Trinity County Grand Jury
2002-2003
Findings & Recommendations
4 findings
F1:
One director, one administrative secretary and one full-time countywide building inspector staff the Building and Development Services Department. The numbers of outstanding building permits accumulating without follow-up are partly the result of one person trying to cover an entire county. Providing “Finals” on 721 permits is not currently a priority in either the Building and Development Services Department or the Assessor's Office due to other job priorities and a lack of staff. Moreover, there is no effective system to track permits and collect reinstatement fees on those permits that have expired. The Building and Development Services Department does have a part-time job opening for another building inspector. The position is unfilled, however, due to the lack of qualified applicants willing to work part-time.
F2:
Based upon in depth interviews with persons representing the Building and Development Services Department, Planning Department, and Assessor's office, it is evident that there is a need to create the position of a code compliance officer. This position would require knowledge of codes and code enforcement procedures. Duties would be to increase interdepartmental communication regarding codes and code enforcement, to handle the consolidation of complaints, and to be a primary contact for the public on such matters for those three departments. This will hopefully enable them to function more as a single unit in dealing with code matters. A person trained in handling code and zoning enforcement issues should be able to bring resolution to those problems in a more timely and efficient manner.
F3:
An amendment to County Ordinance 15.04.080 passed by the Board of Supervisors prior to 1991 excluded section 202 (c) of Chapter 2 of the Uniform Building Code, which eliminated the Right of Entry of Building officials into buildings or premises if such entry is denied by the landowner. This county ordinance appears to prevent department employees from enforcing all of the 2001 California Building Codes, however County Counsel for the County of Trinity has informed the Grand Jury Committee that a procedure does exist for building officials to obtain entry irrespective of the existing County ordinance. Upon interviewing employees in the Building and Development Services Department it was determined that none of the employees were aware of the alternative entry procedure. Because of this ambiguity in the County ordinance, County Counsel has informed the committee that he will clarify the ordinance with the Board of Supervisors and may have already done so before this Grand Jury report is made available to the general public.
F4:
The Building and Development Services and Planning departments receive numerous citizens complaints on a weekly basis regarding illegal structures, as well as recreational vehicles placements, refuge collection, vehicle/mobile home storage, junk collection and substandard housing. Current staffing levels in the departments are hard pressed to perform their normal day-to-day tasks, and it is extremely difficult to process these violations and in most cases this can take months and many hours of work to bring to resolution. Existing ordinances do not effectively control these problems within the county. These ordinances do not include appropriate sanctions for their violation in order that compliance is obtained.
Additional Recommendations
4
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors place a high priority on getting the improvements represented by the 721 outstanding building permits onto the tax rolls. This goal can be accomplished by expanding the current unfilled part-time job opening for a building inspector into a full-time position. This would have the effect of generating sufficient revenues to more than compensate the county for the expense of this expanded position (see
R2:
A. The Grand Jury recommends that a code compliance officer position be created and filled by a person with sworn peace officer powers that is (or can be) trained in the handling of code and zoning enforcement issues. The code compliance officer would act as a primary contact for the public and coordinate the functions of the Building and Development Services Department, the Planning Department, and the Assessor's office, in order to more effectively resolve citizen complaints and deal with code violations. B. As a cost savings measure, an alternative recommendation would be to combine the part-time building inspector and the code compliance officer into one full-time position (See
R3:
It is strongly recommended by the Grand Jury that the Board of Supervisors rescind this amendment to the county ordnance and reinstate the entire provision of Section 104.2.3 of the California Building Code (formerly Section 202 (c) of Chapter 2 of the Uniform Building Code).
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors, after input from the Building and Development Services Department, the Planning Department, and the Assessor's office, review the affected county ordinances and amend them as necessary to protect the health and safety of the citizens of the county. CONCLUSIONS:
Quick View
Full Details →
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Auditor continue to work closely with the districts and remind them, as necessary, when their audits are due.
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends that: (a) The County Auditor must negotiate lower auditing fees with one or more auditing firms and pass these on to the Special Districts. (b) The BOS must find funds in grants to subsidize the audits of the smaller special districts. CONCLUSION: Special Districts offer valuable services such as fire protection, road maintenance, parks and recreation facilities, water and sewer that some communities take for granted.
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
We found Dr. Krouse to be open in that he was frank in responses to all questions asked. He said that the problem of the nursing shortage at the hospital does not extend to the public health department. He stated that he works well with the staff in Public Health Nursing, for whom he has high praise. Interviewed staff members in that department concurred that they have a comfortable professional relationship with Dr. Krouse with mutual respect for abilities. In response to questions, he believes that the present placement of the Environmental Health Officers in the Planning Department is working well. The fact that the present environmental health officers used to be under his direct supervision, and that they continue to maintain good communication, assures a smooth interchange of information. Homeland Security is adding several new requirements to all health and safety functions in the county, but they are primarily focused on fire and rescue, and hospital/triage areas. Biological terrorism, and plans for prevention and treatment, extend to all areas of health care. He also said that as a part-time Health Director he is somewhat “out of the loop” in the power and decision making processes in the county. The head of the Human Services Department is responsible for most decisions. Informal meetings between environmental health officers and the County Health Officer provide adequate communication at present and may rely on the experience and mutual respect between the present employees. The Public Health Department is involved in active health care as well as prevention. -2-
F3:
Combining the Environmental Health Department with the Building and Development Services Department provides for improved communication between these groups and makes applications for building and remodeling permits easier for the public since it is now possible to clear these requirements in one setting. All interviewees agreed that the present system is working well. Dr. Krouse, the county health officer, stated that he thought that one reason it worked well was because he was both environmental officers' supervisor before the reorganization, and good communication has continued. Dr. Krouse's point about possible loss of easy, informal information exchange should there be a change in personnel, is well taken. An additional potential problem is that informal sessions are not documented. Response: I agree.
F4:
"Based on statistics, there has been a significant reduction in accidents, hazards, incidents, and workers' compensation claims since the inception of the Safety and Risk Management Committee. General classes for employees and one-on-one training in policies and procedures are provided when indicated. People attending the meeting were organized and well prepared. The meetings were smoothly and efficiently run. The course attended by a committee was well organized and valuable; information was presented clearly. The meetings of the committee and the observed course provided maximum information with minimal disruption of work schedules."
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1B:
There should be an information center within the county for all medical information from various departments that are concerned with health and safety. CONCLUSION: The Grand Jury wishes to thank Dr. Krouse for his time, courtesy, and friendly cooperation. His willingness to serve the county in this capacity is a great service to the community. 2002-2003 TRINITY COUNTY GRAND JURY PUBLIC HEALTH NURSING INVESTIGATION #2: METHOD OF INVESTIGATION:
R4:
"No changes are recommended." Response: I agree. The Safety and Risk Management Committee will continue to work to reduce workplace injuries. Report[ County Health Officer Public Health Department Environmental Health Department Safety & Risk Management Committee Committee[ Health & Human Services Committee Type[ Response From[ Board of Supervisors TO: The Honorable Anthony Edwards, Presiding Judge of the Superior Court FROM: Trinity County Board of Supervisors, Billie A. Miller, Chairman SUBJECT: Response to 2002-03 Trinity County Grand Jury Health and Human Services Committee County Health Officer Public Health Department Environmental Health Department Safety and Risk Management Committee
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The naming of private roads is a top priority in order to get the mapping/addressing system complete and working. Many of the roads in Trinity County are not officially named. Roads within the county serving two or more properties must have an official road name. The county has a process and criteria for the naming of roads. Citizens needing to name a private road should contact the Planning Department for more information. If a road has an official name and intersects with a county road, the county will provide a street name sign, post and bracket to be installed by the local Fire Department. The county is currently in the process of assigning addresses to all parcels within the county. Upon completion of this process, the county will send a notice to all property owners and request verification of the address information provided.
F2:
When an emergency call comes into the Sheriff's Office, there is a place on the E-911 computer screen to automatically display the caller’s listed name, area code, telephone number and street address. This is helpful when a caller is unable to give their address. The Sheriff's Office Dispatcher can see the address and send appropriate help. Currently most of this vital information is not displayed on the E-911 screen. Several tests were done using the phone numbers of three Development & Environmental Committee members representing Lewiston (SBC/Pac Bell Telephone Company), Rush Creek and Burnt Ranch (Verizon Telephone Company) areas. Although the correct phone numbers were displayed, none of the addresses were correct. The displayed addresses included 1) no data found, 2) an incorrect street name with zero as the street number and 3) a correct street name with an incorrect street number.
F3:
When an E-911 call comes into the Sheriff's Office from TDS phone customers or from Trinity Village, the switching center's telephone number appears on the E-911 screen instead of the caller’s telephone number. The screen thus displays a useless phone number, no street name, no street number and no listed name. This requires the caller to provide the emergency information.
F4:
The county has changed addressing systems several times over the years. This has caused a major delay in completion of the addressing system. Currently there is an ordinance in place, which defines the uniform addressing system for Trinity County.
F5:
When an emergency call comes into the Sheriff's Office, the Dispatcher receives the call on the E-911 system and then contacts the appropriate emergency service agencies via a radio system/console. The equipment currently in use needs to be replaced as it is no longer reliable and as of June 30, 2003 is no longer under warranty.
Additional Recommendations
7
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
a) The county must continue to place a high priority on the naming and mapping of all roads within the county. b) The Planning Department must communicate with the property owners of unnamed private roads and provide the process and criteria for naming them. c) The Grand Jury also encourages the Planning Department to continue providing the road signs, posts, and post brackets. d) Residents with private roads that intersect with private roads should contact the Planning Department for information for signing their roads. e) The county needs to complete the current addressing and notify the owners of record of the new addresses. They must also request verification as to the correctness of the address information.
R2:
a) The E-911 Coordinator must establish primary contacts with each of the telephone companies (Verizon, SBC/Pac Bell and TDS) and work collaboratively in order to provide the correct phone number, address and listed name to the Dispatcher. b) The E-911 Coordinator must set a target date by which county customers with existing phone number, address and listed name are correctly displayed when E-911 calls come into the Sheriff’s Office.
R3:
a) The Grand Jury recommends that the BOS encourage TDS and the Trinity Village provider to update their switching service to provide the E-911 caller’s phone number, address and name. b) The E-911 Coordinator needs to be persistent in his efforts to have TDS and the Trinity Village provider update their switching service to provide the E-911 caller’s phone number, address and listed name. c) TDS phone subscribers and Trinity Village residents need to request an updated system that will provide E-911 caller information.
R3a:
The Board of Supervisors agrees with this finding and will encourage TDS and the Trinity Village provider to upgrade their switching service to provide the E-91 1 caller's phone number, address and name.
R4:
a) The Grand Jury recommends that the GIS Committee implement the existing county ordinance for the uniform addressing system. b) The BOS must establish a meaningful date for completion of the county wide addressing project.
R4b:
The Board of Supervisors has every expectation to have an address for every parcel by the end of the 2003-2004 fiscal year.
R5:
This recommendation has been implemented. Return to Report Report[ E-911 Emergency System Committee[ Development & Environment Committee Type[ Response From[ John Jelicich, Planning Director TO: The Honorable Anthony C. Edwards, Presiding Judge of the Superior Court FROM: John Jelicich, Planning Director SUBJECT: Response to Recommendations of 2002-2003 Grand Jury, Development & Environmental Committee Report E-911 Emergency System DATE: July 21, 2003 The Grand Jury Development & Environmental Committee has requested a written response to their final report on the E-911 Emergency System. In my capacity as Planning Director, my response to Finding 1 and Recommendations la,lb and lc, as requested by the Committee is as follows:
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
12 findings
F1:
The State of California is continually insisting on more mandated training for fire department volunteers and is not providing any funding for the training. 1
F2:
Required training and the time to receive it, makes community service almost impossible for some community members.
F3:
Many communities in Trinity County have very small populations and thus have no young people to recruit for volunteers in the Fire Departments.
F4:
Departments that have young personnel and the ability to provide them the required training to become certified, are very fortunate. Because of the lack of jobs to support a young family in Trinity County, most young people tend to relocate in bigger cities where they can obtain employment. A lot of younger people are working two jobs and still not making enough to provide the necessities for a family such as health insurance.
F5:
The communication systems used by the Fire/EMS personnel have been severely limited for years, creating potentially hazardous scenes and slowing response time for the volunteers. 2
F6:
There is currently no system of support to provide continuing maintenance or financial support for the yearly operational expenses of this essential communications system. (FIRE/EMS Repeater System).
F7:
Almost all of the vehicles used by the volunteers are at least second-hand. Spare parts are sometimes difficult or impossible to find, thus making necessary repairs expensive.
F8:
There is a possibility of a local Redding Hospital cutting back on services (Helicopter etc.) or closing. Losing one helicopter would reduce air response from Redding by one half to Trinity County. This would require Trinity County Life Support to make more Redding transports which could cut down on possible ambulance coverage in Trinity County.
F9:
Trinity County Life Support and many Volunteer Fire Departments may not survive due to the rising costs of Workers’ Compensation Insurance and Liability Insurance.
F10:
Rural/Urban Interface will continue to present challenges on how to provide fire and rescue services to Trinity County. People will continue to build and live in remote areas. They will demand and expect more services and will want regulations that will control volunteers activity. This will result in more to do with less to do it. This can only be done by an increase in the Tax Base for some of the departments; Ad Valorem Tax is only available to a few departments.
F11:
Trinity County Life Support might not be able to function as it currently does if Trinity Hospital were to close. The majority of the volunteer fire departments are dependent on Trinity County Life Support to transport patients. They provide very good required medical training.
F12:
There are only 4 departments having transport ability to Trinity Hospital now. Coverage of the county would be difficult if the Hospital were to close? (Southern Trinity Area Rescue would continue to transport to the coast as they currently are doing). 4
Additional Recommendations
12
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Board of Supervisors needs to put pressure on State Government to provide adequate funding for this training if they are going to require it.
R3:
Every effort needs to be taken to make being a volunteer a positive experience so that volunteers will serve for many years in their departments.
R4:
No recommendation. This is a very serious problem now and will only get worse as the current volunteers continue to grow in age. Many of these volunteers have reached senior citizen status and have medical problems of their own.
R5:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Fire Chiefs Association and Trinity County Life Support be commended for obtaining grant funding to provide a dedicated FIRE/EMS Repeater System that will provide radio coverage for most of the county. This system will provide better response times and dramatically improve scene safety for all responders.
R6:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors must allocate revenues to this VITAL system as has been allocated to the other county communications systems funded in the past.
R7:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors needs to establish a stable source of funding such as a County Fire/EMS Fund to help the volunteer departments replace these old vehicles on a regular basis.
R8:
The Grand Jury refers this to the Board of Supervisors for study by a special ad hoc committee to focus on solving this problem. 3
R9:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors find a method to provide Workers Compensation and Liability Insurance to Trinity County Life Support and the Volunteer Fire Departments
R10:
The Grand Jury refers this to the Board of Supervisors for study by a special ad hoc committee to focus on solving this problem.
R11:
The Board of Supervisors needs to continue to support Trinity County Life Support with their needs.
R12:
The Grand Jury strongly recommends that the Board of Supervisors do everything in their power to retain the hospital. CONCLUSIONS:
R02-03:
Trinity County Grand Jury Report, Pre-Hospital Care
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
Four of the airports have similar collection boxes with Weaverville Airport having a different style. One of the two collection boxes at Trinity Center has a defective locking mechanism, which does not allow the funds to be securely stored until they are picked up. The Building and Development Services Department is also aware of other occasions where the funds have been illegally removed from the defective collection box at Trinity Center. Response: I agree.
F2:
In the past, the time interval between collections of the funds from the boxes has been sporadic and lengthy. Some of the checks were dated over a year from collection. As of March 2003, the Building and Development Services Department has scheduled monthly collection of funds at Trinity Center Airport by the Building Inspector.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Building and Development Services Department should place a high priority on replacing or repairing the defective collection box in Trinity Center with a more secure way of protecting the funds. The summer months are traditionally the busiest time at Trinity Center Airport; therefore, the Grand Jury recommends that the repairs be accomplished immediately. -1-
R2:
The implementation has been implemented. Monthly collection of fees, is in effect and will continue. Additionally we have implemented a regular, recurrent schedule of fee collection at the other airports.
Findings & Recommendations
5 findings
F1:
The staffing level at the jail currently meets the staffing level required by the State of California, but this is done by using assigned patrol officers and thus decreasing patrol coverage. 1
F2:
Following up on 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 Grand Jury concerns on the E-911 dispatch communications center being overcrowded and outdated, the committee found the following conditions: the staff all stated that they feel safer in the area where it is currently located, the dispatch communications center console is old and out-dated. It was stated that they currently have approximately $132,000 for the upgrade; but they need $250,000.
F3:
A water heater used for the jail trips the breaker on a regular basis. It was stated that County Building and Grounds personnel had worked on the heater and spent quite a bit of money replacing parts.
F4:
The kitchen appears to be very well organized and the menus well planned. The Committee observed lunch being served and dinner preparation. The 4 inmates interviewed said the food was good and adequate.
F5:
Two members of the committee observed the operation of the Megan’s Law Computer System for tracking convicted sex offenders. The Officer in charge of the Megan’s Law System appeared to possess the proper knowledge for the operation of the system.
Additional Recommendations
5
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The ideal solution would be to hire enough Correctional Officers to replace the ones taken from patrol duties. With the current financial conditions of Trinity County, this may not be possible at this time.
R2:
The committee recommends that the dispatch center be kept where it is currently located. The committee further recommends that the Board of Supervisors find the money to update the E-911 dispatch console.
R3:
The Board of Supervisors should notify the Buildings and Grounds Department to upgrade the wiring and/or replace the water heater as the situation dictates.
R4:
The Committee recommends that the kitchen operation continue as it is currently being managed. 2
R5:
The correctional officer in charge of the Megan’s Law Computer System should be commended for the organization and knowledge displayed. CONCLUSION:
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
The Board agrees that while the guidelines for the operation of the CDBG Housing Loan Committee are clearly spelled out in policy statements, changes in advertisements and announcements were required to be made to make them more user understandable.
F2:
The Board of Supervisors disagrees with this finding. The operation of the Housing Loan Committee is spelled out in policy. Decisions and voting by the committee are made pursuant to regular parliamentary procedures.
F3:
The Board of Supervisors disagrees with this finding. The Board believes that the Housing Loan Committee is made up of a good balance of members from the public and private sector who understand housing finance and local housing finance needs and who represent the demographic and geographic spread of Trinity County. The Board also believes that the Auditor/Controller, with his financial expertise. should be a member of the committee. Since the Auditor is, at present. the acting County Administrative Officer. we see no problem with appeals of Housing Loan Committee decisions being heard by another county department head that is familiar with banking and finance. Appeals are rare.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3:
The Board of Supervisors disagrees with this recommendation and would refer to our response to Finding #3 as stated above. The Board would, however, change the composition of or the number of members on the Housing Loan Committee if it was discovered that there was a need for additional expertise or if housing needs in a particular area of the county were not being adequately addressed. Since appeals are rare, we feel that those appeals can be heard by a county manager with knowledge of housing loans and banking until the county re-hires a full time CAO. The Board of Supervisors agrees that, under normal circumstances, die county is better served by having a full time County Administrative Officer. However, the County of Trinity has the good fortune to have an Auditor/Controller who has the education, experience and abilities to do the duties of County Administrative Officer on an interim basis. Add to this the fact that our county is suffering California's budget crisis and is having to lay off county employees, the fact that the county's department heads and supervisors are willing to shoulder some of the administrative load and the fact that the staffs in the Auditors office, the Supervisors Office, the Personnel Office and the County Counsel's Office are all able and well trained; all these have caused the Board of Supervisors to decide to not recruit for a fulltime CAO this fiscal year. It should be pointed out, also, that the Board of Supervisors would not ask him to carry, nor would the Auditor except, additional responsibilities that would cause him to be overburdened.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
This recommendation has been implemented.
R2:
The Board of Supervisors agrees in part. The Board expects that, over time, guidelines for the Housing Loan Program will be perfected to make the program more understandable and usable by qualified applicants.
Findings & Recommendations
1 findings
F2:
The Trinity County Board of Supervisors agrees with Finding #2.
Additional Recommendations
1
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
Will require additional analysis and should be implemented within the year. General Services has been asked to look at the surface of the shower floors. They have indicated that the surface of two showers was inadequately sealed during the construction process. We will follow closely any recommendations they have to insure the safety of minors in custody. My staff have reviewed the procedures for cleaning the showers and have altered the schedule to allow for more time and additional supervision in cleaning the shower floors. This will be implemented immediately.
Findings & Recommendations
2 findings
F1:
This finding describes the process with time lines regarding the Hospital Capital Outlay Trust Account and the transfer of funds into the Operating Cash Account. The Hospital Capital Outlay Trust Account had built up funds from accumulated surpluses of previous years in the aggregate amount of $1,051,311.64 and increased by $11,419.77 interest for a total of $1,062,731.41 and was closed at the end of the last fiscal year as a part of implementing GASB34. The Board of Directors of Trinity Hospital on September 13, 2001 with David T. Hughes, Administrator and Billie Miller, Supervisor present acted on a resolution #5(j) to ‘Approve a Transfer of Cash in Hospital Capital Outlay Trust Account into the Operating Cash Account’. When this transfer actually occurred per Journal Entry #01-307 dated 10/31/2001, a mistaken double entry appeared in the County’s books wherein two (2) credits were inadvertently recorded each amounting to $1,062,731.41 for a total of $2,125,462.82. This error, which was immediately corrected, appeared as a momentary $2 Million HOSPITAL FUND, which was not correct, but may have led to the belief that there was over $2 million in the account when actually there was slightly over $1 million (see attachment Trinity County Journal Entry JE #01-307 dated 10/31/2001). CONCLUSION #1: The Grand Jury is satisfied that all procedures were followed concerning the transfer of $1,062,731.41 cash from the Hospital Capital Outlay Trust Account into the Operating Cash Account. The Grand Jury recognizes that some confusion may exist as a result of an inadvertent double posting within the County financial records (see Journal Entry sheet attached), which has led to some puzzlement regarding the question by some citizens about the, “…missing or incorrectly used Hospital funds ($2 million)’.
F2:
This finding describes the process, time lines, and procedures of the County’s handling of Hospital funds and specifically whether or not the funds were a State allocation. The Finance and Administration committee sent many letters (see above) and received answers explaining that the Hospital Capital Outlay Trust Account accumulated surpluses and interest of prior years of operating the Hospital in the amount of $1,062,731.41. On September 13, 2001 at a regular open Board of Directors meeting a unanimous vote was taken to transfer the funds to the Operating Cash Account per accounting procedure GASB34. CONCLUSION #2: The Grand Jury is satisfied that all procedures were followed concerning the transfer of $1,062,731.41 of cash in the Hospital Capital Outlay Trust Account into the Operating Cash Account. There were no special State funds specifically used.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury has no recommendation(s). The Grand Jury thanks the many present and former Trinity County officials for their response to our letters of inquiry and to those citizens of Trinity County for their interest in the Hospital as well.
R2:
The Grand Jury has no recommendation(s). The Grand Jury thanks the many present and former Trinity County officials for their response to our letters of inquiry and to those citizens of Trinity County for their interest in the Hospital as well. MANDATED TIMES FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT: The Committee takes note of the times listed below required by law (PC933a) for each affected department to review and return their comments to the Grand Jury. Affected Departments: 1. Trinity County Board of Supervisors and CAO
Findings & Recommendations
3 findings
F1:
This finding describes the process with time lines regarding the County employee retirement fund, administrated by the John Hancock Mutual Insurance Company (JH), through the sale of stock generated by an Initial Public Offering (IPO) which was then received by the County, sold and Journal Entry of said funds into the General Fund. The stock that was received by the County from JH and subsequently sold which amounted to $448,075 was received on February 10, 2000. A dividend of $364,929 was received on January 1, 2001, bringing the total amount received by the County of $813,004, which was deposited into the Auditors Trust Fund. On February 22, 2001 the BOS authorized the prepayment of several debts amounting to $240,786, which was taken from the Auditors Trust Fund leaving a balance of $572,218. On June 29, 2002, as a consequence of implementing a new financial government reporting model, the remaining balance of $572,218, by Journal Entry (JE), was deposited into the County’s General Fund. CONCLUSION #1: The Grand Jury is pleased that Trinity County was the benefactor of stock as a result of the John Hancock Corporation IPO resulting with $813,004 cash being received. The Grand Jury is also satisfied that all County procedures and policies were followed regarding the sale of stock and the transfer of monies into the General Fund.
F2A:
This finding describes the process, time lines, and procedures of the County’s participation in the employee retirement funds, the financial obligations of the Taxable Pension Obligation Bond (see part A ) and the Over/(Under) Funded liabilities of CalPERS (see part B ). The BOS authorized in August 1993 that all County employees switch from the John Hancock retirement fund to CalPERS. When this occurred, the County guaranteed by the issuance of a Certificate of Participation with CalPERS that, first, all employees would be enrolled in CalPERS, secondly, the County would guarantee the retirement of all employees and, thirdly, the County would obligate itself to keep its contribution(s) to CalPERS within guidelines. The addition of all County employees to CalPERS, by the BOS, resulted in successive years of differences between the ‘Projected Net Assets Available For BenefitsColumn “A” below’ and the ‘Projected Pension Benefit Obligationscolumn “B” below’ which might result in an ‘Over/(Under) Funded Projected Benefit Obligationse column “D” below’. The County contributes funds to CalPERS who immediately deposits those funds into its overall investment accounts. Notwithstanding the monthly County contributions to CalPERS, its changing investment value also varies day-to-day, and therefore the value of the County’s portion also changes value. Each year CalPERS estimates the County’s participation value (see column “A” below) as well as the actuarial value of the County’s benefit obligations (see column “B” below), which results in the amount of projected Over/(Under) Funded liability (see column “D” below. Column “A” represents the projected value of the funds the County contributes each pay period and any additional funds as invested in CalPERS and as projected to be available for employee benefits. Column “B” represents the projected value of the County’s Benefit Obligations as projected to be available for employee benefits. Column “C” represents Percentage Funded Column “D” represents the Over/(Under) Funded amounts The addition of ALL County employees to CalPERS, the declining value of the County’s participation value relative to its benefit obligations and the ever-increasing Under Funded Liability brought about certain subsequent activities. The Committee was informed that if there were any Under Funded Liability obligations then a ‘smoothing formula’ would be put into effect so that the County’s monthly contribution would be increased in order to keep the Under Funded liability to as close to zero as practicable. The County continued its yearly funding contribution obligations until 1998 when the BOS authorized a bond to be issued (see chart ) in the principal amount of $9.14 million to equalize the difference between Assets Available for Benefits (see column “A” above) and Projected Pension Benefit Obligations (see column “B” above). The resultant net bond amount of $8,773,390, after subtracting issuance costs, was deposited with CalPERS who immediately added the funds to its investment portfolio in the County’s behalf. The total payback of principal and interest over the 20-year period of the bond will be $17,710,767. The Grand Jury noted that in fiscal year 2017 a bond payment of approximately $1.4 million is due and payable by the County. This bond amount is more than twice the amount due in fiscal year 2003. CONCLUSION #2A: The BOS authorized the bonds in the amount of $9.14 million to be added to the funding of CalPERS in one step in lieu of many small steps instead of relying on the ‘smoothing formula’. The funds, which the County pays to CalPERS, are immediately added to the CalPERS investment portfolio, which fluctuates with the commercial investment market. The County should be proactive in evaluating CalPERS’ future. The 1998 BOS authorized the long-term bond, which cannot be changed over time with a 20-year fixed payout feature, whose funds are then entered into a variable investment. The Committee has received information indicating the CalPERS investments themselves could diminish. The County would then be required to add more funds to prevent under funding. The County, due to the fluctuating investment market, should evaluate its financial responsibilities monthly. The County should not simply rely on additional bond funding to alleviate any potential problem. FINDING # 2B: The Committee evaluated the years (1993-2001) wherein all County employees were enrolled in CalPERS and then compared the results of the ‘smoothing’ formula (see CalPERS Actuarial Information table above). The Committee noted that an immediate under funded liability occurred (1993) which built up to a high of $8.6 million in 1996 and decreased to $5.865 million (1997) or a $2.7 million reduction in one-year. The BOS authorized a $9.14 million bond, which over funded the CalPERS account by $3.849 million and it still remains over funded as of 2001. The Committee noted that the County is obligated to pay off the bond (see chart ) while at the same time the County has over funded its CalPERS requirements. CONCLUSION #2B: The Committee recognized that the $9.14 million bond over a payoff period of 20 years would cost the County $17.71 million including principal, interest, and cost of issuance. The County was not required to over fund its contribution account and therefore did not need to pass such a large bond, or possibly other means of funding could have been implemented which would have eliminated the need for a bond altogether. The Grand Jury recognizes the complexity and ever changing potential political and budgetary forces competing for County tax funds. The Committee also recognizes that IF ALL procedures were met on a ‘year-to-year’ basis regarding the amount of funds given to CalPERS to meet County requirements, there still is the uncertain investment market forces which can change its funding obligations dramatically. Considering the ever changing forces which affect the CalPERS investments and hence the County’s share thereof (some of which are in the millions of dollars per yeartables listed above) the BOS should monitor the accounts closely.
F2B:
I do not have enough information to agree or disagree. It was not the intent of the county to "overfund" PERS when issuing the bonds. They were issued for the amount that PERS calculated as an un-funded liability, at the time of issuance. As mentioned in the report, the over-funding shown in subsequent years demonstrates how, changing market conditions, long delays in PERS actuarial calculations, as well as other factors can change over or under funding in a given year.
Additional Recommendations
2
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors deposit the remaining balance of $572,218 into an interest bearing account to be used if or when the County experiences potential Under Funded Liability with CalPERS.
R2:
The recommendation will be partially implemented. Any decision to employ someone to monitor the CalPERS retirement account must be made by the Board of Supervisors. In any case, the Auditor will continue to monitor the account through the annual valuation report. Any decision to add funds to the retirement account to correct any under funded liability would be made by the Board of Supervisors. I would not recommend any addition since the normal CalPERS smoothing formula would correct the problem. The Auditor will evaluate the financial impact of refinancing the existing bond and report to the Board of Supervisors within 60 days.