Figure 1

Figure 1 is a color coded organizational chart depicting Maywood’s three-tier management structure as of August 2016. The first tier is comprised of the city council, city clerk and city treasurer, all of whom are elected officials. The second tier shows the city manager or city administrator, who is a city employee; the city attorney, who is a contractor; and the planning commission, whose members are appointed by the city council. The third tier is organized into four divisions and departments: enforcement, accounting, building and planning, and parks and recreation. The enforcement division includes two contractors who provide law enforcement and animal control services as well as three city employees, one of whom is employed to provide code enforcement, and the other two are employed to provide parking enforcement. The accounting department includes a single contractor, serving as the accounting supervisor, and an account clerk who is a city employee. The building and planning department is comprised of two city employees serving in the positions of the director of building and planning and building inspector as well as an engineering contractor. Lastly, the department of parks and recreation includes one city employee in the position of a community services manager and one city-wide maintenance contractor.

Figure 2

Figure 2 is a timeline comprised of four colored strips representing changes in the city council composition, the positions of the city mayor, city manager or city administrator, and city attorney from August 9, 2010 through August 10, 2016.

Figure 3

Figure 3 is a bar graph showing Maywood’s accumulation of over $15 million in overdue debts to three different organizations from fiscal years 2008-09 through 2014-15. The largest of these debts is owed to the California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (Insurance Authority) stemming from civil lawsuits against the city’s dissolved police department related to officer misconduct. This debt to the Insurance Authority has been present since fiscal year 2008-09 and has been over $10 million each fiscal year since 2009-10. Smaller amounts comprising the remainder of the overdue debt have been present since fiscal year 2012-13, and are due to CalPERS and the city’s Successor Agency for required pension payments the city failed to make for its inactive safety retirement plan and unallowable transfers that a former redevelopment agency (now successor agency) transferred to the city, respectively.

Figure 4

Figure 4 shows that the city council committed six violations of the Brown Act between December 2015 and May 2016.

On December 9, 2015, the city council placed the former city manager on administrative leave and hired an interim city manager. The city council also dismissed the individual serving as the city attorney and successor agency counsel and hired two individuals to fill those positions. However, the city council did not use the meeting agenda to notify the public about these actions and did not demonstrate that immediate action was required.

On April 13, 2015, the city council hired an interim city administrator but did not use the meeting agenda to notify the public about this action and did not demonstrate that immediate action was required.

On April 13, 2015, the city council took action on the compensation of the interim city administrator during closed session, but statute prohibits this type of action in a closed session.

For April 13, 2015, the city council agenda and meeting minutes show that the city council intended to meet in closed session to discuss an ongoing audit by the California State Auditor’s Office even though statute does not permit discussion on this item in a closed session of a city council meeting. However, according to the city attorney and a city council member, the interim city manager was not present in the closed session, so the city council did not discuss the topic.

On May 20, 2016, the city council took action on a contract to hold a fair, but did not use the meeting agenda to notify the public and it did not demonstrate that the item came to its attention after the agenda was posted and that immediate action was required.

On May 20, 2016, the city council discussed with representatives of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department in closed session the approval of parking permit system, which the city incorrectly asserted was a discussion on a public safety threat to public services.

On May 20, 2016, the city council discussed the approval of this parking permits system, an item that was not on the agenda for the meeting, even though state law prohibits discussion during special meetings of items not posted on the agenda.

Figure 5

Figure 5 is a line graph showing Maywood’s expenditures, revenue, and general fund balance for fiscal years 2006-07 through 2014-15. Continuous overspending in fiscal years 2006-07 through 2009-10 led to a general fund deficit first recognized in fiscal year 2009-10. Although the city has not overspent since fiscal year 2012-13, the general fund deficit has persisted. Revenues and expenditures in fiscal years 2012-13 through 2014-15 appear to be improving; however, they include non-recurring revenue and/or exclude required pension contributions which mask Maywood’s true financial condition during this period (see Table 1 for adjusted revenues and expenditures during this period). Additionally, Figure 5 shows projected expenditures, revenue, and general fund balances for fiscal years 2015-16 and budgeted expenditures, revenue, and general fund balances for fiscal years 2016-17 through 2017-18. Based on these projected and budgeted amounts, the city anticipates having a positive general fund balance for the first time since fiscal year 2008-09 in fiscal year 2017-18.

Figure 6

Figure 6 is a bar graph depicting Maywood’s failure to make required pension contributions for its inactive safety retirement plan for fiscal years 2010-11 through 2015-16. The safety retirement plan became inactive beginning fiscal year 2010-11; however, there were no required pension contributions until fiscal year 2012-13. The city did not make any of the required pension contributions for fiscal years 2012-13 through 2014-15, totaling $2.2 million in overdue pension payments. In fiscal year 2015-16, the city paid only a portion of the annual required pension contribution, adding an additional $500 thousand to the $2.2 million for a total of $2.7 million in overdue pension contributions for its inactive safety retirement plan. Additionally, the bar graph shows that Maywood has budgeted full payments for the required pension contribution amounts in fiscal years 2016-17 and 2017-18.

Figure 7

Figure 7 is a bar graph showing how Maywood’s required CalPERS pension contributions for its active miscellaneous retirement plan and inactive safety retirement plan will grow by 44 percent over the next five years (fiscal years 2016-17 through 2021-22), reaching over $1.3 million. Pension payments for the inactive safety retirement plan make up the majority of Maywood’s total annual required pension payments.

Figure 8

Figure 8 is a bar graph showing how Maywood’s actual general fund expenditures exceeded budgeted amounts in three of five fiscal years during the period from fiscal year 2010-11 through 2014-15. Actual expenditures greatly exceeded budgeted expenditures in fiscal year 2010-11 and 2011-12, and slightly exceeded expenditures in fiscal year 2012-13. Although actual expenditures did not exceed budgeted expenditures in fiscal years 2013-14 and 2014-15, the difference between actual and budgeted expenditures in each year is small.

Figure 9

Figure 9 is a bar graph showing how Maywood’s actual general fund revenue exceeded budgeted amounts in four of five fiscal years during the period from fiscal year 2010-11 through 2014-15. Actual revenue greatly exceeded budgeted revenue in fiscal years 2010-11, 2013-14, and 2014-15. Actual revenue was less than budgeted revenue in fiscal year 2011-12.