California County News

Power Saver: Merced Launches Solar Field and Officials Tout Millions in Savings

Merced County is capitalizing on its ideal location for solar access with the launch of a solar field that recently became operational. The 1.4 megawatt solar array was constructed to power correctional facilities and officials are commending the big savings that the solar field will provide. To be precise, the county is expected to save around $14 million over the next 25 years on utility costs and the county will also receive solar production rebates worth $1.5 million. It is the first project of its kind in the county and officials expect to work towards similar upgrades in the future.  County officials approved the project to create greater independence from high electric utility costs, which affect taxpayers in the region. The Merced Sun Star reports on the project:

“The Board of Supervisors approved a contract with Siemens — a company that specializes in energy technology — in 2010 to design and construct the array and issued another contract to Siemens to maintain and operate the array for the next five years, assistant public works director Richard Schwarz said. […] The upgrade is one of several aimed at reducing the cost of running county facilities, Schwarz said. Savings from the solar development will be deposited into a fund for other capital improvement projects across the county, which may include future energy upgrades.”

Overall the project involved 6,272 solar panels and in the future the county may consider having inmates maintain the solar field to further cut down on costs. During peak hours, the solar panels will allow the correctional facilities to offset 70 percent of the electrical costs.

Governor Proposes 12-Point Pension Reform Plan; Wants Voter Approval; Labor Balks

After months of waiting, Governor Brown has finally announced his plans for pension reform. A cursory look shows that the 12-point outline is similar to the proposal that Brown released in the spring. In a statement to the press, Brown commented that “It’s time to fix our pension systems so that they are fair and sustainable over a long time horizon. My plan raises the retirement age and bans abusive practices like ‘spiking’ and ‘air time’ while mandating that public employees pay an equal share of pension costs. I look forward to working with the legislature to enact these major reforms.” The question is whether or not the governor will find support in the Legislature to place the proposals on a ballot so that voters can have the final say during the November 2012 election. During a press conference, the governor indicated that he wanted officials to “chew on” his plan for now and he acknowledged that support would not necessarily be easy to come by. The administration is claiming that if the changes are adopted, the cost of pensions to taxpayers will be cut in half.

Right out of the gate, labor leaders have already expressed their disappointment with Brown’s plan. Brown briefed labor on his proposal before it was released to the public. In a prepared statement, Dave Low, chairman of the union coalition Californians for Retirement Security, commented the following about Brown’s 12-point plan:

“The governor has indicated that labor will not like many of his proposals. He is right. Unions across California have negotiated major retirement concessions, including increased payments by employees and two-tier benefits. These concessions have already saved the state, cities, counties and other entities hundreds of millions of dollars. We are strongly opposed to imposing additional retirement rollbacks without bargaining.”

So what are the specifics of the plan? See below for some details and a link to the full proposal:

1. Equal Sharing of Pension Costs: All Employees and Employers; all new and current employees transition to a contribution level of at least 50 percent of the annual cost of their pension benefits. Given the different levels of employee contributions, the move to a contribution level of at least 50 percent will be phased in at a pace that takes into account current contribution levels, current contracts and the collective bargaining process.

2. “Hybrid” Risk-Sharing Pension Plan: New Employees; a reduced defined benefit component and a defined contribution component that will be managed professionally to reduce the risk of employee investment loss. The hybrid plan will combine those two components with Social Security and envisions payment of an annual retirement benefit that replaces 75 percent of an employee’s salary

3. Increase Retirement Ages: New Employees; all new public employees will work to a later age to qualify for full retirement benefits. For most new employees, retirement ages will be set at the Social Security retirement age, which is now 67. The retirement age for new safety employees will be less than 67, but commensurate with the ability of those employees to perform their jobs in a way that protects public safety.

4. Require Three-Year Final Compensation to Stop Spiking: New Employees

See the rest of the proposal’s 12 points here.

New Stats from the Census Bureau on Income Inequality, Mobility, and County Figures

Interesting new statistics have been released by the U.S. Census Bureau that are partly a reflection of the economic times we find ourselves in. First are stats on income inequality, as California is one of a few states that has some of the highest levels of inequality on all three indices that factor into rankings (the other states are New York, Connecticut, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas and Alabama). The Bureau’s analysis basically shows that household income inequality is higher in the Golden State than the nation as a whole. That being said, the stats show that there are areas within California where there are low levels of income inequality, namely San Diego, San Jose, the Riverside-San Bernardino area, and the Sacramento-Roseville metropolitan area. You can find the full report on income inequality here.

In the picture below, states colored in blue have income inequality that is higher than the nation as a whole on three different measures:

In addition, the Census Bureau has updated a database that allows for multicounty comparisons or single county profiles. Topics such as agriculture, crime, education, health, retail trade and other vital statistics are a part of the profiles for each county. New in this update are additional statistics from the 2010 Census, the 2007 Survey of Business Owners, County Business Patterns and Non-employer Statistics. You can access the database here and find a ton of information for each county in California.

Finally, the Census Bureau has also released new stats that show more Americans are staying put, especially younger Americans who are typically more mobile. Older Americans have also been affected, meaning retirement plans may have changed for those who have been impacted by the poor economy. Many young adults simply cannot afford to move out of their parents’ homes and devalued homes have left many owners stuck. The AP reports:

Roughly 11.6 percent of the nation's population, or 35.1 million, moved to a new home in the past year, down from 12.5 percent in the previous year. The current level of low mobility comes after the recession technically ended in mid-2009, beating a previous low of 11.9 percent in 2008. […] The biggest drop-off occurred in local moves, down to 15.4 percent from 17.7 percent in 2010, a sign that young adults in the prolonged slump weren't even willing to venture outside their counties, continuing instead to live with relatives or on college campuses.”

For more, see here.

Mendocino Supervisors Pressure State to Keep 8 State Parks Open; Cite Economic Impact

State lawmakers are being urged to reconsider the closure of 8 parks in Mendocino County, as the Board of Supervisors has agreed to send a letter to the officials emphasizing the economic impact of the closures. From the perspective of the supervisors, if the parks are closed, there will still be costs involved in maintenance, vandalism, and monitoring illegal campsites; in addition, the county officials also believe that the parks can generate revenue and that the state may not be saving money after all by deciding to close up shop. State Assemblyman Wesley Chesbro was present at one of the board’s meetings and park closures were a topic of discussion. Chesboro agreed that many budget decisions have not necessarily been cost-effective and that the focus has been on short-term fixes. The Assemblyman also posited that it is rural counties and communities that are disproportionately affected economically by park closures because they are a draw for tourists.

Supervisor John McCowen in particular was vocal about preventing the closures. The Ukiah Daily Journal reports that “McCowen went on to say he'd seen a statistic that said that each dollar spent from the state's general fund on state parks returns $3 to the state. ‘So fight like hell to turn this thing around, and let's not talk about how we close them down but how we open them back up,’ McCowen told Chesbro.”

Owners of vacation rentals and wineries also spoke strongly against the park closures due to the economic hit they would likely face. One winegrower noted that if accommodations are more expensive, then visitors are less likely to spend more on wine. The board permitted Kathy Bailey of the Anderson Valley Chamber of Commerce to present the county’s letter to a joint Assembly committee hearing on Nov. 1.

RAND Retracts Study Claiming Crime Increases after Dispensaries are Forced to Close

We relayed recently that the Rand Corporation had released a controversial study that claimed crime rates rise in surrounding neighborhoods when a dispensary closes, not when one opens. The authors posited that the findings would dispel commonly held perceptions regarding the impact of medical marijuana dispensaries on local crime rates, but many local authorities expressed skepticism. The study focused on the Los Angeles area in particular and at the time the Los Angeles City Attorney and local law enforcement officials were dismissive of the report, as they have contended all along that dispensaries boost neighborhood crime. In an update, it would appear that local authorities were right to be skeptical, as RAND has now retracted the study. Debra Knopman, vice president of the RAND Infrastructure, Safety, and Environment division, commented that “This was a rare failure of our peer review system. We take our commitment to quality and objectivity seriously so we have retracted the study in order to correct it."

Here is a statement that RAND released about why it issued a retraction:

“The primary issue discovered during the internal review was that the data described as covering the city of Los Angeles and surrounding areas did not include crime data reported by the Los Angeles Police Department. RAND researchers intend to conduct a new analysis once they have an adequate set of crime information and those results will be posted to www.rand.org. Because that work could take many weeks, RAND officials wanted to be clear that the study's findings cannot be validated at this time.”

It appears that the authors pulled data from a commercial crime-mapping service that did not include stats from the LAPD. After additional study, RAND plans to release a fixed and updated report. RAND originally reported that there was a 59% increase in crime within three-tenths of a mile of a closed dispensary compared to an open one and a 24% increase within six-tenths of a mile.

In response to the retraction, the Oakland Tribune reports on the following statement from California Police Chiefs Association President David Maggard Jr. (and Irvine's police chief): “RAND's acknowledgment that the data and research were insufficient to reach the conclusions it did and agree(s) with their decision to retract the paper. As leaders responsible for providing law enforcement services to 78 percent of California, we have a keen perspective on this issue.” The original study can be found here.

President of Yolo Farm Bureau Stresses Importance of Agriculture to Local Economies; Yolo Co

Chuck Dudley, the President of the Yolo County Farm Bureau, has written an op-ed for the Daily Democrat about the efforts behind the agricultural work that greatly benefits the county. The Farm Bureau protects and promotes agricultural interests throughout the state of California and works to find solutions to the problems of the farm, the farm home and the rural community. Dudley’s article serves to remind consumers and Californians about the importance of farm production to rural counties, especially to the local economy. An excerpt reads:

“The gross farm-gate value of Yolo County farm production is in the neighborhood of $500 million a year. This is a lot of money (except to the federal government). These proceeds are used by the farmer to pay his employees, purchase machinery and equipment, lease farm land, purchase operating supplies including fuel, fertilizer, seed, transplants, water, and for many other things including payment of local, state and federal taxes. In large part this farm earned money stays in the county and supports the local economy. […]

The significance of Yolo County agriculture goes beyond the thousands of people employed and the billions of dollars put into the local economy from the development of the seed through the raising and harvesting of the crop, to the transportation and processing, to the grocery store shelf and finally to the consumer table, and, importantly, Yolo County agriculture provides a working landscape of open space. This farmed landscape produces 1 percent of the greenhouse gas emanating from urbanized land. This open space certainly adds to the quality of life in Yolo County.”

Read the full op-ed here.

Monterey Deports Highest Percentage of Non-Criminals; Critical Memo on Secure Communities

When it comes to deporting non-criminals, Monterey County has a higher percentage than any other county in the nation. Statistics show that a strong majority of immigrants detained and deported in the county do not have a criminal background. Between April 2010 and August 2011, close to 1,000 people were deported through the Secure Communities program. For the sake of comparison, Santa Cruz County deported 176 immigrants. There are differences of opinion on who should have the final say about who gets deported, with some arguing it should fall to counties and others saying that it falls under the federal government’s responsibility.

The numbers reported in Monterey County have fueled criticism of Secure Communities and the lack of oversight over ICE. Several cities, counties, and states have been vocal about their desire to opt out of the Secure Communities program, which collects fingerprint data at local jails and then sends it to the FBI for criminal background checks and information is also forwarded to ICE for immigration scans. ICE and Homeland Security originally told local and state governments that the system was voluntary, but they backtracked on that claim and later stated it was mandatory. State and municipalities that have objected to the mandate argue that immigration falls under federal responsibility. Over the summer ICE announced that the program would be imposed upon several states that said they would reject involvement. In an update, civil rights groups and immigrant advocates filed a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain a memo that explains why the federal government eventually deemed the program mandatory. U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin has ordered the government to release the memo. KQED reports:

“The memo was completed four days before Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told a news conference on Oct. 6, 2010 that the Secure Communities program was mandatory. The judge said the analysis in the memo ‘seems to be the only rationale that the agency could have relied upon and adopted as the legal basis for the policy.’ The judge justified her decision to force the document's release in part by quoting an earlier appeals court ruling in which the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said an agency's view ‘that it may adopt a legal position while shielding from public view the analysis that yielded that position is offensive to FOIA.’”

The judge dismissed the government’s claims that attorney-client privilege protect the memo from public scrutiny. The judge pointed out that the memo had been shared with others and since the policy has already been adopted, deliberation about its implementation cannot be shielded. Consequently, the memo must be released by November 1st. The following statement was released by plaintiffs in the case in response to the judge’s ruling:

“Our organizations, along with a chorus of advocates and elected officials across the country, have been seeking to uncover the truth behind ICE's decision to compel states and localities to participate in its dangerous Secure Communities program," according to the statement. "The memorandum ordered disclosed is the only document to date that comprehensively describes the legal authority claimed by ICE in support of its position mandating state and local participation in the controversial program - a deportation dragnet that has raised concerns about racial profiling, due process, the ensnarement of U.S. citizens, community policing, privacy, and other issues."

Governor Selects Replacement to Fill Vacant Seat on Marin Board after Cousin Resigns

We relayed recently that after 29 years of service, Marin County Supervisor Hal Brown had decided to step down from his position to focus on cancer treatments. A replacement has now been selected by the Brown administration. Catherine Rice, 51, of San Anselmo will now fill the seat on the board. Rice, a Democrat, has served as Hal Brown’s administrative aide since 2004. The Bee reports that “The position does not require Senate confirmation. It pays $97,739 a year. Rice will fill Brown’s term, which lasts until December of 2012.

Rice helped found the Ross Valley Schools Foundation in 1999, and served on the board of directors from 1999 to 2002. Also, she served on the board of directors for the Ross Valley Community for Schools in 1999.  In the past she has also worked for the County of Marin and she served as a freelance writer from 1984 to 1995, writing articles for such publications as the Sonoma-Marin Business Journal, Market Trim Tabs, and Petaluma Argus-Courier.

Supervisor Brown, who is Governor Brown’s cousin, was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and has been working from home. When Barbara Boxer was elected to Congress, Hal Brown was appointed to fill her seat on the county board in 1983. Hal Brown’s resignation became effective on October 29th.

Jailhouse Blues: Realignment Leaves Counties Concerned about Space and Funds

Most prominent among county concerns about realignment were funding and space. With the shift in responsibility comes the need for extra room to house an additional 25,000 felons that are projected to flow into county jails over the next four years. However, the Chronicle points out that “Sheriffs association lobbyist Nick Warner said 32 of the state's 58 counties are already under state or court-imposed population caps because of existing overcrowding, and jails currently used to house inmates for a maximum of one year are beginning to receive inmates who have 10- or even 20-year sentences.”

Take Riverside County, as Sheriff Stan Sniff announced recently that spacing is a major concern for the county because the local jails could be at their capacity by January. Sniff commented that “There is no question the jail is going to be overwhelmed. We already are feeling the pinch.” Some data indicates that Riverside will be short by about 400 beds, which means the county may have to pay as much as $35 million a year to rent extra space. The state has provided Riverside with $21.8 million for realignment, but officials have pointed out that number is insignificant if long-term funding is not secured.

Around $600 million in local jail funds have been authorized for release to counties, which led counties to line up for a piece of that pie. Officials with the state will decide which counties are actually eligible to apply. It has been reported that at least 20 counties have shown interest in learning how to obtain the bond money, as they attended a recent bidders' conference. Coverage of San Mateo’s application process can be seen here.

While critics hope that counties will use realignment to avoid focusing just on lockups and more beds, officials have pointed out that it will take time to develop alternatives to incarceration so that public safety is not jeopardized. One critic is Emily Harris, statewide coordinator for Californians United for a Responsible Budget, who commented that “We're terrified that California ... is using realignment as a cover to push unnecessary and unneeded jail expansion projects. It eliminates the incentive for counties to do things differently." However, counties like Riverside are already pursuing other sentencing options, such as felony probation, jail sentences, electronic monitoring, home detention, and a split sentence combining jail time and other alternatives.

Contra Costa Delays Imposing Contract Terms on Deputy Sheriffs Union to Allow More Talks

Contra Costa County and its deputy sheriffs union have been at odds over contract negotiations with both sides struggling to find an agreement that is amenable to all parties. The county is looking to secure concessions; specifically, a 2.8 percent pay cut, retirement plans that are less costly for new hires, as well as higher deputy contributions for insurance premiums and pensions. While other unions have agreed to concessions, deputies have not, which has resulted in other labor groups pressuring the local government to push for the changes so that deputies face the same wage and benefit cuts that other workers have had to experience. If the deputies were to agree to the aforementioned concessions, the county could save $4.8 million this fiscal year in a $1.2 billion annual budget.

But talks haven’t gone smoothly, so the county declared an impasse recently. Instead of imposing wage and benefits cuts right away, the county has called for a one-week delay to allow talks to continue. It is not yet clear if the delay means there is an opening for a potential agreement. Mercury provides background:

“Deputies have been working without a contract since 2008. The parties had made little progress until last summer, when the county's contracts with nearly every other union expired and talks ratcheted up. […] But deputies are loathe to see their wages drop. A recent salary survey, paid for the sheriff's association, found Contra Costa County's deputies are the lowest paid among their peers in the Bay Area. As an incentive to settle rather than impose the contract, the county is offering the deputies a less costly insurance deal.”

There are 770 sworn and nonsworn members of the Deputy Sheriffs Association. If terms are imposed, then it would fall under a one-year contract.