[Kern County] COMMUNITY VOICES: Final results take time; give us a chance to do it right

Blog note: This article refers to a 2015 Kern County grand jury report.

The Californian's editorial (“OUR VIEW: California shoots itself in its ‘election foot'," March 8) makes many good points about why it takes so long to count the votes in California. In Kern County, more than 70 percent of registered voters are vote-by-mail. Recent changes in the law now require us to notify any voters who neglect to sign their vote-by-mail envelope and give them an opportunity to correct it. Same day voter registration adds another complication to the process we go through to ensure that only eligible voters get to vote, but that all eligible votes are counted.

I do take issue with the questions raised over the retirements of four long-time employees in 2019. There is no mystery here. A grand jury report in 2015 identified the succession issue as the single biggest problem facing the Elections Division. We had four experienced employees, most with 25 years with the county, who were beginning to plan their retirements. The next most experienced employees had just one year of experience.

Prior to the grand jury report, my office put together a reorganization plan to recruit and retain more employees at the entry level, while also changing the management structure in order to retain one or more experienced employees through at least 2022. We were able to implement the entry-level portion of the plan, which has enabled us to hire and retain many very talented and dedicated employees through the 2016, 2018 and now 2020 election cycles. We were unable to implement the part of the reorganization that would have enabled us to keep any management employees.

I do think there has been a lack of appreciation over the years about just how much of a leader Kern has been with our experienced and knowledgeable election employees. In past years, we were able to get sample ballots out as early as possible, much earlier than many other counties or than is required by law. In 2015, due to the careful planning of our elections management employees, Kern was the first county in the state to get the newly certified, most up-to-date equipment. This year, while sample ballots were not sent out as early as in previous years, we still met the legally required timeframes, although there was an error in the sample ballot, which we made every effort to mitigate when we became aware of it. Election day was as uneventful as any I’ve seen in my seven years as registrar of voters, due to the careful preparation and poll worker recruitment and training performed by the elections staff.

I am not sure what the editorial meant by “delays in counting the primary election vote and its outcome.” The first results on election night were at 8:15 p.m., and after that we averaged every two hours, which is similar to past elections. We finished the count on election night at 2 a.m. In 2018 it was 1:30 a.m. I would also point out that Kern County chose to keep the traditional precinct voting this year because we were concerned with some of the very issues that plagued Los Angeles and other vote center counties.

 In 2018, one-third of the total votes were late arriving vote-by-mail and provisional ballots counted after election day. This year it is closer to 44 percent. The media’s interest in how often we update on election night and what the election night totals are seems a bit quaint and anachronistic. This is not 1988, when 95 percent of the ballots would have been cast at the polls, with just a few absentee ballots to be counted later. Back then, unless there was an extremely close contest, the election night results were the results. This year, with just over 50 percent of the votes counted on election night, identifying winners and losers seems a little like handing out the Super Bowl rings at halftime, and then being surprised if the results change in the second half.

 We still have tens of thousands of vote-by-mail ballots to signature-check, along with conditional and provisional ballots to review. The dedicated election workers are currently working 12-hour days, in many cases seven days a week, to process the remaining ballots within our legally mandated timeframes. So, let’s everyone calm down, and give us a chance to do our job.

Bakersfield.com

Mary Bedard, Kern County registrar of voters

March 12, 2020

[Orange County] Irvine’s Great Park Fails Transparency Test

Blognote: This article references a 2015 Orange County grand jury report.

Homeowners around the Great Park are paying tens of millions per year in extra taxes, yet Irvine city officials rarely tell them where it’s all going.

City officials and partners openly debate where hundreds of millions of dollars in funding has gone, while other project budgets have swelled to five times what was originally conceived, all without public input.

According to projections completed by FivePoint Holdings, the city’s partner in developing the Great Park, homeowners in the park will have paid at least $2 billion in special taxes by the end of the construction.

A grand jury report released in 2015 was highly critical of the Park’s management and transparency over the years, wrapping up its findings with the following.

“From the onset, the Grand Jury found that the City Council and (Orange County Great Park Corporation) were not transparent with either the process or the relevant information associated with the Great Park to the public,” the report said. “There were never definitive budgets, schedules, milestones, or deliverables open for public review.

Developer Control Over the Great Park

The biggest change since the start of the project in 2003 has been the role of the developer FivePoint Holdings, the city’s primary partner in the development of the Orange County Great Park.

Originally, there were two funding sources for the Park—a redevelopment agency and special taxes levied on homes in the Great Park that were managed by FivePoint.

The redevelopment agency was intended to be the primary source, which the city invested $134 million in at 9% interest according to the grand jury report. Projections showed it would generate millions to invest back in the park.

The other mechanism was special taxes levied on homes that would be built in the Great Park through the developer FivePoint, which was licensed to build 3,500 homes and committed $400 million to the Park.

But when former Gov. Jerry Brown dissolved the redevelopment agencies statewide in 2011, it left the city with a massive funding gap to complete the park.

The chosen solution by the city was to increase the number of homes in the park and use the increased tax revenue to make up the difference. FivePoint’s stake of homes increased from 3,500 homes in 2005 to over 9,000 by 2013.

In 2010, the city instituted the first amendment to the development agreement, increasing FivePoint’s zoning allowance to 5,000 homes.

But according to FivePoint CEO Emile Haddad, both the city and the developer knew the number of homes would rise and did not disclose that to the public.

“In 2010, (the city council) knew it would be revisited and that more than 5000 homes would be built. We all knew there would be more homes,” Haddad said. “The city was absolutely incentivizing, and they were the ones pushing for approval. Because without more homes, they would have a major problem within the general fund, because once they built the Great Park, they would never have the money to maintain it.”

However, former councilman Larry Agran said in a telephone interview the city was not endorsing new development in the park and that FivePoint was the one asking for the expansion.

“The city was always receptive to development proposals, that’s been the posture of the city since its founding,” Agran said. “We weren’t spurring it, we weren’t negative on it, we were just listening.”

FivePoint also had a role in the design of the park, and in 2013 requested that their design package be approved by the city, according to a city staff report presented to the council.

The plan laid out the details for the western sector of the park, and it requested anything within its design be considered in line with city standards, and that any “logical evolution” of the package would be considered approved by the city, according to the staff report.

The report said that allowing FivePoint this much control of the park’s operations was “inconsistent with the City’s historic regulatory practices.”

“The decision to approve these requests would allow FivePoint to exercise a level of discretion over the project’s evolution that would otherwise be exercised by the City Council.”

But in 2016, FivePoint publicly stepped back from the design process, when it saw it would be “used politically,” according to Haddad.

“We chose to step back from it and let the city do their thing,” Haddad said. “Once the city comes to a decision on what they want to see built, and the balance of the park, then we will sit down with our partner and see how we can help.”

However, Haddad has said he’d be interested in going back to work on the design of the park in the future.

The Debate over $200 million

In the original deal, FivePoint committed $400 million to the park, half of which would be repaid through special Mello-Roos taxes and the other half would serve as a developer fee, according to city records.

Haddad said he still has no idea where the money from the development fee went.

“I never really looked into where it went. I’m upset it was spent the way it was spent, but it’s not my business to look into where it was spent,” Haddad said.

Haddad has said he has no interest in knowing where the money ended up, despite the fact that it was close to half of FivePoint’s original investment in the park.

“The minute I gave them the money, I view that as not my money. It’s taxpayers’ money,” Haddad said. “Honestly, if the $200 million wouldn’t have been spent the way it was spent, and it was spent to build things, the Great Park would be built today.”

According to Haddad, he would have grounds to potentially sue the city over the misspent $200 million, but is not interested in doing so and currently wants to continue development with the city.

If the decision was made to sue, he said the only money he could likely receive is the money from Irvine’s settlement with the state of California over the collapse of redevelopment, worth $292 million.

According to Agran, the initial $200 million has all been invested into the park, and Haddad knows where the funds went.

 “It’s all documented where it went,” Agran said. “If you look at all the audits done over the years, up to this last audit, every single one of them showed not one penny of unauthorized spending.”

Homeowner Understanding

 When potential homeowners look at homes in the Great Park, there’s a legal form they have to fill out showing that they understand that special taxes are in place on the property.

The form they’re legally required to be shown states the cost specific for the address, as well as the range of potential maximum prices for homes in that area based on square footage.

To see a copy of that form, click here.

The form also says the tax can increase by as much as 2% annually for 40 years after special taxes are put on the home, and can increase by 3% annually every year after that.

The establishment documents for the Great Park’s special districts state the cost will increase by 2% annually automatically.

The language in the disclosure also lists what that money can be spent on, including various infrastructure improvements and, “Bond related expenses, administrative fees, and reimbursement of costs related to the formation of the (special tax district),” as well as “costs of services related to the infrastructure and public facilities that are constructed within the district.”

No further explanation or definition of those terms is given to homeowners in the form.

No notification is sent from the city of Irvine to homeowners when new projects are approved or when new special tax districts are approved according to city staff.

The Orange County Great Park Board

Another major shift over the life of the park has been the makeup of the Orange County Great Park Board, the organization in charge of managing the OC Great Park Corporation.

Originally, the OC Great Park Corporation was set up as a nine-member executive board, with the members of the city council and four at large members that controlled operations. The board was officially separate from city oversight.

But after the 2012 elections, a new council majority made some major structural changes to the leadership of the park.

In 2013, a 3-2 vote by the City Council reconstituted the Great Park Board as an advisory body to the city. It also removed the at large members of the board, leaving only the city councilmembers with a vote. The OC Great Park Corporation now operates under the city manager’s office supervision.

Currently, the Great Park Board meets once every month on Tuesdays at 2:00 and votes on items related to the Great Park to recommend actions to the council.

Just hours later, those items are incorporated as part of the city council’s 4:00 meeting under the consent calendar, which means they aren’t publicly discussed at the council’s meeting unless a councilmember requests it.

The Board’s meetings are open to the public, but due to their timing during the workday, see a far lower turnout from the community than the council’s meetings.

Public Estimates Shift Throughout the Years

The final cost of the Great Park has remained fluid throughout its development.

The original estimated budget for the Great Park announced in a 2003 city press release was set to cost $350 million initially according to the grand jury report.

Six years later in 2009, the Great Park Board approved a submission from the design studio for a partial park design that city staff estimated would cost $1.4 billion to complete.

Because development of the park was always intended to be developed over several decades, no overall budget for the final park exists.

“No project of this magnitude is all pre-funded. It’s not like we have a vault where we have a half billion or a billion stored for the development and operation of the Great Park pre stored. No, you make arrangements to fund it as you go,” Agran said.

The grand jury report also cited a 2003 planning report prepared by the city that said “the Orange County Great Park development strategy…will enable all key elements of the Great Park to be developed within five to seven years of the sale of the property.”

Agran said any report claiming the park would be completed within ten years was false and the city never made that claim.

“Any interpretation that there would be a fully developed great metropolitan park in 6-7 years just totally misunderstands the process and the expectation,” Agran said. “They never heard it from me or anyone else in a position of responsibility. You look at any of these parks, 50-100 years, we believed ours could be built in 40-50 and that’s what redevelopment was based on.”

Aquatics Center goes from $50 million to $250 million

The city also did not disclose many of the specifics of the new aquatics center that will be the home of USA Water Polo in the Great Park.

While public access has been promised, no specifics have been confirmed.

When the plan was approved by the city council in 2018, FivePoint CEO Haddad spoke at the meeting, describing the aquatics center as a “win for the city,” and stating the center would not come at any cost to the city.

The aquatics center will not cost any city funds, but it will come from tax dollars collected from Great Park residents, who have no control over how those taxes are spent, levied, and are not notified by the city when new projects are approved or debated by the council.

According to emails between city staff and USA Water Polo obtained by Voice of OC, there was a preliminary proposal in November 2017 to establish a new home for the Olympic team in the park for just $50 million, half of which would be paid for by USA Water Polo. The deal got as far as a preliminary draft, but was never shown to the public.

The exact details of how the new home for the water polo team went from $50 million to over five times that in less than two years are still unknown.

Instead of just an aquatics center, the new plan calls for “a state-of-the-art Olympic-class water polo and indoor volleyball/basketball facilities, and a supporting parking structure,” almost all of which will be paid for with special taxes from Great Park residents.

USA Water Polo’s investment also dropped, going from $25 million to a pledge of $10 million for the new center.

According to those emails, which span the last two years, there was no mention of involvement with the aquatics center from FivePoint until Sept. 2018.

The idea of where an aquatics center originated is also unknown. Chris Ramsey, CEO of USA Water Polo, says that the team has been talking with the city since 2007, while Mayor Christina Shea said that talks began sometime in the last two to three years.

The homeowners paying for the new aquatics center also already have access to four other private pools throughout the Great Park Neighborhoods.

Councilwoman Farrah Khan, chair of the Great Park Board, said she had had no idea when the talks started on the project. While the deal’s existence was shared as early as Jan. 2019, it was not discussed at the Board’s meetings the entire year leading up to the Oct. 22 vote.

FivePoint was asked to return with a design plan and refined cost projections by the end of March at the meeting where the project was approved to move forward, but the exact date has not been scheduled yet.

Voice of OC
Noah Biesiada nbiesiada@voiceofoc.org  or on Twitter @NBiesiada.
March 10, 2020

[Lake County] Clearlake demands over 1,000 more properties be added to county tax auctions

Blog note: This article refers to a Lake County grand jury report

CLEARLAKE — The City of Clearlake has threatened legal action against the County of Lake if the county does not meet the city’s demand that it hold more than 1,000 tax-defaulted properties up for auction by November.

In a February 28 letter addressed to the Lake County Board of Supervisors and Treasurer-Tax Collector Barbara Ringen, Clearlake City Attorney Ryan Jones demands on behalf of the city that 1,121 properties in Clearlake which have been defaulted for nine or more years—and are thus statutorily required to have been put up for tax auction at least once by Ringen’s office, according to the city—be brought to auction by Oct. 31 this year.

“Bringing these properties to auction is not a matter of discretion,” Jones claims, “it is a statutorily mandated obligation.”

If the county does not hold the properties up for auction to meet Clearlake’s demand, Jones writes that the city “fully intends to take such legal action in order to compel the Tax Collector to exercise her mandatory statutory duties in this regard,” potentially including seeking a writ of mandate (a court order that the county follow the law by correcting its actions with regard to holding tax-defaulted properties up for auction).

Asked for comment, Ringen deferred to the county’s legal counsel, citing “ongoing or potential litigation.”

Last week, Ringen and the county board publicized plans to hold 217 properties around Lake County, 118 of which are located in Clearlake, up for tax auction beginning in late May. The 1,121 properties identified by the city are “in addition to” those parcels, the letter states.

In November, Clearlake sent letters to state agencies, the Lake County Civil Grand Jury and the county board of supervisors that requested investigations and corrective actions to reduce the amount of tax-delinquent properties around Lake County. Those letters noted that more than 12,000 properties around the county are in some level of tax default at that time, and that over 25 percent of Clearlake’s properties were delinquent—the highest rate of default in the county.

City leaders have attributed Clearlake’s problems with blight and code violations to the tax delinquency. The city’s November letters stated that delinquency “creates properties that are an attractive nuisance draining City resources” and creating “a threat to public health, safety, and welfare.”

The February 28 letter notes that the county did not respond to the city’s first letter. Clearlake City Manager Alan Flora on Thursday clarified that while some discussions have taken place between the two governments, no written response to the city’s concerns has been given.

On Thursday, Clearlake Mayor Russ Cremer said he felt that the county’s plans to hold 217 properties up for auction in May is not enough. “They need multiple auctions,” he said.

“I thought (the board’s) response was tepid at best,” Cremer said, referring to the meeting last week in which the county outlined its May tax auction plan.

District 2 Supervisor Bruno Sabatier, who along with board chair Moke Simon sits on an ad hoc committee dedicated to discussing issues at the County Treasurer-Tax Collector’s office, told this newspaper on Thursday that in large part, he doesn’t take issue with the city’s demands.

 “Their demands match my goals,” Sabatier said. “We want to make sure that we’re within the state statutes.”

Asked whether he believed it possible to hold the 1,121 additional Clearlake parcels up for auction before November, as the city has demanded, Sabatier said, “Realistically, I don’t think we can do that.”

“I don’t see us being able to meet what they’re asking for right away, but we (the county government) are going to work on a response as a group,” Sabatier said.

Sabatier in last week’s board meeting asked that more personnel be added to Ringen’s office in order to increase that department’s capacity to put properties on the auction block. He said Thursday that it is his goal to see three more individuals hired to do that work.

“The demand is understood that we need to be doing a whole lot more than what we are doing right now,” Sabatier added.

Aidan Freeman afreeman@record-bee.comRecord-BeeMarch 6, 2020 

[Orange County] Laguna council to consider ordinance to streamline permitting process for electric vehicle charging stations

Blog note: This article refers to a Orange County grand jury report.

The Laguna Beach City Council will consider an ordinance Tuesday that would streamline the permitting process for installation of electric vehicle charging stations, bringing the city into compliance with state law.

Assembly Bill 1236 was signed into law in October 2015 by then-Gov. Jerry Brown with the aim to facilitate development of high-speed charging stations as part of the state’s efforts to encourage the use of zero-emissions vehicles.

It required that jurisdictions that issue electric vehicle charging permits adopt an ordinance by September 2017 to expedite the process.

An Orange County grand jury report released this month said Laguna Beach was not in compliance and called on it and seven other area cities to update their municipal codes to create a streamlined process for residences and businesses and dedicate a portion of their websites to

The Laguna Beach ordinance up for consideration Tuesday night would meet those requirements, city staff said.

The city currently accepts applications at the Community Development Department counter. They are reviewed within 10 business days. Inspections are performed within 24 hours of the request, city staff said.

The ordinance would include establishing a checklist for expedited plan review; offering plan review and permit issuance within three business days if an application meets the checklist standards and general plan requirements; posting forms and requirements online, including the checklist; and training inspectors and permitting staff for inspections and review of electric vehicle charging stations.

Also on Tuesday, the City Council will, in light of the coronavirus outbreak, review its upcoming agenda items and those of other city panels scheduled through April for the possibility of postponing items that could draw large crowds.

The council meeting begins at 5 p.m. at City Hall, 505 Forest Ave.

Daily Pilot

By Lilly Nguyen

March 14, 2020

[Humboldt County] Opinion: Your Civil Grand Jury in Action: Elections are well and good, but grand jury needs you

I believe people are basically good and they engage with the world via good intentions. Sometimes, however, people find themselves working within systems that make good intentions untenable.

This, I believe, is the situation in which the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors find themselves. They are basically good people, with good intentions, working in an untenable situation.

While the election next week gives many of us significant options— and let me be very clear about this, everyone should vote— continuing to place our hopes on elections, hoping that if our candidate gets in, that alone will solve the many very complicated problems facing us, is naïve.

Does it really matter who gets elected if the system is broken? As long as we think we are going to solve the problems through elections, nothing will change. What, if anything, can the citizens of Humboldt County do to fix an essentially broken system besides voting?

Volunteer to serve on the Humboldt County Civil Grand Jury!

There is a dedicated group of county citizens, a group that has devoted a year of their lives to help make our lives better: the 2019-2020 Humboldt County Civil Grand Jury. Their year-long term will soon come to an end and we need county residents to step up and consider serving on next year’s grand jury.

Make no mistake, this is an immense commitment, with meetings twice a week, countless interviews, researching various aspects of county government and writing detailed reports that make viable suggestions on how to fix what does not work and highlights what does work, all with 18 other people, and for one entire year.

Who would agree to such an undertaking?

Humboldt County citizens who want to make a difference, citizens who take their civic responsibilities seriously, that’s who. They are people who understand that voting matters, but to rely solely on your vote to fix what needs fixing is naïve.

On the county website it states: “Civil Grand Jury service calls for diligence, impartiality, courage and responsibility.”

If you are one of those people, go to humboldtgov.org/518/Civil-Grand-Jury-Forms and fill out an application. Better yet, go by the courthouse Grand Jury Office and pick one up. While you are there, if you run into one of the current civil grand jury members, thank them for their service. They are engaged in the serious work of making life in Humboldt County better for all of us!

John Heckel authored this monthly column on behalf of the Humboldt County Grand Jurors’ Association. For information on the Association, email hcccgja@gmail.com.

February 29, 2020

Eureka Times-Standard

By John Heckel

[San Mateo County] Cost of pensions climb even as Redwood City boosts payments

City manager says it’s a growing gap, ‘we need to fix’

Blog note: this article references a grand jury report.

Extra payments toward pension costs haven’t cut Redwood City pension liability — which has increased because of actions by the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, the city manager says.

Changes by the state to pension forecasts based on mortality, retirement rates and inflation — as well as more conservative investments by the state — led to the municipality’s $242 million pension liability, said City Manager Melissa Stevenson Diaz.

Diaz, who spoke during a mid-year budget report Monday to the City Council, said that pensions and health care costs for retired employees total more than $300 million — a gap she said “We need to fix.”

Amy Morgan, spokeswoman for the public employees retirement system, said CalPERS recognizes the impact that increased pension costs have on employer partners.

Most agencies are expected to see employer contribution increases for a few years and then see a slow and steady decline until around 2024, Morgan said.

Jack Dean, editor of the website PensionTsunami that tracks California’s public employee pension crisis, said the increased liability for Redwood City even as the municipality makes extra payments toward pension costs is not unique in the state.

“It’s happening everywhere,” Dean said. “It’s widespread.”

A day of reckoning will arrive for California and its pension costs, he said.

“It may not be in my lifetime,” added Dean, 72.

Cities and school districts in the state put tax and bond measures before voters that Dean said are pension taxes to cover such costs.

Joe Nation, a professor of public policy at Stanford and project director for Pension Tracker, said people assume local government pensions are guaranteed.

If I were a public employee working for a city or county in California and banking on retirement checks at age 55 or 60, Nation recounted, “I’d be a little bit nervous.”

Municipal and county government can reduce pension, he said.

Members of the Redwood City Council at their meeting Monday supported city staff recommendations that include paying $3 million to reduce pension liability, $1.5 million to support residents’ transition from homelessness or vehicle dwelling into permanent housing and spending $1 million toward climate adaptation initiatives.

A June 22 hearing is scheduled for the city budget.

The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury, in a 2018-19 report, commended Redwood City and seven other municipalities for additional pension contributions to CalPERS beyond yearly requirements.

February 29, 2020

The Daily Journal

By Ryan McCarthy

[Orange County] We’re about to get really old, really fast. Is Orange County, and the state, ready?

The senior population will double by 2030. Bureaucrats are planning for it, but big questions remain.

Blog note: toward the end, this opinion piece references a 2016 grand jury report.

Over the next 10 years, the number of California residents ages 65 and older is expected to nearly double, reaching 8.6 million.

And one of the places that population bulge will be most acutely felt is Orange County, where seniors represent the one age group projected to expand over the next couple of decades. All other age groups will decline.

Today, people age 65 and older make up 15 percent of Orange County’s nearly 3.2 million residents, according to 2018 statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau. By 2040, that cohort is expected to account for 1 in 4 people living in Orange County. By 2050, that age ratio will be true for all of California.

For government leaders and others, around the state and in Orange County, the projected trends raise a worrisome question: Are we ready?

It’s been asked before. In fact, much of the planning for the coming aging boom involves assessments and projections that have been produced on a regular basis since the enactment of the federal Older Americans Act in 1965, and, later, the Older Californians Act of 1980. Both laws created official guidelines to help determine how federal and state dollars should be spent on issues related to aging.

But other initiatives are more recent and urgent. These are driven by both the ballooning census figures and by the personal experiences of a growing world of elder caretakers, including family members and service providers.

Still, much of the current prep work for our grayer future isn’t being tracked by the average resident. And, in the eyes of some, the planning might not be getting enough input from the people most directly affected — senior citizens.

In Orange County, some who work with seniors are calling for a concerted, collaborative approach that would involve both public and private dollars. That’s how the Be Well Orange County initiative has launched construction of a $40 million regional campus in Orange, which is set to open in early 2021. That public-private partnership promises care to anyone dealing with mental health or substance use issues, regardless of the patient’s ability to pay, and coordination of services.

“There’s a need to develop a comprehensive plan on aging for the county,” said Lisa Wright Jenkins, president and chief executive officer of the Council on Aging – Southern California. “As a community, we aren’t acting quickly enough to make that happen.

“The county would benefit by having an initiative for older adults similar to the Be Well initiative.”

Gray future

Those who worry about both the politics and practicalities of providing meaningful and accessible services to older people — especially the money and labor to make that happen — are optimistic about some of the efforts now underway. But they also worry about wasted effort.

The state’s ambitious Master Plan for Aging is the result of an executive order signed in June by Gov. Gavin Newsom. In fulfilling a campaign promise, Newsom was partly driven by watching his father, former state appellate judge William Newsom, battle dementia and other health issues before he died in 2018, at age 84.

People who track public spending on older people applaud the idea.

“Now is the time to do this,” said Adam Willoughby, a spokesman for the California Dept. of Aging. “In his State of the State address last year, Gov. Newsom talked about how he experienced challenges navigating the system when his father was aging.”

Newsom is looking to create a blueprint for what he envisions as an “age-friendly” California. The master plan is due to him by October. (Weekly webinars on the plan, which include public engagement, can be accessed through the website Together We EngAGE.)

At least one expert offered a positive assessment of the work being done so far, tempered with a hint of caution.

“The state is really engaging in a purposeful and well-rounded initiative that’s bringing together stakeholders from business, health care, academics and service providers,” said Debra Rose, director of Cal State Fullerton’s Center for Successful Aging and co-chair of the Orange County Healthy Aging Initiative team that in 2016 put together a county-focused older adult profile.

“I hope this is not just another dotting of the I’s or crossing of the T’s.”

Rose sees Orange County’s healthy aging initiative, and the Strategic Plan for Aging produced last year by the same group of local leaders, as a forerunner to the state’s master plan.

The hard part, she added, will be implementation.

“We need the financial support to carry out those goals.”

Opportune moment

The bulk of the money now used to provide services to seniors flows from the Older Americans Act and the Older Californians Act. Funding is tied to reports that, by law, must be produced every four years and submitted to the California Dept. of Aging for monitoring and compliance.

Officials determine fiscal allocations for each of 33 designated Area Agencies on Aging established in California — such as the Office on Aging in Orange County — using a formula based on the number of older adults in an area and how many of them live below the poverty line. Other local funding for services comes from tobacco settlement revenue, the county’s general fund, and Measure M transportation tax dollars.

Demographic projections from a year ago by the California Dept. of Aging estimated Orange County’s population of people 60 and older, the group covered by the Older Americans Act, at 674,732 — the fourth highest among Area Agency programs. (A draft of Orange County’s four-year plan is using a lower figure, 576,841, based on a 2019 update of the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey.)

The increase in older adults already is posing challenges for health care providers, said Jeremy Zoch, chief executive officer for St. Joseph Hospital in Orange. At St. Joseph, he said, doctors and other care providers are seeing many more patients in their 80s and older in the emergency room.

Often, in addition to whatever emergency medical problem they’re experiencing, older patients arrive in the ER with complex, chronic medical issues. A growing number of those patients don’t speak English as their first language, meaning interpreters — and cultural awareness — is needed to dispense medical advice, Zoch said. And once those older patients are discharged, he added, it is critical that they can connect to social services and nursing programs to continue their care.

“It’s really about getting out into the community, to help seniors where they are at.”

Zoch said his hospital helps provide a social worker to maintain contact with discharged seniors who have no family or are isolated, and need follow-up on aftercare.

But Zoch also noted that all hospitals need to beef up the resources they’ll need “to treat the illnesses that seniors are more likely to have,” like Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and other neurological disorders.

“There’s an opportunity for the state to help with that, and the county.”

The so-called “Four-Year Area Plan” that agencies like the county’s Office on Aging must submit to the state set out local priorities, goals and objectives for services to be provided. In Orange County, those include nutrition, transportation, legal aid, family caregiver support, a long-term care ombudsman, and health insurance counseling.

The Office on Aging’s annual budget is a little more than $16 million and has only slightly deviated from that amount over the past 10 years, said Ericka Danczak, director of the county’s Office on Aging and Veterans Programs.

Soon, more will be needed.

“At the state level, they really are trying to take a look at what the priorities are, what the gaps are, and how funding needs to be adjusted to be commensurate with the aging population,” said Danczak, who became the Office on Aging director three months ago.

It helps that California still has a revenue surplus, estimated at close to $6 billion, and lawmakers currently focused on the needs of older adults.

“There’s a will on behalf of the administration to do something about this now,” said Willoughby at the state Dept. of Aging. “There also seems to be a lot of willingness and leadership in the legislature to do something about this now.”

Flat funding

On the federal level, the money situation is mixed.

Federal dollars earmarked for aging have been stagnant for years, reduced during the Great Recession. But there is legislation for a boost.

In October, the House of Representatives passed a bipartisan bill — the Dignity in Aging Act of 2019 — to reauthorize the Older Americans Act with increased funding recommendations (7% in the current fiscal year and 6% in each of the next four years). A Senate version waits approval, with a final bill expected soon.

It’s been a smooth bipartisan process so far. Although advocates had hoped for higher funding recommendations, they are pleased by the legislative support and anticipate President Trump’s signature.

“He is expected to sign it and, boy, we hope he will,” said Amy Gotwals, chief of public policy and external affairs for the National Association of Area Agencies in Washington, D.C.

Meanwhile, the 2020-2024 Orange County area plan is due to the state by May 1.

Danczak described the four-year area plan as more of a retrospective or accountability report. The county has already received the money it will use on aging, and now must tell the state what those services will look like and how they are being delivered.

“There are other factors that contribute to the amount of money that Orange County gets,” she added. “It’s not necessarily directed by just the area plan.”

And, historically, Danczak said, the four-year plan “has never been used as an advocacy document to bring about change or policy.”

But the plan sets spending priorities and establishes service goals and objectives for the contract programs. And it must include a needs assessment, which is where public input can play a role.

The Office on Aging recently held focus groups and sought input at a public hearing — and conducted its first-ever public survey — as a way to identify key needs for seniors. But only about 30 people attended the public hearing, held on Valentine’s Day, and almost all were service providers. And the 10 focus groups attracted a total of 75 participants. The survey garnered 2,188 responses, but some were invalid.

Overall, enhancing quality of life, safety, and security was a recurring theme, the county report says. Based on answers from 1,639 of the respondents, 82% listed “safety at home” and “help with personal affairs, such as finances,” as most important. The survey also found that “52% of participants said they are most concerned about falling and/or bodily injuries.”

While the Office on Aging serves as the lead advocate for older adults in Orange County, almost all of the services it oversees are provided under contracts with nonprofit organizations. The office says that’s the preference of county supervisors and of local seniors.

A 2016 report from the Orange County Grand Jury pointed to changes that might be needed to handle the coming aging boom.

The report, “Gray Matters,” described the Office on Aging’s work as “effective.” But it also said county management and the supervisors needed to make the Office on Aging a priority “to ensure that future services keep pace with growing demand.” Among the Grand Jury recommendations: kick in about $1.3 million in county general funds or “any other reliable, permanent,” source of funding — an amount that would be about $2.20 per senior resident.

At the time, the county’s general fund contribution to the Office on Aging was $778,438. Today, it is about $1.2 million, money that is earmarked annually and, according to officials, is enough to meet a required match for the state and federal funding. The office currently has 13 staff, one less than they had prior to cuts that came in 2007, the first year of the recession. But now there is additional administrative support shared with two other community resource programs that didn’t exist in 2016.

Still, aging experts fear already stretched resources could fall short as the county’s senior population grows. And Rose, the Cal State Fullerton professor, suggested the coming aging boom will be a stiff, social challenge.

“There is so much that we need to do in the state of California to make life better for older adults.”

February 28, 2020

The Orange County Register

By Theresa Walker

[Humboldt County] Letter to the editor: ‘Very few nonprofits’ fall under grand jury’s eye

I would like to clarify a statement made by Sonia Waraich in her article “PG&E is blamed for delay in response” (Times Standard, Feb. 26, Page A1). Ms. Waraich states, “Once a year, a group of citizens are impaneled … to investigate local public agencies and nonprofits … .” The grand jury’s training manual specifically states: “There is only one nongovernmental entity the grand jury can investigate: a nonprofit corporation that was established by or is operated on behalf of a local public entity (PC§933.6). There are very few nonprofit corporations that meet this definition.”

One of the goals of the Humboldt County Chapter of the California Grand Jurors’ Association (HCC-CGJA) is to educate the citizenry of Humboldt County on the workings of its Civil Grand Jury. We try very hard to make sure all media releases and articles are correct and true in their content. Transparency fuels the truth.

February 28, 2020

Eureka Times-Standard

Letter from Timothy P. Hafner, president, HCC-CGJA

[Solano County] Sheriff’s Office optimistic about Rourk Center’s growth despite challenges in Grand Jury report

A recent report by the Solano County Grand Jury opined that the Rourk Vocational Training Center, offered by the Solano County Sheriff’s Office, was “underutilized” given the amount of classroom space it offers.

Undersheriff Brad DeWall acknowledged that there have been challenges along the way but said the facility is on the path to growth.

“We’ve been faced with some challenges in implementing some of these classes and students, but we’re gonna get there and we’ll start creating more relationships and get it more operational (with) more students,” he said.

The Rourk Vocational Training Center opened last year adjacent to the Stanton Correctional Facility in Fairfield to provide vocational skills to inmates who volunteer for the program. The center was funded with $23.04 million from Senate Bill 1022’s Adult Local Criminal Justice Facilities Construction Financing Program, $2.66 million from county funds and a $1 million in-kind contribution.

With the goal of reducing recidivism, the center offers classes in operating forklifts, welding and employment soft skills. The center has 9,940 square feet of classroom space, including seven classrooms and training bays intended to house pre-apprenticeship programs like welding, carpentry, automotive maintenance and more.

The Grand Jury had toured the facility on Sept. 17. Based on the visit, the Grand Jury authored a four-page report that was released on Feb. 14 which wrote that the center was “new, well-designed and clean, with many resources available,” but added, “It is unfortunate that classrooms are empty and learning/training spaces are not utilized.”

The Grand Jury wrote that the center was designed to provide training for more than 100 inmates, but at the time of the tour, there were four being trained as forklift operators. In the previous month, the center had graduated its first group of seven students from the forklift program.

The report issued three recommendations: for the Sheriff’s Office to “fast track the development of plants to utilize the facility to its full potential,” use data employment trends for the future to plan and implement offerings and seek additional partners and entities to utilize the center.

DeWall said he understood the Grand Jury’s concerns.

“We understand they would like to see it more occupied,” he said. “So do we. We’re all working toward the same thing. It just kind of emphasizes the fact that we need to work hard to get more students in the center and create more relationships to get that done.”

Capt. Bill Hornbrook, division commander of the Custody Division, said Rourk was one of several programs available for inmates, including Health Right 360 for substance use disorder treatment, a chaplaincy services program, a library for self-education, the Five Keys Charter School program which has given out 70 high school diplomas since 2016, the PEAK Parenting Program, Women’s Re-entry Achievement Program and Veteran’s Justice Outreach Program.

Excluding Rourk, DeWall said there were 1,940 inmates who went through some type of program offered by the jail system in 2019. Last year, 13, 270 inmates were booked and had an average length of stay of 20.2 days. The average daily population for 2019 was 733 inmates, but Hornbrook said not everybody stayed.

“The bulk of those people either bail out in the first couple hours, or they get cited out for their misdemeanor,” he said. “If you have 13, 270 people that get booked, if you divide that by the days that the inmates stayed, the average length of stay is only 20 days.”

Hornbrook said the sentenced population, whose average length of stay was 55 days, was focused on programming. However, he said they represented only 20 percent of the daily population.

“The concentration of programs ends up being a small percentage of actual inmates that are coming through the jail that see all this stuff,” he said.

Rourk held its first class in March 2019 with 11 women enrolled in the Health Right 360 class. From there, DeWall said began offering the forklift class for men and women, the welding class and an employment soft skills class to provide further skills for students who went through one of the vocational classes.

“The men who went through the welding class and graduated went through a second class (for) employment soft skills, so they know what to expect and how to prepare themselves for the workplace,” DeWall said.

DeWall said there were 40 students who went through Rourk last year. One of the challenges he noted was bringing in faculty to teach these courses. The department has an open contract with Solano Community College where the department has to agree on a training it can host within a certain timeframe.

“The average stay is 55 days, so we’ve gotta find courses that will fit within the parameters of that or at least be able to offer a transition plan where they could finish it,” he said.

Hornbrook said one student had started taking welding, but his time in custody ended before he could finish the class. The student was able to take the class at Solano taught by the same instructor and finish the course.

“That’s exactly what we want,” Hornbrook said.

DeWall said the center is about to host its second welding class, an advanced welding class and offer automotive technology in the fall. Other planned courses include scissor lift operation, a safety harness course, truck driving and a potential cosmetology class. The center also has a contract through the Workforce Development Board of Solano County to offer labor apprenticeship programs.

“There’s a lot of challenges with not only developing and establishing the course work and the instructors but with our current population,” DeWall said. “From the inception of the whole Vocational Training Center, the laws have changed that have created some of these challenges that we’re working through, with AB 109, Prop. 47 — they’ve created some of the challenges that we face to get try to get our inmate population here and in training.”

Hornbrook also said inmates from other programs will eventually be moved over to Rourk, but it will depend on the security and mental health levels of the inmates.

Nonetheless, the department remains optimistic about the growth of the center.

“Now that things have gotten going in 2019, this is the year we build on all that we started,” Hornbrook said. “We tested a lot of things out in 2019: how we get inmates in there, the equipment that’s there…a lot of that was happening in 2019, and I think 2020 is the time where we build and make it bigger and get some of these other programs over there and into the classrooms.”

DeWall agreed, noting that there were challenges with construction and providing equipment in the planning phases.

“In 2020, the focus is we know some of the challenges,” he said. “We just gotta get these classes (and) relationships on line with contracts and courses and get them on the calendar, and then we have to get the relationships to get the students in play.”

“I think we’re moving in the right direction,” he added.

February 27, 2020

Vacaville Reporter

By Nick Sestanovich