HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08021994 - I0.1 TO: �, BO,,XR.D OF SUPERVISORS I .0 5_.........
�.... , o� Contra t
FROM: 1 INSPERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
Costa t
County
�.,.�.
DATE; July 25. 1994
���a�
T
t
SUBJECT: PROPOSED RESPONSES TO THE REPORTS OF THE 1993-1994 GRAND JURY:
NUMBERS 9406, 9407, 9410, 9411, 9412 , 9413 AND 9414
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)8 BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1 . Adopt this report of our Committee as the Board of
Supervisors ' responses to the Reports of the 1993-1994 Grand
Jury on the Rodeo Sanitary District; Detention Facility
Inspections; the County Housing Authority; the Merit System;
the County Counsel; Grand Jury facilities, operations and
responses to Grand Jury reports; and the Keller Canyon
Landfill .
2 . Remove this item as � a referral to our Committee.
BACKGROUND:
The 1993-94 Grand Jury filed the above reports which were
subsequently referred to the Internal Operations Committee. On
July 25, 1994 our Committee met to discuss the recommendations and
review proposed responses . At the conclusion of those discussions,
we prepared this report utilizing a format suggested by a former
Grand Jury, which clearly specifies :
A. Whether the recommendation is accepted or adopted;
B. If the recommendation is accepted, a statement as to who will
be responsible for implementation of a definite target date;
C. A delineation of constraints if a recommendation is accepted
but cannot be - implemented within the calendar year; and
D. The reason for not adopting a recommendation.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY A%R ,,
R �MENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHJEFF O�c�Q( MARK DeSAULNIER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON August 2, 1994 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED —x OTHER
Supervisor Jeff Smith presented the above report to the Board of Supervisors
and advised that he would be abstaining on report #9406 , The Merit System.
The vote on the other responses contained in the report was unanimous .
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
See above I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
ATTESTED August 2 , 1994
Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
cc: See Page 2 SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
0
BY DEPUTY
-2-
Orig. Dept. : County Administrator
cc: Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
Grand Jury Foreman
County Auditor-Controller
County Counsel
Personnel Director
Merit Board Secretary
Health Services Director
Executive Director, Housing Authority
GMEDA Director
Rodeo
Sanitary District
LI
I I I 1
1
Rodeo Sanitary District and all Special Districts
Must Conform to Standards of Accountability and Good Government
Report #9411
The 1993-94 Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommends that:
[The Rodeo Sanitary District is governed by an independently
elected board of directors. This response pertains only to the
recommendation directed to the Board of Supervisors . ]
RECOMMENDATION B.
The Board of Supervisors take the leadership role in resolving
these environmental and public health hazards.
RESPONSE:
A. This recommendation is accepted.
B. The Environmental Health Division has incomplete records for
on-site sewage disposal systems in the Rodeo area. It is
probable that at the time of installation, no permits from
that Division were obtained and property owners/contractors
installed private sewage disposal systems without approval or
inspection. The Environmental Health Division will require an
approved repair under permit if a property is not within the
sphere of influence of a public sewering agency. If an
existing on-site sewage disposal system is in close proximity
to a sewering agency and is in need of repair or fails due to
a deteriorated septic tank or leachfield situation, that
Division will not allow a repair, but will require proper
destruction of the existing system under permit and connection
to sewer. Connection to sanitary sewer also applies to any
properties on a septic system with access to public sewer when
building additions are requested. This would include bedroom
additions or a size increase to the house footprint.
A review of Environmental Health files reveals :
1 . The Environmental Health Division received one complaint
in the last three years regarding filing on-site disposal
systems or surfacing sewage along San Pablo Avenue in
Rodeo. This complaint has been investigated and abated.
No evidence of raw sewage nor discharge pipe has been
observed along or in the bay.
2 . The Environmental Health Division does not have complete
records of which residences and/or commercial properties
along San Pablo Avenue have maintained use of on-site
sewage disposal systems . Environmental Health records
document that 650 San Pablo Avenue is served by a sewage
holding tank that was approved for a replacement
residence only. Subsequently, the owner constructed a
combination commercial resident unit without
Environmental Health inspection or approval .
-2-
The Board of Supervisors recommends that all properties within
the sphere of influence of the Rodeo Sanitary District with
substandard or unconventional on-site sewage disposal systems
should annex and connect to a public sewer system.
Environmental Health, in conjunction with the Rodeo Sanitary
District, should evaluate the current status of on-site sewage
disposal systems and the feasibility of connection to public
sewer.
Environmental Health is directed to conduct a pollution study
along San Pablo Avenue to investigate the quantity, locations,
and types of on-site sewage disposal systems which exist and
investigate whether these systems have impacted the bay with
fecal contamination.
A review of a log of on-site sewage disposal activity
(attached) should dispel any allegations of negligence by the
County.
C. The Health Services Director is requested to respond to the
Internal Operations Committee in six months on the status of the
above recommendations .
r •:jr r
v ,
Chronological Log for On-Site Sewage Disposal Activity along
San Pablo Avenue, Rodeo
2715-85 Permit approved by Contra Costa County Building Department for single family
residence and commercial business.
12-21-85 Letter received from Rodeo Sanitary District per Environmental Health's request that no
sewer line exists on bayside of San Pablo Avenue in Rodeo from the creek to 800 San
Pablo Avenue.
2-26-85 Fees paid by A. J. Purvis (property owner of 650 San Pablo Avenue) for site evaluation
at 650 San Pablo Avenue. Site evaluation conducted by Roger Chin of the
Environmental Health Division.
3-1-85 Dan Bergman, Director of Environmental Health, discussed use of existing holding tank
for new construction and was in agreement as long as replacement structure was the same
as the previously existing residence, which was destroyed by fire.
3-7-85 Approval of existing holding tank by Dan Bergman.
4-2-85 Carbon copy of sanitary approval notice for 650 San Pablo Avenue forwarded to West
Contra Costa Sanitary District (Notice initialed by Jim Blake for Dan Bergman).
12-9-85 Request for comments regarding application to establish two residential units and a
business in a commercial district. (File #3051-85). The address is 650 San Pablo
Avenue, Rodeo.
12-11-85 Roger Chin of Environmental Health recommended denial of application #3051-85 to
Community Development due to the following:
1. No provision or means for an approved sewage disposal system to serve the
property.
2. The property owner was using a sewage holding tank two properties away in a
lumber yard.
3. The proposed unit had already been constructed following the decision that no
additional development would be allowed as sewage disposal was inadequate.
Roger Chin also conditioned that property owner must annex and connect to Rodeo
Sanitary District.
12-16-85 Roger Chin advised Byron Turner of Community Development and Bill Martindale of
ongoing situation.
1-6-86 Zoning Administration meeting held. Agenda item #10 (File 3051-85) discussed. The
decision was that the approval request to establish second unit should be subject to
requirements of Building Inspection and Health Departments. Condition of approval was
to "comply with County Health Department per the recommendation dated December 11,
1985, including annexation and connection to the Rodeo Sanitary District."
y, 1 • f
Chronological Log
July 20, 1994
Page 2
1-9-86 Discussion between Jim Blake(EH), Dan Bergman (EH), and Building Department. Jim
Blake told Mr. Purvis, property owner, that Environmental Health would honor a 1985
commitment to approve the existing holding tank to serve a new building with similar:
occupancy that existed in his previous residence. Jim Blake also informed Mr. Purvis
that Environmental Health would not approve any additional development until public
sewer extended.
1=13-86 Letter from Mr. Purvis, property owner of 650 San Pablo Avenue, to the Zoning
Administration to appeal the decision to require public sewer for the property. Mr.
Purvis stated that easements would have to be obtained and the expense to connect would
be great.
4-7-86 Additional information requested from Community Development for property owner's
appeal to the Planning Commission.
4-26-86 Community Development Department approved permit for 3051-85. Condition of
approval included, "comply with the requirements of County Health Department as per
their recommendation dated December 1.1, 1985, including annexation and connection
to the Rodeo Sanitary District".
7-13-93 Sewage complaint regarding sewage flowing onto yard and into the bay from 702 San
Pablo Avenue, Rodeo.
7-15-93 Complaint inspection conducted by Environmental Health. Sewage was surfacing in
backyard. Abatement notice hand delivered to owner.
7-23-93 Follow-up inspection was conducted. Sewer lateral was repaired and area was clean.
No documentation regarding verification of sewage flowing into bay. Complaint abated.
8-18-93 Telephone call received from Tito Albano of Contra Costa County Grand Jury
questioning sewer availability for properties on San Pablo Avenue near the sanitary
district.
8=19-93 Mr. Tito Albano of the Grand Jury came to Environmental Health Division office to
review file of 702 A and B San Pablo Avenue.
9-1-93 Alicia Enriquez of Environmental Health met with Ray Guanill of Rodeo Sanitary
District to review area that is known not to be connected to the sanitary district. No
records of septic tanks in that area could be located in Environmental Health files.
9-17-93 Letter received from manager of Rodeo Sanitary District stating that properties south of
the district offices and west of San Pablo Avenue are not annexed and it is unknown
where the sewage is being disposed.
12-17-93 Letter received from Rodeo Sanitary District forwarding map of the territory they
service.
L
Chronological Log
July 20, 1994
Page 3
2-28-94 Telephone call received from Contra Costa County Grand Jury inquiring about sewage
disposal from strip of buildings along San Pablo Avenue in Rodeo.
3-4-94 Meeting scheduled with George Nakamura, Alicia Enriquez and members of the Grand
Jury to discuss sewage disposal methods in the Rodeo area.
3-4-94 Vernon Hampton of Environmental Health contacted the Silver Dollar Too Restaurant
to inquire about sewage disposal methods. A septic tank exists on.the property and is
pumped every six months. No information is known about a leachfield.
3-7-94 Mr. Carlos Baptista, septic contractor, provided the following information regarding
Silver Dollar Too Restaurant:
1. existing redwood septic tank
2. an unknown amount of leachline exists
3. no grease trap for the restaurant exists as required by the Uniform Plumbing
Code.
3-7-94 Verification that 550 San Pablo Avenue is connected to the sanitary sewer system.
15.rodeo.sew
J
Detention
Facillty .lnspections
DETENTION FACILITIES INSPECTION
REPORT #9412
The 1993-1994 Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommends that the
Board of Supervisors, Superior Court, Sheriff ' s Office, and the
Probation Department jointly accept the responsibility for the
following recommendations :
RECOMMENDATION #1.
Statistics on assaults on staff be maintained for Juvenile Hall as
they are for all other facilities .
RESPONSE:
A. This recommendation is accepted.
B. The superintendents of Juvenile Hall and Byron Boys ' Ranch
have initiated procedures to maintain a running count of
batteries on staff.
RECOMMENDATION #2 .
This Grand Jury reiterates the recommendation of the 1992-93 Grand
Jury (Report No. 9316) to declare the Ranch an off-site facility,
as permitted by Government Code 33000, in order to have repairs
performed by independent contractors .
RESPONSE:
A. This recommendation is not accepted.
B. The Board could choose to make this declaration, but it would
not change the cost for the maintenance of the facility.
County maintenance staff hourly labor rates are competitive
with outside contractors . Because Byron is in a remote area,
it is also remote for contractors who might perform work. The
issue is a lack of sufficient funding to provide all of the
maintenance services that Probation and General Services would
like to provide. County employees, who are represented by
Local #1 can provide whatever level of maintenance is desired
by the County based on the funding that is provided.
Emergency responses for repairs for health and safety reasons,
including plumbing and electrical repairs, will be provided by
any available resources, including County staff or contract
help. This does not require a Board declaration under G.C.
Section 33000 .
l
-2-
RESPONSE:
A. This recommendation is accepted as modified.
In General Services, the Building Maintenance and Operating
Engineers Divisions are the primary responders for maintenance
needs at both Juvenile Hall and Byron Boys ' Ranch. The cost
for such maintenance is included in the General Services _
Department budget and not charged to Probation. Major
repairs, remodeling, or assaults are capital improvement items
and would be funded through the County Administrator's Plant
Acquisition Budget or special monies provided from the State
(Proposition 86) or .grants .
The Operating Engineers Division has one Engineer assigned to
work approximately 25 hours per week to perform heating,
ventilating, and air conditioning maintenance and repair at
Juvenile Hall and approximately four hours per week at Byron
Boys ' Ranch. The amount of time that is provided to both
these facilities has been reduced in the past few years due to
the budget cuts required in the General Services Department' s
General Fund Budget. In addition to the maintenance hours
spent each week at these facilities by an Engineer, some
additional time is spent on a quarterly basis checking all
equipment, including servicing the air filters, greasing and
checking the motors and fan bearings, lubricating all pumps,
checking for proper operation, checking fan belts and
replacing worn ones, cleaning condenser units on both the HVAC
and kitchen refrigeration equipment. The Engineer chemically
treats the cooling towers weekly with biocide water treatment,
lubricates the well pump and sewage ejector air compressor
pump, .checks treatment and levels of chlorine in swimming
pools, checks fan motors and peripheral equipment for HVAC
equipment in all mechanical rooms, checks and runs the
emergency fire pump for proper operation, and performs weekly
checks and test run of emergency generators . Some of the
additional work done by the Engineers include a major overhaul
of the cooling tower at Juvenile Hall, replacement of worn
bearings on fan units in different sections of the Hall, and
a major overhaul in the Sierra Air Handling Equipment, some
boiler equipment, and numerous radiator valves and steam trap
replacements . In addition, the Engineers coordinated the
replacement of the freezer door for the walk-in ice cream box.
At Juvenile Hall, the Engineer handles daily work orders which
could include plugged toilets and sinks, replacing worn key
cylinders in doors, clearing plugged vents in children' s
rooms, minor dishwasher repair, lighting pilot lights on
kitchen equipment, replacing worn blades on can openers, and
other various equipment.
Building Maintenance performs, requested maintenance at both
-3-
Byron Boys Ranch and Juvenile Hall to include a significant
amount of plumbing work in the facilities, particularly the
kitchen at Juvenile Hall, electrical problems, painting,
carpentry, alarm/security systems, and coordination of the
well testing at Byron Boys ' Ranch. Currently, there are no
outstanding work order requests for Byron Boys ' Ranch for
either Operating Engineers or Building Maintenance. Juvenile
Hall has a few work requests that Building Maintenance is
scheduling, and the Operating Engineers have no outstanding
work requests, only current work orders .
No one from the Probation Department has contacted either of
the managers in Building Maintenance or Operating Engineers,
or the Director or Deputy Director of General Services on
maintenance problems or lag time in completing maintenance and
repairs .
For Fiscal Year 1993/94, General Services staff spent $590,382
for maintenance and utilities for Juvenile Hall and Byron. In
addition to the normal maintenance that these two divisions
complete, the Architectural Services Division has been
involved in a major project using Proposition 86 Funding to
effect renovations for both juvenile facilities .
Juvenile Hall is an old building and needs to be replaced or
completely. remodeled,' and there is a committee looking at a
Juvenile Hall replacement. With limited funding for routine
maintenance, the Operating Engineers and Building Maintenance
Divisions have continued to maintain both facilities so that
they meet safety and health code requirements . Staff in both
divisions lament about the lack of funding to do more
extensive work, just as staff in Probation would like to see
more funding available for these facilities .
The Grand Jury recommends that the County "establish and
monitor a schedule that will resolve the repair and
maintenance problems at Byron Boys ' Ranch and Juvenile Hall . "
Since we are unclear as to what repair and maintenance
problems are outstanding, we are not sure what a schedule
would offer. General Services is certainly willing to meet
with staff in Probation to review the work priorities and to
address any maintenance problems that need to be handled
quickly. Currently all emergency work requests are normally
acted on the same day of the problem. Non-emergency work
requests are acted on within a week unless parts are not
available.
. RECOMMENDATION #4 .
The Board of Supervisors take the leadership role in resolving the
deficiencies at these facilities .
_4_
RESPONSE:
A. This recommendation is accepted.
We do not find an intolerable amount of deferred maintenance
or an unacceptable time lag for the maintenance work.
Maintenance of lesser importance to health, safety or security
may be delayed due to budget constraints, but other projects
and work which do relate -to health, safety or security are
not.
t07-11-1994 er:-':20AM J.H. ADMIN. 510 646 4854 P.02
Jerry Buck July 11, 1.994
County probation Officer
Dave Grassi Battery on Staff
superintendent statistics
The follcming figures represent the number of batteries on staff
for the period spanning July 1, 1992 through may 31, 1993. These
figures incliade incidents as defined in your response to the
Grand Jury report last year and do not include incidents such as
spitting an staff, resisting staff while being physically
restrained or attempted batteries.
ixxm_ NUMBER OF Sk-T-T-MOR
July, 1992 2
August, 1992 7*
September, 1992 0
October, 1992 2
November, 1992 6*
December, 1992 2
January, 19.93 4
February, 1993 1
March, 2.993 1
April, 1993 4
May, 1993 2
*P.eflect major incidents.
DG:sa
TOTAL P.02
)"EL No . 427—ro,663 Jun 2—f -94 7 :36 No .001 F . 02)
• f
Probation Departmenta � Probation
S. Ov,--k
# County Pbation Offipgr
Bays ranch Cost:
P.O. Box 398 County
4491 Bixier Road
Byron,California 94514-0398 _
(510)427-8660 "�..
To: ,h, Date:
From: Subject
BOYS RANCH RUNAVAYS/ESUPKI;
YEAR TOTAL ESCAPES FROM INSTITUTION ROME VISIT OTHER
1993 52 36 16 --
1992 57 42 12 3
1991 53 40 12 1
1990 64 46 13 5
1989 94
1988 83
County
Housing Authority
RESPONSE TO
THE 1993-94 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY
REPORT NO. 9413
ON THE
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
I I
A
1
RESPONSE TO FINDINGS
Finding 1. The Board of Supervisors, acting at the Housing
Commission, approves most Housing Authority business' on the basis
of expediency and interdependence; the Housing Authority has no
independent voice.
Response: The Grand Jury Report does not identify any case in
which the Board of Supervisors acted on Housing Authority
business on the basis of expediency. Therefore, this finding
lacks substantiation. The interdependence between the Housing
Authority and the Board of Supervisors promotes coordination in
decision-making.
Finding 2. The Board of Supervisors, acting as the Housing
Commission, channels Housing Authority general funds` to county
departments forservices rendered.
Response: . The Housing Authority uses the services of the County
Counsel's Office for a fee. The use of County Counsel by the
Housing Authority is specifically provided for in the state
Housing Authorities Law. In addition, the County's Personnel
Office conducts the Authority's federally mandated salary
comparability studies to avoid needless duplication of effort.
This arrangement has proven successful and cost effective.
Finding 3 . The Board of Supervisors, acting as the Housing
Commission, does not currently meet each calendar quarter with
the Housing Authority Advisory Board as required by law.
Response: No law requires the Board of Supervisors, acting as the
Housing Commission, to meet with the Advisory Housing Commission on
a quarterly basis . The Board will, however, increase their semi-
annual meetings with the Commission to quarterly meetings . If, for
some reason, the full Board is unable to meet on a scheduled date,
the Internal Operations Committee will meet with the Commission.
Finding 4 . The by-laws of the Housing Advisory Board do not
address an effective procedure for notifying the public of its
regular and special meetings.
Response: Meetings of the Advisory Housing Commission are
governed by the state's open meetings law, the Brown Act, which
is rigorously complied with.
Finding 5. Several members of the Housing Authority';,Advisory
Board have demonstrated a lack of knowledge regarding their,
official duties and responsibilities.
Response: The Grand Jury Report offers no factual basis to
support this finding.
1
Finding 6. Members of the Housing Authority Advisory Board are
often reappointed for many terms, while many other citizens wait
an opportunity to sit on this board.
Response: Members of the Advisory Housing Commission serve four
year terms. Reappointment to the Advisory Commission is not
automatic. As a term expires, applications are solicited from
the Contra Costa citizenry and applicants are interviewed by the
Internal Operations Committee of the Board of Supervisors to
select the most appropriate candidate. Forty percent of the
current members of the Advisory Housing Commission have served
for less than five years. The current appointment system
adequately provides for changes in membership.
Finding 7. The Board of Supervisors, acting as the Housing
Commission, authorized county staff, at a cost of approximately
$10,000, to manage the recruitment of the Housing Authority
Executive Director position.
Response: This finding is correct.
Finding 8. The County Administrator travelled out of state to
meet with twenty-two (22) individuals as part of a background
check on a candidate .for the Executive Director position, who was
not hired.
Response: The County Administrator did travel out of state and
met with many-people to review the backgrounds of executive
director candidates.
Finding 9. The Board of Supervisors, acting as the Housing
Commission, lowered the educational requirement for the Executive
Director position. This action favored the Acting Director.
Response: The County Personnel Director placed a substitution
provision in the educational requirements section of the
Executive Director position description before any applications
for the post were accepted. Substitution clauses, allowing
experience to substitute for formal education, are common
practice and tend to expand opportunities for minority and women
candidates. In this case, candidates from a wide range of
experience and educational backgrounds applied for the position,
giving the Board of Supervisors, acting as the Commission, a full
range of choices.
2
RESPONSE TO CONCLUSIONS
Conclusion 1. .The Board of Supervisors lacks the time and
resources to provide leadership and to properly oversee the
Contra. Costa County Housing Authority.
- Response: Over the past thirteen years the Board of Supervisors,
acting as the Board of Commissioners, has provided substantial
leadership and effective oversight of the Housing Authority as
evidenced by the Housing Authority's designation by the U.S.
Department' of Housing and Urban Development as a "High
Performer. "
Conclusion 2. The Board of Supervisors, acting as the Housing
Commission, disregards the policy that requires quarterly
meetings between the Commissioners and the Housing Authority
Advisory Board.
Response: See response to Finding 3.
Conclusion 3. Many members of the' Housing Authority Board --
even after serving many years -- have difficulty understanding
basic Housing Authority programs and finances, are unable to
focus on problems, and seldom make viable recommendations.
. Response: The members of the Advisory Housing Commission bring
valuable and broad talent and insight to the Commission. All
-are active members ,of the National, Association of Housing and
Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO) and have attended trainings
sponsored by NAHRO, specifically targeted to Commissioners. Two
Advisory Housing Commissioners are. on committees within NAHRO.
In addition to the Advisory Commissioner's NAHRO activities, all
are briefed on the operations of a public housing authority upon
appointment., Housing Authority staff provide budget and program
briefings and the Executive Director takes newly-appointed
Advisory Commissioners on tours of the developments to provide
context for their decision-making.
Conclusion 4. The lack of a term limitation rule makes it
, difficult totappoint new -- and prospectively better -- members
to the Advisory Board, and stifles any, opportunity for broad-
based community representation.
Response: See response to Finding 6 .
Conclusion 5. It was imprudent for the Board of Supervisors,
acting as the Housing Commission, to spend excessive funds and
the County Administrator's time on an executive director
recruitment effort. Clearly the Board of Supervisors was
committed to hiring the Acting Director. An open and more
judicious approach to the appointment would have avoided the
perception of "special treatment" and saved the taxpayers
3
$10,000.
Response: The Grand Jury Report did not provide any finding to
support this conclusion. The recruitment process for the
Executive Director's position was open and impartial. Candidates
were interviewed by three different panels: an independent
reviewing committee, the County Administrator and Chief Assistant
Administrator, and the Board of Supervisors. Expenditures made
in connection with the search were reasonable and appropriate.
RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 1.
"Immediately implement the 1982-83 Grand Jury report
recommending that independence be restored to the Housing
Authority, reaffirming that Housing Authority must be set
free of County politics. "
Response: This recommendation is not accepted. The 1982-83
Grand Jury Report set forth a similar finding. At that time the
Board of Supervisors responded as follows:
In November, 1981 the Board of Supervisors, by resolution,
declared itself to be the Housing Authority Board of
Commissioners. That action followed several reports by
staff and the County Grand Jury which indicated that the
Housing Authority needed new leadership and more effective
management. Having the Board serve in a dual capacity has
proven beneficial inprovidingpolitical leadership,
communication, and access to County government services.
The current arrangement facilitates coordination on housing
and development issues between the Authority and County
departments. We attribute much of this cooperation and
communication to having the same governing Board and the
common direction and administrative standards the County
Administrator can provide all agencies.
The Board of Supervisors affirms its earlier response on this
issue.
Recommendation 2 . Immediately reestablish the Housing Authority
Commission to independent status.
Response: The recommendation that the Housing Authority Advisory
Commission be reestablished to independent status is not
accepted. This recommendation restates the first recommendation.
Please refer to that response.
Recommendation 2a. Institute term limitation policies for
members of the Housing Authority Advisory Board.
4
Response: This recommendation is not accepted. See response to
Finding 6:
Recommendation 2b. Direct the Housing Authority's executive
director to assess the training needs of the members of the
Housing Authority Advisory Board, and to plan and fully implement
a suitable training program.
Response: We accept the Grand Jury's recommendation that it
would be valuable for the Housing Authority to reassess the
training it provides to Advisory Commissioners and will direct
the Executive Director to do so. Effective training is always a
worthwhile endeavor.
Recommendation 2c. Address and reestablish firm personnel
policies.
Response: This recommendation is not accepted. It is not
related to any finding presented by the Grand Jury in its report.
The Housing Authority has written personnel policies in place and
a detailed memorandum of understanding with the union
representing its employees.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
.Comments
It is widely recognized within any government, political,
military; or other institutional environment that the span
of control of any one unit or individual is limited.
Excellent management is necessary to maintain
accountability. One can reason that the span of control of
the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator have
similar limitations and require close scrutiny.
The Housing Authority --- like many other charges of the
Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator -- has
escaped scrutiny. The absence of a reasonable level of
surveillance for ethical conduct, for efficient services,
and� for effective government is a cause for alarm.
Response: , The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
has formally recognized the Housing Authority as a "high
performer" under federal performance standards for housing
authorities. As the attached letter from the chief regulatory
agency overseeing the nation's housing authorities demonstrates ,
the present governing structure delivers accountable, top-notch
management.
5
• ��V f N i D ` ..j;,'.. U.S.Deparlrnen; tlou:s nfl and Urban Dev0l0{xnQn(
San Francisco Regional Office, Region IX
o
o` III II 450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco,California 94102-5448
D[��t JAN 13 1594
Mr. Richard Martinez
Executive Director
Contra Costa County Housing
Authority
Post Office Box 2759
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Mr. Martinez :
The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the results
of the Contra Costa County Housing Authority ' s management
evaluation conducted pursuant to the Public Housing Management
Assessment Program (PHMAP) .
Your total weighted PHMAP score for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 1993 is 95 . 71%. A housing authority which achieves a
. total weighted PHMAP ,score of 90% or above shall be designated as
High Performer. As a result of your total weighted PHMAP score,
the Contra Cost County Housing Authority is hereby designated as
High Performer.
The data in the enclosed Scoring Report show the indicator
name and grade for each indicator and components within
indicators, and the total weighted PHMAP score for fiscal year
ending March 31 , 1993 . Your percentage score was derived by
dividing your actual number of points by the potential maximum
number of points with the ratio multiplied by 100 .
You may appeal your. management assessment rating on the
basis of data errors, or highly unusual circumstances that
occurred after you submitted the certification and request for
modifications and exclusions. You must demonstrate that a
successful appeal will have a significant impact on your score
(e.g. , at least a 5% point increase) . If you submit an appeal,
you will need to produce new documentation not previously
submitted at the time you submitted your certification and
request for modifications and exclusions . The appeal shall be
received by this office no later than 15 days from the date of
this letter. If your appeal is not received by then, it will not
be considered.
2
Your Authority has received presumptive. grades of "A" for
Indicator No. 4 , Energy Consumption, and a presumptive grade of
"A" for Indicator No. 9, Operating Reserves . These presumptive
grades will be adjusted, as appropriate, after your year-end
adjustments are received by this office. You will then be
notified of any grade change for these indicators_.
If you have any questions, please contact your Housing '
Managaement specialist at (415 ) 556-2842 .
Very sincerely s
Ju ian A. ,it gh
Director
Office o� is Housing
Enclosures
� Y
HOUSING Ali NORlTY OF THE COUNTY OF CciNTRA COSTA
T0: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
FROM: Richard J. Martinez, Executive Director
DATE: February 8, 1994
SUBJECT: RESULTS OF MANAGEMENT EVALUATION
UNDER THE PUBLIC HOUSING MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
RECEIVE the total weighted Public Housing Management Assessment Program (PHMAP)
score of 95.71% for the Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa under the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development management evaluation for fiscal
year ending March 31, 1993.
II. FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
III. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND:
The Public Housing Management Assessment Program (PHMAP) has been established
in accordance with Section 502 of the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990, as
amended, and allows HUD to ensure that public housing functions as a well-managed
enterprise on a uniform, nationwide basis to the benefit of its residents and the
public that supports it.
On September 22, 1993 the Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa
submitted its Public Housing Management Assessment Program certification and related
documentation to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. We have now
received notification, dated January 13, 1994, from Julian A. Fitzhugh, Director,
Office of Public Housing, San Francisco Regional Office, that the total weighted
PHMAP score for the Housing Authority is 95.71% and that. the Housing Authority is
designated as a High Performer.
IV. CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
None.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YE$ SIGNATURE /tC \ J y
RECOMMENDATION OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S): t%
ACTION OF BOARD ON el r�i . _1_ y-�Qg`S APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED �_ OTHER
VOTE OF COMMISSIONERS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT _. 1 TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
ATTESTED,_
�a..WL...�, W.
PHIL BATCRELOA, CLERK OF
THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
n AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
DEPUTY
Merit
System
MERIT SYSTEM
Report #9406
[NOTE: Because of potential conflicts due to his employment with the
County, Supervisor Jeff Smith recused himself and did not participate during
the Internal Operations Committee discussions and recommendations of
this report]
Grand Jury Finding 1: In 1980, the voters of Contra Costa County approved a Merit
System Reform Ordinance to modernize the existing thirty-six year old Civil Service
System. The ballot argument in favor of Merit System was to: "...fix public accountability
for personnel matters clearly on the Board..."; "...provide county department heads with
more management flexibility while increasing their accountability to the board...";
"...insure that merit principles form the foundation for every action and regulations...".
Response: Finding#1 accurately quotes the ballot argument for the Merit System
Ordinance.
Grand Jury Finding 2: In order for a Merit System employee to advance to the next
higher step in the salary range, Contra Costa County Salary Regulations §3.2 and
Personnel Management Regulations (hereinafter "PMR") §1501 and applicable
Memoranda of Understanding (hereinafter "MOU") only require the appointing Authority,
e.g., the department head, to certify that an employee's performance is satisfactory. The
certification is accomplished by checking a box on the Salary Review Report that is sent
to the Personnel Department for payroll processing. Since the Personnel Director may
reject a proposed salary increase without the above referenced box checked, there
appears to be general compliance with this requirement.
Response: The process described in Finding #2 pertains to the procedure and
form (Salary Review Report) required to notify the Personnel Department that an
employee has been recommended for a merit salary increase based on
satisfactory performance so that it can be reflected in Personnel Department
records and notification can be made to the Payroll Section of the Auditor
Controller's Office. However, under Salary Regulation 3.2 it is the departments'
responsibility to insure that an employee's performance is satisfactory before
submitting the above report notifying the Personnel Department of its decision to
grant the merit step increase. Various assessment vehicles are used by County
departments, including a daily review of work by supervisory staff. If the
performance is not satisfactory, the merit step salary increase may be withheld'or
delayed by the department.
Grand Jury Finding 3: Once an employee has reached the top step of his/her position's
salary range, which is historically obtained within three and a half years, there is no
longer any requirement for the department to certify the employee's performance as
satisfactory. Subsequent salary increases, such as Cost of Living Adjustments,
(hereinafter "COLA") are given on an "across-the-board" basis to all eligible employees.
Response: Although there is no requirement in the Salary Regulations for written
certification that employee performance is satisfactory once employees are at the
top step of their salary range, there are provisions within the Personnel
Management Regulations that are available and are used to address unsatisfactory
performance. Specifically, Part II, Section 1103. Tenure and Dismissal.
Suspension and Reduction states, "The tenure of every officer or employee holding
permanent status in a position in the merit system shall be during good behavior,
and the rendering of efficient service, but any such officer or employee may be
dismissed, suspended or reduced in rank or compensation for cause". Two
examples of cause provided in Section 1104 of the PMR's, incompetence or
inefficiency and excessive or unexcused absenteeism and/or tardiness, have a
direct impact on work performance.
Cost-of-Living Adjustments modify the salary schedule to reflect the results of
negotiations with employee organizations and are based upon the County's fiscal
situation and the cost of living in the Bay Area. They are not provided as a
mechanism for rewarding employee performance, but rather to insure that salaries
for job classes used in the County are competitive with those of other employers
in the area. If the County were to pay less than other employers that have jobs
in the same occupational areas, recruitment for many positions would be difficult
and only the less qualified individuals would elect to work for the County.
Grand Jury Finding 4: County-wide regulations and applicable MOU's do not require
supervisors of Merit System employees to: establish, with the employee, measurable and
written objectives; evaluate an employee's performance vs. objectives; document an
evaluation of the employee's performance; obtain approval/concurrence of the proposed
evaluation from their managers; review the performance evaluation with the employee;
use the written performance evaluation as the basis for salary increases.
Response: Contra Costa County has about 1150 job classes, ranging from road
maintenance workers to physicians. Probably no other employer in the County has
such diversity within its workforce. Because of this diversity, it would be difficult
to institute a single evaluation process that would be appropriate to all job classes.
Currently, the employee evaluation process varies by department. Changes would
require the input of top management, mid-management and the employee
organizations and would be subject to the meet and confer process.
Grand Jury Finding 5: Since there is no county-wide requirement for the above, there is
a wide variance among the departments in priority and accountability for these personnel
management responsibilities. Some departments do an outstanding job, requiring that
all employees receive written performance evaluations every year, regardless of where
an individual may be,in the salary range. They do not consider salary "step" increases
or COLA'S as "automatic" and attempt to link compensation with performance.
.Employees in other departments receive salary "step" increases without receiving a
2
written evaluation from their supervisors. Personnel in many organizations, once they
reach the top of their position rate, may not receive a written performance evaluation for
several years. Salary "step" increases, as well as COLA's, are often viewed by both
management and non-management employees as routine and expected.
Response: The Salary Regulations permit flexibility in the process used to
assess employee performance. This flexibility is dictated by the diversity of the
County's operations and functions, which range from road maintenance to
operation of an acute care hospital. Each department needs to have the ability to
operate a performance review process that is structured for its work environment.
The Grand Jury's statement that some departments do not consider COLA's as
"automatic" is a misunderstanding. COLA's are not tied to employee performance.
They are a result of negotiations with employee organizations and are based on
increases in the consumer price index, the County's fiscal situation and the
County's need to provide competitive salaries in order to attract and retain qualified
individuals for County positions.
Grand Jury Finding 6: Personnel management flexibility may be constrained as a result
of Board approved MOU's with employee bargaining units which require that performance
evaluations and related matters be negotiated under the "meet and confer" process. For
example, a typical clause in the MOU states: "The performance of each employee,
.,except 'employees already at the maximum step in the salary range, shall be reviewed
to determine whether the salary of the employee shall be advanced to the next higher
step in the salary range" (emphasis added).
Response: The County is required by state law to meet and confer in good faith
to reach agreement on terms and conditions of employment with the employee
organizations. The County's legal obligations and sound labor management
practices impose some constraints on management flexibility. The MOU provision
on the review of performance cited in Finding #6 does not preclude a department
from taking disciplinary or other appropriate action in the case of any employee
who is not performing at a satisfactory level.
Grand Jury Finding 7. Grand Jury Report No. 9312, dated May 20, 1993, made
recommendations to the Board of Supervisors to reaffirm the voter-mandated Merit
Reform System and the Board's commitment to insure that merit principles formed the
foundation for all personnel actions and regulations, specifically by identifying and
resolving conflicting provisions of the MOU's with the Merit System's PMR's". On August
17, 1993, the Board of Supervisors accepted all of the recommendations made in Grand
Jury Report No. 9312 and further stated, "the Board's general position is that the PMR's
mould be followed and that the MOU's should be amended to conform to the PMR's."
TYhe Board has failed to hold the Chief Administrative Officer (hereinafter"CAO") and the
3
Personnel Department accountable for not implementing any of the necessary actions to
implement its directives.
Response: The statements regarding lack of action taken with regard to the
recommendations made in Grand Jury Report No. 9312 are not accurate. Two
status reports have been made to the Board of Supervisors. The latest report
indicates that staff has completed its review of the Personnel Management
Regulations and MOU provisions and that the differences were identified. The
review of the PMR' against the MOU's was a monumental task that consumed a
substantial amount of staff time and required the information to be entered into a
database to facilitate the comparative analysis. This resulted .in a document that
is over 50 ,legal size pages in length. In addition to identifying the differences
between the PMR's and the MOU provisions, recommendations on needed
changes have been prepared. Before any changes can be effectuated, the County
must meet and confer with employee organizations. This will most likely begin
once the current MOU negotiations are completed. Finally, as part of current
negotiations; staff has remained aware of the Grand Jury's recommendation in
Report NO. 9312 to adopt any changes in the Personnel Management Regulations
in accordance with PMR §1701.
Grand Jury Finding 8: The CAO recognized that some department heads did not have
plans to ensure that their employees were evaluated. On a yearly basis, the CAO sends
a memorandum to all department heads outlining critical issues and the areas that should
be addressed in the departmental goals and objectives for that year. In the CAO's
January 15, 1992, memorandum to all department heads, "Performance Evaluation"was
identified as one of the priority areas:
118. Performance Evaluation - If you have not already done so, please develop
plans to make sure that all of your employees are evaluated. Please check with
the Personnel Office to make sure that any plans you develop are in accord with
current agreements with employee organizations."
Most departments, including the CAO's office, remain in noncompliance with the CAD's
directive.
Response: More progress is needed to ensure that all employees are given
periodic evaluations. Over the past few years, extreme fiscal constraints and
resulting restructuring of most departments have taken precedence over all other
activities. Nonetheless, all department heads were evaluated in 1993. In the
County Administrator's Office and other departments as well, all employees
received evaluations in 1993. The evaluation of employees is a complex issue,
due to the number and diversity of job classes and the legal limitations imposed
4
by the meet and confer process. The County Administrator continues to work with
department heads on the issue.
Grand Jury Finding 9: Contra Costa County department heads are exempt from the Merit
System. The Board of Supervisors establishes the salary compensation program and
related personnel management for these officials by Board resolution. It has been the
Board practice that department heads receive annual salary increases at the same time
and rate as those granted to all other County employees.
Response: While most department heads are exempt from the Merit System, the
County Librarian, County Probation Officer and Fire Chief classes are in the Merit
'System. -Consistent with the need to adjust management salaries for inflation, to
maintain salary differentials between department heads and their employees, and
to provide competitive salaries in order to retain qualified employees, the Board's
practice has been to grant County department heads the same cost-of-living
adjustments as.those granted to other County employees. However, in 1992 and
1993, due to the extreme fiscal crisis of the County, department heads voluntarily
gave up their cost-of-living adjustment for 1992 and 1993. These adjustments
would have increased salaries by 3%.
The basis for providing cost-of-living adjustments for department heads is the
same as'the.basis for other°employees ---to insure that salaries reflect general
economic changes and that department heads are paid at a competitive rate with
others in the job market in order to attract and retain well-qualified staff, taking into
account the County's fiscal situation.
Grand Jury Finding 10: The policy for annual performance evaluations for department
heads is embodied in Board Resolution No. 81/1007, 81/1007a, Board Orders of January
12, 1989, March 30, 1989 and August 17, 1993.
Response: Finding #10 identifies various actions taken by the Board of
Supervisors regarding performance evaluations.
Grand Jury Finding 11: 'The March 30, 1989, Board Order directed the County
Administrator"... to complete an evaluation of each appointed department head and those
elected department heads ,interested in participating in the evaluation program..." The
new Department Head Evaluation Program was designed to "...provide the CAO and the
Board with an objective basis for determining the extent to which a department head has
achieved goals for which he or she has agreed to during a given period of time." The
Board approved an evaluation form for use in evaluating department heads.
Response: Finding #11 quotes from the March 30, 1989 board order regarding
5
if
department head evaluations.
Grand Jury Finding 12: The new Department Head Evaluation Program also provided
". . . a basis to reward those Department Heads who not only achieve their goals but
exceed them to a marked extent." The Board authorized the CAO to allocate to each
department head an amount not to exceed 5% of the department head's annual salary
in recognition of outstanding performance based upon the yearly performance evaluation.
Response: Finding #12 quotes from the March 30, 1989 board order. By this
action the Board of Supervisors approved creation of a centrally administrated fund
in the County budget equal to not more than 3% of the annual salary and benefits
of department heads eligible for participation in the evaluation plan. The County
Administrator was authorized to allocate up to 5% of a department head's annual
salary to him/her:in=recognition of outstanding.performance based on the yearly
performance evaluation. The Board also specified that elected department heads
would be eligible to participate in the program if so desired and if they were part
of the department head evaluation program.
Elected department heads have held varying positions regarding performance
evaluations and outstanding performance incentives. Some believe that an elected
department head's evaluation occurs every four years, by the electorate. Others
have felt that evaluations and/or incentives could be used inappropriately by
political opponents for political purposes.
Prio(to 1992, performance incentives were granted as part of the-performance
evaluation program, as directed by the Board of Supervisors in the March 30, 1989
board order. In 1992 and 1993, the County experienced extreme fiscal strain due
to state seizure of local property tax. In these years, the department heads made
it clear that they did not believe that any incentives would be appropriate. None.
were granted. In addition, the fiscal situation resulted in department heads
voluntarily giving up their cost of living adjustments for 1992 and 1993. These
adjustments would have increased salaries by 3%.
Grand Jury Finding 13: Some thought had been given to extending the evaluation
program to various levels of middle management staff in county departments. The
evaluation program being proposed was viewed as a pilot program and limited to
department heads during 1989. "Depending on the success of the program during 1989
. . .", the Board would determine, " . . . the appropriateness of extending the program to
other managers at various levels in County government."
Response: Finding #13 is correct.
Grand Jury Finding 14: In 1990, it was determined that the department head evaluation
.forms did not provide sufficient linkage between the department head's performance and
6
the goals and objectives of the department and the evaluation form was discontinued.
Response: Two factors resulted in discontinuation of the evaluation form for
department heads in 1990. The first factor was noted by the Grand Jury and was
related to linkage between the department head's performance and goals and
objectives of the department. The second factor was that the form did not
recognize the vast range of legal and supervisory responsibilities among
department heads, or the relative complexity of operations among departments.
,Grand Jury Finding 15: The Board policy establishing the Department Head Evaluation
Program, sans the "evaluation form", continued for department heads only and was not
extended to other managers in the County.
Response: The Grand Jury is correct in stating that the department head
evaluation program was not extended to other managers in the County in 1990.
Grand Jury Findinq 16: Procedurally, the CAO views the department heads' annual
evaluation process as a year-long activity comprised of: CAO directives on goals,
objectives and performance standards; CAO review/approval of department head's plan
to achieve goals and objectives; CAO monitoring of performance during the year; CAO
;,_letter to department head evaluating performance.
Response: Finding #16 acknowledges that the County Administrator does not
view performance evaluation as a one time, once a year activity; rather, it is an on-
going,process which ;continues-throughout the year.
Grand Jury Finding 17: The Grand Jury audited the CAO's compliance with the Board's
.Department Head Evaluation Program for performance rendered in the years 1990, 1991,
1992, and 1993 and related salary increases for said performance periods. These
records revealed: of the 75 opportunities to give annual evaluations, 57% of the
opportunities resulted in written evaluations and 43% resulted in no written evaluation; of
the 75 salary increases granted to department heads, 57% had written evaluations and
43% of the increases were approved without a written evaluation. (Note: Compensation
increases may have been effective in the same calendar year or in the next calendar year.)
Grand Jury Finding 18: Only 1 of the 42 department head evaluations contained any
comments related to the CAO's directive to all department heads "to make sure that all
your employees are evaluated."
Response to Findings 17 & 18: It is correct that written performance evaluations
were not given in all cases to employees. As discussed earlier, the extreme fiscal
strains caused by state seizure of local property tax and the consequent
restructuring of County government took precedence over other activities in recent
years. Nonetheless, all department heads reporting to the CAO were given
7
performance evaluations by the County Administrator. In addition it should be
noted not all of the "department heads" listed by the Grand Jury in Table A are
department heads (Affirmative Action, Aging and Emergency Services). Some
department heads are elected officials whose service is determined by the voters
The Probation Officer is appointed by, and reports to, the Superior Court. The
directors of Public Works, Community Development and Building Inspection report
to the Growth Management and Economic Development Agency Administrator.
It is acknowledged, however, that more attention needs to be directed to the
evaluation process for County employees.
A number of salary "increases" referenced by the Grand Jury were COLA
adjustments and, as such, would not result in written performance evaluations. It
should also be noted that in 1992 and 1993, department heads and the County
°Administrator voluntarily gave up their COLA's in order to help the County with its
fiscal crisis.
Grand Jury Finding 19: There is no requirement for the CAO's evaluation of department
heads to be reviewed by the Board of Supervisors to ensure that the department head
receives a fair and objective performance evaluation related to the goals for which he or
she has agreed to during a given period.
Response: Although there is no requirement for the Board of Supervisors to
review the County Administrator's evaluation of department heads, any department
head can;request„review by the Board. The County Administrator and Board of
Supervisors are currently in the process evaluating non-elected department heads.
Grand Jury Finding.20: On August 17, 1993, the Board approved an order superseding
the March 30, 1989, Board Order and thereby replaced the Department Head evaluation
Program with a new Performance Based Incentive Program. The new plan included: 1)
Identification of measurable performance indicators for each department. These
objectives were to ". . . be measurable so that anyone could see whether or not they
were achieved." 2) Both unrepresented and represented employees(subject to meet and
confer as appropriate) would be eligible to received one-time performance incentive pay
if they receive outstanding performance evaluations. 3) The performance objectives and
evaluation would need to be specific to a given employee, and departments would not be
permitted to provide "across the board" financial incentives to all employees.
Response: Finding#20 is a quote from the August 17, 1990 board order regarding
the performance based incentive program.
Grand Jury Finding 21: The Board directed the CAO to develop performance indicators
for each department. On December 14, 1993, the CAO responded to the Board with
department performance indicators focused on outcomes rather than just workloads or
activities. Some of the performance indicators have been classified as"preliminary". The
8
CAO believes the 'first round" of. indicators will be refined as departments gain more
experience with outcome-oriented evaluation systems.
Response: Finding #21 is correct.
Grand Jury Finding 22: The Grand Jury audited the extent to which senior executives on
the CAD's received written performance evaluations for performances rendered in the
years 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1993 and salary increases for said performance periods.
These records revealed: of the 28 opportunities to give annual evaluations, 36% of the
opportunities resulted in written evaluations and 64% resulted in no written evaluations;
of the 28 salary increases granted to executives on the CAO's staff, 36% had written
evaluations, and 64% of the salary increase were approved without written evaluations.
(Note: Compensation increases may have been effective in the same calendar year or
in the next calendar year.); 5 of the 7 executives did not receive performance evaluations
for three consecutive years. TABLE B summarizes the audit.
Response: The County Administrator works very closely with his senior staff and
provides feedback on a continuous basis. Furthermore, it is his practice to
acknowledge special effort with individual letters on a case-by-case basis. For
1993, all CAO employees received written performance evaluations.
The Grand Jury appears to calculate that there were "28 opportunities" to give
annual evaluations by multiplying the number of assistants, senior deputies, and
deputies(7).by four years. The.Grand Jury may not have been aware that some
of these individuals were not in the County Administrator's Office for the entire four
year time period. For example, one of the senior deputies was on a leave of
absence to the Community Development Department in 1990 and 1991.
A number of the salary "increases" referenced by the Grand Jury were COLA
adjustments and, as such, would not involve performance evaluations.
As discussed earlier, COLA's are not merit increases, but adjustments to reflect
the cost-of-living, general economic conditions and the need to provide competitive
salaries.
Grand Jury Finding 23: The CAO is exempt from the Merit System and reports directly
to the Board of Supervisors. The Board has sole responsibility for the personnel
management of the CAO, including the establishment of a compensation program.
Response: It is true that the County Administrator is exempt from the merit system
and reports directly to the Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors
reviews and approves the compensation program for all management employees,
including the County Administrator, as well as the compensation program
9
E
negotiated for represented employees.
Grand Jury Finding 24: On March 3, 1992, the Board approved Resolution No. 92/128
which established a five-year, no-cut employment agreement with the CAO. The
employment agreement specifies that the CAO shalt receive annual salary increases at
the same time and rate as are granted by the Board to all other management and
unrepresented classifications.
Response: Finding#24 correctly characterizes parts of Resolution 92=128. Again,
it should be noted that the "salary increaser' referenced by the Grand Jury are in
actuality cost-of-living adjustments.
Grand Jury Finding 25: Neither the CAO's employment agreement or.. Board policy
requires the Board to: establish or approve annual written performance objectives for the
CAO; give the CAO a written annual performance evaluation; link compensation increases
with performance.
Response: The Grand Jury is incorrect in stating that the Board policy does not
require evaluation of the County Administrator. The Board has the opportunity,
and takes the opportunity, to evaluate the County Administrator every week. The
Board meets in closed session, consistent with personnel practices, to review the
County Administrator's performance.
Grand,,Jury Finding 26: : The Grand .Jury subpoenaed all documents from the Board
related to ,the CAO's performance objectives, performance evaluations, and salary
increases for performance rendered for the years 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1993. The
response to the subpoena revealed that the Board of Supervisors: did not establish or
approve any written performance objectives for the CAO for any of the years 1990, 1991,
1992, and 1993; did not provide the CAO a written performance evaluation for any of the
years 1990, 1991, 1992, or 1993. Although there was no supporting documentation
provided, the Board indicated they "periodically" gave the CAO informal verbal feed back
in "closed sessions"; awarded the CAO salary increases for services rendered in 1990,
1991, 1992, and 1993. TABLE C summarizes the audit.
Response::The Board of Supervisors' evaluation of the County Administrator was
an integral part of the formulating of the CAO's contract. Also, as noted by the
Grand Jury, the Board of Supervisors periodically provides feedback to the County
Administrator on performance in closed session.
In 1990 and 1991, the County Administrator received a cost of living adjustment
at the same rate as all other county employees. In 1992 and 1993, the County
Administrator, as well as all other department heads, deferred the COLA in order
to help the County weather its fiscal crisis.
10
RECOMMENDATIONS
The 1993-94 Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommends that the Board of
Supervisors, within 60 days:
Grand Jury Recommendation 1: Develop and approve a county-wide performance
evaluation and compensation policy that explicitly contains the following provisions: 1)
applies to all employees (represented and unrepresented). 2) Recognizes that all
compensation is to be merit-based and accordingly: a)Performance objectives, evaluation
and earned compensation must be specific to a given employee; b) "Across the board"
salary increases or other financial incentives will not be permitted. Cost of living
adjustments will be eliminated for all management employees effective, January 1, 1995,
-and "phased out" for represented employees when current MOU's terminate with the
respective employee bargaining units; c) Salary ranges for all positions will be sufficient
to attract and retain qualified.employees and will continue to be monitored to ensure their
competitiveness within the marketplace; d) To be eligible for compensation at the top of
a position's salary range, or to receive performance incentive pay, will require that an
employee receive an "Outstanding" rating on his/her performance evaluation. A rating
of "Completely Satisfactory" will enable an employee to be compensated up to 80% of
the position's top salary. This will be effective for all management employees effective
January 1, 1995, and "phased in" for represented employees when current MOU's
terminate with the respective employee bargaining units. 3) Require each supervisor to:
establish, with each employee, measurable and written objectives for a given period;
provide feedback to employees throughout the year on their performance compared to
'the objectives; prepare an annual written performance evaluation for each employee;
obtain approval of the proposed evaluation from the respective department head; Review
',the approved performance evaluation with each employee; use the performance
evaluation as the basis for granting any salary increase.
Response to Recommendation 1: Employees compete for positions through a
merit system process, while salaries are dependent upon several factors such as
the labor market, salary compaction between classes, the cost-of-living index, and
the County's fiscal situation. Current policy provides that employees move through
the salary range based on satisfactory performance and there are provisions
11
contained in, both the Personnel Management Regulations and Memoranda of
Understanding that allow department heads to take action when an employee is
not performing satisfactorily.
Recommendation #1 b in the Grand Jury's Report is internally inconsistent. The .
Grand Jury states that salary ranges for all positions should be sufficient to attract
and retain qualified employees and should continue to be monitored to ensure their
competitiveness within the marketplace. However,they also state that"across-the-
board" salary increases or other financial incentives should not be permitted.
Cost-of-living adjustments "across-the-board" are only granted based on the
necessity to keep up with the inflationary costs that are reflected in the salaries
paid in other agencies. Thus, they address the issue raised, by the Grand Jury of
ensuring that salaries are competitive within the marketplace. .The salary ranges
as they were originally set up, and currently exist, are to provide competitive
salaries for County employees, with the top of the salary range being used for
comparison purposes to similar jobs elsewhere. The salary ranges were not
established for the purpose of compensating employees specifically for
"outstanding performance". While there is merit in having an outstanding
performance salary step available to all employees who perform their duties in an
exemplary manner, the addition of such steps for all employees would be costly
and is unlikely in light of the County's current fiscal situation.
Many ways are available for assessing employee performance. The appropriate
mechanism.should depend upon the work being performed. As.discussed earlier,
the County has approximately 1150 job classes which encompass a vast range of
responsibilities and duties.
The Grand Jury's recommendation for obtaining approval of a proposed evaluation
from the respective department head for each employee is not feasible given
departments such as Health Services with approximately 2,000 employees.
Different types of performance evaluation systems are appropriate for different
occupational areas and different levels within the occupational hierarchy. For
example,.a,requirement to have established, measurable and written objectives for
the manager of the housekeeping division may be appropriate but the same
performance evaluation system may be questionable for evaluating the
performance of a housekeeping trainee. A performance review, whether written
or oral, should never "surprise" employees about the assessment of their
performance. The on-going, daily defining of the job, training, correcting,
reinforcing and rewarding of employee performance are critical in producing good
performance. The Board of Supervisors is committed to' annual performance
evaluations of County employees, therefore, the County Administrator is directed
to report to the Board in three months on the status of the annual evaluation
system for management and non-represented employees and in six months on the
12
evaluation system for represented employees.
ACCEPT Recommendation 1. as modfied.
Grand Jwy Recommendation 2: Eliminate the current practice, and the resulting conflict
of interest, of having the CAO and department head salary increases tied to the same
rate that is granted for all county employees. Instead, provide the senior management
team the financial incentive to provide quality service at the lowest possible cost.
Response to Recommendation 2: COLA's for most County employees are
negotiated between the County and employee organization representatives with
the final decision resting with the Board of Supervisors. The management team
that helps staff the negotiation process is well aware of its management
responsibilities of representing the County's interest. This is reflected by the fact
that general salary adjustments negotiated in Contra Costa County are in line with
those granted in other jurisdictions. As previously mentioned, the latest adjustment
of 1% took effect on July 1, 1994. Rather than resulting in a conflict of interest,
tying management salaries to those granted to represented employees has a
tendency to limit increases for management, keeping them in line with other
County workers. Department heads generally have been opposed to COLA
adjustments in recent years, since they place additional financial burdens on
already tight budgets. Due to severe overall fiscal constraints, departments have
been required to absorb additional salary and benefits costs into existing budget
allocations.
REJECT Recommendation 2.
Grand Jury Recommendation 3: Create a Personnel Committee of the Board whose
responsibilities would include, but are not limited to: overseeing the development of
policies and procedures required to implement these Grand Jury recommendations and
monitoring the implementation and compliance of same; developing performance
objectives with the CAO, and presenting same to the total Board for approval in open
session; monitoring performance objectives and providing quarterly reports to the Board
in open session; drafting a proposed performance evaluation for the CAO to be approved
by the total Board and reviewed with the CAO in closed session; recommending proposed
compensation changes for the CAO to the Board for approval in open session; proposing
to the Board modifications in the CAO's employment agreement to incorporate the
applicable Grand Jury recommendations contained in this Report; reviewing and
approving the CAO's proposed performance evaluations of department heads and CAO
Executive Staff in closed session. Reviewing and approving the CAO's proposed
compensation increases for department heads and the CAO Executive Staff for the total
Board to approve in open session.
Response to Recommendation 3: The Board of Supervisors, acting as a
13
I `
Committee of the whole, is currently reviewing in closed session the performance
of department heads who report to the County Administrator and the Board. The
Internal Operations Committee is reviewing the accomplishments of all
departments.
ACCEPT Recommendation 3, as modified.
Grand Jury Recommendation 4: Issue a resolution to never again allow itself to negotiate
employment agreements which will obligate the county to pay for long-term no-cut
contracts.
Response to Recommendation 4: This recommendation cannot be implemented
inasmuch as the Board of Supervisors cannot legally adopt a resolution that is
perpetually binding on future Boards.
REJECT Recommendation 4.
Grand Jury Recommendation 5: Direct the CAO and the Personnel Department to
immediately comply with the August 17, 1993, Board directive in order for the County to
comply with the voter mandate on the Merit System.
Response to Recommendation 5: The August 17, 1993 board order approved the
County Administrator's recommendation to establish a performance-based
incentive plan. Implementation of the plan began following authorization by the
Board of Supervisors. As the first step, departments were requested to develop
performance indicators for three to five key objectives for their department. The
indicators were designed to measure the efficiency and/or effectiveness of
department's efforts on either a programmatic or policy level. All departments
prepared these performance indicators.
The performance indicators were integral to the review of department head
performance for 1993. In addition, selected department heads were included in
the productivity fund balance program, to allow application of a portion of their fund
balance to meet their next year's budget needs or to make one-time expenditures
to improve the efficiency of their department's operation.
The performance-based incentives plan also authorized the County Administrator
to institute financial incentives for outstanding performance:
• In 1992 and 1993, the department heads universally rejected consideration
of incentive pay, considering it inappropriate during a time of severe fiscal
constraints.
• For 1992 and 1993, the department heads voluntarily gave up the COLA
adjustment which was granted to other employees.
14
• During these years, department heads have generally been against actions
to increase salary costs, since departments have been required to absorb
these costs within their already tight budgets.
ACCEPT Recommendation 5, since the activity is already in process.
15
County
Counsel
COUNTY COUNSEL
REPORT #9410
FINDINGS
FINDING No. 1 : The County Counsel is appointed by the Board of
Supervisors and shall serve four years from the time of
appointment and until a success is appointed (Gov. Code §§
27640, 27641) . The incumbent County Counsel for Contra Costa
was initially appointed in 1984 .
RESPONSE: This finding is correct.
FINDING No. 2 : The County Counsel is the legal adviser to the
Board of Supervisors and shall oppose all claims against the
County and shall prosecute all civil actions and proceedings
on behalf of the County (Gov. Code §26526 . )
RESPONSE: This finding correctly states part of the legal
duties of the County Counsel as expressed in Government Code
section 26526 but doesn't consider Government Code sections
31000 and 31000 .8.
FINDING No. 3 : The Board of Supervisors establishes compensation,
job duties, and performance standards not otherwise mandated
by law for County Counsel .
RESPONSE: This finding is generally correct.
FINDING No. 4 : The County Counsel 's salary and benefits package
totals more than $160,000 annually.
RESPONSE: This finding is incorrect. The County Counsel ' s
salary and benefit costs are less than $160,000.
FINDING No. 5 : It is not clear to whom County Counsel is
accountable and to whom County Counsel reports from an
organizational perspective. Is it the Board, the County
Administrator or both?
RESPONSE: This finding is incorrect. The organizational
relationships between the County Counsel, the Board of
Supervisors, and the County Administrator are stated in
law and in the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code: Government
Code section 27640 provides for appointment of the County
Counsel by the Board of Supervisors . Ordinance Code section
24-12. 002 provides that the tenure and duties of the County
Counsel are as provided by state law and by the Board of
Supervisors . Ordinance Code section 24-4 .008 provides that
the County Administrator is the chief administrative officer
of the county and shall supervise and coordinate the work of
departments, ( including County Counsel to the extent allowed
by law) , under the jurisdiction of the Board of Supervisors .
FINDING No. 6 : The Office of Risk Management, under the direct
supervision of the County Administrator, approved secret
settlements based on recommendations from highly-paid
independent legal counsel, hired to defend County government.
County Counsel did not question this process .
RESPONSE: Risk Management is a division of the County .
Administrator's Office and previously approved confidential
settlements based on the recommendation of outside legal
counsel as a result of settlement negotiations with
plaintiffs .
The Board of Supervisors adopted a policy which prohibits
confidential settlements .
:FINDING No. 7: The Board of Supervisors knew that there was no
agreement between the County Counsel ' s Office and the Office
of Risk Management to overview risk management.
RESPONSE: As stated, the response to Finding No. 6 Risk
Management is a division of the County Administrator' s Office.
FINDING No. 8: In December 1991, Pipes Trade Council 51 donated
$40,000 to TRIBA, a nonprofit organization founded and chaired
by Supervisor Tom Powers.
FINDING No. 9 : There was a clear understanding and assurance that
the $40,000 from the labor union would, in turn, be gifted by
TRIBA td, Contra'°Costa ;County to assist the County in its legal
battle defending a local prevailing wage.
FINDING No. 10: County Counsel was aware of the conditional nature
of the gift and the need to disguise the source; i .e. , fear of
public outcry that it was the unions, not the County,
defending the ordinance.
FINDING No. 11 : The District Attorney's investigation of this
incident found that the act was not "money laundering" as
defined by California law, as it was not paid in furtherance
of any illegal activity. The District Attorney concluded that
although the true source of the gift and the specific reason
for the gift was disguised, the conduct was not illegal, but
rather a matter of ethics and politics .
RESPONSE Findings No. 8, 9, 10, and 11 : These findings are
unknown to the Board of Supervisors .
FINDING No. 12 : By statute, County Counsel may be removed at any
time by the Board of Supervisors for neglect of duty,
malfeasance, misconduct in office or other good cause shown.
RESPONSE: This finding is correct.
-2-
RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDATION No. 1: That the Board of Supervisors publicly
reaffirm its responsibilities to supervise, direct and control
all County legal matters .
RESPONSE: This recommendation is not accepted. The Board of .
Supervisors has responsibility for overall control of legal
matters. The Board of Supervisors has found no basis in the
Grand Jury Report to indicate neglect of duty, malfeasance or
misconduct by the County Counsel . On the contrary the Board _
of Supervisors fully supports County Counsel for the legal
advice provided.
RECOMMENDATION No. 2 : That the Board of Supervisors. implement a
comprehensive assessment of the County Counsel's ability to
provide the Board with competent advice.
RECOMMENDATION No. 3 : That the Board of Supervisors publicly act
upon and execute options provided to the Board, based on
assessment findings .
RESPONSE No. 2 and No. 3 : Recommendations No. 2 and No. 3 are
accepted as modified. The Board of Supervisors is currently
engaged in an on-going process of evaluating department heads
which will include the County Counsel .
RECOMMENDATION No. 4: That the Board of Supervisors re-establish
the accountability of County Counsel and thereby restore
credibility with the public.
RESPONSE: See response to No. 1 .
-3-
Grand Jury
facilities , operations
and response to
Grand Jury Reports
County Leadership Impedes the Work of the Grand Jury
Report #9414
FINDINGS :
Grand Jury Facilities
1 . The Contra Costa County Grand Jury is allocated space in the
old County Courthouse. The area, approximately 400 sq. ft. ,
serves as a meeting/conference room for the nineteen Grand _
Jurors . It also acts as a filing and a storage room.
Statutory regulations require that Grand Jury reports,
including documentary materials and evidence used in those
reports, be sealed and kept for five years .
RESPONSE:
The Grand Jury is correct.
2 . The Grand Jury room has only one entrance/exit door. One
other door, identified as a "fire door" , leads from the
District Attorney' s offices and is locked from that side,
leaving the Grand Jury with no emergency exit.
RESPONSE:
The Grand Jury is correct.
3 . Grand Jurors ' deliberations, as well as witness ' testimony,
are required to be confidential.
RESPONSE:
The Grand Jury is correct.
4 . Over the years, the Grand Jury has 'requested more suitable
meeting facilities in close proximity to the Superior Court,
and county government has not responded with suitable
alternatives .
RESPONSE:
The Grand Jury is partially correct. The Grand Jury has
requested better space in past years . The County
Administrator reviewed in detail a variety of alternatives
spaces near the court house. The Grand Jury rejected the
space alternatives offered.
-2-
Responses to Grand Jury Reports
5 . When asked for comments by the press upon publication of Grand
Jury reports, instead of addressing information contained in .
the reports, some county leaders attack the credibility of
Grand Jurors . Standard responses are: "They don't know how
the system works . " , or "They are dead wrong. " Grand Jurors
obtain their facts and figures from the County through sworn
testimony or through information provided to the Grand Jury
under subpoena.
RESPONSE:
The Grand Jury quotes some county leaders without documenting
who they are or what report these unknown officials allegedly
attacked. Without more specificity, the finding cannot be
responded to.
6 . 1992-93 Grand Jury Report No. 9304, on the need for management
audits in Contra Costa County , recommended that the Board of
Supervisors, " . . . establish a Management Audit Program that
insures monies expended will result in a net saving to the
County. " This Grand Jury report explained in detail the
components . of management audits; their purpose of
investigating whether an operating unit is meeting its
objectives in the most efficient, economical manner; and the
basic objectives of improving performance and/or reducing
costs . The Board of Supervisors accepted this recommendation
but failed to implement it.
RESPONSE:
The Grand Jury is incorrect. The Board of Supervisors not
only accepted the recommendation for management audits but
directed the CAO to continue the practice that has been in
effect for a number of years. The most recent examples are
audits and reviews of both the Department of Community
Services and the Department of Personnel .
7 . The 1992-93 Grand Jury Report No. 9312, on the County' s Merit
System, published in May 1993, recommended that the Board of
Supervisors require the County Administrator to, "Identify for
the Board all provisions of the respective Memoranda of
Understanding which are now in conflict with the Merit
System' s Personnel Management Regulations . " The Board of
Supervisors accepted the recommendation, establishing a
deadline of October 15, 1993, to receive such a report. The
County Administrator failed to meet this deadline by more than
eight months .
• 4'
I
-3-
RESPONSE:
The County Administrator and Acting Personnel Director in
response to the Grand Jury and Board of Supervisors have .
conducted a comprehensive evaluation of the languages which
entail 50 pages in length and responded with two reports back
to the Board of Supervisors .
Grand Jury Operations
8. It is the Grand Jury' s duty to investigate County operations;
nevertheless the County Administrator complained to the Grand
Jury Judge about Grand Jury investigations into County
business .
RESPONSE:
The County Administrator took an appropriate course of action
to advise the Superior Court of concerns about the process
used by the Grand Jury to gather information, not the Grand
Jury' s right to request information.
9 . The Grand Jury Judge asked the Grand Jury Foreman to confer
with the County Administrator regarding Grand Jury procedures .
RESPONSE:
The finding is unknown to the Board of Supervisors .
10 . Complaints reached the District Attorney' s office regarding
Grand Jury investigations and techniques, resulting in a
conference between the Grand Jury and the District Attorney' s
office.
RESPONSE:
This finding is unknown to the Board of Supervisors .
11. "Papering" -- providing excessive amounts of paper and
extraneous material in response to Grand Jury inquiries -- and
other disinformation techniques are often used by county
officials which obfuscate facts and confuse the truth.
RESPONSE:
This finding is unclear and vague. The FY 93-94 Grand Jury
used its subpoena power to obtain records and information
-4-
rather than the effective techniques of past Grand Juries,
which included a phone call or personal visit followed by a
straightforward letter identifying the material requested.
Unfortunately the subpoena process requires the respondent to
provide comprehensive responses and all information on a given
subject, while limiting communication and understanding on
specifics .
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The County has consistently failed to provide adequate, safe,
and secure facilities for the Grand Jury to conduct its
business .
RESPONSE:
The County has discussed this issue with previous Grand Juries
and offered alternative space and facilities . These
alternatives have been rejected.
2 . County leaders often give lip service in responding to Grand
Jury recommendations; however, when the heat of publicity
cools, it' s back to business as usual.
RESPONSE:
This conclusion is simply not true. As mentioned previously,
the County and Board of Supervisors accepted last year' s
Report 9312 and the recommendation to identify the provision
of MOU'S in conflict with PMR's . County staff, at the Board's
direction, has spent an enormous amount of time conducting a
thorough review of MOU'S to identify any conflicting language
and has made two status reports back to the Board on this
subject. County staff have been diligent in responding to
this Grand Jury' s recommendation while maintaining their own
responsibilities .
3 . Attempts by County leaders to dilute and discredit the Grand
Jury process, and thus the work of the Grand Jury, are beneath
the dignity of their offices .
RESPONSE:
No attempts have been made to discredit the Grand Jury. The
Grand Jury process is best reflected by the quality and
accuracy of its reports . County officials are required by
statutes to comment on those reports . Comments and responses
may not always conform or reflect on Grand Jury reports as a
particular Grand Jury would desire.
♦ J 1 r
1 - ,
5-
With regard to the FY 93-94 Grand Jury, its reports are
characterized by subtitles which are gratuitous and
disparaging. Future grand juries will not be well served by
this practice.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The 1993-94 Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommends that the
Board of Supervisors :
1 . Immediately instruct county officers to cease and desist
attempts to interfere, obstruct, impede or otherwise influence
the Grand Jury panel.
RESPONSE:
This recommendation is not accepted. The contact made by the
CAO to the presiding Judge of Superior Court was the
appropriate channel to express concerns that were well
publicized about Grand Jury procedures and process . This
contact with the elected official responsible for impaneling
the Grand Jury did not impair the Grand Jury in any
investigation.
2 . Immediately formulate a county-wide policy to objectively
evaluate and seriously consider all present and future Grand
Jury recommendations .
RESPONSE:
This recommendation is accepted. The current statute under
Penal Code Section 933 requires a response to Grand Jury
recommendations . Consequently State law preempts this
recommendation.
3 . Within six months, provide the Grand Jury with facilities that
are suitable for conducting its business .
RESPONSE:
This recommendation is accepted as modified. Although
alternative space and facilities were discussed and rejected
by previous Grand Juries, the County is willing to discuss
this further. The County Administrator is requested to work
with the Grand Jury Foreman to address the facilities issue.
Gany00
Ke1�`a�a�i1�
r
FINDINGS:
1. Contra Costa County ratepayers are charged one of the highest per ton dumping or
tipping rates in the State at $75.95 per ton, of which $49.08 is the base rate at Keller
Canyon Landfill. The balance of the tipping fee goes to Acme Fill corporation to operate
the Acme Transfer Station.
RESPONSE: The Keller Canyon Landfill Base Rate (charged by the operator) is
approximately $38.48 per ton, which is about $10 per ton higher than some other
regional landfills. Keller, on opening, was the only landfill in California which is
designed to current California ("Chapter 15") and Federal ("Subtitle D") standards.
Tipping fees at older landfills in the County reached the $50-$60 per ton level due to
high closure fund costs.
2. Contra Costa County has responsibility for establishing tipping fees. The Board of
Supervisors approved the current base rate of $49.08 for Keller Canyon Landfill on
August 11, 1992. Of this amount, $38.48 goes directly to BFI-KCLC; $3.85, charged
as 10% of the base rate, goes tc the County as a surcharge; $6.00 goes to the County in
mitigation fees; and $.75 goes to the State. (table a lists all fees/charges assessed by all
governmental entities at the transfer station and landfill.)
RESPONSE: The County may establish tipping fees only at the Keller Canyon Landfill
and the Acme Transfer Station through Land Use Permit Conditions of Approval.
3. Current tonnage for Keller Canyon Landfill is between 250,000 to 300,000 tons per year.
RESPONSE: This would be out of a gross of about 800,000 to 900,000 tons per year.
4. As stated in Grand Jury Report No. 9403: (1) Since its approval, several governmental
entities have questioned the base rate as being excessive and have claimed that the rate's
rationale is faulty; (2) the questioned amounts, if found to be improperly charged, could
result in a substantial reduction to the tipping fee; and (3) interested parties have
repeatedly requested background documentation and working papers used to support the
current rate.
RESPONSE: The rate setting methodology and figures were set out in publicly
distributed reports, and discussed at public workshops. The charges have not been
improper based on rate setting methodology. The County has supplied every bit of
information it has and our consultant, Deloitte-Touche, has supplied all the information
is has.
5. Contrary to requirements of the Public Records Act, the County continues to stonewall
release of certain background documentation, specifically, the work papers held at the
rate setting consultant's facilities (any reputable accounting consulting firm routinely
prepares a set of work papers which supports its conclusions and recommendations; such
work papers would include spreadsheets, calculations, documents, and correspondence).
r
RESPONSE: All rate documents in our files and under our control have been made
available. Stonewall is a pejorative term that is not based in fact.
6. The reasonableness of the established rate is questionable in that among other factors: (1)
it includes an accelerated formula for return of capital investment to BFI-KCLC; and (2)
it used a pricing model applicable to a competitive market place rather than to a lower-
risk regulated environment.
RESPONSE: The 25-year amortization period was discussed at length at the fore-
mentioned public workshops. The conclusion at the time was that cumulative financing
charges resulted in no advantage for longer time periods. A somewhat higher return
figure for risk was used because Keller did not have, and still does not have, as assured
waste stream.
7. Use of the Keller Canyon Landfill was considered, by those originally involved in setting
the rate, to be primarily the County's only garbage solid waste option. There is
currently no legal or binding obligation to use keller Canyon Landfill. Other options
have become known and are being seriously considered by other governmental entities
within the County.
RESPONSE: Keller was planned, permitted, and built in a legal context which required
each county to,have a disposal facility, or guaranteed long-term rights to disposal in
landfills in other jurisdictions. The latter were extremely difficult to obtain since they
required the approvals of not only the other counties but a majority of their cities as well.
Contra Costa County was under court order to have a plan with assured long-term
capacity in 1989. Keller was not the only landfill which was proposed; it was the only
one which survived (referenda and adverse court decisions removed others from
consideration).
8. Recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have ruled that waste is free to be transported from
county to county and state to state.
RESPONSE: The U.S. Supreme Court decisions followed the opening of the Keller
Canyon Landfill. The decision was not directed toward the local situation but has been
interpreted:',in this way. The definitive interpretation should come from the State's
Integrated Waste Management Board and it has not occurred.
9. The waste-by-rail-to-landfill option is actively pursued in other counties in the State.
Rail-haul to neighboring states is considered viable and cost effective.
RESPONSE: Waste-by-rail for municipal solid waste essentially became viable only
during the last few years. It is mainly proposed for long-distance hauls of high volumes
to remote landfills. To our knowledge, only Napa County has signed an agreement for
rail haul. Keller was sited and designed to provide a convenient local facility, and to
work in conjunction with transfer/resource recovery facilities. There are problems with
rail haul that has prevented it from becoming a universally attractive option.
10. BFI-KCLC has made an offer to the County to lower its rate and to indemnify the
County from the Acme Landfill closure lawsuit in return for a guaranteed waste stream.
The County is currently negotiating with BFI-KCLC on such an arrangement. The
current rate's questionable rationale, together with an uncertain estimate for the Acme
closure lawsuit, are being used as the basis from which to negotiate with BFI-KCLC on
the new rate and guaranteed waste stream.
RESPONSE: A high volume, assured, waste stream results in a lower per-ton cost for
amortizing initial and staged capital costs, enabling rates to be lowered. The
arrangement would have provided a means for resolving complex litigation over
responsibility for closing the Acme landfill's North Parcel. Dispute over the amount of
the closure's cost may remain, but the facility must close in accordance with the plan
approved by the State. The proposal includes eliminating the County's rate setting
methodology with all of the legal restrictions and replacing it with a market based rate.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. Since the County has been remiss in releasing the rate-setting consultant's work papers
that were paid for with taxpayers' money, it may be concluded that accusations of the
rate being excessive are correct.
RESPONSE: As previously noted, the County has released all rate setting information
in its possession or under its control. We believe this includes all the work prepared for
us by the consultant (Deloitte-Touche).
2. Because the County collects a 10% surcharge on the base rate, there is an incentive for
the Board of Supervisors to approve a higher rate. The higher the base rate, the more
dollars filling the County coffers with a hidden tax.
RESPONSE: The 10% franchise fee was chosen because it is similar to the recent waste
collection franchise fees being charged by cities, and it reflects the fee the State allows
local governments to set for hazardous waste facilities located in their jurisdictions. This
franchise fee applies only to the Keller Canyon Landfill, and there to the base rate (not
the surcharges). Although the Keller base rate is about 25% higher than older, unlined
landfills, the franchise fee yield at about $3.90 per ton is less than the amount charged
in some adjoining counties.
3. Agreement by the County to a guaranteed waste stream effectively removes all other
disposal options which may be more cost effective to ratepayers.
RESPONSE: The County's leverage to arrange for an agreement on a guaranteed waste
stream is minor since it controls only a small portion of the waste stream. Any landfill,
regardless of the form of competitiveness, will request a similar commitment. As
previously noted, a large-volume, assured waste stream provides the circumstances for
changing lower disposal rates and resolving complex litigation under any circumstances.
4. It is inappropriate to negotiate away all competitive options by guaranteeing a long-term
waste stream to Keller Canyon Landfill until a fair and reasonable basis for Keller Canyon
Landfill base rate, and a reliable estimate for costs related to the Acme Landfill closure, can
be established.
RESPONSE: The County is one party in a large group of participants. No decision can be
made unilaterally by the County. Proposals are made consensus is sought.
In previous Grand Jury reports, recommendations were made to establish a state of the
art Keller facility and to actively regulate rate. These recommendations were followed and
it has been discovered the rate regulation had to respond to legally defensible methodology.
State-of-the-art landfills are legally required but expensive alternatives to existing landfills.
Transfer stations reduce traffic, allow for recycling, and enable inspection for hazardous waste
but add a substantial element of cost.
The County would like to avoid expensive and divisive superfund litigation, affecting all
prior users of Acme, by arriving at a consensus settlement.
At least two other landfills are actively seeking components of the County's waste stream
-- before all elements of costing are resolved. Delay in obtaining agreements on Acme and
Keller may preclude satisfactory arrangements in the future.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors:
1. Immediately provide to all requesting parties all documents related to the basis for
establishing the current base rate, including those maintained at the rate-setting consultant's
facilities.
RESPONSE: This recommendation is accepted. Staff is directed to request
Deloitte Touche to make working papers available to those who request
them.
2. Immediately seek expert advice and public input to determine the best available, viable, cost-
effective options, including those involving shipping solid waste out of the County.
RESPONSE: This recommendation is accepted. This proposal is being considered by the
Board of Supervisors. It should be noted that individual cities are seeking their own solutions
through their own consultants. The County's needs do not simply include short-term disposal
costs. Issues must include long-term needs, closure, compliance with AB 939 and volumes
of State mandates.
3. Immediately suspend all current negotiations with BFI-KCLC until Recommendation #2
above is accomplished.
RESPONSE: This recommendation is accepted with modifications. The County
has ceased negotiations with BFI-KCLC and is seeking the most cost effective
approach for adoption. The difficulty lies in the fact that the County cannot act
unilaterally and its actions will be affected by the actions of other parties.
4. Within sixty (60) days, develop a policy to eliminate possible improprieties whenever a
County fee is assessed. Direct that it be done on the basis of a fixed dollar amount, rather
than the standard practice of percentages.
RESPONSE: This recommendation is accepted with modifications. The County has not
engaged in impropriety in its fee setting process. The County is in the process of revising its
rate structure. The specific recommendation of the Grand Jury may be modified.
Previously the Grand Jury had issued Report No. 9403 related to Keller Canyon Landfill rates which
prompted the Board of Supervisors to set June 28; 1994 for a hearing to review the rates at Keller
Canyon Landfill.
On June 14, 1994 the Board of Supervisors voted to eliminate the minimum amount which Keller
Canyon Landfill may charge for disposal.
On June 21, 1994 the Board of Supervisors determined to end negotiations related to settlement of
the Acme Landfill Closure in conjunction with a permanent rate for transfer and disposal of solid
waste by Acme Transfer Station and Keller Canyon Landfill.
On June 28, 1994 the Board of Supervisors voted to carry out the following actions:
a. re-affirm elimination of the minimum rate that may be charged at Keller
Canyon Landfill;
b. direct staff to prepare amendments to the Franchise Agreement with Keller
Canyon Landfill to eliminate rate setting by government as an means to
encourage private sector market competition in rate setting;
C. direct staff to prepare a reduced government fee structure; and
d. directed staff to prepare an analysis of the rates at the Acme Transfer Station
for consideration by the Board.
These actions by the Board are consistent with the intent of the recommendations made by Grand
Jury Report No. 9407, as fisted above. The Board's actions are aimed at assuring the lowest possible
costs for transfer and disposal of solid waste based upon a competitive free-market pricing
environment.