2,135 -- $11,880 Covina Chief Of Police Police $209,909 -- -- -- $10,560 Cudahy Dir. Of Com Services Recreation $214,237 -- -- -- $1,367 Culver City City Manager City Manager's Office $272,006 -- -- $16,199 $15,887 Culver City City Attorney City Attorney $244,561 -- $3,541 $3,699 $18,375 Culver City Police Captain Police $234,556 -- $17,395 $3,250 $12,433 Culver City Chief of Police Police $232,447 -- $19,141 $3,250 $15,477 Culver City Fire Chief Fire $226,704 -- $17,988 $3,699 $15,477 Culver City Police Lieutenant Police $225,155 -- $15,023 $2,125 $15,477 Chief Information Information Culver City $218,895 -- $7,902 $3,699 $11,950 Officer Technology Culver City Battalion Chief Fire $215,506 -- $15,682 $3,699 $15,477 Culver City Battalion Chief Fire $213,052 -- $15,682 $3,699 $15,910 Chief Financial Culver City Finance $211,431 -- $8,565 $3,556 $15,887 Officer Assistant City Culver City City Manager's Office $210,260 -- $8,916 $3,699 $12,494 Manager 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT C - 3 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Defined Retirement Health, Deferred City Position Department Total Wages Benefit Cost Dental Comp Plan Covered & Vision Culver City Fire Captain Fire $209,288 -- $9,894 -- $14,187 Public Works Culver City Director/City Public Works $206,378 -- $7,864 $3,699 $14,041 Engineer Culver City Battalion Chief Fire $201,616 -- $13,743 $3,699 $15,477 City Manager/City Diamond Bar City Manager $210,206 $22,240 $13,735 -- $13,074 Clerk Downey City Manager City Manager Office $263,051 $479 $305 -- $4,379 Deputy City Manager Downey Emergency Operations $239,448 $720 $296 -- -- Emergency Ops Deputy City Manager Downey City Manager Office $231,813 $8,749 $5,570 -- $1,575 Spec Project Downey Chief Of Police Police Administration $213,097 $49,393 $18,301 -- $15,599 Downey Fire Captain Fire Suppression $211,322 $31,756 $11,757 -- $3,778 Downey Battalion Chief Fire Suppression $208,014 $35,652 $13,160 -- $3,778 Downey Battalion Chief Fire Prevention $205,220 $41,280 $15,256 -- $3,778 Assistant City Downey City Manager Office $203,807 $30,041 $16,057 -- $3,780 Manager Gen Service Downey Battalion Chief Fire Suppression $203,380 $40,556 $15,010 -- $3,778 Duarte City Manager City Manager $227,707 $42,727 $13,469 -- $11,724 El Monte Chief Of Police Police/Safety $310,265 $43,721 $13,212 -- $7,213 El Monte Captain Police/Safety $277,774 $37,517 $13,821 -- $7,167 El Monte City Manager City Managers Office $245,583 $64,160 $18,505 $3,775 $5,004 El Monte Chief Of Police Police/Safety $226,796 $90,393 $27,844 -- $12,744 Officer/Bonus El Monte Police/Safety $218,931 $41,774 $13,942 -- $10,712 Assignment El Segundo Police Chief Police Patrol & Safety $271,940 $68,235 $17,874 $15,369 $1,616 El Segundo Fire Chief Fire Administration $261,296 $67,328 $17,576 $15,638 $1,960 El Segundo Battalion Chief Fire Suppression $246,712 $60,054 $17,233 $10,860 $1,960 El Segundo Battalion Chief Fire Suppression $244,015 $59,712 $16,982 $10,784 $1,372 El Segundo Fire Captain Fire Suppression $235,832 $57,613 -- -- $14,174 El Segundo Fire Captain Fire Suppression $230,954 $54,047 -- -- $6,460 El Segundo Battalion Chief Fire Suppression $224,816 $55,273 $2,375 $3,200 $9,416 El Segundo Police Captain Police Patrol & Safety $210,675 $65,363 $19,749 -- $1,868 El Segundo Fire Captain Fire Suppression $205,894 $51,410 -- -- $14,174 El Segundo Police Lieutenant Police Patrol & Safety $202,025 $59,432 $17,582 -- $1,030 Gardena City Manager City Manager $226,817 $14,990 $7,692 -- $10,440 Glendale City Attorney City Attorney $284,734 -- -- -- $15,459 General Manager - Glendale Water & Glendale $262,855 -- -- -- $13,766 GWP Power Glendale Police Lieutenant Police $262,148 -- -- -- $12,649 Glendale Police Chief Police $259,193 -- -- -- $19,524 Glendale City Manager Management Services $251,820 -- -- -- $14,339 Integrated Resources Glendale Water & Glendale $248,354 -- -- -- $13,252 Plan Admin Power Glendale Fire Chief Fire $231,907 -- -- -- $19,524 Glendale Deputy Fire Chief Fire $220,092 -- -- -- $19,608 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT C - 4 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Defined Retirement Health, Deferred City Position Department Total Wages Benefit Cost Dental Comp Plan Covered & Vision Glendale Police Captain Police $217,863 -- -- -- $5,777 Glendale Police Captain Police $216,810 -- -- -- $5,777 Glendale Fire Battalion Chief Fire $214,133 -- -- -- $19,608 Glendale Firefighter Fire $208,667 -- -- -- $15,660 Glendale Fire Captain Fire $207,894 -- -- -- $15,660 Glendale City Attorney City Attorney $207,796 -- -- -- $10,316 Glendale Fire Battalion Chief Fire $203,799 -- -- -- $19,608 Glendora City Manager City Manager $209,144 $24,517 $1,292 $11,158 $12,821 Hawaiian City Administration Administration $202,486 $5,098 $13,595 -- $11,768 Gardens Chief Of Police Hawthorne Police $221,871 -- $64,956 -- $16,910 Services Hawthorne City Attorney City Attorney $208,108 -- $42,557 -- $9,967 Hawthorne City Manager City Manager $200,475 -- $38,694 -- $27,159 Hermosa Beach City Manager City Manager $257,918 $69,445 $14,979 $16,500 $17,474 Hermosa Beach Fire Captain Fire $239,706 $74,038 $13,696 -- $14,275 Huntington Park Chief of Police Police $218,185 $48,805 $20,906 -- $15,657 Los Angeles Chief Port Pilot II Harbor Department $389,664 -- -- -- $10,608 Los Angeles Chief Port Pilot II Harbor Department $385,064 -- -- -- $10,608 Los Angeles Port Pilot II Harbor Department $361,525 -- -- -- $10,608 Los Angeles Port Pilot II Harbor Department $356,710 -- -- -- $10,608 General Manager & Los Angeles Los Angeles Chief Engineer Water Department of Water $346,778 -- -- -- $14,224 & Power and Power Los Angeles Port Pilot II Harbor Department $342,307 -- -- -- $10,608 Los Angeles Port Pilot II Harbor Department $340,017 -- -- -- $10,608 Los Angeles Port Pilot II Harbor Department $333,202 -- -- -- $10,608 General Manager Los Angeles World Los Angeles $325,693 -- -- -- $10,608 Airports Airports Los Angeles Port Pilot II Harbor Department $318,455 -- -- -- $10,608 Los Angeles Port Pilot II Harbor Department $315,047 -- -- -- $10,608 Los Angeles Port Pilot II Harbor Department $314,855 -- -- -- $10,608 General Manager Los Angeles Harbor Department $307,411 -- -- -- $10,608 Harbor Department Los Angeles Port Pilot II Harbor Department $299,291 -- -- -- $10,608 Los Angeles Police Los Angeles Chief of Police $296,989 -- -- -- $10,608 Department Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Deputy Chief $294,742 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Port Pilot II Harbor Department $290,485 -- -- -- $10,608 Los Angeles Port Pilot II Harbor Department $287,242 -- -- -- $10,608 Los Angeles Senior Load Los Angeles Department of Water $287,142 -- -- -- $14,224 Dispatcher and Power Los Angeles Utility Services Los Angeles Department of Water $285,042 -- -- -- $14,224 Manager and Power Los Angeles Port Pilot II Harbor Department $279,717 -- -- -- $10,608 Assistant General Los Angeles Los Angeles $276,518 -- -- -- $14,224 Manager Water and Department of Water 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT C - 5 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Defined Retirement Health, Deferred City Position Department Total Wages Benefit Cost Dental Comp Plan Covered & Vision Power and Power Los Angeles Senior Load Los Angeles Department of Water $271,192 -- -- -- $14,224 Dispatcher and Power Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Captain l $270,622 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Port Pilot II Harbor Department $268,270 -- -- -- $10,608 Transmission & Los Angeles Los Angeles Distribution District Department of Water $267,603 -- -- -- $14,224 Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Battalion Chief $267,124 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Transmission & Los Angeles Los Angeles Distribution District Department of Water $266,895 -- -- -- $14,224 Supervisor and Power Los Angeles General Services Los Angeles Department of Water $266,402 -- -- -- $14,224 Manager and Power Transmission & Los Angeles Los Angeles Distribution District Department of Water $266,138 -- -- -- $14,224 Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Senior Load Los Angeles Department of Water $265,024 -- -- -- $14,224 Dispatcher and Power Los Angeles Electrical Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $264,808 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Los Angeles Electrical Engineer Department of Water $264,387 -- -- -- $14,224 and Power Los Angeles Police Los Angeles Police Deputy Chief II $263,517 -- -- -- $12,592 Department Los Angeles Senior Load Los Angeles Department of Water $262,687 -- -- -- $14,224 Dispatcher and Power Fire Helicopter Pilot Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles $261,460 -- -- -- $13,368 III Department Transmission & Los Angeles Los Angeles Distribution District Department of Water $261,049 -- -- -- $14,224 Supervisor and Power Assistant General Los Angeles Los Angeles Manager Water and Department of Water $260,866 -- -- -- $14,224 Power and Power Assistant General Los Angeles Los Angeles Manager Water and Department of Water $260,607 -- -- -- $14,224 Power and Power Los Angeles Police Los Angeles Police Deputy Chief II $260,186 -- -- -- $12,592 Department Los Angeles Electrical Service Los Angeles Department of Water $259,487 -- -- -- $14,224 Manager and Power Los Angeles Electrical Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $259,383 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Electrical Service Los Angeles Department of Water $259,097 -- -- -- $14,224 Manager and Power Los Angeles Auditor Water And Los Angeles Department of Water $259,019 -- -- -- $14,224 Power and Power Los Angeles Electrical Service Los Angeles Department of Water $257,895 -- -- -- $14,224 Manager and Power 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT C - 6 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Defined Retirement Health, Deferred City Position Department Total Wages Benefit Cost Dental Comp Plan Covered & Vision Los Angeles Electrical Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $257,766 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic Supervisor and Power Chief Legislative Los Angeles Council $257,482 -- -- -- $10,608 Analyst Transmission & Los Angeles Los Angeles Distribution District Department of Water $256,801 -- -- -- $14,224 Supervisor and Power Fire Helicopter Pilot Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles $256,759 -- -- -- $13,368 III Department Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Chief $256,716 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles General Services Los Angeles Department of Water $256,371 -- -- -- $14,224 Manager and Power Transmission & Los Angeles Los Angeles Distribution District Department of Water $256,226 -- -- -- $14,224 Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Power Engineering Los Angeles Department of Water $256,111 -- -- -- $14,224 Manager and Power Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Battalion Chief $255,958 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles General Services Los Angeles Department of Water $255,793 -- -- -- $14,224 Manager and Power Los Angeles Power Engineering Los Angeles Department of Water $254,827 -- -- -- $14,224 Manager and Power Los Angeles Power Engineering Los Angeles Department of Water $254,772 -- -- -- $14,224 Manager and Power Los Angeles Power Engineering Los Angeles Department of Water $254,656 -- -- -- $14,224 Manager and Power Los Angeles Principal Utility Los Angeles Department of Water $253,726 -- -- -- $14,224 Accountant and Power Los Angeles Managing Water Los Angeles Department of Water $253,630 -- -- -- $14,224 Utility Engineer and Power Transmission & Los Angeles Los Angeles Distribution District Department of Water $253,441 -- -- -- $14,224 Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Managing Water Los Angeles Department of Water $252,917 -- -- -- $14,224 Utility Engineer and Power Los Angeles Los Angeles Medical Director Department of Water $252,817 -- -- -- $14,224 and Power Los Angeles Senior Load Los Angeles Department of Water $252,653 -- -- -- $14,224 Dispatcher and Power Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Battalion Chief $252,512 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Managing Water Los Angeles Department of Water $252,341 -- -- -- $14,224 Utility Engineer and Power Los Angeles Power Engineering Los Angeles Department of Water $252,284 -- -- -- $14,224 Manager and Power Los Angeles Managing Water Los Angeles Department of Water $252,198 -- -- -- $14,224 Utility Engineer and Power Los Angeles Fire Helicopter Pilot Los Angeles Fire $251,926 -- -- -- $13,368 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT C - 7 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Defined Retirement Health, Deferred City Position Department Total Wages Benefit Cost Dental Comp Plan Covered & Vision IV Department Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Deputy Chief $251,731 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Firefighter III $251,508 -- -- -- $13,368 Department City Administrative City Administrative Los Angeles $250,840 -- -- -- $10,608 Officer Officer Los Angeles Senior Load Los Angeles Department of Water $250,410 -- -- -- $14,224 Dispatcher and Power Transmission & Los Angeles Los Angeles Distribution District Department of Water $250,268 -- -- -- $14,224 Supervisor and Power Fire Helicopter Pilot Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles $249,516 -- -- -- $13,368 III Department Los Angeles Police Los Angeles Police Deputy Chief II $248,942 -- -- -- $12,592 Department Assistant General Los Angeles World Los Angeles $248,754 -- -- -- $10,608 Manager Airports Airports Transmission & Los Angeles Los Angeles Distribution District Department of Water $248,707 -- -- -- $14,224 Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Battalion Chief $247,996 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Electrical Service Los Angeles Department of Water $247,721 -- -- -- $14,224 Manager and Power Los Angeles Los Angeles Electrical Engineer Department of Water $247,644 -- -- -- $14,224 and Power First Deputy General Los Angeles Harbor Department $247,582 -- -- -- $10,608 Manager Harbor Transmission & Los Angeles Los Angeles Distribution District Department of Water $247,150 -- -- -- $14,224 Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Council Member Council $247,106 -- -- -- $10,608 Deputy General Los Angeles World Los Angeles $247,040 -- -- -- $10,608 Manager Airports /1 Airports Los Angeles Electrical Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $246,654 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Deputy Chief $246,530 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Assistant General Los Angeles Los Angeles Manager Water and Department of Water $246,410 -- -- -- $14,224 Power and Power Transmission & Los Angeles Los Angeles Distribution District Department of Water $246,242 -- -- -- $14,224 Supervisor and Power Assistant General Los Angeles Los Angeles Manager Water and Department of Water $246,213 -- -- -- $14,224 Power and Power Assistant General Los Angeles Los Angeles Manager Water and Department of Water $246,072 -- -- -- $14,224 Power and Power Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Deputy Chief $245,478 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Senior Load Los Angeles Department of Water $244,975 -- -- -- $14,224 Dispatcher and Power Los Angeles Managing Water Los Angeles Department of Water $244,932 -- -- -- $14,224 Utility Engineer and Power 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT C - 8 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Defined Retirement Health, Deferred City Position Department Total Wages Benefit Cost Dental Comp Plan Covered & Vision Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Battalion Chief $244,664 -- -- -- $13,368 Department First Deputy General Los Angeles Harbor Department $244,309 -- -- -- $10,608 Manager Harbor Los Angeles Power Engineering Los Angeles Department of Water $244,033 -- -- -- $14,224 Manager and Power Assistant General Los Angeles Los Angeles Manager Water and Department of Water $243,807 -- -- -- $14,224 Power and Power Los Angeles Electrical Service Los Angeles Department of Water $243,705 -- -- -- $14,224 Manager and Power Los Angeles Senior Load Los Angeles Department of Water $243,657 -- -- -- $14,224 Dispatcher and Power First Deputy General Los Angeles Harbor Department $243,115 -- -- -- $10,608 Manager Harbor First Deputy General Los Angeles Harbor Department $243,115 -- -- -- $10,608 Manager Harbor Los Angeles Power Engineering Los Angeles Department of Water $242,564 -- -- -- $14,224 Manager and Power Los Angeles Managing Water Los Angeles Department of Water $242,487 -- -- -- $14,224 Utility Engineer and Power Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Assistant Chief $242,370 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Transmission & Los Angeles Los Angeles Distribution District Department of Water $242,133 -- -- -- $14,224 Supervisor and Power Deputy General Los Angeles World Los Angeles $241,635 -- -- -- $10,608 Manager Airports /1 Airports Deputy General Los Angeles World Los Angeles $241,628 -- -- -- $10,608 Manager Airports /1 Airports Los Angeles Power Engineering Los Angeles Department of Water $241,616 -- -- -- $14,224 Manager and Power Los Angeles Power Engineering Los Angeles Department of Water $241,435 -- -- -- $14,224 Manager and Power Los Angeles Senior Load Los Angeles Department of Water $241,395 -- -- -- $14,224 Dispatcher and Power Los Angeles Managing Water Los Angeles Department of Water $241,293 -- -- -- $14,224 Utility Engineer and Power Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Assistant Chief $241,268 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Managing Water Los Angeles Department of Water $241,010 -- -- -- $14,224 Utility Engineer and Power Los Angeles Principal Utility Los Angeles Department of Water $240,844 -- -- -- $14,224 Accountant and Power Transmission & Los Angeles Los Angeles Distribution District Department of Water $240,741 -- -- -- $14,224 Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Managing Water Los Angeles Department of Water $240,526 -- -- -- $14,224 Utility Engineer and Power Transmission & Los Angeles Los Angeles Distribution District Department of Water $240,146 -- -- -- $14,224 Supervisor and Power 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT C - 9 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Defined Retirement Health, Deferred City Position Department Total Wages Benefit Cost Dental Comp Plan Covered & Vision Deputy General Los Angeles World Los Angeles $239,949 -- -- -- $10,608 Manager Airports /1 Airports Transmission & Los Angeles Los Angeles Distribution District Department of Water $239,627 -- -- -- $14,224 Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Electric Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $239,541 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic and Power Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Battalion Chief $239,426 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Los Angeles Electrical Engineer Department of Water $238,938 -- -- -- $14,224 and Power General Manager Information Los Angeles Information $238,936 -- -- -- $10,608 Technology Agency Technology Agency Los Angeles Police Los Angeles Police Sergeant l $238,666 -- -- -- $12,592 Department Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Firefighter III $238,661 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Fire Helicopter Pilot Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles $238,388 -- -- -- $13,368 IV Department Los Angeles Principal Utility Los Angeles Department of Water $238,211 -- -- -- $14,224 Accountant and Power Los Angeles Electrical Engineering Los Angeles Department of Water $237,696 -- -- -- $14,224 Associate and Power Transmission & Los Angeles Los Angeles Distribution District Department of Water $237,497 -- -- -- $14,224 Supervisor and Power Transmission & Los Angeles Los Angeles Distribution District Department of Water $236,842 -- -- -- $14,224 Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Senior Load Los Angeles Department of Water $236,662 -- -- -- $14,224 Dispatcher and Power Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Battalion Chief $236,469 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Deputy Chief $235,510 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Battalion Chief $235,313 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Transmission & Los Angeles Los Angeles Distribution District Department of Water $235,050 -- -- -- $14,224 Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Los Angeles Load Dispatcher Department of Water $234,881 -- -- -- $14,224 and Power Transmission & Los Angeles Los Angeles Distribution District Department of Water $234,802 -- -- -- $14,224 Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Power Engineering Los Angeles Department of Water $234,684 -- -- -- $14,224 Manager and Power Transmission & Los Angeles Los Angeles Distribution District Department of Water $233,886 -- -- -- $14,224 Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Assistant Chief $233,877 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Transmission & Los Angeles Los Angeles Distribution District Department of Water $233,113 -- -- -- $14,224 Supervisor and Power Fire Helicopter Pilot Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles $232,663 -- -- -- $13,368 V Department 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT C - 10 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Defined Retirement Health, Deferred City Position Department Total Wages Benefit Cost Dental Comp Plan Covered & Vision Los Angeles Electrical Service Los Angeles Department of Water $232,614 -- -- -- $14,224 Manager and Power Los Angeles Electrical Service Los Angeles Department of Water $232,591 -- -- -- $14,224 Manager and Power Transmission & Los Angeles Los Angeles Distribution District Department of Water $232,232 -- -- -- $14,224 Supervisor and Power Transmission & Los Angeles Los Angeles Distribution District Department of Water $232,128 -- -- -- $14,224 Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Utility Services Los Angeles Department of Water $232,105 -- -- -- $14,224 Manager and Power Fire Helicopter Pilot Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles $231,430 -- -- -- $13,368 III Department General Manager Fire Fire and Police Los Angeles & Police Pension $231,409 -- -- -- $10,608 Pension System System Los Angeles Senior Load Los Angeles Department of Water $231,148 -- -- -- $14,224 Dispatcher and Power Los Angeles General Services Los Angeles Department of Water $230,415 -- -- -- $14,224 Manager and Power Los Angeles Managing Water Los Angeles Department of Water $228,883 -- -- -- $14,224 Utility Engineer and Power Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Battalion Chief $228,881 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Power Engineering Los Angeles Department of Water $228,758 -- -- -- $14,224 Manager and Power Los Angeles Managing Water Los Angeles Department of Water $228,463 -- -- -- $14,224 Utility Engineer and Power Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Captain l $228,362 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Fire Helicopter Pilot Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles $228,358 -- -- -- $13,368 III Department General Manager Department of Los Angeles $228,287 -- -- -- $10,608 Recreation & Parks Recreation & Parks Transmission & Los Angeles Los Angeles Distribution District Department of Water $228,006 -- -- -- $14,224 Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Captain l $227,862 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Electrical Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $227,806 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic Supervisor and Power Transmission & Los Angeles Los Angeles Distribution District Department of Water $227,648 -- -- -- $14,224 Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Assistant Chief $227,632 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Assistant Chief $227,482 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Electrical Service Los Angeles Department of Water $227,216 -- -- -- $14,224 Manager and Power Los Angeles Senior Load Los Angeles Department of Water $227,173 -- -- -- $14,224 Dispatcher and Power 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT C - 11 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Defined Retirement Health, Deferred City Position Department Total Wages Benefit Cost Dental Comp Plan Covered & Vision Los Angeles Power Engineering Los Angeles Department of Water $226,958 -- -- -- $14,224 Manager and Power Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Battalion Chief $226,849 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Chief Electric Plant Los Angeles Department of Water $226,317 -- -- -- $14,224 Operator and Power Transmission & Los Angeles Los Angeles Distribution District Department of Water $226,110 -- -- -- $14,224 Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Battalion Chief $226,017 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Electric Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $225,724 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic and Power Los Angeles Electrical Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $225,557 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Electric Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $225,173 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic and Power Transmission & Los Angeles Los Angeles Distribution District Department of Water $225,121 -- -- -- $14,224 Supervisor and Power Transmission & Los Angeles Los Angeles Distribution District Department of Water $224,957 -- -- -- $14,224 Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Police Los Angeles Police Deputy Chief II $224,809 -- -- -- $12,592 Department Los Angeles Police Los Angeles Police Deputy Chief II $224,809 -- -- -- $12,592 Department Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Battalion Chief $224,681 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Electric Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $224,526 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic and Power Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Battalion Chief $224,388 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Electrical Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $224,248 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Firefighter III $224,179 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Firefighter III $224,133 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Public Works Los Angeles City Engineer Department - Bureau $224,125 -- -- -- $10,608 of Engineering Transmission & Los Angeles Los Angeles Distribution District Department of Water $223,793 -- -- -- $14,224 Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Assistant Chief $223,669 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Chief Engineer Fire Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles $223,590 -- -- -- $10,608 Department Department Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Firefighter III $223,207 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Executive Assistant Los Angeles Los Angeles To The General Department of Water $223,206 -- -- -- $14,224 Manager and Power Los Angeles Police Los Angeles Police Lieutenant II $223,134 -- -- -- $12,592 Department Transmission & Los Angeles Los Angeles $223,117 -- -- -- $14,224 Distribution District Department of Water 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT C - 12 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Defined Retirement Health, Deferred City Position Department Total Wages Benefit Cost Dental Comp Plan Covered & Vision Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Police Los Angeles Police Deputy Chief II $223,086 -- -- -- $12,592 Department Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Assistant Chief $222,754 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Battalion Chief $222,553 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Senior Load Los Angeles Department of Water $221,903 -- -- -- $14,224 Dispatcher and Power Los Angeles Senior Load Los Angeles Department of Water $221,832 -- -- -- $14,224 Dispatcher and Power Los Angeles Electric Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $221,546 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic and Power Los Angeles Police Los Angeles Police Deputy Chief II $221,471 -- -- -- $12,592 Department Los Angeles Electrical Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $221,279 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Managing Water Los Angeles Department of Water $221,198 -- -- -- $14,224 Utility Engineer and Power General Manager Los Angeles Personnel Department $221,099 -- -- -- $10,608 Personnel Department Chief Assistant City Office of the City Los Angeles $220,976 -- -- -- $10,608 Attorney Attorney Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Captain l $220,874 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Electric Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $220,773 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic and Power Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Battalion Chief $220,549 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Electrical Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $220,544 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Battalion Chief $220,532 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Assistant Chief $220,416 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Battalion Chief $220,203 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Police Los Angeles Police Deputy Chief II $220,080 -- -- -- $12,592 Department Los Angeles Power Engineering Los Angeles Department of Water $219,956 -- -- -- $14,224 Manager and Power Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Assistant Chief $219,853 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Assistant General Los Angeles Los Angeles Manager Water and Department of Water $219,707 -- -- -- $14,224 Power and Power Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Assistant Chief $219,475 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Executive Assistant Los Angeles Los Angeles To The General Department of Water $219,293 -- -- -- $14,224 Manager and Power Los Angeles Senior Load Los Angeles Department of Water $219,006 -- -- -- $14,224 Dispatcher and Power Chief Assistant City Office of the City Los Angeles $218,565 -- -- -- $10,608 Attorney Attorney 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT C - 13 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Defined Retirement Health, Deferred City Position Department Total Wages Benefit Cost Dental Comp Plan Covered & Vision Los Angeles Traffic Manager Harbor Department $218,524 -- -- -- $10,608 Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Battalion Chief $218,496 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Chief Electric Plant Los Angeles Department of Water $218,265 -- -- -- $14,224 Operator and Power Los Angeles Electrical Service Los Angeles Department of Water $218,227 -- -- -- $14,224 Manager and Power Los Angeles Police Los Angeles Police Captain III $218,151 -- -- -- $12,592 Department Transmission & Los Angeles Los Angeles Distribution District Department of Water $217,817 -- -- -- $14,224 Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Police Los Angeles Police Lieutenant II $217,754 -- -- -- $12,592 Department Transmission & Los Angeles Los Angeles Distribution District Department of Water $217,601 -- -- -- $14,224 Supervisor and Power Construction & Los Angeles Los Angeles Maintenance Department of Water $217,397 -- -- -- $14,224 Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Battalion Chief $217,387 -- -- -- $13,368 Department General Manager Los Angeles Housing Los Angeles Department of $217,272 -- -- -- $10,608 Department Housing Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Inspector l $216,998 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Electric Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $216,822 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic and Power Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Battalion Chief $216,707 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Electrical Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $216,686 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Captain l $216,491 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Electric Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $216,461 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic and Power Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Firefighter III $216,368 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Electrical Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $215,859 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Battalion Chief $215,824 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Electrical Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $215,816 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Senior Load Los Angeles Department of Water $215,810 -- -- -- $14,224 Dispatcher and Power Los Angeles Electrical Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $215,705 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Captain l $215,666 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Battalion Chief $215,477 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Battalion Chief $215,382 -- -- -- $13,368 Department 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT C - 14 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Defined Retirement Health, Deferred City Position Department Total Wages Benefit Cost Dental Comp Plan Covered & Vision Los Angeles City Librarian Library Department $215,285 -- -- -- $10,608 Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Assistant Chief $215,243 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Electrical Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $215,112 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Battalion Chief $215,102 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Office of the City Los Angeles City Attorney $215,015 -- -- -- $10,608 Attorney Transmission & Los Angeles Los Angeles Distribution District Department of Water $214,989 -- -- -- $14,224 Supervisor and Power General Manager City City Employees Los Angeles Employees $214,864 -- -- -- $10,608 Retirement System Retirement System Los Angeles Police Los Angeles Police Lieutenant II $214,833 -- -- -- $12,592 Department Los Angeles Electrical Service Los Angeles Department of Water $214,730 -- -- -- $14,224 Manager and Power Los Angeles Senior Load Los Angeles Department of Water $214,616 -- -- -- $14,224 Dispatcher and Power Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Battalion Chief $214,422 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Electric Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $214,403 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic and Power Transmission & Los Angeles Los Angeles Distribution District Department of Water $214,394 -- -- -- $14,224 Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Electric Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $214,318 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic and Power Los Angeles Electrical Service Los Angeles Department of Water $214,124 -- -- -- $14,224 Manager and Power Chief Assistant City Office of the City Los Angeles $213,852 -- -- -- $10,608 Attorney Attorney Los Angeles Director of Finance Office of Finance $213,843 -- -- -- $10,608 Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Captain II $213,447 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Electrical Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $213,400 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Police Los Angeles Police Sergeant II $213,268 -- -- -- $12,592 Department Los Angeles Mayor Mayor $213,020 -- -- -- $10,608 Los Angeles Electric Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $212,956 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic and Power Los Angeles Electrical Repair Los Angeles Department of Water $212,836 -- -- -- $14,224 Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Electrical Service Los Angeles Department of Water $212,751 -- -- -- $14,224 Manager and Power Senor Assistant City Office of the City Los Angeles $212,538 -- -- -- $10,608 Attorney Attorney Los Angeles Police Los Angeles Police Deputy Chief II $212,457 -- -- -- $12,592 Department 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT C - 15 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Defined Retirement Health, Deferred City Position Department Total Wages Benefit Cost Dental Comp Plan Covered & Vision Los Angeles Electric Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $212,456 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic and Power Los Angeles Electrical Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $212,379 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Electric Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $212,329 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic and Power Los Angeles Electrical Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $212,265 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Captain l $212,108 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Senor Assistant City Office of the City Los Angeles $212,073 -- -- -- $10,608 Attorney Attorney Los Angeles Electrical Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $212,014 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Battalion Chief $212,001 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Captain l $211,843 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Battalion Chief $211,570 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Los Angeles Rates Manager Department of Water $211,206 -- -- -- $14,224 and Power Los Angeles Electric Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $211,193 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic and Power Los Angeles Electrical Service Los Angeles Department of Water $211,125 -- -- -- $14,224 Manager and Power Los Angeles Electrical Service Los Angeles Department of Water $211,006 -- -- -- $14,224 Manager and Power Los Angeles Electrical Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $210,768 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic Supervisor and Power Executive Assistant Los Angeles Los Angeles To The General Department of Water $210,747 -- -- -- $14,224 Manager and Power Los Angeles Senior Electrical Los Angeles Department of Water $210,714 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Senior Load Los Angeles Department of Water $210,624 -- -- -- $14,224 Dispatcher and Power Los Angeles Chief Real Estate Los Angeles Department of Water $210,598 -- -- -- $14,224 Officer and Power Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Inspector l $210,565 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Superintendent of Department of Los Angeles $210,368 -- -- -- $10,608 Building Building and Safety Los Angeles Electrical Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $210,338 -- -- -- -- Mechanic Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Police Los Angeles Police Captain III $210,310 -- -- -- $12,592 Department Los Angeles Electrical Service Los Angeles Department of Water $210,278 -- -- -- $14,224 Manager and Power 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT C - 16 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Defined Retirement Health, Deferred City Position Department Total Wages Benefit Cost Dental Comp Plan Covered & Vision Los Angeles Electrical Service Los Angeles Department of Water $210,014 -- -- -- $14,224 Manager and Power Public Works Deputy City Engineer Los Angeles Department - Bureau $209,739 -- -- -- $10,608 II of Engineering Los Angeles Electric Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $209,653 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic and Power General Manager Zoo Los Angeles Zoo Department $209,585 -- -- -- $10,608 Department Los Angeles Electrical Service Los Angeles Department of Water $209,489 -- -- -- $14,224 Manager and Power Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Battalion Chief $209,447 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Captain II $209,376 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Electrical Service Los Angeles Department of Water $209,122 -- -- -- $14,224 Manager and Power Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Captain l $209,046 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Captain l $209,045 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Electric Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $208,768 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic and Power Los Angeles Electrical Service Los Angeles Department of Water $208,646 -- -- -- -- Manager and Power Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Inspector l $208,567 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Firefighter III $208,561 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Transmission & Los Angeles Los Angeles Distribution District Department of Water $208,436 -- -- -- $14,224 Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Electrical Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $208,342 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Electric Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $208,270 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic and Power Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Captain l $207,998 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fireboat Mate $207,843 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Electric Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $207,818 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic and Power Los Angeles Electric Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $207,796 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic and Power Los Angeles Los Angeles Load Dispatcher Department of Water $207,456 -- -- -- $14,224 and Power Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Captain II $207,275 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Electrical Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $207,204 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Electric Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $207,200 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic and Power 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT C - 17 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Defined Retirement Health, Deferred City Position Department Total Wages Benefit Cost Dental Comp Plan Covered & Vision Los Angeles Electrical Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $207,141 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Senior Load Los Angeles Department of Water $206,962 -- -- -- $14,224 Dispatcher and Power Los Angeles Electrical Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $206,905 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Battalion Chief $206,871 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Captain II $206,749 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Senior Underground Los Angeles Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $206,720 -- -- -- $14,224 Construction and Power Supervisor Los Angeles Electrical Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $206,691 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Assistant Chief $206,662 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Captain l $206,657 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Electrical Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $206,640 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Firefighter III $206,455 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Captain II $206,344 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Electric Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $206,225 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic and Power Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Firefighter III $205,957 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Senor Assistant City Office of the City Los Angeles $205,926 -- -- -- $10,608 Attorney Attorney Los Angeles Police Los Angeles Police Deputy Chief II $205,762 -- -- -- $12,592 Department Los Angeles Electrical Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $205,739 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Captain l $205,681 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Assistant Chief Los Angeles Council $205,343 -- -- -- $10,608 Legislative Analyst Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Captain l $205,290 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Battalion Chief $205,087 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Firefighter III $205,057 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Electrical Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $204,944 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Battalion Chief $204,909 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Electric Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $204,385 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic and Power Senor Assistant City Office of the City Los Angeles $204,355 -- -- -- $10,608 Attorney Attorney Electric Distribution Los Angeles Los Angeles $204,326 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic Department of Water 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT C - 18 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Defined Retirement Health, Deferred City Position Department Total Wages Benefit Cost Dental Comp Plan Covered & Vision and Power Los Angeles Electrical Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $204,306 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Police Los Angeles Police Deputy Chief II $204,303 -- -- -- $12,592 Department Senor Assistant City Office of the City Los Angeles $204,271 -- -- -- $10,608 Attorney Attorney Los Angeles Electrical Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $204,245 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Electrical Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $204,218 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Electrical Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $204,033 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Police Los Angeles Police Commander $203,995 -- -- -- $12,592 Department Los Angeles Electric Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $203,965 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic and Power Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Battalion Chief $203,826 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Electrical Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $203,757 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Battalion Chief $203,556 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Assistant Chief $203,554 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Senior Underground Los Angeles Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $203,431 -- -- -- $14,224 Construction and Power Supervisor Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Battalion Chief $203,430 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Electrical Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $203,371 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fireboat Pilot $203,193 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Second Deputy Los Angeles General Manager Harbor Department $203,103 -- -- -- $10,608 Harbor Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Firefighter III $203,049 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Battalion Chief $203,031 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Battalion Chief $203,022 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fireboat Mate $202,827 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Los Angeles Load Dispatcher Department of Water $202,672 -- -- -- $14,224 and Power Los Angeles Electric Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $202,472 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic and Power Los Angeles Electrical Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $202,445 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic Supervisor and Power Steam Plant Operating Los Angeles Los Angeles $202,292 -- -- -- $14,224 Supervisor Department of Water 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT C - 19 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Defined Retirement Health, Deferred City Position Department Total Wages Benefit Cost Dental Comp Plan Covered & Vision and Power Los Angeles Los Angeles Load Dispatcher Department of Water $202,152 -- -- -- $14,224 and Power Public Works Director Bureau of Los Angeles Department - Bureau $202,116 -- -- -- $10,608 Sanitation of Sanitation Chief Information Los Angeles World Los Angeles $202,078 -- -- -- $10,608 Officer Airports Los Angeles Electric Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $202,064 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic and Power Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Captain II $201,995 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Electrical Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $201,969 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic Supervisor and Power Senor Assistant City Office of the City Los Angeles $201,891 -- -- -- $10,608 Attorney Attorney Los Angeles Electric Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $201,719 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic and Power Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fireboat Pilot $201,663 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Battalion Chief $201,640 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Battalion Chief $201,619 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Captain l $201,491 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Electrical Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $201,421 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Electrical Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $201,342 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Inspector l $201,282 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Executive Assistant Office of the City Los Angeles $201,211 -- -- -- $10,608 City Attorney Attorney Los Angeles Electric Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $201,122 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic and Power Los Angeles Electrical Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $201,081 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Electrical Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $201,042 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Electric Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $200,935 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic and Power Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Captain l $200,912 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Inspector l $200,870 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Electrical Service Los Angeles Department of Water $200,811 -- -- -- $14,224 Manager and Power Los Angeles Electric Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $200,786 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic and Power 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT C - 20 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Defined Retirement Health, Deferred City Position Department Total Wages Benefit Cost Dental Comp Plan Covered & Vision Los Angeles Electric Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $200,723 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic and Power Los Angeles Electric Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $200,641 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic and Power Los Angeles Electrical Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $200,637 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Electrical Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $200,481 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Inspector l $200,326 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Electrical Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $200,226 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic Supervisor and Power Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Assistant Chief $200,210 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Electric Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $200,196 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic and Power Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Battalion Chief $200,177 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Electric Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $200,166 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic and Power Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Fire Battalion Chief $200,163 -- -- -- $13,368 Department Los Angeles Electric Distribution Los Angeles Department of Water $200,157 -- -- -- $14,224 Mechanic and Power Senor Assistant City Office of the City Los Angeles $200,133 -- -- -- $10,608 Attorney Attorney Los Angeles Los Angeles Load Dispatcher Department of Water $200,122 -- -- -- $14,224 and Power Los Angeles Fire Los Angeles Firefighter III $200,018 -- -- -- $13,368 Department La Mirada City Manager City Administration $211,713 $41,385 $13,723 $8,100 $20,210 Lancaster City Manager City Manager/Admin $253,574 $23,276 $17,080 $32,941 $22,908 Utility Services Lancaster Public Works $207,063 $13,140 $9,615 $16,483 $11,178 Manager Executive Director- Long Beach Harbor $319,151 $41,592 $18,850 -- $12,648 Harbor Long Beach City Manager City Manager $255,532 $32,690 $14,794 -- $12,755 Long Beach City Attorney Law $252,597 $32,951 $7,383 -- $13,055 Assistant Executive Long Beach Harbor $237,582 $31,409 $14,311 -- $12,648 Director-Harbor General Manager- Long Beach Water $236,563 $30,998 $14,092 -- $11,823 Water Assistant City Long Beach City Manager $234,958 $30,255 $13,685 -- $12,930 Manager Long Beach Firefighter Fire $222,616 $18,298 $5,387 -- $10,106 Long Beach Firefighter Fire $218,564 $16,646 $4,895 -- $10,106 Long Beach Chief Of Police Police $217,747 $42,593 $16,212 -- $12,648 Long Beach Firefighter Fire $212,081 $17,714 $5,225 -- $10,791 Long Beach Firefighter Fire $208,439 $16,947 $4,970 -- $14,554 Long Beach Fire Captain Fire $201,500 $24,707 $7,261 -- $11,823 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT C - 21 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Defined Retirement Health, Deferred City Position Department Total Wages Benefit Cost Dental Comp Plan Covered & Vision Long Beach Firefighter Fire $201,358 $20,698 $6,142 -- $12,948 Long Beach Managing Director Harbor $201,182 $26,686 $12,159 -- $12,423 Director-Long Beach Long Beach Long Beach Gas & Oil $201,036 $27,076 $12,236 -- $12,563 Gas & Oil City Manager Lynwood City Manager $252,241 $46,007 $17,933 -- $17,481 Administration Assistant City Administrative Lynwood $203,564 $36,603 $14,281 -- $17,326 Manager Services Malibu City Manager Management Services $204,839 $21,711 $13,605 $11,671 $15,959 Manhattan Beach Fire Capt./Paramedic Fire $295,937 $38,502 $14,911 -- $17,694 Manhattan Beach Fire Capt./Paramedic Fire $289,410 $39,205 $15,227 -- $17,659 Manhattan Beach Fire Marshal/Captain Fire $279,998 $39,066 $15,134 -- $17,659 Manhattan Beach Fire Capt./Paramedic Fire $265,015 $37,824 $14,649 -- $15,525 Manhattan Beach Fire Capt./Paramedic Fire $251,784 $39,214 $15,217 -- $17,659 Manhattan Beach Fire Battalion Chief Fire $247,243 $40,082 $15,524 -- $14,373 Manhattan Beach Fire Capt./Paramedic Fire $237,095 $36,435 $14,105 -- $18,288 Manhattan Beach Firefighter/Paramedic Fire $220,816 $28,549 $11,186 -- $11,663 Manhattan Beach Fire Engr/Paramedic Fire $220,459 $30,301 $11,687 -- $17,659 Manhattan Beach Fire Battalion Chief Fire $217,702 $37,283 $14,440 -- $15,100 Manhattan Beach Fire Battalion Chief Fire $217,072 $41,623 $16,157 -- $14,457 Manhattan Beach Firefighter/Paramedic Fire $214,526 $25,757 $9,970 -- $6,985 Manhattan Beach Police Officer Police $212,305 $45,371 $10,411 -- $7,133 Manhattan Beach Fire Engr/Paramedic Fire $206,497 $32,914 $12,737 -- $18,915 Manhattan Beach City Manager Management Services $206,267 $19,349 $14,063 $9,041 $1,130 Manhattan Beach Fire Engr/Paramedic Fire $205,091 $32,577 $12,623 -- $17,659 Director Of Community Manhattan Beach Community $203,457 $14,743 $10,775 $6,927 $13,343 Development Development Manhattan Beach Fire Engr/Paramedic Fire $201,413 $31,983 $12,412 -- $17,659 Manhattan Beach Firefighter/Paramedic Fire $200,957 $27,526 $10,639 -- $15,525 Monrovia City Manager City Manager $289,030 $32,844 $15,399 $2,492 $9,097 Assistant City City Manager's Norwalk $230,706 -- $15,954 $7,977 $11,172 Manager Office/Administration Palmdale City Attorney City Attorney $293,250 $68,050 $5 $14,507 $42,326 Palmdale City Manager City Manager $289,580 $78,317 $5 $22,000 $1,767 Director Of Public Palmdale Sewer Maintenance $214,725 $43,431 $7,559 -- $32,972 Works Pasadena City Manager City Manager $269,169 $37,997 $12,593 $16,500 $14,786 City Attorney/City Pasadena City Attorney $226,933 $32,707 $10,697 -- $15,374 Prosecutor Assistant City Pasadena City Manager $221,240 $29,304 $9,584 -- $15,374 Manager Pasadena Police Chief Police $220,966 $59,868 $21,452 -- $15,374 Assistant City Pasadena City Manager $217,177 $29,304 $9,584 -- $14,414 Manager Gen Mgr - Water & Pasadena Water And Power $217,130 $30,349 $9,926 -- $14,414 Power Fire Battalion Chief Pasadena Fire $212,405 $43,596 $15,624 -- $16,118 (40 Hour) Pasadena Director Of Finance Finance $208,140 $27,905 $9,127 -- $14,920 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT C - 22 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Defined Retirement Health, Deferred City Position Department Total Wages Benefit Cost Dental Comp Plan Covered & Vision Assistant City Pico Rivera Administration $201,014 $575 $7,191 -- $818 Manager Pomona City Manager Administration $207,497 $24,869 $6,669 -- $9,300 Pomona Police Chief Police $201,987 $55,966 $17,805 -- $9,300 Redondo Beach City Attorney City Attorney $283,417 $33,394 $18,191 -- $14,352 Redondo Beach City Manager City Manager $251,012 $30,149 $16,420 -- $9,719 Redondo Beach Fire Captain Fire $214,784 $44,389 $11,773 -- $13,473 Redondo Beach Fire Division Chief Fire $214,315 $61,694 $15,832 -- $13,473 Redondo Beach Fire Chief Fire $207,910 $69,313 $17,827 -- $9,719 Redondo Beach Fire Division Chief Fire $204,489 $61,726 $15,859 -- $14,352 Redondo Beach Chief of Police Police $201,294 $66,206 $16,961 -- $14,352 Rosemead City Manager Administration $215,408 $48,038 $14,544 $6,000 $15,339 Administrative San Dimas City Manager $208,291 $27,919 $9,300 $2,400 $12,771 Services San Fernando Police Chief Police Department $278,841 -- $16,981 -- $26,376 San Gabriel City Manager Administration $219,317 $42,114 $15,581 -- $1,277 Santa Clarita City Manager City Manager Admin $282,427 $30,188 $19,509 $16,500 $13,348 Assistant City Santa Clarita City Manager Admin $230,579 $23,972 $15,482 $5,000 $13,541 Manager Santa Fe Springs Fire Captain Fire $293,077 $57,753 $13,368 $3,895 $15,388 Santa Fe Springs Fire Captain Fire $235,244 $56,188 $13,006 $4,128 $16,822 Santa Fe Springs Fire Captain Fire $232,196 $51,955 $12,026 $3,813 $16,822 Santa Fe Springs Fire Captain Fire $226,557 $54,506 $12,616 $3,999 $16,822 Santa Fe Springs Ff/Paramedic II Fire $225,153 $43,428 $10,052 $3,184 $2,083 Santa Fe Springs Fire Captain Fire $224,314 $56,139 $12,994 $4,125 $16,822 Santa Fe Springs Fire Engineer Fire $218,943 $46,052 $10,660 -- $16,822 Santa Fe Springs Fire Captain Fire $209,036 $51,740 $11,976 $3,740 $16,822 Santa Fe Springs Fire Engineer Fire $206,445 $41,753 $9,664 $3,071 $17,024 Santa Fe Springs Fire Captain Fire $205,741 $54,510 $12,617 $3,999 $16,822 Santa Fe Springs Division Chief Fire $205,306 $67,722 $15,675 $4,640 $16,822 Division Chief - Santa Fe Springs Fire $201,872 $64,650 $14,964 $4,672 $13,684 Admin Santa Fe Springs Division Chief Fire $201,853 $67,491 $15,622 $89 $11,344 City Manager - Santa Monica City Manager $330,573 $53,088 $27,940 -- $19,716 Administration Santa Monica City Attorney City Attorney $289,705 $45,522 $23,958 -- $19,716 Assistant City Santa Monica City Attorney $278,425 $43,884 $23,095 -- $19,716 Attorney Administrative Santa Monica Police Sergeant $275,062 $55,113 $15,022 -- $16,670 Services Santa Monica Police Sergeant Operations $273,901 $52,688 $14,361 -- $16,214 Police Chief (As- Administrative Santa Monica $271,241 $94,647 $25,802 -- $19,716 Needed) Services Assistant City City Manager - Santa Monica $261,485 $41,388 $21,674 -- $15,439 Manager Administration Battalion Chief - Fire Suppression & Santa Monica $254,866 $35,433 $14,788 -- $12,637 Suppression Rescue Criminal Santa Monica Police Officer $249,047 $39,944 $10,883 -- $16,214 Investigations Administrative Santa Monica Deputy Police Chief $248,558 $85,364 $23,267 -- $1,166 Services 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT C - 23 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Defined Retirement Health, Deferred City Position Department Total Wages Benefit Cost Dental Comp Plan Covered & Vision Director of CCS -Administrative Santa Monica Community/Cultural $244,861 $38,455 $20,045 -- $19,716 & Planning Services Services Santa Monica Fire Chief Fire - Administration $244,380 $56,795 $23,318 -- $19,716 Fire Captain - Fire Suppression & Santa Monica $241,148 $38,067 $15,725 -- $19,356 Suppression Rescue Deputy City Attorney Santa Monica City Attorney $238,788 $38,513 $20,362 -- $19,716 III Deputy City Attorney Santa Monica City Attorney $237,840 $37,305 $19,672 -- $19,716 III Santa Monica Police Sergeant Operations $235,684 $53,253 $14,515 -- $7,490 Fire Captain - Fire Suppression & Santa Monica $234,544 $38,823 $16,036 -- $19,356 Suppression Rescue Fire Captain - Fire Suppression & Santa Monica $234,518 $38,823 $16,036 -- $19,356 Suppression Rescue Deputy City Attorney Santa Monica City Attorney $232,884 $38,921 $20,386 -- $11,524 III Deputy City Attorney Santa Monica City Attorney $231,574 $37,267 $19,515 -- $19,716 III Deputy City Attorney Santa Monica City Attorney $231,363 $36,110 $19,138 -- $19,716 III Fire Captain - Fire Suppression & Santa Monica $230,687 $38,954 $16,049 -- $19,356 Suppression Rescue Deputy City Attorney Santa Monica City Attorney $230,245 $36,110 $19,138 -- $14,635 III Criminal Santa Monica Police Sergeant $229,822 $54,466 $14,845 -- $16,214 Investigations Santa Monica Police Sergeant Operations $228,308 $53,934 $14,675 -- $16,214 Deputy City Attorney Santa Monica City Attorney $228,283 $36,099 $18,983 -- $19,716 III Fire Captain - Santa Monica Fire Training $227,850 $38,973 $16,046 -- $14,374 Prevention Deputy City Attorney Santa Monica City Attorney $226,412 $35,612 $18,645 -- $19,716 III Fire Captain - Fire Suppression & Santa Monica $226,345 $37,620 $15,541 -- $14,294 Suppression Rescue Deputy City Attorney Santa Monica City Attorney $226,274 $35,204 $18,620 -- $19,716 III Fire Suppression & Santa Monica Firefighter $225,819 $25,008 $10,299 -- $8,159 Rescue Deputy City Attorney Santa Monica City Attorney $225,665 $34,902 $18,448 -- $19,716 III Fire Captain - Fire Suppression & Santa Monica $225,230 $38,397 $15,830 -- $19,356 Suppression Rescue Fire Engineer - Fire Suppression & Santa Monica $224,399 $29,514 $12,145 -- $19,356 Suppression Rescue Fire Captain - Fire Suppression & Santa Monica $223,236 $38,303 $15,802 -- $19,356 Suppression Rescue Fire Captain - Fire Suppression & Santa Monica $223,003 $37,751 $15,554 -- $18,744 Suppression Rescue Deputy City Attorney Santa Monica City Attorney $222,160 $34,150 $17,930 -- $1,166 III Public Works Director of Public Santa Monica Administrative $221,900 $34,686 $18,115 -- $6,811 Works Services Fire Captain - Santa Monica Fire - Administration $220,453 $37,914 $15,604 -- $11,321 Prevention Deputy City Attorney Santa Monica City Attorney $217,761 $34,298 $18,103 -- $8,299 III Battalion Chief - Fire Suppression & Santa Monica $216,487 $41,133 $16,994 -- $19,356 Suppression Rescue Deputy City Attorney Santa Monica City Attorney $215,888 $34,298 $18,103 -- $19,716 III 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT C - 24 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Defined Retirement Health, Deferred City Position Department Total Wages Benefit Cost Dental Comp Plan Covered & Vision Deputy City Attorney Santa Monica City Attorney $215,752 $34,531 $18,117 -- $6,049 III Criminal Santa Monica Police Captain $214,586 $77,048 $21,000 -- $16,214 Investigations Fire Captain - Fire Suppression & Santa Monica $214,492 $36,922 $15,227 -- $14,374 Suppression Rescue Director of Finance - Santa Monica Finance(Contr/Ci $212,725 $34,435 $18,064 -- $15,439 Administration Treas) Fire Captain - Fire Suppression & Santa Monica $212,275 $36,525 $15,088 -- $14,374 Suppression Rescue Fire Captain - Santa Monica Fire Support Services $212,097 $38,116 $15,693 -- $10,736 Prevention Director of Housing & Administration & Santa Monica $211,405 $33,280 $17,458 -- $11,524 Economic Dev Redevelopment Fire Captain - Fire Suppression & Santa Monica $211,377 $37,751 $15,554 -- $19,356 Suppression Rescue Fire Engineer - Fire Suppression & Santa Monica $209,218 $33,935 $13,970 -- $13,762 Suppression Rescue Deputy City Attorney Santa Monica City Attorney $207,849 $34,164 $17,937 -- $19,716 III Santa Monica Police Captain Operations $207,754 $74,841 $20,371 -- $14,707 Battalion Chief - Santa Monica Fire Training $205,808 $40,519 $16,690 -- $11,321 Prevention Fire Captain - Fire Suppression & Santa Monica $205,654 $37,574 $15,474 -- $19,356 Suppression Rescue Santa Monica Fire Inspector Fire Prevention $205,617 $29,840 $12,289 -- $14,374 Fire Captain - Fire Suppression & Santa Monica $204,845 $34,708 $14,344 -- $14,294 Suppression Rescue Fire Captain - Fire Suppression & Santa Monica $204,288 $35,852 $14,808 -- $14,374 Suppression Rescue Santa Monica Deputy Fire Chief Fire - Administration $202,875 $47,582 $19,552 -- $15,943 Battalion Chief - Santa Monica Fire - Administration $202,774 $44,274 $18,203 -- $14,374 Prevention Criminal Santa Monica Police Sergeant $202,306 $54,466 $14,845 -- $16,214 Investigations Fire Engineer - Fire Suppression & Santa Monica $201,951 $30,187 $12,443 -- $19,356 Suppression Rescue Santa Monica Police Captain Special Enforcement $201,945 $72,295 $19,686 -- $12,399 Fire Captain - Santa Monica Fire - Administration $201,130 $35,340 $14,528 -- $15,164 Prevention Program Signal Hill City Manager $229,249 $28,236 $6,066 $14,153 $11,740 Administration Temple City City Manager Management Services $217,593 $28,505 $13,776 -- $15,990 Torrance Manager, City City Manager $340,897 $33,851 $18,787 $1,342 $9,539 Torrance Attorney, City City Attorney $297,579 $33,675 $18,689 -- $9,539 Torrance Fire Chief Fire $276,351 $90,993 $20,137 $1,119 $12,131 Torrance Police Captain Police $267,043 $101,198 $19,789 -- $11,872 Torrance Police Chief Police $261,026 $108,726 $21,286 $1,183 $11,710 Torrance Police Lieutenant Police $254,228 $78,674 $15,390 $902 $15,334 Torrance Deputy Fire Chief Fire $251,493 $84,188 $18,614 -- $14,324 Assistant City Torrance City Manager $248,031 $28,305 $15,709 $1,122 $12,131 Manager Torrance Police Lieutenant Police $247,136 $81,216 $15,887 $863 $15,334 Torrance Fire Chief, Battalion Fire $240,358 $71,284 $15,727 $1,644 $14,797 Torrance Police Captain Police $239,604 $91,400 $17,876 -- $14,324 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT C - 25 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Defined Retirement Health, Deferred City Position Department Total Wages Benefit Cost Dental Comp Plan Covered & Vision Torrance Police Lieutenant Police $237,965 $79,452 $15,541 $942 $5,973 Torrance Police Captain Police $233,873 $88,531 $17,300 -- $14,744 Torrance Police Captain Police $230,268 $91,399 $17,876 -- $14,744 Torrance Police Sergeant Police $230,200 $69,400 $13,576 $1,020 $5,980 Torrance Public Works Director Public Works $229,937 $26,403 $14,653 $1,047 $5,220 Torrance Fire Chief, Battalion Fire $229,614 $66,500 $14,656 $1,644 $15,458 Community Community Torrance $229,498 $24,068 $13,357 $954 $12,131 Development Director Development Torrance Police Sergeant Police $229,271 $67,373 $13,174 $1,020 $14,723 Torrance Finance Director Finance $226,101 $24,291 $13,481 $963 $12,131 Torrance Police Officer Police $223,133 $56,635 $11,059 $1,020 $14,723 Fire Chief, Battalion - Torrance Fire $221,462 $76,172 $16,812 $1,644 $15,458 40 Hr Torrance Police Sergeant Police $219,323 $59,326 $11,603 $1,020 $13,967 Torrance Police Captain Police $219,060 $76,700 $14,979 $667 $5,980 Torrance Fire Engineer Fire $209,786 $53,740 $11,856 $1,644 $8,054 Torrance Fire Captain Fire $209,129 $62,093 $13,699 $1,644 $11,127 Information Communication & Torrance $206,835 $21,311 $11,827 -- $12,131 Technology Director Info Systems Torrance Police Lieutenant Police $206,731 $78,449 $15,338 $588 $15,334 Torrance Police Sergeant Police $206,359 $58,122 $11,371 $1,020 $14,723 Torrance Police Officer Police $204,688 $52,643 $10,252 $1,020 $14,723 Torrance Fire Captain Fire $203,821 $63,202 $13,944 $1,644 $14,723 Torrance Police Lieutenant Police $203,715 $74,081 $14,466 $1,020 $15,334 Police Sergeant-1 Yr Torrance Police $201,051 $62,002 $12,118 $1,020 $14,723 Lat Credt Torrance Police Lieutenant Police $200,975 $68,707 $13,434 $1,020 $14,723 Vernon Finance Director Finance $278,612 $40,863 -- -- $12,600 Chief Deputy City Vernon City Attorney $237,589 $64,598 -- -- $12,600 Attorney Director Of Administrative, Vernon Community Services Engineering & $228,432 $32,797 -- -- $12,600 & Water Planning Vernon Fire Chief Fire $222,956 $58,807 -- -- $12,600 Vernon Engineering Manager L&P Engineering $205,558 $24,600 -- -- $12,675 Walnut City Manager Administration $214,172 $22,071 $13,765 -- $15,000 West Covina City Manager City Manager $282,740 $26,714 $9,634 $2,918 $27,174 West Covina Assistant Fire Chief Fire $249,567 $49,294 $14,479 $6,592 $13,900 West Covina Assistant Fire Chief Fire $244,530 $48,975 $14,397 $6,551 $15,272 West Covina Assistant Fire Chief Fire $235,813 $49,540 $14,566 $6,627 $13,900 West Covina Police Chief Police $217,147 $54,847 $16,126 $7,335 $6,044 West Covina Officer Police $202,541 $29,366 $8,620 $3,418 $11,108 West Hollywood City Manager City Manager $304,904 $48,408 $23,975 $13,760 $15,887 Executive Coordinator Assistant City West Hollywood $276,859 $1,341 $727 $975 $424 of Development Manager Director of Finance & Finance West Hollywood $208,181 $30,937 $15,318 $1,800 $6,763 Technician Administration 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT C - 26 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Defined Retirement Health, Deferred City Position Department Total Wages Benefit Cost Dental Comp Plan Covered & Vision Housing And West Hollywood Housing Manager Residential Code $205,383 $22,731 $11,389 $1,575 $5,918 Compliance Department of Human Director of Human West Hollywood Services & Rent $200,120 $30,937 $15,318 $1,800 $11,891 Services Stabilization Westlake Village City Manager Administration $213,508 $25,509 $15,772 $6,324 $17,174 City Manager- Whittier City Manager $219,052 $38,290 $8,689 $10,222 $16,425 Provisional Source: California State Controller’s Office “Government Compensation in California.” (http://publicpay.ca.gov). The information presented is posted as submitted by the reporting entity. The State Controller's Office is not responsible for the accuracy of this information. 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT C - 27 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT APPENDIX D: PROGESS IMPLEMENTING PRIOR RECOMMENDATIONS Appendix D: Progress Implementing Prior Recommendations Implementation In- Leadership City Implementation Complete Process Considering Implemented a Revenue and Expenditure Management Policy Amended General Fund Reserve Policy and increased the reserve amount Established a formal audit Alhambra committee Adopted a policy for updating accounting policies and procedures Adopted a formal fraud reporting policy to provide a mechanism for confidential and anonymous reporting Developing Five-Year Establishing a formal financial plan audit committee Development of a strategic plan Development of performance measures Arcadia Updating financial policies and procedures Updating fraud reporting policies and procedures Developing a General Fund Reserve policy Adopted budget policies Adopted a five-year financial forecast Adopted a General Fund Bell reserve policy Developed workload measures as a preliminary step toward developing performance measures 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT D - 1 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Appendix D: Progress Implementing Prior Recommendations Implementation In- Leadership City Implementation Complete Process Considering Establishing a formal Cerritos audit committee Developing a strategic Establishing a formal plan audit committee Compton Developing performance measures Developing a General Downey Fund reserve policy Post audited financial Long term financial Establishing a formal statements on the City’s plan audit committee website. Two year budget Strategic plan Performance indicators Industry Accounting policies and procedures Fraud reporting policies and procedures General Fund reserve policy Fraud reporting policies Establishing the and procedures entire City Council as Irwindale the formal audit committee Establishing a formal Palmdale audit committee Increased the unassigned Established a fraud Multi-year budget General Fund reserve goal to reporting hot line Pasadena 20% Reviewing and updating financial policies and procedures Policy to monitor the review Pomona and update of financial policies and procedures Increased General Fund Establish a formal audit Reserve committee Santa Review of financial Monica policies and procedures every three years 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT D - 2 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Appendix D: Progress Implementing Prior Recommendations Implementation In- Leadership City Implementation Complete Process Considering Establish a formal audit Developing a two- committee year budget Signal Hill Policy providing for the routine change of independent auditor Develop a 2 year budget Review financial Establish a formal Develop a General Fund policies and procedures audit committee Temple Reserve Policy every three years City Develop a strategic plan Develop fraud reporting Develop performance indicators policies Establishing the entire City Council as Whittier the formal audit committee 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT D - 3 CITIES FISCAL HEALTH, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT D - 4 CITIZENS’ COMPLAINT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE MEMBERS Charles Dolcey – Chair Jacqueline Brown Albert Handschumacher Richard Huber Franklin Wurtzel Ung Yol Yu Gilbert Zeal 13. REPORT OF THE CITIZENS’ COMPLAINT COMMITTEE In accordance with established practice, the 2012-2013 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury) established a Citizens Complaint Committee (Committee) to review and consider written communications addressed to it by members of the public. During its term, the Committee reviewed 72 letters from citizens, many of which contained accompanying documents. Twenty-three letters requested Grand Jury review of criminal proceedings, convictions or alleged police or prosecutorial misconduct which were beyond the Grand Jury’s jurisdiction. In four instances, citizens requested that the Grand Jury take action in matters involving State Hospitals or the Workers Compensation Appeals Board which are also beyond the jurisdiction of the Grand Jury. In nine instances, the Grand Jury was asked to intercede in private contractual issues or employment relations issues which were beyond the Grand Jury’s jurisdiction. In two instances, after consideration by the entire Grand Jury, citizens were referred to other Los Angeles County or City agencies to pursue the issues raised. In many other cases, the Grand Jury determined that no action was appropriate. In one instance, a letter received from a citizen regarding the transfer of funds by the City of Glendale from Glendale Water & Power to the City’s general fund prompted a formal investigation by the Grand Jury. As a result, the Grand Jury issued an interim report on March 22, 2013 expressing its concerns regarding Glendale’s compliance with Propositions 218 and 26. The Grand Jury also received several letters regarding housing in the City of Los Angeles. These letters were received well into the Committee’s term. The Grand Jury then informed the citizens who wrote letters to the Grand Jury and encouraged them to communicate their concerns to the 2013-2014 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury. Citizens who wish to submit complaints to the Grand Jury should do so by using the following complaint form and guidelines which may also be found at the Civil Grand Jury website, www.http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/jury/pdf/investigation.pdf. 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 161 CITIZENS’ COMPLAINT COMMITTEE CITIZEN COMPLAINT FORM Please Review Attached Complaint Guidelines Before Completing this Form PLEASE PRINT DATE: _____________________________ 1. Who: Your Name: _______________________________________________________________________ Address: __________________________________________________________________________ City, State, Zip, Code: _______________________________________________________________ Telephone: ( ) Extension: ______________ 2. What: Subject of Complaint. Briefly state the nature of complaint and the action of what Los Angeles County department, section, agency, or official(s) that you believe was illegal or improper. Use additional sheets if necessary. _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ 3. When: Date(s) of incident: _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ 4. Where: Names and addresses of other departments, agencies or officials involved in this com- plaint. Include dates and types of contact, i.e. phone, letter, personal. Use additional sheets if necessary. _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ 5. Why/How: Attach pertinent documents and correspondence with dates. _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ Rev 01/17/2013 162 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT CITIZENS’ COMPLAINT COMMITTEE Complaint Guidelines Communications from the public can provide valuable information to the Grand Jury. Any private citizen, government employee, or officer may submit a completed complaint form to request that the Grand Jury conduct an investigation. This complaint must be in writing and is treated as confidential. Prior to submitting the Complaint Form to the Grand Jury office, please retain a copy for your records if needed. Receipt of all complaints will be acknowledged. If the Civil Grand Jury determines that a matter is within the legally permissible scope of its investigative powers and would warrant further inquiry, additional information may be requested. If a matter does not fall within the Grand Jury's investigative authority or the Jury determines not to investigate a complaint, no action will be taken and there will be no further contact from the Civil Grand Jury. The findings of any investigation conducted by the Grand Jury can be communicated only in a formal final report published at the conclusion of the Grand Jury's term, June 30th. Some complaints are not suitable for civil grand jury action. For example, the Grand Jury has no jurisdiction over judicial performance, actions of the court, or cases that are pending in the courts. Grievances of this nature must be resolved through the established judicial appeal system. The Civil Grand Jury has no jurisdiction or authority to investigate federal or state agencies. Only causes of action occurring within the County of Los Angeles are eligible for review. The jurisdiction of the Civil Grand Jury includes the following:  Consideration of evidence of misconduct against public officials within Los Angeles County.  Inquiry into the condition and management of the jails within the county.  Investigation and report on the operations, accounts, and records of the officers, departments or functions of the county including those operations, accounts, and records of any special legislative district or other district in the county created pursuant to state law for which the officers of the county are serving in their ex officio capacity as officers of the districts.  Investigation of the books and records of any incorporated city or joint powers agency located in the county. Mail complaint form to: Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 West Temple Street, Eleventh Floor, Room 11-506 Los Angeles, CA 90012 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 163 CITIZENS’ COMPLAINT COMMITTEE 164 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT CONTINUITY COMMITTEE COMMITTEE MEMBERS Jeff Clements-Chair Mel Widawski Thomas Scheerer Gil Zeal Jerry Strofs 14. CONTINUITY COMMITTEE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Continuity Committee serves as a bridge connecting the work of previous Los Angeles County Grand Juries (Grand Jury) to the current Grand Jury. The Continuity Committee main- tained complete records of responses to the recommendations by the 2011-2012 Grand Jury. Fur- ther, the 2012-2013 Continuity Committee created a list of current recommendations issued in 2013. The Continuity Committee maintained copies of previous Grand Jury reports and docu- ments in the Grand Jury files. (California Penal Code (PC) §933.05.) The Continuity Committee provided follow-up activities to ensure that public agencies fulfill their obligations under PC §933(c) to respond in a timely manner to recommendations made in the prior Grand Jury reports. There exist at least three sources for reviewing agency responses to the recommendations: 1) the following summary table which categorizes the responses, 2) the Grand Jury website provides copies of the agency response letters, and 3) in general, each agen- cy’s website provides a copy of their particular response. There were 526 recommendations made by the 2011-2012 Grand Jury, of which 447 were agreed to by the affected agency. There were 31 recommendations to agencies which were specifically disagreed with. The remainder of the recommendations resulted in a response of neither “agree” nor “disagree,” but with explanations as summarized in the following table. The Continuity Committee also organized and maintained information from prior year Grand Jury reports for future Grand Juries to facilitate their investigative and reporting responsibilities.

On September 18, 2012, the Los Angeles Times reported: “Two weeks ago, a six-year employee of the Los Angeles County Probation Department was charged with persistently filing false workers' compensation claims. Earlier this month, police arrested a probation officer for allegedly shooting a man in a Covina bar. Those cases came on top of the dozens of drunk-driving, drug possession and theft arrests that seemed scattered throughout the 6,500-employee agency. On Monday [September 17, 2012], FBI agents arrested the highest-ranking member of the Department yet -- Carl Edward Washington, a division chief of intergovernmental relations and former state legislator.”1 According to the March 2013 OIR Report, in 2012, 64 Probation Officers were either arrested or had significant police contacts, i.e. where the employee may not have been arrested but was detained, questioned or issued a citation in a criminal matter. 1 “County probation official arrested on fraud charges”, Richard Winton and Jason Song, Los Angeles Times, Sep- tember 18, 2012 20 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT PROBATION DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT The Grand Jury was informed by senior Probation Department leaders that due to a lack of resources to properly investigate and prepare responses to adverse employment action appeals to the Civil Service Commission, employee discipline was often reduced or reversed. The Grand Jury also determined that incidents of past discipline, e.g. suspension for misconduct, would not preclude or defer promotion eligibility since seniority is the principal criterion for advancement. The Department senior officials also mentioned significant and continuing abuse of disability leave and workers compensation claims, at least one of which as noted above resulted in criminal charges. This issue is particularly noteworthy as the Grand Jury learned in interviews on visits to the juvenile halls, typically as many as 25% of the staff were out on leave or on prescribed light duty. Further, replacing staff on leave created a significant budget issue for the Department since employees on leave were also on salary. In the course of its investigation, the Grand Jury submitted multiple requests for records to the Probation Department, Civil Service Commission, County Counsel, District Attorney and the Sheriff and LAPD. The case management and/or data management systems within each agency were unique. The data entry protocols are similarly unique. This made it difficult and sometimes impossible to harmonize the data and to reach any conclusions that were statistically and clearly supported. The data received indicated that Los Angeles County has, in the last few years, incurred almost $600,000 in costs and fees defending claims of misconduct by sworn officers directed at incarcerated youth. This data is incomplete and the actual costs may be significantly higher. Before the Grand Jury could fully assess the data provided to it, the Board of Supervisors approved the Department’s request for additional investigative and legal staffing. FINDINGS Realignment challenges AB 109 and its companion bill, Assembly Bill 117 were enacted to allow California to reduce its overcrowded state prison population in compliance with federal court mandates. So called “AB 109 realignment” has resulted in the transfer of certain prisoners from state prisons to county jails and the early release of others. Realignment has significantly increased the jail population in Los Angeles County and, according to Probation Department senior leadership, has increased the need for probation officers by approximately 200 to supervise felons benefitting from early release. Applicants for probation officer positions are separated into five bands determined by qualifications and background - Band One being most qualified and Band Five being least qualified. In order to avoid past hiring mistakes, the Department has determined that newly hired probation officers would only come from the pool of candidates in Bands One and Two. More thorough background checks would also be incorporated into the hiring process. Increasing recruiting efforts at local colleges and universities may also be of benefit to the Department in its efforts to meet realignment needs. Retention of experienced juvenile camp and hall staff Critical in this process is the need to retain experienced officers at juvenile camps and halls rather than promoting these officers to field duty as might otherwise be required under existing procedures. The Probation Department and the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) have 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 21 PROBATION DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT entered into an Agreement to correct various deficiencies found at the juvenile camps. This Agreement was extended for another year in November 2012, to allow the Department to fully implement certain recommendations. If the usual career progression within the Department is followed in order to meet the needs of AB 109 realignment, a significant number of experienced juvenile camp and hall probation officers would be transferred to supervise newly released felons. Such a result would negatively impact the Department’s success in complying with the DOJ Agreement. Data frustrations The Grand Jury understands and appreciates the need for certain county agencies to maintain separate non-accessible data management systems. The Sheriff’s Department and the Probation Department obviously maintain highly sensitive information unique to their law enforcement functions. Further, personnel records of these agencies are extremely sensitive and protected by statute. Similarly, the case management system maintained by the County Counsel also contains privileged attorney-client and work-product information. And the Civil Service Commission re- cords contain confidential personnel information. Nevertheless, the lack of any consistent proto- col for data entry made it extremely difficult for the Grand Jury to evaluate and assess the data provided to it by these agencies. For example, names were sometimes entered last name first and sometimes the reverse and acronyms were used without explanation of meaning. The Grand Jury encourages the Chief Information Officer to convene a working group comprised of repre- sentatives from the Sheriff’s Department, District Attorney, Probation Department, County Counsel and Civil Service Commission in order to establish data entry protocols that produce consistency in all data fields. REQUIRED RESPONSES Recommendation Responding Agencies: 3.1, 3.2 Probation Department 3.3 Chief Information Office 22 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT FOSTER CARE HOTLINE INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE MEMBERS Jeff Clements-Chair Carol Pentz Thomas Scheerer 4. FOSTER CARE HOTLINE INVESTIGATION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury (Grand Jury) has frequently reviewed the activities of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), an organization that has faced signifi- cant challenges, even crises, over the years. This section focuses on the Child Protection Hotline (Hotline), the public’s ingress into the foster care system, the entry point where suspected child abuse or neglect is first reported. While the Hotline, in most instances, is doing an outstanding job with knowledgeable manage- ment and skilled, dedicated workers, it has drawn intense criticism, most recently in April 2012 from the Board of Supervisors’ Children’s Special Investigation Unit. (The CSIU Report.1) The Grand Jury agrees that there is always room for improvement and, in a few instances, urgent im- provement is needed at the Hotline. DCFS’ responsibilities include the protection of all children in this County from abuse and ne- glect. That work begins at the Hotline, which receives too many noncritical calls, makes too many referrals, and creates too much work for DCFS employees downstream. DCFS must focus senior management and its resources to improve the Hotline by reducing the number of calls that go through the system, by upgrading the personnel and the compensation of those who work there, by reducing the number of policies within DCFS and by engaging the community into its efforts to reduce child abuse within the county. To be specific, community- based services need to be expanded. Utilizing the community involved Point-of-Engagement (POE) approach should be revisited to apply countywide as it appears to be showing significant success in the Compton and Torrance regions. The County must establish a separate crisis hotline and must embrace regionalization of the sys- tem. The Hotline must promote the notion that Hotline employees need special interpersonal probing skills not present in every individual. Further, it must implement better means to reward the employees under intense stress and reward the high performing employees. Clearly, there are excessive policies, procedures and practices throughout DCFS that need to be more effectively accessible and easier to navigate, if not reduced. At a minimum, a search fea- ture needs to be incorporated within the policies, procedures and practices themselves to allow ease of searching for appropriate information within the document. Generating referrals takes significant time and there continues to linger a “culture of fear” throughout the Hotline. Report Regarding DCFS Recurring Systemic Issues, Children’s Special Investigation Unit (CSIU), April 16, 2012, (CSIU Report), 2012-2013 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 23 FOSTER CARE HOTLINE The Grand Jury agrees with the CSIU Report in which it is stated that the Structured Decision Making (SDM) tool’s function, training and usage by Hotline employees must be reexamined for its intended purpose. COMMENDATION DCFS is commended for its operational staff at the Hotline, who were very conscientious, knowledgeable, open and extremely helpful to the 2012-2013 Los Angeles County Grand Jury.