By Nels Johnson, Marin Independent Journal -
Marin County officials are seeking a new computer software system to handle complex fiscal affairs without an overall project plan and must tighten management, the civil grand jury asserted Monday.
The jury saluted officials for learning several lessons from a $30 million debacle in which an elaborate, untested system was installed in 2006, performed at half its expected capability and cost too much to maintain. But the panel warned other lessons are being ignored; jurors found some of the same "deficiencies" in planning for a new system that plagued the last one.
Change is needed to "avoid repeating mistakes" that led to the fiasco, the jury advised.
Management of the new project is inadequate, county supervisors are not as involved as they should be and the county continues to rely on expensive consultants, the panel observed. "There are indications ... the decision-makers still do not fully understand the risks and complexities," the jury said.
The project must be reconfigured to conform to professional Project Management Institute standards, governance must be tightened and accountability assigned, and county supervisors must step up to the management plate, the panel opined.
"Possibly the most glaring deficiency ... is the lack of a comprehensive project plan to guide all the key players and to measure progress," the jury concluded. "And surprisingly, none of the key players expressed a concern over this deficiency."
The panel added: "The current grand jury has approximately 135 years of collective project management experience among its members. None of us, nor any project management expert we talked with, nor any project management text we found, recommended embarking on a project of this complexity and size without a comprehensive project plan."
Further, while employees are more engaged this time around, "there is no clear change management plan ... it is unclear whether all staff are prepared for the change or how effective the training is."
County Administrator Matthew Hymel said he welcomed the grand jury review.
"As we have said before, we are committed to learning from our mistakes and keeping our board informed and involved in the development of a new system," Hymel said. "Basically, their recommendations are refinements to our current approach. We already plan to do much of what they are suggesting and we will seriously consider all of their recommendations."
While jurors commended officials for making sure the county's high-tech staff plays a key role in planning for the new system this time, the panel thinks the top tech staffer should have more authority and responsibility, and that a half-time project manager should be assigned to the job full time.
A new governance structure proposed by the jury assigns overall responsibility to the county high-tech chief and county administrator, saying the county, and not consultants, should be in charge. Just like last time, "the outside consultants seem to be the driving and controlling force," with a $600,000 adviser, now aided by another $100,000 adviser, convincing county supervisors to spend another $400,000 on "best business practices" in the finance and personnel departments. "Adopting best business practices now is unnecessary since it is likely the software will have these practices built in," the jury said, noting that consultants tend to recommend plans that result in additional contracts.
"We do not believe there is a lack of best business practices expertise in-house," the jury said, urging a consultant crackdown including strict hiring guidelines. "The process of hiring outside consultants has become too convenient for the Board of Supervisors."
"Marin should select a vendor now and then train managers and staff in best business practices as supported by the new software. ... This could save money and shave perhaps six months" over a timeline that puts the new system in place by the end of 2015, the jury said.
At the same time, the jury recommended use of an "objective advisory resource" or independent adviser to "review the current dynamics" of the project, the risks of proceeding as planned and the recommendations of the jury. The panel contended the move "is not to be confused with hiring an outside consultant" but is akin to getting a "second opinion" from an independent expert who can "whisper 'remember the taxpayer.'"
The jury concluded that although the county board is more involved with the current project than it was with the last one, its role remains foggy and "not as clearly defined" nor as effective as it could be. Supervisors should have more oversight and get monthly briefings that focus on areas that need attention.
The jury, although indicating officials have failed to learn all the lessons that past experience provides, pointed to a number of positive developments, including involving high-tech staffers in decision-making, better staff training, more staff "user input" in development of the system, and goals of obtaining simpler software designed for government for installation in phases based on readiness.
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Grand jury: Mendocino County jail food just fine
By TIFFANY REVELLE
Updated: 06/11/2013 08:43:29 AM PDT
Says complaints about starvation' diets unfounded
The grand jury gave the Mendocino County Jail and the Juvenile Hall rave reviews on the nutrition it serves up to inmates in a report it recently released, titled "Inmate nutrition."
The grand jury got a complaint claiming an inmate was "being starved,'" and read several letters to the editor in the Ukiah Daily Journal "complaining of food served at the jail and at Juvenile Hall," but, during a visit, "found both kitchens prepared meals that met the state guidelines and served quality meals at a low cost per meal," according to the report.
The report praises the jail's practice of baking its own bread as a cost-cutter and "good training for the inmates." The grand jury found that the average cost per meal at the jail is $1.
The bread-baking crew is usually two inmates, according to Lt. John Bednar of the Mendocino County Sheriff's Office.
"We try to find someone with a longer sentence, because there's a training process involved," Bednar said.
Each loaf of bread costs an average of 30 cents to make, according to the grand jury report, and the inmates working in the kitchen "receive sufficient training to receive food handling certification preparing them for future employment."
Tom Cargile, 49, is currently the most experienced crewman on the job. He's been helping bake roughly 130 loaves of bread every day for five months, starting every morning at about 4:30 a.m. The loaves produce two slices per inmate for two meals, serving about 300 inmates daily, he said.
"This is my first time (as a baker)," Cargile said. "The jail trained me in it and I love it."
He said he plans to use his newly-acquired skills when he gets out of jail, and to use his food safety certification to apply at local bakeries.
Slices of the freshly-baked bread and lunch sandwich fixings awaited the four members of the garden crew, who were enjoying their work Thursday in the jail's two garden plots so much that they were in no rush to get inside out of the sun.
A shade house had, however, been built to shelter bell peppers, tomatoes and lettuce, according to John Youngbird-Holt, a contractor who supervises the garden crew. His crew was just putting in cantaloupes, and was caring for broccoli, potatoes, strawberries, asparagus, artichokes, leeks, pumpkins and one "voluntary" -- unplanned -- zucchini plant, among other things.
The garden is also home to a goji berry tree (which bears a high-antioxidant fruit similar to a cherry) and a single grapevine, and will soon also feature an herb garden.
Bednar noted that there is currently no way of tracking how much of the jail's vegetable and fruit needs the garden covers, but that it supplements the meals nicely.
Inmate Ron Maple, 49, dubbed the garden "crew chief," half-joked that being on the garden crew is "a lot better than being locked up in the main jail." His crewmates agreed with hearty laughter, and Maple noted that the men also enjoyed the sunshine, physical labor and camaraderie.
The grand jury found that the "garden is an important supplement of fresh produce and healthy outdoor work." One of the grand jury's few criticisms was that "only male inmates work in the garden," and recommended "that female inmates have the same opportunity."
Bednar said the jail would need a female supervisor to accomplish that, and currently only has a male supervisor, Youngbird-Holt. The jail is working on a solution, he said.
The grand jury found the food complaints "unwarranted," and noted, "If inmates ate all the food served at the jail, their diet may be healthier than what would be consumed at home."
Men need an average of 2,400 to 2,500 calories daily for a sedentary lifestyle, the report notes, and women need 1,900 to 2,000 calories daily. Between 500 and 800 more calories would be needed for "moderate activity," and 700 to 1,000 more would be needed for "hard physical work," according to the report.
Even the "disciplinary meatloaf," also called "nutraloaf" -- served to inmates "who show extreme behaviors" -- meets dietary requirements, the grand jury notes.
"Prepackaged and expensive" meals are available for special diets, as are meals for religious preferences at both the jail and juvenile hall, according to the report. Pregnant women get a fourth meal of fruit and milk.
The grand jury found the Juvenile Hall kitchen "small but efficient," and that it prepares about 26 meals three times daily.
Nutrition requirements for Juvenile Hall "are more than those for schools and include one cup of fruit at lunch and a recent increase in the amount of legumes served," according to the report.
In addition, the grand jury found that "the quantity of food served at the jail and JH are state mandates and monitored by a dietitian and annually by state inspectors;" that the Juvenile Hall kitchen staff needs a computer to access nutritional information, monitor caloric value of menu items and send required reports.
The grand jury recommended that Juvenile Hall administration provide a computer and nutrition program training, and that jail administration find a volunteer or "additional resources" to hire a part-time female supervisor to allow women to work in the garden.
Tiffany Revelle can be reached at udjtr@ukiahdj.com, on Twitter @TiffanyRevelle or at 468-3523.
http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/news/ci_23432965/grand-jury-mendocino-county-jail-food-just-fine
Updated: 06/11/2013 08:43:29 AM PDT
Says complaints about starvation' diets unfounded
The grand jury gave the Mendocino County Jail and the Juvenile Hall rave reviews on the nutrition it serves up to inmates in a report it recently released, titled "Inmate nutrition."
The grand jury got a complaint claiming an inmate was "being starved,'" and read several letters to the editor in the Ukiah Daily Journal "complaining of food served at the jail and at Juvenile Hall," but, during a visit, "found both kitchens prepared meals that met the state guidelines and served quality meals at a low cost per meal," according to the report.
The report praises the jail's practice of baking its own bread as a cost-cutter and "good training for the inmates." The grand jury found that the average cost per meal at the jail is $1.
The bread-baking crew is usually two inmates, according to Lt. John Bednar of the Mendocino County Sheriff's Office.
"We try to find someone with a longer sentence, because there's a training process involved," Bednar said.
Each loaf of bread costs an average of 30 cents to make, according to the grand jury report, and the inmates working in the kitchen "receive sufficient training to receive food handling certification preparing them for future employment."
Tom Cargile, 49, is currently the most experienced crewman on the job. He's been helping bake roughly 130 loaves of bread every day for five months, starting every morning at about 4:30 a.m. The loaves produce two slices per inmate for two meals, serving about 300 inmates daily, he said.
"This is my first time (as a baker)," Cargile said. "The jail trained me in it and I love it."
He said he plans to use his newly-acquired skills when he gets out of jail, and to use his food safety certification to apply at local bakeries.
Slices of the freshly-baked bread and lunch sandwich fixings awaited the four members of the garden crew, who were enjoying their work Thursday in the jail's two garden plots so much that they were in no rush to get inside out of the sun.
A shade house had, however, been built to shelter bell peppers, tomatoes and lettuce, according to John Youngbird-Holt, a contractor who supervises the garden crew. His crew was just putting in cantaloupes, and was caring for broccoli, potatoes, strawberries, asparagus, artichokes, leeks, pumpkins and one "voluntary" -- unplanned -- zucchini plant, among other things.
The garden is also home to a goji berry tree (which bears a high-antioxidant fruit similar to a cherry) and a single grapevine, and will soon also feature an herb garden.
Bednar noted that there is currently no way of tracking how much of the jail's vegetable and fruit needs the garden covers, but that it supplements the meals nicely.
Inmate Ron Maple, 49, dubbed the garden "crew chief," half-joked that being on the garden crew is "a lot better than being locked up in the main jail." His crewmates agreed with hearty laughter, and Maple noted that the men also enjoyed the sunshine, physical labor and camaraderie.
The grand jury found that the "garden is an important supplement of fresh produce and healthy outdoor work." One of the grand jury's few criticisms was that "only male inmates work in the garden," and recommended "that female inmates have the same opportunity."
Bednar said the jail would need a female supervisor to accomplish that, and currently only has a male supervisor, Youngbird-Holt. The jail is working on a solution, he said.
The grand jury found the food complaints "unwarranted," and noted, "If inmates ate all the food served at the jail, their diet may be healthier than what would be consumed at home."
Men need an average of 2,400 to 2,500 calories daily for a sedentary lifestyle, the report notes, and women need 1,900 to 2,000 calories daily. Between 500 and 800 more calories would be needed for "moderate activity," and 700 to 1,000 more would be needed for "hard physical work," according to the report.
Even the "disciplinary meatloaf," also called "nutraloaf" -- served to inmates "who show extreme behaviors" -- meets dietary requirements, the grand jury notes.
"Prepackaged and expensive" meals are available for special diets, as are meals for religious preferences at both the jail and juvenile hall, according to the report. Pregnant women get a fourth meal of fruit and milk.
The grand jury found the Juvenile Hall kitchen "small but efficient," and that it prepares about 26 meals three times daily.
Nutrition requirements for Juvenile Hall "are more than those for schools and include one cup of fruit at lunch and a recent increase in the amount of legumes served," according to the report.
In addition, the grand jury found that "the quantity of food served at the jail and JH are state mandates and monitored by a dietitian and annually by state inspectors;" that the Juvenile Hall kitchen staff needs a computer to access nutritional information, monitor caloric value of menu items and send required reports.
The grand jury recommended that Juvenile Hall administration provide a computer and nutrition program training, and that jail administration find a volunteer or "additional resources" to hire a part-time female supervisor to allow women to work in the garden.
Tiffany Revelle can be reached at udjtr@ukiahdj.com, on Twitter @TiffanyRevelle or at 468-3523.
http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/news/ci_23432965/grand-jury-mendocino-county-jail-food-just-fine
S.F. must do more to prevent bicyclists’ deaths, report says
By Paul Gackle, SF Examiner -
A civil grand jury report on bicycle safety urges The City to ramp up its efforts to reduce bike fatalities.
The report, which was released Monday, praises The City for encouraging bike transportation, but it also asks the mayor and Board of Supervisors to set a goal for zero bike fatalities as more cyclists take to the road.
"It's really important that we have some sort of goal in mind and really set our sights high," grand jury committee Chairwoman Maria Martinez said.
San Francisco Bicycle Coalition Executive Director Leah Shahum applauded the grand jury's push for a zero-fatalities campaign.
"That's how things happen," she said.
Shahum said the report's one shortcoming is that it doesn't stress the need for additional space on the road devoted to bicyclists.
"Bike ridership increases and safety increases when there are designated bike lanes," she said.
A key way to reduce collisions and fatalities, according to the report, is to expand bicycle-safety education and extend it to noncyclists and motorists. The report calls for a widespread advertising campaign, bicycle-training courses for private businesses and incentives for people who complete bike safety workshops.
Martinez said police will also need to train officers to enforce bike safety laws to reduce the number of collisions on the street.
"SFPD needs to enforce these laws for everybody and really stand behind it," she said.
The report comes a day after a woman in her 60s was struck by a bicyclist who was reportedly riding on a sidewalk downtown, which is against the law. The woman suffered injuries that police said were life-threatening.
A civil grand jury report on bicycle safety urges The City to ramp up its efforts to reduce bike fatalities.
The report, which was released Monday, praises The City for encouraging bike transportation, but it also asks the mayor and Board of Supervisors to set a goal for zero bike fatalities as more cyclists take to the road.
"It's really important that we have some sort of goal in mind and really set our sights high," grand jury committee Chairwoman Maria Martinez said.
San Francisco Bicycle Coalition Executive Director Leah Shahum applauded the grand jury's push for a zero-fatalities campaign.
"That's how things happen," she said.
Shahum said the report's one shortcoming is that it doesn't stress the need for additional space on the road devoted to bicyclists.
"Bike ridership increases and safety increases when there are designated bike lanes," she said.
A key way to reduce collisions and fatalities, according to the report, is to expand bicycle-safety education and extend it to noncyclists and motorists. The report calls for a widespread advertising campaign, bicycle-training courses for private businesses and incentives for people who complete bike safety workshops.
Martinez said police will also need to train officers to enforce bike safety laws to reduce the number of collisions on the street.
"SFPD needs to enforce these laws for everybody and really stand behind it," she said.
The report comes a day after a woman in her 60s was struck by a bicyclist who was reportedly riding on a sidewalk downtown, which is against the law. The woman suffered injuries that police said were life-threatening.
Thursday, June 6, 2013
(Mendocino County) Grand Jury: Ukiah needs to cap landfill
Ukiah Daily Journal Staff
Updated: 06/04/2013 12:00:25 AM PDT
City faces severe consequences' for delayed action
Ukiah Daily Journal
The City of Ukiah needs to take action soon to permanently close its former landfill and avoid "severe consequences" such as penalties and fines, the Mendocino County Grand Jury recently recommended.
According to a report titled "A landfill that refused to die," the Grand Jury found that the city "stopped receiving refuse at its landfill on Vichy Springs Road in 2001, but has not capped it yet.
"The law requires the landfill be capped and permanently closed within two years," the report states. "(But) it has been 12 years and the landfill is not capped, not permanently closed nor has the post maintenance plan been submitted for approval."
The GJ notes that the landfill "straddles an earthquake zone, a local watershed and two creeks that feed into the Russian River," and the city's "noncompliance with health and safety requirements for proper containment of landfill waste may result in severe consequences such as fines and constructive orders."
The GJ interviewed employees of the Ukiah Public Works Department, as well as county and state management and regulatory staff. It also reviewed federal and state regulations regarding landfills and water quality, along with communications between regulatory agencies.
The city's landfill was opened in 1954, and in 1999 the city submitted a "Final Closure and Post-Closure Maintenance Plan" to the Local (County) Enforcement Agency representing the California Health Department, CalRecycle (formerly the California Integrated Waste Management Board), and the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board.
After receiving comments, the city revised the plan in 2000, and "for the next eight years comments and revisions went back and forth with the city missing important deadlines." The CalRecycle regulation requires permanent closure of the site within two years, and "on March 13, 2012, the city's landfill was put on the Inventory of Solid Waste Facilities Which Violate State Minimum Standards' due to chronic violations."
The city's budget for 2012-13 projects a reserve of $5,081,411 to cover the closure costs, which are expected to be less than that. However, the GJ notes that "closure costs are subject to change if the regulatory process imposes requirements not contemplated in the closure plan," and "each year there are more regulations making closure more expensive." According to the GJ, "inspection reports show the landfill has been properly maintained since 2001, funds for permanent closure were budgeted and earmarked, and initial plans were made for closure but never completed.
"City staff, the city consultant and the various state agencies blame the Water Board for not completing the early review process," the GJ states, concluding that "insufficient effort has been taken by the City of Ukiah to affect proper, permanent closure of the landfill," and it recommends that the city "take all necessary actions to meet their legal overdue obligations to permanently close the landfill before the state penalizes the city through constructive orders, fines and penalties."
The GJ notes that a response to this report is required from the Ukiah City Council within 90 days, and is requested from City Manager Jane Chambers, Public Works Director Tim Eriksen and Finance Director Gordon Elton within 60 days.
http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/news/ci_23382861/grand-jury-ukiah-needs-cap-landfill
Updated: 06/04/2013 12:00:25 AM PDT
City faces severe consequences' for delayed action
Ukiah Daily Journal
The City of Ukiah needs to take action soon to permanently close its former landfill and avoid "severe consequences" such as penalties and fines, the Mendocino County Grand Jury recently recommended.
According to a report titled "A landfill that refused to die," the Grand Jury found that the city "stopped receiving refuse at its landfill on Vichy Springs Road in 2001, but has not capped it yet.
"The law requires the landfill be capped and permanently closed within two years," the report states. "(But) it has been 12 years and the landfill is not capped, not permanently closed nor has the post maintenance plan been submitted for approval."
The GJ notes that the landfill "straddles an earthquake zone, a local watershed and two creeks that feed into the Russian River," and the city's "noncompliance with health and safety requirements for proper containment of landfill waste may result in severe consequences such as fines and constructive orders."
The GJ interviewed employees of the Ukiah Public Works Department, as well as county and state management and regulatory staff. It also reviewed federal and state regulations regarding landfills and water quality, along with communications between regulatory agencies.
The city's landfill was opened in 1954, and in 1999 the city submitted a "Final Closure and Post-Closure Maintenance Plan" to the Local (County) Enforcement Agency representing the California Health Department, CalRecycle (formerly the California Integrated Waste Management Board), and the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board.
After receiving comments, the city revised the plan in 2000, and "for the next eight years comments and revisions went back and forth with the city missing important deadlines." The CalRecycle regulation requires permanent closure of the site within two years, and "on March 13, 2012, the city's landfill was put on the Inventory of Solid Waste Facilities Which Violate State Minimum Standards' due to chronic violations."
The city's budget for 2012-13 projects a reserve of $5,081,411 to cover the closure costs, which are expected to be less than that. However, the GJ notes that "closure costs are subject to change if the regulatory process imposes requirements not contemplated in the closure plan," and "each year there are more regulations making closure more expensive." According to the GJ, "inspection reports show the landfill has been properly maintained since 2001, funds for permanent closure were budgeted and earmarked, and initial plans were made for closure but never completed.
"City staff, the city consultant and the various state agencies blame the Water Board for not completing the early review process," the GJ states, concluding that "insufficient effort has been taken by the City of Ukiah to affect proper, permanent closure of the landfill," and it recommends that the city "take all necessary actions to meet their legal overdue obligations to permanently close the landfill before the state penalizes the city through constructive orders, fines and penalties."
The GJ notes that a response to this report is required from the Ukiah City Council within 90 days, and is requested from City Manager Jane Chambers, Public Works Director Tim Eriksen and Finance Director Gordon Elton within 60 days.
http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/news/ci_23382861/grand-jury-ukiah-needs-cap-landfill
(San Luis Obispo) Grand jury advises Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach merge dispatch services
By Cynthia Lambert — clambert@thetribunenews.com
June 3, 2013
Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach should consider combining their police and fire dispatch systems and contracting with the San Luis Obispo County Sheriff’s Office to provide dispatch services, the county’s civil grand jury recommended.
In a report released last Thursday, grand jurors said they found through interviews with various city managers and law enforcement officials that “some consolidation of police and fire dispatch is feasible and desirable.”
In addition, grand jurors suggested that other agencies, including the Five Cities Fire Authority and Cal Fire, should meet with a facilitator to consolidate dispatch services at one center run by the Sheriff’s Office.
Doing so could save money, grand jurors noted, though how it would be set up is left to the individual jurisdictions to work out.
The Sheriff’s Office and Cal Fire have been discussing the possibility of a shared dispatch center, Cal Fire Chief Robert Lewin said.
The two agencies could save costs by sharing a facility, Lewin said, and strengthen the relationship between the two entities. Cal Fire would continue dispatching for fire calls, while the Sheriff’s Office would continue handling calls from unincorporated areas of the county, he said.
Some money is proposed to be set aside in next year’s county budget to hire a consultant to study the idea.
Other attempts
The idea of combining police departments isn’t a novel suggestion to officials in Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach. Both cities have studied the possibility, but the discussions between the two cities came to a halt last spring.
“We’ve looked at consolidation numerous times since the ’80s,” Grover Beach police Chief Jim Copsey said. “We’re open to any kind of service consolidation if it meets or increases service levels and there’s a cost savings to it. The proposals we’ve put together for Grover Beach haven’t met those goals.”
Last year, council members in both cities looked at dispatch consolidation and decided to study the potential of combining their police departments, as they believed the possible savings could be larger, Arroyo Grande City Manager Steve Adams said.
But the Grover Beach City Council rejected a proposal from Arroyo Grande to provide police services under a five-year contract. They were worried about the cost and added that paying for services did not constitute “full consolidation.”
In the grand jury report, Sheriff Ian Parkinson said he believes Grover Beach could save at least $150,000 a year if it contracted for dispatch with the Sheriff’s Office.
“I’m interested in working with each of the cities if it is determined that consolidation would be advantageous to everyone involved,” Parkinson wrote Monday in an email. “However, the decision to combine the dispatch centers and contract with the Sheriff’s Office is something the cities themselves will have to make.”
Copsey said the information received by the city was a preliminary estimate and would require further study.
Adams said Arroyo Grande officials have had informational discussions with the Sheriff’s Office about dispatch services, but the option hasn’t been fully studied.
Five Cities left out?
If the cities decide to contract with the Sheriff’s Office for dispatch services, it’s unknown which agency would provide dispatch for the Five Cities Fire Authority, the joint department serving Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach and Oceano.
Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach police currently provide dispatch for the fire authority.
The grand jury interviewed former Five Cities Fire Authority Chief Joel Aranaz, who said in the report he was not in favor of Cal Fire taking over fire dispatch services.
Current Chief Mike Hubert said he would be satisfied if Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach could work out a solution to consolidate their dispatch services. In the long run, he thinks a regional communications center in the South County, which could also include Pismo Beach, may provide an efficient, cost-effective solution for Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach.
“Anyone in public safety needs to do what’s in the best interest of their communities,” Hubert added. “I would do what I felt was the best, safest option for the people we serve.”
Lewin said he’s open to talking about contract services with any entity, but it’s up to an interested agency to approach Cal Fire. To date, Five Cities Fire has not done so, he said.
The grand jury report can be found at http://slocourts.net/grand_jury/reports. The cities, fire authority, Cal Fire and the Sheriff’s Office are all required to respond to the non-binding report by June 29.
Read more here: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2013/06/03/2532509/grand-jury-advises-arroyo-grande.html#storylink=cpy
June 3, 2013
Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach should consider combining their police and fire dispatch systems and contracting with the San Luis Obispo County Sheriff’s Office to provide dispatch services, the county’s civil grand jury recommended.
In a report released last Thursday, grand jurors said they found through interviews with various city managers and law enforcement officials that “some consolidation of police and fire dispatch is feasible and desirable.”
In addition, grand jurors suggested that other agencies, including the Five Cities Fire Authority and Cal Fire, should meet with a facilitator to consolidate dispatch services at one center run by the Sheriff’s Office.
Doing so could save money, grand jurors noted, though how it would be set up is left to the individual jurisdictions to work out.
The Sheriff’s Office and Cal Fire have been discussing the possibility of a shared dispatch center, Cal Fire Chief Robert Lewin said.
The two agencies could save costs by sharing a facility, Lewin said, and strengthen the relationship between the two entities. Cal Fire would continue dispatching for fire calls, while the Sheriff’s Office would continue handling calls from unincorporated areas of the county, he said.
Some money is proposed to be set aside in next year’s county budget to hire a consultant to study the idea.
Other attempts
The idea of combining police departments isn’t a novel suggestion to officials in Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach. Both cities have studied the possibility, but the discussions between the two cities came to a halt last spring.
“We’ve looked at consolidation numerous times since the ’80s,” Grover Beach police Chief Jim Copsey said. “We’re open to any kind of service consolidation if it meets or increases service levels and there’s a cost savings to it. The proposals we’ve put together for Grover Beach haven’t met those goals.”
Last year, council members in both cities looked at dispatch consolidation and decided to study the potential of combining their police departments, as they believed the possible savings could be larger, Arroyo Grande City Manager Steve Adams said.
But the Grover Beach City Council rejected a proposal from Arroyo Grande to provide police services under a five-year contract. They were worried about the cost and added that paying for services did not constitute “full consolidation.”
In the grand jury report, Sheriff Ian Parkinson said he believes Grover Beach could save at least $150,000 a year if it contracted for dispatch with the Sheriff’s Office.
“I’m interested in working with each of the cities if it is determined that consolidation would be advantageous to everyone involved,” Parkinson wrote Monday in an email. “However, the decision to combine the dispatch centers and contract with the Sheriff’s Office is something the cities themselves will have to make.”
Copsey said the information received by the city was a preliminary estimate and would require further study.
Adams said Arroyo Grande officials have had informational discussions with the Sheriff’s Office about dispatch services, but the option hasn’t been fully studied.
Five Cities left out?
If the cities decide to contract with the Sheriff’s Office for dispatch services, it’s unknown which agency would provide dispatch for the Five Cities Fire Authority, the joint department serving Arroyo Grande, Grover Beach and Oceano.
Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach police currently provide dispatch for the fire authority.
The grand jury interviewed former Five Cities Fire Authority Chief Joel Aranaz, who said in the report he was not in favor of Cal Fire taking over fire dispatch services.
Current Chief Mike Hubert said he would be satisfied if Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach could work out a solution to consolidate their dispatch services. In the long run, he thinks a regional communications center in the South County, which could also include Pismo Beach, may provide an efficient, cost-effective solution for Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach.
“Anyone in public safety needs to do what’s in the best interest of their communities,” Hubert added. “I would do what I felt was the best, safest option for the people we serve.”
Lewin said he’s open to talking about contract services with any entity, but it’s up to an interested agency to approach Cal Fire. To date, Five Cities Fire has not done so, he said.
The grand jury report can be found at http://slocourts.net/grand_jury/reports. The cities, fire authority, Cal Fire and the Sheriff’s Office are all required to respond to the non-binding report by June 29.
Read more here: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2013/06/03/2532509/grand-jury-advises-arroyo-grande.html#storylink=cpy
New (San Mateo) grand jury report questions rationale of some Sequoia Healthcare District expenses
By Bonnie Eslinger
Daily News Staff Writer
Posted: 06/06/2013 02:00:00 AM PDT
A new San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury report questions whether the Sequoia Healthcare District reaches too far in doling out some of the millions of dollars it annually collects from taxpayers.
And in at least two cases, grand jurors suggest, the district may have done just that by funneling money to an East Palo Alto health clinic and to a nursing program whose graduates then leave to find work elsewhere.
But this year's civil grand jury -- the fifth one to investigate Sequoia since 2000 -- didn't probe into the district's justification for continuing to exist. The district was established in 1947 to build and operate Sequoia Hospital in Redwood City, now run by Dignity Health, formerly known as Catholic Healthcare West, which took over in 1996.
Grand Jury Foreman Timothy Johnson acknowledged in an interview Wednesday that some concerns stem from the fact the district annually collects about $8.6 million in property taxes and spends the money on a range of health care programs that weren't part of the original mission.
"I think there's just some befuddlement on why it exists when it doesn't operate a hospital anymore," Johnson said. And if anything, the grand jury report released Monday may fan the fires a bit.
It questions why the district gives $500,000 a year to the Ravenswood Family Health Center in East Palo Alto, even though that city's residents don't pay property taxes to Sequoia. And it points out that many nurses taught through a program at Cañada College and Sequoia Hospital that has drawn $10.7 million from the district are not getting jobs within the county. "The nurses program appears to have been a big failure, in particular, in keeping track with where these nurses went," Johnson said.
Jack Hickey, a Sequoia Healthcare District board member whose campaign platform over the years has called for the district's abolishment, said Wednesday that the grand jury report underscores some of his concerns but only scratches the surface of how much money is used for "benefits that go out of the district."
Hickey said more scrutiny would show he's right that the district should be dissolved and the money redistributed to the other tax-supported entities in the county, so they could "spend it as they will."
Sequoia CEO Lee Michelson said there's no point in abandoning the district's mission.
"It's about $91 a year for the average taxpayer," Michelson said Wednesday. "Right now that money is going to good health care programs."
The Sequoia Healthcare District includes Redwood City, Belmont, San Carlos, Menlo Park, Woodside, Atherton, Portola Valley and parts of southern Foster City and North Fair Oaks. More than 60,000 people annually benefit from its programs, according to the district, including more than 25,000 public school children.
Michelson said the grand jury was told that the money given to the East Palo Alto clinic served 755 people who live within Sequoia's boundaries.
As for the nurses, he said about half of the 300 or so who have graduated from the district—funded training program now work within the district and the rest went elsewhere because there are only so many openings in the area.
"It was set up as an education program; you can't guarantee jobs," he said.
Email Bonnie Eslinger at beslinger@dailynewsgroup.com; follow her at twitter.com/bonnieeslinger.
http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_23399346/new-grand-jury-report-questions-rationale-some-sequoia
Daily News Staff Writer
Posted: 06/06/2013 02:00:00 AM PDT
A new San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury report questions whether the Sequoia Healthcare District reaches too far in doling out some of the millions of dollars it annually collects from taxpayers.
And in at least two cases, grand jurors suggest, the district may have done just that by funneling money to an East Palo Alto health clinic and to a nursing program whose graduates then leave to find work elsewhere.
But this year's civil grand jury -- the fifth one to investigate Sequoia since 2000 -- didn't probe into the district's justification for continuing to exist. The district was established in 1947 to build and operate Sequoia Hospital in Redwood City, now run by Dignity Health, formerly known as Catholic Healthcare West, which took over in 1996.
Grand Jury Foreman Timothy Johnson acknowledged in an interview Wednesday that some concerns stem from the fact the district annually collects about $8.6 million in property taxes and spends the money on a range of health care programs that weren't part of the original mission.
"I think there's just some befuddlement on why it exists when it doesn't operate a hospital anymore," Johnson said. And if anything, the grand jury report released Monday may fan the fires a bit.
It questions why the district gives $500,000 a year to the Ravenswood Family Health Center in East Palo Alto, even though that city's residents don't pay property taxes to Sequoia. And it points out that many nurses taught through a program at Cañada College and Sequoia Hospital that has drawn $10.7 million from the district are not getting jobs within the county. "The nurses program appears to have been a big failure, in particular, in keeping track with where these nurses went," Johnson said.
Jack Hickey, a Sequoia Healthcare District board member whose campaign platform over the years has called for the district's abolishment, said Wednesday that the grand jury report underscores some of his concerns but only scratches the surface of how much money is used for "benefits that go out of the district."
Hickey said more scrutiny would show he's right that the district should be dissolved and the money redistributed to the other tax-supported entities in the county, so they could "spend it as they will."
Sequoia CEO Lee Michelson said there's no point in abandoning the district's mission.
"It's about $91 a year for the average taxpayer," Michelson said Wednesday. "Right now that money is going to good health care programs."
The Sequoia Healthcare District includes Redwood City, Belmont, San Carlos, Menlo Park, Woodside, Atherton, Portola Valley and parts of southern Foster City and North Fair Oaks. More than 60,000 people annually benefit from its programs, according to the district, including more than 25,000 public school children.
Michelson said the grand jury was told that the money given to the East Palo Alto clinic served 755 people who live within Sequoia's boundaries.
As for the nurses, he said about half of the 300 or so who have graduated from the district—funded training program now work within the district and the rest went elsewhere because there are only so many openings in the area.
"It was set up as an education program; you can't guarantee jobs," he said.
Email Bonnie Eslinger at beslinger@dailynewsgroup.com; follow her at twitter.com/bonnieeslinger.
http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_23399346/new-grand-jury-report-questions-rationale-some-sequoia
(Madera) Grand jury foreman responds
By Phillip Atkisson, Sierra Star -
The Madera County Administrative Officer Eric Fleming wrote a guest commentary published in the May 23 edition of the Sierra Star entitled "Grand jury relied on rumor and guesswork." In this less-than-subtle commentary, the CAO states that the subcommittee neglected its legal obligation to adopt findings and recommendations which are based on factual and legal information. He continued by stating they subscribed to the theory of a handful of disgruntled individuals and relied on rumor and guesswork as the basis for this report.
Editors note: The following letter was recently sent to the Madera County Board of Supervisors.
Each year, grand jury members attend a very intense two-day training session conducted by the statewide Grand Jury Association, where, among other things, they learn to differentiate fact from rumor. Whats more, there is a methodical approach for fact determination taught in these training sessions. In the matter of the report entitled Complaint Regarding County Administration and Finance, a written complaint was received and an investigative committee was formed and chaired by Mr. Dan Hatcher.
The six-month investigative process included the summarization of the allegations and the gathering of a paper trail, including emails, letters, audit reports, and board letters. The investigation also required attendance at board of supervisor meetings and the review of archived video recordings of prior supervisor meetings. However, the most critical element of this investigation was the witness interview sessions.
Witnesses to be interviewed were selected from a large cross-section of people involved with and/or knowledgeable of Madera County government and included elected officials, department heads, employees, and non-employees. Questions were prepared in advance of these interviews and, before each interview session, the witnesses were sworn in and admonished not to discuss the questions or answers with anyone. Upon completion of each interview, committee members finalized their interview notes and filed them with other documentation regarding the matter, whereupon a large file of material in support of the facts was accumulated.
What is a fact? In grand jury parlance, a fact may be substantiated by the testimony of a minimum of three witnesses. A fact can be substantiated by a letter or email, audit report, instruction in a procedures manual, a contract, or Government Code section. And, a fact may be substantiated by attending public meetings and observing the ensuing discussion pertaining to an issue.
In this investigation, our facts were derived from several sources, including emails, letters, audit reports, board letters, attendance at supervisor meetings, and from direct testimony. We did much more than "interview a handful of disgruntled individuals." In fact, we conducted approximately two dozen interviews with more than 15 different people. An overwhelming majority (three quarters) of these witnesses confirmed the facts in one form or another, with differing levels of severity. So, when the CAO said "the grand jury relied on rumor and guesswork," that simply is not true, but it is a good example of "guesswork" on his part.
What is a rumor? A rumor is gossip, guesswork, antidotal information, or possibly misinformation spread by a person with an axe to grind. However, a rumor can be based in fact. Currently, there is a rumor going around that a Madera County department head is questioning employees to determine which of his/her subordinates testified before the Madera County Grand Jury on this matter. But, of course, that is just a rumor.
Now, if said employees were to file a complaint with the grand jury alleging that they are being intimidated into divulging something that they were admonished not to reveal, then that might trigger an investigation to include sworn testimony to determine how factual these allegations might be. This is how a grand jury distinguishes fact from rumor.
In summary, the CAO is advised to respond to the grand jury report as required by law. He may state his disagreement with the facts, findings, and recommendations. That is his right. But, this years grand jury takes great exception to the misinformation he provided the news media with his guest commentary and we hope that it does not have a chilling and demoralizing effect on future grand jury witnesses.
-- Phillip Atkisson is the current foreman of the Madera County grand jury
The Madera County Administrative Officer Eric Fleming wrote a guest commentary published in the May 23 edition of the Sierra Star entitled "Grand jury relied on rumor and guesswork." In this less-than-subtle commentary, the CAO states that the subcommittee neglected its legal obligation to adopt findings and recommendations which are based on factual and legal information. He continued by stating they subscribed to the theory of a handful of disgruntled individuals and relied on rumor and guesswork as the basis for this report.
Editors note: The following letter was recently sent to the Madera County Board of Supervisors.
Each year, grand jury members attend a very intense two-day training session conducted by the statewide Grand Jury Association, where, among other things, they learn to differentiate fact from rumor. Whats more, there is a methodical approach for fact determination taught in these training sessions. In the matter of the report entitled Complaint Regarding County Administration and Finance, a written complaint was received and an investigative committee was formed and chaired by Mr. Dan Hatcher.
The six-month investigative process included the summarization of the allegations and the gathering of a paper trail, including emails, letters, audit reports, and board letters. The investigation also required attendance at board of supervisor meetings and the review of archived video recordings of prior supervisor meetings. However, the most critical element of this investigation was the witness interview sessions.
Witnesses to be interviewed were selected from a large cross-section of people involved with and/or knowledgeable of Madera County government and included elected officials, department heads, employees, and non-employees. Questions were prepared in advance of these interviews and, before each interview session, the witnesses were sworn in and admonished not to discuss the questions or answers with anyone. Upon completion of each interview, committee members finalized their interview notes and filed them with other documentation regarding the matter, whereupon a large file of material in support of the facts was accumulated.
What is a fact? In grand jury parlance, a fact may be substantiated by the testimony of a minimum of three witnesses. A fact can be substantiated by a letter or email, audit report, instruction in a procedures manual, a contract, or Government Code section. And, a fact may be substantiated by attending public meetings and observing the ensuing discussion pertaining to an issue.
In this investigation, our facts were derived from several sources, including emails, letters, audit reports, board letters, attendance at supervisor meetings, and from direct testimony. We did much more than "interview a handful of disgruntled individuals." In fact, we conducted approximately two dozen interviews with more than 15 different people. An overwhelming majority (three quarters) of these witnesses confirmed the facts in one form or another, with differing levels of severity. So, when the CAO said "the grand jury relied on rumor and guesswork," that simply is not true, but it is a good example of "guesswork" on his part.
What is a rumor? A rumor is gossip, guesswork, antidotal information, or possibly misinformation spread by a person with an axe to grind. However, a rumor can be based in fact. Currently, there is a rumor going around that a Madera County department head is questioning employees to determine which of his/her subordinates testified before the Madera County Grand Jury on this matter. But, of course, that is just a rumor.
Now, if said employees were to file a complaint with the grand jury alleging that they are being intimidated into divulging something that they were admonished not to reveal, then that might trigger an investigation to include sworn testimony to determine how factual these allegations might be. This is how a grand jury distinguishes fact from rumor.
In summary, the CAO is advised to respond to the grand jury report as required by law. He may state his disagreement with the facts, findings, and recommendations. That is his right. But, this years grand jury takes great exception to the misinformation he provided the news media with his guest commentary and we hope that it does not have a chilling and demoralizing effect on future grand jury witnesses.
-- Phillip Atkisson is the current foreman of the Madera County grand jury
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
(Solano) Grand jury: Delta Camp isn't secure
BY CATHERINE BOWEN, The Reporter.com -
An inquiry into the management of Delta Conservation Camp by the Solano County grand jury raised red flags concerning safety and security at the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation-run fire camp, according to a recent report.
The grand jury's Dec. 12, 2012, inspection of the Delta Camp, located at 6246 Lambie Road, off Highway 12 between Rio Vista and Suisun City, prompted four recommendations and coincided with those made by the 2011-12 grand jury.
During its inquiry, the grand jury inspected Delta Camp facilities, which house up to 132 inmates, and interviewed staff from Delta Camp, the CDCR and Calfire.
So far, however, CDCR management has chosen not to act upon the findings, stating that current staffing levels are appropriate to the inmate population and their classification level, and that the cost of other suggestions, such as installing perimeter security cameras, "was prohibitive and would not be installed," the report stated.
Opened in June 1988, Delta Camp is one of 39 fire camps throughout the state that houses state prison inmates whose main mission is to supply quick-response strike teams to assist Calfire or other fire agencies that request assistance through mutual-aid agreements. Delta Camp inmates may also be hired by public agencies or nonprofit organizations to work on community projects.
The CDCR is responsible for the security, supervision, care and discipline of inmates assigned to the camp, while Calfire supervises "in-camp" inmate assignments and fire-line assignments in the field.
The grand jury said its concerns centered around safety and security measures for CDCR, California Department of Forestry and Calfire personnel, as well as the public.
At the time of the 2012-13 grand jury tour, 104 inmates were assigned to the camp, leaving 28 open beds, according to the report.
The grand jury also took issue with the state's modification of the inmate classification point system, which allows higher-risk inmates to be housed at Delta Camp, the report stated.
The grand jury said it found Delta Camp to be "clean, orderly, and well-equipped" at the time of its visit, but was concerned with the fact that, during the first shift -- from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. -- the ratio of inmates to correctional officers could be 132:1, the report said.
The current grand jury agreed with the findings and recommendations of the 2011-12 grand jury, which suggested adding a second officer to the first shift, installing perimeter security cameras and exit alarms on the inmate dormitory and equipping CDCR personnel with portable radios for immediate communication with Solano County Sheriff's Office, which has jurisdiction of the area.
In the response to both grand jury reports, CDCR management stated that current staffing levels were appropriate, given the inmate population and their classification level. They also said the cost of installing and maintaining cameras was prohibitive.
After discovering that none of the recommendations had been instituted, the grand jury urged Delta Camp management to "revisit and reconsider these security concerns" -- especially given the increased classification score of inmates housed at the camp.
"This change could affect the operations of Delta Camp and possibly put Delta Camp staff and the surrounding communities at greater risk," the grand jury wrote.
An inquiry into the management of Delta Conservation Camp by the Solano County grand jury raised red flags concerning safety and security at the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation-run fire camp, according to a recent report.
The grand jury's Dec. 12, 2012, inspection of the Delta Camp, located at 6246 Lambie Road, off Highway 12 between Rio Vista and Suisun City, prompted four recommendations and coincided with those made by the 2011-12 grand jury.
During its inquiry, the grand jury inspected Delta Camp facilities, which house up to 132 inmates, and interviewed staff from Delta Camp, the CDCR and Calfire.
So far, however, CDCR management has chosen not to act upon the findings, stating that current staffing levels are appropriate to the inmate population and their classification level, and that the cost of other suggestions, such as installing perimeter security cameras, "was prohibitive and would not be installed," the report stated.
Opened in June 1988, Delta Camp is one of 39 fire camps throughout the state that houses state prison inmates whose main mission is to supply quick-response strike teams to assist Calfire or other fire agencies that request assistance through mutual-aid agreements. Delta Camp inmates may also be hired by public agencies or nonprofit organizations to work on community projects.
The CDCR is responsible for the security, supervision, care and discipline of inmates assigned to the camp, while Calfire supervises "in-camp" inmate assignments and fire-line assignments in the field.
The grand jury said its concerns centered around safety and security measures for CDCR, California Department of Forestry and Calfire personnel, as well as the public.
At the time of the 2012-13 grand jury tour, 104 inmates were assigned to the camp, leaving 28 open beds, according to the report.
The grand jury also took issue with the state's modification of the inmate classification point system, which allows higher-risk inmates to be housed at Delta Camp, the report stated.
The grand jury said it found Delta Camp to be "clean, orderly, and well-equipped" at the time of its visit, but was concerned with the fact that, during the first shift -- from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. -- the ratio of inmates to correctional officers could be 132:1, the report said.
The current grand jury agreed with the findings and recommendations of the 2011-12 grand jury, which suggested adding a second officer to the first shift, installing perimeter security cameras and exit alarms on the inmate dormitory and equipping CDCR personnel with portable radios for immediate communication with Solano County Sheriff's Office, which has jurisdiction of the area.
In the response to both grand jury reports, CDCR management stated that current staffing levels were appropriate, given the inmate population and their classification level. They also said the cost of installing and maintaining cameras was prohibitive.
After discovering that none of the recommendations had been instituted, the grand jury urged Delta Camp management to "revisit and reconsider these security concerns" -- especially given the increased classification score of inmates housed at the camp.
"This change could affect the operations of Delta Camp and possibly put Delta Camp staff and the surrounding communities at greater risk," the grand jury wrote.
Monday, June 3, 2013
Marin grand jury: Retiree health care debt poses fiscal calamity
By Nels Johnson, Marin Independent Journal -
City, county, school and special district agencies across Marin have mounted a $522 million debt for retiree health care, jeopardizing employee benefits and posing a fiscal calamity for a future generation of taxpayers, a grand jury investigation concluded.
In a detailed review of the cost of retiree health care benefits approved by the county and 39 other local agencies, the Marin County Civil Grand Jury urged officials to pay down liability, cut benefits and require employees to share the cost.
Most agencies do not fund the future retirement health benefits they promise, but merely pay the current year's medical premiums for retirees, allowing the tab to increase as more people retire and health costs soar.
Jurors said agencies may be unable to pay for benefits they have promised.
"If the liability problem is not addressed within the next few years, each Marin County household will be assessed significant additional taxes or will see a dramatic reduction in services," the panel warned.
After reviewing unfunded health liabilities for the county and Marin cities as well as key school and special districts, the jury found that 26 agencies have set aside no funding at all for future health benefits promised employees — and only 12 have set aside more than 5 percent of the current liability.
"The county was short about $293 million or about $2,627 per county household," the jury said, noting the tab at Civic Center accounted for the bulk of a "looming financial burden" countywide that faces future generations. The jury noted the county pays $12 million a year to pay for health benefits for 1,400 retirees, or about $8,600 per year per retiree. In 2008, officials capped costs at $3,000 for new employees.
But the jury found that county supervisors have funded only 8.2 percent of a $319 million tab for the retiree health benefits they have promised. "The county's retiree health care unfunded retiree health care liability is far more alarming than the county's pension funding inadequacy," the jury reported. "This is because the county's retiree health care liability is 92 percent unfunded. ... In contrast, its pension liability is about 25 percent unfunded."
What's more, "the county's unfunded liability is among the highest for any of the county's 11 cities and towns," the jury said.
San Rafael, however, was singled out for praise at the top of the funding list for taking "important steps" and "significant movement to control costs" while paying for 30.9 percent of its $35.2 million retiree health liability.
County Administrator Matthew Hymel, who regards the county as a regional leader in pension reform, said the grand jury had made "significant efforts to research this issue," and added the county agrees that retiree health care is a "serious issue that needs to be addressed." He also cited a series of "aggressive actions" the county has taken, including cutting benefits for new hires and paying down $26.5 million of health care liability this year.
The jury faulted liability repayment schedules employed by most, including the county, that use an "extreme" 30-year amortization period that enables agencies to minimize annual payments.
Other agencies that have paid down or set aside some funding for future health benefits, with liabilities followed by the percent they have been funded, include: Tiburon Fire Protection District, $3.1 million, 26.7 percent; Fairfax, $1.28 million, 19.8 percent; Marin Municipal Water District, $44.77 million, 19.4 percent; Tamalpais High School District, $6.54 million, 19.3 percent; Central Marin Sanitation Agency, $3.55 million, 19.1 percent; Kentfield Fire Protection District, $2.39 million, 16.2 percent; Mill Valley, $28.1 million, 12.9 percent; Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District, $2.15 million, 12.5 percent; Ross Valley Fire Department, $5.12 million, 6.1 percent; Novato Fire District, $17.71 million, 5.4 percent; Southern Marin Fire Protection District, $5.49 million, 3.6 percent, and Corte Madera, $11.83 million, 0.3 percent.
The jury reported that some agencies, including Mill Valley and the Marinwood Community Services District, provide generous benefits. Mill Valley's health tab last year, covering retirees and their spouses, was $14,000 per retiree, although costs fall to about half that for those eligible for Medicare.
Mill Valley City Manager Jim McCann, who had not yet read the jury report, said the city has cut benefits for new hires, set aside $4 million to help pay for retiree health, and is studying ways to do more. The city has a stellar record of paying its pension liability, with a 90 percent funding level as detailed in a recent actuarial study.
And in the Marinwood district, where employees may retire at 50 after only five years of service, a rich benefit "unique among the entities the grand jury studied," no provision has been made for future health funding of a $4.74 million liability. Marinwood has cut benefits for future employees and trimmed other payments but the unfunded liability per district household is about $2,750 or "four times that of any other special district the grand jury surveyed."
The jury also found agencies that provide far more modest payments, including Novato, where retirees get a health benefit of about $1,314 a year, and the Dixie School District, which caps benefits at $425 a month for five years "and thereafter provides retirees a mere $7.50 a month toward their health care coverage costs." The jury noted that "some employers offer substantially lower benefits and yet are able to attract and retain employees."
The jury focused on several agencies facing funding hurdles, including San Rafael city schools, which have set aside no funding despite a $10.4 million liability. With a wave of retirements due, the city schools face "substantial future outlays" for benefits.
At $12.03 million, the Marin/Sonoma Mosquito and Vector Control District posted the highest unfunded health liability among those with no payment program. Other agencies with no payment plan, despite unfunded retiree health liabilities of about $1 million or more, include:
Larkspur, $7.49 million; Twin Cities Police Authority, $7.49 million; Sausalito, $6.63 million; Novato Sanitary District, $6.11 million; Marin Community College District, $5.69 million; Sewerage Agency of Southern Marin, $4.11 million; North Marin Water District, $3.07 million; Reed Union School District, $3.04 million; Tiburon, $2.9 million; Mill Valley School District, $2.16 million; Ross School District, $2.14 million; San Anselmo, $1.94 million; Ross Valley School District, $1.84 million; Novato, $1.8 million; Shoreline School District, $1.8 million; Kentfield School District, $1.43 million; Dixie School District, $1.06 million; and Novato School District, $820,000.
Solutions, the jury concluded, include "accelerated funding" and capping benefits and higher retirement ages. Generous benefits are not needed to attract employees and "for active and newly hired employees, the benefits should be trimmed and costs should be shared."
The panel requested responses from the county and all cities, the College of Marin, 12 school districts and 14 special districts.
City, county, school and special district agencies across Marin have mounted a $522 million debt for retiree health care, jeopardizing employee benefits and posing a fiscal calamity for a future generation of taxpayers, a grand jury investigation concluded.
In a detailed review of the cost of retiree health care benefits approved by the county and 39 other local agencies, the Marin County Civil Grand Jury urged officials to pay down liability, cut benefits and require employees to share the cost.
Most agencies do not fund the future retirement health benefits they promise, but merely pay the current year's medical premiums for retirees, allowing the tab to increase as more people retire and health costs soar.
Jurors said agencies may be unable to pay for benefits they have promised.
"If the liability problem is not addressed within the next few years, each Marin County household will be assessed significant additional taxes or will see a dramatic reduction in services," the panel warned.
After reviewing unfunded health liabilities for the county and Marin cities as well as key school and special districts, the jury found that 26 agencies have set aside no funding at all for future health benefits promised employees — and only 12 have set aside more than 5 percent of the current liability.
"The county was short about $293 million or about $2,627 per county household," the jury said, noting the tab at Civic Center accounted for the bulk of a "looming financial burden" countywide that faces future generations. The jury noted the county pays $12 million a year to pay for health benefits for 1,400 retirees, or about $8,600 per year per retiree. In 2008, officials capped costs at $3,000 for new employees.
But the jury found that county supervisors have funded only 8.2 percent of a $319 million tab for the retiree health benefits they have promised. "The county's retiree health care unfunded retiree health care liability is far more alarming than the county's pension funding inadequacy," the jury reported. "This is because the county's retiree health care liability is 92 percent unfunded. ... In contrast, its pension liability is about 25 percent unfunded."
What's more, "the county's unfunded liability is among the highest for any of the county's 11 cities and towns," the jury said.
San Rafael, however, was singled out for praise at the top of the funding list for taking "important steps" and "significant movement to control costs" while paying for 30.9 percent of its $35.2 million retiree health liability.
County Administrator Matthew Hymel, who regards the county as a regional leader in pension reform, said the grand jury had made "significant efforts to research this issue," and added the county agrees that retiree health care is a "serious issue that needs to be addressed." He also cited a series of "aggressive actions" the county has taken, including cutting benefits for new hires and paying down $26.5 million of health care liability this year.
The jury faulted liability repayment schedules employed by most, including the county, that use an "extreme" 30-year amortization period that enables agencies to minimize annual payments.
Other agencies that have paid down or set aside some funding for future health benefits, with liabilities followed by the percent they have been funded, include: Tiburon Fire Protection District, $3.1 million, 26.7 percent; Fairfax, $1.28 million, 19.8 percent; Marin Municipal Water District, $44.77 million, 19.4 percent; Tamalpais High School District, $6.54 million, 19.3 percent; Central Marin Sanitation Agency, $3.55 million, 19.1 percent; Kentfield Fire Protection District, $2.39 million, 16.2 percent; Mill Valley, $28.1 million, 12.9 percent; Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District, $2.15 million, 12.5 percent; Ross Valley Fire Department, $5.12 million, 6.1 percent; Novato Fire District, $17.71 million, 5.4 percent; Southern Marin Fire Protection District, $5.49 million, 3.6 percent, and Corte Madera, $11.83 million, 0.3 percent.
The jury reported that some agencies, including Mill Valley and the Marinwood Community Services District, provide generous benefits. Mill Valley's health tab last year, covering retirees and their spouses, was $14,000 per retiree, although costs fall to about half that for those eligible for Medicare.
Mill Valley City Manager Jim McCann, who had not yet read the jury report, said the city has cut benefits for new hires, set aside $4 million to help pay for retiree health, and is studying ways to do more. The city has a stellar record of paying its pension liability, with a 90 percent funding level as detailed in a recent actuarial study.
And in the Marinwood district, where employees may retire at 50 after only five years of service, a rich benefit "unique among the entities the grand jury studied," no provision has been made for future health funding of a $4.74 million liability. Marinwood has cut benefits for future employees and trimmed other payments but the unfunded liability per district household is about $2,750 or "four times that of any other special district the grand jury surveyed."
The jury also found agencies that provide far more modest payments, including Novato, where retirees get a health benefit of about $1,314 a year, and the Dixie School District, which caps benefits at $425 a month for five years "and thereafter provides retirees a mere $7.50 a month toward their health care coverage costs." The jury noted that "some employers offer substantially lower benefits and yet are able to attract and retain employees."
The jury focused on several agencies facing funding hurdles, including San Rafael city schools, which have set aside no funding despite a $10.4 million liability. With a wave of retirements due, the city schools face "substantial future outlays" for benefits.
At $12.03 million, the Marin/Sonoma Mosquito and Vector Control District posted the highest unfunded health liability among those with no payment program. Other agencies with no payment plan, despite unfunded retiree health liabilities of about $1 million or more, include:
Larkspur, $7.49 million; Twin Cities Police Authority, $7.49 million; Sausalito, $6.63 million; Novato Sanitary District, $6.11 million; Marin Community College District, $5.69 million; Sewerage Agency of Southern Marin, $4.11 million; North Marin Water District, $3.07 million; Reed Union School District, $3.04 million; Tiburon, $2.9 million; Mill Valley School District, $2.16 million; Ross School District, $2.14 million; San Anselmo, $1.94 million; Ross Valley School District, $1.84 million; Novato, $1.8 million; Shoreline School District, $1.8 million; Kentfield School District, $1.43 million; Dixie School District, $1.06 million; and Novato School District, $820,000.
Solutions, the jury concluded, include "accelerated funding" and capping benefits and higher retirement ages. Generous benefits are not needed to attract employees and "for active and newly hired employees, the benefits should be trimmed and costs should be shared."
The panel requested responses from the county and all cities, the College of Marin, 12 school districts and 14 special districts.
Saturday, June 1, 2013
(Fresno Co) Grand jury: Del Rey utility district in financial hot water
By Pablo Lopez, The Fresno Bee -
Del Rey Community Service District has been operating at a financial loss for 17 of the past 18 years and board members can't account for missing money, a Fresno County grand jury report says.
The eight-page report, released this week, criticizes board members for not conducting themselves properly at public meetings and for failing to perform their duties in accordance with the law.
It was the second time in five years the county's civilian grand jury has investigated improper expenditures by the district, which was established in 1963 to provide water, sewer, solid waste and other service to 1,600 residents south of Sanger.
According to the report, the district's reserve had $687,942 in December 1995. A June 2007 audit showed a reserve balance of $284,844. But as of July last year, the reserve had dropped to $94,967.
"The findings of the current grand jury are in total agreement with those of the previous grand jury," the report said. "Records needed to identify how the funds were spent are non-existent."
In the report, jurors ask the Fresno County Board of Supervisors and the Local Agency Formation Commission, known as LAFCO, to have better oversight of the Del Rey district. Jurors also would like LAFCO to "take a more aggressive stance in recommending a merger of this district" with another, financially stable district.
Del Rey Community Service District has been operating at a financial loss for 17 of the past 18 years and board members can't account for missing money, a Fresno County grand jury report says.
The eight-page report, released this week, criticizes board members for not conducting themselves properly at public meetings and for failing to perform their duties in accordance with the law.
It was the second time in five years the county's civilian grand jury has investigated improper expenditures by the district, which was established in 1963 to provide water, sewer, solid waste and other service to 1,600 residents south of Sanger.
According to the report, the district's reserve had $687,942 in December 1995. A June 2007 audit showed a reserve balance of $284,844. But as of July last year, the reserve had dropped to $94,967.
"The findings of the current grand jury are in total agreement with those of the previous grand jury," the report said. "Records needed to identify how the funds were spent are non-existent."
In the report, jurors ask the Fresno County Board of Supervisors and the Local Agency Formation Commission, known as LAFCO, to have better oversight of the Del Rey district. Jurors also would like LAFCO to "take a more aggressive stance in recommending a merger of this district" with another, financially stable district.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)