California County News

Federal Report Covers Increase in Vacant Properties and the Costs to Local Government

The number of vacant properties in the United States has increased dramatically in the past 10 years, which has left local governments with considerable costs. In fact, many states have experienced a 70 percent increase in the number of vacant properties to deal with; additionally, there were over 10 million such properties by April of 2010. American City & County points out that “In 2010, government-sponsored enterprises reimbursed servicers or vendors more than $953 million for property maintenance costs, but local governments are bearing a considerable amount of the expense, as well.”

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has released a new report on the impact of vacancies and while federal dollars have helped local officials cover some of the costs, many have still spent millions of dollars maintaining or demolishing properties. The report states the following about feedback from locals in determining accurate figures:

“Local government officials and community group representatives told us that distinguishing among different types of vacant properties is important to be able to identify the number of properties that are likely to impose costs on the community. As we noted above, the Census vacancy status categories can be useful in identifying some vacant properties, such as those in the “other vacant” category, that may be more likely to be unattended and so might burden local governments as opposed to those that are likely to be maintained, such as those that are for seasonal use.”

You can read the full GAO report here and the graph below provides a picture of how vacancies have risen in the past 10 years:

Too Transparent? Investment Magazine Makes the Case for San Diego’s Pension Fund

The San Diego County Employees Retirement Association is facing scrutiny for the dismissal of a worker who raised concerns about investment risks, and the worker has been fighting his termination with a lawsuit. While the former employee claims he had a responsibility to blow the whistle and speak out about portions of the fund exceeding their risk, the fund points out that at no point has it failed to comply with risk policies. The worker is looking for $500,000 in damages and the case has grabbed attention because, as the Union-Tribune reports, “Experts say his predicament raises interesting questions about balancing the public good of transparent government and an agency’s right to enforce its own policies.”

On the subject of transparency, the magazine aiCIO (Asset International for Chief Investment Officers) recently featured an article entitled, “Is Transparency Killing San Diego?” It’s not a headline you see every day. The article claims that San Diego’s pension fund receives the worst media coverage out of all systems in Southern California. The article questions, “Yet, is it the fund's attempts at good governance, and not poor investment decisions, that are causing its problems?” The author of the article points out that a majority of the board’s appointment members lack financial experience and argues the following with respect to transparency:

“The difference between SDCERA and other public funds is its transparency, which manifests with the fund posting video of its board meetings on its website. Combine this with a relatively contentious local political environment in conservative San Diego and a board susceptible to public pressure, and you have a recipe for—well, an SDCERA-type problem."

You can read the whole feature here.

Arizona’s Sheriff Joe is in the Hot Seat over DOJ Investigation; Claims Promoted Bias

The infamous “Sheriff Joe,” also known as Joe Arpaio, who is the sheriff of Maricopa County in Arizona, is once again the subject of controversy as he’s in quite a bit of hot water. Arpaio has developed a reputation as a particularly tough sheriff, but it appears some of his tactics have created bias against Latinos. The U.S. Justice Department has launched an investigation against Arpaio for allegedly engaging in a “pattern and practice of violating the Constitution.” Specifically, the investigation seeks to prove that the Sheriff’s office has made unlawful stops, arrests and biased jail practices against Latinos.

The basic charge is that a culture of bias was promoted by the sheriff so that deputies treated local Latinos differently than the rest of the population. It was also found that officers a part of the department often made disparaging remarks about Latinos, such as “wetbacks” and “stupid Mexicans.” TPM reports that the Department of Justice interviewed over 400 individuals, toured jails, and reviewed thousands of pages of evidence. The sheriff also apparently didn’t hide from praising racially-charged letters he received from constituents. The political site reports:

“Many of the letters, said DOJ, ‘contain no meaningful descriptions of criminal activity — just crude, ethnically derogatory language about Latinos.’ In one instance, Arpaio dubbed a letter asking him to ‘round-up’ of people with ‘dark skin’ on a corner in Phoenix as ‘intelligence’ and asked a member of his command staff to have ‘someone handle this.’”

The sheriff will be sued if he doesn’t take steps to change his department’s practices. Arpaio has called the investigation politically-motivated and his attorney deemed the report a “witch hunt.” The LA Weekly questions whether LA County Sheriff Lee Baca will face similar criticism over deportation stats. See here.

The Department of Justice’s report can be read here:

DOJ Report On Maricopa County Sheriff's Office

Good Signs: State’s Unemployment Rate Drops Again; New Labor Force Data for Counties

Inch-by-inch, economic reports on the state of California are improving—ever so slightly. The Employment Development Department has released its latest figures, which show 6,600 new jobs were added during the month of November. Consequently, the unemployment rate now stands at 11.3%, thereby making November the fourth straight month in which the jobless rate has declines. In October it was at 11.7%. The latest rate is the best the state has experienced since the worst of the recession dealt California (and the nation) a blow back in 2009 and now the country’s overall unemployment rate stands at 8.6 percent.

Since 2011, the state has added a total of 211,400 jobs. The LA Times reports on the following additional details about the report:

“Similar drops were registered in major regions: Los Angeles County is down to 11.9% from 13% a year ago; Riverside-San Bernardino counties to 12.5% from 14.5% a year ago; Orange County to 8.1% from 9.4% a year ago; and Ventura County to 9.5% from 10.9% a year ago. While economists caution that some of the improvement in the November numbers could be caused by people giving up on job searches, they point to the last two weeks' decline in the number of people putting in first-time claims for unemployment insurance benefits as a positive sign that a sustained recovery is underway.”

You can find unemployment rates and job figures for each of the state’s 58 counties on page 4 of this report.

Critics of Riverside’s Pay-to-Stay Plan Argue Charging Inmates is Not Cost-Effective

Much has been made of Riverside County’s decision to charge prison inmates for their stay in county jail. The supervisors’ recent vote has gained national attention, as incarceration in Riverside will cost $142 a day, which is far higher than what Sacramento charges at $77. In a county that has a very large budget deficit on its hands, finding revenues somewhere is undoubtedly vital, and targeting prisoners is sure to be more amenable then other options in the eyes of the public. However, it is worth noting that many prisoners are poor, and while there will be stipulations about assets, the new ordinance will allow the county to put floating charges on a prisoner’s home or wages. The county has acknowledged that realistically it will only be able to secure around $6 million annually from about 25 percent of the county’s prisoners.

Critics contend that charging inmates ultimately costs more than it would bring in. The Sacramento Bee wrote an editorial about the topic and argued against the “pay to stay” plan. An excerpt can be read here:

“It's unclear how much inmate charges really benefit counties. As the Riverside County attorney noted after supervisors there imposed a jail fee, the vast majority of inmates are indigent. If they manage to accumulate money, they are saddled with victim restitution costs and fines prescribed by law for their offenses or imposed by the courts, obligations which take legal precedence over reimbursing counties for jail costs.

In some cases, recouping jail fees from destitute inmates may cost more than the fees produce in revenues.  But there is another cost society incurs when it piles fees on top of fees on those least able to pay. It makes it more difficult for offenders to reintegrate into society.”

Read the full editorial here. The New York Times reports that other counties are looking to Riverside to see if they should follow suit depending on how the fee works out. Orange County Supervisor John Moorlach is quoted as stating “Sometimes you attack the absurd with the absurd. We’re all messaging to Sacramento that the state has do more than just take our money and download prisoners to us. We’re all finding different ways to scream.”

Pension Officials in Sonoma Look to Avoid Further Legal Action; Release More Pension Data

We’ve relayed previously that much like other county pension systems in the state, Sonoma County lost a prolonged legal battle to block the release of retiree names and figures. Back in September Sonoma publicly released such pension data and it was revealed that 98 retirees receive pensions higher than $100,000. In an update, the county’s pension officials have now agreed to release even more pension figures so that the public can understand how benefits are calculated and how additional perks are factored into compensation.

The newspaper the Press Democrat first filed the lawsuit back in 2010 and now the pension system will have to pay its legal fees, which are nearly $100,000. Other pension systems across the state have faced criticism for incurring thousands in legal fees fighting cases that continue to rule against privacy in favor of disclosure. Sonoma will pay the newspaper $93,516 and notably it also paid $106,000 in legal fees to fight the case.

Recently the newspaper and the pension system resolved outstanding issues as to how much information had to be disclosed to the public. The Press Democrat reports what the prior release was lacking, from its perspective:

“The records, however, did not show information about retirees' years of employment and final compensation — both of which are used to calculate pensions — or give details about retirees' former department or job class. Also withheld was information about extra pay and benefits county employees get on top of their salaries that can boost final compensation and increase pensions.”

Pension officials could have opted to fight the release of the extra data with more legal action (and costs), but the retirement board opted to forego that route and made the expanded information available. Notably, the newspaper is being charged $8,000 for receiving the information due to the staff time it will take to collect data and it will provide it at some point in January.

Contra Costa Pension System Files Lawsuit to Dispute County’s Authority over Wage Cuts

Contra Costa County’s pension system is fighting the county over wage and benefit cuts that were imposed upon staff at the County Employees' Retirement Association—a move the retirement agency has deemed illegal. Twelve top and midlevel managers faced cuts under a vote from supervisors and now a civil lawsuit has been filed over who has rightful control to determine the compensation of employees at the pension system.

While the county exerted its influence in terms of handing out pay reductions (and pay increases have also been negotiated in the past), the retirement agency filed suit because it posits that the system is an independent entity and that paychecks should be left intact.

However, it is worth noting that the pension system’s staff is technically considered county employees due to a state law that was put in the books in 1937. The Contra Costa Times reports that Supervisor John Gioia has commented legislative action would be necessary if the agency was to officially split its staff from the county’s staff and he stated the following:

“The association has been happy to take without objection all the pay and benefit hikes negotiated at the county in prior years. I suggest that instead of using public money to wage a legal battle against the county that they use the money to pursue legislation and gain full independence. I would support it."

Supervisors did reverse course on imposing a pay cut on the pension system’s CEO because she was hired by the board of directors.

Pulling the Trigger: Guv Announces Cuts and New Revenue Forecast; $980 Million in Cuts

The fate of the much-maligned trigger cuts was announced by Governor Brown and state finance officials when they released an updated version of the state’s revenue forecast Tuesday, and all eyes fell on the update as the predictor of the extent to which mid-year cuts will impact a range of programs and services. Outlining the options before the state, Brown commented, “You either cut or you tax. There’s no other way.” While there were fears that K-12 schools would face major cuts, in fact the reductions slated for education will be far less than anticipated and instead higher education and child care will be among the components that will have slashed funds. According to the Department of Finance, the state’s revenues are $2.2 billion below projections. Cutting to the chase, the state will impose $980 million in mid-year trigger cuts.

You can watch Governor Brown’s press conference on the budget here.

Notably, the figures presented by the Department of Finance were far rosier than the estimates of the Legislative Analyst’s Office, as the LAO stated California would fall $3.7 billion short on revenues and that far more would have to be cut January 1st. However, state officials have pointed to strong November sales taxes and higher revenues as factors that have softened the blow on the trigger cuts. The Department of Finance’s report on the revenue forecast states the following:

• "Personal income tax revenues are estimated to be $1.529 billion higher. High-income wages and salaries were stronger in 2011 and 2012 than previously estimated.  Proprietor’s income is also estimated to be higher.  However, capital gains are mixed: estimated to be slightly lower in 2011 and slightly higher in 2012;
• Sales tax revenues are estimated to be $232 million lower, primarily due to the result of the delay in implementation of use tax collection changes, a lower projection of inflation, and a higher projection of unemployment; and,
• Corporation tax revenues are estimated to be $467 million higher, primarily because of a higher corporate profits forecast.
• This net increase in the state’s biggest three tax sources was insufficient to fully offset the $4 billion in unallocated revenues described above"

 

Outlined below are some of the cuts that will take effect in 2012:

• $100 million to the University of California.
• $100 million to California State University.
• $100 million to developmental services.
• $100 million to In-Home Supportive Services.
• $72 million in increased charges to counties for young offenders sent to state prison.
• $30 million to Community Colleges.
• $23 million to child care programs.
• $16 million to local libraries.
• $60 million miscellaneous.

You can read the full report here. For those hoping that the Legislature will rally around a last-minute effort to prevent the trigger cuts, relying on the abilities or efficacy of Sacramento is sure to end in disappointment.

Setting the Traps: Santa Cruz Could Become 1st County to Ban Bullfrogs

Santa Cruz County has an infestation on its hands and the sounds of “ribbit, ribbit, ribbit” are proof. The board of supervisors could make Santa Cruz the first county in the nation to ban the import, sale and possession of American bullfrogs. These little buggers have wreaked havoc on local ecosystems because they are not native to the West Coast; consequently, they have spread diseases and have endangered native smaller species like the California Red-Legged Frog. Bullfrogs eat other amphibians and their size allows them to outcompete other species for food.  In February, supervisors will formally consider imposing a ban, as millions are imported every year from countries like China and Mexico.

While the county would like to see the state act on this matter by imposing a statewide ban, the county’s Fish and Game Advisory Commission chair Russel Maridon has pointed out that action has been lacking on the state level so Santa Cruz is stepping up to the plate. In a letter to the board about the potential ban, Mardion wrote the following:

“While the State of California Fish and Game Commission has twice voted ban the importation and sale of bullfrogs, the Department of Fish and Game still allows it. Therefore—in addition to initiating development of language to ban bullfrog importation and sales in the County—we also encourage the [Board of Supervisors] to contact California Secretary of Natural Resources John Laird to communicate its concerns about this matter and ask that he review the state commission’s relative inaction on this matter.”

Board of Supervisors Chairman Mark W. Stone also penned a letter to the board voicing his support for the ban. You can view Stone’s letter here. Reportedly the problems created by bullfrogs was first brought to the attention of officials by the organization Save the Frogs, which is based in Santa Cruz. The non-profit is hoping the county will set an important precedent that will also raise awareness.

Fresno Supervisors Add to List of Imposed Cuts with 9% Pay Cut for Prosecutors

Fresno County’s Board of Supervisors has been getting down to business in cutting the salaries of county employees to address the fiscal woes triggered by the poor economy. It was earlier this month that the board ordered a 9-percent pay cut for over 4,000 workers who are a part of the SEIU. The cuts were imposed after a breakdown in negotiations and on a divided vote, 3 supervisors ultimately agreed that sacrifices had to be made all around despite the hardship that many employees said they would face with smaller pay. 

And this week Supervisors also approved a 9 percent pay cut for the county’s prosecutors after little progress was made from labor talks. Now nearly 100 District Attorney’s Office employees will face an imposed contract that includes the reduced pay. Prior to the board’s final vote, Fresno County District Attorney Elizabeth A. Egan released the following statement:

“As District Attorney, I am not a ‘party’ to these negotiations and have not been involved in the discussions between the County and the Prosecutors regarding their contract. Therefore, I am not in the position to comment on the recommendation to impose a contract by the Deputy Director of Personnel Services. Due to the continuing economic downturn in California, the District Attorney’s Office’s has cut 78 positions since June of 2008. Prosecutors made up 32 of those cuts or (23%). Despite lay-off’s and increased caseloads, Fresno County Prosecutors have continued to give 100% effort toward convicting criminals. Experienced and dedicated prosecutors are essential to public safety.”

Many prosecutors filled the board’s chambers to protest the imposed contract and criticized the county by claiming they were not treated fairly. Over 2,000 other employees have also gone through the negotiating process resulting in lower pay and supervisors accepted 7 percent pay cuts this year.