HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08071990 - H.4 (2) \ H. 5
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Contra
Costa
FRCK: Harvey E. Bragdon ,.f
Director of Community Development °'T -•
>qaa
Cointy
DATE: Augus'.ti.•7.,;+-1990
SOBJECF: Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan Interim Ordinance
SPB=C REWEST(S) OR REOMOU DATIONS(S) & BACOEMUND Arra JOSrIFIcATION
RECOMPg NDATIONS
1. Adopt the ordinance "Urgency Interim Prohibition and Regulation of the
Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan Area."
2. Authorize the Director of Community Development to file a Notice of
Exemption on this ordinance.
3. Schedule September 18, 1990 for an extension hearing on this ordinance.
FISCAL IMPACT
The only costs for adoption of this ordinance are for publication and public
notice; these costs have already been incurred. The extension hearing will
entail a second publication and the mailing of hearing notices.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The Board of Supervisors and Richmond City Council jointly appointed a Citizens
Advisory Committee to advise staff on a new General Plan for the Richmond
Shoreline Area (including unincorporated North Richmond) and a specific plan for
a smaller portion of that area.
4
CMITNUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SI
RE70QIMENIDA`iION OF COMM ON 45F MARD cammr=
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S)
AMON OF BOARD ON August 7, 1990 APPROVED AS REC M ENDED lY— OTHER —
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that as in recommendation 1, Ordinance
-Ro. 90-64 is ADOPTED.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CEFMFY THAT THIS IS A
X UNArIIMOM (ABSENT IV ) MME AND OCRRDCT ODPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND EkU RED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SES OF 9M BOAR OF
SL13ERVISC IRS ON THE DATE SEEM.
cc: Community Development ATTE= August 7, 1990
CAO PHIL BATCHELOR, CCEM OF
Public Works THE BOAR OF SUPERVISORS
County Counsel Q7@Tr
Richmond Planning DEE U Ty
0
cjc9/jb/shrinio.bos
On June 7, 1990, the Citizens Advisory Committee for the North Richmond
Shoreline Specific Plan voted 8 ayes and 4 noes to recommend that the City and
County adopt a moratorium for the Specific Plan Area, with a provision that the
Erickson project be excluded from the moratorium (see attached map) . The
Erickson Hazardous Waste Treatment Facility Project site is within the Specific
Plan Area, but outside the City Limits. The Committee's reason for excluding
the Erickson Project is that the Environmental Impact Report for the project is
almost complete and the project is scheduled for action by the County. It was
also unclear as to whether the State, under the Tanner Bill, could preempt the
moratorium. The proposed ordinance (attached) would preclude processing of all
new planning applications and building permits, except for the Erickson
Hazardous Waste Facility.
The moratorium would prohibit structures, which may be contrary to the future
Specific Plan, from being constructed within the area during preparation of the
Plan thereby protecting the potential for changes in land use and transportation
policies to occ :r in the area. It is expected that the completion of the
Specific Plan could take seven to eleven months to complete. The North Richmond
Shoreline General Plan is expected to be completed by the end of January 1991.
If an Environmental Impact Report is required for the Plan, that timeline would
be extended approximately another six months.
Approximately 80% of the Specific Plan Area is within the City of Richmond. The
only pending development permits presently before the County are for the
Erickson Hazardous Waste Treatment Facility. The draft ordinance exempts that
facility from the moratorium, consistent with the Richmond Shoreline Committee
action. A hearing on Erickson application is correctly scheduled for hearing on
August 14, 1990 before the County Planning Commission.
The City of Richmond adopted a parallel ordinance for the City portion of the
Specific Plan on July 2, 1990. Adoption of this ordinance would make
City and County interim regulations consistent with each other.
Lastly, it is recommended that a follow-up hearing to extend this ordinance be
scheduled for September 18, 1990. The current law requires that the Urgency
Interim Ordinance will expire after 45 days unless it is extended at public
hearing within that 45-day time period. The target date for completion of the
Specific Plan is November 1, 1990. The ordinance will expire after 45 days on
September 21, 1990. Since it is known that an extension will be required, staff
felt it desirable to indicate that fact at this time and to schedule that
extension hearing date.
ORDINANCE NO. 90 64
(Urgency Interim Ordinance Prohibiting Development
in the North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan Area)
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows:
SECTION I. Prohibitions: Exemption. A. Prohibitions. No
tentative subdivision map, conditional use permit, building
permit, or other development entitlement shall be approved in the
North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan Area (the "Area" ) , as
described in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein
by this reference. No private application for a general plan
amendment or a rezoning shall be accepted or processed while this
interim ordinance is in effect. This ordinance shall not be
construed to prohibit the issuance of any permits which do not
result in an addition to or enlargement of an existing structure
or which are necessary to repair or maintain an existing
structure.
B. Exemption. The provisions of Paragraph A shall not
apply to any proposed specified hazardous waste facility project
in the Area for which a final environmental impact report has
been completed as of the date this ordinance is enacted.
SECTION II. Urgency Declaration. This ordinance is an interim
urgency measure authorized by Government Code sections 65858 and
25123 , and Elections Code section 3751. The Board also finds
that the establishment of new land uses by means of the approval
of additional subdivisions, use permits, building permits,
rezonings, and general plan amendments constitutes a current and
immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. The
facts constituting the urgency are that there are presently
proposals for development in the Area. The County is in the
process of preparing the North Richmond Shoreline Specific Plan
for the Area, in concert with the City of Richmond. The County
also is contemplating other land-use regulatory measures for the
Area. All these proposed regulatory actions are being taken in
order to foster orderly development in the Area. If these
interim urgency provisions are not imposed, uses in conflict with
the contemplated general plan, specific plans, and other
regulatory measures may result, irreversible uses may result to
the detriment of the Area, and uses may occur which would
frustrate any comprehensive land use regulations that may be
adopted.
SECTION III. Report. At least ten days before the expiration of
this ordinance or any extension of it, the Community Development
Department is directed to file with the Clerk of the Board a
written report describing the measures taken to complete the
specific plan for the North Richmond Shoreline Area and to
alleviate the condition which has led to the adoption of this
ordinance.
SECTION IV. Environmental Assessment. A. Pursuant to section
15061 of the State and County CEQA Guidelines, the Board finds
and declares that this ordinance is exempt from CEQA for the
following reasons:
(1) This ordinance is not a "project" within the
meaning of section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the
ordinance itself has no potential for resulting in a physical
ORDINANCE NO. 90- 64
1
change in the environment. The purpose of this ordinance is to
regulate, on an interim basis, the land uses in the North
Richmond Shoreline Area pending the. completion of the specific
plan.
(2) This ordinance is categorically exempt from CEQA
under section 15308 of the CEQA Guidelines. This ordinance is a
regulatory action taken by the County in the exercise of its
constitutional authority and in accordance with Government Code
section 65858, to assure maintenance and protection of the
environment pending the preparation and adoption of the specific
plan for the North Richmond Shoreline Area.
(3 ) This ordinance is covered by the general rule that
CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for
causing a significant effect on the environment. For the reasons
set forth in subparagraphs (a) and (b) of this paragraph, it can
be seen with certainty, and the Board finds, that there is no
possibility that this ordinance will have a significant effect on
the environment; therefore, this ordinance is not subject to
CEQA.
B. The Community Development Director is directed to file a
notice of exemption for this 'ordinance, in accordance with the
provisions of section 15062 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
SECTION V. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective
immediately upon passage and shall be operative for forty-five
days (through September 21, 1990) , pursuant to Government Code
section 65858. Within fifteen days after passage this ordinance
shall be published once with the names of Supervisors voting for
and against it in the WEST COUNTY TIMES , a
newspaper published in this County.
PASSED ON August 7, 1990 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Powers, Schroder, Torlakson and Fanden
NOES: None
ABSENT: Supervisor McPeak
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST: PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk
of the Board of Supervisors Board Chair
and County Administrator
By A. 1 0 o (SEAL]
Deputy
SBM
(8-6-90)
ORDINANCE NO. 90- 64
2
a
s.3..
N
Ct�sTiu tN
, F
,� r ;1•;•;a
- MOM
•
� , 1
•
/
�l
%i
ll
r.
b 7-5a
And the Board adjourns to meet in regular session on
Tuesday August 14. 1990 at 9 : 00 a.m.
in the Board Chambers , Room 107 , County Administration Building,
Martinez, California.
Nancy C. anden, Chairwoman
ATTEST:
Phil Batchelor, County Administrator
and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By
Jeanne 0. Maglio, Deputy Clerk
I/
w
1,
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Monday
Adopted this Order on _August 6, 1990 , by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Powers, Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson, Fanden
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
-------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Hearing on the Proposed County Budget for the
1990-1991 Fiscal Year
The Chair convened the hearing on the proposed County Budget
for the 1990-1991 .fiscal year. Phil Batchelor, County Administra-
tor, presented to the Board his recommendations as listed on the
attached report. Mr. Batchelor commented on the State Budget
deficit and its impact on the County Budget, particularly on
programs administered by the Health Services Department where many
of the cuts will be made. The County Administrator noted that the
Trial Court Fund Program and the GAIN Program (administered by the
Social Service Department) are also being reduced by significant
amounts. He called attention to the need to make reductions in
programs immediately since the reduced funding' allocations from the
State are retroactive to July 1, 1990. Mr. Batchelor requested the
Board to approve the recommendations listed on the attached report
to include Phase I reductions. The County Administrator advised
that until his staff has analyzed additional information forthcom-
ing from the State, impacts on local programs cannot be fully
determined. He expressed his intention to provide the Board with
this information at the August 14 Board meeting.
Supervisor Power advised that he has received many inquiries
as to why the County is not making reductions in county departments
or other program areas not impacting on services to people.
Mr. Batchelor responded that the County has continuously been
underfunded by the State these last ten years and that during this
ten year period the State has established many new programs. He
referred to the erosion of funding for such programs, i.e. the
Medically Indigent Adult Program, a State mandated program which
will receive seventy five percent of its funding for the 1990-1991
fiscal year from the County. He noted that during the last ten
years the County has incrementally taken money from all sources,
including the Reserves, to fund many mandated programs in order to
provide services to the poor and disadvantaged. Mr. Batchelor
spoke about the deterioration of county roads, the need for
equipment replacement, and the increased maintenance costs of old
buildings , such as the County Hospital. He spoke about reductions
in the insurance reserves, the underfunding of some programs to
fund others, and the instructions to underfunded departments to do
more with less. Mr. Batchelor advised that county employees are
more productive than ever before. He called attention to the fact
that during the last ten years county departments have been
required to continually make cuts and have reached the point where
they can no longer absorb reductions at the level the State is
mandating.
Supervisor Powers referred to the Board' s support for the
establishment of three new judgeships which would also require
additional support staff for the Public Defender, District Attor-
ney, and Probation Department. He suggested that this matter be
reconsidered. He expressed concern that the courts are hiring
additional judges because of the increased caseload. In referring
to the increased operating costs of the Courts , Supervisor Powers
spoke on the need to find a more efficient way to deal with this
- 1 -
situation, such as establishing , a flat salary for temporary or
relief judges. He also proposed that staff renogitiate the Trial
Court Funding allocation for the County.
Supervisor McPeak referred to the funding mechanism imposed by
the State that allows counties to charge cities, schools -districts,
and special districts for certain services rendered. She proposed
that revenue collected under these provisions be targeted for human
service programs to offset the reductions in human service programs
imposed by the State. She also spoke on the need to advise these
public agencies how the money collected from them will be spent.
Supervisor McPeak expressed concern of a potential domino effect
caused- by the elimination of programs in one area impacting on
other program area.
I
In referring to the proposed parcel tax to fund the County
Alcohol and Drug Action Plan, Supervisor McPeak expressed concern
that if the voters approve the imposition of the tax on the Novem-
ber ballot, it would not appear on the current tax bills. She
requested County Counsel to review State Law to determine if all or
a portion of the parcel tax could be collected in this fiscal year
and to so advise the Board.
Supervisor Torlakson spoke of the concerns of the cities
relative to the fees the County will charge them for certain
services. He proposed deferring implementation of these fees until
September when this matter can be discussed at the Contra Costa
Mayors' Conference meeting. He commented on the feasibility of
establishing a special committee of the Board to meet with the
Mayors on this issue.
Supervisor Fanden noted that the reduced State allocation to
the County will have a rippling effect on all county departments.
She encouraged all county departments to continue to make economies
where they can in order to maximize all available resources.
The Chair then opened the hearing. (See Attachment I for a
list of the speakers. ) Speakers requested the Board to .sustain
human service programs at the current level; to make reductions in
programs other than human service programs to mitigate the impact
of reductions on mental health service on the poor, homeless, jail
inmates, and other disadvantaged groups; to continue funding for
alcohol and drug abuse programs at the current level because of
potential negative consequences to future generations resulting
from reductions or elimination of these programs; to continue to
retain programs providing services to children, particularly in the
area of child abuse, family counseling, parent education, and
dental care; to not impose reductions on public health programs
particularly in the area of . communicable and sexually transmitted
diseases; to continue funding Detox programs; to continue funding
of mental health programs to offset the impact on the Justice
System and other areas; to continue to fund the Center for Human
Development, We Care, Suicide Prevention, Rubicon, Phoenix, NEAT,
and AIDS Education programs; and to continue to fund executive
assistant to FACSAC position.
Other comments of speakers included requests to delay opening
of the new West County Detention Facility as a cost saving measure;
a proposal to take a leadership role in the development of a
statewide initiative to finance the operation of county jails; a
suggestion to implement tax override legislation to offset county
retirement costs; a request to support a parcel tax measure to fund
the County' s Alcohol and Drug Action Plan; a proposal for the
County to consider assumption of- the ownership and operation of new
landfills as a funding source for human service programs; a request
for Board participation in an advocacy programs for the poor and
homeless; a request to continue to fund the Disability Coordinator
position in the Social Service Department; instructions to judges
to assign more defendants to community service programs as an
alternative to incarceration; a request that county staff petition
the State to develop and implement an equitable formula for the
allocation of funds to counties for mandated programs ; a request of
2 -
I
the Human Relations Commission to fund its budget at the level
requested; a request to retain the Bi-lingual program at the Mental
Health Clinic; a proposal that the State increase its income tax
levy on those persons who earn more than $52 , 000 a year; a sugges-
tion to reduce the Contingency Fund to fund human service programs;
and the need to review all possible revenue generating sources so
as to develop a rational funding system for health care.
Speakers also expressed an interest in working with the County
to challenge the .State in reducing funding in the health services
area as well as to work for the restoration of funding to human
service programs.
All persons desiring to speak were heard. Board members
discussed the recommendations of the County Administrator. There
was consensus among Board members to approve the recommendations of
the County Administrator which would include approval of the Phase
I reductions with the exception of the Teenage Progam (TAP) .
The Board then proceeded to adopt the attached order and
Resolution No. 90/532 'affecting staff reductions.
3 -
T i
A T T A C H M E N T I
LIST OF SPEAKERS AT THE AUGUST 6, 1990 BUDGET HEARING
The fol-lowing persons spoke:
Henry L. Clarke, Contra Costa Employees, Local I .-
Susan
;Susan Prather, 2817 Goularte, Pinole;
Dr. .Dario deLeon, Sexually Transmitted Disease Programs, Public
Health Department;
Fred Farris, 207 Creed Ave. , Antioch;
John Clay, 769 E1 Pado Dr. , E1 Sobrante;
Nancy Robbins, Alliance for the Mentally 111, 1122 Rahara Dr. ,
Lafayette;
Joan Sorisio, Mental Health Advisory Board; P.O. BOX 612,
Clayton; .
Kathi McLaughlin, Mental Health Advisory Board, 706 Soto St. ,
Martinez;
Wayne Wechsler, We Care Treatment Center, 2191 Kirker Pass,
Concord; .
Jack Feldman, (no street address given) , Concord;
Nancy Strohl, Contra Costa Legal Services, P. O. Box 2289,
Richmond;
Allan Shore, 5310 Ridgeview Circle, #5, E1 Sobrante;
Dennis Lepak, Mental Health Advisory Board, 2730 Geneva St. ,
Martinez;
Joan Lautenberger, Human Services Advisory Commission, 3979 S.
Peardale Dr. , Lafayette;
Dr. C. - E. Christian, Crisis and Suicide Intervention Program,
112 La Casa Via, Suite 160, Walnut Creek;
George Saunders, Mental Health Association, Contra Costa
Chapter, 604 Ferry St. , Martinez;
Sue Ogden, Phoenix Program, Antioch Shelter, Antioch;
Howard Mitchell, M.D. , Health Maintenance Organization Advisory
Board; 185 Shoreline Court, Richmond;
Kate Quisenberry, Human Relations Commission, Martinez;
Odie Douglass, Center for Human Development, Richmond;
Beth Schecter, Center for Human Development, 391 Taylor
. Blvd. , Pleasant Hill;
Stacey Livica, 41 Selena Ct. , Antioch;
Rick Aubry, Richmond Contractors Alliance, Arlington Blvd.
Richmond;
Paula James, 1860 San Miguel Dr. , Walnut Creek;
Rev. Haydon Buttler, Rubicon Programs, Richmond;
Joan Ananos, Family Stress Center, 2086 Commerce Ave, Concord;
Mil Morales, Family Stress Center, 2086 Commerce Ave. , Concord;
A speaker on behalf of Dr. Hector Rivera, Bi-lingual Mental
Health Program for Central County, 2025 Port Chicago Highway,
Concord;
Susan Cinelli, Bi-Bett and Alcohol Program providers, 1260-A
Monument Blvd. , Concord;
Dennis Rosenblitt, Conservator Program, 624 Ferry St. , Martinez;
Beatrice J. Wade, Contra Costa Network of Mental Health Clinics,
3954 Meadowbrook Circle, Pittsburg;
Fred Mah, Teamsters Local 315 , Martinez;
Joan Stevenson, Contra Costa Dental Society, 3950 Buskirk Ave. ,
Suite 212, Walnut Creek;
Robert Martin, Holloman Detox, 208 - 23rd St. , Richmond;
Kevin Sexton, Holloman Detox, 208 - 23rd St. , Richmond;
Burg Hewitt, Holloman Detox, 208 - 23rd St. , Richmond;
Ken Spears, Holloman Detox, 208 - 23rd St. , Richmond;
Donald Walters, Holloman Detox, 208 - 23rd St. , Richmond;
Natalie Russell, Juvenile Justice Commission, 1626 Barnett
Circle, Pleasant Hill;
Barbara J. Milliff, Developmental Disabilities Council and the
Maternal Child Adolescent Health Advisory Board, 1227
Cheshire Court, Concord;
Cliff McFadden, Alcohol programs, Concord;
Willie Porter, Alcohol_ programs, Concord;
Bonnie Robinson, 2009 Relez Ct. , #4, Concord;
Pat Lowe, 1731 Adelaide St. , #205, Concord;
i .
• 4
Attachment I
Page 2
Daniel K. Rose, Alcohol programs, Concord;
Randy Johnese, Social Service Local 535 , SEIU;
Barbara Maizie, Contra Costa Association for Retarded Citizens,
1340 Arnold Dr. , #127 , Martinez ;
Sandra Gibson, Nuumbia Chuka, 151 S. 12th St. ,, Richmond;
Hollis Maclean, NEAT Family, 429 Carour St. , Oakland;
Dennie Reali., 1919 Jeanette Dr. , Pleasant Hill;
Jack Eraser, DVR, Concord;
Jim Hicks, AFSCME, 1000 Court St. , Martinez;
David Kress, A.I .R.S. , 276 4th St. , Richmond;
Rodney Scott, . Center for Human Development, 1016 Pine Hollow
Ct. , Clayton;
Viola Thomas, Nuumba and Phoenix, 3.215 Nevin, Richmond;
Rick Rubio, East County Shelter, 1401 4th St. , Antioch;
Vicki Smith, IContra Costa County Mental Health Coalition,
1641 Ashwood Dr. , Martinez;
Ken Salonen, 'Contra Costa Employees, Local I , 1540 Madera
Circle, El Cerrito;
Norman Nather, NEAT, Family, 730 Caliente Ave. , Livermore;
Loretta Carr,. Center for Human Development, (no address given) ;
Julie Lee, Center for Human Development, 93 Hillcrest Dr. ,
Orinda;
Roxanne Castillo, Center for Human Development, 736 Sanford
Ave. , Richmond;
Larry Sly, Social Service contractors, 5121 Port Chicago
Highway, Concord;
Betty McGraw, Nierika House, 1474 Marclair Dr. , Apt. A. Concord;
John . Spain, 2500 Bissel, Richmond;
Leanne Schlegel, FACSAC, 109 Kavers Lane, Martinez;
Mark Shadinger, Rubicon, 604 11th St. , Richmond;
Frankie Randolph, A.I .R.S. program, 1420 Ohio St. , Richmond;
Tim Rhodes, Detox, 1211 Detroit Ave. , #5, Concord;
John Fauce, Sunrise House, Concord;
Nina Steinberg, Phoenix Programs Inc. , 2820 Broadmoor, Concord;
Don Travins, Sunrise House, 135 Mason Circle, Concord;
James Neuendorf, Homeless, Concord;
Patricia MacKay, Turning Point Counseling Center, 1399 Ygnacio
Valley Rd. , #12 , Walnut Creek;
Kathy Lafferty, 1135 Lacey Lane, Concord;
Tom Fulton, Northern California Family Center, 1621 N. Broadway;
Walnut Creek;
Joe Gross , Neighborhood House of North Richmond, 305 Chesley
Ave. , Richmond;
Aaron Thomas, 1701 Laguna St. , Concord'
Charles Smith, East County Detox, 7 Plateau Ct. , Hercules ;
Jennifer Summerton, Child Abuse prevention Council, 1485 Treat
Blvd. , #202, Walnut Creek;
Jose Peters, 1111 Ward St. , Martinez ; and
Carl Lee Crossley, 1441 Detroit Ave. , #104, Concord.
HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT
1990/91 BUDGET REDUCTION PLAN
Phase
o Convenience Hours: Delay opening: $ 250,000
Pittsburg Health Center
Monday 5:30 - 9:30
Thursday 5:30 - 9:30
Saturday 9:00 - 1:00
Richmond Health Center
Wednesday 5:30 - 9:30
Saturday 9:00 - 1:00
o Reduction in AIDS Program: $ 125,000
Reduce Senior Health Education Specialist
Eliminate subvention funds to Martin Luther
Ring Jr. Health Center
Reduce expenditures in AIDS preventive
health education referrals including
brochures, posters, lifesaver kits, bleach
and condoms.
o Miscellaneous Reductions: $ 1001000
- Eliminate Health Services Administrator C
- Eliminate Home Economist
Eliminate Clerk-Experienced Level
o Reduction of Drug Overmatch: $ 100,000
- Reduce Bast County Detox
- Reduce Sojourns
Reduce Prevention Program Administration
. o Reduction of Alcohol Overmatch: $ 1008000
- Bi-Rett Corporation
- Neighborhood House of Horth Richmond
East County Detox
- AIRS
- Center for Human Development
(NEAT Family)
- 2
o Reduction in Mental Health Adult Programs: S 200,000
- Reduce P.M. shift coverage at West County
Crisis Center
- Reduce Adult Services at-Concord
- Eliminate:
. (2) Mental Health Treatment Specialist B
.Mental Health Treatment Specialist A
.Clerk
o Reduction in Public Health Prevention Program: $ 100,000
- Eliminate Senior Health Education Specialist
- Eliminate Administrative Student Interns
o Reduce Public Health Dental Program: $ 75,000
- Eliminate Program Specialist I
Eliminate Dental Assistant
o Reduction of Chaplaincy Services: $ 42,000
- Eliminate Roman Catholic welfare contract
Eliminate Council of Churches contract
o Teenage Proaram Reduction: $ 80,000
- Reduce TAP Coordinator -
- Eliminate two Student Workers
- Reduce Student Interns
o Reduce Sexually Transmitted Disease Program: $ 60,000
- Eliminate two Field Investigators
Sub Total Non-Beilenson Phase I $1,232,000
Phase
Beilenson*
o Eliminate BACs from Health Plan: $ 300,000
o Reduce ambulatory clinics: $ 225,000
(Pittsburg i Richmond)
o Reduce Sexually Transmitted Disease Program: S 165.000
Sub Total Beilenson $ 690,000
Grand Total Phase I $1,922,000
o: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
FROM: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator Costa
•� ,A County
DATE: August 1 , 1990 *r,
SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE 1990-91 FINAL BUDGET
SPECIFIC REOUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS•
1. Review information provided below about State budget
impacts.
2. Review the impact of the Governor's additional cuts to the
State budget.
3 . Review the analysis and impact of local program cuts as a
result of the State budget and Governor ' s vetoes.
4. Direct staff to continue to work with State, County and
local agencies to better understand the impact of local
reductions necessary as a result of State cuts and to bring
back recommendations to the Board on August 14th.
5. Recognize the State' s imposition of a property tax
administrative fee to be charged to cities, school districts
and special districts and authorize the County
Administrator' s Office to take appropriate actions to
establish a methodology for charging and begin the process
of working with and notifying involved agencies of the
pending financial impact.
6 . Recognize the State' s imposition of a criminal justice
administrative fee (booking) to be charged to cities,
special districts, school districts, community college
districts, colleges and universities and authorize the
County Administrator' s Office to take appropriate action to
CONTI NUEO ON ATTACHMENT: _YES SIGNATURE: V •y(.,Z *3Q.Z/"
_RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE __OTHER
IGNATUR 6:
ACTION OF BOARD ON on ay, August 97 1990 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED y OTHER X
At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Board approved the recommendations set forth
above which included $4.6 million in program reductions as contained in the Phase I Plan
(attached) with the exception of the Teenage Program (TAP).
The Chair then declared the County Budget for the 1990-1991 fiscal year adopted.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
X - 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
CC: County Departments ATTESTED Monday, August 6, 1990
PHIL BATCHELOR.CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
M382 (10/88) BY X �� '- � - ,DEPUTY
S
-2-
establish a methodology for charging and begin the process
of working with and notifying involved agencies of the
pending financial impact.
7. Recognize that the utility and business license taxes are a
very unlikely source of revenue.
8 . Consider at the regular August 71 1990 Board of Supervisors
meeting placing a measure on the' November 6, 1990 ballot to
impose ,a special parcel tax to finance the Countywide Drug
and Alcohol Action Plan.
9 . Consider at the regular August 7 , 1990 Board of Supervisors
meeting the desirability of placing an advisory measure on
the November 6, 1990 ballot to increase registration fees
for marine patrol services.
10 . Recognize the detrimental effect that the passage of
Proposition 136 on the November 6, 1990 ballot could have on
the revenue generation capacity of the County in the future.
11 . Establish a transitional reserve fund to minimize the
detrimental delay caused by the huge cuts made by the . State
a month after the beginning of the fiscal year and provide
for transitional resources to fund a program to bring under
control conflict defense fees and to provide financing for
the critically underfunded General Assistance budget.
12 . Authorize staff to continue to meet with employee unions to
discuss budget reduction measures and to prepare layoff
notices to accomplish those reductions which will finally be
approved by the Board.
13 . Direct staff to complete any required studies and post
appropriate Beilenson notices for any cuts that may result
from State budget reductions.
14 . Review information on County Budget prior to July 31st and
approve changes to the budget presented on July 25th and
26th.
15. Consider whether to direct staff to pursue introducing
legislation to add an additional 1, 2 or 3 Superior Court
Judges.
16. Approve study and work program items discussed during Budget
Committee deliberations . )
17 . Direct the County Administrator to re-initiate an early
retirement program option.
18. Direct the County Administrator to prepare necessary
adjustments to the Final Budget as adopted, which reflect
changes that the Board makes to the budget today, and all
those made during Budget Committee deliberations.
19. Authorize the Auditor-Controller to make technical
adjustments to the budget when actual amounts are known.
20. Open the hearings on the 1990-91 Final Budget, receive
public testimony on the proposed budget and make changes as
appropriate.
21. Adopt the 1990-91 final budget and position resolution as
shown on Attachment C.
22. Direct the County Administrator to return to the Board on
August 14 at 10: 00 AM and subsequent times as additional
information is developed related to State budget impacts.
-3-
1 . State Budget Impacts
The Problem:
The State Legislature voted for the candy lobby, which did
not want a sales tax on candy; for big business , which
didn't want to withhold income tax on independent
contractors; for the powerful liquor lobby, which wanted to
keep the tax on alcoholic beverages the lowest in the
country; for the wealthy, who did not want a 1% increase in
income tax, and against the children, elderly, poor,
handicapped and mentally ill. They cut programs that_serve
the underprivileged by $558 million, thus establishing a
record setting tragedy unmatched in recent history.
By far the largest cuts that have been perpetrated on
counties are in health services programs. $175 million
statewide was cut from the Medically Indigent Services
Program. This cut reduces the total amount of the Medically
Indigent Services Program to about 25% of what the state
would have been spending had these programs not been
transferred to counties in 1983 .
The Trial Court Funding Program has also been reduced by a
significant amount. The annual cost-of-living adjustment
was removed from the 1990-91 allocation, and the base
allocation was reduced by 10$, resulting in a total
reduction of $60.7 million dollars.
The GAIN Program, administered by the Social Service
Department, was reduced by $101 million and mandate
subventions were cut by $136. 3 million.
In addition to the major reduction mentioned above, the
State Legislature also made the following cuts:
Item Reduction (millions)
• AB8/County Health Programs $ 21. 4
• County Welfare Administration 18 . 8
• Homeless Assistance 5. 0
• Alcohol & Drug Programs 1.0
• Williamson Act 5 . 0
• County Indigent Defense 13 . 0
• Medi-Cal 21. 6
At a meeting in Sacramento on August 1 , counties were
cautioned that the State budget situation may be even worse
next year than this year, due principally to the fact that
$987 million of the cuts made this year were one-time in
nature and will not be possible to repeat next year. This
caution should be noted in making this year' s budget
decisions.
The State legislature also approved legislation that
modifies certain requirements for hearings under the
Beilenson Act. Specifically, the Board can make cuts
without the 30-day hearing notice requirement, but must . have
a hearing within 30 days of making the cuts.
2. Governor's Additional Cuts
In spite of the incredible cuts already made by the
Legislature, the Governor cut the counties by an additional
$222.7 million dollars, reducing mental healthprograms,
children's protective services and juvenile Justice
projects, in order to increase the state reserve to $1. 3
billion. The legislative cuts combined with the Governor's
vetoes increase the total County reductions to 4781. 5
million. Some of the most significant cuts that came from
the Governor include:
-4-
a) Mental Health - $75 million in mental health funding
was vetoed before the Governor signed the budget. This
represents a 15% reduction statewide in the State
funding for mental health.
b) Child welfare Services - $54.8 million was vetoed for
this program--$37 .6 million for caseload growth and
$27.2 million in cost-of-living adjustments.
Maintenance of effort requirements were retained.
c) Juvenile Justice Subvention Funds (AB 90) - Were
reduced by about 50% or $33 million off a $67 million
base. Certain maintenance of effort requirements were
maintained.
Other reductions included in the veto were:
Item Amount(millions)
Mental Health Pilot Projects $ 8. 6
• Adult Care Pilot Project 1. 5
• Institutions for Mental Disease 4. 4
• Local Government Financing 20.0
• Adult Protective Services 1. 5
• Aging Programs 3 . 55
• AIDS Program 13 . 85
• Family Planning 4. 0
• Medi-Cal Disproportionate Provider 18 . 0
3 . Implementation of Local Impacts
Local impacts that result from the devastating State budget
cuts are huge, totaling about $11.7 million. A description
of the major cuts and local impacts is described below:
Health Services
a) Medically Indigent Adult Program - The cut in the
Medically Indigent Adult program was originally shown
as $4 . 5 million. The total state funding for the
county in this program was $9. 2 million before
reductions . Our County received a disproportionate
share of the program reductions, based upon the
legislature's decision to protect Los Angeles County
and San Francisco County from absorbing the same level
of cuts as unprotected counties. The Governor vetoed
the allocation formulas so the actual cut to Contra
Costa County may end up being less than $4 . 5 million,
but the actual allocation formula is not known at this
time.
b) AB-8 Funding - The AB-8 County Health Services'
cost-of-living adjustment, worth about $700,000, has
been eliminated.
c) Mental Health - As a result of the $75 million State
cut in the Mental Health Program, it is estimated that
Contra Costa County will lose approximately $2. 5
million.
Therefore, it is imperative that the Phase I reduction
identified last month in Budget Committee hearings be
realized immediately, as they cost the County an
additional $160,000 a month for every month they are
delayed. This will ultimately result in the
requirement to reduce additional programs to balance
the budget.
However, the behemoth reductions that will result from State
actions cannot be analyzed fully until additional
information is forthcoming and local program impacts
can be determined. Until this information is developed
for the Board' s August 14th meeting, the following
describes some of the programs that might be impacted,
to the extent additional revenues cannot be realized.
-5-
(These programs, which are not listed in priority order, far
exceed the total amount of reductions that would have to be made
in order to give the Board an idea of some reduction options
which may be available) .
Phase II Reductions
Annual Cumulative
Description Savings Savings
1 . Eliminate Advisory Board Staff $ 200, 000 $ 200,000
2. Reduce Hlth Svcs Admin Staff ( 2FTE) 750000 2750650
3 . Eliminate A/DA/MH Contractor COLA 350, 000 625,000
4. Reduce Detention Facility
Medical Staffing (12 FTEs) 500,000 1 ,125,000
5. Reduce Detention Facility
Psychiatric Staffing ( 12 FTEs) 640, 000 11765,000
6. Eliminate All Outpatient Adult
Services:
- Mental Hlth Trmnt Svcs ( 12 FTEs) 490,000 21255,000
- Clerical Support ( 5 FTEs) 140, 000 21395,000
- Supervisors ( 3 ) 140, 000 2,535,000
7. Close West Cc Crisis Unit ( 12 FTE s) 361 , 000 2, 896, 000
8 . Reduce Center for Human Development/MH
- Prevention 61,000 2,957,000
- NEAT 33 , 000 2,990,000
9 . Eliminate Suicide Prevention 70,000 3,0601000
10. Reduce Phoenix & Rubicon Contracts 326,000 3,386,000
11 . Eliminate Alcohol Detox Beds :
- Holloman 303,713 30689,713
- Shennum 459, 438 40149,151
- East County 176,454 4,325,605
- Sunrise House Recovery 187 ,772 4,513 , 377
12. Consolidate San Pablo Discovey Ctrs 35,000 41548,377
13 . Consolidate Horizons Discovey Ctrs 93 , 416 4,641,793
14 . Reduce Center for Human Development 30, 000 4, 671,793
(NEAT Contract (Drug)
15 . Merge Discovery I & II 125, 885 4,797 ,678
16. La Cheim Residential Contract Reduc 100, 000 4,897 ,678
17 . Reduce Many Hands Contract 28, 000 419251678
18 . Reduce Desarrolo Contract 21,500 41947,178
19 . Close Brentwood Health Center 2781000* 51225,178
20 . Eliminate Svcs to Medically
Indigent Adults at the Following
Locations:
- Richmond (19 FTEs) $ 9201000* $6,145,178
- Pittsburg ( 9 FTE' s) 4100000* 61555,178
- Concord ( 2 FTEs) 80,000* 6,635,178
- Martinez Family Practice Under study
21. Eliminate providers (M.D. /F.N.P. )
( 15 FTEs) 800,000* 7,4350178
22. Y Team (YMCA) Contract Reduction 100,000 7,5350178
23. We Care/Lynn Day 483,000 81018,178
24. Public Hlth Nursing Staff Reduction 750,000 8,093 ,178
25. Close Richmond 106191000* 9,712,178
26. Close Pittsburg 1,535,000* 11,247,178
27. Close Concord 496,000* 11,743,178
28. Eliminate Children Mental
Health Treatment Specialists (4) 2000000 11,943,178
29. Reduce Conservatorship Program 200,000 12,143,178
---------- ----------
AB-75 Maintenance of Effort Requirements
GRAND TOTAL $12,143,178
Law and Justice
a) Justice Subvention Program (AB90)
A total of $33 million was reduced from this program through
the Governor' s veto. This represents about a 50% reduction
in the total AB90 program. Specific recommendations for
cuts need to be developed. A listing of the original
proposed allocations is listed below:
-6-
1990-91
Department or Proposed
Agency Project Title Allocation
Criminal Justice Planning, Coordination, $ 39, 537
Agency (CAO) Evaluation & Admin
District Attorney Performance of AB3121 256,056
Functions
Public Defender Defense of Juveniles 76,771
Probation Home Supervision 76, 817
Brentwood Youth & Family Services 831,238
Probation Byron Boys ' Ranch 834 , 328
Health Services Detention Facility Mental 149,841
Health Services
Friends outside Friends Outside 35,966
(Sheriff)
Battered Women' s Battering Abatement 24,564
Alternatives
District Attorney Adult Pre-Trial Diversion 182,561
TOTAL $1 ,759, 679
b) Trial Court Funding - Statewide impacts of the Trial Court
funding reductions appear to be almost $853 . 9 million
dollars. Sufficient time has not been available to
identify specific program cuts in the courts which
could achieve the reduced funding level, so a
subsequent report will be provided to the Board on
August 14th. The current allocations of Trial Court
Funding are:
1989-90 Trial Court Funding Allocations
Department Amount Percent(%)
County Clerk $ 688,000 15. 85
District Attorney 496,079 11. 42
Municipal Court 11180,368 27.18
Probation 172,492 3 .96
Public Defender 292,890 6.73
Sheriff 313,000 7. 21
Superior Court 1,200,000 27.64
TOTAL $4,342,829
Social Services
a) Adult Services and GAIN
These programs have already been reduced to comply with the
State Budget to stay within the department 's County General
Fund target. A reduction of another dozen positions will
begin to impact the department's ability to be in compliance
with State law and regulations in Child Welfare Services, as
well as court-ordered mandates.
b) Child Welfare Services
In the Social Service Department, the department anticipated
almost everything in the final State Budget, except the cuts
the Governor took in Child Welfare Services, It estimated
that the Child Welfare Services cut will add $500,000 to
$900,000 to the 90/91 budget shortfall of $2 million. The
exact amount will depend on the method chosen by the State
Department of Social Services in the allocation of the Child
Welfare Services appropriation.
-7-
A further $900,000 cut in the 90/91 budget would translate
to an estimate 10 -. 12 more positions to be reduced from the
Department.
If these cuts are not made, the alternative is to cut 10 -
12 positions from mandated Child Protective Services
programs and be out of compliance with Federal and State
mandates and court-ordered services.
If 10 - 12 positions are cut from Child Protective Services
to achieve the State Budget cut, the following program
changes will be necessary.
♦ Establishing priorities for child abuse investigations
♦ Elimination of Voluntary Family Maintenance in the Child
Welfare Services program
♦ Elimination of stepparent adoptions in the Adoption
Program
It needs to be pointed out that program cuts made . by the
State are effective July 1st, which means that 100% of the
program costs subject to reduction are a general fund
expense for the entire time before any cuts are made.
The Social Service Department is recommending that the
following list of items be considered as potential targeted
areas to the extent reductions have to be made:
Social Service Reductions
Annualized
County Gen
Fiscal Impact Total Fund Cost
• Elimination of all funding for $ 560,000 $ 4600000
discretionary funded contracts
• Elimination of paid staff from the 260,000 150,000
Department' s Volunteer programs
- Eliminates 5 positions
• Return Adoption Programs to 635,000 114,000
State Administration
- Eliminates 8 positions
• Return Foster Home Licensing to 497, 000 110, 000
State Administration
- Eliminates 6. 5positions
• Curtailment of GA Work Program 120,000 120,000
- Eliminates General Services
contract
• Reduction of Family Preservation 100,000 100,000
• Reduction of Staff Development Programs 90,000 90,000
------ ----------
TOTAL $2,262,000 $1,144,000
4 . Direct staff to continue to work with State, County and
local agencies to better understand the impact of needed
reductions and bring back recommendations to the Board on
August 14th
At this point, it is difficult to know the exact extent of
the cuts, and without that knowledge, it is impossible to
recommend specific program reductions. Therefore, it is
recommended that your Board direct staff to continue to
gather and analyze information as it becomes available and
return to the Board on August 14th with specific
-8- '
recommendations on program cuts. A critical factor in this
analysis is the "maintenance of effort" requirements for
various programs that have had funding reduced.
Additionally, allocation methodologies have not been
determined for mental health and medically indigent adult
programs.
Recommendations will be developed on the following:
- Medically Indigent Adult
- Mental health
- AB90
- Children' s Welfare Services
- Trial Court Funding
Our activities would also include meeting with cities and
districts. on the impacts of our recommendations on their
operations.
5. Property Tax Administrative Fee - In order to restore a
small portion of the $781 million cut that the State made to
counties, the Legislature authorized each county to . charge
cities, school districts and special districts for the costs
of administering the property tax collection system. The
rationale for authorizing these charges was to spread the
detrimental impact of balancing a $3.6 billion deficit to
all levels of government, recognizing that the counties
still would be receiving the major brunt of the reductions .
SB 2557 (Maddy) authorized the County, beginning in the
1990-91 fiscal year, to recover the 1989-90 costs of the
Assessor, Auditor-Controller and Treasurer-Tax Collector in
assessing, collecting and allocating property taxes. These
costs may include appropriate overhead expenses pursuant to
Federal Circular A-87 . These expenses may be recovered from
incorporated cities by withholding up to one-half of
increased property tax revenue to which the city is
otherwise entitled until the County recovers the share of
the costs for which the city is responsible. The costs
attributable to special districts and school districts may
be recovered by invoicing the district. The bill provides
no deadline within which the district must pay the invoice.
The State ' s decision to charge cities, school districts and
special districts after the beginning of the fiscal year
when their budgets were completed also has a deleterious
impact on them in the same way that making a three-quarter
billion dollar cut has on the counties a month after the
fiscal year has begun is harmful.
It is important that the methodology to be used in
allocating the appropriate costs for property tax
administration be carefully reviewed to insure not only
conformity with the law, but that there is equitable
distribution of the charges. In order to do this, the
statewide Association of County Administrators has
established a task ' force of County Administrators and
Auditors (including Contra Costa County Auditor Donald
Bouchet) to develop the appropriate approach and method of
charging jurisdictions. It was determined at the August 1,
1990 County Administrators meeting in Sacramento that a
uniform approach should be used in allocating these charges.
Pending the outcome of the work of this task force, the
County Administrator's Office and the Auditor's Office have
looked at a possible methodology that could be used to
calculate charges which would be made to the various
jurisdictions. The approach might follow the outline that
is given below:
-9-
Costs ( 1989-90)
Assessor XXX
+ County Overhead (A-81 ) XXX
Tax Collector (excluding Treasurer) XXX
+ County Overhead (A-87) XXX
Auditor - Tax Division (excluding special
district budgets) XXX
+ County Overhead (A-87) XXX
Total XXX
Less Collection Fee Revenue
Administration of Supplemental Roll (XXX)
1915 Act (XXX)
GO Bonds (XXX)
Collection Fee Contracts (XXX)
Etc. (XXX)
Net Total XXX
Although it would be inappropriate at the present time to
calculate the precise amount that this fee could generate in
revenues, an example might be helpful. If the total
applicable charges to administer the property tax system
were $6. 6 million and 75% would be chargeable to other
jurisdictions, the County could generate approximately $5
million. However, it is well to note that since special
districts and school districts are invoiced and there is no
specific deadline for payment, revenues may not be received
during the 1990-91 fiscal year.
6 . Charging for the Cost of Booking Prisoners
The State Legislature has approved (SB 2557-Maddy) charging
of cities and other jurisdictions that book people into the
County jail an amount equal to the cost of the booking
function.
This charge. will, in the same manner as the property tax
administrative fee, impose a hardship on those entities
which have already adopted their budget for the 1990-91
fiscal year. Nevertheless, the State Legislature has
indicated to us that this is to mitigate some of ' the
dramatic cuts that have been made in the programs that serve
the disadvantaged, the elderly, the handicapped, the poor
and the mentally ill.
Exactly what costs are appropriate to charge as part of the
booking fee has not been determined at this time. However,
the State Association of County Administrators has
established a task force consisting of law enforcement
officials, Auditors and County Administrators to construct
an appropriate methodology for charging for booking.
Although it is recognized that charges will vary by County
because the booking function differs from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction, the cost accounting process should be uniform
and standardized for all counties which will be establishing
these fees.
A preliminary analysis that has been prepared by the County
Administrator's Office and the Sheriff 's Department would
probably include at least the following items in their cost
analysis process:
A consolidated arrest report is taken by the arresting
officer in the field or at the County jail if an
offender is brought in by a peace officer from another
jurisdiction. ..
A clerk runs a computer check to determine the presence
of prior convictions or outstanding warrants.
-10-
The arrestee 's property is confiscated and he or she is
given a receipt.
The arrestee is "pat" searched.
The arrestee is fingerprinted and the prints are sent
to a central bureau for the purpose of obtaining a
possible match.
Arrestee is photographed.
A determination is made as to whether the arrestee will
be detained pending a bail hearing or given a citation
and subsequently released.
All detainees go through a medical screening.
All detainees must go through a custody classification
screening (this process is to determine whether the
detainee is a known gang member, "snitch" or
homosexual) .
A determination must be made as to where to
appropriately house the detainee.
The detainee is "dressed out" (civilian clothing is
exchanged for standard jail clothing) .
Computer entries are made citing the offense with which
the detainee has been charged, along with information
on the actual arrest and personal identification data.
A jail packet is generated citing the current charges
and the detainees ' criminal history.
The computer automatically places the detainee on the
appropriate court calendar.
Applicable overhead costs as permitted by federal
Circular A-87 standards, incurred in booking or
otherwise processing arrested persons.
Mental health screening is conducted on all detainees.
The personal property of each prisoner is inventoried
and stored.
A 15-minute film on jail life is shown to the
prisoners.
Hospital care, if necessary, is provided.
Until the accounting process has been determined, a valid
booking fee would be impractical to determine at this time.
However, if we were to estimate there were 25,000 annual
bookings and 60%, or 15,000, could be charged to various
jurisdictions and a $100 charge could be made per booking,
the County could potentially collect $1.5 million for a full
fiscal year. Once the cost analysis has been prepared and
jurisdictions have been notified of what the booking fee
would be, there may be a resulting decrease in bookings for
items such as misdemeanors which would reduce the revenue
generating capacity of this charge, but may also reduce the
jail population, with a positive financial result.
7 . Utility annd Business License Tax
SB 2557 (Maddy) authorizes the Board of Supervisors,
effective January 1, 1991, to license for revenue and
regulation and fix a license tax on every kind of business
transacted in the unincorporated area of the County. The
bill also authorizes the Board of Supervisors, effective
January 1 , 1991, to levy a utility user tax on the
consumption of electricity, gas, water, sewer, telephone,
telegraph and cable • . television services in the
unincorporated area of the County.
The bill, however, also provides that these taxes are
subject to any applicable voter approval requirements
imposed by any other provision of law. Since the
legislation authorizing these taxes is not effective until
January 1, 1991, it is likely that the authority to impose
them without a majority approval by the voters would be
precluded if Proposition 136 is approved by the voters on
November 6, 1990.
If Proposition 136 passes, the Board would have to either
wait until June of 1992 to place the matter before the
voters or call a special election at a cost estimated at .
$4001.000 to $500,000, with no assurance the voters would
approve either tax.
An argument can also be made that it would be inequitable to
impose such taxes on utility users and businesses in the
unincorporated area of the County to finance services which
benefit residents throughout the County, including those
within incorporated cities. In addition, if the taxes are
to be collected on the property tax bill, there would be no
opportunity to recover any revenue until the 1991-92: fiscal
year since the property tax bills for 1990-91 will have been
issued before the Board of Supervisors obtains authority to
impose the taxes.
Even if the Board were to use some sort of invoice procedure
there will be little if any opportunity to obtain any
revenue before the end of the 1990-91 fiscal year.
8 . Alcohol Parcel Tax
As far back as at least 1986, the Board of Supervisors has
been concerned about the need to provide additional funding .
for a variety of human services. In 1986 the Board of
Supervisors created the Advisory Committee on Funding County
Services. This Committee met on a number of occasions over
a period of nearly two years, interviewed a number of
department heads and considered the needs of a wide variety
of services which required additional funding. These
included children' s services, mental health, law enforcement
programs, county library services, emergency medical
services and drug and alcohol programs. The final
recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Funding County
Services were presented to the Board of Supervisors on
December 15, 1987. Among the recommendations of the
Advisory Committee were the following:
The Board of Supervisors should conclude, as has our
Committee, that the County currently does not have
sufficient revenue to support the many demands made on the
County.
The Board of Supervisors should indicate its willingness to
place a special tax measure on the ballot so the voters have
an opportunity to determine whether they wish to tax
themselves further in order to provide funds to assist in
addressing some of the County's unmet needs in specific
areas.
Efforts are currently underway to determine the level of
support on the part of the public for an increase in the
level of library services and available mechanisms for
restoring the level of funding which has had to be removed
from the County Library over the past several years.
Suggestions have been made by several Board Members from
time to time that the voters be given an opportunity to
determine whether they wish to impose a parcel tax to raise
funds for mental health services or for children's
protective services.
-12-
over the past year and one half, the Board of Supervisors
has been developing a Countywide Drug and Alcohol Action
Plan which would outline various gaps in services which are
needed in order to attack the drug and alcohol problems
which confront our community. On June 5, 1990 the voters
overwhelmingly approved the Action Plan. The Action Plan
contains an outline of several possible sources of the
revenue which would be required in order to finance those
portions of the Action Plan which cannot be implemented
without additional resources. Among the comments which are
included in the Action Plan section on revenue are the
following:
We should not deceive ourselves into thinking that any
significant part of the added services called for in the
following Community Action Plan can be implemented with the
currently available resources. There is no substitute for
citizen involvement and volunteeractivities in addressing
the war on drugs. Much can and must be done within existing
resources, but more will be needed. . . .It is important to
recognize that there simply are not enough funds available
locally to implement this Community Action Plan. . It may
become necessary to reorder priorities and raise more funds
locally in order to make the Community Action Plan a
reality.
The State Budget for the 1990-91 fiscal year which was
signed by the Governor on July 31, 1990 makes reductions in
the mental health, health care and social services programs
beyond anything which was contemplated earlier this year.
As a result, reordering priorities at this point in time
among existing health and social service programs may be
akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The
Advisory Committee on Funding County Services was convinced
in 1987 that the County did not have sufficient funds to
respond to the legitimate needs of the County. If that was
true in 1987, it is surely all the more evident in 19901
Initially, it was thought that passage -of the Alcohol Tax
Initiative (now Proposition 134) would be the primary
mechanism for funding the Drug and Alcohol Action Plan. In
the meantime, the Legislature placed ACA 38 on the ballot
(now Proposition 126) at the instigation of the beer, wine
and distilled spirits industries. These same industries
have financed a major advertising campaign designed to
defeat Proposition 134. Even if both Propositions 126 and
134 are approved by the voters the measure which receives
the most votes will prevail over the other measure.
Therefore, we have no assurance that we can rely on the
passage of Proposition 134 to finance these needed drug and
alcohol programs.
It has, therefore, been suggested that the Board of
Supervisors consider placing on the November 6, 1990 ballot
a measure which would allow the voters to approve a parcel
tax with the proceeds of the tax to be dedicated to defined
prevention/education, treatment/intervention and law
enforcement programs designed to address the growing problem
of the abuse of alcohol and the use of illegal drugs. More
details on the specifics of such a proposal are contained in
the report to the Board which is on the •agenda for the
Board's consideration on August 7, 1990 regarding placing
such a parcel tax on the November 6, 1990 ballot.
However in terms of balancing the Count 's Bud et for
1990-91 such a parcel tax will be of no assistance even if
we knew today that it would be approved by the voters. This
is true for the following reasons:
1. The measure must be placed on the ballot by the Board
of Supervisors by August 10, 1990.
2 . The measure must be in the form of a special tax for a
defined purpose. This means that it must receive a
positive vote by 2/3 of those voters who vote on the
measure.
-13-
3 . If placed on the ballot by the voters and if approved
by the voters, the additional assessment would be
applied to the tax bills for the 1991-92 fiscal year.
Therefore, the earliest that the revenue from such a
parcel tax could be included in the County Budget would
be for the 1991-92 fiscal year.
As a result, while the Board of Supervisors may wish to
consider whether to place such a measure before the voters,
it is not possible to consider such a source of revenue for
the purpose of assisting the Board of Supervisors in
balancing the 1990-91 County Budget.
9. Marine Patrol
Prior to the 1989-90 fiscal year the Sheriff-Coroner
operated a Marine Patrol Program consisting of six boats
staffed with 30 crew shifts per week. In 1986, the Marine
Patrol assisted boaters on 260 occasions. There were 460
hours of time dedicated to search and rescue. This was
considered important because the 200 square miles of
waterways for which the Sheriff is responsible, stretching
from Richmond to Antioch. The Marine Patrol was responsible
for providing traffic enforcement on the waterways, stopping
boats which were speeding, citing boat operators who were
driving their boats while intoxicated and generally insuring
that the waterways of the County were safe places in which
to operate a boat.
With the substantial budget problems with which the Board of
Supervisors was faced a year ago in balancing the 1989-90
budget, the Marine Patrol services were cut by nearly 80%.
Now only 2 boats are operated, staffed by 7 crew shifts a
week. Boater assists have dropped to less than 55 and
search and rescue hours to only 60: "Low priority"
activities have now been defined to include vessel accident
investigations, enforcement actions against intoxicated boat
operators and safety inspections of boats.
while an "adequate" Marine Patrol is estimated to cost
approximately $700,000 a year, the current budget allows
only $160,000 per year.
The County and cities receive personal property taxes from
those boats which are housed in Contra Costa County. The
cities are free to use their share of these personal
property taxes as general revenue to support their city
budgets. None of their revenue currently goes to support
the Marine Patrol, even though the , majority of boat owners
probably live within cities and benefit from the safety and
traffic enforcement measures taken by the Sheriff 's Marine
Patrol.
In addition to personal property taxes, boat owners pay a $5
per year registration fee to the Department of Motor
Vehicles, much as do motor vehicle owners. A portion of
this registration fee can be made available to counties by
the Department of Boating and Waterways in the form of
grants to support such water-oriented activities as the
Marine Patrol, but only when the County demonstrates that
all of the personal property tax revenue received by the
County has been dedicated to eligible programs such as the
Marine Patrol. The County receives approximately $500,000
per year in such personal property taxes on boats, but is
currently spending $160,000 of this revenue on the Marine
Patrol. The balance of the funds had to be transferred to
the General Fund to finance other essential services. Thus,
the County's current $50,000 in grants from the Department
of Boating and Waterways could be in jeopardy. In addition,
it is clear that the County is not going to be eligible for
any such grants in the future.
-14-
Several actions have been taken in an effort to obtain
additional revenue to allow the restoration of the Marine
Patrol:
1. Letters have been sent to the owners of each of the
marinas in the County, urging that they write their
state legislators indicating their support for the
Marine Patrol. Specifically, support was requested for
an increase in the boat registration fee from $5 to
$12, with the increased revenue to be dedicated to the
Marine Patrol. In addition, the marina operators were
asked to urge their city councils to agree to allocate
the personal property tax revenue which they receive
from boat ownership to the Sheriff for the Marine
Patrol.
2 . Letters have been sent to each city directly explaining
the critical problem with the funding of the Marine
Patrol and asking the city to agree to dedicate its
personal property tax revenue from boat ownership to
the Marine Patrol.
3 . Letters have been sent to each marina operator and
boating association in the County, along with a survey
form for their members, asking whether individual boat
owners would be willing to support an increase in their
registration fee from $5 to $12 if the additional
revenue were dedicated to the Marine Patrol.
4 . Members of the Board of Supervisors have met with the
County' s legislative delegation in an effort to explain
to the County' s delegation the reasons why the County
wanted to see an increase in the registration fee.
Legislation to accomplish this has been drafted and is
ready for introduction.
5. The Board of Supervisors, on August 7, 1990, will be
considering placing on the November 6, 1990 ballot an
advisory measure asking whether the voters would
support an increase in the boat registration fee in
order to restore services to the Marine Patrol. An
overwhelming vote support would hopefully indicate to
our legislative delegation the level of support for
such an increase.
6 . Plans are being made to solicit voluntary contributions
from individual citizens to be dedicated to the
Sheriff ' s Marine Patrol.
If the Board of Supervisors places an advisory measure on
the ballot in November and if it receives a substantial
level of support from the voters it is possible that a
member of this County's delegation would author legislation
to increase the boat registration fees. However, we have no
such commitment from any member of the County' s delegation,
although Assemblyman Campbell has shown some interest in
such legislation. However, other members of the County's
delegation have thus far opposed such an increase unless and
until the County dedicates all of its personal property tax
revenue to the Marine Patrol. The Department of Boating and
waterways has likewise indicated that at this time they
would oppose such a tax increase.
If legislation were introduced to increase the -boat
registration fee it could not be introduced until the
beginning of the 1991-92 Session of the Legislature.
Assuming it were possible to get the legislation through in
one year, the legislation would not be effective until
January 1, 1992. However, all such registrations expire on
December 31 of each year (Vehicle Code Section 9861) .
Therefore, it is unlikely that the increased fee could be
assessed until the registration which is due on December 31,
1992 . Thus , such revenue could not possibly be of any
-15-
assistance in balancing the County's Budget for 1990-91 (or
1991-92, for that matter) nor in restoring the level of
service for the Marine Patrol prior to the 1992-93 fiscal
year.
Likewise, while solicitations have been made of the cities
and individuals, it seems premature and imprudent to
anticipate that any specific levels of funding will be
received from such voluntary contributions to reflect such
revenue in the County Budget at this time. At any point
during the fiscal year that it appears that such
contributions have been received in sufficient quantity to
justify their being appropriated, such action can be taken
in the Sheriff's budget.
However, for purposes of balancing the 1990-91 County
Budget, it is not possible to anticipate any revenue from an
increase in the boat registration fee which might be
dedicated to support of the Marine Patrol and that it would
likewise be premature to anticipate any specific level of
voluntary contributions which might be donated for the
purpose of supporting the Marine Patrol.
10. Proposition 136
Proposition 136 is on the ballot November 6, 1990. The
passage of Proposition 136 could eliminate implementation of
the revenue sources made available to the County by the
Legislature in the compromise over the state budget (such as
utility tax and business license tax) , since these new
revenue sources are not available to the County until
January 1 , 1991 unless such proposals are placed on the
ballot and approved by a majority of voters. Passage of
Proposition 136 could eliminate both the Alcohol Tax
Initiative and ACA 38 if it receives more votes than either
of the alcohol tax measures. Passage of Proposition 136
would also probably eliminate any option for the Board to
impose the costs of the retirement system as an override to
the property tax, without a 2/3 vote of the people.
Proposition 13 , approved by the voters on June 6, 1978,
among other provisions added Section 3 and Section 4 to
Article XIIIA of the California Constitution. Section 3
requires that all changes to State taxes designed to
increase revenue must be approved by a 2/3 vote of each
House of the Legislature, except that no new ad valorem
taxes on real property, or sales or transaction taxes on the
sales of real property may be imposed. Section 4 provides
that cities, counties and special districts may impose
special taxes with a 2/3 vote of the people, except that no
ad valorem tax on real property or transaction tax or sales
tax on the sale of real property may be imposed. Various
court decisions since 1978 have interpreted Section 4 of
Article XIIIA, in particular, in such a way as to allow
Certain taxes to be imposed with a majority vote of the
people and other tax increases to not require a vote of the
people at all. (See City and County of San Francisco v.
Farrell; Carman v. Alvord; Fenton v. City of Delano and
others) .
An Initiative Constitutional Amendment has now qualified for
the November 6, 1990 ballot as Proposition 136. It appears
that Proposition 136 would do all of the following:
A. Repeal Section 3 of Article XIIIA of the Constitution.
B. Repeal Section 4 of Article XIIIA of the Constitution.
C. Enact a new Section 3 of Article XIIIA of the
Constitution.
D. Enact a new Section 4 of Article XIIIA of the
Constitution.
-16-
E. Enact a new Section 7 of Article XIIIA of the
Constitution.
The new Section 3 would appear to do all of the following:
F. Specifies that a 2/3 vote of both Houses of the
Legislature is required to increase any general tax or
special tax, whether this is accomplished by increasing
the tax rate, changing the method of computing the tax,
by an increase in an existing tax or by implementing a
new tax.
G. As an alternative to # 6, provides that any increase in
State taxes, whether by increasing the tax rate,
changing the method of computing the tax, increasing an
existing tax or implementing a new tax may be
accomplished by an initiative. In the case of a
general tax, a majority vote would be required. In the
case of a special tax, a 2/3 vote would be required.
H. Provides that except as already provided in Sections 1
and 2 of Article XIIIA of the Constitution, no. new ad
valorem taxes on real property or sales or transaction
taxes on the sale of real property may be imposed.
I . Requires that any special tax on tangible personal
property which is enacted on or after November 6, 1990
must be an ad valorem tax and must comply with the
provisions of Section 2 of Article XIIIA of the
Constitution.
J. Defines "general taxes" and . "special taxes" for
purposes of this section.
The new Section 4 would appear to do all of the following:
K. Prohibits any local government from imposing any new
general tax or increasing any existing general tax
unless the tax proposal is placed on the ballot and is
approved by a majority vote.
L. Prohibits any local government from impo.sing any new
special tax or increasing any existing special tax
unless the tax proposal is placed on the ballot and is
approved by a 2/3 majority vote.
M. Prohibits the imposition of any new ad valorem tax on
real property or a transaction tax or sales tax on the
sale or transfer of real property except as is provided
for in Sections 1 and 2 of Article XIIIA of the
Constitution.
N. Specifies the procedures for placing a proposal for a
general or special tax on the ballot for voter
approval, including a requirement that any special tax
proposal include a description of the purpose for which
the tax is being imposed.
O. Defines "local government" for purposes of this
section.
P. Defines "general tax", "special tax" and "voter" for
purposes of this section. Requires that all taxes be
deemed either general or special and specifies that a
sales and use tax imposed for transportation purposes
is a general tax for purposes of this section.
11 . Establishment of a Transitional Reserve Fund/Delay in Jail
Opening
Now that the State budget has been adopted, the county not
only finds itself in the untenable position of trying to
make very difficult decisions on which programs should be
reduced, but it finds itself in a position that if program
-17-
cuts are not made immediately the resulting program
devastation will only grow worse. It is estimated that if
the County carries the programs which have now been unfunded
by the State it incurs a $800,000 General Fund obligation
each month. Therefore, not only does the county start out
$800,000 in the hole because the State budget decisions were
not made until July 31, 1990, but the county is still unable
to take a finite action to make reductions until the State
provides specific program allocations to the counties. If
the State takes two more weeks to do this and then
appropriate notice is given to employees who will be
terminated, a minimum of two and a half to three months of
the fiscal year will have passed. Unless something can be
done to provide funding for this interim period, additional
programs, projects and people will have to be eliminated.
Another critical budget matter that must be addressed in the
1990-91 budget is the alarming increase in the cost of the
Conflict Public Defender budget. Not only has this budget
requirement accelerated to the point of approaching $3
million annually, but the passage of Proposition 115 (the
Speedy Trial Initiative) threatens to increase the cost of
the conflict function by another order of magnitude. Unless
something is done immediately to control these costs, it
will only increase the financial burden on the General Fund.
Therefore, it is suggested that funds be set aside which
would provide for the initiation of an alternative to the
current method of handling conflicts that will allow the
county to continue to honor bills received from the Bar and
at the same time consider the flexibility of establishing
another office to handle conflict cases.
During the past four years the cost of the county' s General
Assistance programs has increased by over 100%. This has
resulted due to an increasing number of homeless and adverse
court decisions which require the county to step in and
assist people who are now no longer being assisted through
federal housing subsidies. During the past few months the
Board of Supervisors has approved a number of program
changes to assist General Assistance recipients in obtaining
job opportunities acquiring housing and participating in
alcohol and drug abuse rehabilitation programs. These
improvements and several others which have recently been
introduced promise to reverse the ever-increasing trend of
higher General Assistance costs. However, the General
Assistance budget which has been recommended to be funded at
$11. 4 million for 1990-91 is over $1 million less than the
actual 1989-90 budget. It appears prudent that funding be
set aside to assist in financing the General Assistance
program until the beneficial impacts of the new General
Assistance programs can be realized.
Perhaps the only note of optimism that can come from a
discussion of the requirement to fund the three above
mentioned items is that they are one time in nature.
Therefore, it seems appropriate to set up a one time
transitional reserve fund that can provide for these needs
in the 1990-91 budget. Due to the untenable fiscal
restraints which the county is currently facing, there are
few resources that can be identified to help alleviate these
situations. Perhaps the best alternative currently
available to the Board is to consider delaying the opening
of the West County Detention Facility and thus taking all
the General Fund monies that were allocated for this purpose
and using them to meet the above mentioned requirements.
This would provide a transitional fund of $4 million.
It should be pointed out that even though this is a one-time
source of funding, this decision cannot be made without some
fairly significant negative consequences. A listing of some
of the arguments against making this decision is shown
below:
-18-
-- The existing jail facilities are :currently experiencing
tremendous overcrowding, particularly in the Martinez
Detention Facility with a rated capacity of 386 but the
current requirement to house over 800. No matter how
much the county might try to accommodate inmates in the
existing facility when there is no more space
physically available, it will result in more and more
inmates being released from jail. A delay in opening
the jail will also increase the likelihood of judicial
intervention.
Taking the $4 million from the jail budget in 1990-91
will exaggerate the budget shock that will result in
having to finance a $12 million budget to open the jail
for a full year in 1991-92.
-- It is a well established fact that an increase in
population in jail facilities is accompanied by a
corresponding increase in violence to both inmates and
staff. The support resources of the facility which
include kitchen, laundry, property, storage, clothing
etc. , are strained to the maximum. There is a .serious
concern that the increasing population at Marsh Creek
will exhaust the capacity of the present sewage system
under the strain of winter rains. As the population
continues to increase, the overtime budget continues to
climb because additional deputies must be brought back
to work overtime shifts.
In spite of the cautions which are mentioned above, it is
our recommendation that the West County Detention Facility
opening be delayed until March 1, 1991, and that all of the
General Fund monies currently allocated for that purpose be
removed from the current budget and be placed in a special
one-time transitional reserve fund to finance the items
mentioned above.
The jail could be opened on March 1, 1991, to a limited
Capacity to not provide for booking of inmates or the full
staffing of the administration facility. The funds to open
the facility would come from trial court funding in
accordance with a contractual agreement which we currently
have with the Superior and Municipal benches. Once the jail
is open, inmates and accompanying staff can be moved from
both the Marsh Creek and Martinez Detention Facilities.
However, since a large percentage of the .inmate supervision
is being provided by deputies on overtime as mentioned
above, it makes sense to continue to hire additional
deputies to work in the new facility. The hiring of both
deputies and civilian personnel has carefully been
Controlled and scheduled to minimize the cost of running
this new facility to the extent that no General Fund monies
will be required in the 1990-91 fiscal year.
12. Meetings with Unions & Layoff Notices
It is appropriate at this time to authorize staff to meet
with employee unions to discuss budget reduction measures
and to prepare layoff notices to accomplish those
reductions, and direct the Employee Relations Officer
to give notice to and to continue to meet and confer with
recognized employee organizations, as required.
13 . Beilenson Studies
Based upon the new requirement for notice and hearing on
health services reductions, it is recommended that the Board
set a hearing date on Health Services reductions for August
28, 1990 and direct Health Services .Director to post notices
pursuant to -", B 3573-T
_19-
14 . County Budget Prior to July 31 - The Problem
The County's financial problems have been well documented
over the last several years. Despite maintaining tight
financial control and conservative fiscal policies, State
mandates have been continuously eroding the County's ability
to maintain services. Additionally, the County's historical
share of the property tax (about 24%) is significantly less
than the statewide average ( 33%) . Local redevelopment
agencies now take over $10 million in property tax dollars
that would otherwise be allocated to the County.
Several issues are taking an increasing share of the
County's attention and resources:
• general assistance costs have more than doubled in the
last four years
• the new jail will cost over $12 million a year to
operate, once it is finally open, and itis impractical
to assume that the opening of the jail can be delayed
indefinitely.
• additional medical facilities become more imminent, as
the existing facilities continue to erode
• conflict public defender costs are increasing over 30%
each year, which will necessitate taking actions which
will initially increase the costs even further.
• the open space initiative has qualified for the
November ballot. If it passes, it could have a
significant impact on county revenues
• pending annexations and incorporations are additional
threats to the County' s revenue base
• indications are that new building is slowing
considerably, and the real estate market in general, as
evidenced by a fourth quarter 1989-90 lag in property
transfer taxes and supplemental roll income.
It is under this cloud that the Board is asked to consider
the 1990-91 budget as it stood .before July 31st. During
Budget Committee deliberations, the Board reviewed plans
necessary to keep the budget balanced. Those plans are
essential to implement as soon as possible. Therefore, it
is recommended that the Board approve changes recommended in
the 1990-91 Supplemental Document to the Proposed Budget.
15. Pursue Legislation for New Judges
During the Budget Committee deliberations, the Board
indicated a desire to consider pursuing legislation this for
additional judges for the Superior Court. It was pointed
out to the Board that visiting judges would be brought in to
address workload at 100% County cost if no new judges are
forthcoming. It was also pointed out that a "super block
grant" is available to help offset the increased cost of new
judges for the first four years.
Offsetting these positives are the system costs of each new
judgeship. The system costs include District Attorney,
Public Defender, and Probation in addition to the court
costs, which include the judges, clerk, court reporters, and
Sheriff's deputies. It is estimated that the system costs
total over $700,000 a year per judge, which is far in
excess of any "super block grant" available to fund each
judge. Therefore, a question has to be raised about whether
the County can consider taking on an additional expense in
this time of budget crisis. The Superior Court has pointed
out that the system costs of the District Attorney, Public
-20-
Defender, and Probation are not required costs when new
judges are added. If the Board decided to not fund any
system costs, the super block grant would cover the court
costs for the first two years of operation and then would
become an increasing County responsibility. By year five
the difference between cost and revenues would be $185,000 per
judge. The system cost by year five, including court costs,
would be $980,000 per judge. Board direction is needed
about whether to pursue legislation at this time, or whether
to defer action until the county' s and state' s financial
positions can be more accurately determined.
16. Studies and Referrals
A number of issues were brought forth during Budget Committee
deliberations that the Board asked be researched further. A
listing of those items and referral to the appropriate department
is indicated below.
Department Item
1. CAO/Social Services Provide report on Geographic
Breakdown of General Assistance
Clients.
2. CAO/Library Review approaches to collecting
and displaying old office
equipment no longer used by
departments.
3 . CAO Determine whether the County
should join the Urban Counties
League.
4 . Public Works Provide report on projects to be
completed with Proposition 111
funds.
5. CAO Support legislation for three
additional Superior Court judges.
Also, study cost ' of utilizing
part-time judges.
6. Animal Control/CAO/ Study use of inmates as
Sheriff/Probation volunteers to Animal Services
Department. Also, study use of
seniors as volunteers. Finally,
study mutual assistance agreement
with Antioch.
7. County Counsel/CAO Research liability of .LAFCO
Commissioners in the event of
lawsuit. Sponsor legislation. if
necessary to limit legal
liability of County for actions
of LAFCO. Discuss issue with
LAFCO Commissioners.
8. PIC Prepare memo to Federal Officials
regarding opposition to
Administration's proposal to
reduce funding for Summer Youth
program.
9. CAO/Probation Determine feasibility of
implementing PACE program with
the Superintendent of Schools.
10. CAO/Probation Review cost of using Probation
aides to conduct drug testing.
-21-
11 . Finance Committee Pursue alternative financing
methods and consider plans for
construction of new Juvenile
Hall.
12 . CAO/Probation Prepare job description and costs
for a Volunteer Coordinator
position.
13 . District Attorney Provide sexual assault statistics
for the last five years.
14 . CAO/Sheriff Research the financial and
operational feasibility of
housing state and federal
prisoners in County jail.
15 . Assessor Review procedures for determining
whether boats in County Marinas
are registered in Contra Costa
County.
16 . Community Services Develop a plan to cover the
$45,000 required match for the
Head Start program.
17 . CAO Review consolidation of special
districts to achieve administra-
tive savings.
17 . Early Retirement
Last year, the Board of Supervisors authorized the County
Administrator and Personnel Departments to develop an early
retirement program for departments to help provide options to
layoffs in balancing the budget. Several departments took
advantage of this early retirement option in order to lessen
the impact on their department' s work force. It is
recommended that the early retirement option again be
offered to County departments, with a window period of
September and October and an effective date no later than
November. In this manner, maximum savings to the County can
accrue.
18. Final Budget Changes
Direct the County Administrator' s Office to Prepare By
August 21, 1990 the Necessary Adjustments to the Final
Budget as Adopted by the Board of Supervisors which reflect
changes that have resulted from .Budget Committee
deliberations as well as the Public Hearing Deliberations.
19. Auditor-Controller Changes
Each year, the Board authorizes the Auditor-Controller to
make technical adjustments to the budget when actual amounts
are known. This allows the Auditor-Controller to prepare
the final budget schedules in accordance with actual revenue
receipts, fund balances and expenditures as approved the
Board. Any changes made by the Auditor-Controller will be
brought forth to the Board on August 21st for final
consideration and adoption.
20. Public Hearing Comments
It is recommended that the Board open the public hearing and
receive public testimony on all items contained in the
proposed budget document and Budget Committee deliberations
on the proposed budget. It is further recommended that the
Board direct staff to make changes to the proposed budget as
recommended above and as a result of deliberations following
public testimony on the budget.
-22-
21. Adopt 1990-91 Final Budget and Position Resolution
After all of the above items have been considered by the
Board and public testimony has been taken on the budget, it
is recommended that the Board adopt the 1990-91 Final
Budget. This will allow County departments to operate in
1990-91 at a reduced level of funding that is within the
County's financial resources. The Position Resolution
accomplishes reductions to the proposed budget based on
budget balancing plans for all departments. State budget
cut reductions for the Health Services Department, and the
adjustments that will result because of AB 90, Trial Court
Funding and Social Services Departments not included in the
resolution.
Attachments
A. Line Item Changes from Wednesday, July 25th, Budget
Committee
B. Line Item Changes from Thursday, July 26th, Budget Committee
C. Final Budget Position Resolution
ATIACEMENT A
1990-91 Budget
Summary of Line Item Changes
From July 25, 1990 Budget Committee
Budget Unit/Department Expenditure Revenue
0001 Board of Supervisors $ 13 ,050 $ 40 ,000
0002 Clerk <5,100> -0-
0003 CAO <92,373> <10, 000>
0005 General County Revenue -- <1,033 ,000>
0010 Auditor <48,367> <101,633>
0015 Treasurer <69,076> <141, 278>
0016 Assessor <1161020> <33 ,980>
0025 Management Info System <1501000> -0-
0026 Office of Revenue Collection <10,000> <15,000>
0030 County Counsel <761500> -0-
0035 Personnel 1,849 <93 , 671>
0036 Merit Board <3,660> -0-
0043 Elections <471400> <20,000>
0077 General Services <369,990> -0-
0111 Plant Acquisition <1001000> -0-
0145 Employee Benefits <311701000> --
0150 Insurance <4261000> -0-
0200 Superior Court 680,000 -0-
0220 Municipal Court <152,280> <100, 000>
0235 Law & Justice Sys Development <27,986> -0-
0240 County Clerk <35,350> -0-
0325 Justice System Program <25,000> -0-
0330 County Drainage Maintenance <11,950> -0-
0340 Building Inspection -0- 16 , 982
0355 Recorder <8,500> <17 , 500>
0356 LAFCO -0- <614>
0357 Community Development <59,651> -0-
0358 Planning Projects 175,000 -0-
0362 Emergency Services <1,300> <7, 475>
0366 Animal Services -0- <115,913>
0630 Cooperative Extension <11,410> --
0650 Public Works <1141000> <36, 000>
0790 Notes & Warrants 484,375 -0-
Net Change to Budget $<3 ,777,639> $<1,669, 028>
AMAMI= A
1990-91 BUDGET
WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 1990
LINE ITEM CHANGES
i
General Fund
* Budget Unit Name & Number Board of Supervisors - BU# 001
REVENUE
1990-91 1990-91
Account No./Title Proposed Change Final
9965 Restricted Donations $<40,000> $40,000 $_0_
TOTAL 9000's $<40,000> $40,000 $-0-
Explanation/Comments
To reduce anticipated restricted -revenues which will not be realized due to
denial of various grant applications.
' Budget Unit Name 6 Number Board of Supervisors - BU# 0001
EXPENDITURES
Proposed Final
Line Budget Budget
Item Description Amount Change Amount
TOTAL 2000's $ 669,975 $ 15,000 $ 684,975
TOTAL 5000's $ <8,285> $ 1,950 $ <6,335>
Discussion:
To increase appropriation for Human Relations Commission and reduce
operating transfer to services for CMANC.
* Budget Unit Name 6 Number Clerk of the Board - BU# 0002
EXPENDI MS
Proposed Final
Line Budget Budget
Item Description Amount Change Amount
TOTAL 2000's $26,213 $<1,000> $ 25,213
TOTAL 5000's $ -0- $<4,100> $<4,100>
Discussion:
To increase cost applied by $4,100 to reflect anticipated services provided
to the Redevelopment Agency and reduce maintenance equipment to meet budget
reduction.
- 1 -
ATTAM2271 A
1990-91 BUDGET
WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 1990
LINE ITEM CHANGES
EXPENDITURES
General Fund
* Budget Unit Name & Number County Administrator - BU# 0003
Proposed Final
Line, Budget Budget
Item Description Amount Change Amount
TOTAL 1000's $3,146,041 $<82,373>' $3,228,414
TOTAL 5000's $ <211,655> $<10,000> $ <221,655>
Discussion-
To reduce salaries and benefits and increase capital projects charges for
anticipated services provided to cover reductions. Additional revenues
will be realized from the Countywide fee study, but are not reflected in
this budget unit.
* Budget Unit Name & Number County Administrator - BU# 0003
REVENUE
1990-91 1990-91
Account No./Title Proposed Change Final
9877 Administrative
Services $<1,615,000> $<10,000> $<1,625,000>
TOTAL 9000's $<2,023,219> $<10,000> $<2,033,219>
Explanation/Comments
To increase charges to Special District Augmentation fund to cover cost of
anticipated services provided.
2 -
ATTACHMENT A
1990-91 BUDGET
WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 1990
LINE ITEM. CHANGES
• Budget Unit Name 6 Number General County Revenues - BU# 0005
REVENUE
1990-91 1990-91
Account No./Title Proposed Change Final
9225 State Motor Vehicle
In Lieu $< 32,420,000> $< 522,000> $< 32,942,000>
9045 Sales Tax < 7,931,000> 176,000 < 7,755,000>
9181 Earnings on Invest. < 11,978,000> <1,232,000> < 13,210,000>
9020 Property Tax
Unsecured < 5,955,000> < 500,000> < 6,455,000>
9063 Property Transer Tax < 5,350,000> 530,000 < 4,820,000>
9385 H/O Property
Tax Relief < 3,577,000> 62,000 < 3,515,000>
9120 Franchises < 579,000> < 70,000> < 649,000>
9121 Cable TV Franchises
Delinquent Taxes < 486,000> 110,000 < 376,000>
9040 Delinquent Tax < 695,000> 53,000 < 642,000>
9030 Property Tax-Prior
Unsecured 358,000 500,000 858,000
9230 Trailer Coach In Lieu < 170,000> < 140,000> < 310,000>
TOTAL 9000's $<230,524,662> $<1,033,000> $<231,557,662>
Explanation/Comments
Revenue changes are due to the latest estimates and have been developed in
collaboration with the Auditor's Office.
' Budget Unit Name & Number Auditor-Controller - BU# 0010
EXPENDITURES
Proposed Final
Line Budget Budget
Item Description Amount Change Amount
TOTAL 1000's $3,876,087 $<48,367> $3,827,720
Discussion:
To reduce salaries and benefits to cover budget reductions.
3 -
ATTACH= A
1990-91 BUDGET
WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 1990
LINE ITEM CHANGES
REVENUE
* Budget Unit Name & Number Auditor-Controller - BU# 0010
1990-91 1990-91
Account No./Title Proposed Change Final
9607 Commission for Tax
Assessment Collection $ <264,000> $<101,633> $ <162,367>
TOTAL 9000's $<1,545,700> $<101,633> $<1,647,333>
Explanation/Comments
To increase fees for special district levies to meet department's
reductions.
* Budget Unit Name & Number Treasurer Tax Collector - BU# 0015
EXPENDITURES
Proposed Final
Line Budget Budget
Item Description Amount Change Amount
TOTAL 1000.'s $1,470,994 $<69,076> $1,401,918
Discussion:
To reduce salaries and benefits to meet necessary budget reductions.
* Budget Unit Name & Number Treasurer Tax Collector - BU# 0015
REVENUE
1990-91 1990-91
Account No./Title Proposed Change Final
9607 Commission for Tax
Assessment Collection' $ <308,155> $<141,278> $< 449,433> .
TOTAL 9000's $ <589,635> $<141,278> $< 730,913>
Explanation/Comments
To reflect increase in revenue from special district levies to meet budget
reductions and for handling the County's general tax levy transactions.
4 -
ATPAQ-MENr A
1990-91 BUDGET
WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 1990
LINE ITEM CHANGES
* Budget Unit Name and Number Asssessor - BU# 0016
EXPENDITURES
Proposed Final
Line Budget Budget
Item Description Amount Change Amount
TOTAL 1000's $7,346,965 $<142,000> $7,204,965
TOTAL 2000'S $1,107,260 $ 25,980 $1,133,240
Discussion
The sale of property characteristics data is authorized by revenue and
taxation Code Section 409, which allows the Assessor to recover costs of
providing data and use revenue for further enhancement of the system. This
transaction rebudgets those revenues received in 1989-90 and reduces
salaries and benefits to meet budget reductions.
* Budget Unit Name & Number Assessor - BU# 0016
REVENUE
1990-91 1990-91
Account No./Title Proposed Change Final
9609 Property Characteristic
Information $ -0- $<25,980> $ <25,980>
9931 Sale of Maps/Documents $<46,146> $ <8,000> $ <54,416>
TOTAL 9000's $<87,230> $<33,980> $<121,210>
Explanation/Comments
To rebudget property characteristic revenues received in FY 1989-90 for
further enhancement of the system as authorized by revenue and taxation
code section 409 and increase sale of maps to cover budget reductions.
* Budget Unit Name & Number Management Information System BU# - 0025
EXPENDITURES
Proposed Final
Line Budget Budget
Item Description Amount Change Amount
TOTAL 4000's $454,494 $<150,000> $304,494
Discussion
Budget reduction plan.
- 5 -
ATPACEMENr A
i 1990-91 BUDGET
WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 1990
LINE ITEM CHANGES
I* Budget Unit Name Number Office of Revenue Collection BU# - 0026
EXPENDITURES
i Proposed Final
(Line Budget Budget
!Item Description Amount . Change Amount
I .
'Total 2000's $289,782 $< 10,000> $279,782
'Discussion:
!To reduce office expense to meet the department's budget reductions.
,* Budget Unit Name & Number Office of Revenue Collections - BU# 0026
REVENUE
1990-91 1990-91
Account No./Title Proposed Change Final
9895 Misc. Current
Service $<375,000> $<15,000> $ <390,000>
TOTAL 9000's $<1,016,000> $<15,000> $<1,031,000>
!Explanation/Comments
I
To increase miscellaneous current service to meet budget reductions.
! * Budget Unit Name & Number County Counsel - BU# 0030
I
I EXPENDITURES
Proposed Final
Line Budget Budget
! Item Description Amount Change Amount
Total 5000's $<338,568> $<76,500> $<415,068>
Discussion:
Transfer road fund and road fee revenue to. County Counsel from Public Works
for legal services related to road matters.
i
I
I
I
f
- 6 -
i
ATTACHMENT A
1990-91 BUDGET
WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 1990
LINE ITEM CHANGES
* Budget Unit Name & Number Personnel - BU# 0035
EXPENDITURES
Proposed Final
Line Budget Budget
Item Description Amount Change Amount
TOTAL 1000'S $2,847,543 $<63,233> $2,784,310
TOTAL 2000's $3,273,160 $< 9,089> $3,264,071,
TOTAL 4000's $ 27,500 $<19,500> $ 8,000
Discussion
To reduce salaries and benefits, services and supplies, other long-term
debts and fixed assets to meet the department's reductions.
* Budget Unit Name & Number Personnel - BU# 0035
EXPENDITURES
Proposed Final
Line Budget Budget
Item Description Amount Change Amount
TOTAL 2000's $3,273,160 $ 93,671 $3,366,831
Discussion:
To rebudget data processing projects which are revenue offset from the
Health Benefit Trust Fund.
* Budget Unit Name & Number Personnel - BU# 0035
REVENUE
1990-91 1990-91
Account No./Title Proposed Change Final
9650 Personnel Services $<3,808,505> $<93,671> $<3,902,176>
TOTAL 9000's $<3,813,905> $<93,671> $<3,907,576>
Eplanation/Comments
To increase revenues to offset data process ingproj ects rebudgeted for
1990-91 to be charged to Health Plan Benefit Trust Fund.
7 -
ATPAW.'= A ,
1990-91 BUDGET
WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 1990
LINE ITEM CHANGES
* Budget Unit Name & Number Personnel Merit Board - BU#. 0036
i EXPENDITURES
1 Proposed Final
!Line Budget Budget
(Item Description Amount Change Amount
(TOTAL 1000's $65,735 $<3,660> $62,075
jDiscussion-
To reduce temporary salaries to meet department's budget reductions.
i
�* Budget Unit Name & Number Elections - BU# 0043
i
EXPENDITURES
Proposed Final
Line Budget Budget
(Item Description Amount Change Amount
TOTAL 1000's $ 870,943 $<17,400> $ 853,543
TOTAL 20001S $1,544,740 $<30,000> $1,514,740
jDiscussion•
!In accordance with Election's budget balancing plan, salaries are reduced
to reflect the decreased cost of filling the vacant assistant data
processing manager position. Election officers expense and printing
,expense are also decreased.
f* Budget Unit Name & Number Elections - BU# 0043
REVENUE
1990-91 1990-91
(Account No./Title Proposed Change Final
19635 Election Svc-
Other $< 500,000> $< 20,000> $< 520,000>
TOTAL 9000's $< 611,000> $< 20,000> $< 631,000>
Explanation/Comments
In accordance with Election's budget balancing plan, elections services
revenues are raised to reflect anticipated increased activity.
I .
8 -
ATTACIMENr A
1990-91 BUDGET
WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 1990
LINE ITEM CHANGES
* Budget Unit Name & Number General Services - BU# 0077
EXPENDITURES
Proposed Final
Line Budget Budget
Item Description Amount Change Amount
TOTAL 2000's $13,076,349 $<369,990> $12,706,359
Discussion:
Budget reduction plan.
* Budget Unit Name & Number Plant Acquisition - BU# 0111
EXPENDITURES
Proposed Final
Line Budget Budget
Item Description Amount Change Amount
TOTAL 4000's $1,600,000 $<100,000> $ 1,500,000
Discussion:
Reduce capital project spending by $100,000 and transfer expenditures from
holding subaccount to specific capital project subaccounts.
• Budget Unit Name & Number Employee/Retiree Benefits - BU# 0145
EXPENDITURES
Proposed Final
Line Budget Budget
Item Description Amount Change Amount
TOTAL 1000's $9,296,445 $<3,170,000> $ 6,126,445
Discussion:
Part of budget reduction plan. Amount remaining should be sufficient to
fund current benefits levels.
- 9 -
i
1990-91 BUDGET
WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 3.990
iLINE ITEM CHANGES
Budget Unit Name & Number Insurance - BU# 0150
EXPENDITURES
Proposed Final
Line Budget Budget
Item Description Amount Change Amount
I '
TOTAL 2000's $4,426,000 $<426,000> $ 4,000,000
Discussion:
To reduce the County's general liability self-insurance program to assist
in meeting the Countywide budget reductions.
I* Budget Unit Name & Number Superior Court BU# 0200
EXPENDITURES
Proposed Final
Line Budget Budget
Item Description Amount Change Amount
NOTAL 2000's $1,404,164 $660,000 $ 2,064,164
NOTAL 4000's $ 50,000 $ 20,000 $ 70,000
1
Discussion:
Addition of funds based on trial court funding agreement is still pending.
I
' Budget Unit Name & Number Municipal Courts - BU# 0220
EXPENDITURES
Proposed Final
'Line Budget Budget
(Item Description Amount Change Amount
( TOTAL 1000's $10,614,600 $<152,280> $10,462,320
Discussion:
As part of the Municipal Courts' budget balancing plan, the vacancy factor
� is increased by $152,280, which equates to a 3% vacancy factor. This level
of vacancies is not unreasonable for a department of this size, and can
probably be achieved with minimum impacts to current service levels.
I
I.
I
10 -
ATTACHMENT A
1990-91 BUDGET
WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 1990
LINE ITEM CHANGES
' Budget Unit Name & Number Municipal Courts - BU$ 0220
REVENUE
1990-91 1990-91
Account No./Title Proposed Change Final
9686 Court Admin. Cost $< 800,000> $<100,000> $< 900,000>
TOTAL 900's $<5,780,400> $<100,000> $<5,880,400>
Explanation/Comments
Court administration revenues are raised to more accurately reflect monthly
receipts.
* Budget Unit Name & Number Law & Justice System Development - BU# 0235
EXPENDITURES
Proposed Final
Line Budget Budget
Item Description Amount Change Amount
TOTAL 2000's $517,132 $<27,986> $ 489,146
Discussion:
Meets budget reduction plan.
' Budget Unit Name & Number County Clerk - BU# 0240
EXPENDITURES
Proposed Final
Line Budget Budget
Item Description Amount Change Amount
TOTAL 1000's $3,698,566 $<35,350> $3,663,216
Discussion:
In accordance with the budget balancing plan for the County Clerk, salaries
are reduced to reflect savings associated with current vacant positions.
- 11 -
I ATTACH= A ,
j 1990-91 BUDGET
WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 1990
LINE ITEM CHANGES
i* Budget Unit Name & Number Justice System Programs - BU# 0325
EXPENDITURES,
i
Proposed Final
(Line Budget Budget
,Item Description Amount Change Amount
TOTAL 3000's $ 517,802 $<25,000> $ 492,802
i
(Discussion:
(Meets budget's reduction plan.
* Budget Unit Name 6 Number County Drainage Maintenance BU# 0330
t
EXPENDITURES
I
Proposed Final
(Line Budget Budget
iItem Description Amount Change Amount
TOTAL 2000's $ 347,613 $<11,950> $ 335,663
Discussion•
!Reduce services and supplies by $10,000. , Transfer $1,950 to Board of
!Supervisors' budget 0001 for ABAG membership costs.
I
,* Budget Unit Name & Number Building Inspection - BU# 0340
I
REVENUE
i
1990-91 1990-91
!Account No./Title Proposed Change Final
9090 Construction Permits $<4,388,479> $<243,989> $<4,632,468>
9975 Miscellaneous-
Non taxable
iscellaneous-Non-taxable Revenue < 295,971> 260,971 < 35,000>
TOTAL 9000's $<4,684,450> $ 16,982 $<4,667,468>
!Explanation/Comments
!Reduce revenues to reflect revised revenue estimates and to more correctly
distribute revenue throughout subaccounts.
I
- 12 -
I
ATTACHT 1 7P A
1990-91 BUDGET
WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 1990
LINE ITEM CHANGES
' Budget Unit Name & Number Recorder BU# 0355
EXPENDITURES
Proposed Final
Line Budget Budget
Item Description Amount Change Amount
TOTAL 1000's $917,773 $< 8,500> $ 909,273
Discussion-
According to the Recorder's budget balancing plan, salaries are decreased
to reflect savings associated with current vacant positions..
* Budget Name & Number Recorder - BU# 0355
REVENUE
1990-91 1990-91
Account No./Title Proposed Change Final
9931 Sale of Maps &
Documents $< 117,000> $< 17,500> $< 134,500>
TOTAL 9000's $L1,821,000> $< 17,500> $<1,838,500>
Explanation/Comments
The Recorder intends to increase microfilm fees; therefore, revenues are
increased to anticipate the fee increase.
! Budget Unit Name & Number LAFOO - BU# 0356
REVENUE
1990-91 1990-91
Account No./Title Proposed Change Final
9895 Misc. Current Svcs. $<65,981> $<614> $<66,595>
TOTAL 9000's $<65,981> $<614> $<66,595>
Explanation/Comments
Increase revenues to reflect increase in fee schedule.
13 -
I ATTACF= A
! 1990-91 BUDGET
WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 1990
LINE ITEM CHANGES
� * Budget Unit Name 6 Number Community Development - BU# 0357
I
EXPENDITURES
Proposed Final
Line Budget Budget
Item Description Amount Change Amount
( TOTAL 2000's $801,541 $<39,651> $761,890
i
TOTAL 4000's $ 30,000 $<20,000> $ 10,000
I
' Discussion•
I
Reduce service and supply accounts and office equipment furniture by
1 $59,651 to the budget reduction plan.
* Budget Unit. Name & Number Planning Projects - BU# 0358
EXPENDITURES
Proposed Final
Line Budget Budget
! Item Description Amount Change Amount
TOTAL 2000's $1,000,000 $175,000 $1,175,000
! Discussion:
Increase supplies and services accounts to cover consultant costs for the
Countywide General Plan. Funding to come from fiscal year 1989/90
,I
departmental fund balance.
* Budget Unit Name & Number Office of Emergency Service - BU# 0362
EXPENDITURES
Proposed Final
Line Budget Budget
Item Description Amount Change Amount
I
jTOTAL 10001S $ 410,708 $<1,300> $ 409,408
I
Discussion:
I.
To reduce the permanent salaries to cover budget reductions.
i
14 -
j
ATTAQINIE.'�II' A
1990-91 BUDGET
WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 1990
LINE ITEM CHANGES
* Budget Unit Name & Number Office of Emergency Service - BU# 0362
REVENUE
1990-91 1990-91
Account No./Title Proposed Change Final
9340 State Aid for Civil
Defense $<146,846> $<7,475> $<154,321>
TOTAL 9000's $<182,810> $<7,475> $<190,285>
Explanation/Comments
To increase State aid for. civil defense to cover budget reductions.
Budget Unit Name & Number Animal Services - BU# 0366
REVENUE
1990-91 1990-91
Account No./Title Proposed Change Final
9070 Animal Licenses $ <710,000> $< 80,000> $ <790,000>
9721 Spay Clinic Fees <100,000> < 10,913> <110,913>
9722 Miscellaneous Humane
Services <360,000> < 25,000> <385,000>
TOTAL 9000's $<2,015,000> $<115,913> $<2,130,913>
Explanation/Comments
The department has increased revenues to cover the cost of the budget
reduction.
* Budget Unit Name & Number Cooperative Extension - BU# 0630
EXPENDITURES
Proposed Final
Line Budget Budget
Item Description Amount Change Amount
TOTAL 1000's $109,010 $<11,410> $97,600
Discussion:
The budget balancing plan for Cooperative Extension requires the
elimination of budgeted reclassifications of three clerical employees
funded by the County.
- 15 -
i
ATI'ACEME Tr A
1990-91 BUDGET
WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 1990
LINE ITEM CHANGES
'* Budget Unit Name & Number Public Works - BU# 0650
EXPENDITURES
j Proposed Final
Line Budget Budget
!Item Description Amount Change Amount
(TOTAL 1000's $ 13,918,120 $<51,000> $ 13,867,120
'TOTAL 5000's $ <10,974,000> $<63,000> $<11,037,000>
Discussion• .
Eliminate vacant Blueprint Technician position and transfer computer/CAD
'program costs and Emergency Response Plan costs from General Fund to other
!funding sources.
I' Budget Unit Name & Number Public Works - BU# 0650
I REVENUE
1990-91 1990-91
(Account No./Title Proposed Change Final
9895 Misc. Current Svcs. $< 794,634> $<36,000> $ < 830,634>
'TOTAL 9000's $< 6,095,134> $<36,000> $ <6,131,134>
(Explanation/Comments
I
'Increase revenues from non-General Fund sources from computer-aided design
ichargeouts.
I* Budget Unit Name. & Number Warrants & Interests - BU# 0790
EXPENDITURES
Proposed Final
(Line Budget Budget
' Item Description Amount Change Amount
'TOTAL 3000's $3,875,000 $484,375 $4,359,375
!Discussion:
IAs indicated in the budget reduction plan, additional appropriations are
'necessary to cover anticipated interest costs on $3 million in extra
!borrowing. In addition, increased appropriations to cover the 13th month
! (July), of interest costs for the 1989-90 borrowing program are necessary.
- 16 -
j
ATTACHMENT $
1990-91 Budget
Summary of Line Item Changes
From July 26, 1990 Budget Committee
Budget Unit/Department Expenditure Revenue
General Fund
0242 District Attorney $ 0 $ 594 , 491
0243 Public Defender 150,000 0
0245 DA-Family Support 591,985 .<591,985>
0255 Sheriff <205,765> <701000>
0308 Probation <92,435> <57, 300>
0335 Agriculture <51686> <21500>
0364 Public Administrator 0 <2,726>
0465 Hospital Subsidy 1,7001000 0
0500 Social Services Admin <1701000> 0
0515 Categorical Aid <230,000> 0
0532 General Assistance 11420,000 0
0579 Veterans Services 0 <28 ,613>
0583 Private Ind Council <1,000> 0
0588 Community Services 3,019,429 <3 ,019 ,429>
---------- -----------
---------- -----------
General Fund Totals $6,176,528 $<3,178,062>
Non General Fund
0540 Hospital Enterprise $1,700,000 $<117001000>
---------- -----------
---------- -----------
Non General Fund Total $1,700,000 $<1,700 , 000>
AT ACEJIENT B
1990-91 BUDGET
THURSDAY, JULY 26, 1990
T. ITEM CHANGES
General Fund REVENUE
* Budget Unit Name A Number District Attorney - BUB 0242
1990-91 1990-91
Account No./Title Proposed Change Final
9171 Consumer Fraud
Damages $<1,163,576> $463,576 $< 700,000>
9362 State Aid Crime
Control < 350,500> 50,000 < 300,500>
9967 Contribution from
Other Funds < 149,960> 80,915 < 69,045>
TOTAL 9000's $<2,200,458> $594,491 $< 1,605,967>
* Budget Unit Name & Number Public Defender - BUB 243
EXPENDITURES
Proposed Final
Line Budget Budget
Item Description Amount Change Amount
TOTAL 1000's. $ 6,192,569 $150,000 $ 6,342,569
Discussion:
Budget plan called for additional .positions based on workload demands.
* Budget Unit Name & Number DA Family Support - BUB 0245
EXPENDITURES
Proposed Final
Line Budget Budget
Item Description Amount Change Amount
TOTAL 1000's $ 5,408,481 $591,985 $ 6,000,466
Discussion:
To include costs of 17 new positions, approved by Board of Supervisors,
5/90, after submission of budget materials.
- 1 -
ATPAC DEW B .
1990-91 BUDGET
THURSDAY, JULY 26, 1990
LINE ITE4 CHANGES
e Budget Unit Name A Number DA Family Support - BUB 0245
REVENUE
1990-91 1990-91
Account No./Title Proposed Change Final
9428 St. .Aid. SEIF $< 801,850> $<106,874> $< 908,720
9553 Fed Aid Family Su. <3,992,209> <467,270> <4,458,379>
9556 Fed Aid SEIF <1,254,176> < 17,841> <1,272,017>
TOTAL 9000's $<6,047,135> $<591,985> $<6,639,120>
Explanation/Comments
Revenue offsets to 17 new positions added by Board action, 5/90, after
submission of budget.
* Budget Unit Name & Number Sheriff - BUB 0255
EXPENDITURES
Proposed Final
Line Budget Budget
Item Description Amount Change Amount
TOTAL 1000's $30,678,369 $<205,765> $30,472,604
Discussion:
To meet budget reduction plans.
Budget Unit Name A Number Sheriff - BUB 0255
REVENUE
1990-91 1990-91
Account No./Title Proposed Change Final
9424 State Aid Peace
Off. Training $ < 270,000> $ 00,000 $< 340,000>
TOTAL 9000's $<10,042,350> $ <70,000> $< 10,112,350>
Explanation/Comments
To meet budget reduction plan.
2 -
ATTAC HMaU B
1990-91 BUDGET
THURSDAY, JULY 26, 1990
LII ITEC! CHANGES
Budget Unit Name Number Probation - BU# 0308
WENDITURBS
Proposed Final
Line Budget Budget
Item Description Amount Change Amount
TOTAL 1000's $18,325,511 $<182,435> $18,143,076
TOTAL 2000's $ 2,152,277 $ 100,000 $ 2,252,277
TOTAL 3000's $ 267,020 $< 10,000> $ 257,020
Discussion:
In accordance with Probation's budget balancing plan, the vacancy factor
is increased, and funds are redistributed to support the full-time
operation of the Monticello Unit.
* Budget Unit Name & Number Probation - BU# 0308
REVENUE
f990-91 1990-91
Account No./Title Proposed Change Final
9362 State Aid-
Crime Control $< 190,000> $< 20,000> $< 210,000>
9551 Fed Aid-
Crime Control $< 50,000> $ 10,000 . $< 40,000>
9161 General Fines $< 11,000> $< 10,000> $< ' 21,000>
9736 Cost of Probation $< 15,000> $< 10,000> $< 25,000>
9877 Admin Services .$< 40,000> $< 27,300> $< 67,300>
TOTAL 9000's $<2,123,840> $< 57,300> $<2,181,140>
Explanation/Comments
In accordance with Probation's budget balancing plan, revenues are
increased to offset the increased cost of operating the Monticello Unit
on a full-time basis.
3 -
ATrAC HMENT B . . ,
1990-91 BUDGET
THURSDAY, JULY 26, 1990
LII rM CHANGES
A Budget Unit Name & Number Aericulture - BUB 0335
EXPENDITURES
Proposed Final
Line Budget Budget
Item Description Amount Change Amount
TOTAL 1000's $ 1,455,934 $< 4,186> $ 1,451,748
TOTAL 2000's $ 146,595 $< 1,500> $ 145,095
Discussion:
Adjustments to conform to budget reduction plan.
Budget Unit Name 6 Number Agriculture - BUB 0335
REVENUE
1990-91 1990-91
Account No./Title Proposed Change Final
9330 State Aid for
Agriculture $< 681,700> $< 2,500> $< 684,200>
TOTAL 9000's $< 842,700> $< 2,500> $< 845,200>
Explanation/Comments
Part of department's budget reduction plan.
Budget Unit Name & Number Public Administrator - BU# 0364
REVENUE
1990-91 1990-91
Account No./Title Proposed Change Final
9690 Estate Fees $ <45,528> $ <2,726> $ <480254>
TOTAL 9000's $ <45,528> $ <2,726> $ <48,250
Explanation/Comments
Increase revenue for budget reduction plan.
4 -
ATTACHMENT B
1990-91 BUDGET
THURSDAY, JULY 26, 1990
IIIM ITEM CHANGES
* Budget Unit Name A Number Health - Hospital Subsidy - BU# 0465
EXPENDITURES
Proposed Final
Line Budget Budget
Item Description Amount Change Amount
TOTAL 3000's $25,865,711 $1,700,000 $27,565,711
Discussion:
Additional subsidy to assist department in meeting budget shortfall.
* Budget Unit Name & Number Social Services Administration - BUB 0500
EXPENDITURES
Proposed Final
Line Budget Budget
Item Description Amount Change Amount
TOTAL 1000's $42,891,779 $ <170,000> $42,721,779
Discussion:
Represents department's budget reduction plan.
* Budget Unit Name h Number Categorical Aid Programs - BUB 0515
10MMITURBS
Proposed Final
Line Budget Budget
Item Description Amount Change Amount
TOTAL 3000's $130,049,707 $<230,000> $129,819,707
Discussion:
Budget reduction plan.
5 -
1990-91 BUDGET
THURSDAY, JULY 26, 1990
LITE ITEM CHANGES
Budget Unit Name & Number General Assistance - BUO 0532
EXPENDITURES
Proposed Final
Line Budget Budget
Item Description Amount Change Amount
TOTAL 3000's $ 10,035,055 $1,420,000 $ 11,455,055
Discussion:
Additional funds are recommended to more closely approximate 89-90
expenditures.
* Budget Unit Name & Number Veterans Services - BU9 0579
REVENUE
1990-91 1990-91
Account No./Title Proposed Change Final
9380 State Aid Veterans
Affairs $< 31,533> $< 28,613> $< 60,146>
TOTAL 9000's $< 35,038> $< 28,613> $< 63,651>
Explanation/Comments
To increase Medi-Cal cost avoidance program revenues to meet the 1990-91
budget reductions.
* Budget Unit Name & Number Private Industry Council - BU# 0583
EXPENDITURES
Proposed Final
Line Budget Budget
Item Description Amount Change Amount
TOTAL 2000's $3,855,490 $<1,000> $3,854,490
Discussion:
To reduce services and supplies to meet department's budget reductions.
- 6 -
ATPAaD= B
1990-91 BUDGET
THURSDAY, JULY 26, 1990
LINE ITEC! CHANGES
* Budget Unit Name A Number Community Services - BUS/ 0588
EXPENDITURES
Proposed Final
Line Budget Budget
Item Description Amount Change Amount
TOTAL 1000's $1,057,513 $2,253,485 $3,310,998
TOTAL 2000'S $3,296,306 $ 725,944 $4,0220250
TOTAL 4000's $ 12,000 $ 40,000 $ 52,000
Discussion:
Costs offset by financing of the State child care development contracts
approved in June.
* Budget Unit Name & Number Community Services - BUU 0588
REVENUE
1990-91 1990-91
Account No./Title Proposed Change Final
9432 State Aid Programs < 934,813> $<3,019,429> $<3,954,242>
TOTAL 9000's $<3,933,340> $<3,019,429> $<6,952,769>
Explanation/Comments
To recognize additional revenue from the State for child care
development contracts.
- 7 -
Amar P B ,
1990-91 BUDGET
THURSDAY, JULY 269 1990
LINE ITEM CHANGES
Other Funds
* Budget Unit Name A Number Health - Hospital - BU# 0540
EXPENDITURES
Proposed Final
Line" Budget Budget
Item Description Amount Change Amount
TOTAL 1000'S $55,209,143 $1,7000000 $56,909,143
Discussion:
Additional subsidy to assist department in meeting budget reduction
plans.
* Budget Unit Name A Number Health Svs - Hospital Enterprise - BU# 0540
REVEM
1990-91 1990-91
Account No./Title Proposed Change Final
TOTAL 8380 $23,059,053 $1,700,000 $24,759,053
Explanation/Comments
Additional subsidy to assist department in meeting budget shortfall.
8 -
.t
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Re: Abolishing Positions and )
Laying-Off Employees ) Resolution No. 90/ 532
(Emergency) )
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors in all of its
capacities as the governing body of this County and of the
Districts and Agencies of which it is the governing body,
RESOLVES THAT:
1. The Board has considered the financial impact of reductions
in funding due to reduced state funding and federal funding
and the impact of increased funding requirements, and has
considered the staff retention plans submitted by various
County departments.
2. In order to keep expenditures within available funding, it
is necessary to abolish the positions described in the lists
attached hereto in the -interest of economy or because the
necessity for the position(s) involved no longer exists, and
to lay off employees accordingly. Said lists are
incorporated herein by reference, and said positions are
hereby abolished effective on the dates indicated thereon.
3. The Director of Personnel shall prepare lists showing the
order of lay-off of affected employees.
4. The heads of the .departments in which such positions are
abolished shall issue layoff or displacement notices, as the
case may. be, and give notice to the affected employees of
the Board's action.
5. This resolution is an emergency action. The Board has not
had access to a reliable compliation of revenues available
until recently. The revenues of the County and of all other
agencies governed by this Board will be reduced after July
1, 1990 and there is not sufficient time to give notice,
meet with employee organizations or others, and to properly
arrange the affairs of the County or the other agencies
before taking this action.
6. The Employee Relations Officer shall give notice of this
Resolution to all recognized employee organizations.
7. To the extent that the subjects of this Resolution are
within the scope of representati%% under the
Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (Government . Code 3500 et seq. ) ,
this Board offers to meet with any recognized employee
organization upon request concerning this Resolution.
8. Recognized employee organizations may submit to the Employee
Relations Officer written requests to meet and confer on
specific proposals with respect to the Resolution or any
resulting layoffs. This authorization and direction is
given without prejudice to the Board's right to reduce or
terminate the operations and services of the County and of
Districts governed by this Board and to eliminate classes of
employees or positions as involving the merits, necessity,
or organization or services or activities of the County of
districts governed by the Board and not within the scope of
representation.
9. This action is taken without prejudice to pending
consulting, meeting, and meeting and conferring with
employee organizations.
PASSED unanimously by the Supervisors present on August 6, . 1990.
cc: County Administrator
Assessor
Health Services i nerevy :artlty that this Is a true and correct copy of
Personnel an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Probation Board of Supe sora on the date shown.
ATTESTED: �, I9fd
Public Works PHIL BATCHELOR,Clerk of the Board
Social Service ofSupervlsorsand County Administrator
Auditor
By Deputy
1V 411
RESOLUTION NO. 90/532
�., ATTACHMENT C
-2-
BE IT BY THE BOARD RESOLVED that the following vacant positions
be cancelled effective August 7 , 1990 and all filled positions be
cancelled effective September 1, 1990 : '
Class No.
BU# Department Org# Code Classification Pos# Cancelled
0016 Assessor -- APTA Admin Svcs Asst III 16-00001 1
0540 Health Svcs 6463 VWSB Family Nurse Pract 54-02929 1
6384 JWXB Clerk-Exp Level 54-02884 1
6384 VT7C LVN II 54-02883 1
6384 VWXA RN 54-02927 . 1
6388 VT7C LVN II 54-01221 1
6572 JWXC Clerk-Sr Level 54-02880 1
6572 JWXC Clerk-Sr Level 54-02879 1
6571 JWXC Clerk-Sr Level 54-02878 1
6541 64WN Security Officer 54-02931 1
6541 64WN Security Officer 54-02891 1
6900 VAND HSA-C Level 54-00245 1
0450 5825 VMWD Health Educ Spec 54-02803 1
5766 V9WE Home Economist 54-02317 1
5831 JWXB Clerk-Exp Level 54-02007 1
5802 VBSD PHPSI 54-02233 1
5802 VMWC PH Dental Asst 54-02236* 1
5802 VMWC PH Dental Asst 54-02238 1
5816 V7W8 Comm Disease Tech 54-01834 1
5816 9QWA Driver Clerk 54-00109 1
0467 5974 VQXA MHTS A Level 54-00433 1
5974 VQXA MHTS B Level 54-01442 1
5991 VQXA MHTS B Level 54-01316 1
5991 VQXA MHTS B Level 54-00813 1
5916 VEVB Alcohol Rehab Wkr 54-02570 1
5937 VHVB Substnc Abuse 54-02850 1
Couns - Project
0035 Personnel -- JWV1 Int Clerk Typist 05-00200 1
0308 Probation 3000 JJHC Office Manager 30-00009 1
0650 Public Works 4522 NSWB Blueprint Tech 65-00396 1
0500 Social Svc 5010 XQVB AA Staff Asst III 53-01145 1
5010 XDWC Sr Progs Aide 53-01568 1
5000 X4SF Ex Asst-FACSAC 53•-00253 1
5400 XOSA SS Prog Asst 53-01914 1
5000 if53-01915 1
5000 " to 53-01916 1
5000 " It
53-01965 1
5000 it53-01966 1
5000 " If 53-01967 1
5000 " It 53-01968 1
5000 XOHB Soc Work Sup I 53-01926 1
5000 11 If53-01627 1
5000 to if 53-01924 1
5300 JWXB Clerk-Exp Level 53-02014 1
5000 to 11 53-02013 1
5400 it to 53-02012 1
5201 XOVC Social Worker 53-00146 1
5300 if it53-01635 1
5300 53-00942 1
5300 53-01640 1
5204 53-01905 1
-3-
Class No.
BU# Department Org# Code Classification Poso Cancelled
0500 Social Svc 5400 XOVC Social Worker 53-01911 1
5300 " " 53-01182 1
5400 53-01910 1
5201 " " 53-01963 1
5204 " " 53-00268 1
5000 " " 53-01912 1
5000 " " 53-00175 1
5300 " " 53-00906 1
5400 " " 53-01909 1
5202 53-01906 1
5300 " " 53-01907 1
5201 X7WA Voc Counselor 53-01634 1
5201 XOVC Social Worker 53-00289 1
5201 " it 53-00137 1
5201 X7WA Voc Counselor 53-00265 1
5201 XOVC Social Worker 53-01735 1
5201 " it 53-01896 1
5201 53-01908 1
5201 " " 53-01964 1
TOTAL POSITIONS CANCELLED 69
*Cancel 9/1/90
THE BOARD ALSO RESOLVES that the following positions are added to County
departments effective August 8 , 1990 :
Class No.
BU# Department Org# Code Classification Added
0308 Probation 3120 7KTA Group Counselor III 9
3120 7KHA Institutional Supv I 1
TOTAL POSITIONS ADDED 10
NET TOTAL POSITIONS CANCELLED 59