HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03071989 - S.5 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on March 7 , 1989 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SUBJECT: 1988-89 Grand Jury Report
Supervisor Robert Schroder brought to the attention of
the Board the report of the 1988-89 Contra Costa County Grand Jury
entitled "Strategic Planning in Contra Costa County" . He commented
on the scope of the report, and referred to the Capital Improvement
Program previously adopted by the Board. Supervisor Schroder
requested that Board members and the media be provided with a copy
of that Program, and that a response to the Grand Jury report be
prepared as soon as possible.
Board members being in agreement, IT IS ORDERED that
the following actions are APPROVED:
1. ACKNOWLEDGED receipt of the 1988-89 Grand Jury Report
entitled "Strategic Planning in Contra Costa County" ;
2. REQUESTED County Administrator to forward to the Board
members and the media a copy of the Capital Improvement
Program previously adopted by the Board; and
3 . DIRECTED the County Administrator to respond to the
Grand Jury Report.
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct cor-tr;j
cc: County Administrator an action taken and entered on the rnisIVM-13 of � 2e
Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: 1z /qgq
PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk, of the Soard
fof Supervisors and County Administrator
By, , Deputy
A REPORT BY
THE 1988-89 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY
P. 0. BOX 1110
Martinez, CA 94553
(415) 646-.2345 IE -7 n7,
PHIL BATCHELOR
CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
�,qOjyT OS " O.
B .. ..Lf-..!....... _ ....... Deput
STRATEGIC PLANNING IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
"I live from one crisis to another - how
can I plan?"
APPROVED BY THE GRAND JURY:
DATE: at�✓ ! / amu.
PHILIP)k-. SITZMAN SR.
GRAND trURY FOREMAN
ACCEPTED FOR FILING: p
DATE:
WE T
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
• ti
SECTION 933(cj OF THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE
Sec. 933. Findings and recommendations; com-
ment of governing bodies, elective officers,
or agency heads
(c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits
a final report on the operations of any public agency
subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of
the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of
the superior court on the findings and recommendations
pertaining to matters under the control of the governing
body, and every elective county officer or agency head for
which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to
Section 914.1 shall comment within 60 days to the
presiding judge of the superior court, with an information
copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and
recommendations pertaining to matters under the control
of that county officer or agency head and any agency or
agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or
controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also
comment on the findings and recommendations. All
such comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted
to the presiding judge of the superior court who impan-
eled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand
jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the
public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the
mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those
offices. One copy shall be placed on file with the
applicable grand jury final report by, and in the control
of the currently impaneled grand jury, where`it shall be
maintained for a minimum of five years. (Added by
Stats 1961, c 1284, § 1. Amended by Stats 1963, c 674,.
§ 1; Stats 1974, c 393, § 6; Stats 1974, c. 1396, § 3;
Stats 1977, c 107, § 6; Stats 1977, c 187, § 1; Stats
1980, c 543, § 1;. Stats 1981, c 203, § 1; Stam 1982, c
1408, § 5,• Stats 1985 c 221, § 1; Stats 1987, c 690,
§ 1; Stats 1988, c. 1297, § 5.)
Former § 933, added by Stats.1982, c. 1408, § 6, amended by
Stats.1985,C.221,§ 2,operative Jan. 1, 1989,was repealed by Stats.1987,
c. 690, § 2.
Former § 933, added by Stau.1959, c. 501, § 2, was repealed by
Stats.1959, c. 1812, § 3.
STRATEGIC PLANNING .
SUMMARY
The grand jury was impressed by the magnitude of the crises
besetting County leadership during 1988 such as the disposition
of garbage, the staffing of the new jail, the condition of
Merrithew Memorial Hospital, and why long-standing problems are
not being solved before crises occur.
The grand jury found that:
♦ Extensive planning . was undertaken to anticipate and
deal with land use issues, but there was no compar-
able comprehensive planning to anticipate and deal
with service needs.
♦ A number of individual departments have developed
long-range plans for their own programs, but there
was virtually no interdepartmental planning, pri-
oritization of needs across departments, or system-
atic review to determine if planned objectives had
been achieved.
♦ A prevalent view existed that strategic planning is
unusually difficult in the public sector.
♦ Few resources are allocated to the strategic plan-
ning for County services.
♦ Strategic planning is possible since revenues, growth
patterns and service needs can be projected with a
reasonable margin of error based on past trends.
♦ Strategic planning is an extremely important tool for .
averting crises and should be used.
♦ County resources can be used more effectively if
alternative scenarios are developed to facilitate the
setting of priorities.
The grand jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors make a
strong commitment to strategic planning and implement this
commitment by mandating that the administration engage in
interdepartmental strategic long-range planning. The Board
should allocate adequate resources for the task and continue to
be. involved in the development and review of a dynamic planning
process.
This report was begun on August 1, 1988, and was concluded on
January 1, 1989.
-1-
INTRODUCTION
In any large and successful corporation, one of the most
important functions of the chief executive officer and the
board of directors is strategic planning for the future of the
corporation. Performance and actions of the past are analyzed
to determine what worked and what did not, and needs, resources
and trends are assessed. After which, the task of planning
begins. Factors that can affect the future are identified and
analyzed, and various possible scenarios are developed. Only
then can the leaders begin to make the decisions that will
affect the future and map their strategies. Plans must be
structured in a way that revisions can be made as conditions
change.
All forward planning is done in the context of uncertainty
(neither business nor government can be sure of future
resources) , but the planning process can accommodate that
uncertainty by analyzing prior trends as a basis for
predictions and by developing alternative scenarios to address
various situations.
Contra Costa County government has the characteristics of a
large business (half a billion dollars per year) , has a board
of directors (Board of Supervisors) and has a chief executive
officer (County Administrator) . The grand jury undertook the
task of determining the extent and the quality of strategic
planning by and for the county.
FINDINGS
1. Strategic planning is the act of examining the past as a
basis for making projections for the future, identifying
needs, problems and constraints and developing plans which
have the flexibility to address changing needs.
2. Demographic. information is available- from many sources.
As an example, the Community Development Department has
developed an excellent history of demographic information
for the County. This includes data on population, trans-
portation, traffic flows and other physical data. This.
information has been extrapolated to the year 2005, using
current and predicted developments throughout the County.
This information is readily available and provides an
excellent base for analyzing and projecting the physical
needs of the County but little use is being made of this
information in planning for human services. (Health,-
social services, drug abuse, etc. )
-2-
3 . The County Administrator's staff has responsibility for
the comprehensive strategic planning which encompasses all
departments. This responsibility is delineated in section
24-4. 008 of the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code.
Currently about 25-50 percent of one staff person' s time
is available for developing a strategic plan.
4. Some consequences of inadequate strategic planning by
Contra Costa County include:
♦ Declaring an emergency to repair sanitary facilities
at the Marsh Creek Detention Facility, when the need
had been known for several years.
♦ Failing to determine the source of funding for staff-
ing and operating for the new West County Detention
Facility when construction was authorized over four
years ago.
♦ Inability to resolve the "garbage crisis" when the
need has been known for over ten years.
♦ Allowing Merrithew Memorial Hospital facilities to
seriously deteriorate over a long period of time
without developing plans for correction.
5. Some departments have developed strategic plans to address
their needs. There is little evidence of cross-
departmental integration of these plans, prioritization of
needs among departments, or systematic follow-up of their
plans, to determine if projections were accurate and
objectives met.
6. Interviews with all members of the Board of Supervisors,
the County Administrator, several department heads and
other management personnel were held. Comments include:
♦ "We can't plan ahead, we don' t know how much money
will be available." (Heard from almost everyone
interviewed. )
♦ "What' s the point of planning? We don't have enough
money for the things we have to do. "
♦ "I live from one crisis to another - how can I plan?"
♦ "I don't have time to look ahead several years, I
can't even balance next year' s budget! "
♦ "We can't plan like private industry because govern-
ment is too uncertain. "
7. An analysis of the County's income and expenditures since
1978 shows reasonably stable changes that could be used to
predict availability of funding for the future (Exhibit 1).
-3-
3
8. If county expertise is not adequate for plan preparation,
professional guidance is available from a number of
management consulting firms.
9. There is no current guidance from the Board of Supervisors
directing the County Administrator to prepare a comprehen-
sive strategic plan.
CONCLUSIONS
The 1988-89 Contra Costa grand jury concludes that:
1. Effective county government requires comprehensive inter-
departmental strategic planning. toestablish trends,
integrate information on population changes, identify
problems, establish priorities, select courses of action
and measure progress.
2. Information needed to prepare a strategic plan currently
exists.
3 . County staff dedicated to strategic planning is
insufficient.
4. Strategic planning will take place only if the Board of
Supervisors:
♦ Is convinced it necessary.
♦ Demands it.
♦ Adequately supports the effort.
♦ Requires development of a system to . ensure it takes
place.
♦ Assumes the responsibility for the unpopular task of
making decisions on priorities between departments
and programs.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The 1988-89 Contra Costa County grand jury recommends that•
1. The Board of Supervisors direct the County Administrator
to prepare a comprehensive interdepartmental strategic
plan for at least the next five years. Elements should
include, but not be limited to:
♦ Statement of objectives.
♦ Analysis of past history.
-4-
♦ Needs, both met and unmet.
♦ Services and resources necessary to meet needs.
♦ Prioritization of needs and services.
♦ What present services can or must be curtailed or
expanded and which present resources can be
maximized.
0 Developing programs to acquire additional resources.
♦ An action strategy to implement plans.
2. The Board of Supervisors' provide adequate staffing and
mechanisms to accomplish strategic planning.
3 . Systematic follow-up be made at least annually by the
Board of Supervisors with the County Administrator and
department heads to determine progress, examine new
alternatives, establish priorities and modify the plan.
-5-
EXHIBIT 1
co Ln -i Or) Ln IT
co aD
ri 0) Ql N N Cf • N Ln to m
-i �0 O 00 0) Ln lO
H
W r r �0m -1 0') CUOOr
H OJ r
x 0) Or IOfMN
SC �0 O 00 -1 Ln Ln
W r1 Cl .-i N
l0 Ln d' co r d' lO IT N N
m r
p C� O (MN plGlCJr
M 0) Co -I r-i r O V, m
Ln M 'ZlO0) l0 NOM W
co (�
O O O i N r i l0 N O z
r-I N 00 r r
r-I r1 M ri N
W
d O +-a ri N N r m Ln C1 U) U
CO [� H
rn 0� .� rn C�
O Ln Ln r1 r-L 0 O) m 0) O 0-1
,-q -� m a4
M Ln0d' O m rrnCO Qw' W
00 Ln
d� OrOOJ LfllflNa a �D
-, oLn a) U)
w U O
ZNN ,-lQ0m0 IN mcc) Ln z U
wm OCLn NO� r Z �
0) V IT CC) ri Ln m N co H W
-+
CC) OQo �T ,-+ �TLnro a
E+ 00 . . . .
z 0) M M -i 0) 00 r-i m �D
-L mLw Ln Omni z W
z
O 0') m m Ln Ln c) a) < �
(s] co
> . N H
rn � rnrrn r ,-, M* C))*
m ;T -1 Ln r1 N m H U)
0) o CO r- m W �
z m M r 0 0 co Ln r N W U�
.-i Ln m m N r-i C1 N N O
O r i N r-I N PP- pi
U
CO Q0mrQ0 O Q0mrQ0 o0
r o
[� m 0J 07NO� OJO� (4OI U a
U) O -i �0 r-L O -1 d' �.o 00
O m Gx
U � p
� aaaa x aaaa x
x aaaa w aaaa . �
E� HHHH Q HHRH r W
cc P i
O H t al �D
> w >
O QY O
U) 0 0
wUaxrza N n 0 Pr C4 F4 U)
zwww � z wwww � w
z �cNxN � xxHxN U
W �CZE-FO p w a: p0 %
WE- HOC-+ o QPH0E-' o i
Pa U H U)
1-1
EXHIBIT 1
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GOVERNMENT
GROSS REVENUES
500 ................................................-----........................................................
TAXES
cn
400 .................................................-...............................
NTERGOVT
Prop 13 ... ... OTHER
300 ............. ..........
76 ;. .. ... ...
KA
Kx
200 :::� :::::
:.
100 ....
0
1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992
1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991
Actual ---,-*rojectedi,
INDEXED REVENUE (1978)
250 .... .............................................................................
TAXES
0
(nNTERGOVT
...
200 .... -...........
OTHER
150
qw
U)
100
: .1
..... ... ...
50
i
0 i
1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992
1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991