HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07262006 - SD2.A Contra
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
-_ !s Coy
FROM: JOHN CULLEN, County Administrator
Cot 8DO A
DATE: JULY 26, 2006 ° c°srA roux `ry
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT NO. 0602,ENTITLED "CONTRA
COSTA COUNTY CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECTS: How Are New
County Buildings Justified?"
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVE response to Grand Jury Report No. 0602, entitled "CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECTS How Are New County Buildings Justified?", and DIRECT the
Clerk of the Board to forward the response to the Superior Court no later than August 18, 2006.
BACKGROUND:
On May 18, 2006,the 2005/2006 Grand Jury filed the above-referenced report, which was reviewed
by the Board of Supervisors and subsequently referred to the County Administrator and Capital
Facilities Committee, who jointly prepared the attached response that clearly specifies:
A. Whether a finding or recommendation is accepted or will be implemented;
B. If a recommendation is acc�pted, a statement as to who will be responsible for
implementation and by what definite target date;
C. A delineation of the constraints if a recommendation is accepted but cannot be implemented
within a six-month period; and
D. The reason for not accepting or adopting a finding recommendation.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES t I SIGNATURE: r
------------------------------------- - -------------------------------------- - - -- - - - -
_�RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR -RECOMM N ATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
_ ._PAPPROVE _OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
--------------------------- - =------ ------ - -- - ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------- ------------
--------------- j
ACTION OF BOAR O APPROVE AS RECOMMENDED OTHER_
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT) AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE
AYES: NOES: SHOWN.
ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
ATTESTED: AUGUST 1,2006
CONTACT: JULIE ENEA(925)335-1077 JOHN CULLEN,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
CC: PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE GRAND JURY
GRAND JURY FOREMAN
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
CAO-CAPITAL FACILITIES ADMINISTRATOR(CRAPO) <
CAO-SENIOR DEPUTY-FINANCE(DRISCOLL)
B010 , DEPUTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE TO
GRAND JURY REPORT NO. 0602:
HOW ARE NEW COUNTY BUILDINGS JUSTIFIED?
FINDINGS
County Finances
I. In each of the last three fiscal years, the County's expenditures have exceeded revenue by
amounts ranging from $17 million to $22 million. The County drew down reserve funds to
cover the shortage.
Response: Agree.
2. On June 28, 2005, the Board of Supervisors approved the 2005/2006 budget with a projected
$20 million deficit. At this rate of deficit spending,the June 30, 2006 unreserved fund
balance will be approximately 3.5% of revenue -- below the 5% minimum level recently
established by the Board -1 and will be exhausted before June 30, 2008.
Response: Partially disagree. This statement was true as of June 28, 2005;however, the
County did not continue the budgeted rate of deficit spending and, now, at year-end the
unreserved fund balance is expected to be above the June 28, 2005 estimate.
3. On May 2, 2006,the Board of Supervisors approved a balanced budget for fiscal year
2006/2007 that includes a reduction of 200 staff positions and reductions in services provided
by the County.
Response: Agree.
Capital Projects
4. The Capital Facilities Committee, a two-person committee of the Board of Supervisors,
oversees most major capital projects.
Response: Partially,disagree. The County Administrator's Office oversees the management of
capital projects. The Board's Capital Facilities Committee recommends priorities for capital
facilities funds to the Board of Supervisors and monitors the progress of major capital projects.
5. All major capital projects require the approval of the Board of Supervisors for each major
phase, i.e.; feasibility, design, and construction.
Response: Agree.
6. The Board of Supervisors has not adopted a written policy regarding the justification and
approval of capital facilities projects which addresses such basic questions as:
How Are New County Buildings Justified. July 26,2006
County Response to Grand Jury Report No.0602 Page 2
a. How large does a project have to be before it is subject to review and approval outside a
department?
b. What specific information is required for the justification for each phase of a project?
c. What is the approval process for each phase of a project?
Response: Partially disagree: The Capital Facilities Committee of the Board of Supervisors
reviews capital projects and makes recommendations to the Board. The Committee reviews all
capital projects with an estimated project cost of$1 million or more. The Committee has
established criteria that it uses to evaluate and prioritize capital projects. The Committee has
directed staff to develop a standardized format for presenting proposed projects, which will
allow the Committee to receive information to evaluate projects in a consistent format. This
reporting format will include information concerning the facilities need to be addressed by a
proposed project, details of the proposed solution, and the proposed financing plan for the
project.
Capital projects are evaluated on the basis of the project as a whole, rather than in individual
phases. However, the Board'or the Capital Facilities Committee may direct staff to provide
status reports at the completion of various phases of a project to ensure that assumptions made
at the outset of a project remain valid. For example, cost estimates made at the outset of
capital projects are usually based on preliminary information concerning project design.
These estimates may change ponce the design of the project is completed
Capital projects typically involve multiple actions that must be reviewed and approved by the
Board of Supervisors duringi the course of project completion, including the following:
• Execution of contracts with architects and other project consultants
• Approval of findings required for compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA)
• Authorization to seek construction bids
• Award of construction contracts
• Approval of financing
These approvals occur at different stages of project development, allowing for Board review
throughout the course of a project. For example, architects are usually hired during the early
planning stages, CEQA findings are approved during the design phase, and construction
contracts are approved at the completion of design. In addition,for larger projects staff
typically provides progress reports to the Capital Facilities Committee at the completion of
each major project phase. Moreover, budgetary controls exist that prevent funds from being
allocated or transferred to capital accounts without the approval of the County Administrator's
Office and Board of Supervisors.
7. The Capital Facilities Committee has no written document, which outlines the scope of its
activities.
2
How Are New County Buildings Justified? July 26,2006
County Response to Grand Jury Report No.0602 Page 3
Response: Partially disagree. The Capital Facilities Committee was established during the
Board's reorganization of officers on January 9, 2001. The purpose of the Capital Facilities
Committee was defined in a December 20, 2000 memo from incoming Chairwoman Uilkema to
the Board members, recommending that the Committee was to work closely with staff in order
to develop a workable, long-term financing plan to meet the County's capital facilities needs.
The specific activities of the Committee to accomplish this goal are determined by the
Committee members.
8. In capital facilities project justifications, prior year fund balances and other funds, (e.g., the
Criminal Justice Construction Fund) which could be used for many other purposes, are treated
in financial projections as 1"free" funds and are used in the projections to reduce the amount of
funding and related interest cost of the project.
Response: Partially disagree: The County does accumulate funds over multiple years to apply
towards large capital projects in the same way a home buyer might save money for a down
payment on a house. This is la sound business practice. If by 'free"funds, the Grand Jury
means funds that are available at no interest charge (as opposed to borrowed funds), then the
County agrees with this portion of the finding. Prudent planning for capital needs often
involves a multi year financing plan that may include the accumulation of funds in a capital
account prior to construction. This approach reduces the amount of debt required to
implement a project, which is turn reduces the ultimate project cost.
However, if`free"funds are meant to imply that the County has complete discretion over the
use of the funds, then the County disagrees with that assumption. Some of the funds
designated by the County for long-term facility needs are restricted to facility construction and
maintenance purposes. For example, the Criminal Justice Facilities Construction Fund,
which is derived from penalty assessments levied on court fines, may be used only for the
following limited purposes: assisting any county in the construction, reconstruction,
expansion, improvement, operation, or maintenance of county criminal justice and court
facilities and for improvemen t of criminal justice automated information systems.
9. The District Attorney Building is partially justified by "improved productivity or reductions
in net County cost", however even the best case justification shows an increase in net County
cost over the life of the project. (The annual increase in net County cost would be another$1
million, if"free" funds, ads described in Appendix A, were not utilized in the justification to
reduce the amount of lease revenue bonds required to fund the project and the related interest
cost.) i
Response: Agree. The criteria of improved productivity was used as part of the justification
for the District Attorney project because the new building will allow the District Attorney staff
who work in the downtown Martinez area to consolidate from multiple, crowded office spaces
to one space located inclose proximity to the Taylor Courthouse. This will improve
productivity.
3
How Are New County Buildings Justified? July 26,2006
County Response to Grand Jury Report No: 0602 Page 4
The financial projections for iheproject involve a range of scenarios, some of which include a
relatively small increase in net Countycost. The District Attorney has indicated a willingness
to absorb such a cost in the operating budget of his department, should it occur, so as to
maintain cost neutrality to the
project budget.
10. The justification for the District Attorney Building does not contain specific information or
data that document the life%safety threats or overcrowding that exists or how the issues will be
resolved by the new facility.
Response: Partially disagree. Recent staff reports have not included detailed descriptions of
overcrowding in the District Attorney's current office spaces because this condition was
identified and described in the initial needs assessment and feasibility studies for the new
facility performed in 2002/2003. The amount of office space allocated to the District
Attorney's Office has not changed significantly in 10—1 S years. Overcrowding in the District
Attorney's current facilities is the result of incremental staff growth over this period without a
commensurate increase in office space. The new building provides space for current
authorized positions, includi n g positions that are being held vacant due to budget cuts.
11. The Clerk-Recorder/Elections Building is partially justified by"improved productivity or
reductions in net County cost", however the justification shows a$64,000 increase in annual
net County cost over the life of the project. (The annual increase in net County cost would be
another$150,000, if"free" funds, as described in Appendix A, were not utilized in the
justification to reduce the amount of lease revenue bonds required to fund the project and the
related interest cost.)
Response: Agree. The offices of the County Clerk-Recorder and Elections Department are
currently spread across six facilities in downtown Martinez. These are all older facilities that
the County leases from private property owners. Several of these facilities have chronic
maintenance problems that cause interruptions to department operations. The size of the
current office spaces is insufficient to meet the needs of the Department.
The proposed new facilityfor the County Clerk-Recorder and Elections offices would improve
productivity by providing adequate office space for staff to efficiently conduct department
business. The new facility would be built to modern construction standards and would have
highly functional building systems, which would greatly reduce operational disruptions caused
by maintenance problems. The new facility would also result in the consolidation of staff from
multiple sites into one facility, improving coordination among staff and increasing
productivity.
The project does involve a modest incremental increase in building occupancy costs. The
Board determined this incremental cost was justified by the benefits associated with the new
facility.
4
How Are New County Buildings Justified? July 26,2006
County Response to Grand Jury Report No.0602 Page 5
12. The justification for the Clerk-Recorder/Elections Building does not contain specific
information or data that document the life/safety threats or overcrowding that exists or how
the issues will be resolved by the new facility.
Response: Partially disagree.) The project will mitigate crowded conditions and improve the
productivity of the Clerk-Recorder's Office, as described in the County's response to Finding
No. 11.
13. The justification for the Clerk-Recorder/Elections Building dated April 26, 2005 provides no
explanation why the costs increased from the September 23, 2003 justification. (See
Appendix A for more detail.)
Response: Agree. The cost increase was due to refined cost estimation and construction cost
inflation between the dates of the estimates.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The 2005/2006 Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors:
1. Defer the District Attorney Building and all other non-emergency capital projects unless
they reduce net County, cost, until the County's unreserved fund balance in the General
Fund is at least 5% of annual revenue -- the minimum level specified by the County's
Reserve Policy.
Response: Will not be implemented because it is not warranted The Fina12006/07
budget is balanced in compliance with the Board's minimum reserve policy, including a
sound financing plan for the District Attorney building. The Final Budget resulted from
an open deliberation process that took into account planned capital projects. It is
anticipated that the County will reach its minimum unreserved fund balance goal prior to
the completion of the District Attorney project. Deferring planned projects will only
increase project costs and exacerbate strained financial resources.
2. Establish rigorous standards for justification of capital projects that include the following:
a. Contents to be included in the justification for each phase of a project -- feasibility
study, design phase, and construction phase.
b. Information requirements for each prioritization criterion.
c. Specific guidelines on the financial information and projections to be included which:
(1)prohibit the use of prior years' savings and other sources of"free"money to
determine the funding required and the related impact of a project on net County cost
and(2)track and explain changes in project cost estimates.
5
How Are New County Buildings Justified? July 26,2006
County Response to Grand Jury Report No. 0602 Page 6
I
Response: Will not be implemented because it is not warranted Capital projects currently
go through a rigorous justification process that includes review and approval by the
Capital Facilities Committee and the Board of Supervisors at multiple points during the
course of implementation. The Capital Facilities Committee recently directed staff to
develop a standardized reporting format for presenting proposed capital projects. This will
ensure consistency in the type of information presented to the Committee in justification of
new projects.
3. Establish a capital project approval process for each of the three phases (feasibility, design,
and construction)that specifies whose approval is required at various dollar thresholds.
Response: Will not be implemented because it is not warranted An approval process for
various phases of capital projects already exists. With the exception of some small projects
that are performed entirely "in-house"by County staff, capital projects typically involve
the County entering into contracts with architects, contractors, and various other
consultants beginning in the early stages of project development. The Board of
Supervisors must approve these contracts. For larger projects,staff prepares periodic
progress reports to the Capital Facilities Committee during the course of the project,
providing an added levelof
h review.
4. Before proceeding witthe District Attorney Building, re-evaluate the project justification
using the recommended justification standards especially with respect to the financial
projections (Recommendation #2c).
Response: Will not be implemented because it is not warranted The District Attorney
project has already undergone a rigorous justification process that has included multiple
staff reports and approvals by the Capital Facilities Committee and the Board of
Supervisors.
6
How Are New County Buildings Justified? July 26,2006
County Response to Grand Jury Report No.0602 Page 7
APPENDIX A
District Attorney Building
On April 29, 2003, the BOS authorized a feasibility study of a new District Attorney building. The
building consolidates four separate offices into one building adjacent to the courts in downtown
Martinez. In 2005, construction documents for the new building were completed. On May 2, 2006,
the BOS authorized issuance of a request for competitive bids for construction.
Total project cost was estimated as follows:
Design phase $2,800,000
Construction 18,500,000
Furniture 1,200,000
Total $22,500,000
The projected funding sources were as follows:
Plant Acquisition Account $3,800,000
Criminal Justice Facility Construction Fund 4,000,000
Lease Revenue Bonds 14,700,000
Total $22,500,000
The Plant Acquisition Account figure represents accumulations from the District Attorney's annual
operating budget over the past few years.
The Criminal Justice Facility Construction Fund ("Criminal Justice Fund") is derived from court
fines and fees. It may be used for"construction, reconstruction, expansion, improvement, operation,
or maintenance of county criminal justice and court facilities and for improvement of criminal justice
automated information systems.,,
The project justification(dated December 1, 2005) assumes that 25-year lease revenue bonds would
be sold in mid-2006, at a rate of 6 percent interest, to partially finance the project. Three revenue
streams are identified for this new debt service:
1. $500,000 annually from the Criminal Justice Fund.
2. $213,340 annually from personnel reductions of two clerks and one office manager, due to
consolidation of offices .
3. $366,608 to $377,380 annually from occupancy cost savings, due to vacating the current
offices at four different locations. This savings assumes that replacement tenants can be
found.
7
How Are New County Buildings Justified? July 26,2006
County Response to Grand Jury Report No. 0602 Page 8
Pr jection of Annual Costs and Savings
(in thousands)
2012
2008 2009 2010 2011 &beyond
Net Debt Service $847 $1,049 $1,082 $1,117 $1,156
Savings:
Criminal Justice Fund (500) (500) (500) (500) (500)
Personnel Savings (213) (213) (213) (213) (213)
Occupancy Savings 366 370 373 377 377
BEST CASE (sublease of existing facilities):
Net cost or(savings) $(232) $(34) $(4) $27 $66
POSSIBLE CASE (without subleasing):
Net cost or(savings) $(91 ) $111 $143 $179 $107
Comments:
Without the $3.8 million from the plant acquisition account and the $4.0 million from the Criminal
Justice Fund (both of which are used to lower the amount of lease revenue bonds required to finance
the project from $22.5 million to $14.7 million), the annual debt service cost would increase by
slightly over 50%, or more than 1500,000 per year.
In addition to $4.0 million in up-front money from the Criminal Justice Fund, the project proposal
contemplates using$500,000 per year for 25 years from the Criminal Justice Fund to offset part of
the lease revenue bond debt service.
The source of the Plant Acquisition Account is the General Fund. If this project were not undertaken,
the funds would be available for any General Fund expenditure, which covers most County
expenditures. Using Criminal Justice Funds (which, as previously indicated may be used for a wide
variety of expenditures related to criminal justice) for this project makes them unavailable for other
expenditures. Such projects will then have to be funded by the General Fund, thus increasing net
County cost at that time. The proposal understates the net County cost by more than $1 million
annually -- $500,000 from understated debt service cost and the $500,000 of"free" funds from the
Criminal Justice Fund.
Clerk-Recorder/Elections Building
On September 23, 2003, the BOS approved a project to replace and consolidate the County Clerk-
Recorder and Elections facilities. At present, the functions of this department are located in six
different buildings in downtown Martinez. This project involves a newly constructed office on
Escobar Street in Martinez. On April 26, 2005, the BOS approved a specific lease agreement with a
8
How Are New County Buildings Justified? July 26,2006
County Response to Grand Jury Report No.0602 Page 9
purchase option, which, consistent with BOS policy that the County has an equity interest in facilities
in which the County has long-te occupancy, the County is expected to exercise.
Total purchase cost was estimated as follows:
Sept 23, 2003 April 26, 2005
Projection Projection
Building Purchase $8,900,000 $10,994,000
Other Costs 700,000 769,000
Total $91600,000 $11,763,000
The projected funding sources were as follows:
General Fund Contributions $1,950,000 $1,950,000
Micrographic Modernization Fund 2,000,000 2,000,000
Lease Revenue Bonds 5,650,000 7,813,000
Total l $9,600,000 $11,763,000
The General Fund Contributions figure represents accumulations from the County Clerk's annual
operating budget over the past few years.
The Micrographic Modernization Fund receives revenue from filing and recording fees. The funds
are to be used for micrographics and modernization of the Recorder's Office.
The project justification assumes that 25-year lease revenue bonds would be sold in mid-2006, at a
rate of 6 percent interest, to partially finance the project.
Projection of Annual Costs and Savings
Sept 23, 2003 April 26, 2005
Projection Prosection
Current Facilities Lease Cost:
Fiscal Year 2005-2006 $(612,019)
Fiscal Year 2006-2007 $(765,085)
New Building:
Debt Service 386,500 604,071
Maintenance/Utilities 220,000 225,000
New Building Subtotal $606,500 $829,071
Increase (Decrease) in net County cost $(5,519) $63,986
Comments:
9
How Are New County Buildings Justified? July 26,2006
County Response to Grand Jury Report No. 0602 Page 10
This project justification indicates that it meets the "improves productivity or reduces net County
cost"prioritization criterion. However, there are no projected staff reductions and the final
justification shows an increase in i annual net County cost of$64,000.
The approach to financing the building purchase is similar to that used for the District Attorney
Building. As such, it has a similar conceptual flaw. In this case, it assumes the use of$1,950,000 of
funds that originated in the General Fund to reduce the amount of lease revenue bonds required.
Without these "free" funds the County would have to issue $1,950,000 more lease revenue bonds and
the annual net Count cost would increase by more than $150,000 due to higher debt service costs.
There is a similar question with respect to the $2,000,000 to be obtained from the Micrographic
Modernization Fund. There are some differences in that the Fund comes from revenue from County
Clerk functions,the permissible uses are restricted much more than for the Criminal Justice Fund,
and the $2,000,000 is based on the square footage to be occupied by micrographic functions.
There is only a very limited explanation for the changes in project financial projections from
September 2003 (for the BOS's conditional approval) to April 2005 (for final approval). With respect
to the $2.2 million(23%) increase in cost, the April, 2005 presentation states that "project costs have
been refined to incorporate all fixed tenant improvements, state-of-the-art climate control,
mechanical, electrical, Are alarm land security systems." No further details are provided. This does
not explain why the costs increased . There are no comments on the $117,000 (19%) increase in
occupancy cost in 2005/2006 or on net County cost, which increased by $69,500 and changed from a
savings to a cost.
10
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESPONSE TO
GRAND JURY REPORT NO. 0602:
HOW ARE NEW COUNTY BUILDINGS JUSTIFIED?
FINDINGS
Coul ty Finances
1. In each of the last three fiscal years,the County's expenditures have exceeded revenue by
amounts ranging from$17 million to$22 million. The County drew down reserve funds to
cover the shortage.
Response: Agree.
2. On June 28,2005,the Board of Supervisors approved the 2005/2006 budget with a projected
$20 million deficit. At this rate of deficit spending,the June 30,2006 unreserved fund
balance will be approximately 3.5%of revenue--below the 5%minimum level recently
established by the Board--and will be exhausted before June 30,2008.
Response: Partially disagree. This statement was true as of June 28,2005;however,the
County did not continue the budgeted rate of deficit spending and,now,at year-end the
unreserved fund balance is expected to be above the June 28,2005 estimate.
3. On May 2,2006,the Board of Supervisors approved a balanced budget for fiscal year
2006/2007 that includes a reduction of 200 staff positions and reductions in services provided
by the County.
Response: Agree.
Capital Projects
4. The Capital Facilities Committee,atwo-person committee of the Board of Supervisors,
oversees most major capital projects.
Response: Partially disagree. The County Administrator's Office oversees the management of
capital projects. The Board's Capital Facilities Committee recommends priorities for capital
facilities funds to the Board of Supervisors and monitors the progress of major capital projects.
5. All major capital projects require the approval of the Board of Supervisors for each major
phase,i.e.,feasibility,design,and construction.
Response: Agree.
6. The Board of Supervisors has not adopted a written policy regarding the Justification and
approval of capital facilities projects which addresses such basic questions as:
How Are New County Buildings Justified? July 26,2006
County Response to Grand Jury Report No.0602 Page 2
a. How large does a project have to be before it is subject to review and approval outside a
department?
b. What specific information is required for the justification for each phase of a project?
c. What is the approval process for each phase of a project?
Response: Partially disagree. The CapiIal Facilities Committee of the Board of Supervisors
reviews capital projects and makes recommendations to the Board The Committee reviews all
capital projects with an estimated projecticost of$1 million or more. The Committee has
established criteria that it uses to evaluate and prioritize capital projects. The Committee has
directed staff to develop a standardized formatfor presenting proposed projects,which will
allow the Committee to receive information to evaluate projects in a consistent format. This
reporting format will include information concerning the facilities need to be addressed by a
proposed project,details of the proposed solution,and the proposed financing plan for the
project.
Capital projects are evaluated on the basis of the project as a whole,rather than in individual
phases. However,the Board or the Capital Facilities Committee may direct staff to provide
status reports at the completion of various phases of a project to ensure that assumptions made
at the outset of a project remain valid For example,cost estimates made at the outset of
capital projects are usually based on preliminary information concerning project design.
These estimates may change once the design of the project is completed
Capital projects typically involve multiplle actions that must be reviewed and approved by the
Board of Supervisors during the course of project completion,including the following:
• Execution of contracts with arch�itecls and other project consultants
• Approval of findings required foi compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act(CEQA)
• Authorization to seek construction bids
• Award of construction contracts
• Approval offinancing
These approvals occur at different stages of project development,allowing for Board review
throughout the course of a project. For example,architects are usually hired during the early
planning stages,CEQA findings are approved during the design phase,and construction
contracts are approved at the completion of design. In addition,for larger projects staff
typically provides progress reports to the Capital Facilities Committee at the completion of
each major project phase. Moreover,budgetary controls exist that prevent funds from being
allocated or transferred to capital accounts without the approval of the County Administrator's
Office and Board of Supervisors.
7. The Capital Facilities Committee has no written document,which outlines the scope of its
activities.
2
How Are New County Buildings Justified? July 26,2006
County Response to Grand Jury Report No.0602 Page 3
Response: Partially disagree. The Capital Facilities Committee was established during the
Board's reorganization of officers on January 9,2001. The purpose of the Capital Facilities
Committee was defined in a December 20,2000 memo from incoming Chairwoman Uilkema to
the Board members,recommending that I the Committee was to work closely with staff in order
to develop a workable,long-term financing plan to meet the County's capital facilities needs.
The specific activities of the Committee to accomplish this goal are determined by the
Committee members.
8. In capital facilities project justifications,prior year fund balances and other funds,(e.g.,the
Criminal Justice Construction Fund)which could be used for many other purposes,are treated
in financial projections as"free"funds and are used in the projections to reduce the amount of
funding and related interest cost of the project.
Response: Partially disagree. The Cou I ty does accumulatefunds over multiple years to apply
towards large capital projects in the same way a home buyer might save money for a down
payment on a house. This is a sound business practice. If by 'free"funds,the Grand Jury
means funds that are available at no interest charge(as opposed to borrowed funds),then the
County agrees with this portion of the Ending. Prudent planning for capital needs often
involves a multi year financing plan that may include the accumulation of funds in a capital
account prior to construction. This approach reduces the amount of debt required to
implement a project,which is turn reduces the ultimate project cost.
However,if`free"funds are meant to i ply that the County has complete discretion over the
use of the funds,then the County disagrees with that assumption. Some of the funds
designated by the County for long-term facility needs are restricted to facility construction and
maintenance purposes. For example,the Criminal Justice Facilities Construction Fund,
which is derived from penalty assessments levied on court fines,may be used only for the
following limited purposes: assisting any county in the construction,reconstruction,
expansion,improvement,operation,or maintenance of county criminal justice and court
facilities and for improvement of criminal justice automated information systems.
9. The District Attorney Building is pa I ially justified by"improved productivity or reductions
in net County cost",however even the best case justification shows an increase in net County
cost over the life of the project. (The annual increase in net County cost would be another$1
million,if"free"funds,as described lin Appendix A,were not utilized in the justification to
reduce the amount of lease revenue bonds required to fund the project and the related interest
cost.)
Response: Agree. The criteria of improved productivity was used as part of the justification
for the District Attorney project because the new building will allow the District Attorney staff
who work in the downtown Martinez area to consolidate from multiple,crowded office spaces
to one space located in close proximity to the Taylor Courthouse. This will improve
productivity.
3
How Are New County Buildings Justified? July 26,2006
County Response to Grand Jury Report No.0602 Page 4
The financial projections for the project involve a range of scenarios,some of which include a
relatively small increase in net County co t. The District Attorney has indicated a willingness
to absorb such a cost in the operating budget of his department,should it occur,so as to
maintain cost neutrality to the project budget.
10. The justification for the District Attoley Building does not contain specific information or
data that document the life/safety threats or overcrowding that exists or how the issues will be
resolved by the new facility.
Response: Partially disagree. Recent staff reports have not included detailed descriptions of
overcrowding in the District Attorney's current office spaces because this condition was
identified and described in the initial needs assessment and feasibility studies for the new
facility performed in 2002/2003. The amount of office space allocated to the District
Attorney's Office has not changed significantly in 10—15 years. Overcrowding in the District
Attorney's current facilities is the result of incremental staff growth over this period without a
commensurate increase in office space. I The new building provides space for current
authorized positions,including positions that are being held vacant due to budget cuts.
11. The Clerk-Recorder/Elections Buildi Ig is partially justified by"improved productivity or
reductions in net County cost",however the justification shows a$64,000 increase in annual
net County cost over the life of the project. (The annual increase in net County cost would be
another$150,000,if"free"funds,as described in Appendix A,were not utilized in the
justification to reduce the amount of lease revenue bonds required to fund the project and the
related interest cost.)
Response: Agree. The offices of the County Clerk-Recorder and Elections Department are
currently spread across six facilities in downtown Martinez. These are all older facilities that
the County leases from private property)owners. Several of these facilities have chronic
maintenance problems that cause interruptions to department operations. The size of the
current office spaces is insufficient to meet the needs of the Department.
The proposed new facilityfor the Count Clerk-Recorder and Elections offices would improve
productivity by providing adequate office space for staff to efficiently conduct department
business. The new facility would be but to modern construction standards and would have
highly functional building systems,which would greatly reduce operational disruptions caused
by maintenance problems. The new facility would also result in the consolidation of staff from
multiple sites into one facility,improving coordination among staff and increasing
productivity.
The project does involve a modest incremental increase in building occupancy costs. The
Board determined this incremental cost was justified by the benefits associated with the new
facility.
4
How Are New County Buildings Justified? July 26,2006
County Response to Grand Jury Report No.0602 Page 5
12. The justification for the Clerk-Recorder/Elections Building does not contain specific
information or data that document the life/safety threats or overcrowding that exists or how
the issues will be resolved by the new facility.
Response: Partially disagree. The project will mitigate crowded conditions and improve the
productivity of the Clerk-Recorder's Office,as described in the County's response to Finding
No. 11.
13. The justification for the Clerk-Recorder/Elections Building dated April 26,2005 provides no
explanation why the costs increased from the September 23,2003 justification. (See
Appendix A for more detail.)
Response: Agree. The cost increase was due to refined cost estimation and construction cost
inflation between the dates of the estimates.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The 2005/2006 Contra Costa County Grand Jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors:
1. Defer the District Attorney Building and all other non-emergency capital projects unless
they reduce net County cost,until the County's unreserved fund balance in the General
Fund is at least 5%of annual revenue--the minimum level specified by the County's
Reserve Policy.
Response: Will not be implemented because it is not warranted The Final 2006/07
budget is balanced in compliance with the Board's minimum reserve policy,including a
sound financing plan for the District Attorney building. The Final Budget resulted from
an open deliberation process that took into account planned capital projects. Asa result of
actions already initiated br the Board,it is anticipated that the_County will reach its Deleted:t
minimum unreserved fund balance goal pyJuly 1,2007._DeJerring plannedprojects will_ - Deleted:prior mthecomptedon ofthe
only increase project costs and exacerbate strained financial resources. Di.tr;crA Turney prne r
2. Establish rigorous standards for j Istification of capital projects that include the following:
a. Contents to be included in th I justification for each phase of a project -- feasibility
study,design phase,and construction phase.
b. Information requirements foreachprioritization criterion.
c. Specific guidelines on the financial information and projections to be included which:
(1)prohibit the use of prior years' savings and other sources of"free"money to
determine the funding required and the related impact of a project on net County cost
and(2)track and explain changes in project cost estimates.
5
How Are New County Buildings Justified? July 26,2006
County Response to Grand Jury Report No.0602 Page 6
Response: Will not be implemented because it is not warranted Capital projects currently
go through a rigorous justification process that includes review and approval by the
Capital Facilities Committee and thel Board of Supervisors at multiple points during the
course of implementation. The Capital Facilities Committee recently directed staff to
develop a standardized reporting for imat for presenting proposed capital projects. This will
ensure consistency in the type of information presented to the Committee in justification of
new projects.
3. Establish a capital project approval process for each of the three phases(feasibility,design,
and construction)that specifies whose approval is required at various dollar thresholds.
Response: Will not be implemented because It is not warranted An approval process for
various phases of capital projects aiready exists. With the exception of some small projects
that are performed entirely "in-house"by County staff,capital projects typically involve
the County entering into contracts with architects,contractors,and various other
consultants beginning in the early stages of project development. The Board of
Supervisors must approve these contracts. For larger projects,staff prepares periodic
progress reports to the Capital Facilities Committee during the course of the project,
providing an added level of review.
4. Before proceeding with the District Attorney Building,re-evaluate the project justification
using the recommended justification standards especially with respect to the financial
projections(Recommendation#2cJ).
Response: Will not be implemented because it is not warranted The District Attorney
project has already undergone a rigorous justification process that has included multiple
staff reports and approvals by the Capital Facilities Committee and the Board of
Supervisors.
6