California County News

The Perfect Storm: Public Infrastructure Expert Outlines Consequences of Aging Network

The Los Angeles Division of the League of California Cities was pleased recently to welcome guest speaker Richard Little, the Director of the Keston Institute for Public Finance and Infrastructure Policy at USC. Little informed attendees that when it comes to infrastructure finance, reinvestment is badly needed and the nation is on the verge of a perfect storm in funding civil infrastructure.

The Keston Institute actively addresses the economic policy, financial, demographic and other dimensions of public infrastructure development in California, in addition to undertaking research, outreach, and education activities to further understanding and awareness of present infrastructure challenges. The word “challenges” is fitting to describe the work and financing that the structures we all rely upon greatly need; in fact; Little argued that if the country is to restore infrastructure back to decent levels, the costs are in the trillions.

When it comes to actually paying for infrastructure, Little pointed out that we need to think about how we actually view it’s role; to be specific, is it a public good, a market commodity, or something in between? If taxes are chosen as the means to fund infrastructure, we can conclude it is seen as a public good, and if fees are used for funding, then it is seen as a commodity. In California, Little believes that ongoing projects relying on bond funds won’t be able to continue because current patterns are unsustainable barring tax increases or spending cuts, as he noted that we can’t bond our way out of our predicament.

While voters may understand that without tax increases services will be limited, there are undoubtedly plenty of stakeholders to satisfy when it comes to infrastructure projects, such as environmental concerns, and it is no easy feat to deal with conflicting demands. In detailing where financing can come from, Little listed options such as taxes (general or targeted), user fees, non-enterprise revenue streams, revenue from asset monetization, and leveraging public money with private capital for a public/private partnership (PPP). Little also mentioned the ample capital in pension fund investments as a way to finance revenue-backed projects, among other financing methods.

Little pointed out that it’s important to realize that public/private partnerships are merely a delivery method and that while entering into such an agreement can be advantageous, it’s vital to set clear goals and establish trust between entities. Also, transparency, fair competition, and appropriate value for the cost are among the concerns that PPPs raise. A lack of accountability and poor organizational culture can lead to great deficiencies in project management, resulting in inflated budgets if either public or private leadership is not held responsible.

Staying economically competitive depends on an efficient and functional infrastructure, but as it stands, our nation’s bridges, highways, and other systems are in steep decline—despite their maintenance being in our great interest. According to Little, the country’s avoidance of taxes and fees for infrastructure has created a lack of adequate revenue streams to renew our critical systems, and furthermore, how such revenues are created is not as important as just having revenues to begin with. However, the focus on having funds solely from a policy perspective does not seem to take into account the political capital required to raise such revenues, especially at a time of great fiscal hardship. Simply put, it’s easier said than done when anti-tax movements are increasingly vocal and voters don’t want to see their wallets get hit. It seems in the end that if paying to address our infrastructure problems is avoided, the nation will pay in other ways, namely greater economic decline, among the other consequences of an aging infrastructure network.

Recidivism Rates Greatly Reduced in OC Thanks to Re-Entry Unit Programs

Orange County is finding of plenty of success stories when it comes to helping inmates set for release adjust to a life that isn’t behind bars, which ensures they will not reoffend and end up back in prison. A county grand jury report has applauded the Inmate Re-Entry Unit’s pre-release programs, which involves an after-release support center and life coaches so that inmates (especially high-risk) receive assistance in finding a job and housing. This Sheriff’s Department unit was first created back in 2006 and for an example of its success, a total of 148 out of 1,606, (or 9.2 percent) of the former Orange County inmates who participated in the Inmate Re-Entry Unit program reoffended in the past six months. This is notable because inmates who participate, then their chances of staying out of trouble greatly increases. The OC Register summarizes parts of the program as follows:

“Resources are dedicated to helping keep those at the highest risk of committing more crimes. Civilian life coaches also use an inmate’s background, including substance abuse, education, housing information and employment history, to help plot a path back into society. Once inmates are out on their own, they can use the Great Escape Resource Center in Santa Ana to get help finding and keeping a job, along with referrals for housing, domestic violence shelters, and other community resources. The center, founded in January 2007, provides coordinators to act as a go-between between prospective employers and the former inmate, evaluating skills, work history and reliability and monitoring progress.”

The jury’s report makes two key recommendations after studying the unit: one, additional funding is required to support the re-entry program; second; public awareness needs to be increased so that people understand the value of programs in reducing recidivism.

Read the entire grand jury report here.

Unions Breathe Sigh of Relief as Former Legislator Shelves ‘Public Employee Pension Reform Act;’

It appears that former State Legislator Roger Niello has decided to abandon his efforts to collect signatures for the controversial “Public Employee Pension Reform Act.” The proposed initiative would have implemented drastic reforms, such as a cap on benefits, limiting changes to pension plans, and equally splitting contributions. In addition, public agencies would have been given complete power to modify pensions, retroactive increases would be terminated, unused leave time would be excluded from pension calculations, and the retirement age for all public workers in the state would be set at 62, among other reforms. So why is Niello deciding to shelve the plan for now? The former Republican Assemblyman has said that a special election on taxes later this year seems unlikely, so he may introduce a new measure for one of the 2012 ballots. Niello stated that “Our urgency is gone. The reason for filing this measure was to have something in line for a November election alongside the measure on taxes, but that appears unlikely to happen now."

In response to the news that Niello’s initiative to rollback public pension benefits will not be moving forward, union leaders couldn’t help but express their pleasure. Take Dave Low, chairman of Californians for Retirement Security, who released the following statement:

“It is appropriate that the flawed Niello initiative to gut retirement security for millions of Californians will end up in the scrapheap of politically-motivated failures instead of on the ballot. It was a poorly drafted attempt to punish middle-class workers and it ignored the fact that workers have agreed to substantial reductions in retirement benefits and have increased their contributions towards pensions from 5 to 10 percent. We continue to believe the way to improve the state's pension system is at the bargaining table, not the ballot box.”

And while unions may be relishing in the shelving of this particular initiative, Capitol Weekly points out that “there remain several initiatives filed with the Secretary of State’s office that could keep these same people up at night. These include measures that would severely limit union elections, ban unions from making political donations, restrict state spending to near current levels, and make it harder for the Legislature to pass bills.” Read the full article here.

Beach Bummers: Annual Water Quality Report Card; 8 in LA County Receive F Grade

The summer months are approaching, so it’s as good a time as any to know which of the state’s beaches score well for water quality. The non-profit Heal the Bay has released its annual Beach Report Card and 21 percent of California beaches scored perfect A-plus grades. Overall, most state beaches had good to excellent water quality scores, with 400 of 445 locations receiving an A or B grade during the summer dry time period. However, there is great disparity between dry and wet weather water quality, which Heal the Bay argues is the result of insufficient efforts to reduce storm water runoff pollution. When it comes to those beaches that ranked the worst, 4 out of 10 were in Los Angeles County. Mark Gold, president of Heal the Bay, commented that “Despite numerous individual beach success stories, this year demonstrated that there hasn’t been progress reducing major beach pollution sources like the Los Angeles River, Malibu Creek and Topanga Creek.” Long Beach in particular saw its grads drop by 40% after three years of improvement.

Overall, beaches in San Diego, Orange and Ventura counties ranked very well, and an "A" grade was given to 90 percent of Bay Area oceanside beaches for the absence of potentially harmful bacteria.

Top 10 beaches with the poorest water quality statewide
1. Cowell Beach -- at the wharf (Santa Cruz County)
2. Avalon Harbor Beach on Catalina Island (L.A. County)
3. Cabrillo Beach harborside (Los Angeles County)
4. Topanga State Beach at creek mouth (L.A. County)
5. Poche Beach (Orange County)
6. North Beach/Doheny (Orange County)
7. Arroyo Burro Beach (Santa Barbara County)
8. Baker Beach at Lobos Creek (San Francisco County)
9. Colorado Lagoon (Los Angeles County)
10. Capitola Beach -- west of the jetty (Santa Cruz County)

You can read the full report card here.

Amended AB 94 to Lower the Amount that Counties Have to Pony Up for a Jail’s Costs

In light of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on the state’s crowded prisons, eyes have turned once again to counties as a key component in facilitating the management of California’s inmate population. Since the state must reduce its prison numbers by thousands over the next two years, the governor’s realignment plans may get a boost of support, and the major support Gov. Brown is looking for is funding through the approval of tax hike extensions. One key part of realignment plans that Brown signed is Assembly Bill 94, which was recently amended. Basically, this piece of legislation lowers the amount that counties have to pony up in order to tap into state jail-construction money. Under the amendment, counties will only have to put up 10 percent of a jail's overall cost, rather than the current 25 percent. Many county sheriffs have applauded the change. The Sun reports:

“Steve Whitmore, spokesman for the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, said funding will now be more proportionate to the inmate population of a county. ‘This is good for us,’ Whitmore said. ‘They wrote some of the rules where they took into account the size of the county and, in essence, because of the large number of inmates in L.A. County, we moved up to the head of the class. Also, with the 10 percent, we could conceivably get up to $100 million, so it's a good move for us.’”

The financing for jails was first approved by lawmakers back in 2007. The ease in financing is to ensure that local governments can take on extra prisoners as part of the governor’s realignment plans. More on the bill can be seen here.

Sac Retirement Systems Looks to Keep Some Pension Data Private After Appeals Ruling

We relayed earlier this month that the Sacramento County Employees' Retirement System was ordered by the 3rd District Court of Appeal to release pension data to the Sacramento Bee. While the county’s retirement board voted not to challenge the court’s ruling, a petition has been filed with the appeals court, as the retirement system is seeking permission to withhold certain records. So what exactly is the pension board trying to keep private? Namely a pensioner’s date of retirement, department retired from, last position held and years of service. The Bee reports:

“SCERS argues that this information is confidential, and the court suggests as much in its ruling.
Attorney Karl Olson, who is representing The Bee and the California First Amendment Coalition in the case, said SCERS' request is unnecessary. ‘I think the Court of Appeal's well-crafted decision was very clear about what SCERS was directed to disclose,’ he said. ‘We hope the Court of Appeal will deny SCERS' petition for rehearing and that the records The Bee requested will be made public as soon as possible, so that The Bee can educate its readers about where public money is going.’”

While the retirement board is seeking clarification on how it should follow the court’s orders, it appears the system wants to find a way to keep some data confidential even though the court's definition of private records was quite broad. Other county retirement systems have already recognized that the ruling was significant because it has an impact on their ability to refrain from disclosure. See more here.

Contra Costa Grand Jury Recommends Major Pension Reforms in New Report

Attempting to find concessions in upcoming union talks that will offset rising pension costs is one of many recommendations that a Contra Costa grand jury recommends in a report that has just been released. When it comes to the contracts of most government employees in the county, expiration dates are fast approaching, making the release of the report all the more timely. The jury also advocates that employees should pay more toward their pension costs. You can read the full report here:

Grand_Jury_Pension_Reform_1105

Grave-Marker Controversy in El Dorado; Supes Agree to Remove Headstones w/ Racial Slur

State, county and community officials received the approval of the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors to replace 36 gravestones that bear the N-word. The supervisors unanimously agreed to get rid of the offensive gravestones. The remains were originally from a cemetery in the old Gold Rush town of Negro Hill, but were re-buried in an El Dorado County cemetery in 1954 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers since the construction of the Folsom Dam required the graves to be relocated. However, all those years ago, the concrete headstones at the cemetery in El Dorado were defaced with the racial slur by Corps personnel. The Bee reports:

“El Dorado Supervisors voted 5-0 today to replace the offensive headstones at the county's Mormon Island Cemetery with new grave markers in a privately funded project. Under a proposal before the county, new headstones are to be carved by the California Prison Industry Authority. ‘Thirty-six markers are going to be removed,’ said Supervisor John Knight, whose El Dorado Hills district includes the cemetery. ‘The offensive words are going to be gone.’ Left unresolved were the final design of the new stones and how to dispose of the old ones.”

It is hoped the issue will be resolved by the end of this summer. More can be seen here and here.

Legal Battle Brewing Over Pay Cut and Pension Reforms Imposed by Riverside County

Since the Riverside Sheriff's Association and Riverside County could not reach an agreement on a new labor contract, an impasse was officially declared between the two sides. The union represents more than 2,000 deputies and other public-safety employees. The impasse came after more than 10 bargaining sessions, and due to a rather strong lack of consensus, a 10 percent cut in base pay will be imposed on the officers. In addition, salary raises will be frozen indefinitely for sheriff's deputies, investigators, correctional officers and probation officers. According to County Human Resources Director Barbara Olivier, the county will impose terms until the "union indicates a desire to resume negotiations for a mutual agreement.” The North County Times reports:

“The head of the union, the Riverside Sheriffs' Association, cried foul and hinted strongly that the organization will sue over the matter. ‘This was not unexpected,’ said Pat McNamara, association president. ‘We endured nothing but bad-faith tactics from the county both at the table and away from the table, continuously since Jan. 5, when negotiations officially commenced.’Olivier disagreed. ‘We have done everything within our power to make this a real fair and honest negotiation, spelling out what our needs are and the ways that we can get there,’ Olivier said in a telephone interview Monday.”

The terms of the imposed contract will last for one year and will be based on the county's final and best offer. Supervisor Jeff Stone called the imposition “fair.” In addition to a pay cut, a second tier of lower pension benefits will be created for newly hired employees. The union considers such pension reforms illegal and it has said that layoffs will have to occur. Supervisor Bob Buster commented that “The union feels they are above the county's problems.”

In other Riverside news, supervisors have approved a rate hike for cities that contract with the county sheriff’s department for their law enforcement needs. There are 17 cities that contract with the sheriff’s department, and the rate increases will be retroactive to July 1, 2010. Read more here.

Judge’s Ruling in SBDO Pension Case Affirmed by Appeals Court Decision; Data to be Released?

A San Bernardino County Superior Court judge who recently ruled that the San Bernardino County Employees' Retirement Association must release pension data had his ruling affirmed when a state appeals court ruled that Sacramento County's retirement board must also disclose pension names/figures. We relayed recently that the 3rd District Court of Appeal decision was significant because it was the first time that an appeals court weighed a case involving the release of pension data, meaning the ruling will apply to other counties across the state, as they will not be able to refrain from disclosing the names and retirement benefits of thousands of public workers. The attorney who fought the case on behalf of newspapers seeking data commented that independent retirement systems will have to follow suit “unless some other court of appeals reaches a different conclusion, this would bind all the 1937 Act counties.” In the San Bernardino case (which occurred before the appeals court ruling), the Press Enterprise reports:

“Judge John Vander Feer ruled in favor of The Press-Enterprise, ordering the San Bernardino County Employees' Retirement Association to disclose the names of employees whose pensions exceed $90,000 a year. In explaining his decision, Vander Feer cited a 2007 California Supreme Court ruling that found government employee salaries are a matter of public record and disclosure of the information is not an unwarranted invasion of privacy. He said the same reasoning would apply to pensions. ‘Public employees are employees of the public,’ Vander Feer said. ‘When they receive their retirement benefits, it's still a public issue.’”

In light of the appeals court ruling (not to mention the superior court decision), the San Bernardino County association has announced it will discuss the case at its June 2nd meeting.