Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07081992 - H.2 J4, �. SUMMARY OF THE PROCEEDINGS H BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SPECIAL MEETING OF WEDNESDAY, JULY 8, 1992 A quorum of the Board was not present at the meeting this day agendaed as a Special Meeting of the Board of Supervisors with the Ad Hoc Budget Advisory Committee. Supervisor McPeak, the only Board Member present, discussed budget issues with the Committee members in attendance. 14. 2 SPECIAL MEETING OF THURSDAY, JULY 9 , 1992 The Chair convened the Special Meeting of the Board of Supervisors this day at 9: 15 a.m. in the Board Chambers, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez , California. Supervisors Powers, Fanden, Schroder, Torlakson, and McPeak .were present. The Board APPROVED the 16 recommendations of the County Administrator on adjustments to the County' s Proposed Budget for the 1992-1993 fiscal year amended as follows: Recommendation No. 15: Directed the County Administrator and all department heads, in proposing reductions to be sensitive to the need to minimize service cuts, especially to children and families, to the maximum extent possible by reducing administrative and overhead costs where appropriate, taking into account previous reductions which have already been made. Also requested the County Administrator to review information provided by department heads relative to the ratio of managers/ supervisors to line staff. Added Recommendation No. 17: Requested the County Administrator, County Counsel, and County Clerk to explore alternatives, identify options, and prepare for appropriate advisory ballot measures for the November 3 , 1992 election, and to refer this matter to the City.-County Relations Committee. N.a 01 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on Thursday, July 9, 1992 , by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, Schroder, Torlakson, McPeak NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Proposed County Budget for the 1992-1993 Fiscal Year The Board received the report of the County Administrator on the "Status of the State Budget and Recommendations for Adjustments to the County's Proposed Budget for the 1992-1993 Fiscal Year. " A copy of the report is attached and included as a part of this document. Phil Batchelor, County Administrator, spoke on the impact of the State Budget on local jurisdictions, especially .counties and special districts. He advised that based on current information from the State, Contra Costa County will be required to reduce its budget by approximately $70 million depending on the State Budget adopted by the Legislature. Mr. Batchelor called attention to the fact that there is disagreement between. the Governor and the Legislature as to where reductions are to be made and has created an impasse delaying the adoption of the State Budget. In recognition of the fact that Contra Costa County is facing a serious fiscal crises, Mr. Batchelor recommended that the Board of Supervisors begin on July 16, 1992 , in the Board Chambers its review of departmental budgets, including the Phase I reductions based on reduction the plans submitted by County Departments. He advised that the Phase II reductions would be made following the adoption of the State Budget and would be targeted at the large departments. The County Administrator then presented the 16 recommendations contained in his attached report. Rick Aubry, member and spokesperson of the Ad Hoc Budget Adviso- ry Committee, presented the report and recommendations of the Advisory Committee. A copy of the report is attached and included as a part of this document. Board members discussed the recommendations of the County Admin- istrator and the Ad Hoc Budget Advisory Committee. Supervisor Fanden noted that Contra Costa County is one of five counties in the State that allows individuals moving to Contra Costa County from another county to transfer their property tax base upon purchase of a home in this County as long as the purchase price of the property does not exceed the sale price of their former home. She requested the County Administrator to present a recommendation to the Board to nullify this tax base transfer. She also requested that consideration be given to a review of the business tax and fees associated with new construction. Supervisor Fanden proposed that the Board schedule a future meeting with the Contra Costa Council, the Chambers of Commerce, and the business community to hear their concerns and suggestions. In its discussion Board members concurred that the public needs to become a participant on where service reductions are to be made or to indicate its willingness to fund certain programs. Supervisor McPeak proposed the inclusion of Recommendation No. 17 to provide for the preparation of advisory ballot measures on this issue as well as referral to the City-County Relations Committee. The following persons spoke:. Mike Price, United Professional Firefighters, Local 1230, 112 Blue Ridge Drive, Martinez, on impact to the fire service; Jim Hicks, AFSCME, 1000 Court Street, Martinez, on the need to save jobs and offered several suggestions that included work furloughs and job sharing options; Henry L. Clarke, Contra Costa Employees Association, Local I ; who presented a letter proposing a policy relative to personnel reductions; Terri Kard, Mental Health Advisory Board, 106 Raven Court, Hercules, who offered an amendment to Recommendation No. 15; and Cari Carey, Deputy Sheriffs' Association, on the need to provide for public safety and to eliminate programs where all costs are not recovered, citing as an example false alarms. Supervisor Fanden proposed that consideration be given to allocating 2 to 5 cents collected from garbage mitigation fees to the libraries and suggested that the Friends of the Library review this proposal, Board members reviewed the 1992-1993 Budget Review Schedules submitted by the County Administrator. It was agreed that the schedule for Monday, July 20, 1992, would be modified as follows: 9:00 - 10: 30 A.M. Fire Districts 10 : 30 - Noon Public Testimony 1 : 30 - 3 : 30 p.m. Public Testimony with additional time extended as necessary There being no further discussion, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the recommendations of the County Administrator as presented in % the attached report are APPROVED with the following amendments: Recommendation No. 15: DIRECTED the County Administrator and all department heads, in proposing reductions to be sensitive to the need to minimize service cuts, especially to children and families, to the maximum extent possible by reducing administra- tive and overhead costs where appropriate, taking into account previous reductions which have already been made. Also request- ed the County Administrator to review information provided by department heads relative to the ratio of managers/ supervisors to line staff. Recommendation No. 17: REQUESTED the County Administrator, County Counsel, and County Clerk to explore alternatives, identify options, and prepare for appropriate advisory ballot measures for the November 3 , 1992 election, and to refer this matter to the City-County Relations Committee. At the conclusion of the meeting this day, the Board adjourned at 11: 45 a.m. -to meet on Tuesday, July 14, 1992, in Regular Adjourned Session in the Board Chambers. I hereby certify that this Is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the cc: County Administrator Board of Sup Iry re on the date shown. • County Counsel ATTESTED: r `!" Z _ County Clerk PHIL. ATCH OR,Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County AdmiNstraW Distribution as noted on report of C/A, via CAO By -- Deputy MEMORANDUM DATE: July 9, 1992 TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Ad Hoc Budget Advisory Committee \� by: Rick Aubry, Committee SpokespersoMT �\\ �J vV SUBJECT: Results of Discussion of County Budget Policy and Revenue Alternatives The Ad Hoc Budget Advisory Committee consists of representatives of a wide range of interests: employee organizations, chambers of commerce, Contra Costa Council, Taxpayers Association, and the Council of Chairs, consisting of community—based organizations, and health and welfare advisory boards and commissions. At the Committee's July 8, 1992 meeting, Phil Batchelor, County Administrator, briefed the Committee on the current prospective County budget problem, including the local impact of state actions. Board Chair McPeak reviewed the recommended schedule for consideration of departmental budget reduction plans by the Board and acted as the facilitator for our group to discuss policy and revenue alternatives which merit consideration by the Board of Supervisors. The Committee identified both general policy recommendations and specific revenue generating mechanisms. Some of these recommendations were adopted unanimously by consensus, others with some specific dissenting opinions. Policy Issues 1. Urge Sacramento to restore AB8 and SDAF for fire and public protection The proposed AB8 and SDAF cuts will have a devastating effect on Contra Costa County. The Committee was unanimous in recommending that all citizens immediately contact their legislators to inform them of the affects of such cuts. Further, since part of the logic behind restoration of the cities' share of AB 8 was that cities provide fire and police services, the Committee believes that, at minimum, the County's share of AB 8 and SDAF that currently funds fire and public protection should also be restored. A special exemption for Contra Costa is warranted because of the disproportionate cut to our County in SDAF. Note: consensus position. 2. Study endorsement of the California Tax Reform Association Initiative The Committee understands that the initiative would impose an income tax surcharge on the wealthy, with a portion guaranteed to counties. Note: opposed by Chamber and Taxpayer Association but supported by the rest of the Committee. 3. Consider the potential loss/gain of federal, state or outside revenue when evaluating programs Special consideration should be given to programs that leverage the County's financial resources. Note: consensus position. 4. Use service needs as a primary criterion in budgeting decisions Notwithstanding state mandates, limited financial resources and the need to leverage outside revenue sources, the Committee believes that service needs should be a priority when weighing choices. Note: consensus position. 5. Defer COLA and retirement contributions Recognizing that the Board cannot unilaterally take this action, the Committee believes that this idea should be explored as an alternative to layoffs. Note: employee organizations did not concur and cited voluntary furloughs and leaves of absence as preferred alternatives. 6. Examine the savings potential of consolidating departments and service operations The County previously consolidated departments and should again consider the savings potential where possible. Two examples mentioned were consolidating fire districts to equalize fire district assessment needs and consolidation of substance abuse and mental health programs. Note: The Health Department did not believe that the second example would be cost—effective, but is exploring specific program consolidation options with the Social Service Department. 7. Clearly identify program benefits on any proposed new revenue sources Citizens need to understand the relationship between revenue (taxes, fees) and service levels, particularly when voter approvals are necessary. Note: consensus position. 8. Consider both new revenue potential and program reductions in making budgetary decisions The Committee has divergent opinions concerning new revenue: some members felt that all new revenue sources should be used to the extent permitted by law (ex: utility users tax in unincorporated areas), since the County is in such dire financial straits. Others felt a new revenue source should not be levied if it 1) placed a burden on the unincorporated area for county-wide services; 2) disproportionately taxed low-income people; or 3) could lead to annexations and erosion of the property tax base. Revenue Alternatives 1. Consider supporting legislation for aproperty tax override for bonded indebtedness Following Proposition 13, the Courts determined that voter approved bonded indebtedness prior to Proposition 13 was not subject to the 1% limit. The County's retirement contribution falls within this category. However, Legislation closed the window of opportunity for including the retirement system on the property tax rolls. Assemblyman Campbell carried a bill to "reopen the window" which was vetoed by the Governor in 1990. It may be appropriate to re-introduce this concept. Note: consensus on need to consider. 2. Fire District assessments should be levied to back-fill SDAF losses For Board governed districts, the Board could levy a parcel tax assessment. We were informed that a $130/parcel would generate $15 million for Consolidated Fire. Note: consensus postion with the proviso that the tax is set at a reasonable level. 3. Consider the advisability of imposing a utility users tax The Committee discussed three variants of the utility users tax: a) unincorporated area tax for services in the unincorporated area b) unincorporated area tax for services county-wide c) county-wide tax for services county-wide Currently the Board has the authority to levy the tax in the unincorporated areas, but not county-wide. The Committee split on this issue. The Chamber opposed the tax in all instances, since businesses pay more than residents (and small business could be especially hurt). All others preferred first c) then b) then a). Some felt that the County should take whatever is legal, regardless of equity i.e., option b). Others felt that a county-wide tax would be unfair in cities which already impose the tax. Still others thought it prudent to exercise option b) while pursuing legislative approval for c). Others expressed concern that option a) or b) would be counterproductive, resulting in annexations and loss of property tax revenue. OTHER CONCEPTS In addition to the consensus and majority recommendations presented above, several concepts were presented at the Committee for discussion. 1. Economic Development Analysis A recommendation for public—private partnership was presented as a means to identify economic resources and stimulate competitiveness. This approach could augment current economic development activities. Note: no consensus on priority. 2. "Revenue Neutral" Economic Stimulus Another idea was to take "revenue—neutral" actions that stimulate economic development, e.g. increase property transfer tax, with corresponding decrease in fees on new development to stimulate construction activity. Note: no consensus on priority. CONCLUSION None of the budgetary decisions before the Board will be easy to make. It is equally difficult to increase taxes and fees during recessionary times. However, although there was not unanimity, there was strong sentiment among the Committee for raising difficult taxes. Though difficult, taxes would be less painful than losses of services that would otherwise ensue. It is difficult to cut programs and lay off employees. Our Committee recognizes the dilemma. Individual members have communicated their concerns to state legislators and the Governor. We can only urge others to join with our Committee members and the Board of Supervisors in lobbying the State for equity for counties and the people they serve.