Contra Costa County Grand Jury Report 0701 Compliance and Review Committee Report The Contra Costa County Civil Grand

In each of the last three fiscal years, the County’s expenditures have exceeded revenue by amounts ranging from $17 million to $22 million. The County drew down reserve funds to cover the shortage. Response: Agree.

On June 28, 2005, the BOS approved the 2005/2006 budget with a projected $20 million deficit. At this rate of deficit spending, the June 30, 2006 unreserved fund balance will be approximately 3.5% of revenue -- below the 5% minimum level recently established by the BOS -- and will be exhausted before June 30, 2008. Response: Partially disagree. This statement was true as of June 28, 2005; however, the County did not continue the budgeted rate of deficit spending and, how, at year- end the unreserved fund balance is expected to be above the June 28, 2005 estimate.

On May 2, 2006, the BOS approved a balanced budget for fiscal year 2006-2007 that includes a reduction of 200 staff positions and reductions in services provided by the County. Response: Agree. Capital Projects 4. The Capital Facilities Committee, a two-person committee of the BOS, oversees most major capital projects. Response: Partially disagree. The County Administrator’s Office oversees the management of capital projects. The Board’s Capital Facilities Committee recommends priorities for capital facilities funds to the Board of Supervisors and monitors the progress of major capital projects.

Before proceeding with the District Attorney Building, re-evaluate the project justification using the recommended justification standards especially with respect to the financial projections (Recommendation #2c). Response: Will not be implemented because it is not warranted. The District Attorney project has already undergone a rigorous justification process that has included multiple staff reports and approvals by the Capital Facilities Committee and the Board of Supervisors. APPENDIX A District Attorney Building On April 29, 2003, the BOS authorized a feasibility study of a new District Attorney building. The building consolidates four separate offices into one building adjacent to the courts in downtown Martinez. In 2005, construction documents for the new building were completed. On May 2, 2006, the BOS authorized issuance of a request for competitive bids for construction. Total project cost was estimated as follows: Design phase $2,800,000 Construction 18,500,000 Furniture 1,200,000 Total $22,500,000 The projected funding sources were as follows: Plant Acquisition Account $3,800,000 Criminal Justice Facility Construction Fund 4,000,000 Lease Revenue Bonds 14,700,000 Total $22,500,000 The Plant Acquisition Account figure represents accumulations from the District Attorney’s annual operating budget over the past few years. The Criminal Justice Facility Construction Fund (“Criminal Justice Fund”) is derived from court fines and fees. It may be used for “construction, reconstruction, expansion, improvement, operation, or maintenance of county criminal justice and court facilities and for improvement of criminal justice automated information systems.” The project justification (dated December 1, 2005) assumes that 25-year lease revenue bonds would be sold in mid-2006, at a rate of 6 percent interest, to partially finance the project. Three revenue streams are identified for this new debt service: 1. $500,000 annually from the Criminal Justice Fund. 2. $213,340 annually from personnel reductions of two clerks and one office manager, due to consolidation of offices. 3. $366,608 to $377,380 annually from occupancy cost savings, due to vacating the current offices at four different locations. This savings assumes that replacement tenants can be found. Projection of Annual Costs and Savings (in thousands) 2012 2008 2009 2010 2011 & beyond Net Debt Service $847 $1,049 $1,082 $1,117 $1,156 Savings: Criminal Justice Fund (500) (500) (500) (500) (500) Personnel Savings (213) (213) (213) (213) (213) Occupancy Savings (366) (370) (373) (377) (377) BEST CASE (sublease of existing facilities): Net cost or (savings) $(232) $(34) $(4) $27 $66 POSSIBLE CASE (without subleasing): Net cost or (savings) $(91) $111 $143 $179 $107 Comments: Without the $3.8 million from the plant acquisition account and the $4.0 million from the Criminal Justice Fund (both of which are used to lower the amount of lease revenue bonds required to finance the project from $22.5 million to $14.7 million), the annual debt service cost would increase by slightly over 50%, or more than $500,000 per year. In addition to $4.0 million in up-front money from the Criminal Justice Fund, the project proposal contemplates using $500,000 per year for 25 years from the Criminal Justice Fund to offset part of the lease revenue bond debt service. The source of the Plant Acquisition Account is the General Fund. If this project were not undertaken, the funds would be available for any General Fund expenditure, which covers most County expenditures. Using Criminal Justice Funds (which, as previously indicated may be used for a wide variety of expenditures related to criminal justice) for this project makes them unavailable for other expenditures. Such projects will then have to be funded by the General Fund, thus increasing net County cost at that time. The proposal understates the net County cost by more than $1 million annually -- $500,000 from understated debt service cost and the $500,000 of “free” funds from the Criminal Justice Fund. Clerk-Recorder/Elections Building On September 23, 2003, the BOS approved a project to replace and consolidate the County Clerk-Recorder and Elections facilities. At present, the functions of this department are located in six different buildings in downtown Martinez. This project involves a newly constructed office on Escobar Street in Martinez. On April 26, 2005, the BOS approved a specific lease agreement 9 with a purchase option, which, consistent with BOS policy that the County has an equity interest in facilities in which the County has long-term occupancy, the County is expected to exercise. Total purchase cost was estimated as follows: Sept 23, 2003 April 26, 2005 Projection Projection Building Purchase $8,900,000 $10,994,000 Other Costs 700,000 769,000 Total $9,600,000 $11,763,000 The projected funding sources were as follows: General Fund Contributions $1,950,000 $1,950,000 Micrographic Modernization Fund 2,000,000 2,000,000 Lease Revenue Bonds 5,650,000 7,813,000 Total $9,600,000 $11,763,000 The General Fund Contributions figure represents accumulations from the County Clerk’s annual operating budget over the past few years. The Micrographic Modernization Fund receives revenue from filing and recording fees. The funds are to be used for micrographics and modernization of the Recorder’s Office. The project justification assumes that 25-year lease revenue bonds would be sold in mid-2006, at a rate of 6 percent interest, to partially finance the project. Projection of Annual Costs and Savings Sept 23, 2003 April 26, 2005 Projection Projection Current Facilities Lease Cost: Fiscal Year 2005-2006 $(612,019) Fiscal Year 2006-2007 $(765,085) New Building: Debt Service 386,500 604,071 Maintenance/Utilities 220,000 225,000 New Building Subtotal $606,500 $829,071 Increase (Decrease) in net County cost $(5,519) $63,986 10 Comments: This project justification indicates that it meets the “improves productivity or reduces net County cost” prioritization criterion. However, there are no projected staff reductions and the final justification shows an increase in annual net County cost of $64,000. The approach to financing the building purchase is similar to that used for the District Attorney Building. As such, it has a similar conceptual flaw. In this case, it assumes the use of $1,950,000 of funds that originated in the General Fund to reduce the amount of lease revenue bonds required. Without these “free” funds the County would have to issue $1,950,000 more lease revenue bonds and the annual net Count cost would increase by more than $150,000 due to higher debt service costs. There is a similar question with respect to the $2,000,000 to be obtained from the Micrographic Modernization Fund. There are some differences in that the Fund comes from revenue from County Clerk functions, the permissible uses are restricted much more than for the Criminal Justice Fund, and the $2,000,000 is based on the square footage to be occupied by micrographic functions. There is only a very limited explanation for the changes in project financial projections from September 2003 (for the B0S’s conditional approval) to April 2005 (for final approval). With respect to the $2.2 million (23%) increase in cost, the April, 2005 presentation states that “project costs have been refined to incorporate all fixed tenant improvements, state-of-the-art climate control, mechanical, electrical, fire alarm and security systems.” No further details are provided. This does not explain why the costs increased. There are no comments on the $117,000 (19%) increase in occupancy cost in 2005/2006 or on net County cost, which increased by $69,500 and changed from a savings to a cost. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT 0603 Antioch School District’s Caregiver Program Do these Students belong Here? Response from Antioch Unified School District, Board of Education FINDINGS 1. Approximately 21,200 students are currently enrolled within the District. Response: None.

All major capital projects require the approval of the BOS for each major phase, i.e., feasibility, design, and construction. Response: Agree. 2 6. The BOS has not adopted a written policy regarding the justification and approval of capital facilities projects which addresses such basic questions as: a. How large does a project have to be before it is subject to review and approval outside a department? b. What specific information is required for the justification for each phase of a project? c. What is the approval process for each phase of a project? Response: Partially disagree. The Capital Facilities Committee of the Board of Supervisors reviews capital projects and makes recommendations to the Board. The Committee reviews all capital projects with an estimated project cost of $1 million or more. The Committee has established criteria that it uses to evaluate and prioritize capital projects. The Committee has directed staff to develop a standardized format for presenting proposed projects, which will allow the Committee to receive information to evaluate projects in a consistent format. This reporting format will include information concerning the facilities need to be addressed by a proposed project, details of the proposed solution, and the proposed financing plan for the project. Capital projects are evaluated on the basis of the project as a whole, rather than in individual phases. However, the Board or the Capital Facilities Committee may direct staff to provide status reports at the completion of various phases of a project to ensure that assumptions made at the outset of a project remain valid. For example, cost estimates made at the outset of capital projects are usually based on preliminary information concerning project design. These estimates may change once the design of the project is completed. Capital projects typically involve multiple actions that must be reviewed and approved by the Board of Supervisors during the course of project completion, including the following: • Execution of contracts with architects and other project consultants • Approval of findings required for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) • Authorization to seek construction bids • Award of construction contracts • Approval of financing These approvals occur at different stages of project development, allowing for Board review throughout the course of a project. For example, architects are usually hired during the early planning stages, CEQA findings are approved during the design phase, and construction contracts are approved at the completion of design. In addition, for larger projects staff typically provides 3 progress reports to the Capital Facilities Committee at the completion of each major project phase. Moreover, budgetary controls exist that prevent funds from being allocated or transferred to capital accounts without the approval of the County Administrator’s Office and Board of Supervisors.

There was no prosecution of caregivers who did not meet the legal requirements of being an eligible caregiver, or who provided false information on an affidavit, or who falsely claimed that a student lived in his or her home. Response: None.

The Capital Facilities Committee has no written document, which outlines the scope of its activities. Response: Partially disagree. The Capital Facilities Committee was established during the Board’s reorganization of officers on January 9, 2001. The purpose of he Capital Facilities Committee was defined in a December 20, 2000 memo from incoming Chairwoman Uilkema to the Board members, recommending that the Committee was to work closely with staff in order to develop a workable, long-term financing plan to meet the County’s capital facilities needs. The specific activities of the Committee to accomplish this goal are determined by the Committee members.

In capital facilities project justifications, prior year fund balances and other funds, (e.g., the Criminal Justice Construction Fund) which could be used for many other purposes, are treated in financial projections as “free” funds and are used in the projections to reduce the amount of funding and related interest cost of the project. Response: Partially disagree. The County does accumulate funds over multiple years to apply towards large capital projects in the same way a home buyer might save money for a down payment on a house. This is a sound business practice. If by “free” funds, the Grand Jury means funds that are available at no interest charge (as opposed to borrowed funds), then the County agrees with this portion of the finding. Prudent planning for capital needs often involves a multi-year financing plan that may include the accumulation of funds in a capital account prior to construction. This approach reduces the amount of debt required to implement a project, which is [sic] turn reduces the ultimate project cost. However, if “free” funds are meant to imply that the County has complete discretion over the use of the funds, then the County disagrees with that assumption. Some of the funds designated by the County for long-term facility needs are restricted to facility construction and maintenance purposes. For example, the Criminal Justice Facilities Construction Fund, which is derived from penalty assessments levied on court fines, may be used only for the following limited purposes: assisting any county in the construction, reconstruction, expansion, improvement, operation, or maintenance of county criminal justice and court facilities and for improvement of criminal justice automated information systems.

The District Attorney Building is partially justified by “improved productivity or reductions in net County cost”, however even the best case justification shows an increase in net County cost over the life of the project. (The annual increase in net County cost would be another $1 million, if “free” funds, as described in 4 Appendix A, were not utilized in the justification to reduce the amount of lease revenue bonds required to fund the project and the related interest cost.) Response: Agree. The criteria of improved productivity was used as part of the justification for the District Attorney project because the new building will allow the District Attorney staff who work in the downtown Martinez area to consolidate from multiple, crowded office spaces to one space located in close proximity to the Taylor Courthouse. This will improve productivity. The financial projections for the project involve a range of scenarios, some of which include a relatively small increase in net County cost. The District Attorney has indicated a willingness to absorb such a cost in the operating budget of his department, should it occur, so as to maintain cost neutrality to the project budget.

The justification for the District Attorney Building does not contain specific information or data that document the life/safety threats or overcrowding that exists or how the issues will be resolved by the new facility. Response: Partially disagree. Recent staff reports have not included detailed descriptions of overcrowding in the District Attorney’s current office spaces because this condition was identified and described in the initial needs assessment and feasibility studies for the new facility performed in 2002/2003. The amount of office space allocated to the District Attorney’s Office has not changed significantly in 10 – 15 years. Overcrowding in the District Attorney’s current facilities is the result of incremental staff growth over this period without a commensurate increase in office space. The new building provides space for current authorized positions, including positions that are being held vacant due to budget cuts.

The Clerk-Recorder/Elections Building is partially justified by “improved productivity or reductions in net County cost”, however the justification shows a $64,000 increase in annual net County cost over the life of the project. (The annual increase in net County cost would be another $150,000, if “free” funds, as described in Appendix A, were not utilized in the justification to reduce the amount of lease revenue bonds required to fund the project and the related interest cost.) Response: Agree. The offices of the County Clerk-Recorder and Elections Department are currently spread across six facilities in downtown Martinez. These are all older facilities that the County leases from private property owners. Several of these facilities have chronic maintenance problems that cause interruptions to department operations. The size of the current office spaces is insufficient to meet the needs of the Department. The proposed new facility for the County Clerk-Recorder and Elections offices would improve productivity by providing adequate office space for staff to efficiently conduct department business. The new facility would be built to modern construction 5 standards and would have highly functional building systems, which would greatly reduce operational disruptions caused by maintenance problems. The new facility would also result in the consolidation of staff from multiple sites into one facility, improving coordination among staff and increasing productivity. The project does involve a modest incremental increase in building occupancy costs. The Board determined this incremental cost was justified by the benefits associated with the new facility.

The justification for the Clerk-Recorder/Elections Building does not contain specific information or data that document the life/safety threats or overcrowding that exists or how the issues will be resolved by the new facility. Response: Partially disagree. The project will mitigate crowded conditions and improve the productivity of the Clerk-Recorder’s Office, as described in the County’s response to Finding No. 11.

The justification for the Clerk-Recorder/Elections Building dated April 26, 2005 provides no explanation why the costs increased from the September 23, 2003 justification. (See Appendix A for more detail.) Response: Agree. The cost increase was due to refined cost estimation and construction cost inflation between the dates of the estimates.

In September 2005, County staff received a preliminary estimate of the County’s unfunded liability and annual expense under GASB 45. Response: Agree.

At the February 28, 2006 Board of Supervisors’ (“BOS”) meeting, a very brief presentation of the preliminary estimate was made and an independent actuary was retained to perform a full retiree health actuarial valuation for the County, consistent with GASB 45. Response: Agree. The Board discussed this item for approximately 20 minutes on February 28, 2006 and the Finance Committee discussed this item for approximately 90 minutes at a public study session.

At the May 2, 2006 BOS meeting, to achieve a balanced budget for fiscal year 2006-2007 (which included retiree health costs on a pay- as-you-go basis) the BOS approved a reduction of 200 staff positions. Response: Agree.

At the May 4, 2006 meeting of the BOS Finance Committee, the Committee discussed the valuation authorized on February 28, 2006, and directed County staff and the actuary to: • Analyze alternative changes to healthcare benefits. • Analyze alternative funding approaches. • Investigate unresolved issues including State and Federal cost reimbursements. • Collaborate with the California State Association of Counties to seek information and solutions. No definitive action plan or timeline for these actions was established. Response: Partially disagree. The Finding itself lists the action plan for the next step in the investigation. The required analysis and collaboration must occur before the next logical steps can be developed. An implementation timeline is dependent on the information obtained in the investigative stage. The Finance Committee directed staff to make progress reports to the Committee on a quarterly basis. RECOMMENDATIONS The 2005-2006 Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommends that the BOS do the following: 1. By July 31, 2006, establish a plan for addressing retiree health benefits and costs with timelines and responsibilities. Response: Will not be implemented because the recommendation is not reasonable. The Finance Committee and the Board of Supervisors have given direction to staff to develop a plan for addressing retiree health benefits, and this effort is currently underway. It is not reasonable to anticipate that such a plan could be completed by July 31, 2006. As more information is obtained, the general plan will be continually refined to establish a timeline and additional responsibilities.

A number of important financial management practices common in the private sector are very limited or absent in the County as follows: a. Multi-year financial projections developed by top management, department heads, and the BOS. b. Rigorous capital project justifications (See Contra Costa County Grand Jury Report 0602 issued earlier.) c. Regular management reviews of departmental revenues, costs, and performance by top management, department heads, and the BOS. Response: Partially disagree. While management practices can always be improved or expanded, none of the practices described in the Finding are absent. The County Administrator’s Office performs multi-year financial projections, which are largely dependent on federal and state budget allocations and so are of limited value. Capital projects currently go through a rigorous justification process that includes review and 33 approval by the County Administrator, Capital Facilities Committee, and the Board of Supervisors, and is described in detail in the County’s response to Grand Jury Report No. 0602. In the absence of regular management audits, which have been temporarily suspended due to budget constraints, the County Administrator annually conducts several performance and fiscal audits targeted at specific problems or issues, and has focused limited staff resources on Countywide policies and procedures that affect all County departments and programs. All County department revenues, costs, and fiscal controls are reviewed on a regular basis under the County Administrator’s budget reporting and the Auditor-Controller’s internal audit programs.