Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07081997 - D8-D12 Dg THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Resolution on July 8, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Uilkema, Canciamilla, DeSaulnier NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisor Gerber ABSTAIN: None Resolution No. 97/356 SUBJECT: Tabulation of Mail-In Ballots, Confirmation of Diagram and Assessment and Levy of Landscaping Assessments for Zone 16 of the Countywide Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District 1979-3 (LL-2) , Oakley The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County RESOLVES: 1. On May 6, 1997, the Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 97/227 directing the filing of the engineer's report for Zone 16 of Countywide Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District 1979-3 (LL-2) . As directed by the Board, the Engineer of Work has filed the engineer' s report. 2. On May 6, 1997, the Board adopted Resolution No. 97/228 declaring the Board' s intention to levy and collect assessments to continue park, trail and recreational facilities and services within Zone 16 for fiscal year 1997-98 and setting a public hearing for July 8, 1997 . Notice of the hearing was given in the time and manner required by law. 3 . Resolution No. 97/228 directed the Engineer of Work (Public Works Director) to cause to be mailed to property owners within Zone 16 the notices and ballots required by Section 4 of Article XIII D of the California Constitution (Proposition 218) . 4 . The notices and ballots have been mailed to property owners and the returned ballots are ready to be tabulated. NOW, THEREFORE, the Board FINDS, DETERMINES and ORDERS that: 1. A public hearing was held before this Board on July 8, 1997 at 3 : 00 p.m. At the hearing, the Engineer of Work presented to the Board all ballots received from property owners within Zone 16 and a proposed tabulation of those ballots. The Board heard and considered all protests against the proposed assessments and tabulated the returned ballots according to the proportional financial obligation of the affected properties. The Board also afforded to every interested person an opportunity to make a protest to the engineer' s report, either in writing or orally, and the Board considered each protest. 2 . A majority protest, as defined in Section 4 (e) of Article XIII D, does not exist. 3 . The Board hereby confirms the diagram and assessment as set forth in the report of the Engineer of Work and hereby levies the assessments set forth therein in Zone 16 for fiscal year 1997-98. Contact: Skip Epperly, (510) 313-2253 Orig. Dept: Public Works (ES) cc: Public Works 1 hereby ceAHy that Mb Is e true and eerre�t CEpy al an action taken and entered an Iho zlnutN 7000, County Counsel Bard or save wm cn me d�q 1. County Administrator Rrresrem rd Auditor-Controller p"g gMwr d County admlntdraW Assessor rll oePnM CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CERTIFICATE OF RESULTS OF THE CANVASS OF THE DISTRICT ELECTION RETURNS COUNTYWIDE LANDSCAPING DISTRICT (LL-2) - OAKLEY AREA BENEFIT ZONE 16 State of California } } ss. County of Contra Costa } I, J. Michael Walford, Public Works Director, of Contra Costa County, State of California, do hereby certify that I did canvass the returns of the votes cast at the July 8, 1997 Special Election. I further certify that the statement of the votes cast, to which this certificate is attached, shows the whole number of votes cast in said County, and the whole number of votes cast for and against the measure in said County and that the totals of the respective columns and the totals as shown for and against the measure are full, true and correct. WITNESS my hand and Official Seal this 8' day of July, 1997. J. Michael Walford, Public Works Director Department of Public Works (Seal) By J. Michael Watford Public Works Director COUNTYWIDE LANDSCAPING DISTRICT (LL-2) OAKLEY AREA BENEFIT ZONE 16 OFFICIAL CANVASS The Election was conducted by Landowners of the effected area. Each Landowner was allowed one vote for each assessable parcel of land therein. Total Landowner Vote Voted Yes No Undeliverable 7,753 2,877 1,988 610 Cumulative Total* Weight (Dollars) $61,614.92 $23,181.28 279 73% 23% 4% * Results as of 5:00 p.m. July 7, 1997 SE cs g'kngsvc\spd�st\boUul/Zl6Canvs SUPPLENIENTAL MATERIAL ADVISEMENT FORM AGENDA DATE: TTIIVI 0 NO : o ADDITIONAL MATERIALS AVAILABLE IN THE MINUTES ❑ ITEM CONTINUED TO: ❑ ITEM DELETED ❑ PUBLIC COMMENT - NONE ❑ CONSIDERED CONSENT ITEMS PREVIOUSLY REMOVED - SEE SUMMARY FOR CHANGES; OTHERWISE APPROVED AS LISTED ON THE AGENDA THIS SDMON FOR PL4NN NG MEWS ONLY ❑ ADDITIONAL MATERIAL AVAILABLE IN FILE (NAME): D.9 MS - 04 To: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS °`.'I..:. ..�^ Contra FROM: FAMILY AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE Costa"L c �j k r`' June 23' 1997 � .�� Y DATE: �O`>^ Count �6uAs` SUBJECT: PROPOSAL TO FORM A PUBLIC AUTHORITY TO ADMINISTER THE IN- HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES (IHSS) PROGRAM SPECIFIC REOUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)8 BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: SELECT one of the following recommendations: 1. INDICATE the intent of the Board of Supervisors to establish a Public Authority to administer the In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) Program, providing reasonably secure funding for administrative costs can be identified. DIRECT the County Administrator, Social Service Director, Director of Human Resources and County Counsel to initiate the process that would be required to develop a plan and identify funding mechanisms, (recognizing that the process will be lengthy, based on the experience of other counties and recognizing that several financial decisions are currently pending with the State and Federal governments). OR 2. LEAVE this subject matter on referral to the Family and Human Services Committee and request the Committee to make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors as events warrant further action by the Board, until new funding materializes to offset the additional County administrative costs of the program, and other operational issues are better defined and resolved. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _—YES 5I1.7NAFURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _—RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD MMITTEE _APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURES : MAW DeSAULNIER DONNA GEZR ACTION OF BOARD ON July ' __ APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED _ OTHER XX Please see Addendum (Attached) for a list of speakers and Board action, VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE _UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: I ill, y and IV NOES: 11 AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: Ugn2ABSTAIN; None __ _ OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. ounty Administrator Social Service Director ATTESTED Jul v 8 1997 Contact: County Counsel PHIL SATCHEL .CLERK OF THE BOARD OF cc Director of Human Resources SUP VI AND COUNTY AD RATO Sara Hoffman, Senior Deputy County Administrator IHSS Task Force(Via CAO) Supervisors Rich Heyne, Employee Relations Manager (HR) BY Y Christine WamD er F&HS - 04 BACKGROUND: On May 6, 1997, the Board of Supervisors, on the recommendation of the Finance Committee, referred to our Committee the report from the Finance Committee which the Board had approved. Attached are the following documents: 1. The response from the IHSS Task Force to the reports from the Social Service Director on this subject. 2. The Finance Committee report dated May 6, 1997. 3. The report from the Social Service Director on this subject dated April 16, 1997 which was presented to the Finance Committee on April 21, 1997. 4. The report from the Social Service Director on this subject dated January 22, 1997 which was presented to the Finance Committee on January 27, 1997. 5. The Board Order/Finance Committee report which the Board approved on November 19, 1996. 6. Charts and other materials provided to our Committee by the IHSS Task Force on June 23, 1997. 7. A written comment from California Democrats with Disabilities provided to our Committee by Maggie Dowling. On June 23, 1997, our Committee met with the Social Service Director, John Cullen, and members of his staff, members of the IHSS Task Force, IHSS workers and other advocates for the establishment of a Public Authority. Mr. Cullen summarized his reports and noted that the Department is addressing the principal concerns raised by the IHSS Task Force, including the establishment of a registry, linking training resources to workers needing training, and enhancing consumer input to the IHSS Program. All of these can be accomplished without the formation of a Public Authority. The unique feature of a Public Authority is that it permits IHSS workers to organize and bargain for improvements to their wages and benefits. Helen Hall introduced the response from the IHSS Task Force. Kathleen "Kagey" Dorosz addressed the pending registry contract with St. Vincent de Paul. She also addressed the Task Force's response to the reports of the Social Service Director. Ms. Dorosz noted that there is $1.3 million in the State Budget for State sharing with seven Public Authorities in the State. Contra Costa County would be entitled to some portion of that funding. She also noted the belief of the Task Force that the budget prepared by the Social Service Director is high. Jeanine Meyer Rodriguez reviewed charts which had been prepared by Karen Keesler, lobbyist for SEIU in Sacramento (see attachment # 6). Dana Simon from SEIU Local 250 commented that wages of IHSS workers is the real issue for SEIU. The formation of a Public Authority is an issue of fairness. -2- V•1 F&HS - 04 Supervisor DeSaulnier expressed his concern about where any additional County money would come from, even assuming that the State and Federal funds referenced by the Task Force were to become available. He noted his concern about the pressure this would put on future year County Budgets. Supervisor Gerber expressed the view that it is necessary to balance the concern about where the money would come from with the obvious benefit derived from putting money where it will most effectively provide services and save money. IHSS is a program designed to keep people in their own homes as long as possible and avoid the need for far more expensive nursing home and hospital care. She urged that the Committee recommend starting the process of putting a Public Authority together. Other issues can be dealt with as they come up. Members of the Task Force urged that there be additional involvement of the Task Force in administering the contract with St. Vincent de Paul. Mr. Cullen indicated he would like to go back and give some thought to ways in which the Task Force could be involved in the work of the registry. Dana Simon noted the three points on page five of the response from the Task Force and indicated that if those three points could be included in the approval of the contract with St. Vincent de Paul he would have no problems with approval of the contract. These three points are: • Any contract with a third party service provider be written in such a way that it will not contain provisions that will come in conflict [with] the county's future ability to implement a P.A. and a registry within a P.A.; I • The registry be implemented in such a way that it could be dovetailed into the registry function that a P.A. would be required to perform under state legislation (SB 35); • That there be some form of formal acknowledgment that the creation of such a registry is not intended to be a permanent alternative to the program improvements that can potentially be created under a P.A. It was clarified that the contract with St. Vincent de Paul was on the Board agenda for June 24, 1997. The contract is limited to one year and, therefore, would not conflict with the formation of a Public Authority if one were to proceed. -3- D.9 ADDENDUM Item D.9 July 8, 1997 Supervisors DeSaulnier and Gerber introduced the attached report and recommendations from the Family and Human Services Committee. Phil Batchelor, County Administrator, advised the Board of the potential liability issues associated with the proposed establishment of a Public Authority for the administration of the In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) Program. Mr. Batchelor recommended that the Board postpone the establishment of a Public Authority pending clarification of any legislative revisions at either the State or Federal levels to allow for a more accurate estimation of the financial impacts to the County. John Cullen, Social Service Director, delineated four critical issues, including: on-going State funding for increased administrative costs; on-going funding for State costs associated with collective bargaining; issuance of programmatic and claiming rules by the State, which include Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) Federal approvals for costs; and identification of the potential impacts of Welfare Reform. Mr. Cullen advised that those issues should be resolved prior to the formation of a Public Authority. Mr. Cullen recommended that the Board adopt recommendation No. 2 of the attached report, leaving the issues on referral to the Family and Human Services Committee. Subsequent to the comments by the County Administrator and the Social Service Director, the following persons gave testimony: Maggie Dee, California Democrats with Disabilities, 426 W. 11th Street, Pittsburg; Paul DeMange, IHSS Task Force, Independent Living Resource, 3811 Alhambra Avenue, Martinez; Kagey Dorose, IHSS Coalition, Elder Abuse Prevention, 1015 Nevin, #102, Richmond; John Dalrymple, AFL-CIO, 525 Green Street, Martinez; Jeannie Rodriguez (No Speaker Card Submitted - Slide Presentation); and Dana Simon, Local 250, SEIU, 560-20th Street, Oakland. All persons desiring to speak having been heard, the Board members further discussed the report and staffs recommendations, then took the following action: ADOPTED Recommendation No. 1 of the attached report, as amended to read as follows: A. INDICATED the intent of the Board of Supervisors to establish a Public Authority to administer the In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) Program, providing reasonably secure funding for costs can be identified; 1 ADDENDUM Item D.9 July 8, 1997 Page 2 B. DIRECTED the County Administrator, the Social Service Director, the Human Resources Director and County Counsel to initiate the process that would be required to develop a plan and identify funding mechanisms for the identification of costs, incorporating the four critical issues as delineated by the Social Service Director, including: on-going State funding for increased administrative costs; on-going funding for State costs associated with collective bargaining; clarification and/or issuance of programmatic and claiming rules by the State, which include HCFA Federal approvals for costs; and a discussion of the potential impacts of Welfare Reform; C. DIRECTED that the on-going administrative costs to the County associated with the formation of a Pubic Authority shall not exceed $100,000 annually; D. RECOGNIZED that the plan development process (as directed in Item B of this Addendum) will be lengthy, based upon the experience of other counties and given that several financial decisions are currently pending within the State and Federal governments; and E. DIRECTED the County Administrator, the Social Services Director, the Human Resources Director and County Counsel to submit recommendations to the Board of Supervisors for approval prior to the implementation of a Public Authority for the administration of the IHSS Program. In casting the dissenting vote, Supervisor Uilkema advised that she could not support the motion due to the difficulty in predicting her future decision on this issue, given the current uncertainty of future funding sources, rapidly changing State and Federal mandates, and serious budgetary concerns. Supervisor Uilkema also expressed her belief that the County should be compensated for mandated programs and given assurance of funding for compensatory, differential and residual costs associated with such programs. cc: Supervisors County Administrator - Sara Hoffman, Senior Deputy County Administrator - IHSS Task Force (via CAO) Social Service Director County Counsel Human Resources Director - Rich Heyne, Employee Relations Manager 2 ATTACHMENT#2 4. 1 TO. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra a `(1 FROM: COSta Finance Committee County DATE: May 6, 1997 ° SUBJECT: IN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES PUBLIC AUTHORITY SPECIFIC REQUEST($)OR RECOMMENDATION($)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMvi(ENDATIONS: 1. RECOGNIZE the significant financial risks of establishing a Public Authority for the In-Home Supportive Services Program as described in the attached report by the Social Services Department. 2. ACKNOWLEDGE that the financial impacts of establishing a Public Authority for the In-Home Supportive Services Program are unclear and uncertain given the pending implementation of Fedeial Welfare Reform. 3. ACKNOWLEDGE the Committee's concern with the following issues: • the ability of the County to cap the costs of the IHSS Program if a Public Authority is established; • the extent of County health care costs from IHSS clients; • the extent of tort liability if basic registry services are contracted out. 4. REFER this item and the attached reports to the Family and Human Services Committee where the programmatic elements can more appropriately be reviewed. 5. ELIMINATE this item as a Finance Committee referral unless significant changes occur in the financing of the IHSS Program. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _YES SIGNATURE: _�C"'� -+"`�'-' —RECOMMENDATION OF COUNT ADMINISTRATOR —RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE _APPROVE _OTHER SIGNATURE(SI: Joe Canciamilla Gayle B. Uilkema ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I 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. ATTESTED Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Cc: Social Services Director SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR County Counsel Human Resources CAO - Claude Van Marter BY DEPUTY Page 2 BACKGROUND: On January 27 and again on April 21, the Finance Committee discussed the issue of creating a Public Authority for the In-Home Supportive Services Program. On both occasions, the Director of Social Services prepared a written and oral report for the Committee. Attached are Department reports dated January 22 and April 16 along with a Board order dated November 19, 1996. At these two meetings, the Committee heard testimony from a variety of parties including members of the IHSS 'task Force, members of the Advisory Council on Aging, IHSS providers and clients, labor unions and County Counsel. On April 21, the Committee recognized the significant financial risks of establishing a Public Authority as well as acknowledged the difficulty of identifying the financial impact because of the uncertainties of Welfare Reform. In addition, the Committee identified several issues of concern with the IHSS Program. Finally, the Committee determined that improving the programmatic elements of the IHSS program and creating a Public Authority would more appropriately reside with the Family and Human Services Committee. ommitt"Meaoem: ROY J-BORON.Vita JR. &Hfaruin TOM J-9IXiDONARO JR. VALERIE BROWN MARTIN GALLEGOS �y¢�YYr '* .yyy�y .Iryt�AA �.j1p�1t JAN GOLDSMITH ►� L.AIi�4+�• �Yl+ii�LLLLLLLL �r,V LL SHERRY NOVICK SHEILA JAMES KUEHL mu_ �7 Chief Consultant RODOSEOFMZ RICK WRIGHT 7F uman Anvias CURTIS L CHILD C -�- VVV��_ PAnppol Consonant DION S. ARONER GO ELEANOR MOSES CHAmwOMAN t.1 saniotConsurtant VICYORIAFINKLER Consu4ant i \20 WENDYSTEVENS )UL \g0 Committee Serfetety July 7, 1997 SSPE 0. PpO*OgSPC P The Honorable Donaa Gerber Supervisor,District 3 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 309 Diablo Road Danville,CA 94526 - Dear Supervisor Gerber:: I understand the issue of establishing an IHSS Public Authority is presently under consideration by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. I am writing today to encourage you to take advantage of the benefits that this option will bring to the county's IHSS program. Having a long history in the development of the Public Authority option, I may be able to share useful information for your consideration of the issue. In particular, because I understand that financial issues, including questions of state and federal cost sharing, are central to the Board's discussion,I offer the fallowing points: • The state has a responsibility to pay a share of Public Authority administrative costs. For the coming year,a$1.3 million budget augmentation measure was unanimously approved by both the Senate and Assembly budget subcommittees. This will provide the state share of cost for the four counties that already have Public Authorities,and will also provide Public Authority funding for three counties--specifically including Contra Costa--which are considering creation of Public Authorities. • The state Department of Social Services is finalizing Public Authority claiming regulations which will solidify the state reimbursement process. Though the state already has been paying its share to counties with existing Public Authorities,this will simplify the process. My office,of course,will assist with whatever is necessary to ensure that Contra Costa receives its state share of costs for its Public Authority. • The federal government pays a share of Public Authority administrative costs at the same cost-sharing ratio as its participation in the IHSS program in general--50 percent of the county's PCSP caseload. (In Contra Costs,PCSP=69 percent of the caseload according to statistics released for the first quarter of 1997 by the state Department of Social Services.) STATE CAPITOL•P.O.BOX 942849 a SACRAMENTO.CA 042494W 1 PHONE:(818)4450864•FAX:(916)445-5434 JUL 08 '97 11:34RM RSSEMBLYWOMRN DION KRONER P.2 q The federal government also shares costs for potential future wage increases at this same ratio. It is extremely difficult to get the federal government to contribute a share of costs for wages above the minimum wage without a Public Authority. In addition to the federal share, we are hoping that the state will start sharing costs for wage increases. This is being discussed in the context of AB 668,a two-year bill which I am authoring. Again,I very much want to encourage the Board of Supervisors to create a public Authority for IHSS in Contra Costa County, and I want to offer the assistance of my office in researching and implementing this important vehicle for improving the IHSS program. The advantages for IHSS consumers and providers alike are significant,and the fact that the Public Authority enables the county to leverage additional state and federal funds for the program is an important consideration in its favor. Please contact me or Sherry Novick of my staff if you would like further information. Sincerely, A-alto u DION S. ARONER DA:ws m W W) M Tr N O Itt ON d' t� 000 0 m .4 � � o"F d N N N M �+ d C O fn d ' i r N tn O °' d fl 0\ r'M'M i (5 rn en ON ON, c a O N d N M o a F N . a, o� O � wjU O U CJ .'C3*1 U CC .--� U N U U r. Q c c cl m LZ o m o U :n vz a U ATTACHMENT #1 Response to the Report from Department of Social Services Director John Cullen Regarding the IHSS Public Authority Presented to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Prepared by The Contra Costa County IHSS Task Force June 17, 1997 big Response To Public Authority Report from DSS Director John Cullen -Introduction and Summary- The Director's report proposes that most of the problems cited by Public Authority proponents can be assuaged through program improvements without a Public Authority. Missing from the list of proposed improvements are the two fundamental issues that are the reasons for the creation of the P.A.: • The correction of the current legal status of the home care providers by establishing a P.A. as an "employer of record," and • The creation of a structural guarantee that homecare consumer input will have an effect on policies affecting the IHSS program. To the extent that certain program improvements are discussed within the report, the specific items mentioned do not mitigate the two fundamental reasons why the P.A. is needed. -Financing Public Authorities- The report states that the same list of program improvements can be made without a P.A. for a fraction of the cost of implementing the same items within the P.A. This assertion is not substantiated. It is hard to understand why, for example, establishing a registry service without a P.A. would cost many tens of thousands of dollars less than creating the registry within the P.A. context. The report implies that the county would bear the full burden of any increase in costs associated with the public authority. This is inaccurate: State and federal share of Public Authority costs are secured and defined under California Welfare & Institutions Code (WIC): The sharing formula is the existing federal and state sharing ratios in statute, which are reflected under WIC 10101.1 for administrative costs and WIC 12306 for IHSS, PCSP and services. Additionally, WIC 12301.6 states, in pertinent part, To the extent permitted by federal law,personal care option funds, obtained pursuant to Subchapter 19(commencing with section 1396)of Chapter 7 Title 42 of the United States Code, along with matching funds using the state and county sharing ratios established in subdivision(c)of Section 12306, or any other funds that are obtained pursuant to Subchapter 19(commencing with Section 1396)of Chapter 7 of Title 42 of the United States Code, may be used to operate an entity authorized by this section. As a result of which... ♦ t V � Response To Public Authority Report from DSS Director John Cullen -Introduction and Summary- The Director's report proposes that most of the problems cited by Public Authority proponents can be assuaged through program improvements without a Public Authority. Missing from the list of proposed improvements are the two fundamental issues that are the reasons for the creation of the P.A.: • The correction of the current legal status of the home care providers by establishing a P.A. as an "employer of record," and • The creation of a structural guarantee that homecare consumer input will have an effect on policies affecting the IHSS program. To the extent that certain program improvements are discussed within the report, the specific items mentioned do not mitigate the two fundamental reasons why the P.A. is needed -Financing Public Authorities- The report states that the same list of program improvements can be made without a P.A. for a fraction of the cost of implementing the same items within the P.A. This assertion is not substantiated. It is hard to understand why, for example, establishing a registry service without a P.A. would cost many tens of thousands of dollars less than creating the registry within the P.A. context. The report implies that the county would bear the full burden of any increase in costs associated with the public authority. This is inaccurate: State and federal share of Public Authority costs are secured and defined under California Welfare& Institutions Code (WIC): The sharing formula is the existing federal and state sharing ratios in statute, which are reflected under WIC 10101.1 for administrative costs and WIC 12306 for IHSS, PCSP and services. Additionally, WIC 12301.6 states, in pertinent part, To the extent permitted by federal law, personal care option funds,obtained pursuant to Subchapter 19 (commencing with section 1396)of Chapter 7 Title 42 of the United States Code, along with matching funds using the state and county sharing ratios established in subdivision(c)of Section 12306,or any other funds that are obtained pursuant to Subchapter 19 (commencing with Section 1396)of Chapter 7 of Title 42 of the United States Code, may be used to operate an entity authorized by this section. As a result of which... • 1 • The federal government has been paying and continues to pay its share of costs associated with Public Authorities. Beyond statutory assurances, county officials from San Francisco, Alameda, San Mateo and Santa Clara can provide first hand accounts of the fact that their Public Authorities have been receiving their federal share of costs. Continued federal matching funding is not presently in question. • The claim is made that it is highly unlikely that the state will provide its share of matching funds. This is inaccurate: The state has been providing its share of administrative costs for the existing P.A.s. While securing the matching funds from the state has been a time consuming process each year, so far, it has been successful. Again, this can also be confirmed by officials from Public Authority counties. • SEIU, in coalition with advocates for homecare recipients, has been pursuing a state budget augmentation measure which will provide $1.3 million for Public Authorities in seven counties. Contra Costa is specifically listed as one of the seven counties that would receive its share if it opts to create a P.A. The measure was unanimously approved by the State Senate's Budget & Finance Committee in April, and it received a unanimous vote by the Assembly's budget sub-committee in late May. This item received more letters of support from individual Assembly members than any other single budget item before the Assembly committee. As result of the unanimous bi-partisan support it has received, we have every reason to believe it will be part of the annual budget that will be signed by the Governor in the coming weeks. (Please see the attached Fact Sheet and submission to the Assembly for more details [Attachment 1]). • There are indications that the atmosphere in the Congress is currently in favor of allocating more resources to state and county IHSS programs. Following is an excerpt from a June 7 press release from the national organization Americans Disabled for Attendant Programs Today (ADAPT), titled, "Historic Agreement Reached Between Newt Gingrich and ADAPT:" "Speaker Gingrich commits his office to assist ADAPT with beginning the process of giving people with disabilities, who are currently forced into institutions, the option of living in their homes. Mr. Gingrich will introduce the Community Attendant Service Act(CASA)sometime during the week of June 9, 1997. `I think that in the future,when people are diagnosed to be in a situation where they get resources, the resources should follow the person and not go to the institution,' said Speaker Gingrich. "Speaker Gingrich explained to members of ADAPT during their meeting yesterday that the shared goal of his CASA and his office is to create choices so people with disabilities can get attendant services instead of being forced into nursing homes...CASA will create a truly national policy of consumer controlled, home and community based attendant services in every state in the union. The funding used to provide institutional, long term care services will follow people into their homes...This is in keeping with the nation's goal of empowerment and liberty for people with disabilities." 2 QQ -Wages- The report warns of the"Costs Resulting from Collective Bargaining Agreements." This argument is inappropriate and misleading: The step of creating the P.A. does not guarantee that the county will raise wages. Rather, it simply corrects the unusual situation that this group of workers is presently legally precluded from asking for wage and benefits through the collective bargaining process. It is a fact that these workers are locked into minimum wage and no benefits unless they can identify an employer of record. The results of future collective bargaining will be predicated on... 1. The availability of funds to pay for higher wages and benefits, and 2. The Board of Supervisors' agreement and ability to allocate the money. It is inappropriate to raise this issue in the context of the P.A., which, again, simply provides the homecare providers with the ability to attempt to bargain. Additionally, the report implies that the county would bear the full cost of any future increase in wages. This is not correct: The federal government provides matching funds for homecare worker wage increases. Currently, wage increases that would be negotiated are matched by the federal government for the federal share of the PCSP caseload • According to the figures provided by the State Department of Social Services, the current Contra Costa County PCSP caseload (as a percentage of the county's total IHSS program caseload) is 69%. • The Federal government provides a 50% match for wage increases for the PCSP share of the total caseload (up to a cap of 200% of the minimum wage). • Since 1992, the county has been shifting more and more of its caseload into the PCSP category. As this trend continues, a higher percentage of the total caseload is being matched with Federal funds. Thus, the level of federal participation is increasing. Additionally, Assembly Member Dion Aroner is sponsoring a two year bill, AB668, which would add state funding for IHSS improvements such as wage increases. AB 668 is being developed and backed by organizations throughout California representing the state's elderly, disabled and homecare workers. It is the result of a statewide conference held in Oakland in January, called "IHSS Agenda '97". The conference, which was attended by some 200 activists, was historic in its bringing forth a unified agenda of organizations representing all facets of the populations that the IHSS program affects. 3 �•9 -Cost Savings- The report ignores the effects of the numerous areas of county budget cost savings which will result from the establishment of the Public Authority: The IHSS program was established statewide in the early 1970s to enable people to live independently who would otherwise require institutionalization. In so doing, the state and counties recognized the many areas of budget savings that would result from creating the IHSS system, by preventing the need for far more costly forms of care. There are many compelling examples of future cost savings for Contra Costa that should be considered: • Professor Laura Reif of UCSF and RTZ Associates cites the results of her study of Los Angeles County's IHSS program as demonstrating that care for the disabled and elderly essentially begins with IHSS, and that inadequacies in IHSS delivery account for dramatically greater costs. Example: the study found that in one month three IHSS recipients required emergency hospitalization due to deficiencies in IHSS care delivery. The resulting costs to the county were roughly equivalent to the entire monthly payroll for all the county's 70,000 IHSS providers. • Statewide, because of the trend toward increased federal PCSP participation, total county appropriations for IHSS services are substantially below the funding level that counties provided in FY 1991/1992. We estimate that Contra Costa County has saved several million dollars in that time through its success in leveraging a higher rate of federal funds. • Because Contra Costa's 5,000 homecare workers are paid so little, a great many draw on a variety of public assistance programs to make ends meet. The annual county expenditures on medical services, food stamps, TANF (AFDC), general assistance, etc. that this group of working people must draw upon is significant. This is a particularly ironic situation in that these 5,000 people are working under a state and county Department of Social Services administered program. Creating a means by which those workers could have the right to collective bargaining, allows us to publicly discuss — not simply more just arrangements—but also more rational arrangements. 4 �•9 -Point By Point Responses- To the Report By DSS Director Cullen The following are responses to specific points from the report. They correspond to the letters annotated in the text of the attached copy of the report. A. Many believe this estimate that "60% the Independent Providers in Contra Costa are family members" is significantly higher than the actual percentage. In the past, Department administrators have cited a figure of 50%, which many also believe is high. Additionally, we need to establish whether a worker who cares for a family members and also for one or several other non-family members (which is common) is being counted exclusively as a family provider. B. "[T]he program is sometimes not fully satisfactory for those clients unable to find providers or who have difficulty managing the employer/employee relationship between themselves and their providers." These problems are due mainly to the poverty wages and no rights afforded the providers. Even if a client had extra money to give for provider wages, they are legally prohibited from doing so. C. "Under the SIP model, counties provide ... support services to assist IHSS clients who need help in finding, employing and retaining providers." Many providers find the use of the word "retaining" to be offensive in this context: If wages continue to be fixed at the minimum with providers having no rights to negotiate, what means of"retention" are being proposed? Physical restraints? D. "The Department is now ready to begin implementation of registry activities as authorized in the November 19, 1996 Board Order." It was not the intention of the Board to authorize implementation of mutually exclusive options while it continues to study the P.A. issue. For this reason, we urge the Board to direct the Department to ensure that in implementing such a registry... • Any contract with a third party service provider be written in such a way that it will not contain provisions that will come in conflict the county's future ability to implement a P.A. and a registry within a P.A.; • The registry be implemented in such a way that it could be dovetailed into the registry functions that a P.A. would be required to perform under state legislation (SB35). • That there be some form of formal acknowledgment that the creation of such a registry is not intended to be a permanent alternative to the program improvements that can potentially be created under a P.A. E. The report states, "[State legislation] requires that counties fund the State's share of any additional salary or benefit costs authorized by a Public Authority." Federal matching funds are available for any future increases in wages that may result from future collective bargaining negotiations. The federal government reimburses approximated 50% of all wages and benefits within the PCSP share of the IHSS caseload. (PCSP = 69% of total IHSS 5 V' 1 caseload in Contra Costa). This is, in fact, clearly stated two pages later in the Department's report: "[T]he Federal Medicaid program would continue to cover 50% of any increased costs for PCSP service providers." Also: State Legislation has already been introduced (AB668, Aroner) in the form of a two year bill, which would create a variety of enhancements to the state's participation in county IHSS costs — including adding state participation on wage and benefit increases. F. Again, it is inappropriate to add future unknown increased labor costs into the mix here. These are not costs that will be incurred as a direct result of creation of the P.A. itself. When collective bargaining takes place, the Board of Supervisors will still retain control over its budget. Only the Board of Supervisors could allocate money to improve conditions for the workers. G. The basis for the estimate that"indirect costs [will] be the equivalent of 2.5 FTEs and will run in excess of$250,000 annually" is not cited. We believe this estimate to be quite high. It would not take, for example, between 60% and 90% of the time of a person working in the county's human resources department five days a week for an entire year to assist with future P.A. negotiations with providers— especially given that we have explicitly included $30,000 in projected salary costs for an in house P.A. human resources person directly into our estimate for the P.A.'s annual budget. H. The report states, "Absent new regulations to legitimize the claiming of additional Federal dollars, the County general Fund would have to absorb the entire amount of these new costs" This is not a possible scenario, and it has no basis infact: We are not proposing that the county proceed with the P.A. without access to state and federal matching funds, and we do not have to: Federal matching funding has been and remains available, and has been being drawn down by the other counties which already have operational P.A.S. The state has also been paying its share of costs to each of the existing Public Authorities. I. See above, page 3, under the heading, "Wages." I These statements imply that the state will not pay its share of costs. This is not accurate: Please see above Page I of this memo under the heading, "Financing Public Authorities." Also see attached two page SEN fact sheets on the $1.3 million IHSS budget augmentation, [Attachment I] which has passed with unanimous votes through both the Assembly and the Senate budget sub-committees. Also: While all the other counties with existing P.A.s have been successfully drawing down their state matching funds without the state DSS having promulgated uniform claiming regulations, the state DSS says that they will be finalized soon. Draft regulations have already been distributed throughout the state. (We can provide copies of the draft regs.) K. "We are concerned that this decrease in eligible clients will also decrease our administrative allocation for operating the program." SEN together with organizations representing the elderly, disabled, and immigrant rights groups have been promoting AB67 (Escutia) which will prevent "legal" non-citizens from losing state IHSS benefits. The bill is gaining strong 6 support, and we are looking forward to its passage. Governor Wilson has stated his support for maintaining access to IHSS services to people in this situation. Though the results of the failure of this effort would be horrible, we must point out that logically— from the budget perspective—if the unthinkable happens, the "decrease [in] administrative allocations for operating the program," would be in direct proportion to the "decrease in eligible clients," with dollars available per client remaining constant. L. For reasons stated above, the county would not bear the total costs of the P.A.: It is inaccurate to imply that state and federal funding doesn't exist. M. The report states, "As P.A.s are authorized under SB35 to develop only the registry component for enhancing IHSS (not support services), establishment of a P.A. in Contra Costa County will not fully address the programmatic service delivery needs which cannot adequately be met by current Independent Provider program." Nothing in SB35 precludes or discourages anyone from making any additional program enhancements. A copy of the major portions of the enacting legislation is attached. [Attachment 3]. That the Department would imply that the P.A. should not be implemented because it doesn't go far enough in correcting problems in the IHSS program is simply disingenuous. N. "Public input" and "collective bargaining" are explicitly cited here as "major complications." Should these things —which most of us consider to be fundamental rights—be avoided because issues of bureaucratic convenience are more compelling? O. We don't have a disagreement here. The ordinance, as it is currently drafted, establishes the Board of Supervisors as the P.A. [Attachment 4]. P. [Combined with `Q' in final draft]. Q. The report states, "[C]ontracting with an outside agency for registry services, supported by insurance, would additionally insulate the county from tort liability...in a similar fashion to the legislative protection from tort liability offered to P.A.s in the authorizing legislation." Please see the attached Los Angeles County Counsel opinion, which (in summary) states that outside contractors continue to bear tort liability, and also stand likely to be found in court to be the employer of record of IHSS providers. LA's study of California state laws on this subject contradict each of the points made in the"Alternative Registry Option" section of the report. [Attachment 51. R. The report states that the Department can address consumers' problems over the inability to retain workers by"developing a pilot project to offer registry services and provider support services to help address some of the problems regarding retention of skilled providers for IHSS clients..." Again, the issue of"worker retention." (See point "C" above): This implies that more public funds will be allocated, effectively to institutionalize minimum wage and no benefit conditions for 5,000 people and convince them not to leave those positions. This is an inappropriate role for the Department of Social Services. 7 D. 9 S. The report states that a registry can be established for vastly less without a Public Authority. Representatives from at least two non-profits (ILR and FACS) who have received the Department's RFI for organizations to run such a registry for $50,000 have stated before the Finance Committee that this sum is insufficient. Again, for this reason, we hope that the Board will formally recognize that this registry is not intended to serve as an alternative to the P.A. Additionally,the report states that there will be approximately 1.5 FTEs needed within the county's budgeted staff to administer the registry. While significant attention is drawn to the report's estimate that 2.5 FTEs needed for the P.A. will cost the county $250,000, no mention is made of the costs of these 1.5 FTE's which would be involved simply in administrating a non-P.A. registry. T. The report states that that "consumer and public input" can be addresses without a P.A. through existing advisory structures: Proponents of the P.A. are trying to establish a structural guarantee that consumers' input will be heard and that it will have an effect on IHSS program policies. Neither the ad hoc Long Term Care Coordinating Committee nor the Long Term Care Committee have a structural guarantee that anyone in the Department would have to do anything based on their input. Further, there are no guarantees in place that the participants on either of those committees be comprised of people who are personally present or previous IHSS consumers. Notably, these observations have been recently made by several members of both of those two committees, who have been taken aback by the Department's implication that their committees are in a better position to describe the deficiencies and needs of the IHSS program than actual consumers. 8 ASSEMBLY BUDGET COMMITTEE Member's Request Form Assembiymember Office Contact Phone Number Sponsor SEIU & IHSS Agenda `97 Phone Number 448-5049 Subcommittees Impacted: #i Budget Item Number Amount Requested: #5180-151-001 (Local Assistance/IHSS) Department: Department of Social Services Funding Source: New FMAP funds Program: In-Home Supportive Services **Please return three copies to the Budget Committee Office in room 6026** Briefly describe the proposal (Attach background information): Augmentation of $1.3 million to fund the state share-of-cost for the administrative expenses incurred by counties that have elected to establish a Public Authority, or are in the process of establishing a Public Authority, for the administration of In-Home Supportive Services. This amount would be appropriated to the following counties: Alameda, Contra Costa, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara. These state funds would be matched by federal and county funds according to current sharing ratios. Effective October 1, 1996, the federal sharing ratio was changed to reflect the increase in the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) rate used in determining the PCSP Title XIX reimbursement amount. This federal change will generate an additional $1.3 million for the IHSS program — which allows the State to reduce General Fund support without a negative impact on the program. This proposal is to cppture these funds for the above counties. State legislation was enacted in June, 1993 which offered counties new opportunities to enhance the IHSS program by restructuring the manner in which services are provided. Specifically, the state budget trailer bill (SB 35) and subsequent clean-up legislation (SB 1078 and SB 1780) provided the statutory authority for counties to establish Public Authorities models to deliver IHSS services. At the request of the Administration, these statutes clarified that any wages or benefits above minimum wage negotiated by a Public Authority would not be funded with State General Funds unless a specific appropriation is included in the state budget. When this language was negotiated, it was generally understood that the State would pay its share-of-cost in new administrative expenses incurred by counties due to the establishment of a Public Authority. The state funds would then be matched by the appropriate share-of- cost of federal and county funds. Page I A broad-based coalition of county management, SEIU and IHSS consumers have been working closely with the State Department of Social Services for a number of months on the regulations necessary to fully implement Public Authorities and asked SDSS to clarify the state's financial participation in the administrative costs to operate Public Authorities. At the last regulation meeting, SDSS officials indicated that they would submit a request for a State General Fund appropriation to the Department of Finance. On March 19, SDSS officials told the PA implementation group that they had failed to submit this request to the Department of Finance. With all of the well-known benefits of the IHSS program, there is general consensus that there are a number of deficiencies that need to be addressed. Inadequate provider recruitment, screening, training and monitoring have been considered long-standing weaknesses. In addition, low wages and lack of benefits have reduced the availability and stability of a qualified pool of providers. To address these drawbacks a coalition of consumers, workers, county and state representatives designed the Public Authority Model and the enabling legislation. The Public Authority model ensures meaningful consumer involvement in IHSS provider policies; establishes clear authority and accountability for the program; and clearly identifies employer roles and responsibilities for the state, the Public Authority and for consumers. Under state law, services which the Public Authority must provide include, but are not limited to: ■ Assistance to consumers in finding IHSS personnel through the establishment of a registry; . Establishment of a referral system under which IHSS personnel shall be referred to consumers; . Screening the qualifications and background of applicants for provider positions; . Provide access to training for workers and consumers; . Providing conflict resolution as a resource to consumers and workers; . Performing any other functions to ensure that qualified workers are available to perform IHSS and meet the yualifications of the Personal Care Services Program ■ Providing timely and efficient emergency services;and ■ Negotiating, through collective bargaining, the wages, benefits, hours and working conditions of the workers and them making recommendations to the Board of Supervisors for funding; Page 2 ' °' "UN 1n-Home Supportive Services SER,�,101� No Empowering Consumers & Workers . . Our Legislative Goal: The Service Employees International Union is urging the Governor and the Legislature to appropriate funds to pay for the state's share-of-cost for Public Authorities to administer the In Home Supportive Services program. We are seeking an augmentation of $1.3 million to fund the state share-of-cost for the administrative expenses incurred by counties that have elected to establish a Public Authority, or are in the process of establishing a Public Authority, for the administration of In-Home Supportive Services. This amount would be appropriated to the following counties: Alameda, Contra Costa, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara. These state funds would be matched by federal and county funds according to current sharing ratios. Background on Public Authorities: With all of the well-known benefits of the IHSS program, there is general consensus that there are a number of deficiencies that need to be addressed. Inadequate provider recruitment, screening, training and monitoring have been considered long-standing weaknesses. In addition, low wages and lack of benefits have reduced the availability and stability of a qualified pool of providers. The ; program's problems begin with the fragmentation of responsibility and authority. To address these drawbacks a coalition of consumers, workers, county and state representatives designed the Public Authority Model and the enabling legislation: The Public Authority is a consumer-directed In Home Supportive Services program and is the only delivery mode that immunizes the state and counties from liability for administration of the IHSS program. This is an innovative model to improve/enhance the IHSS Independent Provider Mode and perform the following functions: ■ Assistance to consumers in finding IHSS personnel through the establishment of a registry; ■ Investigation of the qualifications and background of potential personnel; ■ Establishment of a referral system under which IHSS personnel shall be referred to consumers: ■ Provide access to training for workers and consumers; and ■ Serve as the official employer-of-record for purposes of collective bargaining for Indivudai Providers; ■ Perform any other functions related to ensuring that qualitied personnel are avail- able to perform IHSS. Current Status: In order to achieve meaningful improvements in the IHSS program, four counties (Alameda, San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara) have established Public Authorities and three other counties (Contra Costa, Los Angeles and Sacramento) are in the process of studying the formation of a Public Authority. However, a recent misunderstanding with the State Department of Social Services over state funding needs may seriously undermine our progress to maintain the existing Public Authorities and establish new ones in other counties. State legislation was enacted in June, 1993 which provided the statutory authority for counties to establish Public Authorities models to deliver IHSS services. At the request of the Administration in 1996, these statutes were clarified that any wages or benefits above minimum wage negotiated by a Public Authority would not be funded with State General Funds unless a specific appropriation is included in the state budget. When this language was negotiated, it was generally understood that the State would pay its share-of-cost in new administrative expenses incurred by counties due to the establish- ment of a Public Authority. The state funds would then be matched-by the_appropriate share-of-cost of federal and county funds. On March 19, SDSS officials told the Public Authority implementation group that they had failed to submit this request to the Department of Finance. Legislative Solution: An appropriation of $1.3 million would pay for the state share-of-cost for seven counties that have established or are considering the establishment of a Public Authority. This appropriation is consistent with state statutes and the State Plan Amendment which authorizes federal matching funds for this program. There is nothing in state statute which requires Public Authorities to be "budget neutral" for the state or to shift the burden for all non-federal administrative costs to the counties. This appropriation simply funds the state's fair share of these expenses for fiscal year 1997-98 and would then allow these costs to be incorporated into future budgets when the Public Authority rate and subsequent claiming procedures are finalized. • This $1.3 million appropriation Is a very small amount of money to provide for significant program improvements in those counties"that have decided to improve IHSS services for consumers and workers in their community. . • This action would prevent an unintended cost shift to counties that are striving to empower consumers and workers through enhancements to the IHSS program. • The state can easily afford this appropriation given the extra funds that are being received now as a result of the increase (effective October 1, 1996) in the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage which will generate an additional $1.3 million for the IHSS program in fiscal year 1997-98. SOCIAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY TO: Board of Supervisors Finance Committee DATE: April 16, 1997 FROM: John Cullen, Director,- SUBJ: IN-ROME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES PUBLIC AUTHORITY As directed by the Board Order of November 19, 1996, Social Service staff have been gathering information to prepare an assessment of a Public Authority for the In-Home Supportive Services (IRSS)Program in Contra Costa County, with the Board of Supervisors acting as the authority which includes a cap on county costs and liability and a sunset clause. Moreover, as also directed by that same Board drder, the Social Service Department has instituted actions within the existing IHSS program to address desires to improve services via a registry, provider training, and enhancement of consumer input. The following are our recommendations and overview, background information, specific findings, and an update on program improvements. RECOMMENDATIONS AND OVERVIEW 1. We recommend that the Board of Supervisors NOT adopt an ordinance establishing a Public Authority for the IHSS program in Contra Costa County. Our assessment reveals that establishment of any form of Public Authority at this time poses significant financial and legal risks to the County due to administrative costs and collective bargaining obligations which under current State law the County would assume. 2. We recommend that the Board of Supervisors instruct the Social Service Department to regularly report back on progress in developing improvements to the existing MS program as already authorized in the Board Order of November 19, 1996 to develop a registry, link providers to training resources, provide for consumer and public input into the program, and to develop client/provider support services. The Social Service Department agrees with the proponents of the Public Authority that the IHSS Program in Contra Costa County is in need of underlying program improvements in the areas of a provides'registry, provider training, consumer input, provider wages, and client/provider support services. The main issue before the Finance Committee is whether or not the Public Authority is the appropriate vehicle for implementation of those improvements and enhancements in Contra Costa County. Overall we have found that the County has the ability through the Social Service Department to provide enhanced services in the IHSS program without creating a new governmental entity in the form of a Public Authority. In essence, the only program element that a Public Authority offers that cannot otherwise be provided under our existing IRSS structure is a mechanism to create collective bargaining arrangements where none currently exist. However, under the authorizing State legislation and allocation processes there are excessive funding consequences to counties when establishing Public Authorities. For example, counties are fully liable for all non-Federal I costs of any wage and fringe benefit costs resulting from a Public Authority's collective bargaining ' agreements. Our research reveals that the establishment of a Public Authority causes further OM bifurcation of programmatic responsibility, administrative complexity, and results in both additional liability and costs for the County. At the same time, creation of a Public Authority will not relieve the Board of Supervisors and the Social Service Department from mandated fiscal and programmatic responsibility for IHSS. In undertaking an assessment of an IHSS Public Authority as instructed by the Board of Supervisors in the November 19, 1996 Board Order, we have analyzed this option from three major aspects: 1) financial issues, 2) service delivery and program accountability issues, and 3) labor relations and legal issues. We have consulted with the California Department of Social Services;Public Authority staff in San Mateo, Alameda and San Francisco counties; Social Service Department and IHSS program staff in Santa Clara, San Mateo, San Francisco, Sonoma, Alameda, San Francisco, and Los Angeles counties;.4n.4 conferred with County Counsel and County Human Resources staff in our county and outside labor relations experts. In addition to the work of this assessment, staff have met monthly with the IHSS Task Force and with the Long Term Care Committee of the County Advisory Council on Aging. We also conducted a public meeting on December 18, 1996 regarding IHSS program changes which included a discussion of preliminary plans to develop registry and provider support services. Included at the latter part of this report is a summary of program improvement activities. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. IHSS SERVICE DELIVERY The In Home Supportive Services program is a Federal/State mandated program that provides domestic and personal care services to eligible aged, blind, and disabled persons who,without such service, could not remain safely in their own homes. State of California law and regulations provide that counties must administer the MS program through one or a combination of three service delivery modes. These modes are: • Independent Provider mode under which the client hires and supervises a private ,.individual in an independent contractor relationship • Contract mode in which the provider of service is the employee of a private company or independent non-profit agency which has won a contract to manage IHSS within a county • County Homemaker mode in which the provider of service is a County employee. Contra Costa County uses the Independent Provider mode exclusively. All California counties offer the Independent Provider mode with six counties supplementing Independent Providers with County Homemaker staff and nine counties supplementing Independent Providers with the Contract mode. 2 Within all the various modes of service delivery, counties are responsible for eligibility b.9 determination and assessment of service hours. Under California State law, Independent Providers are paid minimum wage. Wages are not specified under the Contract or County Homemaker modes. With the recently adopted increases in Federal and State minimum wage, Independent Providers have received two wage increases in the past six months and will receive additional increases in 1997-98. Hourly wages increased from$4.25 to $4.75 on October 1, 1996; and increased to $5.00 on March 1, 1997. Future scheduled hourly increases will be $5.15 on September 1, 1997 and$5.75 on March 1, 1998. Since 1993, with the advent of Federal Medicaid funding availability for some of the costs of the IHSS program, we have operated two parallel programs for fiscal claiming purposes. The IHSS Personal Care Services Program(PCSP)claims Federal Medicaid funds for eligible client services which are matched by State and County funds. The IHSS Residual Program claims no Federal Funds and is funded by only State and County funds. The PCSP funding ratios are 500/6 Federal, 32.5% State, and 17.5% County. The Residual funding ratios are 65% State and 35% County, About 66% of the eliem service hours are eligible for PCSP claiming. In Contra Costa County, we serve approximately 4,100 clients every month. Annually,we spend approximately$24 million on provider wages and approximately$3.3 million on administration,eligibility determination and services staff which together include a total County share-of-cost of approximately$6.7 million. The Federal and State governments provide over$20.6 million in program revenue. Over 60%of Contra Costa Independent Providers are family members hired by the client. BothI staff and community advocates have long recognized the need to improve the manner in which IHSS clients,who do not have family members available, are matched with a provider. Approximately 5,000 providers are currently serving our IHSS clients. At any one time approximately 4.5%or 185 clients in Contra Costa County are without providers. This is due to turnover,time delays pending the provider's availability, clients terminating existing providers, immediate unavailability of providers,etc. The limited registry services in the community have not been able to adequately meet the needs of these clients. The Independent Provider mode of service delivery that we operate in Contra Costa County maximizes the free choice of clients in selecting providers of care. However,the program is sometimes not fully satisfactory for those clients unable to find providers or who have difficulty managing the employer/employee relationship between themselves and their providers. Counties operating Individual Provider programs,who wish to enhance the functioning of the program fbeclients with the problems noted above, have had the option to provide Supported Independent Provider(SIP)services to assist clients who need help in finding, employing, and retaining providers. Under the SIP model, counties provide both registry services and provider I O support services to assist IHSS clients who need help in finding, employing, and retaining C providers. In 1996-97 the Social Service Department developed a budget initiative in the amount of$50,000 to pilot registry and provider support services which was approved by the Board of Supervisors to meet this long recognized gap in the program As envisioned, registry services will include recruitment of providers; assessment of provider's skills;matching of prospective providers with specific client needs; and identifying training opportunities for providers. Provider support services will monitor ongoing client/provider matches; assist IHSS clients who need help in 3 performing their employer functions; assist providers who need help in meeting their employee V-1 obligations; and link contract registry services with IHSS social workers. The Department is now ready to begin implementation of registry activities as authorized in the November 19, 1996 Board Order. 2. PUBLIC AUTHORITY LEGISLATION The In-Home Supportive Services Public Authority, as defined in 1993 California legislation(SB 35)and in the 1996 State Budget Trailer bill(SB 1780), is a new entity which can be created by county ordinance to provide employee bargaining rights to Independent Providers. The Public Authority offers counties an alternative structure for managing the Independent Provider mode of IHSS. Public Authorities must provide a registry of providers, perform background checks, develop a referral system, and provide for training. None of these services are required under the Independent Provider mode. The Public Authotitg primarily serves as the"employer of record for purposes of collective bargaining." Whereas, the existing Independent Provider mode relies on State statute for salary and benefit setting. As with the Independent Provider mode, the Public Authority legislation purportedly preserves the client's right to hire,fire, and direct their own providers. The legislation purportedly protects the Public Authority from being deemed the employer of IHSS providers "for purposes of liability due to negligence or intentional torts of IHSS personnel." County Counsel has informed us that absent judicial construction of the legislation, these protections are uncertain. Under the legislation, the Board of Supervisors may appoint a consumer majority Public Authority, or the Board may establish themselves as the Public Authority,with a consumer advisory committee. State legislation does not allow any additional State funding for creation of a Public Authority, and the State limits its funding share of Public Authority services(i.e. registry, J background checks, etc.)to existing administrative allocations to counties. Recent budget trailer O bill legislation requires that counties fund the State's share of any additional salary or benefit costs authorized by a Public Authority. FINDINGS REGARDING MAJOR IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES 1. FINANCIAL ISSUES The financial issues regarding the impact of a Public Authority on the IHSS program in Contra Costa Cou revolve around a)claiming mechanisms for the administrative costs of a Public Auto ' ,0) drhonal County costs related to any collective bargaining agreements negotiated by the Pu thority;c)the potential impact of Welfare Reform changes on IHSS; and d) fiscal accountability. k.f We have consulted with Social Service managers and Public Authority staff in San Mateo, Alameda, and San Francisco,the only three counties with functioning Public Authorities, regarding the financial aspects of operating and funding their operations. In addition, we have consulted with the California State Department of Social Services regarding the various fiscal policy issues noted above. Our principal findings are noted below. 4 a) Administrative Cost Claimine Based upon the experience of the existing Public Authorities, the minimum staffing level required to operate a Public Authority in Contra Costa County, given the size and configuration of our IHSS program, would be a full time manager, full time secretary, and one and one half registry coordinators assigned to the three regions of the county. The manager would be responsible for overall administration including providing staff assistance to the governingladvisory body, negotiating and monitoring labor contracts and supervising registry staff. The secretary would provide clerical support to the other staff and for the governingladvisory body. The registry coordinators would be responsible for recruitment and screening of providers; referral of providers to training opportunities; and matching providers' skills and abilities with requests from individual IHSS clients. The direct administrative costs of operating a Public Authority would consist of the wages and benefits for these 3.5 full time equivalent(FTE)Public Authority employees along with the various space, equipment, and overhead costs associated with this additional staff.The annual salary and benefit costs for these positions plus space, utilities, equipment, and overhead costs will bring the total direct costs to approximately$370,000 annually. Additionally, from information gained in the research counties the existence of a Public Authority will require an increased management workload for Human Resources, County Counsel, County Auditor, and County Social Service staff which may not be absorbed without additional staffing resources. We estimate these indirect costs to be the equivalent of 2.5 FTVs and will rune excess of$250,000 annually. Very troubling is the fact that the California Department of Social Services(CDSS)has still not issued claiming regulations for creation of Public Authorities, so we have been unable to assess the precise financial impact on the County by running projected costs through an administrative claiming process. Absent new regulations to legitimize the claiming of additional Federal dollars, the County General Fund would have to absorb the entire amount of these new costs totaling I approximately$620,000 annually. The existing Public Authorities have been operating in the absence of these State claiming regulations. In addition to County General Funds,they have been paying for their administrative costs from a variety of interim sources such as State start-up funds, surplus IHSS administrative funds, and outside grants. None of these interim options are available to our county. State start- up funds are no longer available;we do not have any surplus IHSS administrative funds; and 'outside graats have not been identified. CDSS has been involved in complex discussions with San Mateo, San Francisco and Alameda counties for many months over the establishment of an hourly rate setting methodology for funding of the administrative operations of their Public Authorities. The three counties are seeking an arrangement whereby this rate setting will allow them to charge a significant portion of their Public Authority administrative costs to the Federal share of Medicaid which funds the Personal Care Services Program(PCSP)portion of IHSS. However, no agreement has been reached, and it is unknown when or if the State will issue draft regulations for this rate setting methodology. Moreover, recent Clinton Administration proposals to cap State allotments for Medicaid call into question the long range likelihood of Federal financial participation in the administrative costs of a Public Authority. 5 In any event, State legislation does not permit State financial participation in the operating costs of a Public Authority if that results in increased State costs beyond existing levels of State funding allocations for IHSS administrative costs. As Contra Costa fully expends the existing State administrative allotment for IHSS social work costs, we can expect, at a minimum, that the County would have to cover both the County and State share of Public Authority costs. If CDSS issues regulations at some future date that make it possible to claim Public Authority administrative costs from the Federal share of Medicaid, given our current proportion of Federally eligible PCSP cases,we would have to use County funds to cover approximately 67% or $248,000 of the projected annual direct costs of operating the Public Authority administrative structure alone. Indirect costs for additional County staffing identified earlier would require approximately$250,000 more in all County funds. Thus, even if Federal funds can eventually be claimed for Public Authority direct operations, the costs to the County will at a minimum be almost$500,000 annually. b) Costs ResultinAfrom Collective Bargaining Agreements Under the authorizing State legislation,the Public Authority is responsib o negotiate wage and fringe benefit agreements with labor organizations representing MS providers. However, there is to be no State financial participation in the costs of any wage and benefit increases granted by a Public Authority. Unlike the administrative costs of the Public Authority, the Federal Medicaid program would continue to cover 50% of any increased costs for PCSP provider services. As noted above, recent Clinton administration proposals to cap State allotments for Medicaid would threaten ongoing Federal participation in these additional wage and benefit costs. However, given our current mix of Federally eligible PCSP vs. non-Federally eligible Residual IHSS cases, Federal funding would cover only about 33% of the costs of any collectively bargained wage and benefit increases. Thus, new County funds would be required to cover at least 671/o of any wage and benefit increases(rather than only 23.5%if there were State participation)for the 5,000 IHSS providers. Based on the size of our current annual payroll costs for IHSS providers and our existing PCSP/Residual case ratios, every$.50 per hour of increase in wage and benefit costs would cost over$1.6 million in additional County funds on an annual basis. c) Welfare Reform Fiscal Impact It is not possible at this time to identify the fiscal impact of Welfare Reform on IHSS with accuracy, let alone the impact that Welfare Reform may have on the costs of operating a Public Authority. However,pending action by the State Legislature and Governor regarding the implementation of Federal Welfare Reform in California,the methodology for claiming administrative costs for income maintenance/welfare programs, which influences the administrative claiming for IHSS and other county social service programs, will change. A greater or lesser proportion of general overhead costs will shift over to the non-income maintenance programs such as IHSS. Any increase of overhead costs for IHSS will become all new County costs as we currently fully expend our State allocation for IHSS administration. Any decrease of overhead costs might make available currently expended State IHSS administrative dollars for IHSS program enhancements. However, it will not be possible to accurately identify the dollar impact of these changes until State Welfare Reform legislation is implemented. 6 We do know that IHSS clients will be directly affected by the Federal Welfare Reform changes in the Supplemental Security Income(SSI) program This cash assistance program for elderly and disabled individuals who meet the Federal income and asset guidelines will be terminating all non- citizens currently receiving benefits beginning in August, 1997. In California, eligibility for HISS is linked to SSI. Unless the State law is changed, which is being proposed by such bills as AB 67 (Escutia)and SB 809 (Johnston), non-citizens currently receiving IHSS will lose their IHSS benefits at the same time that they lose their SSI. Based upon a survey of SSI recipients in our Contra Costa County, we estimate that as many as 15% of our approximately 4,100 IHSS clients may lose their IHSS benefits because of this /� change. We are concerned that this decrease in eligible clients will also decrease our �/{N 1 l 1[ administrative allocation for operating the program. '`% Another element of Federal Welfare Reform included an across the board cut in Title XX Social Service Block grant funding. These funds have been used in California, in part, to fund costs of the non-Medicaid eligible, or Residual, portion of IHSS provider costs as well as for social work administrative costs in IHSS. At this time CDSS is attempting to determine the impact to the counties of this change. Possible scenarios include the State contributing more State general funds to IHSS; counties being required to back fill the Federal reduction; or,mandatory program reductions. Until the State Legislature and Governor take action to adopt new legislation in response to Federal Welfare Reform and adopt the 1997-98 State Budget, the above Welfare Reform issues related to IHSS funding remain unanswered questions. It is not possible to know at this time whether the revenue sources currently available to us for both IHSS administrative and direct service costs will change markedly because of Welfare Reform. In light of these impacts, any action to increase administrative costs, as with a Public Authority, is premature and could lead to even more significant revenue challenges for the County General Fund. d) Public Authority Fiscal Accountability As mentioned, CDSS has not yet issued Public Authority fiscal claiming regulations to counties which authorize activities eligible for funding. Until CDSS issues these regulations, we are unable to explore with the County Auditor how best to establish appropriate fiscal control mechanisms to assure fiscal accountability. Once the claiming regulations are issued we can meet with the County Auditor to determine what the shared responsibilities would be for both the Social Service Fiscal Unit and the Auditoes staff to maintain ongoing fiscal oversight of the Public Authority. It is our expentation that under any new IHSS claiming regulations the Social Service Department ( Ivl and the Board of Supervisors will remain financially liable for the costs of a Public Authority. 2, SERVICE DELIVERY/PROGRAM ACCOUNTABILITY ISSUES As previously noted, our staff have consulted with Social Service and Public Authority staff in San Mateo, Alameda, and San Francisco, the only three counties that have operating Public Authorities. In addition, we have compared and contrasted the registry services available under the San Mateo and Alameda Public Authorities with those available under private non-profit registries in Santa Clara and Sacramento counties and the Sonoma County Supported Independent Provider program operated by county IHSS staff. Also, we have reviewed the provider support services operated by both Sacramento and Sonoma IHSS staff. 7 a) Registry and Provider Support Activities Q In comparing and contrasting our observations of these other counties' programs, it is clear that basic registry services can be operated successfully under a Public Authority, or through a contract with non-profit social agencies, or directly by County IHS S staff. Each of these counties have adapted their registry services to their chosen organizational model. All of the registries provide the same basic functions: • Ongoing recruitment of prospective IHSS providers • Maintenance of current list of prospective providers • Assessment of providers' skills, abilities, and training needs • Provide for reference checks and review of qualifications • Refer prospective providers to IHSS clients by matching provider profile with clients' needs • Identification of training opportunities in the community for providers In Sacramento and Sonoma counties, the additional provider support activities provided by in- house IHSS staff include the following elements: • Ongoing monitoring of the success of provider/client matches • Assisting IHSS clients in the performance of their employer functions of hiring, scheduling, supervising, and directing providers • Assisting providers in performing their employee functions and obligations • Linking registry services and provider support activities into a working partnership with IHSS social work staff It is our conclusion that for Contra Costa, the successful enhancement of our IHSS program requires the development of both registry and provider support services. Registry services are a first step in addressing the problems encountered by those IHSS clients who are without providers. As a follow on,we believe that there should also be a support system in place to assist providers and clients who need help in maintaining a successful employer/employee relationship. There will usually be a certain proportion of frail,vulnerable or confused IHSS clients who cannot manage their employer relationship with their provider without some outside help. Providers can also benefit from the intermediary assistance of provider support staff to mediate their employee relationship with difficult clients. As Public Authorities are authorized under SB 35 to develop only the registry component for enhancing IHSS (not support services), establishment of a Public Authority in Contra Costa County will not fully address the programmatic and service delivery needs which cannot 8 adequately be met by our current Independent Provider program. We believe that it is necessary to develop provider support services and make them an integral component of our existing service delivery system. b) Program Protocols and Standards Lacking the promulgation of either program or fiscal claiming regulations by CRSS, it has not been possible to develop draft protocols for a projected working relationship and oversight of a Public Authority. However, from our contact with the three operating Public Authorities we are aware of some of the issues which need to be addressed concerning the working relationship between our department and an IHSS Public Authority. These issues include the following: • development of monitoring and/or supervision standards for Public Authority registry operations; • developq%ent of standards and procedures for sharing confidential casework information regarding IHSS clients; • defining how to effectively provide for timely and appropriate-communication between Department social work staff and Public Authority staff regarding IHSS provider needs and problems; • establishing procedures for problem solving and conflict mediation between the Public Authority and IHSS program staff that balances the needs of both IHSS providers and recipients; and, • establishing protocols and procedures for Human Resources/Labor Relations and County Counsel consultation and representation services. c) Consumer and Public Input The Public Authority model provides for consumer input through creation of a governing body with a consumer majority as is done in San Francisco or alternatively with creation of a consumer majority advisory body if the County Board of Supervisors establishes itself as the governing body of the Public Authority as is done in San Mateo and Alameda counties. Given the focus of the Public Authority on registry services and collective bargaining with provider labor representatives, consumer input is necessarily focused on those two aspects of the IHSS program in those throe counties. From our contacts with San Mateo, Alameda, and San Francisco counties, we have observed that they all have been successful in using the Public Authority as a vehicle for bringing consumer and public input into the IHSS program. Also, we have noted that the collective bargaining process that has ensued in Alameda, San Mateo, and San Francisco counties with the union representatives of the providers presents another major complication in this complex network of consumer and public input. The Public Authority takes on a difficult role with its charge to collectively bargain with labor organizations representing the IHSS providers at the same time it seeks to provide for consumer input into the program. Thus, any vehicle for effective consumer and public input regarding the operation of the IHSS program must be able to balance these disparate constituencies in order not to produce a skewed perspective of public or consumer 9 concerns about the program. 3. LEGAL AND LABOR RELATIONS ISSUES Staff have consulted with County Counsel, Human Resources and labor relations stat'r, plus management staff in other counties regarding the legal and labor relations issues connected with establishment of a Public Authority. The issues of concern of which we have been made aware are: a)the legal and organizational status of a Public Authority;b)the legal concerns regarding an alternative contract registry as opposed to a Public Authority; and c)the impact of IHSS provider collective bargaining on labor relations. a) Public Authority Status Under the enabling legislation, counties wishing to establish a Public Authority may establish a consumer majority independent body or designate the County Board of Supervisors as the Public Authority and appoint a consumer advisory committee. San Mateo and Alameda counties have designated the Board of Supervisors as the Public Authority. San Francisco has established an independent Public Authority. Should the Board of Supervisors choose to establish a Public Authority in Contra Costa County, we recommend that the Board designate itself as the Public Authority and not create another agency for four primary reasons. 1)The funding and administrative management of IHSS provider costs will continue to be Social Service Department responsibility. Since the Board of Supervisors will determine funding for the Public Authority, it should not surrender to an independent governmental body the power to determine the amount of funding that will be required. This is of special concern because of the significant additional County costs that will result from any administrative developments, or wage and benefit agreements made by the Public Authority. 2)The Social Service Department will legally be responsible for supervision and direction of the operations and services of the Public Authority. With the Board of Supervisors as the Public Authority, as opposed to an outside governing body, our department will be better able to exercise direct authority over Public Authority staff and IHSS matters for which it bears responsibility. As the Social Service Department must also exercise administrative:oversight over the activities of the Public Authority in such areas as fiscal control, service accountability, corrective actions,etc., it is preferable that this new entity be under-directCounty:control. Also, working under the same governmental entity, Public Authority registry staff and Social Service social wort staff will be better able to work cooperatively to assure that the clients'provider needs are met. 3)The creation of a totally separate governmental agency will entail extra expenses, above the $370,000 in direct costs estimated earlier, if the Public Authority is not able to operate under the administrative umbrella of the Social Service Department. From our review of the free-standing governance structure in San Francisco, we found that the Public Authority would need one additional staff member to focus on separate governance issues. 4)The Board of Supervisors may find it easier to exercise the discretion offered by any sunset clause to terminate the existence of a Public Authority at some future date if the Board itself has 10 been designated as the Public Authority. Abolition of a separate governing body, in all likelihood, may prove to be a politically more difficult task. b) Alternative Registry Option The Public Authority is not the only option available for delivering registry services in an Independent provider IHSS program County Counsel has advised us that registry services may also be provided through a contract with an outside agency thereby maintaining the independence of the employer/employee relationship between IHSS clients and the providers they hire after referral from an outside registry. It is not necessary to take on all of the costs, obligations, and risks of operating a Public Authority in order to provide needed registry services to assist IHSS clients find suitable providers. Moreover, County Counsel has advised us that contracting with an outside agency for registry services, supported by insurance,would additionally insulate the County from tort liability for actions of IHSS providers in a similar fashion to the legislative protection from tort liability offered to Public Authorities in the authorizing legislation. c) Collective Bargaining In San Mateo, San Francisco, and Alameda Counties establishment of a Public Authority has been followed by union representation for IHSS independent providers. The Public Authorities have in turn engaged in collective bargaining in all three counties. In San Francisco,within the first year of establishment of the Public Authority,the county approved a wage increase for which the county is liable for the entire non-Federal share with no State financial participation. San Francisco is currently paying$5.29 per hour to independent providers($.29 above the current minimum wage), which requires the county to spend approximately$1.79 million annually in local general funds to cover their share of these additional costs. The Public Authority has stated that its goal is to increase provider wages to $8.00 per hour plus health care benefits. Also,the San Francisco Public Authority has agreed to an agency shop whereby all independent providers pay union dues, including family member providers. There has been discontent expressed among some family member providers regarding their monthly union dues deduction. In San Mateo County,the Public Authority is considering offering limited health care benefits to certain independent providers under the county s health plan, at a cost of$150 per year per individual, for which there can be no State participation. In Alameda County,under the tentative labor agreement reached through collective bargaining,the Public Authority has agreed to a reopening ctause regarding future wage increases above minimum wage for independent providers. Establishment of a Public Authority in Contra Costa County would make the Public Authority the employer of record for collective bargaining purposes of a unit of approximately 5,000 IHSS independent providers,both family members and non-family member providers, with an annual payroll now exceeding$24,000,000 for both provider wages and benefits. In the opinion of County Counsel and labor relations experts we consulted, the County would be exposed to the full range of collective bargaining obligations regarding public employees under the Meyers- Milias-Brown Act for these independent IHSS providers if we create a Public Authority. The full labor relations implications of such action are unknown at this time, but this change certainly will greatly expand the scope of responsibility of County labor relations staff and consultants. We 11 estimate the additional workload will require the services of at least one additional FTE. The Public Authority will be responsible for implementation of a wage and benefit structure for these 5,000 employees even though the IHSS clients will retain the right to hire and fire their individual providers. This unique employee status for IHSS providers under a Public Authority will necessitate the development of new employer/employee relations policies applicable to their situation. The long range policy ramifications of establishing this unique, untested class of employees are essentially unknown at this time. UPDATE ON IMPROVEMENTS TO CURRENT IHSS SERVICE DELIVERY SYSTEM As per the plan approved by the Board of Supervisors on November 19, 1996, Social Service Department staff are developing a pilot project to offer registry services and provider support p services to help address some of the problems regarding retention of skilled providers for IHSS clients that the public and staff have identified. Also, we are moving forward with actions to offer additional opportunities for consumer and public input regarding IHSS program operations. 1. REGISTRY SERVICES Social Service Department staff are in the process of developing a competitive procurement process to select an outside agency to establish a contract registry for IHSS that can find appropriate Independent Providers for those clients unable to find providers through their own resources. Primary is the development of a registry which will link IHSS clients with Independent Providers whose skill and experience are consistent with each client's service needs. This contract registry will provide the basic registry services identified in our study of registries in the neighboring counties. The services to be provided by the contract registry will include recruitment of providers; maintenance of current lists of providers; assessment of providers' skills, abilities, and training needs; providing for reference checks and review of qualifications; referring prospective providers to clients matched to clients'needs; and identifying training opportunities in the community for providers. Social Service Department will furnish computer hardware and software for operation of the registry. We have budget approval for$50,000 to pilot registry and support services, which when operated via the Social Service Department can qualify for 700/6 Federal/State reimbursement. Therefore, our budget currently includes$15,000 in County funds for this purpose. 2. PROVIDER SUPPORT SERVICES As noted earlier, from our investigation of neighboring counties who offer provider support services as well as registry services, we have determined that registry services alone are not sufficient for meeting the needs of IHSS clients without providers. Thus, Social Service staff are in the process of developing a proposal for a provider support pilot project. The pilot project will add one and one-half FTI;paraprofessional staff; approximately half-time in each region of the S county, to facilitate effective working relationships between IHSS clients and providers where there is a need for third party assistance. We plan to submit our proposal to CDSS for funding consideration. As identified in our review of successful provider support programs in Sonoma and Sacramento counties, the pilot project staff will be responsible for monitoring of client/provider matches; 12 assisting IHSS clients who need help in performing their employer functions; assisting providers who need help in meeting their employee obligations; and linking contract registry services with IHSS social workers. The provider support staff will serve as a critical link among the registry stafL the client, provider, and department social workers. We believe that the provider support staff are the critical linchpin for ensuring the successful implementation of registry services whether under a Public Authority or contractor agency. Following establishment of registry services, spending any additional funds on provider support services, rather than on the additional administrative costs of a Public Authority is our next highest priority for the IHSS program. 3. CONSUMER AND PUBLIC INPUT In the Contra Costa County IHSS program with over 4,100 clients and over 5,000 independent providers, it is a complicated process to develop effective channels for input from consumers, the public, and providers:v However, we have taken a variety of steps in recent years to develop avenues for outside advice regarding the program, including: • Social Service staff have been meeting on a regular basis with the IHSS Task Force consisting of community advocates, providers, union representatives, and program clients for the past four years regarding needed improvements to the program. • With the consolidation of the Area Agency on Aging and Adult Social Services under a single management structure two years ago, the County Advisory Council on Aging has become involved in providing oversight to the IHSS program primarily through the work of its Long Term Care Committee. • Social Service staff are working with an ad hoc Long Term Care Coordinating Committee initiated by the Advisory Council on Aging in 1996 to develop planning recommendations regarding development of a countywide community based long term care system of which IHSS would be key program element. 0 • December 18, 1996 the Social Service Department held a public meeting regarding the development of registry services and the use of new needs assessment guidelines in the IHSS program. Moreover, in the coming 1997-98 fiscal year,we propose to take the following additional steps to enhance consumer and public input for IHSS: • -Social Service staff will recommend to the Advisory Council on Aging that the monthly meetings of its Long Term Care Committee provide the opportunity for hearing ongoing consumer and public concerns about IHSS program operations and that the committee sponsor two public meetings annually regarding the IHSS program seeking to gain public input regarding such issues as the operation of contract registry services, the development of provider support services, and dealing with the impacts of Welfare Reform. • Social Service administrative staff will develop survey instruments and sampling techniques that would offer individual IHSS clients, providers and family members the opportunity to provide structured feedback and comments to the department incorporating these efforts into the existing quality control activities of staff. 13 Y ✓ ✓ Oc°� m N �'t i- Q t* la a e, m LOw�✓ � � � � � � CD91 0 � � d� 5 � � a mN� �m� ;,3a � cmopO;r�3�.p� �co¢ ✓�K 3tV� ° o� � �R,°-cY+pM°•7 Ke ��wW0o °d w 0 C arn � °co Nd0 °" � CO R � oyoc r � ✓ �Ky � P� Ir" p7 S �t� CD 0 Na ° @°m rQ,"`oUvNDCD Q � NN0, N co 10 , ,c io oG � a '° b O M d� p 0 aM� M4 `5Q�N . R �wo� % a / mo � n CD0 CD TDac0 ' ✓ @ � am N � ° N0 ° SNm Npc0 0t O NyD so H V N m o K �O N m Cd .O'tp 0 V-) ; oU^P'.�` d0 p CD m 50 � $ N ° y ° � m ip GSm ¢ 0o P f � oO0 P ' rOP ° NN � v 7 soO, wyco 0 CD K0VD w m� �y jr,vNc�iT K Ov+ �•4 cO 6r K m "'i�' n' m ma mN ✓'� v+ `� 0, � c� V! N p .i c9co C) P. O CD oo { C¢'O� 0 co a ^ � Nco � �� o K@ � p �0 ° oco �y ~ ° gym � qR � � s6y �So .m 10 � G� A° rapc�� mMomo � � a�riN CD cG �P co o � H *p A � � Hv4 7 wGn* ° G � m (0 $•io �G �� ao @tia4 r a M fir-N o e`r<' "� .' W-'°' ,•„w L O; to 0" i m6y G 0 C3� V1 ° G� o_v o coo n cn CDN�� 10.10 046 �'gym 0 '�,"n N � ��i^'� r°+•. S'0 n `�"'7Q"m f CO � �p' oKyN. o o r ° m co '✓ 0 r� OC°' pK �o aNN � l�H •+).Ci Or •�t. " ` t � r R hp's � 0 N �r Cay' r n' ,n (9 '" -� e•r•;. r Q'.. *V -V!� 'OJ vi 0 m o ~5 � O O + ° (9 Oq. R `r ""'.+✓ ✓r� `y "J • O N 7 C1 si m 0d N cno4 ro ° o.•r .o N°"��y O 0 n- �+• 0•�' N t1 N rO °°y Ly CS t0 0 "j' m `i'� "f ".� N ✓' r�O t'� ,.�. w '+ N Y• H.m.°c�, R cd , co �✓f�. p,.,c•,o a° m P H � �Nan N KCtP � mSVP GN•N.9p ` o VD o ° CDm �✓�mo °d H G o ° G ' ° a ✓ K Ny' �'n O O,~•y' 1y ,°•n� �i'�•S 4, O'G WKS Gtq � M ~ 0 Wo Of 7a' ''�m `'o o `T, ''• mO .p �� " °' two y Q° r� `• CO CD yds ° o Es o� cwno O Go � ��� m cnto " Cb Goy o „ 0p � p ° ° N � ccfo� NQmN � �o "'N �r@r o Q npp� s VD a90P N°rn•. w�✓oM yoKpp 4 � W�N pNw° Q. 5Go,d �' o0 CO � CO N. rO T 0 CD VI N �1✓�o0 0 @ pt N D 0 � µ M 1P G1 w w W w W w w to " to to h7 " to " rr rr CA O Co W -.1 0 Cn ,P W tO r O CD 03 -,10) UC ,P W to r O Co Cb J m CIC ,P W for O Co 00 •J O) CR ,A. W N r a • N -n w o w o o p- o 0 0 o �* w 'n G � . cD -n 0 C�o o Cp N »,CD ° w b ga w .G G v y 'C} ^ 'f!' N. CL N rt �,W ` Cb WO `q CG ^ rte ^ opwp to H CC N !(yD aro Cr< CO o N M n p- N $ 0 0 G � CD(Z " CD b Cvj• O to ,`� o y T0. M tz N,G.y 9 �. H v w G ° ap. �v A.v .-$. � oaa � m roID - 0 ,< CDww G�CD pw > o0CD : rny . ^ ° trJ .-� � ry N w ,� H � G p CD (D� rt (D ,< r..> 0 Ll-�Ogro 's .wj y . .`G w y r'Y O y Cn CD y y' rt .�••�� ICDn V y "t,O G D O p (D D N �"O D a.'Y.°+i I 'T 0 � w HO , (D ro,CD C o�w`J-•O y w p'w�y,��rt"''Chn O m 0 O '0'� 0 .7 CD rt � O"ty.� � w � 0 � ,� CD . (D CD p CD n O N P' O-rGr w .7 O CD m "„ H ^ p ''1' w rt`G 0 0 CD N 0 -0 G "'�ry. r0j CD Q•• Q �p W {bCD CD O 0 NO N N ro N aqq M a-N .'D 0 R D'• ,0 0 CD .a CD (D rt 0 CD N ro C w Q•N � .a :r1.Jrt.CD � X <� CD OQ �'. O ^ CD °h CD CD O `G ", d ro o y N N ry' �C O N ti o'T .=. H .7`rr w CD CD CD 0 CD Q.h Q. G M w W G ID C .Gi• N CD N < G ON y O CD 0 C rtT�O CL SD CN :3 n' .°j 'OJ w N SD CD CD O C) 'b G 0 0 0 ° CD ""t O`C tr N =' N CD 0 G ID�y iA bO P N rt rt P.rt "'� N y' (D HO O °�• C' 0 Vn O O ° `�' °�. C7 CD 0_ CDN 0...H "M7 0 rt w "�'0 o a 0 0 CD 0 0 0 0 0 '.tr y CD `G y CD, Cb rt n ti y a CD : �' W 0❑ < n 'tea' -- 0 ' rt 0 CL a Gro H ,.., P w G N `.3 h 0 `G w (D C 0 CS' y 0 a. P± 0 o G 0 p' CCD SD by G ° (H O. N �O ti Q,CD Lo tl 0 p-G m o (D rL CL N � N 'b O" .0 T N G N ,�`f' oq Oq:j OQO tV y- C.OQ ,..' w N w CD P+ 0 0 0 y w 'O .ry Cr N M N m0 w 0 M rt CD 0 G TCD .T'7 Cn.� CD - y T M �'O .YOq n O fJ t.. T r O T 7 �+•.rt < Ll- CCD. R N Cp wm 0 w 'O w CD .q w G'w1 UTl 'Y w CD CDlab Gi a•G �" N Dl CD. 0 H.M N .JT-�, -0 W (D Q.`CP `.'Ty CD .EL G - r P. � m �. w w B N b G•'O y �. R. •o _ '0 CD D �•ccoCD Wo ro CD � � ro � �� � � � b � . . 0 o � n K < CD" 'o '.i� p, < ° T H 0 $. �j .~.. N w H G (?• O„N O y N M O ° W s- o ^n rt nw..V' G `G �- a, ,•� sn `HG ° 0 �CD CD �Q- �`•wC � Cv Cho a 0 °,CD m W Cr11 0 . 0 0 CD w ° o n'CD °,�." 0 ,P W a to W co W W co coto W W CD[�' V W fn.� to Gi to 1�-� O co w -4 w UD� w to I~-�'o cp w J m m a.C.D to ,-•. _.`._ CD p in H-CD o. y 0� R GpCN Hm'Cr Jrta aG. -w � roa`-Cpr .b�CLO ' n 0GGOw ° ° y ° - 60 CD w� a' ro 'Cl CD .q ro ;oCD 'O ° 0 CD 0. yyCOq 00 ° ayNv° C ~ O oy • ° a HpCDD coO wN00 q � CDro > yOD 'O U- CLCD ° " G .< T < CD OT !p!pHPPrNyyr O O�..0 CD �" (D G S7•'J .`�{ CD O ,r." y ' rCy p a.CD O fp q 'b p O.° N N N 'G co t:t) pwq - �. '� rCy T ro cD P-0 ° CD G [r .t • o .C� y T o CD `G Cb G w w 't CCD 0 o N< 00 oqq tr CD 0 0 a-HHD y G 0 CD CD 0 w 'J C W �' a ro - ti H ro. rti-° ° m O CD (D fD. CD Cr G T 'J' 'O �'�• y. .y. O H CD O N O. `a rOr ° 0 ti OH (MV .5- ,'Y'� ° xro ro C W " y .:.'O CD Cr" `'� w_ .oi .7 Cp ,-n° N O �T w p'O C CD Cb rl'. t.- CD vTi CD N p m G rr `-Ovro PCD w H .y O O •�-*, u' w Y - 0 y Z`-. � (D ,b y. D H O G G G � � p � H r o °^o o 0� o< CD G � rt. W CD SD � � y CA R O ,y' rCDj y K 'xro H b o O p«D ,C• ..• p N p Q.OHw ,(Dy H Op y N O T P-H y '�' '.T O'b $ fD w " N G O C.f N ro 0 Wr �E 0'N CD r'-r W 0 a:O< 0 N w. ' y' �0, 0 w m y 0 0 k�1 rt y rt m O H �r.fD 0-�-••rt`C ^ ' .'3 !CyyD CD H 'may � O N r. � OQ � � 0 C, $ H QCL . (D 0 T < so `�. $ CCD O 0 n CNN H �� �CD 0F. R. "a'G `C Oq ." � w 0 U-� O C ChDCD CD 0°C-.° CC a ''"7' O '�OG ° CDi .Ci rwr ,° rr-n O 0 OU N U-CD CND O CD 010 /�r� w — Rptj 0 `D, �. �' 0 S cPD y�00 m x CD woP.CD wwp a��a° ° o o Q - 0 w Cb1�1 Co C�Cb COD �' rt P.a H N P N <, m N a r CDD , `i o yip a 0 0 0 �OQ CD ° �°+a . ° o •'_ ,T p �'wdya°.1. 00 00 : , 0G 'w0 mTti, a-�bmpproH ° �. Cb 0 O` b CD 0 �'P'y 'J-N O(fGq ryr •-• • n o -n 0 '�N a. o rOr N p CD ,<°-. H a CL O .°� ° cn O n 5 <- H '.°3 ty �.v .Oo• N� ..7 (7 W 'O. .?'O T (C 'G 0 'CS O G OH•,C7 v "Oi b7 � O 0 (k p .'0. 0 .'1 0 ' . 00-o Er Z:r W W. W 0 w Gp �R y0 o„"OJ' CD cr co Oq Ham .rOq »,:°CD w '-� 0 �R•CD —0 �'i 0 N 0 0 0 0 a CD H,w CD �-n CD ov m rn O D.� to to m IgL w to O c�O OD J 0) �' W to C) fD m ~3 O) CCA ~A. W t �~-' O co OD J 0) CA . w to .-• (n ° e �.. rN0 y"'• m Op . 5Om`5 op�� m a( dC �^�Q..mC °f' aQoS`' m°`�m' b amn.tiR .� :� ( co o. or'J`.�4Ci i �^ n ^ Ttn r C -�(D y. tinti 41. G° ° �� � m DO ° o� S °o ° o 0 � 0C7,om� � c �ac D z 4 � b ( ( bt21� `dId5. cD 0Coy � CQ ( oomco S'O D yn oCDCoa � G » < ZpLOCD tr Cb Cb ti� Gb ` ° ayp Tro ° o» m °° ntibb0 �. m5c� ' cumo oo m $ti � " p 0O » V cm �O G ? OC o-Lob u)c Al O b Oc w Q GO ` � O . p ° Cr m p p CD 0 `DCo0o � � DC0 % � y rt • pGtiMO 5 D ? O(D R• r +, ° oO • CD Y yts . 0w o . m � Caa,„ N � OCD ID GGCocD � 4 ro lb Cb oa ° p a O � Cl' CD Ronrt h t5O 4Q3 ` O fC " � GNy Oytam � N3N p N p CrCrR C (TDNS. 00 ° y0 MN ” �? ,cTR.� R.� S- 5. 0 .� 0s{n' cb tio.,•o- F. Fn N CO y .0-1 N CD N . ... N R. O CL to CD Gj (D b 'C b O R O R ti c i co N m ° ro roro fD [� yb 0 4 q y m O " ��. p •-- C + Gw 6 NOoCL 0 mS Cb hticDm. b � m n rt T P- C 0 � CY. � ':T'w N � A �. .0.1 R..T'(D ° O [S„LTC y � �' S {y (D pQ p cy+ 'T O (D N " CD a n p ... °•N OQ �C {�,� .c O .a. L7' � r. ..1 m OR `t b o b o c ro a `o' c °' oc . moo �o,mG. � C: () cpq�� �oyo ` z , P3to � ' `e co of 0 ^! n xts b ny c.f ° m° 5 M4 841 o o tiy�D5 5 C rn i ti ° y ,o.. .Ony. rtZF-OJ K G 'r t• rt G n nJ• (D p b r 2• �i Rs '�,,, h �' CD O.P h ti oc �' m ti Q.x. a 0m co w c < a R r. cn m y ti,� . 5 y y ti � m � ro o ccoom•W�70UWc .WP. wNcW-• 00O o91a mUt .AWLO(�+ O ttoo W -40) C~J CA) N ►�+ OcO O1^:7�O7 co .(Dro F ' � •.i :_. ' t. . CA Od o TO O (n N >b ro " n 0.CD c0 to < o° tioo o ° ov taC,3 0• c �o m co � c o P, p,m ley' p.$.'m •� K v'0 co l< C�m' _ o � � m � O.b Q'o v � o^• ti Gtr,,G7y co oy o� oc 'G �. m n LT ro G n o pq :�G � o p N C'T O 0..0' CD .7'? o N O• n� W " `< �, n rt CD G T Q, • O O G O G (D O `< n O O DO Tb 10 oro CYN Om ` Gp "��a. •.. Q.F " 0 .Gt Oro rt `c (D NG "a DAG 0 O O W tin OO p W.rt On W ,T.. CD N O Op W `G E O.O n ,tCD pG� (0 ,< CD W m p y " N ro Es �� T ro xro aDn rt 0 y p, ,Cr �' rt rt O n (D < 0 er p p O O O (D pG� CL rt, O rp y so co �y rK-3 O o 'O_ •rNr O C:rN Ohl `< N N pp rt rt '.]7 d.`� f .7 '.r7• .'�.+T rt Cr•ny K G C N CD y .7'- 'L�y rt ro '*+ CD io oJrt No 00 Nmwoaa ° o «1 `J (D ,y. (N� ,y 0. 0 .-. ,..'`< '� tD p non G p n .•-' '.� t' v+ 'i-7 CD N n T T'NDaJ �",� ka'G��'N',`S+TF.• "Y 0Y -Y O`Qn D �' N o rGm IQYCnD NGa ronM G'T } ° CD CD � �;o OQro °10 tD TN Tn ° ro 0 t1 ) O CD mmCD roO YN G O ' O ' OcD ° GTO OCD O OJp0 � "o oho �yN 7 Qn D o ! 11 .7 p a . roO ° CD 00Op; Wry D T G (D — 0q-ODC ° D % OO O O D D O 10 CD �� CD O.: lo o 0o � ✓ D � '(DCO N D 0 ' N o Q 0, rt p D O N 0Oo W. rp < CD � � E DopoNomco c:aG ^ '3 G " to 0 O" Go :; o° �1 woo•o . (n (D n , rop ° a ° �m0 P M m O ,� o oCD �• aro QG5 D M O :T 0 N CnOQ 10 p CD P, 10 Nn nCr OD� J ( � CD 0M - N NcD D0 < D C3• O Cotmot�o r � rrr rr r r O CD 00 1 (3) C l C.) to r O CO (b 1 0) O( ,t. W N r O co M 1 M CR W LO r O CD 00 -4 0) CR ,A. W to cncn 6•10 'T M N 0 CD Cn :� D) G 0 - 0 m CD T ° 'a W rr N G m O Cr 0ti �•!o, �py7 n' " O w "qz CD a ` � CD 000 (.M ry � � 0w OaW � c 00 TO 'd o .°r ` c p'Oq w G N g�i N S. rt m p r0 �] b.�,'� o n fOQ y ti C CD � m � TG 0 Chow : tr m ' o T(D (Dtiww ° Tm " yCL P, yCO G o ? � o �`< oc�Op � GT 5. 0 CD C; ocbbm `DCb� o ° yO.« orn * f0 oQ Cp Lx' � ti w k rt ...` :. a A .wr C.('Q C CD C .7 O 't`'' `y'' T • {`J{nn !. rwr oQ '* ti y. x '-•H T CD w c("'D G O O E F C T ti T b h T ° ... T �° � d a 0 a_ y O'O '.� .0.. P) t1..< v) �", ", W rr a'CD '[ O9 ff iJ" .v O �''b o R,G .q rCr m 'S N 0 ° 0 O p �L � G CD O.ry in T *"(D 0 � z��(yD 00 N COii 'YJ' 0 w rt N < a-OQ o rt CD ")L A 0 " (DD °�Ky N T y (D (� $ CD r°r ."r CD p �Gr my m OQ `J'G (�`r ,7, O (�0 w m C (D m p 4.y cDro ° ahCD .70 0 G. O O C �) w aro ° ^' N'.°1 N 5 0 ° (OD ° c0i 0 '.T b �. o bCY' , CL rt ("D �) K C3 CDCD fT CD CmirtrnCto FpT � � y � QpQ,,. o0 o ao CD, U CYO W T O rtJ ° N .y 0 00) w 0 m G Q b0 O ti {n (D o°y pr.. .� tr � P Cn w o SD M G ,D'V- o � � O G `� �. `'Zfi cr m 4'b O 0 •- . a:O K O ° 'd CD p�cr � �. n� CD �� � T � 'b o� C`(D c my �,„G,( " �,lo m 0o CD oro " T < GCD r < ¢ �y oma m. ° co`cC`S �*b bDomp w pp�� O a,crop W - N N Co O 0 M 'U C) ,`t�* C) bww C o o m o 0 CD y co '* ° "rt`h ty WMA w T T K G 0 .' C " 0 Er 0 0 < wO O rt ° " m W-30 r CD `T `J y [.tit�, p m oQ p Cm w " m m G �C ° why m ° � (`Ci' � c CD o �.�ro v (:! 0 0.�:r — K o °yb TV % o y o No c� G 'YJ. rt 0 'C("rtD ''� b < n• ° y $ C N y 0 "• G "J'p'. �rt 1 — ty.P- "�. 0 .y ."Q " {pa m w 0. .a �0 w m t1 uCi 0 . yi C n CD- 0 tLoq TG uAi'n (D0 °t 5 (4.C'� (yD � COn � `), W O g co W W W W W W W W W to to to tor r f. r•r r.�-+ 't+.i-+ �--' ' .= -�,:: --... O CD w 1 W.CR ,P. W N r O CD 00 1 0) O co w 1 m 0C atl W N r O tD OD -4 W.CA 'P. W to . (nti p " a " 0 nitro rt •- d dno'9,bp`.(. P� O.oO. Qgyd �m '9CcOD� m 0 (D m G 0 m o,CD "ww m m 0 .,o o 0 CL CD `"o ( " rt, " oQ Wo (DyaGQ000 czo ;D 00 ba30 � a � r) smw roo¢ p� roQ to n � '. w CrtCD cn w tm a rL y ym KAzm ~ 0 m�003 U0OQ AO O °C. ✓ O ` � tv :j C - m co (b yD (D 0 `< rom O 0 0 a K O • ` 0 m en a y CD ` M � �w "°,3 CD 10 � )O y 0 It. w 0 � w K (D 0 w0 0 �ro 9 w 0 w G . CD ��S'.� r+i.°.y b'o vo' a o CD a. pa � d �0 m =:— m T'� � � dip ow- w ao 0 C7tr m - (D (D 0 Gro m " < Cr 0 m 0 0 n CD yy w yu O) �� 0 o 0 Co T w w N 0 m m `< n' r'7 •h m N " P m R m �* < m ro m w Cmii n'ro I co 'y W`�O tea' � 0 tr y OQ m 0 '�' G 0 p 5r O n 5 W G '"U'CD CDa_ (D W N o'er '°J N N K T U-> m p :� 0 cmyn ("D rT W W to W " o)b :� rr)CCD rt Or'"- b w�rOty (° G �r 0< ry CD 0 A. �r'�-r W Fn m � y°,A (. aw 0 Gw CD't GCT WW 0 ° o " o vyo CD CCD `< w o • rto 0, 0oC , ",o 0 a5 CR W ,Oro "' 0 G C 5 OCL0 0 y m w a C aCD 0 -� N rt N 0 -`J'" y YG S. rot* ° CD L�jo • " wo omG " d ¢ o . 5m tir-rT om m y �' C'. rt'� O CD �7 � co rt < rz� ~� C "CD '.�7. 0 0 ��w� ���w �""�'• Q,m DO) '°J ° C CD `Crt (D `�J '� M W°7 N ro" VJ Y ° .7 CD N CD m r (7 W m fY< 0 oQ ti G G w m •D 'A. < Co T O m m m f o:by [�'. Oq O .J�,ro yrt m m C7 O .-. 0 .<. 0 'J pj .rt. . CD 0 ' w G. Q.b o - �: (mi. ° y CD o,woy $ m0!-�iL0ywCD0 D' oao� 0'0 ID En .'1 CD `G? �. - m CD 'U ��+N O"' rr 0 m b'.7 KJ O"'�-+ `< w 0 �~+ aq W. " m m W'J by _ tL rn •- rt D o my t1 " G (D { p) R. " O H '-' W m o R-P•G a it on � o ° �° "* 5' � x � r�' w tx (Gipwoow0 0 oho m .`� rt . w on y �0 S' rt,m rOQ CD m .'P' CD "-"O CD r CL`< co VC " CD C m t . r N N N " co W -10 (" .C• W to 0 c Oo 4 PL W h7r000 W y (P O( �p W [.fir Oc0 (b �l Cn Cn ,P W lOr U) o a00 0,�. o CC d chD ebb m h 4 44o T "4 Tm m' N p cn H p a� (n CD ° � ash � °, (D b p < �• a-0S Cb ` j �4.m tD ti �° ^0.co g ro CO CD CDp �� wco" C5 n n cn R 5 2D �3 ° ' m m m ',c �° w w C7ro wm Go � rtwrn - o Khco cb o o � m �too 1 � . � y� (b(b 0 � � w, y n b o CD Pp n w ` 'y - N O .. h ° .m.' 'a . tmj ^' m N Cb '•t (D'�. O O R 'C-'. LT`C O (D .wj 04 N °�,<,,. O N H� p� O ''�O' '.' t` �D C ❑ (D Cl F ,y C m ''i C N •,� �• cp T N p ° pomp g bh � cp . ob � 4F rn CD T CD Q." '� T �• CCL CD CD ".7 (D �.d ,�, F 4 0 ,y b• ;* C 'O 'U CS y (D (b °, N " b N CLCb N� O y '�• �C (ti0 5• • (D �'�h (D 5 ,'t E5-t3 n C W�O W CD pOi C/)SD Tt-. Or� N (D ° CD C7 O' 'd OQ W .�" 4 r,. '•r �.b m b h CD '0 �'T '•' P ° < N '� R .T O3 Y Q v ,am ° ° '� ti y °.,4 O y m P ,y Cb Diq c P,( rim w.- vTi �.. O h fD �a'�C� .h.' .�T'C h� '.°� CC y �,?' (b 'waR.'to �� '.] to I" ' `G .wry N O W z) n(hD fD p`. t ti h }`'u7 'LJ�. W 'Cy 5 Q. �7 O' O m� '�J y � N ^CD O aXax * "'m yah" a°5RR {{ppbry �GybtiCCw R � Rn .p' rroo :•.co ,.,, T w � ° w �•. .,. i.,, (D O P�aD w. 'J '°, .T n 'T O. F n: n O �a O PWS .Ot o � c `< °-op om0 co � o b `5Cw `cv t, lb ,% lb t3o,,,�,CR G � � .O ^' Q.m ti' C q CD b iJ'• 4 ti O J `' R '.Rl`h m- O ^ (D cDacDox °r � :; n ri4� b °. go r % 9L%-,a � C 4 cDch ' ` Qtr- .0 -T (Do 6 T m O „�. o tb ._ fit p ccb ' C � y �• m.4 �,c b C o ° ' 'b x(D o w �. b o b k m cb �: $ (D rt °• ".1 a, C M w �C F •�'>b ° .•n C' ... h. `I. CD O"n .y"^' .1 T OQX 7CD � 'CD m cSnm °, o`Wo . f` Cm0' tiDo yam rop° p. < � n y � nmym tioy.y CC4 �m � c $ ti ', ro 'wF rt`<. to tz D CD, o" o -.o .y .b ioo cCu' o °-� C` n, (`D0o.bo v"�p ?ycw�oT.'.w'.( .CD f CDOQ - .n; =--q ((D Q. Q.$,�m (b 5 m rn rn`c�D' 4:C.w n ti °,.wpm r wwwwwwwwc) toro �n �� � ��� riavcawtra�o (cw ;'IC nawiar oo-40cn p. wtoHo torn H . :.: .. rwq o (D A ~ _CD (D ^rQ i7 _ O w CD P' In,O ri' (D ( V o d C G c min w �. CD x' 0 P, .7'CD w. .7 pt w rt T tj CD CL N .4. ''�' co R'n w 1Y 0� (p " C CD S5 0 CDCD r- T•Mg. 0 ' w - Z CD p CD O N ,'NOi < v(TD m`e O H a 0 ' y (TD O.(Dj Mp C1 .0 ro PO n W '• '7 CD m �CD wCD p b � W T .. .k OC CD N �C lTA N (D `c`�'. w -J P+N O W W W w W W W N [[..� N N N [� t� O (~D W J Cr1I W [7 p (O 07 N U I 'p.W N r Ocp OJ �Im CA �P W Nr OCD O] �701a. CJ _ p cb G � � Q b 0,3q Q, n b m ° p . ti. tLi gFto rs t3-0�5tio �, w CA AS Cbcb co CL b E m o ro I i dh W o� Cb � b q.m �. 5 m ao `DCL b° � m . `' m �'DRbc ltib fit r : o� . C4, `s �' . h yob (b (b Cb � t SP - it tt, -- — _ _ _ti:< J+. W W W co W W W W W W N N N N N �--� .1--�r r•+f+ �-- F+ H�'.. i ...� ,r.=,. _. . O cD OD •3 O�Ut 'A. WNrO.O 8M Cn W [.�.r Oc0 O�3O� Crt'Ja'WNrO�OW� O)tn 'pW [� r . ... _ , t3 t3 „ ° lij cgNro' mt�' nmb � Cnti� b ' cootialb^ m q t3- t3 k On CD � �Q (D y 5 ti O O b (D QCD (b ' •tHb� .. (bD ti. O ~ f�C1. {spy {f�QCbI� m c3 • m o `"° rn`o" 'gyp (�� ti °b w ftiE `C h Q y pC lb lb erTTi• NN � O °O �. �'' n '+�b �D �p Op � . Cb rr Q• (D O, b 43 � h 5 oq o q ° m y �. o e tz `',C .• it b tD 4 � Rc~D ^ � 4� yrob o t7 .q L� m C 7 L4 Pl ,WP u o O 0 m J m m ,P. W to I�r O (O w -4 m fly iA W L� 0-(D Co -.1 01 m ,A. W N i-+ O.cO 00 -4O) W 00 . . - .- - -. ., : : - J k-:''4 :.- . . .-- � � '-...+��.X,�-+ ..".' -^r• .lUs.3 .,1 J . . :_- - :--s.*..cKY.:., .s.anar-^S�'�• J+- W W W.W W W W fa co W to ' LO N . . N N1-. o �coo� a�cna ca to ' .- orow �rncn � wto .- oiocoaauLka.wco �-. CR m � to � � � ,P. W W W.W W W W'LW r 0 � � toU)to ~D co JO) C~Jc � W t7 OCD (b �] � Cn �A_W Co �-• O tD W �1 O CJf ,P. W � tz IP Ir F .!w t..: .... �. ^�,��Il�ni��. ..'1 r.'" _.., C-r-r yam`-.. ca w w.W YJ W.w.W to n� [.�"LV.� •�`•i - ' .'�"'• - OW �G� Cn kAWt�t--• O,(D Oo�O � � � r OCD Go-,a 0)vt tP co to C) co co �4 CA pp-,to t+ W ! to till t 00 • l C>W W BD W N N (� N (� N N N r• r r r r r r tQ-r r O -.4l M O� CA �P W Nr OCD O»lp) C,l[ •P W NrOCO 00 .3O Gl W Nr C' CD CO -40) (J[ Nr � W �Na o ^ aCD � m �,b rr aN 0 S. . ry o r co $ W . � . 0WW-WWwCWWWW'WN [o NC�iii 1 a 'f+ C+ f+ HF+ r 3 ?t - coaosrncn,c.w.N �-ocoSo'�b'inn'�_�i �i-o�coo �.rncn .n.wN.-occoo�o�cn �c.•wNr-�-=-�.3 m (bo'� mm = 'om� ti, m $ : m .onti �' C, 'o ~ '� °'� S°,� $ c� $ ° ! Q.'� O C ' C m O (D h ^� �n '� (D '� �, '��,•�(•"p t' . x. ❑ °'h °' •C"n `I ° O �ci.�O {yq �r"`.��.{t,.'' � `��C�"T (D m O �••pCb.� (bD p `yi ��j (D n N '. °j rSl�p hM(p '.?'�a b Q `� rb 0 y a tl ^ t.Q F". ° (D n w s• ' • ° C,) p moti cb °, p ° � '� ' w2obroC5 u 5ti,� o a`emmy° ° co arz Cb% p <� b < ysomWpyS. $ tti, ca� mL 5r m � o °,o Tnb."m�,S Qnb N• p''A 0. O . n W O �n ry (p ..,T ° ° y m t0 F t3 h tt^Tr (D �'(D (D ti b d .T h < (p Q ff . (oti $ S?„r .p ,a0 � .° �, ' h, 0 m n �O •'' ym � mti,ti5C5pp0.�,y�°, ' Cb cc m �Q O•yO OycCb ynC:3 ° 2 b � � n Cb Cb C0.ti y �. . a`< `° � " �• O b5W 5 ¢ � 2 m co°o o � `°' cry o• (In y `C' m m m o o 0.y o y cn �o o F o m CL 0.$ < ti � y10 �•'� "n h' t°o' �n Q. S.�9 �n Q• y�'+ a Q. n �i 1T •'. f<D ° �' .'T'R,Q•O y ° �. (%D (D 4.N C W •'' m y °'"� Q• f. h� ho n4b �q ^' Ham � � � �0. 0.ymocoyomCb �° � °, . � nbo � �arOy � .- ' S R < F. e� $ e c °,�� � ° yo° taa y o 4m�_b -3. (b ° O mb ° p$qb c ti' �a m �. � o O y co $. Sob ^4 : to O (w0 W J OWi CWJI W (C7 1W- O CSD •-3 m� to W N O (O W -,I W CCA �~P. W N �~' O cD 00 •3 O� CR ,(a W to �-• � R O T to 5"y n 44 y r. C b h r. (n n.p. (n y C• m °,(yD `� 00 Cb � ((b i `�• C.,y O•p �i R r. (D p R (D 'J C to 4 C tD `, C w (D (0 C r. h m h ti, (b O� C 'C ``r'• C k'CD rn S R� S hh (QDb y nb (bO!•� �O`'(CDb •'�' 'C•• bn.m S ` m nn (b t3 C NO o � � m h,q � (°D w (b (°D 3 y (°n 3 c o o ° mon (�c�C Cb rz Cb °hq r ',tD co ° �b n 0, Cb R ,3.�p mew Q.to cr.t) �' �O Q �C `y C O �7 b.y.., b�•N y;p .� `--"°•ti tOj�c�j ;� �' T Tcc tioh � cnopO �, � ° co (°gD (13 M (Ci - � o'�. t3 rnC.�h � ti p "� (D y (D ,3 "+,„* R W `' O w'� y O ° y CD r,.`' O n `b R '�,ly.y (b C..CD � � y, n � ° Cl. o ma ; L, N* S °:. c�Cl < y db �• acD ° rn ob m m o' r, CL. Cb `C y n p (D O ,°�• (n ,m"r, hR( p (rj• L Ti y y ',, 2 p h ro b e 5-h b-w �•p (nao 5 Cb m.�,O $ m (Domryry m wo °"�' y $- `•' (D Cb '* C "' '.� `• Cb C n.O `' ° p. (i ° O ❑ (n `y Cb �,� ,.'. h (b w (b (b ° n.°,r. S. 4 p O�(yD m '(' (D y 5 'C''L°'C (D `•~f' S ? `°i 1'Oq rn'S. w (('4n C�y Q.rz O y b CD m h fD �•T w n ° v W t3 n Rl T 4 CD y R C m T (D C �.•. '•, T c �ymyh � oo1.., ° O yCb yy !C (Dpo (CTw ° y `T b � bh cbbo hTRR yh �bhrn R �mcDoc t3 t3 o imo ,y CD (D b m E C' `• y O g (DD4 C)• °q y Cb b h. C7 �O Lf m TT y m. n C`(i T () to 4 fD `• C N' 'h b• y R y h fD h ° n.R. '�` (Cb CD r. (b "'T T (D (D O Cb p• h .03 n, ,.�, y�a (C Cb CD h S S. (D m (] Cb �. (b r y Cb ?•(D ``� C C S. R p� h `?'(D �' .'7 n.h .�?•$_ ° n.n.y CTD CTD ,�, .�.' T. '�•. C C) C mW (�.� (°D h C C~D y COG C yT y '.� O O ° (D (D p'T n.4.CD .3 (D ] (('j h is O cb � 5n � (D (DRa� ° n w.`n° m .b < myo �.a R0. _ b o � ` y .3 ti a (� ry (yD Z. ('•�C `y S, 'y't N O �,''] b 0Z- ln*v M y m SItj Cb O' w q, �',O�(b: O `C1°D O CD C CD k . N C C (D br,.° C CT'* �. :.fD •hb `r'1° `C n.T m b ty„'o '' (b p.'y n. �b R C `�i T T (D `• w 'J T 7 m o o CD C m ,, Cb h 'O, m N n.C O ° p ry (D O Cb h w • R ` (b h '.7 cb n �. n.C h �`�•.T n.(° p^ (n C m (L h (" TC$ m (, � O ° � 5 ° yto on C:`H�oCb rn C,, ,q yCwy moTR Cb Cb . °ytimon ° � e5ym� � a °y � mb o � �~ �� c� hyhb°h �hy < m�m p 3 .wy. t OCG (D' ti h y O .y-' (D w O 'J• b h; R O. �3 O n w ❑ T ,? - Ir-I .�T-o-m O co CA Z O.D 3 .W CCA WLto " 0co Oo �Oca w ca to �iW � W � r O (~00~o�O~i Uc �Wh'1 C~-' 0 CD w-40) Vc, 0 to �a$ ca14 p m 0.. tib <. , a ° y ob ';.� ;- - cDb 5p �° (b w o - o c Sb CL. _ co c _o rn to r- Is,41 o *, '- 0Ci Cb �' '.TC ((b ° (-j V ,•,' W Cb cb 4Z..D•� a�4 �` O C �_ t3 w~tD '.TT�C"D S. Cb p��y CD i' . CD �l�;. ° ° (b `c `C r. b CS n.�t C. (`�• y T °to Cb T G�(�D co tz h n.5 �. :. .?• � S b T p OT R ]T 8 t Cb z Cb 'Cb Cb � ° � o o n � o �CD p 5o `¢ y"cbo c �h , corn ° mmm �g `c o °qhc °' Cb O m h ti 0 4 C ` b ~� m `a° %5 �m °,0 0 0 �°Gp w m ,.�ico� ao (� 0.4T o ° w°jN - Cb ts-oyC t5-C) O, ,,yrn CT c cc"e R`co %. � � y4 ° o �5 �b C,nCL t3 C5 to t3 ° ^ O�GmS or�Lm � y �,(wD ` � rnogy (0.D0.°i �, ( 5 `c to � co° �Cb a� Q `; ~' yTcT � °° p (DC ° yOG ° go R' �ryT���jCDctipaU, p'�cC � Qy.. Q'� .p„p�°i,'hh to CD y ,y y ?a aC3a• S 4.(D (4 t3whD m O 2 Cb(b m ti O, Cn Cb (�.• o ti fD WCb(b Q t3 rn C m r C, WQ. ° y 5 m o � m ° �t b` br. .T•(*a CY , °' ^h m b CD y Cb tr Cb `'• .?T•C r. �. O m (D~' cb• `m' ST^y (D (OD (yb `.to m C h !'p!si� �'�. pCm O CD CD O '.�,y `( O mT 4 c% b U Cb � CD 6 R p Cb C n t3 S• ° CD OQ T rO. p h• (D p ' t?t3 C� bb ED Cl ph CD O �r° o m n (b,b• (D C- h 0 CZ <'�rotn b h cb rn `C y T 1 b -: R yQ t3 5 m h S. CD(aD a•' m ° CD R ` tr Q•o� � ^pioy wpwc• b mTcpGyr Ts(', y' ti m ,n � p 'y+, , (T„ Oo '. rA n.O b• m (D R y. O y �'" ° °•„�. ` C (D,°y '�� (hD '•' CJT,',ra °j SD C'`. T�p ``y-• ym (D (D `mT � � oFoRcy y`°r' nSfD `y° y ooCD nD (b � bo � cm � � a .`°� (D 'JT•`n' O h0 C �. R,m' S O N y° C m n O•° C � �r4 U y � m � �. crncn`° cSnb ° o �-WIM mca c Rnro p� c�a 5. °j, cm ('p D•.�T•C• T C .RT•R O n. C F�,N CD �7 R O RCD R n.`'3 n " (D �r" O °i Cb '� y' O (D p p (D O b p O h �n OG �.(n �C n.y h O '•� Co p RCD h tij (� (.� (� N N N �-• r r �-• r r r r r r cWOw•30) [ww co NrW-� OCNO N3mCNJ1 gyp. W N �-• oto m --I M " 'P W to LOCO W -1m Cn -P W Nr by C4 mymca mbymCbQbmT ° Frno-c t3'`. i cn ry -1 ,� R n0 W . (D (bD W �, (b c, b C ° C b y (� 4,Q Q 0-- m .J. W o 1 Q. 5 0 CA m -. Cr d o ct fi c � , cp• c� N ° o n. o o *�• � n� 5 m ti' y a a cyo �(p Tyc�u p y (D 'a F O m .0 4 y °h (D C y �' y ,.' -. n .`! (D W !� b•4' n h ()h n ti y' y O CNl (D R ' n 'n ,?. Q' ?'y ��-- L07 n '.T m '� M C (b OO fD. ,OJ' o '°J (�D 3 n' k �m w O O CL �,N Cb -9 -1 O � ti C L' C n O ti °j 5 "O 5 ry (b '� mR-� � ti a CT, (D T Z- + ''^Cb Q (Cb (D n O b M �.r, Q CD 6 t3 (b `t h fib' o Q, Q- o q,o ct n `' ` R m m r.L (OD 0 tz, ri.O W' � U p (D OOq h n �� N O o � G.� o y y �D � p'�� �T•(`p' h 'O�i � ��.. cb ti c'ti Z b m y O N �' O %C b t3 co5 °�1 oq ti (CD m (tip `T `y p r ''� (D h ry y ,�," (D C `R y O L% N O y y O C `�' '�' '�] O O `.' 4,.T' "' (D Cl.`p❑ n (D O 1''NLT,Oi, T u. O (Oj % n (D O C. p`y b ml. •�� Qw rn_to� o r b `• m `` 4.-1 CLC-A- ('aR0 m hb 5 t n m m c �. � R .. ti Cm ❑ ti. m m om o m R`hhc ti m n•b.. b (D (D CD �' R. '� ^ O,.4,(D � C �. '.T q.m C ''h'( (R.O„y,�,.S .'�.' LT,n R E. n O to N m m (b C R (b 0 6 y �y O:m T * ti ° R ti y SO' h fyD C Cb C)' C O (b Cb o Q b n.(c 5 �. o m °-b o �o ti F c 4 CL ti R o ° a� o h. o m m Q.0 wo r1,`' S. `; `� ° n y y T � ]%� C,'�tn ° ,Cb 4 o" R o `°ti'. r, m m � ° s' cu o � tiA� rtinyb �b CD m�� m `� n S. " � o b ry' �. h ^' Gti'O (�D ¢ W`Q•to h R, m cb v lb y CS R C n0 W O w. ° p�° CDD Cb O n ((b �'• h •wr '�,] T QT"'O.1 'J R (� d ^' C R CD r'y •ti'T T 5 n (D (D' (�D (yD (D RL Q..'� b '•y o dao cb c�m .. o o m rn m 5 m m ° 4,m cb, D T �' (b y'a 'm ti rn o y (b Cb �. y,s4tiR• ` o �a FaaSy.� Craw � °, �. e S C1� m � b � cj 0 (np Rm to Cb a• � m (cp �:I �.b m o �4' Tcb y w m m mti'. 5 �� � °`, Tr o p.. C) t3 bb-ym (iR RO •) y.. cb CL(b tz b' y Z:T '°'nfD O y 4. W W � O CD (o W W W W W W W W N (� N N U t0 [a L� N N r r.r r.i_• r F-• r r r N x .+'e....-: O (D bo •1 m CA." W N 1--�.0 to OD •J O r O m W •3 m CA �P W N �--� O co W�v O�:G(.r� W N r„L M mD- Cb - bti,b.ciTb (n.' yti � �: ' � � . .4tio . b b Q mob ? 4 y o �� � n co �`r � rn n ° ? � C . � m c ��; ? 5 ti n maCb y `° ti m y c �. (� �. n ` Sb 1zIt, Ttr� b y (i o ` 0' rb r{� C ti a �.y �,< `' n �.b nlb 5 byti 5 ,� :. � �. h 5 � 0 t3' � � °,C Cb yp� 'a .n�� C ^- CD '`' 0 0 O C°i Q; .�. d b (D y �3 Z Cb ''y (p CD (D (D Q tic t"'Cb Cb - O " (D m° � ba C.X. t3 cb4 1 � co 'Da S ^to n � R ()rb � o c oOcrn 'b � Cr 2b Cb (O (°irjncny �p� cow oCo � �b1 lb mtiQ R° " `cq y0 %,q °h5-Cb < m nb m'�� C - Q. (b �.pT..^' w ti. Q C•i• y '- a-- T �. � n.ib RaS CT Cb C, �"aco0p CL ry b' � Ornm (� mm bti Q ti O' (�^' (D ti ,...m Q (D .�- ry /�, !O� "•t3 cb `O n c �y y ti h y y (1 J q y (� _4 R C I-- sy n m � Q 2 1 T (b y {Co CbT tiC 'tin'", t5b'mb � Sp�� NOi'„'`I �, ,T (DyEn lb m O ° �'yC. '� �, (� to •T•Cn • O ,h,. W C y ,.°j 'b •N T r�� rn �C d C �. ,yam..'Z '%y b �C' R b � m n m jO'(^� r. : ?' `t z , 4.L? (p ° .n. (p ° 0 0j (' `C (TD y n CO _ b C' C O o 0 Q4 Cl) ao � ° bco �� Cb t5 p 'Ll o b ° m4� n-ti Lb lb Cb phS � T -1 ci nti' n o< � Rn, y n � 'O �r° y o' o �°, a-.�y '' y m m % co # o &° 5 . n'p`+' ray R,p; rn (b t3 •ti° n �o� cCoCbNt' yp � ntrc ob �(b lz Cbb^ �°�Q � .°ti b ��� o� d (p (D ti. O m b m R c R '•( "`3 $b 'T Cb r (D ao'�y ° m Cb mb `c ° °,°.,av o oq 5 Cb o ti, Qo a c � °5 m m o SCP CNb ^ mCSomtct3o' QSgp a ay �°� c o ornti � � rn � . cpm y � n ~'cti ay ti �.W oom rnmmrnq ti, nm m .- Q y til m R h ti. y ry: R m R ti T T y H R (D (L R T CT m R c y co ti m.Cb m 0.ogq c(b .n. m Q.�,ti(p ;;R, ° o a o ti m to m 4, rn°,�. o N N N N N N 0 tow -4 mCR .4. wto OCD 0) CR 4, W to 5 C W --10) C/( .P W N r Oc0m •.q m 6 .Pw to W to (D 'a+)y S � �O (CD 5 a n C 'p -� O -� C ui ti °Cb 4-. '� C C,. (D ° to to to w b b N v a00 O G _ N ff �. C m a a• C a tr b Ez b C C 4 (�D (D `�(CD c To a-�^m� ti - rL% a ;Q ` ab . @ .,� � o ° cD mob ` ti o' o p k o a G '.RT•n t3 b J n m o n (gyp ^. �' ,T m� '�`'.,((b CL y (Nlb y b. O)`�b°) ,Oy .4�•'R.'y o �oayCb � yayuuy5ywm �' q � � )t3 M(b'I (b � (bmQt3mot'Cb y.m mb y ' O ,D (tiD m C y` C �• �aryRp .O C S "•�o.� 5 ° '.,b � (D a Rn ,ti n cD a n a-�. C �`ci (D ti(b tS ° o d m (D (n C ,,. Q Q a. cb t3 O..cD C 4. y :; ?'a•� p„5 cD (D : � (D N 1m O m C S-m m yp..� n' O..(pm�tb fD C m S t3 n � W `'• `4+ 3' p ((b �^,. ti-(Z' Cb 4,O `' S k c~o m .ti.t3 m R m '°h Ami `Oi a y b .y'l.^M O iz� .� p �. o y °•(D m Cb ro C " �. n �,q'� n w Cb 4.0 .0 ti. ct, Li °•.'Q C n b C('*D T Q'� ccD �'n ti R R tD a'Q. pQ �, y a O (D CL t3 ,R'S.. a+h T ' (D T T r4 MC ''� Cb b `t �.m (D O O• p n y m �b a `' o�t. m �y°y Cb $' S 2.� T� m 0 4.0 tiC(n (aD Rti -- ti R cc a s � F q n o m ^, a C cmc `( o C, 5' m ° tiry � h , T °' (D O ate•cb �.�'T C cmj R 'b .?'4:n ... `Oi O y Q. `<� 0 Q.~'O � T (D CbCL ti Cb C)t3 wata CD t3 R � oay3t* `c � ° CD C3� acorn � .. . � °,0. t3 0 (� °� °`r S rn CD 0 Cb ro 5 �,� �' �n n tya C ] m c �R �b m T (b Q1. t3_lb 1 Q• 5- oym stip bye. 4, pm().� o o 9 Cb o;p ° m° Cb � ycm ^ titiRS ° � �• goob roll, .yS. ary cy44 c 'I (b nom ? ~ � q' `p•Qq (cD (tiD +i09 b 'J-y Q C C 6 ((b `� $ C e (D Q,R'T•y y Cn�• `h k y ^ a (D , n ap °; mai ti Ya ° R (j Crn � � Cm (ni o � (naQnaCb y �jrnmc Cb (b4 Ct. � , �° c (�(ci ° � hmpq, Rffn � OT4m � m 5 r n y 'RT RT•;C O `•+s h �?• '��' (b O O (D (,°D (nD rz ti �.ti (D L°7 :^ G°7 �.r'-* C * q� ., (Dm � ommm w m.ti ,4• ylyj' a'-- ,P w W O WW .NLS N:O FrO'rW WWW W'W N 'Vr�Qr) Cn.-,.h.:Wr Ntr,r{- Of- (O"'W.••'".'�T..�%V`i .P. Wa'-NO.W -4 W G " W NrOO) •'` —" o oqb (D ti'm �.': o C, to b. ay m ti -N C5 o �ti hR-- 0 r n W `� �, p O .. n $ m (D ,C`'L7 (D (0 a (D 3 (D O C -,,$ .'T -. (D O O (D (D a•v. . t3 Cb wn -� 4n � . � m ncD � titi .4 R. � ° o �OCD -�,C y m n.wob m . � b y y y 0.p NC ., to* �� ti � ti ob ... (D (D -( .CD p y c O' ti �- p (D p '�' `• (D : mob' .�''�to t3 � o:a rb � y cPmb° � ° v% o� m �tir ,my � m � Na e0 Col F, acoS. m � mCb a(Dm � .�. eonoi y abo'q �� coa �• OCL 'b0 a Vn ` (baa O aRtiSh �• O ab CDR °atom bye^ �cgnj °doo ° ybM,cb t— � o Raa05 b w°y Cb F ea o c o a 5''o c �a•�h ��a9 m^ (°� °ti o p a o-c n ro m C m F m. b Do CD T (yD Q,a y '', `•. m '•, .. (D R ti (mD'(D u, �•. �.u, p a ^� R n b m a • cD C, 'd ny tip qy Qyn (D F (3, cD (J'` ° y ti? b CGmmw : ^n � mo,ay °,°m 4 y � '� � n t,) Cb mrn (CD n O C•(aD• .?•y O b n (D a C CL C� Cb .. .^. ..' °�.�, n.0 ,.� .-. Cr ° (ZI O b nt�j O �� C P a (�D �• b tr ` oo� C w 'crnm b^ t3 oq o a CDD o , :i°, Z. � y t3 to Lb- Cb y o ° � � � q.rn m^ Cb Cb w a t3- to [.o p �,c�i (D m y u �o ° % m 6 R" �'• (^p a P, (bD a W o am ° tiw n Cb Cq m m a + n e4yo (b tiac cD9 � . . ec NtiC � o m � y �. ° a nab m ,m p.n � a ° �b tDyb � b aot3.atiya' ' `. � °�• m b ° y � ; � (b (b bpccgy. . a.ti o a rn :D til b'6rj CD A y (D (�D b ,a (D b'Z A~i a O•(D O'S. ° Q,R 'tiJ' .'" O " O ''')yy (D a N L, a ym ? R? �� m n O ° O Ci C D O (D ti y y O n o `v a C m d ° O`p n a rn ~ n ry0. t3. to �I- m � o ' rn t:(b �bnRS � � oT (D �,W R.�. ry'bO .°p '� (D Rpq 'b �;(pO �O Cb 'CCb ',° h � O �° � SOT b° o m � mov ° 0 5' ; a ti Soq �° b`' S. ` ('$ o c v, ''+ S ti (b5 �,c a y m y .: a rn F a `'a' n a m m m ti: ° m R C) ,`,`�,a o � b 5 m o o ti m n . �o (o c�b o n r ao may ° pyo � �.°a � tis �,�� ` bmtoty. � y arc ° e. 00 -� ° to 01m5h 55' y °,y5m am °, Rm ° n:mb' ti5 ° rornWam � 5 c .P C.' G.' G' G' w.' CO G' G' COC.' � [� NNNNL� to Lo r rrrr r rrr CD to CP V C ' w W Lir Ot00] •1 (A OI .A W L' r OO W - Im U, iA W L� r O c000_10) O[ .P. W Lor oti N bp°4'.RT'] N 0 iepy a v Wo S 0 q. " oCD w cO � tD N 'S'TO ron GpcD to , ..� � CTCDC ( (D Qt3)� " lCJo < m T y � w � 0 w w� Y yJ w1U N OQ nroNO o •(Dw (p w ✓y ` roT O5 yO`< Ol% OOPO CD . Op 00 " w 0 (D O CDS' Cb J D 5 Cry J j' 3 o U) OCD CD4nH �n ' w ` LZ.(D o C` T "h Q. (D Htip00CD ° mm � � y y� ID a "wRWwO � ? t OCb 0 CD "JO O 4O ((pYN N G - Oy _ Sw �GN ryo O O' J ,' O C �ti3O 10 rt� G � O COD � m � O y y � T0.. .Gy�w•in' 'T� f3..cji " Z O (D :"` � '+�o y 4 N m (� 4 N 4 ti B m h 3 n . CD y O n N Q (n rn p xo 0 O w o. (D T.� (D .^�G p' ,o m m ",� h o0 b (T 0 0 w p P L R O y 0 O m J (R y G n R O R (D CN O 6 r.� T b P m a ro MCD 5CD n 5 0CD000y x bm (O C7) (D y (D r (D O CD �,O H O T A O O CD (D `J y. t3 CD (CD m w a d 5 < ° w o y w T S rt y w vp H O n m 1 0 ° y n o w TL.7 0 p G' 5b RR CD rn '-'M CCD < W '.r (D T .q O G.,W O y y w T C`D.O (D o < 0 Cb t3 CD p - •. < p oa w CD CD ti o: .,�4.�a O CD b y �� O '.7 P' h O CD CD FD k p P+m O a'.3 rn W Cb C ? �'(D CCD R i6 NmG G0 (D �yday ° paoon T000m ¢¢� wC ° w Cb (p 5. .. Cl.Y N .. - G C r ° to y, 0 CD »' R. ?" A C b - fRD (D j3,ti (D w o w.w qe Lo� Gi CL y o G' w_o m oyy o_ R 5 c ti ' n o r CD O R+ 'r,�-' W C ti `W,".� "'�. '-' O tiz VD :I - �..^ CD p3 C.O OJ ' • -mT , .OoOOp OGGoOCw o n OnN � � m `O M CD (°'..; P- w y �: m y „�" C CnWw'WCowofc� towti [a Lo [o"•L� L� L� L�istoto (•0 -1 wHL pt q .. O (O (buO' fn tP. WLa .+ OtD �(A VtC.aL.'1 .- OtD 00 -1 (A C7t �. W � tr OCO (b-Z � � � toC. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE DESIGNATION OF THE PUBLIC AUTHORITY FOR IN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES The Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa ordains as follows: SECTION I: PUBLIC AUTHORITY FOR IN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES Section 1. DESIGNATION OF PUBLIC AUTHORITY. Pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code Section 12301.6,the Board of Supervisors hereby establishes a public authority to provide for the delivery of in-home supportive services. The Board of Supervisors hereby designates itself as the governing body of the public authority. Section 2. ADVISORY COMMITTEE. The Advisory Committee shall consist of not more than 1 I members of whom at least 50 percent shall be individuals who are current or past users of personal assistance services paid for through public or private funds or are recipients of services under Article 7, Chapter 3, Part 3, Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code (section 12300 et seq.). There exists in the County an In Home Support Services Task Force. Prior to selecting the members of this Advisory Committee, this Board shall solicit recommendations from the IHSS Task Force, and conduct a fair and open process that includes the provision of reasonable, written notice to, and a reasonable response time by, members of the general public and interested persons and organizations. Section 3. POLICY STATEMENTS. 1. Neither the establishment of the public authority nor the application of the Government Code section 3500 et seq. shall replace or diminish the consumers' rights to select, direct, hire and dismiss their in-home workers. 2. Nothing in these enumerated powers shall be construed to alter, require the alteration of, or interfere with the state's payroll system and other provisions of Section 12302.2 of the Welfare and Institutions Code for independent providers of IHSS, or to affect the state's responsibilities with respect to unemployment insurance, or workers' compensation for providers of IHSS. 3. In adopting this Chapter,the Board recognizes that the funding of IHSS is the product of a complex relationship of federal, state and County financing, and that the ability of the Authority to operate and to negotiate wages and benefits of the providers of IHSS is contingent upon the availability of adequate funding from all sources. Nothing in this Chapter is intended to require the County to appropriate any funds for the operation of the Authority or for payment of wages or benefits to providers of IHSS. V �-I 4. The total of all operating costs, wages and benefits proposed or established by the Authority must be consistent with the provisions of the final County budget. The Authority may not establish a payment rate that includes the costs of wages, benefits and operation until the governing body of the Authority makes a finding that the funds necessary for payment of that rate are legally available. 5. Services shall not be reduced in order to fund the public authority or the implementation of Government Code Section 3500 et seq. 6. In-home workers shall be entitled to all of the rights conferred upon them by the Meyers- Milias-Brown Act(Government Code section 3500 et seq.), including the right to be represented in their employment relationships with the public authority with regard to job security. Section 4. SUNSET PROVISION The provisions of this ordinance shall expire on the day two years following the date that the ordinance takes effect. At such a time, the Board of Supervisors shall vote whether or not to continue the ordinance or an amended version thereof. SECTION II This ordinance shall take effect and be in force 30 days from and after the date of passage, and before the expiration of 15 days after its passage, shall be published once with the names of the members voting for and against same in a newspaper published in the said County of Contra Costa. Adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa, State of California, on this day of by the following called vote: AYES: Supervisors NOES: Supervisors EXCUSED: Supervisors Dr. Jeff Smith, President of the Board of Supervisors, County of Contra Costa, State of California 02-19-1997 04:18PM FROM 5000Q0000C TO 12135(311469 P.01 i COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL �, 646 HALL OF ADMINISTRATION � ;' Syr 500 WEST TEMPLEE STREET • LOS ANGELS, CALIFORNIA 90012 • 974-1801 DE WITT W.CLINYON. COUNTY COVNSCL Honorable Board of Supervisors 383 Kenneth Hahn Haft of Administration Los Angeles, California 90012 Re: Public Authority for In Home Supportive Services Dear Supervisors: In connection with establishing a public authority to provide In Home Supportive Services VIHSSR) in this County, we have been asked the questions set forth below. 1) Can the County create an employer of record through a public authority without additional County costs by requiring the authority to conduct its operations, Including labor negotiations, within the limits of Identified and available funding? Yes. 2) Do the ordinances in other counties provide limitations on financial liability? Yes, in three of four cases. 3) if a public authority is created, at what point in time will it become the employer of record of the providers and be required to engage in collective bargaining? On the effective date of the establishing ordinance. 4) Is a public authority obliged to grant wages and benefits equivalent to those of County employees? if funding is secured for wage and benefit increases for providers would the public authority have to agree to those increases? No and no. 5)Would a public authority jeopardize the independent provider mode of service delivery to recipients? No. 1 02-19-1997 04:19PM FROM XXXXX)O= TO 12135811469 P.02 Honorable Board of Supervisors Page 2 6) If the County experiments with the registry or provides training to providers, will it risk being deemed the employer of the providers? Yes. 7) Does the statute allowing the creation of a public authority fully protect the County from tort liability? Yes, generally. i 8) Is there a way for the County to provide a good registry program by contract that would protect the County from tort liability? Only partially. Our views on these issues are further summarized below. The ordinance creating the public authority could establish fiscal constraints requiring it to operate within the limits of available funding. ! Several counties have established public authorities with ordinance language designed to limit financial liability. By the terms of the authorizing statute, the public authority is an employer of record of the providers. Thus, it is such upon the effective date of the establishing ordinance. However, as a practical matter, once a public authority is created and its governing body designated, it would require a reasonable period of time to prepare a budget and hire or contract staff. Thereafter, the public authority should be prepared to assume all of the responsibilities delineated in the statute including Its responsibilities to adopt an employee relations policy and otherwise meet its obligations as an employer of record. The public authority is not required to agree to wages and benefits equivalent to those of County employees. It is not required to agree to any specific wages or benefits, and following good faith bargaining could, upon impasse, unilaterally fix the terms of employment for the next budget year-Without union agreement The ordinance establishing the public authority could prohibit the public authority from exceeding available funding. It could require that any wage or benefit agreements must be conditioned upon added non-County ! funds, and it could otherwise restrict the public authority's contracting and spending powers to provide that the County's fiscal exposure would be i what is otherwise established under state law. i I 02-19-1997 04.19PM FROM X000009000 TO 12135811469 P.03 'D•q Honorable Board of Supervisors Page 3 I i The statute expressly provides that IHSS recipients will retain the right to hire, fire and supervise their providers — thus preserving the so- called independent provider mode. A previous court ruling, affirmed by the Court of Appeal, held that for purposes of collective bargaining, the County was not the employer of iHSS providers under the current mode of operation. However, if the County directly (as opposed to through the special statutory mechanism of the public authority) exerts greater control over the providers, it will risk being found to be the employer in any new litigation. i The statute provides the County and the state broad immunity from liability resulting from implementation of the public authority statute and states that any obligation of the public authority whether statutory, contractual, or otherwise shall not be the obligation of the County or state. However, since the public authority funding will be limited, a requirement I that it maintain liability insurance at appropriate levels would serve to protect against potential court determination holding the County or state i liable for tort judgments against the public authority if the public authority is unable to pay. The County could contract for the service of maintaining a registry and require the contractor to assume liability associated with maintaining the registry. However, the cost of Insurance and a judgment in excess of the contractor's insurance might have to be paid for by the County. Additionally, depending upon how actively the County and its contract registry agent managed the providers, such an arrangement could j jeopardize the Court of Appeal decision regarding employer status. The ' public authority mode with its express statutory immunity would appear to provide the County greater protection. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS IHSS are specific personal and domestic care services provided to the aged, blind and disabled who can neither perform the services themselves nor safely remain at home without the services. The program is funded through federal, state and County participation. The County j administers the program locally as required by law. I 02-19-1997 04:20PM FROM >000000= TO 12135811469 P.04 Honorable Board of Supervisors I Page 4 The County may deliver services under the IHSS program by hiring personnel, by contracting for the services, or by directing payment to the recipients or providers for the purchase of services. (Welfare and Institutions Code f°WICI §§12302 and 122302.2)The County operates under the third alternative and directs payments to the providers. The County may not compel the recipient to employ a specific provider but must assist in finding one if the recipient is unable to do so. j To this end, the County has set up a registry where prospective providers may list their names. There is no limit to the number of persons who may be providers, and any person can list his or her name on the registry. I The County does not screen or train providers. Currently there are more than three thousand persons listed on the registry and more than seventy-five thousand providers in the County. Many of the providers are family members or close fiends of the recipients. County social workers determine recipient eligibility and authorized j hours of service applying state guidelines. To obtain payment, the recipient and provider certify a time sheet that indicates the number of hours the provider worked. The recipient mails the time sheet to the County where it Is reviewed for completeness, eligibility and number of hours. It is then entered into a state payroll system, and payment Is mailed by the state to the provider. WIC §12301.6 permits the County to establish, by ordinance, a public authority to function as the employer of IHSS providers and to perform certain other enumerated functions, Including establishing a provider registry, Investigating potential personnel and providing for training for providers and recipients. i Questio�Can the County create an employer-of record through a public authority without additional County costs by imposing fiscal constraints in the ordinance requiring the public authority to conduct its operations, including labor negotiations, within the limits of identified and available funding? Yes. The ordinance creating a public authority can impose fiscal limitations requiring the public authority to operate within the limits of 02-19-1997 04:20PM FROM )00000000( TO 12135811469 P.05 Honorable Board of Supervisors Page 5 Identified and available funding. Although the public authority would be a separate legal entity, it would have to conduct its operations within those i fiscal constraints, including limitations placed on its labor negotiations and other contracting activities. The state established a one-time fund to assist counties in j establishing a public authority, allocating $2 million to our County. There is no on-going funding for the public authority. Further, the statute states that increased program costs or costs from wages or benefits negotiated by the public authority are County costs, unless the state each year appropriates those amounts. Therefore, if the Board adopts an ordinance establishing a public authority, it would be prudent to include sections limiting the public authority's budget and spending authority, its labor agreement authority, `. and its other contracting authority to County funds as appropriated by your Board and such state, federal, and other funds as it may reasonably j anticipate. If such limitations are established as non-severable clauses of i the establishing ordinance, invalidation of the limits would, in effect, undo the public authority. Question No. 2: Do the ordinances in other counties provide limitations on financial liability? Yes, in three of four cases. San Mateo, San Francisco,Alameda and Santa Clara Counties passed ordinances creating public authorities. San Mateo County's ordinance does not contain language limiting its obligation to fund its public authority. The other Counties' ordinances include provisions designed to limit their obligation to fund their public authorities. Alameda County's ordinance states that neither the establishment of the public authority nor the employer of record status shall result in match payments from the county's general fund beyond its mandated level. San Francisco's and Santa Clara's ordinances state there is no intent to require the appropriation of funds for the operation of a public authority or payment of wages or benefits to the providers in IHSS. They further state the total of all costs must be consistent with the city/county budgets, and the public authority cannot establish a payment rate until it determines funding is legally available. i 02-19-1997 04:21PM FROM X07000050( TO 12135811469 P.06 �.q I I Honorable Board of Supervisors Page 5 Alameda County has a fully functioning public authority and we are aware of no litigation regarding any of the fiscal limits or other provisions of any of the ordinances. However, we believe such limits can be effectively imposed and defended. Attachment A is a draft cost control language that your Board might wish to include in any ordinance establishing a public authority. Question No. 3: If a public authority is created, at what point in time will it become the employer of record of the providers and be required to engage in collective bargaining? It will become the employer of record upon the effective date of the establishing ordinance. However, once the public authority is established and Its governing body is designated, it should have a reasonable period of time to organize by hiring staff, identifying funding sources and adopting a budget. Upon becoming operational, it should assume its duties as employer, adopt an employee relations policy and be prepared to engage in collective bargaining. In other counties where public authorities have been implemented, the authorities have taken six months or more to adopt employee relations policies and move forward with bargaining. Failure to begin operations in a timely manner or to assume the duties of employer could result in litigation. Question No. 4: Is a public authority obliged to grant wages and benefits equivalent to those of County employees? If funding Is secured for wage and benefit increases would the public authority have to agree to those increases? ; No and no. A public authority Is deemed to be the employer of providers for purposes of bargaining for wages,hours and other terms and conditions of employment under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act. The wages, hours, terms and conditions of employment of County employees are determined by a separate body of labor contracts and County ordinances that, over the years, have established a baseline of wages and benefits for County employees. The public authority would have no obligation to provide wages and benefits similar to those provided to County employees. Undoubtedly, during negotiations, the public authority would receive proposals for increased wages and benefits. It would also need to 02-19-1997 04:21PM FROM 5000000= TO 12135811469 P.07 D� � Honorable Board of Supervisors Page 7 negotiate with all employee organizations representing some of its employees unless it adopts rules and regulations for the administration of its employee relations that provide for exclusive recognition of employee organizations. Such rules and regulations, themselves, must be negotiated. When negotiating, a pubiic authority is not obligated to agree to particular fiscal terms. Even if funds become available to finance higher wages and benefits, the public authority is under no legal obligation to agree to those increases. If the parties cannot agree after meeting and conferring in good faith, and an impasse is reached, the employer can unilaterally fix the terms of employment for the next budget year. If agreement is reached between the public authority and its employee unions, that agreement becomes an enforceable contract. Question No. 5: Would a public authority jeopardize the independent provider mode of service delivery to recipients? No. The statute expressly protects the so-called independent provider mode and establishes a unique employer-employee relationship under which the public authority is the employer of providers for purposes of negotiating wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment but the recipients retain the right to hire, fire and supervise s their providers. Question No. 6: If the County experiments with the registry or provides training to providers, will it risk being deemed the employer of the providers? ,'Yes. Earlier, a union representing some service providers sued the County seeking to have it declared the employer, for purposes of collective bargaining, of the providers. The County prevailed in that litigation, and the judgment was affirmed in a published Court of Appeal opinion. As IHSS is currently operated, the County is not the employer of the providers. However, if the County directly (without implementation of the special statutory scheme of the public authority) exerts greater control over the providers by providing training or investigating qualifications and • 02-19-199? 04:22PM FROM XWOOOM TO 12135ti114b7 '1/f AnO V Honorable Board of Supervisors Page 8 background, it risks being deemed their employer or joint employer if litigation ensues. Question No. 7: Does the statute allowing the creation of a public authority fully protect the County from tort liability? Yes, generally. WIC § U236, J 1LU236,U236, i.oejt� ;6L42=*;6L42=* i;�ii�iiiiaiiic5 acro_ uia state are immune from liability resulting from their implementation of this section in the administration of the IHSS program. Further, the statute states that obligations of the public authority, whether statutory, contractual, or otherwise, are the obligations of the public authority and not of a county or the state. WIC§ 12301.6(3)(1) also states that the public authority shall be deemed not to be the employer of providers referred to recipients under this section for purpose of liability due to the negligence or intentional torts of the providers, and WIC § 12301.6(e)(2) states that in no case shall the public authority be held liable for action or omission of any providers whom it did not list on the registry or otherwise refer to the recipient. In total the statute appears to provide the public authority, the County and state broad immunity from tort liability. However, even if a public authority is not liable for the torts of the providers, it will be liable for injuries which arise from its own negligence. The statute imposes a duty on the public authority to investigate the qualifications and background of potential providers and to provide for training for providers and recipients. The County is not currently obligated to perform these duties, has not voluntarily assumed them, and should not be liable for injuries to recipients related to training or background check issues. However, once a public authority is statutorily mandated to provide for training and to do background checks, it will be liable for injuries resulting from its failure to properly discharge these duties. There Is no case law interpreting the liability provisions in WIC § 12301.6_ The statute expressly grants immunity to the County and the state from liability for the acts of the public authority. However, since the public authority will have limited funding, we cannot predict with certainty 02-19-1997 04:22PM FROM XXXXX>0M TO iels5aiinby r.n7 Honorable Board of Supervisors Page 9 whether a court under certain circumstances might determine to hold another agency responsible to fund a tort judgment against the public authority. For this reason the ordinance establishing the public authority could require that it maintain liability insurance at appropriate levels. Attachment A contains such a provision. Question No. 8: Is there a way to provide a good registry program by contract that would protect the County from tort liability? Only partially. The County could directly contract for the service of maintaining the registry and require the contractor to have insurance and indemnify the County from liability arising from the contract. This would provide the County with some protection from liability for improvements made in the administration of the registry. However, the County would have to sufficiently compensate the contractor to administer the registry program, including, among other things, the cost of liability insurance. Additionally, depending upon how actively the County or its contract registry agent managed the providers, it could risk undoing the Court of Appeal decision holding that the County was not the employer of the providers for purposes of collective bargaining. Furthermore, the cost of any judgment In excess of the maximum amount of the contractor's insurance could be borne by the County if the contractor did not have sufficient assets. Again, the special statutory immunities under the public authority statute, WIC § 12301.6, would seem to provide the County with better protection. Very truly yours, DE WI W. CLINTON County Counsel DWC.jb Attachment ATTACHMENT #3 T).9 SOCIAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY TO: Board of Supervisors Finance Committee DATE: April 16, 1997 FROM: John Cullen, Director1 SUBJ: IN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES PUBLIC AUTHORITY As directed by the Board Order of November 19, 1996, Social Service staff have been gathering information to prepare an assessment of a Public Authority for the In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS)Program in Contra Costa County, with the Board of Supervisors acting as the authority which includes a cap on county costs and liability and a sunset clause. Moreover, as also directed by that same Board Order, the Social Service Department has instituted actions within the existing IHSS program to address desires to improve services via a registry, provider training, and enhancement of consumer input. The following are our recommendations and overview, background information, specific findings, and an update on program improvements. RECOMMENDATIONS AND OVERVIEW 1. We recommend that the Board of Supervisors NOT adopt an ordinance establishing a Public Authority for the IHSS program in Contra Costa County. Our assessment reveals that establishment of any form of Public Authority at this time poses significant financial and legal risks to the County due to administrative costs and collective bargaining obligations which under current State law the County would assume. 2. We recommend that the Board of Supervisors instruct the Social Service Department to regularly report back on progress in developing improvements to the existing IHSS program as already authorized in the Board Order of November 19, 1996 to develop a registry, link providers to training resources, provide for consumer and public input into the program, and to develop client/provider support services. The Social Service Department agrees with the proponents of the Public Authority that the IHSS Program in Contra Costa County is in need of underlying program improvements in the areas of a provider registry, provider training, consumer input, provider wages, and client/provider support services. The main issue before the Finance Committee is whether or not the Public Authority is the appropriate vehicle for implementation of those improvements and enhancements in Contra Costa County. Overall we have found that the County has the ability through the Social Service Department to provide enhanced services in the IHSS program without creating a new governmental entity in the form of a Public Authority. In essence, the only program element that a Public Authority offers that cannot otherwise be provided under our existing IHSS structure is a mechanism to create collective bargaining arrangements where none currently exist. However, under the authorizing State legislation and allocation processes there are excessive funding consequences to counties when establishing Public Authorities. For example, counties are fully liable for all non-Federal 1 costs of any wage and fringe benefit costs resulting from a Public Authority's collective bargaining agreements. Our research reveals that the establishment of a Public Authority causes further bifurcation of programmatic responsibility, administrative complexity, and results in both additional liability and costs for the County. At the same time, creation of a Public Authority will not relieve the Board of Supervisors and the Social Service Department from mandated fiscal and programmatic responsibility for IHS'. In undertaking an assessment of an IHSS Public Authority as instructed by the Board of Supervisors in the November 19, 1996 Board Order, we have analyzed this option from three major aspects: 1) financial issues, 2) service delivery and program accountability issues, and 3) labor relations and legal issues. We have consulted with the California Department of Social Services; Public Authority staff in San Mateo, Alameda and San Francisco counties; Social Service Department and IHSS program staff in Santa Clara, San Mateo, San Francisco, Sonoma, Alameda, Sari Francisco, and Los Angeles counties; and conferred with County Counsel and County Human Resources staff in our county and outside labor relations experts. In addition to the work of this assessment, staff have met monthly with the IHSS Task Force and with the Long Term Care Committee of the County Advisory Council on Aging. We also conducted a public meeting on December 18, 1996 regarding IHSS program changes which included a discussion of preliminary plans to develop registry and provider support services. Included at the latter part of this report is a summary of program improvement activities. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. IHSS SERVICE DELIVERY The In-Home Supportive Services program is a Federal/State mandated program that provides domestic and personal care services to eligible aged, blind, and disabled persons who, without such service, could not remain safely in their own homes. State of California law and regulations provide that counties must administer the IHSS program through one or a combination of three service delivery modes. These modes are: • Independent Provider mode under which the client hires and supervises a private individual in an independent contractor relationship • Contract mode in which the provider of service is the employee of a private company or independent non-profit agency which has won a•contract to manage IHSS within a county • County Homemaker mode in which the provider of service is a County employee. Contra Costa County uses the Independent Provider mode exclusively. All California counties offer the Independent Provider mode with six counties supplementing Independent Providers with County Homemaker staff and nine counties supplementing Independent Providers with the Contract mode. 2 V I q Within all the various modes of service delivery, counties are responsible for eligibility determination and assessment of service hours. Under California State law, Independent Providers are paid minimum wage. Wages are not specified under the Contract or County Homemaker modes. With the recently adopted increases in Federal and State minimum wage, Independent Providers have received two wage increases in the past six months and will receive additional .lcreases in 1997-98. Hourly wages increased from $4.25 to $4.75 on October 1, 1996; and increased to $5.00 on March 1, 1997. Future schedules hourly increases will be $5:15 on September 1, 1997 and $5.75 on March 1, 1998. Since 1993, with the advent of Federal Medicaid funding availability for some of the costs of the IHSS program, we have operated two parallel programs for fiscal claiming purposes. The IHSS Personal Care Services Program(PCSP) claims Federal Medicaid funds for eligible client services which are matched by State and County funds. The IHSS Residual Program claims no Federal Funds and is funded by only State and County funds. The PCSP funding ratios are 50%Federal, 32.5% State, and 17.5% County. The Residual funding ratios are 65% State and 35% County. About 66% of the client service hours are eligible for PCSP claiming. In Contra Costa County, we serve approximately 4,100 clients every month. Annually, we spend approximately$24 million on provider wages and approximately$3.3 million on administration, eligibility determination and services staff which together include a total County share-of-cost of approximately $6.7 million. The Federal and State governments provide over$20.6 million in program revenue. Over 60% of Contra Costa Independent Providers are family members hired by the client. Both staff and community advocates have long recognized the need to improve the manner in which IHSS clients, who do not have family members available, are matched with a provider. Approximately 5,000 providers are currently serving our IHSS clients. At any one time approximately 4.5% or 185 clients in Contra Costa County are without providers. This is due to turnover, time delays pending the provider's availability, client's terminating existing providers, immediate unavailability of providers, etc. The limited registry services in the community have not been able to adequately meet the needs of these clients. The Independent Provider mode of service delivery that we operate in Contra Costa County maximizes the free choice of clients in selecting providers of care. However, the program is sometimes not fully satisfactory for those clients unable to find providers or who have difficulty managing the employer/employee relationship between themselves and their providers. Counties operating Individual Provider programs, who wish to enhance the functioning of the program for clients with the problems noted above, have had the option to provide Supported Independent Provider(SIP) services to assist clients who need help in finding, employing, and retaining providers. Under the SIP model, counties provide both registry services and provider support services to assist IHSS clients who need help in finding, employing, and retaining providers. In 1996-97 the Social Service Department developed a budget initiative in the amount of$50,000 to pilot registry and provider support services which was approved by the Board of Supervisors to meet this long recognized gap in the program. As envisioned, registry services will include recruitment of providers; assessment of provider's skills; matching of prospective providers with specific client needs; and identifying training opportunities for providers. Provider support services will monitor ongoing client/provider matches; assist IHSS clients who need help in 3 performing their employer functions; assist providers who need help in meeting their employee obligations; and link contract registry services with IHSS social workers. The Department is now ready to begin implementation of registry activities as authorized in the November 19, 1996 Board Order. 2. PUBLIC AUTHORITY LEGISLATION The In-Home Supportive Services Public Authority, as defined in 1993 California legislation(SB 35) and in the 1996 State Budget Trailer bill(SB 1780), is a new entity which can be created by county ordinance to provide employee bargaining rights to Independent Providers. The Public Authority offers counties an alternative structure for managing the Independent Provider mode of IHSS. Public Authorities must provide a registry of providers, perform background checks, develop a referral system, and provide for training. None of these services are required under the Independent Provider mode. The Public Authority primarily serves as the "employer of record for purposes of collective bargaining." Whereas, the existing Independent Provider mode relies on State statute for salary and benefit setting. As with the Independent Provider mode, the Public Authority legislation purportedly preserves the client's right to hire, fire, and direct their own providers. The legislation purportedly protects the Public Authority from being deemed the employer of IHSS providers "for purposes of liability due to negligence or intentional torts of IHSS personnel." County Counsel has informed us that absent judicial construction of the legislation, these protections are uncertain. Under the legislation, the Board of Supervisors may appoint a consumer majority Public Authority, or the Board may establish themselves as the Public Authority, with a consumer advisory committee. State legislation does not allow any additional State funding for creation of a Public Authority, and the State limits its funding share of Public Authority services(i.e. registry, background checks, etc.)to existing administrative allocations to counties. Recent budget trailer bill legislation requires that counties fund the State's share of any additional salary or benefit costs authorized by a Public Authority. FINDINGS REGARDING MAJOR IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES 1. FINANCIAL ISSUES The financial issues regarding the impact of a Public Authority on the IHSS program in Contra Costa County revolve around a) claiming mechanisms for the administrative costs of a Public Authority; b) additional County costs related to any collective bargaining agreements negotiated by the Public Authority; c)the potential impact of Welfare Reform changes on IHSS; and d) fiscal accountability. We have consulted with Social Service managers and Public Authority staff in San Mateo, Alameda, and San Francisco, the only three counties with functioning Public Authorities, regarding the financial aspects of operating and funding their operations. In addition, we have consulted with the California State Department of Social Services regarding the various fiscal policy issues noted above. Our principal findings are noted below. 4 'D.9 a) Administrative Cost Claiming Based upon the experience of the existing Public Authorities, the minimum staffing level required to operate a Public Authority in Contra Costa County, given the size and configuration of our IHSS program, would be a full time manager, full time secretary, and one and one half registry coordinators assigned to the three regions of the county. The manager would be responsible for overall administration including providing staff assistance to the gc.verning/advisory body, negotiating and monitoring labor contracts and supervising registry staff. The secretary would provide clerical support to the other staff and for the governing/advisory body. The registry coordinators would be responsible for recruitment and screening of providers; referral of providers to training opportunities; and matching providers' skills and abilities with requests from individual IHSS clients. The direct administrative costs of operating a Public Authority would consist of the wages and benefits for these 3.5 full time equivalent kTTE) Public Authority employees along with the various space, equipment, and overhead costs associated with this additional staff. The annual salary and benefit costs for these positions plus space, utilities, equipment, and overhead costs will bring the total direct costs to approximately$370,000 annually. Additionally, from information gained in the.research counties the existence of a Public Authority will require an increased management workload for Human Resources, County Counsel, County Auditor, and County Social Service staff which may not be absorbed without additional staffing resources. We estimate these indirect costs to be the equivalent of 2.5 FTE's and will run in excess of$250,000 annually. Very troubling is the fact that the California Department of Social Services(CDSS) has still not issued claiming regulations for creation of Public Authorities, so we have been unable to assess the precise financial impact on the County by running projected costs through an administrative claiming process. Absent new regulations to legitimize the claiming of additional Federal dollars, the County General Fund would have to absorb the entire amount of these new costs totaling approximately $620,000 annually. The existing Public Authorities have been operating in the absence of these State claiming regulations. In addition to County General Funds, they have been paying for their administrative costs from a variety of interim sources such as State start-up funds, surplus IHSS administrative funds, and outside grants. None of these interim options are available to our county. State start- up funds are no longer available; we do not have any surplus IHSS administrative funds; and outside grants have not been identified. CDSS has been involved in complex discussions with San Mateo, San Francisco and Alameda counties for many months over the establishment of an hourly rate setting methodology for funding of the administrative operations of their Public Authorities. The three counties are seeking an arrangement whereby this rate setting will allow them to charge a significant portion of their Public Authority administrative costs to the Federal share of Medicaid which funds the Personal Care Services Program(PCSP) portion of IHSS. However, no agreement has been reached, and it is unknown when or if the State will issue draft regulations for this rate setting methodology. Moreover, recent Clinton Administration proposals to cap State allotments for Medicaid call into question the long range likelihood of Federal financial participation in the administrative costs of a Public Authority. 5 D •9 In any event, State legislation does not permit State financial participation in the operating costs of a Public Authority if that results in increased State costs beyond existing levels of State funding allocations for IHSS administrative costs. As Contra Costa fully expends the existing State administrative allotment for IHSS social work costs, we can expect, at a minimum, that the County would have to cover both the County and State share of Public Authority costs. If CDSS issues regulations at some future date that make it possible to claim Public Authorit; administrative costs from the Federal share of Medicaid, given our current proportion of Federally eligible PCSP cases, we would have to use County funds to cover approximately 67% or $248,000 of the projected annual direct costs of operating the Public Authority administrative structure alone. Indirect costs for additional County staffing identified earlier would require approximately $250,000 more in all County funds. Thus, even if Federal funds can eventually be claimed for Public Authority direct operations, the costs to the County will at a minimum be almost $500,000 annually. b) Costs Resulting from Collective Bargaining Agreements Under the authorizing State legislation, the Public Authority is responsible to negotiate wage and fringe benefit agreements with labor organizations representing IHSS providers. However, there is to be no State financial participation in the costs of any wage and benefit increases granted by a Public Authority. Unlike the administrative costs of the Public Authority, the Federal Medicaid program would continue to cover 50% of any increased costs for PCSP provider services. As noted above, recent Clinton administration proposals to cap State allotments for Medicaid would threaten ongoing Federal participation in these additional wage and benefit costs. However, given our current mix of Federally eligible PCSP vs. non-Federally eligible Residual IHSS cases, Federal funding would cover only about 33%of the costs of any collectively bargained wage and benefit increases. Thus, new County funds would be required to cover at least 67% of any wage and benefit increases(rather than only 23.5% if there were State participation) for the 5,000 IHSS providers. Based on the size of our current annual payroll costs for IHSS providers and our existing PCSP/Residual case ratios, every$.50 per hour of increase in wage and benefit costs would cost over$1.6 million in additional County funds on an annual basis. c) Welfare Reform Fiscal Impact It is not possible at this time to identify the fiscal impact of Welfare Reform on IHSS with accuracy, let alone the impact that Welfare Reform may have on the costs of operating a Public Authority. However, pending action by the State Legislature and Governor regarding the implementation of Federal Welfare Reform in California, the methodology for claiming administrative costs for income maintenance/welfare programs, which influences the administrative claiming for IHSS and other county social service programs, will change. A greater or lesser proportion of general overhead costs will shift over to the non-income maintenance programs such as IHSS. Any increase of overhead costs for IHSS will become all new County costs as we currently fully expend our State allocation for IHSS administration. Any decrease of overhead costs might make available currently expended State IHSS administrative dollars for IHSS program enhancements. However, it will not be possible to accurately identify the dollar impact of these changes until State Welfare Reform legislation is implemented. 6 We do know that IHSS clients will be directly affected by the Federal Welfare Reform changes in the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. This cash assistance program for elderly and disabled individuals who meet the Federal income and asset guidelines will be terminating all non- gitizens currently receiving benefits beginning in August, 1997. In California, eligibility for IHSS is linked to SSI. Unless the State law is changed, which is being proposed by such bills as AB 67 (Escutia) and SB 809 (Johnston), non-citizens currently receiving IHSS will lose their IHSS benefits at the same time that they lose their SSI. Based upon a survey of SSI recipients in our Contra Costa County, we estimate that as many as 15% of our approximately 4,100 IHSS clients may lose their IHSS benefits because of this change. We are concerned that this decrease in eligible clients will also decrease our administrative allocation for operating the program. Another element of Federal Welfare Reform included an across the board cut in Title XX Social Service Block grant funding. These funds have been used in California, in part, to fund costs of the non-Medicaid eligible, or Residual, portion of IHSS provider costs as well as for social work administrative costs in IHSS. At this time CDSS is attempting to determine the impact to the counties of this change. Possible scenarios include the State contributing more State general funds to IHSS; counties being required to back fill the Federal reduction; or, mandatory program reductions. Until the State Legislature and Governor take action to adopt new legislation in response to Federal Welfare Reform and adopt the 1997-98 State Budget, the above Welfare Reform issues related to IHSS funding remain unanswered questions. It is not possible to know at this time whether the revenue sources currently available to us for both IHSS administrative and direct service costs will change markedly because of Welfare Reform. In light of these impacts, any action to increase administrative costs, as with a Public Authority, is premature and could lead to even more significant revenue challenges for the County General Fund. d) Public Authority Fiscal Accountability As mentioned, CDSS has not yet issued Public Authority fiscal claiming regulations to counties which authorize activities eligible for funding. Until CDSS issues these regulations, we are unable to explore with the County Auditor how best to establish appropriate fiscal control mechanisms to assure fiscal accountability. Once the claiming regulations are issued we can meet with the County Auditor to determine what the shared responsibilities would be for both the Social Service Fiscal Unit and the Auditor's staff to maintain ongoing fiscal oversight of the Public Authority. It is our expectation that under any new IHSS claiming regulations the Social Service Department and the Board of Supervisors will remain financially liable for the costs of a Public Authority. 2. SERVICE DELIVERY/PROGRAM ACCOUNTABILTI'I'ISSUES As previously noted, our staff have consulted with Social Service and Public Authority staff in San Mateo, Alameda, and San Francisco, the only three counties that have operating Public Authorities. In addition, we have compared and contrasted the registry services available under the San Mateo and Alameda Public Authorities with those available under private non-profit registries in Santa Clara and Sacramento counties and the Sonoma County Supported Independent Provider program operated by county IHSS staff. Also, we have reviewed the provider support services operated by both Sacramento and Sonoma IHSS staff. 7 D. a) Registry and Provider Support Activities In comparing and contrasting our observations of these other counties' programs, it is clear that basic registry services can be operated successfully under a Public Authority, or through a contract with non-profit social agencies, or directly by County IHSS staff. Each of these counties have adapted their registry services to their chosen organizational model. All of the registries provide the same basic functions: • Ongoing recruitment of prospective IHSS providers • Maintenance of current list of prospective providers • Assessment of providers' skills, abilities, and training needs • Provide for reference checks and review of qualifications • Refer prospective providers to IHSS clients by matching provider profile with clients' needs • Identification of training opportunities in the community for providers In Sacramento and Sonoma counties, the additional provider support activities provided by in- house IHSS staff include the following elements: • Ongoing monitoring of the success of provider/client matches • Assisting IHSS clients in the performance of their employer functions of hiring, scheduling, supervising, and directing providers • Assisting providers in performing their employee functions and obligations • Linking registry services and provider support activities into a working partnership with IHSS social work staff It is our conclusion that for Contra Costa, the successful enhancement of our IHSS program requires the development of both registry and provider support services. Registry services are a first step in addressing the problems encountered by those IHSS clients who are without providers. As a follow on, we believe that there should also be a support system in place to assist providers and clients who need help in maintaining a successful employer/employee relationship. There will usually be a certain proportion of frail, vulnerable or confused IHSS clients who cannot manage their employer relationship with their provider without some outside help. Providers can also benefit from the intermediary assistance of provider support staff to mediate their employee relationship with difficult clients. As Public Authorities are authorized under SB 35 to develop only the registry component for enhancing IHSS (not support services), establishment of a Public Authority in Contra Costa County will not fully address the programmatic and service delivery needs which cannot 8 adequately be met by our current Independent Provider program. We believe that it is necessary to develop provider support services and make them an integral component of our existing service delivery system. b) Program Protocols and Standards Lacking the promulgation of either program or fiscal claiming regulaL:ons by CDSS, it has not been possible to develop draft protocols for a projected working relationship and oversight of a Public Authority. However, from our contact with the three operating Public Authorities we are aware of some of the issues which need to be addressed concerning the working relationship between our department and an IHSS Public Authority. These issues include the following: • development of monitoring and/or supervision standards for Public Authority registry operations; • development of standards and procedures for sharing confidential casework information regarding IHSS clients; • defining how to effectively provide for timely and appropriate communication between Department social work staff and Public Authority staff regarding IHSS provider needs and problems; • establishing procedures for problem solving and conflict mediation between the Public Authority and IRSS program staff that balances the needs of both IRSS providers and recipients; and, • establishing protocols and procedures for Human Resources/Labor Relations and County Counsel consultation and representation services. c) Consumer and Public Input The Public Authority model provides for consumer input through creation of a governing body with a consumer majority as is done in San Francisco or alternatively with creation of a consumer majority advisory body if the County Board of Supervisors establishes itself as the governing body of the Public Authority as is done in San Mateo and Alameda counties. Given the focus of the Public Authority on registry services and collective bargaining with provider labor representatives, consumer input is necessarily focused on those two aspects of the IHSS program in those three counties. From our contacts with San Mateo, Alameda, and San Francisco counties, we have observed that they all have been successful in using the Public Authority as a vehicle for bringing consumer and public input into the IHSS program. Also, we have noted that the collective bargaining process that has ensued in Alameda, San Mateo, and San Francisco counties with the union representatives of the providers presents another major complication in this complex network of consumer and public input. The Public Authority takes on a difficult role with its charge to collectively bargain with labor organizations representing the IHSS providers at the same time it seeks to provide for consumer input into the program. Thus, any vehicle for effective consumer and public input regarding the operation of the IHSS program must be able to balance these disparate constituencies in order not to produce a skewed perspective of public or consumer 9 D • I concerns about the program. 3. LEGAL AND LABOR RELATIONS ISSUES Staff have consulted with County Counsel, Human Resources and labor relations staff, plus management staff in other counties regarding the legal and labor relations is, tes connected with establishment of a Public Authority. The issues of concern of which we have been made aware are: a)the legal and organizational status of a Public Authority;b)the legal concerns regarding an alternative contract registry as opposed to a Public Authority; and c)the impact of IHSS provider collective bargaining on labor relations. a) Public Authority Status Under the enabling legislation, counties wishing to establish a Public Authority may establish a consumer majority independent body or designate the County Board of Supervisors as the Public Authority and appoint a consumer advisory committee. San Mateo and Alameda counties have designated the Board of Supervisors as the Public Authority. San Francisco has established an independent Public Authority. Should the Board of Supervisors choose to establish a Public Authority in Contra Costa County, we recommend that the Board designate itself as the Public Authority and not create another agency for four primary reasons. 1) The funding and administrative management of LHSS provider costs will continue to be Social Service Department responsibility. Since the Board of Supervisors will determine funding for the Public Authority, it should not surrender to an independent governmental body the power to determine the amount of funding that will be required. This is of special concern because of the significant additional County costs that will result from any administrative developments, or wage and benefit agreements made by the Public Authority. 2) The Social Service Department will legally be responsible for supervision and direction of the operations and services of the Public Authority. With the Board of Supervisors as the Public Authority, as opposed to an outside governing body, our department will be better able to exercise direct authority over Public Authority staff and IHS S matters for which it bears responsibility. As the Social Service Department must also exercise administrative oversight over the activities of the Public Authority in such areas as fiscal control, service accountability, corrective actions, etc., it is preferable that this new entity be under direct County control. Also, working under the same governmental entity, Public Authority registry staff and Social Service social work staff will be better able to work cooperatively to assure that the clients' provider needs are met. 3) The creation of a totally separate governmental agency will entail extra expenses, above the $370,000 in direct costs estimated earlier, if the Public Authority is not able to operate under the administrative umbrella of the Social Service Department. From our review of the free-standing governance structure in San Francisco, we found that the Public Authority would need one additional staff member to focus on separate governance issues. 4) The Board of Supervisors may find it easier to exercise the discretion offered by any sunset clause to terminate the existence of a Public Authority at some future date if the Board itself has 10 been designated as the Public Authority. Abolition of a separate governing body, in all likelihood, may prove to be a politically more difficult task. k) Alternative Registry Option The Public Authority is not the only option available for delivering registry services in an Independent Provider IHSS program. County Counsel has advised cs that registry services may also be provided through a contract with an outside agency thereby maintaining the independence of the employer/employee relationship between IHSS clients and the providers they hire after referral from an outside registry. It is not necessary to take on all of the costs, obligations, and risks of operating a Public Authority in order to provide needed registry services to assist IHSS clients find suitable providers. Moreover, County Counsel has advised us that contracting with an outside agency for registry services, supported by insurance, would additionally insulate the County from tort liability for the actions of IHSS providers in a similar fashion to the legislative protection from tort liability offered to Public Authorities in the authorizing legislation. c) Collective Bargaining In San Mateo, San Francisco, and Alameda Counties establishment of a Public Authority has been followed by union representation for IHSS independent providers. The Public Authorities have in turn engaged in collective bargaining in all three counties. In San Francisco, within the first year of establishment of the Public Authority, the county approved a wage increase for which the county is liable for the entire non-Federal share with no State financial participation. San Francisco is currently paying $5.29 per hour to independent providers($.29 above the current minimum wage), which requires the county to spend approximately$1.79 million annually in local general funds to cover their share of these additional costs. The Public Authority has stated that its goal is to increase provider wages to $8.00 per hour plus health care benefits. Also, the San Francisco Public Authority has agreed to an agency shop whereby,all independent providers pay union dues, including family member providers. There has been discontent expressed among some family member providers regarding their monthly union dues deduction. In San Mateo County, the Public Authority is considering offering limited health care benefits to certain independent providers under the county's health plan, at a cost of$150 per year per individual, for which there can be no State participation. In Alameda County, under the tentative labor agreement reached through collective bargaining, the Public Authority has agreed to a reopening clause regarding future wage increases above minimum wage for independent providers. Establishment of a Public Authority in Contra Costa County would make the Public Authority the employer of record for collective bargaining purposes of a unit of approximately 5,000 IHSS independent providers, both family members and non-family member providers, with an annual payroll now exceeding $24,000,000 for both provider wages and benefits. In the opinion of County Counsel and labor relations experts we consulted, the County would be exposed to the full range of collective bargaining obligations regarding public employees under the Meyers- Milias-Brown Act for these independent IHSS providers if we create a Public Authority. The full labor relations implications of such action are unknown at this time, but this change certainly will greatly expand the scope of responsibility of County labor relations staff and consultants. We 11 estimate the additional workload will require the services of at least one additional FTE. The Public Authority will be responsible for implementation of a wage and benefit structure for these 5,000 employees even though the IHSS clients will retain the right to hire and fire their individual providers. This unique employee status for IHSS providers under a Public Authority will necessitate the development of new employer/employee relations policies applicable to their situation. The long range policy i unifications of establishing this unique, untested class of employees are essentially unknown at this time. UPDATE ON IMPROVEMENTS TO CURRENT IHSS SERVICE DELIVERY SYSTEM As per the plan approved by the Board of Supervisors on November 19, 1996, Social Service Department staff are developing a pilot project to offer registry services and provider support services to help address some of the problems regarding retention of skilled providers for IHSS clients that the public and staff have identified. Also, we are moving forward with actions to offer additional opportunities for consumer and public input regarding IHSS program operations. 1. REGISTRY SERVICES Social Service Department staff are in the process of developing a competitive procurement process to select an outside agency to establish a contract registry for IHSS that can find appropriate Independent Providers for those clients unable to find providers through their own resources. Primary is the development of a registry which will link IHSS clients with Independent Providers whose skill and experience are consistent with each client's service needs. This contract registry will provide the basic registry services identified in our study of registries in the neighboring counties. The services to be provided by the contract registry will include recruitment of providers; maintenance of current lists of providers; assessment of providers' skills, abilities, and training needs; providing for reference checks and review of qualifications; referring prospective providers to clients matched to clients' needs; and identifying training opportunities in the community for providers. Social Service Department will furnish computer hardware and software for operation of the registry. We have budget approval for$50,000 to pilot registry and support services, which when operated via the Social Service Department can qualify for 70%Federal/State reimbursement. Therefore, our budget currently includes $15,000 in County funds for this purpose. 2. PROVIDER SUPPORT SERVICES As noted earlier, from our investigation of neighboring counties who offer provider support services as well as registry services, we have determined that registry services alone are not sufficient for meeting the needs of IHSS clients without providers. Thus, Social Service staff are in the process of developing a proposal for a provider support pilot project. The pilot project will add one and one-half FTE paraprofessional staff, approximately half-time in each region of the county, to facilitate effective working relationships between IHSS clients and providers where there is a need for third party assistance. We plan to submit our proposal to CDSS for funding consideration. As identified in our review of successful provider support programs in Sonoma and Sacramento counties, the pilot project staff will be responsible for monitoring of client/provider matches; 12 assisting IHSS clients who need help in performing their employer functions; assisting providers who need help in meeting their employee obligations; and linking contract registry services with IHSS social workers. The provider support staff will serve as a critical link among the registry staff, the client, provider, L id department social workers. We believe that the provider support staff are the critical linchpin for ensuring the successful implementation of registry services whetht:under a Public Authority or contractor agency. Following establishment of registry services, spending any additional funds on provider support services, rather than on the additional administrative costs of a Public Authority is our next highest priority for the IHSS program. 3. CONSUMER AND PUBLIC INPUT In the Contra Costa County IHSS program with over 4,100 clients and over 5,000 independent providers, it is a complicated process to develop effective channels for input from consumers, the public, and providers. However, we have taken a variety of steps in recent years to develop avenues for outside advice regarding the program, including: • Social Service staff have been meeting on a regular basis with the IHSS Task Force consisting of community advocates, providers, union representatives, and program clients for the past four years regarding needed improvements to the program. • With the consolidation of the Area Agency on Aging and Adult Social Services under a single management structure two years ago, the County Advisory Council on Aging has become involved in providing oversight to the IHSS program primarily through the work of its Long Term Care Committee. • Social Service staff are working with an ad hoc Long Term Care Coordinating Committee initiated by the Advisory Council on Aging in 1996 to develop planning recommendations regarding development of a countywide community based long tern care system of which IHSS would be key program element. • December 18, 1996 the Social Service Department held a public meeting regarding the development of registry services and the use of new needs assessment guidelines in the IHSS program. Moreover, in the coming 1997-98 fiscal year, we propose to take the following additional steps to enhance consumer and public input for IHSS: • Social Service staff will recommend to the Advisory Council on Aging that the monthly meetings of its Long Term Care Committee provide the opportunity for hearing ongoing consumer and public concerns about IHSS program operations and that the committee sponsor two public meetings annually regarding the IHSS program seeking to gain public input regarding such issues as the operation of contract registry services, the development of provider support services, and dealing with the impacts of Welfare Reform. • Social Service administrative staff will develop survey instruments and sampling techniques that would offer individual IHSS clients, providers and family members the opportunity to provide structured feedback and comments to the department incorporating these efforts into the existing quality control activities of staff. 13 • ' � I 1 Thus, we propose to further develop our existing efforts to provide for a broad range of consumer and public input into the IHSS program without the necessity of creating the separate administrative structure of a Public Authority. We can build upon the existing activities of the County Advisory Council on Aging and department staffthereby expanding opportunities for consulting with consumers and the public as an integral part of IHSS program administration. CONCLUSION After having Social Service staff gather the data for this study and reviewing all of the information currently available, we conclude that the fiscal, programmatic, legal and collective bargaining realities and uncertainties posed by establishment of a Public Authority make it an unsuitable alternative for our county. Meanwhile, needed improvements to the IHSS program to assist clients to find and maintain suitable Independent Providers can best be provided through the development of registry and provider support services under the current administrative structure. As evidenced by our 1996-97 budget initiatives, IHSS program development efforts, and by our actions to enhance opportunities for consumer and public input regarding the program, we are well on the way to implementing changes that will address the major concerns raised by the proponents of the Public Authority. Moreover, recent and future increases in the minimum wage are raising provider wages, albeit less than anyone would like. Although requested to do so in the November 19, 1996 Board Order, the Department cannot give any assurances that County costs can be capped in relation to an IHSS Public Authority. With a Public Authority, there will be major direct and indirect administrative costs. Additionally, provider wage and benefit increases which will result from collective bargaining will become primarily the County's responsibility under State law, rather than being limited to a fixed share of the minimum wage as is the case under the current program arrangement. Although the Board of Supervisors may adopt a cap on County costs, bargaining in good faith under the Meyers-Milias- Brown Act may result in obligating the County to expenditures exceeding any cap. The direct administrative costs of administering the Public Authority will be approximately $370,000. Additionally, from our contacts with social service staff in Public Authority counties, we have learned that there will be a considerable involvement of time required on the part of Human Resources and Labor Relations staff, County Counsel, as well as Social Service managers overseeing and interrelating with the Public Authority and its activities. These indirect administrative costs must be planned for unless these overseeing departments can absorb the workload. It is not unrealistic to estimate 2.5 FTE of County oversight totalling approximately $250,000 annually as an additional cost to the County. Thus, when adding together the estimated $370,000 of direct costs attributable to the Public Authority and the annual estimated indirect costs, the additional County cost for IHSS administration could equal $620,000. The improvements and enhancements that are being developed for the IHSS program, namely establishing a contract registry and planning for a provider support program, involve a prudent expenditure of County funds. Department operation of these services allows us to qualify for State and Federal funding. On the other hand, State law prohibits use of any additional State funds for additional costs associated with a Public Authority. In summary, our review has revealed that a Public Authority in Contra Costa County is not 14 advisable since: " o g • creation of the Public Authority administrative structure is not necessary to provide additional service delivery opportunities, only the responsibility to do collective bargaining; • the general fund costs of a Public Authority are estimated tc; exceed $370,000 in direct costs and $250,000 in indirect costs without any guarantee of Federal and State reimbursement; and additionally a Public Authority would bind the County to future general fund expenditures for the State's share of wage and benefit increases; • the State government has not issued fiscal or programmatic regulations which define the allowable cost reimbursements or programmatic responsibilities; • development of a Public Authority does not relieve the County of any risk or responsibility in managing the State mandated IHSS program; and • the impacts of Welfare Reform will benefit from a single administrative approach versus bifurcated responsibility that would occur with a Public Authority. Given these issues, we urge the Finance Committee to take no action at this time in regard to establishment of a Public Authority and to continue support for department activities to implement program enhancements in accordance with the earlier Board Order of November 19, 1997. 15 ATTACHMENT#4 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Social Service Department I> DATE: January 22, 1997 TO: Board of Supervisors Finance Committee FROM: John Cullen, Director SUBJECT: In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) Update The following is an update regarding recent actions taken by the Social Service Department per the direction of the Board of Supervisors on November 19, 1996, to assess a Public Authority, and to institute IHSS program changes. I. ASSESSMENT OF A PUBLIC AUTHORITY WITH THE BOARD ACTING AS THE AUTHORITY WHICH INCLUDES A CAP ON COUNTY COST AND LIABILITY AND A SUNSET CLAUSE. Social Service Department staff are in the midst of gathering information regarding the viability of a Public Authority for our County in accordance with the work plan adopted by the Board of Supervisors on November 19, 1996. Our analysis is considering the financial issues, service delivery, accountability, labor relations, and legal impacts associated with Public Authorities. A) Financial Issues • We have met with administrative staff from San Mateo, San Francisco and Alameda County Public Authorities to gather descriptive information about their individual funding and claiming mechanisms and cost impacts. • Claiming instructions and regulations have not been issued from the State, precluding us from determining the financial consequence of a Public Authority in our County. Without State rules, we are unable to clarify how a Public Authority will be supported fiscally, and the impact of a Public Authority on our Administrative allocation which may affect Social Worker caseloads. • We are working with local and State staff to identify the impact of Welfare Reform changes upon IHSS Program cost. • The Department is continuing discussions with the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) regarding availability of additional State or Federal revenue to support a Public Authority. Memo to: Board of Supervisors og Subject: In-Home Supportive Services Update Page 2 • We are working to identify language for a Board of Supervisors' Resolution which can legally limit County costs and liabilities. B) Service Delivery/Program Accountability Issues Staff have met with Public Authority staff in San Mateo, San Francisco, and Alameda counties to gather information about service delivery and accountability in a Public Authority environment, and met with Social Services staff in Sonoma to review SIPS. Some of the areas that we have gathered impact information on include: • Staffing levels in existing Public Authorities. • Payroll's relationship to IHSS and/or Public Authority. • Training opportunities and requirements. • Providers wage scales. • Orientation requirements. • Reference check requirements. • Client and provider matching and monitoring processes. • Providers recruitmer_t and assignment. • Provider work rules. • Intake process. • Timeliness of client service. • Quality Control. • Complaint resolution. Our staff will continue to: • Meet at least monthly with both the IHSS Task Force and Advisory Council on Aging Long-Term Care Committee to offer updates regarding our Public Authority assessment. • Meet with the Long-Term Care Coordinating Committee regarding impacts of IHSS on Long-Term Community-Based System of Care. Memo to: Board of Supervisors Subject: In-Home Supportive Services Update Page 3 C) Labor and Legal Relations Issues We are still awaiting Sate regulations to determine the consequences of naming the Board of Supervisors as the Public Authority. Social Service staff have consulted with County Counsel and Human Resources, who are continuing to gather information and/or offer opinions on the following issues: • Potential implications for collective bargaining, wages and fringe benefits that a Public Authority would create in relation to independent IHSS providers. • Board of Supervisors legal relationship to Public Authority and any potential liability issues. • Liability Insurance requirements. • Obtain information from Labor relations experts on Public Authority impacts. • Clarify need to develop a new County Administrative wage and benefit structure for 5,000 additional employees. • Clarify need to develop new employeelemployer relations policy for Public Authority. H. IMPROVEMENTS TO CURRENT IHSS SERVICE-DELIVERY SYSTEM As per the plan approved by the Board of Supervisors on November 19, Social Service Department staff is developing a Supported Independent Provider (SIP) pilot project to help address some of the issues the general public and staff have identified as problems in the IHSS program. Primary is the development of a registry which would help link IHSS clients with independent providers whose skill and experience are consistent with clients' service needs. We seek to support clients in performing their employer role to the best of their ability and to support providers in performing their employee functions to the best of their ability. • Social Service Department staff completed research on the development and use of SIPS and registry services. • The program design for the pilot project will include: recruitment of IHSS providers; maintenance of current lists of available providers; assessment of providers' skills, abilities and training needs; provision for reference checks and qualification reviews; identify training opportunities in the community for providers; referral of available providers to IHSS clients; assist IHSS clients in their employer functions of hiring, scheduling, supervising, and directing providers; and support providers in performing their employee functions. D .9 Memo to: Board of Supervisors Subject: In-Home Supportive Services Update Page 4 • We conducted a public meeting in December where we received community input regarding the proposed program design. • We have arranged for office space in our East, Central, and West County offices for the pilot project. • Computer hardware and software for the pilot project is being ordered. • We are currently hiring three part-time provider coordinators, one in each region of the County. • We have written a letter to CDSS informing them of our interest and progress in developing a Supported Independent Provider(SIP)program. CDSS has recently announced interest in helping counties financially to develop SIPs. We will continue to move ahead with implementation of the Supported Independent Provider (SIP) pilot project and gather information regarding establishment of a Public Authority. We expect to have a final report available for the Finance Committee on our assessment of a Public Authority by late March meeting, contingent on State financial and programmatic regulations being issued. JBC:sjb PAHISMIAN ATTACHMENT#5 D ,q To: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: Finance Committee / •3 Costa DATE, November 19, 1996 County SUBJECT: ASSESSMENT OF A PUBLIC AUTHORITY FOR THE IN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES PROGRAM SPECIFIC REOUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATIONS)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. ACCEPT the report from the Director of Social Services on the issue of creating a Public Authority for the In-Home Supportive Services program. 2. SUPPORT the recommendations of the Director of Social Services for instituting actions with the existing IHSS program by establishing a registry, assessing provider training, and enhancing consumer input. 3. REQUEST the Director of Social Services to prepare an assessment of a Public Authority, with the Board acting as the Authority, which includes a cap on County cost and liability and a sunset clause. (Timetable Attached) BACKGROUND: On October 29, the Finance Committee reviewed and discussed the attached report from the Director of Social Services. The report was requested at the October 7 Finance Committee meeting. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _YES SIGNATURE; �91� •/ _-RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR —RECOMMENDATION OFBOARO COMMITTE _APPROVE `��`^��' OTHER /04CY' SIGNATURE(SI: am rk DeSaulnier Tom Torlakson ACTION OF BOARD ON-- November 19 . 1996 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED _ X OTHER _X_ The Board heard carts from the following sneakers on the proposed progran: A.C. Hollister, M.D. 14 Boles Court, Pleasant Hill; Trudi Riley, Co-Chair Housing Committee, Advisory Council on Aging, Lang-term Care Cte, Advisor Council on Aging, Member of IHSS Task Force, 47 Rich Court, ttDraga; - Edith LaAe stein, President of Advisory Council on Aging, 3324 Ptarmigan, 0C E 20, Walnut Creek; Joanne Best, Independent Living Resource, 3811 Alhambra Ave., Martinez; Kagey Dorosz, IHSS Task Force, Richmond; Paul DeMenge, IHSS Task Force, 3811 Alhambra Ave., Martinez; Helen Hall; Lucille Adler; and Jeanine Meyers Rodriquez, SEN, 1007 7th Street, Sacramento; All persons desiring to speak having been beard, THE BOARD ORDERED that the above recommendations are APPROM; and the County Administrator is DIRFCPP9 to provide a report to the Finance CrmittJee in January, 1997, on the issues raised today. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS(ABSENT --- ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES:I IV V S I I NOES: none AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: I T I ABSTAIN; n 0Re OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. ATTESTED November 19 , 1996 Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF CC: John Cullen, Social Services SUPERVISORSD COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Sara Hoffman, County Administrator / � I +, `7,q Page 2 The Committee took lengthy testimony from a number of interested parties including the consumers and providers of IHSS services, members of the IHSS Task Force, members and past members of the Advisory Council on Aging, and labor unions. The testimony ranged from support of an IHSS Public Authority to opposition - with a variety of suggestions on how the current system can be improved. Most participants acknowledged the uncertainty in the current Social Services environment brought about by Federal Welfare Reform. The Committee decided to recommend action along two tracks. First, to accept the Social Service Director's report and encourage the department efforts at improving the current IHSS service delivery system, as outlined in the Director's report. Second, to request Social Services to assess the pros and cons of a Public Authority, with the Board of Supervisor's as the Authority. The assessment should consider a sunset clause and a cap on County cost and liability. The Social Services Director was requested to prepare a work plan and schedule for the Public Authority assessment. Attached is the proposed timetable. DA SOCIAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY TO: Finance Committee DATE: 10/29/96 FROM: John Cullen, Direc or cc: SUBJ: Status Report - Development of IHSS Public Authority As per the Finance Committee's October 7th direction, the Social Service Department has begun a review of a proposal submitted by the IHSS Task Force, Service Employees International Union, and Keeslar & Associates, recommending adoption of an ordinance establishing a Public Authority to administer the In Home Supportive Services Program in Contra Costa County. Due to the far reaching impacts of such a proposal, and our desire to initiate program improvements, we have divided our review and recommendations into three sections. Section I provides information on the IHSS program and our service delivery options in California, local program demographics, and information regarding Public Authorities. Section II delineates areas for IHSS program improvements that are identified in the Task Force proposal and provides status updates on Department plans to address these issues. Section III presents a listing of the major issues of concern regarding a Public Authority on which the Department is gathering information/conducting analysis. It is absolutely essential from financial, service delivery, program accountability, labor relations and legal perspectives that these issues be fully explored prior to the development and approval of any ordinance to create a Public Authority. CON CLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS Accept this report as one step in thoroughly exploring the feasibility of creating a Public Authority for IHSS in Contra Costa County. • Support the Social Service Department's recommendations for instituting actions identified in Section II of this report which will improve the program in areas of registry services, training, consumer input and wage changes. • Continue on referral to Finance Committee status reports on research regarding financial, service delivery, accountability, labor relations & legal impacts of Public Authorities as listed in Section III. - 1 - SECTION I IHSS SERVICE DELIVERY The In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) Program is a Federal/State-mandated program that provides domestic and personal care services to eligible aged, blind and disabled persons who, without such service, could not remain safely In their own homes. State of Califomia law and regulations provide that counties must administer the IHSS Program through one or a combination of three service delivery modes. These modes are: Indepgncint Provider mode under which the client hires and supervises a private individual in an independent contractor relationship. Contract mode in which the provider of service is the employee of a private company or independent non-profit agency which has won a contract to manage IHSS within the County. County Homemaker mode in which the provider of service is a County employee. Contra Costa County uses the Independent Provider mode exclusively. Within all the various modes of service delivery, counties are to be responsible for eligibility determination and assessment of service hours. Under California State law, Independent Providers are paid minimum wage. Wages are not specified under the Contract or County Homemaker modes. With the recently-passed increase in Federal minimum wage, Independent Providers have received an increase in 96/97 and again in 97/98. All California counties offer the Independent Provider mode with six counties supplementing Independent Providers with County Homemaker staff and 9 counties supplementing Independent Providers with Contract modes. Under current Federal and State laws, the IHSS Program operates as an entitlement with varying Federal, State and County shares-of-cost, depending on whether or not services are reimbursable under Medicaid. In Contra Costa County, we serve approximately 4,100 clients every month; annually, we spend approximately $20 million in provider salaries and approximately $3 million in administration which together includes a total County share-of-cost of approximately $5.5 million. Over 60% of Contra Costa Independent Providers are family members hired by the client. Both staff and community advocates have long recognized the need to improve the manner in which IHSS clients who do not have family member providers are matched with a provider. Approximately 5,000 providers art, currently serving our IHSS clients. At any one time approximately 4.5% or 185 IHSS clients in Contra Costa County are without providers. This is due to turnover, time delays pending the providers' availability, clients terminating existing caretakers, immediate unavilability of providers, etc. The limited existing registry services in the community have not been able to adequately meet the needs of these clients. 2 PUBLIC,AUTHORITY The In Home Supportive Services Public Authority, as defined in 1993 California legislation (SB 35) and in the 1996 State Budget Trailer Bill (SB 1780), is a new entity which can be created by county ordinance tr provide for the delivery of IHSS. The Public Authority offers counties an alternative structure for managing the Independent Provider mode of IHSS. Public Authorities must provide a registry of providers, perform background checks, develop a referral system, and provide for training. Whereas, these services are not required under Independent Provider modes. The Public Authority primarily serves as the "employer of record for purposes of collective bargaining." Whereas, Independent Provider programs rely on state statute for salary and benefit setting. The Public Authority legislation also preserves the consumers' right to hire, fire, and direct their own providers. The legislation protects the Public Authority from being deemed the employer of IHSS providers "for purposes of liability due to the negligence or intentional torts of IHSS personnel." Under the legislation, the Board of Supervisors may appoint a consumer majority Public Authority or the Board of Supervisors may establish themselves as the Public Authority, with a consumer advisory committee. State legislation no longer allows any additional funding for creation of a Public Authority, and the state now limits its share of additional services (i.e. registry, background checks, etc.) to current administrative allocations. Recent budget trailer bill legislation also requires local government to fund the state's share of any salary and benefit costs authorized by a Public Authority. SECTION II PROPOSED.IHSS PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS Those advocating for creation of a Public Authority, as well as the Social Service Department, agree that underlying program improvement areas include the need for a provider registry, provider training, consumer input and provider wages. The Social Service Department has budgeted $50,000 and one full-time staff person to begin addressing some of these underlying issues this fiscal year. ESTABLISHMENT OF REGISTRY Staff has interviewed managers in Santa Clara, Alameda, Sonoma and San Mateo counties to gather information on registry structure, provider/client processes and technology used by each registry. After reviewing these registries, a preliminary report and findings have been developed. A Registry Program would provide: • Ongoir; recruitment of prospective IHSS workers; • Maintenance of a current list of prospective workers; • Assessment of workers skills, abilities and training needs; • Provide for reference checks and review of workers qualifications; - 3 - Monitoring of client/provider match; Identification of training opportunities in the community; Assist IHSS recipients in their employer function of hiring, scheduling, supervising, and directing providers; Integration of the IHSS registry into the IHSS unit; and, Ongoing evaluation of registry services. Presently 60% of the IHSS providers are family members and 40% are recruited from the general population. At any given time a small number of clients are without a provider and are in need of registry service. Therefore a registry only needs to be developed to accommodate a very small portion of our population. We plan to work with the Advisory Council on Aging Long Term Care Committee and IHSS Task Force to initiate Registry Services this fiscal year. PROVIDER TRAINING Department staff will soon begin an inventory of available training resources offered within Contra Costa County for the benefit of Individual Providers, Social Workers, and other community professionals serving IHSS clients. Linkage of training resource information with Idependent Providers will be a priority, with details being disseminated regularly. The Department will coordinate this activity with local advisory bodies. CONSUMER INPUT The County Advisory Council on Aging, through its Long Term Care (LTC) Committee, is a vehicle for providing ongoing input from IHSS clients and providers and from concerned community advocates regarding IHSS program operations. This body is overseeing the development of a long term care program (which includes IHSS as a key component). Their mission is to develop and support coordinated and high quality home, community, and institutional based long-term care systems within the county by: • Linking adult programs ( Health and Social Service); providing consumer choices and self determination; • providing service flexibility to respond to the needs of the individuals, their families and caregivers; and, • advocating for consistent policies within local, state and federal organizations serving adults. We believe that the creation of a "system of services" for all eligible clients in Contra Costa County in need of any level of long term care supportive services will allow for a coordinated - 4 - and more efficient service system. Additionally, consumer input will be increased through the involvement of consumers, community groups and agencies involved in this continuum of services. The LTC committee is demographically and regionally representative of Contra Costa County. The LTC committee includes consumers, caregivers, and health care professiona'-,. Additionally, we will continue to participate on the IHSS Task Force. PROVIDER WAGES AND BENEFITS Provider wages are based in California statute on Federal and State minimum wage standards. As of October 1, 1996, federal mandated minimum wage went to $4.75. Sept. 1, 1997, it will increase to $5.15 per hour. A current State Ballot Proposition (if passed) would increase California minimum wage to $5.75 in January 1997. Any wage increase for Independent Providers above minimum wage is not eligible for state reimbursement. SECTION III PUBLIC AUTHORITY ISSUES OF CONCERN The complex and relatively untested concept of a Public Authority raises a host of financial, service delivery, program accountability, labor relations and legal issues of concern to the Department. These various issues need to be explorect, and answers obtained in the coming weeks and months in order for a decision to be made on the appropriateness of a Public Authority. Social Service Department staff has/will take the following actions to gather necessary information regarding primary areas of impact: FINANCIAL • Study the cost of staff, structure and programs of the Public Authority over which the Board of Supervisors will not have direct control. Run suggested costs through a claim process. Consult with San Francisco, Alameda and State Department of Social Services. J Confer with State Department of Social Services to clarify whether any state or federal dollars are available above or beyond our current IHSS administrative allocation for support of a Public Authority. • Review State Department of Social Services claiming regulations for Public Authorities, when issued, to assess financial impact. • Identify with the State Department of Social Services the impact of Welfare Reform/TANF funds on the IHSS program. , • Identify with the State Department of Social Services the impact of Welfare Reform on IHSS client eligibility. • Identify with State Department of Social Services any IHSS Funding cuts due to Title XX Block Grant changes caused by Welfare Reform. - 5 - ✓• Identify with State and County Auditor how to assure fiscal accountability of an IHSS Public Authority. SERVICE DELIVERY/PROGRAM ACCOUNTABILtT1L Meet with San Francisco, San Mateo, and Alameda Public Authorities, County Auditor, County Counsel, and Social Service staffs to review the following service delivery and program accountability issues: • Coordination and duplication issues resulting from split authority between Social Service Department and Public Authority; Staffing needed to oversee Public Authority in order to maintain county mandated program and fiscal responsibilities; • Confidentiality issues regarding sharing of information with Public Authority; How to assure compliance of Public Authority with state audit requirements; • Gather information and advice on the experiences of these counties in launching Public Authorities. • Consult with IHSS Task Force, Advisory Council on Aging Long Term care Committee, and other interested parties to clarify their divergent views regarding the Public Authority; LABOR & LEGAL RELATIONS Confer with County Counsel and County Human Resources Departments regarding initial legal and labor relations issues that have been raised, including: Board of Supervisors legal relationship to independent Public Authority; • Determination of employer of record of Independent Providers; Determine County exposure to a broad new range of collective bargaining and meet and confer obligations; Determine if Public Authority would create a new County administrative wage and benefit structure for 5,000 additional employees; Consult with labor relations experts on Public Authority; Determine need to develop new employer/employee relations policies for Public Authority; Compare conflicting legal opinions regarding Public Authorities. - 6 . 00 COD Co) [ (r� Co) & G § ® � E (01) <M c , n , 22E , , oM. � , \ e 36Q & � Q i / mQ ID ? S.CD CD CD 0 ;0 CD CL kU � $ $ � / roc§fE § 0 ]Ik . \ ( COO CD k � A � > A ® 0 m0n mea Co ` ` ƒ l ° ° ? � _ � 02 k � k m \§ � � } ( 2 % 0 g 2 ƒ 0 i ) t } \ \ � � $ 0 - o , Ao 5, e ? M 0 0 / 0 m � - 7 ■ m « 3 ) ) � z2 ) CD m 7 K o z z 0 m 2 2 2 o 4 ƒ S co / 0 � < q r� ry� w d. .°+ Q C c N (D O N b C N 0 N cC CD 3 . . Cr. N _<< O N �. 0 O N .+ *00 (D � N N fll 0 0 oZ vv < Drs ° cam o� 30 � � (D " o :° ° o °' o 0) o � Qw m om ° moo m m N 0 c o =11 w � flCD p 0 0 0m coy10 0 ; w ; v 0CD0 � NBA O � o o CD o oc CD Fr I & W m D o (n co -1 cu o m ,7 m V c D 0 � 2 m NN CD » Z ao S v cn D 2• � � � d X ° ch CD -nm 3 ° y N �* c X K °i cn ai 0 v ° w � ,' a WO 0 ° � ° y► � 0 > to n O n, O. O_ C°) Q. cD vai co u; W 7 CD d co 0 �5r cpcII � N � � t<oN (n cn' � d co Wim . y CD CD CL m v (n > 'DCA S. co rN r (n c mX (1) c ow � o � onov � ) coc CD O0 -0 C'0 0''00 5•� �•v c$ o _h o 2) SII o °� o m 5. 2) 9 01 r d 3 o m n Om Cl) Izro cnm $ CD $ m 3 m O o M � fii '^ � ' c r cCD OcµD 2% cG 2% f0 -Ow N 0• D 3 -40 0 so 10 i � m c 0 2) 0 11) 0i 0 n n ni ° w' of Di 3 d' ai p Z C0 spm m m m m z 2 2• 2, 2• 2• �' �. c C7 N �d `° a r o $, c c o• 0 (n 0 cn n co 0 Co N () N 0 0 N cnp COv C0 C) Cl) C) C0 C) Nv 0) tf" 0 0 0 0 0 0 (A CD O CD O cD �j cD o v d cud S2.-6m' � w o'er w'm �i d m O om y °., y .0„ y .0,, y Oma, y �, IyD Oti, y N p. ON cN vN N ON coco � N CD o $ o $ m � og m �°, m m m CO m m m Cl) Cl) m z z, z z z 2• z• 0 0 0 m N 0 m r co V v J co tj V —1 O O Z 0 In O v m V (� m `° _ � � 3 � Nam p c n c<On m IL 1 EL CD �' DaCD c � c n• pg � m CDCD A3 c IDo a S m ... O' "p f7 C1 O O, 3 N O. O v = O� O r0 D Ci m a m O ?O y �S � m m � � Zvi N N mca mch ; N. = p• y oN � � � 3 0N3 � > > a �rC S. va Cn , c mcnC c my " m c Q2op aoW o . t . -na a •70 vg oaf o gy. N m p cv `° < cnn 0 0 4 � o o 3 a m 2 m " co N N a. O CCD C< v •O CD N 'm 'ON a 0 6 CD 00 0 D c CD (D V . 0 CD n6 o0 9 a= ay � a CL 0) o N y as O N � d N d 7 y M 7 �N 0 m N C/E) •J9 c V N Q m -0 v cSD (� c ran `c m O m = °: m O m 'a' ~ r o w r No• a No a - < 0co c CD o 2' co X 2 ?. a CD coo o Dr = cn 04 00 n n n n concn n n n n na' 0 nm o Vi cc CO m m O c C o { Cl) o co o o cn Q m ;ya o � v -Z-I � d'v v a �' m v' v c n -n 5� a n ° N N CON N Q CND m "a CL r 2 : - 2 2 2 2 2 O N o P, ac - Oo Cl) vo v v v v v w d �i m n m m m : m m m cn �. .0 d m CD CO co Z m N O m lD N p � O O v V V V V V V G tO Zm O 0 m 0 � § \ EE § $ E -00c 0 CD :3 PES ¥ « i � � , � � . k § ( ± R ] E7 2 \ ® � \ I \ / � % � k \ c \ } \ ] ° } \ / / f2 § e / % 2 e ' � n -« CD o -0 � $ � > 62 ] § § 22 R § r Q) _ # / ® o E S / n / i U0 ` E o ƒ , m = « 2a 0 a CD &_ ■ a0FD cz m k 22 ® � � m � 8 0 ® , f e J E a 7 f \ rD § k \ /_ c aE 7G k / 7 ƒ 2) 0 D E , fk ) [ \ CD0 � \ /2 / § ° f § @ - 3 , « 0 Q / ƒ 00 / 2 ® kcm k = R7 IRg ; a E � ° 0 to < R, , 22 X22 0 _ , m _ E = r CD � 7 / W ° � 0 G g = � 3I = « / . r m E 2. Co 2. ) o ] o > , o R § 2 § { cn \ 0 � g \ J m i / \ i § o ■ - - § . m / $ � E & > 2 = I . r { ƒ E@ R m m (D 0 n = nI 0 00 00 0 \ § [ § § § § § % § § 0§ 2 4 § « § 4 § # § Cl) « m CL @ nI n � n » nm nR 00 » E 0 0 0 0 of o � m cr § E m0 m0 § G § Co § � M ° E § \ § ( 7 \ § ( f \ f 2 i 0 0 c 0 § § k \ CD f f f E E m , R 7 z ] § ■ . ( . ■ CD \ §B k CA) e § m 7 CD § § \ § § 1 0 E a 2m / 0 * ATTACHMENT#6 D 42 of the United State Code. The personal care services (PCSP) are funded under California's Medi-Cal reimbursement methodology pursuant to the. State Plan Amendment (SPA) 94-006 which was approved by the United States Department of Health and Human Services on January 25, 1995 with an effective date of April 1, 1994. The State Plan Amendment was submitted to the federal government in compliance with Welfare and Institutions Code S 14132.95 (3) (j). The statute that authorizes counties to establish Public Authorities, Welfare and Institutions Code S 12301.6, contains each of these statutory references to constitute the legal framework for Public Authorities to receive this enhanced federal funding. Q. Need for revised financial information Contra Costa County Costs for a Public Authority: This fiscal analysis shows estimated costs for a one year start up period based on current dollars without consideration for salary increases or other inflationary factors. The analysis breaks Public Authority expenditures into cost centers tied to major programmatic responsibilities of the proposed Public Authority with appropriate staff support. The analysis assumes that the County continues to fully participate in the Personal Care Services Program, including full claiming of all available federal matching funds. Central Administrative Staff $148,500 Registry $162,500 Overhead $18,000 Advisory Board $6,000 Insurance $6,000 Labor Relations $30,000 Legal Services $10,000 TOTAL $3811000 Assumptions and Discussion: Central Administration Staff: Included in this category is an Executive Director who will assume overall responsibility and program responsibility, including serving as the Executive Director of the Advisory Board and responsibility for negotiating and monitoring labor contracts. Also included in this category are 1 V 1 clerical staff to ensure compliance with the Brown Act, funding for labor relations contractors, and funds for consultants/contractors to provide registry software and other consulting services. START UP YEAR TOTAL FUNDS 1 Executive Director $46,000 1 Clerical Assistant 20,000 Labor Relations 30,000 Consultants 52,000 TOTAL $148,000 Registry: The implementation of a comprehensive, community-based, county- wide worker registry designed to recruit and screen workers and to assist clients, their families and other health and social services providers in matching clients with workers is a key component of the Public Authority. The expenditures identified are for equipment purchases to establish regional registries. These equipment costs would largely be the development of a dedicated computer system for registry activities. This analysis assumes that the registry will be developed in collaboration with the two community-based organizations and agencies which currently perform some of these activities and expansion into under-served areas of Contra Costa County. This system would allow coordination of these activities and provide a central point of recruitment and referral for clients, families and health and social service providers.' I Registry Functions Total Costs Regional Registries Equipment $145,000 Registry Development $17,500 Overhead: This expenditure category covers basic supplies, phones, utilities, printing, necessary travel and other general overhead. This analysis assumes ' Registry and training costs assume that the entire caseload of providers and consumers will not make use of the Public Authority. The experience in San Mateo demonstrates that approximately 20-25% utilize registry or training services from their Public Authority. D -9 that overhead will equal approximately 5% of the total budget. We do not address the issue of rental of office space because this analysis assumes that County space can be made available to the Public Authority -- but that the Public Authority will reimburse the County for costs of phones and other utilities. Advisory/Governing Board: The establishment of an Advisory Board consisting of clients, workers, and program advocates will clearly link the Public Authority to the community that it is designed to serve. As such, we identify specific funds to support the development and maintenance of such a board. Liability Insurance: As an independent entity, the Public Authority must maintain general liability insurance in an amount determined to be adequate by the County's Risk Manager. This analysis proposes $30,000 for general liability insurance. Labor Relations 8r Legal Services: These estimates are derived from actual expenditures in Alameda for these cost centers. Availability of Funds for these Purposes: Net County Costs - This analysis assumes that the County would use $87,132 from the County General Fund to finance the county share of cost for the Public Authority. This represents the 30% county-share-of-cost for administrative costs. Program Sharing Ratios: Contra Costa County could achieve $293,868 in state and federal funds with a county General fund contribution of $87,132 to finance a Public Authority, for a total of$381,000 in budgeted revenues. Contra Costa Public Authority Costs $87,132 $132,050 ■Federal ■state ■County $161,818 _ _ AWMlk IAMI� Ik ITI mom 0 = ITI � � � M■r � � n b � � � , � � �-•! C!1 r* tri F-i r-r- r--r ¢� �1 On � ,-C3 � n n n � N O• �. � � CD O O O CD ~• CD O � � CD CD V� CD C. Q. CCD OCD CD• CD cn � CD , cn ..� O O D �Zt n cn CD O ' r-+- O CD CD cn CD CD CD r Ao- xj AIR A a T � 4 x 0 t� N 0 0 .o► � � �• � �• tip• tp (v ¢' -�j tai t f► r"d N o o � Q- � '� CSD `� � �►['� ► rot CD o co 'i� CD N n P cn J o "13 n o co -9A 3� ilk roln Q i � o Q N n -o t� No AL �. s 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 y r� � N � N N < m N Opl fJ W j +4 p \ n { m C v T C e T m40 � N � A u N S O C 10 T m 1p O N W � v � a e j W W � N tp V V O i D r Y oo O � rot '� � �.� � �,t �, Q+ r' CD N r•s O UQ. eoln Pox 0 s :' - - D ,9 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 3 j' m m � j N WW ,^co _K3 O to 8 PO 4 r � ,3 `. N W � kn � � N V� i► $ a E a CD r� � V1 O ,< CL N V/ c V � , erws Mob, Aft MM M ,9 4 N g g g g 1 o g $ g g N � �.y< x � �r E '� t a' �✓ e 1 w�'" t e Z 3a ,•"` N v w Et K i W '�Yi$, G 8 Mo d F t Rr aka r ya b n, .Pu 4 Sr CD 03 : tr i co r -0 a� ; x \ r vn V m v1 n N n M m ". c _ a Er. r ••S r, r a CD t � CD 'LS � jy � `7 r� ►. "� „� to .'is � y � (�D �' CD cr CL rD CA CD ri CD ��- m CD (4 v (CD �• S a o cn n ~ Ua'q b trq cio b � ,.a CD rD ,yy " C Cl p- O n CD V O CD CS o n ' cinCD ,moo � �. na � -, a -� hr E � y .i y CD A. • w ta 3 v j r + 9 I141 tn f C � Un o. � unQn w vQ � t tD CD . TSO fi 5 tp Volt 44 • o a a Un rot N � ys � G d •6 � � r o � � n R "4pek G fi, O :• � r• co Q, � .��t• O Q- G ✓ O ✓ co .I O- .. O �D �. � O � �' O. `" coo �' ,•O � � � n /'T1 < y G v, � � P� ..� rz � (D r C h � co nye ✓� 'a � (S u c9 P- n o d. �_� � �� y O G � � �h �, �• �. O � t UO 44 PS cn' � nFlcD. SGV C CD p un n :zn �. � � � �. ,�. � � �• � � �' �+'-Q � rte' 1. J o '� ) C � : CL ƒ @ r § � f. c � ) ƒ f � . \ t m g ¥ § § e 7 ) CD / 7 n D9 ƒ 9 / ® ƒ i § ZD 9 k uq i I / f0 COD \ � ) t - ; - o cL & Q CD � W VF OD W { 0.K f O N N yl '� � to O N N (t1 z; $ • ` t0 rt A N ' N O CD O � � �• ( (�, ( Q O CV o m Wt a o w N � CD c 03 N r 00 <J1 -3 to K N 'U � c 4 m - fl co 3 .4 cD N L I. O O 3 3 YYMMrr � .� SP`�yY C D � p � � �s NPIZ y Qs woo O N o o �+ cAfot- Im00 06 n TA 04, NE l i D� J�N_� C► Sr V ' 000 tD tr & fo G �•• C7 40 i9 `; .. Sr000 00. n 4 O o r•I t N ✓ O � ,.. O V' co i�✓ tA • co to p UT-4 GAG woo G ./ s j N •-t � O p, O N � p � � '� coop n n 6 o ✓ q �U d � Ott 9� � � O �.e O N n cj. moll CD O O co PDCZD (nACD CD' � � rn n N � cdD � r p � C ►+� r � to " 'TJ N -81 PD O `.3 CD N CD d � � O r• �i tA W N d 44 o o .- 45 Cf� -* C�' cD Q?, tD p O r CD CD CD 70 cl. CD CDar n "'* CD GQ rte.. OQ CD Lr CA �• VM n .t 3 CD O V �. CD I o �. CD CD CD �. C (f] r `C -vr �www ATTACHMENT #7 ID , IHSS Task Force, June 12, 1997 (2"' Draft) Statement on Behalf of California Democrats with Disabilities: Our members are not taking an official position for or against developing a Public Authority in Contra Costa County. Our reason for a non-position is that of Members reached to poll on the Public Authroity, we are evenly divided within our membership for/against a Public Authority in Contra Costa County. However, we are making the following suggestions and asking questions to further the dialogue on the issues: -We must design an IHSS program that will meet the mutual needs of seniors and people with disabilities -If it is the finding of the Board of Supervisors that a Public Authority is the chosen direction for consumers, we wish to be involved in the design planning and on-going direction representing consumers/Members who were not in favor of establishing a Public Authority as well as the consumer/Members who are in favor of establishing a Public Authority. -Representing those who do not agree with the Public Authority concept want: -To sustain our members agreement to a P.A. the Advisory must be directly involved in all matters with the County/SEIU/Advisory bargaining process. The bargaining must accept the Advisory's conditions in the bargaining process. The Advisory must be given full responsibilities and stipends paid for each member of the Advisory. -Continued IP Mode for those who select to remain in an IP Mode with"Advance Pay" -Advance Pay will continue for those who are already on"Advance Pay" -That all IHSS recipients in Contra Costa County are given all the options from which to select....including Advance Payment at time of re-certification to the IHSS program -That membership in the SEIU is not required for those workers who chose not to be unionized and that this is clearly explained to workers that they are not required to become a union member... -That union dues will not be collected from minimum wage earners until SEIU has secured funds to raise wages. That at no time, union dues will take the wage earner's income below minimum wage standards to meet union dues requirements or a benefit package arrangement. -That every effort will be made to send out a survey designed only by consumers and those community-based agencies who provide "direct services" to IHSS clients with a self-addressed stamped envelope for ensure greater return. -It is our feeling that an even representation of senior and disabled on a Public Authority will not meet the needs of the IHSS consumer who is receiving 200 or more hours of IHSS contractor hours. The needs for the severely disabled are dramatically different than those who receive only domestic services in their homes. We feel that if eleven members/consumers must sit on the Public Authority that at all times representative consumers must be split in the following fashion 7 consumers: 5 consumers who are receiving 200 or more hours; 2 consumers under 200 hours and the remaining members of the Public Authority represent community-based agencies providing direct services to IHSS consumers: 2 senior-related agency reps and 2 disability agency-related reps. -We believe that "past consumers" (Advisory)should be limited to no more than 5 years Page 2-3, IHSS Task Force Representing those who do not support the IHSS/Public Authority, (cont'd) because their needs and lifestyle is dramatically different than those of us who live on very low incomes. The only variance to this is that we can accept the concept that if a person is applying for IHSS and the application is in appeal. -We all saw what happened in Tulare County. We saw people's health and safety jeopardized when the consumer took action against UDW/Addus (then National Homecare Systems, Inc..) -We believe that the Public Authority should conduct meetings in each part of the county per quarter: one PA meeting in East County, one PA meeting in Central County, one PA meeting in West County each quarter giving an opportunity to IHSS consumers to attend and participate in the Public Authority meetings. Representing those who support the Public Authority concept: -To ensure greater disability consumer input into the development of a Public Authority a survey be sent to all Contra Costa IHSS consumers. This survey should be designed by 50% current IHSS consumers and those community-based agencies who provide "Direct Services"to the disabled and elderly. Funding should come from any entity who would benefit from a Public Authority. -Clearly define what additional money is/will become available within the next year to ensure sustain higher wages for workers. -Define what health benefits and any other benefits will be available to those who join SEIU as members. What is the dues structure?In what increments have the dues risen in the past 5 years? -What kind of training will be available for consumers and workers? How many hours of initial training will be expected before a provider can work? Will this be grandfathered in so the current workers do not need to take any developed training? What additional in-service hours will be required of workers? Will the workers be required to attend any meetings or functions of the union? -Share with us the kind of training that has taken place in other Public Authorities for both the consumer and workers so that an informed decision can be made about the Public Authority. -Define who is the"Employer of Record" and what does that mean? Who pays for the State Disability Insurance and who is held libel if the worker steals or causes great bodily injury the IHSS client? Page 3-3, IHSS Task Force -What written guarantees will SEIU offer the consumer to terminate a worker immediately if a problem arises? -What kind of emergency pool of workers will SEIU have to assist a consumer when their provider does not show up for work? Who will pay for the emergency worker? What rate will the emergency worker charge? -What assurances does a consumer have if they can not manage their provider that SEIU will re-train, if necessary, the worker in the personal care issues...or replace the worker with a properly trained worker within a reasonable period of time. -What kind of information will the worker have to provide SEIU about their client? Will the worker have to document any/all activities done on the job site? -Will SEIU limit any worker from applying for ajob if they are English as a Second Language or have inadequate skills to communicate? -Will the worker be required to keep their own hours, punch a time clock at one site and go to the job site? -Will a worker need to document all activities in which they participate in the client's home? (Time for task). Will the worker be required to report to their union representative any and all discoveries made in a client's home? What level of confidentiality will be expected of both the worker and the union? -If a client is in an "appeal process"will the IHSS client and worker be called into the Appeal Process? -If there is a dispute between the client and the worker, will the client's views be taken into account...who will be the client's advocate in the dispute? Dlo TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: HARVEY BRAGDON Costa DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: July 8, 1997 acourty SUBJECT: IMPLEMENTATION OF FRANCHISE FEES FOR GARAVENTA ENTERPRISES AND PLEASANT HILL BAYSHORE FRANCHISE AREAS AND ALLOCATION OF SOLID WASTE FRANCHISE FEES TO SOLID WASTE PROGRAM OPERATION SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: APPROVE the initiation of Franchise Fees in the areas served by Garaventa Enterprises and Pleasant Hill Bayshore as allowed by their Franchise Agreements with the County, effective July 1, 1997 and allocate funds to the Solid Waste Programs for the unincorporated County. FINANCIAL IMPACT Currently County areas in East County served by these haulers pay no franchise fees though collection of fees has been authorized since October, 1995. The fees will provide some of the funding for the State required Solid Waste Program development and implementation and reduce the need to draw on the County General Fund. The fees will accrue to the hauler but not be passed on to rate payers until the rate review is completed. The anticipated revenue is $205,400 to the County. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _ CX YES SIGNATURE: ��e, :0/ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR_ RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD OMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON July 8, 1997 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER See the attached Addendum. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS x UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ------ I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND AYES: NOES: CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact: Mary Fleming (510) 335-1230 cc: Community Development Department(CDD) ATTESTED July 8. 1997 PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY , DEPUTY MF:rw J:\Groups\cdadpool\mary\ffee520.7bo Board Order Implementation of Franchise Fees July 8, 1997 Page 2 Background/Reasons for Recommendations The goal of resource recovery programs is to reduce the amount of waste deposited in landfills. From the base year of 1990 a state required reduction of 25% by 1995 (achieved) and 50% by 2000 is the goal. Besides the goal the County is required to develop and operate the programs identified in the Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) approved by the State of California in 1993. The pertinent sections are attached. The state regularly checks the percentage of diversion and the progress on implementing programs. When programs are not being implemented the State takes greater interest in the diversion process. The State Solid Waste Board is sending mixed messages. They are out assuring counties that they will not be mean but staff is proceeding deliberately and systematically. Implementing the required programs will require a budget and a staff. Our first goal therefore, is to assure a source of funding. Contribution from two sources is appropriate. The first mechanism is the inclusion of Franchise Fees placed on waste hauling Franchise Agreements throughout the unincorporated county area. As we review each Franchise Agreement we will also review the level of service and determine if it is the appropriate time to implement any new services. New rate structures which include Franchise Fees, variable can rates and any other necessary modifications to service levels will then go to the Board of Supervisors for approval. The second mechanism involves assuring that all county waste landfills, either in the county or out of county, be assessed the $.15 per ton landfill fee approved by the Board of Supervisors. Despite the county reporting requirement, waste directed to out of county landfills do not contribute. It is anticipated that these two actions will provide adequate funding to provide for staff to implement the necessary waste reduction programs. Our first effort is to have every county customer pay a county franchise fee. Since 1993, the County has entered into Franchise Agreements with Solid Waste Haulers in the majority of the unincorporated residential and commercial areas. All of the Franchise Agreements allow for the collection of Franchise Fees for the purpose of administering the Franchise Agreements, providing for solid waste programs and meeting the State requirements for reducing the amount of waste disposed by 50% by the year 2000 (AB939). The responsibilities above were originally supported by fees from the Keller Canyon Landfill. When those fees were dramatically reduced in 1994, the Solid Waste programs were left with minimal financial support. Franchise Fees were then applied as new rates were set or new Franchise Agreements were entered into. The RSS rate adjustment for EI Sobrante, North Richmond and other unincorporated communities served by RSS and the Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority Franchises which serve the unincorporated areas of Alamo, Blackhawk, Walnut Creek, etc. included Franchise Fees of 5% in 1995. The Franchise Agreements for Crockett and Kensington in 1996 also included 5% Franchise Fees in the rates. The only areas of the County where Franchise Fees are not currently being collected are in the areas served by Pleasant Hill Bayshore Disposal (BFI) and Garaventa Enterprises. The result is that approximately one-half of the households in the unincorporated County are providing the full support for the programs that are provided to the benefit of all residents. Once funding is assured, staff can focus on implementing programs as outlined in the Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE). The County is required to provide an Annual Report to the state which outlines the amount of reduction in landfilled waste and describes which of the approved source reduction and recycling programs have been implemented. Board Order Implementation of Franchise Fees July 8, 1997 Page 3 Background/Reasons for Recommendations (cont'd) The program areas the State expects to see this year include: • Variable Can Rates: establish variable can rates, including mini-can rates throughout the unincorporated area; • Residential Curbside Collection: continue, evaluate and expand curbside recycling programs to include as many materials as practical; • Multi-Family Collection: continue, evaluate and expand existing and planned apartment, condominium and mobile home park multimaterial collection programs; • Reusable Pick-up Days: explore the feasibility of establishing reusable pick-up programs; • Establish Yard Waste Collection Programs: require waste haulers to establish collection programs for source separated yard waste from residences and businesses in the unincorporated communities; • Public Outreach: develop Countywide publicity and public education/outreach programs; • Commercial Recycling: provide technical assistance regarding source reduction and recycling to commercial businesses; • Home Composting: continue, evaluate and expand Home Composting program; including free workshops and discounted compost bins; • Household Hazardous Waste: coordinate with Health Services Department, solid waste authorities and solid waste haulers regarding Household Hazardous Waste programs; • Bay Area Wide Source Reduction Programs: participate in the third annual Bay Area Shop Smart campaign, Business Waste Reduction campaign and Edible Food Donation campaign. Some of these programs need to be in place by 1998, others need to be initiated to continue to receive the support of the State. In addition, the Projected cost for administering the Franchise Agreements includes overseeing rate reviews and customer satisfaction surveys, reviewing service levels and enforcement of all ordinance requirements. Estimates have been provided below to indicate the anticipated cost to operate or initiate each program. Some of the programs, such as variable can rates have been initiated in some areas but not in others. Solid Waste Franchise Income The County currently collects a Franchise Fee in the following areas of the County; West County area served by RSS (5%) including EI Sobrante Crockett/Port Costa area served by Crockett Garbage Service (RSS) (3% until 1/99) Kensington area served by Bay Area Refuse and Recycling Inc. (5%) (2 of the 5% may go to a Local Advisory Committee if one is formed) The Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority area served by BFI/VWM (5%) No Franchise Fee is collected by the County in the areas served by BFI and Garaventa Enterprises. Board Order Implementation of Franchise Fees July 8, 1997 Page 4 Background/Reasons for Recommendations (Cont'd) It has been the County practice to offer 40% of the Franchise fee to local Sanitary Districts or Local Advisory Committees that wish to stay actively involved in developing and operating the required SRRE programs and in providing advice to the Board of Supervisors regarding the administration of the Franchise Agreements. Ironhouse Sanitary District intends to do this. Current practice is to set aside 20% of the 5% Franchise fee to pay for special studies or projects assigned by the Board. The current income from Franchise fees is approximately $255,700. If Franchise Fees were provided from the BFI/Garaventa areas the additional amount would be approximately $205,480 assuming a portion of the fees going to the local Sanitary Districts. The combined existing and proposed income amount would provide approximately $354,000 for Administration of Franchise Agreements and implementation and operation of SRRE programs and approximately $107,000 annually for the special study fund for audits and other studies the Board may consider. Other solid waste income currently consists of$.15 per ton disposed at the landfills, which pays for the Recycling Guide and Hotline, AB 939 reporting responsibilities and several Bay Area Wide programs and Franchise Fees for % of the unincorporated area, which pays for all of the remaining programs and Franchise Administration. Staff also received fees for performing specific planning reviews such as EIRs, closure plans and solid waste permits. Our alternative will be to identify the critical work to be done and keep track at what cannot be accomplished. In order to develop a viable solid waste program a dependable source of income is necessary for the division. The County is subject to fines of up to $10,000 per day if the State determines that the County has not met their obligation to provide the required programs and to reduce waste disposal by 50% by 2000. Related activities within the division: 1. Complete the EIR for the West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill (WCCSL) Hazardous Waste Management Facility Closure/Postclosure Maintenance Plans. Project and EIR will be subject the approval of the Lead Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2. Assist the County Health Services Department/Environmental Health Division as Local Enforcement Agency (LEA), upon request, with CEQA compliance where they have been designated as the Lead Agency. 3. Respond to requests from Erickson for assistance in seeking necessary approvals and meeting required conditions prior to operation of their hazardous waste facility which was approved for the North Richmond area. 4. Continue on-going Implementation/Mitigation Monitoring Programs for the following facilities (including approval of phased development as well as oversight regarding other requirements in the Land Use Permit): a. Acme Fill Waste Recovery and Transfer Station (a.k.a. BFI/Solid Waste Transfer and Recovery Station); b. Keller Canyon Landfill (including implementation of the Payout Process as directed by the Board of Supervisors and negotiation to reduce residents' concerns); Board Order Implementation of Franchise Fees July 8, 1997 Page 5 C. West County Integrated Resource Recovery Facility (IRRF), including the Central Processing Facility (transfer station) and Bulk Materials processing Center; d. WCCSL Soil Remediation Facilities; e. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District's Household Hazardous Waste Collection Facility; and f. Assisting the Health Department in maintaining collection of Household Hazardous Wastes; g. Assisting Delta Diablo to construct their drop off facility. 5. Respond/comment regarding the U.S. Department of Energy's proposal for the importation of spent nuclear fuel rods to Concord Naval Weapons Station, as directed by the Board. (Spent to date) The following represents budgeting by program. The numbers are estimated and rounded because limited funding has not permitted a systematic approach. Actions have been taken in response to crisis, opportunity and available time. Complaints such as those made by EI Sobrante regarding inadequate monitoring and follow through on recycling issues can be anticipated under current circumstances. Projected Solid Waste Programs and Cost for 1997-98: Franchise Review and Administration Negotiation of Franchise Agreements & MOU's, administration of ebsting Franchise Agreements (includes overseeing rate reviews and customer satisfaction surveys, reviewing service levels and enforcement of all Franchise Agreements and Ordinance requirements) WCCIWMA(JPA) RSS Franchise $10,000.00 Crockett Garbage Service $5,000.00 Bay Vim Refuse and Recycling $5,000.00 CCCSWA(JPA) $5,000.00 BFI Franchise(s) $6,000.00 Mountain View SD $5,000.00 Rodeo SD $5,000.00 Garaventa Franchise(s) $10,000.00 Ironhouse SD $10,000.00 Byron SD $10,000.00 Mandatory Subscription $10,000.00 Subtotal $81,000.00 Board Order Implementation of Franchise Fees July 8, 1997 Page 6 county Counsel Projected County Counsel Costs $87,000.00 County Counsel is heavily involved in negotiatin Franchise Agreements and MOU's and represents the County in litigation. 1997 Unincorporated Area Programs Source Reduction Programs Required byAB939; programs designed to reduce the amount of waste entering the wastestream. Variable Can Rates Implementaion $7,000.00 Reusable Pickup Days $7,000.00 Countywide Source Reduction Programs Vocational Training $2,000.00 Business License Fee Reduction $2,000.00 Fast Food Packaging $2,000.00 Disposable Diapers $2,000.00 Resource Evaluations $10,000.00 Recycling Programs AB939 requirement; Programs that enhance the availability of secondary materials for the production of new items. Residential Curbside Collection $5,000.00 Multi-family Recycling $5,000.00 Develop Drop-off Centers $5,000.00 Establish New Buy-backs $2,000.00 Establish comm/ind collection routes $10,000.00 Countywide Recycling Programs Ordinance Revisions $15,000.00 Develop COA for Constr/Dema Debris $5,000.00 Return to Source Plastics Drop-off $5,000.00 Board Order Implementation of Franchise Fees July 8, 1997 Page 7 Composdng Programs AB939 requirement; Programs that divert greenwaste and foodwaste from landfills to the production of usable compost products. Establish Composting Facilities $10,000.00 Establish Yard Debris Collection Programs $10,000.00 Establish Curbside Collection of Food Waste $5,000.00 County-wide Composting Programs Commercial Public Education $5,000.00 Land Use Permit Review $5,000.00 special Waste AB939 requirement; Programs that provide for wastes that require procedures different from those normally used for municipal solid waste. Monitor Ag.Waste Disposal Practices $2,000.00 Merrithew Hospital Program $2,000.00 Sewage Sludge $2,000.00 Reduce Tire Disposal $2,000.00 Household Hazardous Waste $2,000.00 Education and Public Education AB939 requirement; Development and provision of publicity and educational programs designed to encourage public participation toward reaching AB939 goals. Develop Countywide Publicity Programs $20,000.00 Annual Reminders $10,000.00 Annual Mass Media Program $20,000.00 Countywide EPI Program Speakers Bureau $5,000.00 Oversight and Coordination of Franchisees'EPI campaigns $2,000.00 RMDZ $10,000.00 Ad Hoc Solid Waste Committee $5,000.W Preparation and follow-up for the Board of Supervisors Ad Hoc Solid Waste Committee Subtotal $186,000.00 TOTAL $354,000.00 J:groups\cd a d po o I\m a ry\ffe a 520.7 b o D.10 ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.10 July 8, 1997 Board Agenda The Board discussed initiating franchise fees in the areas served by Garaventa Enterprises and Pleasant Hill Bayshore Disposal franchise areas, allocating solid waste franchise fees to solid waste program operations. Chair DeSaulnier noted that one of the parties wished to continue the matter, and moved that the hearing be continued to July 22, 1997. The public hearing was opened, and the following people presented testimony: Dave Levy, attorney representing Mt. View Sanitary District and Rodeo Sanitary District, 8 Wanda Way, Martinez; Milt Ketter, El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council, 4 Oak Creek Road, El Sobrante; Dorothy Sakazaki, Mt. View Sanitary District, 737 Central Avenue, Martinez; Following a brief discussion, Supervisor Canciamilla seconded the motion. The Board took the following action: CONTINUED to July 22, 1997, consideration of implementing franchise fees for Garaventa Enterprises and Pleasant Hill Bayshore franchise areas and allocation of solid waste franchise fees to solid waste programs. Solid Waste Franchise Fees for Contra Costa County Jurisdictions Franchise Agency Formula Annual Revenue Antioch' Flat Fee $140,970 Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority2 Danville 5% $199,000 Lafayette 5% $105,000 Moraga 5% $ 70,000 Orinda 5% $ 96,002 Walnut Creek 9% $536,000 Unincorporated County 5% $140,000 Clayton 5% (gross receipts) $ 40,000 Concord Flat Fee $800,000 EI Cerrit03 6.5% (gross receipts) $170,000 Hercules3 Flat Rates $ 62,500 Ironhouse Sanitary District3 2% (gross receipts) $ 40,000 Kensington 5% (gross receipts) $ 30,000 Martinez' 10% (gross receipts) $440,000 Pinole3 Flat Rate' $ 38,496 Pittsburg' 7% (gross receipts) $464,137 Pleasant Hi113 10% (gross receipts) $441,000 Richmond 2.5% (gross receipts) $208,500 San Pab103 Flat Rate($1 0,000/month) $120,000 San Ramona 10% (gross receipts) $275,000 Unincorporated West County3 5% (gross receipts) $ 90,504 (RSS) NOTES: ' = Fiscal Year 1995 - 1996 2 = Contract Year March 1, 1997 - February 28, 1998 3 = Fiscal Year 1996-1997 ' = Concord has a flat rate of$800,000 or 5% of commercial and 6.9% of residential, whichever is the greatest. 5 = The rate is tied to increases in population and to the rate of single can service. ' = Based on the average for the last 4 quarters. ' = 2nd quarter 1996 through 1 st quarter 1997 RMF1:formula.ff June 4, 1997 C O O N c. O (`a N O O O>1 CL w O T C + N C + 7 co Cy CN O NCO O O N " (O LO O V O NO N O O O N co I Q NO 1 N OD x 0N w OD t O N ON G E (D N Z N d Q a) m N t (Du G) ~ C O) O) (D (D OO) m z ca O m O O (D C N N L1 m w m N 0) (0 M Z. W N axi of a) m c Q d L U U > N N 7 = m N O) co C d O) O O) U) C O) V N O a) " _ N c m 3 m vii y c c c m o a a) m c w L 0 o m -_ cu -o C7 3 a o o,>m LL C U a) N O a) .0 > U) d Q N L U p Y 3 a) U) O LL N O) U (a O >. OJ O) mo C7 E U m5 m O m > � a) H V/ w U �_ U) C O q Ln W p 1+ 1 T (' W C d O O O O O O U Q E o Q U U U U U �, 'C m .` E m O7 O) O) ca (O O) �" O VI N O) C fes/) N N U) U) �' m CO L .a O O O O O C = O N U U U U U O N U Q (n 7 m U •N 0 V N W m m N C 0 N O y Z 3 (n c c c c c c o c c cc y ai m a) tL U U U U 0 m U > m Overall Solid Waste Programmatic Revenues and Functions Short Fall Current Projected with Current Program Income Costs Income Countywide AB939 Programs. Funding comes from $.15/Ton fee at the landfills and pays for programs with a Countywide benefit. See page 1 of Solid Waste Budget Summary FY 97/98 $101,000 $101,000 $0 Franchise Review and Administration. Funding comes from Franchise Fees and covers the cost of developing and implementing Franchise Agreements and Memorandums of Understanding, overseeing rate reviews and customer satisfaction surveys, reviewing service levels and enforcement of all Franchise Agreements and ordinance requirements and the cost of County Counsel services on Franchising issues. $109,000 $151,000 $42,000 Mandatory Subscriptions. Funding comes from fees assessed to residents seeking exemptions from the requirement to subscribe to Solid Waste Services. Funding pays for the cost of seeking exemption from the ordinance or persons not paying for or not subscribing to Solid Waste Services. $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $0 AB939 Compliance. Funding comes from Franchise Fees and covers the cost of implementing the source reduction and recycling programs required by AB939. These programs are required by the Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) which was approved by the state. The SRRE includes a schedule for implementation and an annual report to the state is required to report on County progress towards implementing programs. The County is subject to a fine of up to $10,000 per day for failure to implement the SRRE and/or failure to achieve the required reduction in solid waste landfilled. $0 1 $201,000 1 $201,000 Short Fall Current Projected with Current ro ram Income Costs Income Solid wast Facilities Permitting. Funding is from fees assessed on the EIR preparation and Land Use Permits and covers the cost of producing and reviewing EIR's relating to solid waste facilities, processing land use permits for solid waste facilities and providing for implementation and mitigation monitoring for all of the above. $ 78,000 $ 78,000 $0 Overall Totals $298,000 $541,000 $243,000 The shortfall in the above is primarily a result of a shortage of Franchise Fees. The County is currently collecting a Franchise Fee of 5% for approximately 50% of the residents served under Franchise Agreements. The fee has been utilized as follows: 40% to solid waste programs - approximately $109,000 20% to a fund to provide for studies, rate reviews, etc., approximately $51,000 40% to a reserve fund (in some communities this amount is either not collected [Crockett] or is set aside for a local advisory Committee) - approximately. $92,000 Collecting Franchise Fees from the residents served by BFI and Garaventa would add an additional approximately $104,000 to the Solid Waste Budget. This increase would still leave a shortfall of approximately $139,000 which could be remedied by applying all available Franchise Fees to Solid Waste Programs. J:\groups\cdad poo l\raymond\mary.tab J x H W xx Ox X X X X X X X 0 W W W W W W W W W m T T T T T T T T T C C C C C C C C C m U U U U U U U U U J 0 `0 `O 0 `O `O `O 0 `O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O a a a a a a a a a w000 C C C C C C C m m S2 x x Si Si Si v S' v W W W W W W W W W N N N m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m /ems 0_ Q O. O_ d G. Q O_ Q ~ E E E E E E E E E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LL N N N N 0 O N 0 N N N m m CD m m OI Of OI OI O1 m C `m m m `m `m `m `m `m m C L L L L L L L L L m m m m m m m m m CMm f A N N N N N N N N N a V/ n. aa nannna m W O D D D V > Ur 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0o . Q coo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0a O O 0 0000 0 00 0 m 000 000000 v� m opo 6 L6 L6 Ono 0 Cl) N N EA fA a EA ELT EA EA EH W, fR CU _ m m Z Q W N a C m G m W N C '1► 0 v U � QCo a " m Z m 3 Q Qm N W C n LL O G CD N M U( � E y E rn m w m E y o 0 c -0 fA m Q 0 < ` U 7 V G U) F- //� R O_ O U m (D rO, d O N C a K m a C a o c n M W �j L 5 _ a Co r m a U = CL m U _ OX d ` E ° m c a C4U m Q d C _ LL T (n Y ] T O 01 U O _v v Cl) 00 J M m L N 00 U O 0 m W U 0 in � O m cA LL rn o Q rn m Z 00 001 000 o Cl) 0 O LO O x W Oi 4 N ao V LLQ O O_ 0) V LO Ur Z 6% Vy 0 W CO W OO O O m _ _ LL !0 f0 f6 l6 J L L L L W N Mn Mn Mn V -O a a a E E E E O L L L L Q Q Q Q N N N N m m m O O m W 0 0 0 0 LL LL a a Q N N y N U U U U c c W W W W W O O O O O O Z LLL a°i a0i ami a°'i ami ami ami O O LL LL LL LL LL LL LL N N N N L L L L L L L L L .L N N N In N N U Q U U U U a L d d m C c C c -LL N N N N N N C �J LL- LL LL W W W W W W W N Q LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL > w � O c c c c c c c c c c 0 0 O O 0 0 0 O O O O O W N N N N N N N N N N o C_ N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L O1 N U U U U U U U U U U N N Q m W (0 N N IA N N N tl1 tll N W m m m >m m m m m m m N -" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 lco:), 000000000000F000OOOOOOOOO ro c0000000000000 x0wU U) 000000000000 m MW O O Ln Ln Ln (O Ln Ln O a p 1� U HT EA fR 61) b9 W T T T M LO E L O Q O EH EA W ER 6q T 0 3 d LL ` b m d 0 H 0 L L N m a c w z 12 a i E Uy2 Q Q d LL r N y C L Z li N Q C O Q 3 O m m n ui L - 0 Z Z oe W LLl T d W ` w w �_ J b Z w w w 9 W (� U a v U >16 w NQ Q LLl ` U) C N w LL' w O O z Q W m m m U r o N W (D w m Q m m m c 0 � >- w o Q w m a ami j m ug N v uj < < 0 0 O VWi w ww p m 7U LL 3 Q m O o c U -` Q 2 z L) o oQ 0- ao L U) Y N U) 7 a j C O T O Q Z a. ' W ' U �V Q W U U �. U LL g � m o m m Z D wz UL � � UmUm (7 U LL C) Uaaaa J x W N N N N N N N N N N N N N W M N N N N fq N N N N N ZO O O O O O O O O O O O O W U U U U U U U U U U U U U > E E E E E E E E E E E E E m W m m m m R m m m m m m m m a rnrnrnrnrn rnrnrnrno) rnrnrn O O ` O ` O O O ` ` O O ` H aaaaaCl. aaaaaCl- aJ W ca ca oa Cd ca xf ca as w wa ca ae oa H L L In (n f n 05 (n Z5 Z5 65 (n Mn U—) f n n 0 N N a) N a) aI d Q) m m N N N a) m L d > > > > > > > > > > > > > W m m O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 N N U U U U U U U U U U U U U W N N O O O O O O O O O O O O O W a) (1) N N 0 N a) m N a) N N () a) N Z � L N N N am N 0 0) 0) ) a) a) a) N LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL N N L L L L L L L L L L L L L N N N N N N N N N N N N N Q v v a a a s a a 0 0 n a a C C m �E W r6 m m m m m m m m m N m N N N N N N N N 41 N N N N LL LL W W W W W W W W W W W W W W a m i- LLL D LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL 0 c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c Cl) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v v v v v v v v v v v v it W a� m a) a� m d m m a� m a� a� d d d Cl) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a) cn Z U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U W a) (D 0 a) 0 0 0 0 0 a) 0 m a) m (DLU a >m N N N 0 C) 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O 00000 C) 0 0 0 0 O O O 66 66666 0 0 0 0 666 O 0 0 O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 C O O 00 00000 00000 0 0 0 r_ r (4 N N N O L6 L6 Ll N O L L6 U7 F EA b9 W EA 69 M EA EH Efl EA EA EA U) 69 69 fA 0 U N N E o c D o 0 0 cc a •U C O N o O * O N o v 0 N N p� W _ d — m N U a a m N N 0 0 N u m 'O a) tm N O Y — a C y Q Q a m li OI L 0 a) c N .m0 U c 0 ci a J .a © m a) m m m U 1 a� ` 'c N a 0 N N 0 c 0 .N `o a s IL M CUc Y m > 3 > '> i L) O ~ a W U w 6.o d o OU 0 Q a v m o m vO o _ Z U U o V C y U a a c y m c0i a m .�' D L L v c 0a V a1 O z a) LL N 7 C E O_ N N m i O) c a m m n 0 0) a) w o c a) o ao C m N C U N Vl N ._ Q) m .` 3 0 0 o m a� N > M M m o o > mLL0X Via' 0 N N o00 � CO W 0) > > � U V w 2 0 W W U Q F y ct U) J x N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N t: ~ N N N N in N N N N N N N h V) N N W O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ( j U U U U U U U U U 000 U 000 E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E In N N mm M N N N td td d) N N N N J rn CD 0) O) o) cm 0) m 0) 0) tm m m 0) M 0) Im C a aaaaa aaaJO O O O O O O O O ` O O O ` OO aQ aaaaa n- oa as oa as as ca a) ca as as as as .a ca to oa w w w ww w w w w w w w w I w w w w w w w cu cu co coy W fA fD LA to (4 U O N Ln (D U) U) U) U) cofn d; L 4) l6 00 1 > > 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 a) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U w O O O O O O OO O O O O O O O O O d) () d) Wo w o o d d) d) d) d) d) d d) 9 N d) d) N d) N N d) N N N N () d) d) d) N aaa LLLL aaLLa as u_ a aaa o L L L L L L L L L L L L LN N N N N N N N_ N_ N N N_ N Mn N_ Mn O L C n a n a n s n a a n a z n a a C- CU to m ds d) m to ; td m m m m m m c N N N N N Ul N N N V) V) ul N N In N O W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W C d) E d) N N (D d) () d) N N o d) d) d) N N d) d) OE (Dd) () d) (1 N N N d) d) d) () d) N () d) � c LL a a a LL a a a LL LL LL LL a LL LL LL t� O C C c c C C C C C C C c C C C C O N O O O O O OO O O O O O O O O O U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U �� L d) d) d) d) d) d) N d) N N d) d) d) d) d) N C p O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O d) U U U U U U U U U U U 0 U U U U L L o .N. d) d) d) d) N d) d) d) N d) d) d) d) d) a) N N N N N N N N N y N N N N N N N 3 i>> 3: 3: 3: w E of 000 cc 0 0 o o o C) o o 0 o 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a) 000 00 00000 000 O O O O O N c 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O E O O Lo L6 )n N N N N N O O O tt) N O Lo C y .-- to to to ER H3 to tow N N to W O fA ff3 M to to (f) NW LL rn � C U N N d) Q) ~ LL 'O N N d) G N N N L o Q N E U O` OO N U td C U O) J N o O N o m r a O tm LL M d - c o .- a o T c Fa E U O �. m w w t' E O a d) O d) z E N Qi U d) E (D w i U a J d) N Ld U fd J Lico U °' w a m 00 o " E E L° E c n o_ a O a a 'o a m rn o a o c w o J O W E to d) v J E a) �d O0. ° z '2S i a a m U n O_ N O a N N O_ d) N N = +-' U O J C N u) dI 'NO o E E U -Cu a y tT Q ds a c c a p3 td N u C CL U } U v °: _ 2 y 2 = o E N m N L C w v d) y O) H 'O d) N 'O N m C G MCwww 3 E7o � a o t as 2 ' m a_ (L `) 4j 9 a z T c O w m U N O ° N N N d) LL (p Q co O c O c .c fd 7 N M d) J J C O 7 N J U J c U owww0 w cf)Of = aoQa0cno _ U y W Q 1997-1998 Salary, Benefits, Overhead and Equipment for CONSERVATION DIVISION Name Title % Time Salary/Benefits/Overhead/ Support Costs Mary I. Fleming Solid Waste 100% $73,692 Programs Manager Planner IV Deidra Dingman Solid Waste 100% $49,452 Program Planner III Chris Lehon Recycling Specialist 100% $30,000 Linda Moulton Franchise 90% $49,993 Administrator Total Staff Time: $203,137 Overhead, including benefits: $219,623 Other Staff and Consultants County Counsel $90,000 Contract $27,240 Employees Total Other: $117,240 Overall Total: $540,000 5119/97 RMFt:per-cost.97 C ) 1 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: HARVEY BRAGDON Costa DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT N ' DATE: JULY S, 1997 C<)U ly SUBJECT: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH IRONHOUSE SANITARY DISTRICT FOR THE PROVISION OF SOLID WASTE SERVICES IN THE OAKLEY AND BETHEL ISLAND AREAS SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: Accept the staff report review of background. Authorize the Chair to sign the Memorandum of Understanding between Ironhouse Sanitary District and Contra Costa County FINANCIAL IMPACT The Memorandum of Understanding includes provision for payment of Franchise Fees to go to the County to pay for the cost of implementing Source Reduction and Recycling programs in the Oakley and Bethel Island areas and to provide for their share of funding for Countywide programs including development of a Rate Review Methodology and the cost of an initial rate review. / CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE: rOLI�� RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR— RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE _ OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON R APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS UNANIMOUS (ABSENT I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND AYES: NOES: CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact: MaryFLe"1 (510) 335-1230 cc: Community Development Department(CDD) ATTESTED PHILJBATOHELOR,CL RK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR B , DEPUTY \MF J:\Groups.....W I O U I H.7 b o Board Order MOU with Ironhouse Sanitary District July 8, 1997 - Page 2 - BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS: On May 9, 1995 the County entered into a Franchise Agreement with Garaventa Enterprises to provide for Solid Waste services in the unincorporated East Contra Costa County area. The provisions of the Franchise Agreement did not become operative in the area located within the Ironhouse Sanitary District pending a decision to that effect by the Board of Supervisors. County Ordinance allows the County to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with local public agencies where the local public agency desires to franchise directly with the solid waste provider and the local agency agrees to participate in and share responsibility for meeting AB939 requirements and in implementing the county's source reduction and recycling element. Ironhouse Sanitary District has indicated their desire to enter into such an agreement with the County. The District has agreed to accept the responsibility of working with the solid waste provider and with the County to implement the state required solid waste programs. The Memorandum of Understanding is contingent upon Ironhouse Sanitary District amending their Franchise Agreement with Garaventa Enterprises to assure that County costs are provided for in the Ironhouse District area and requires amendment of the County Franchise Agreement with Garaventa Enterprises to remove the Ironhouse District area from the "Franchise Area" as described in the Agreement. The Memorandum of Understanding provides for a further written agreement after the completion of a County rate review for the "other Garaventa areas" covered by the County Franchise Agreement with Garaventa Enterprises. At that time, additional or supplemental terms shall be added as appropriate, not inconsistent with the Memorandum of Understanding before the Board today. In order to assure the County that Ironhouse will assist the County with the programs, the Memorandum of Understanding provides for the termination of the Memorandum of Understanding, following notice, if Ironhouse does not implement the programs for which Ironhouse has agreed to be responsible. Staff believes that this Memorandum of Understanding promotes implementation of waste reduction programs and meets all of the County's needs in this regard, as well as considers and protects the interest of the ratepayers. Staff recommends that the Board approve the Memorandum of Understanding. \MF JAGroups....MOUIH.7bo 7- s -9 > D. il MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING This is a memorandum of understanding (this "Memorandum") between Contra Costa County, a political sub- division of the State of California (the "County") and Iron- house Sanitary District, a sanitary district formed under the Sanitary District Act of 1923 ("Ironhouse") . Recitals A. Ironhouse. Ironhouse provides solid waste collection and disposal services to the Oakley and Bethel Island areas, which are located in County, through the Ironhouse exclusive franchise agreement (the "Ironhouse Franchise") with Oakley Disposal Service, a sole proprietorship of Silvio Garaventa, Sr. ("Garaventa") . Under the terms of the Ironhouse Fran- chise, Ironhouse grants Garaventa exclusive rights to col- lect and dispose of all solid wastes originating within the territory inside Ironhouse borders (the 'Ironhouse Area") , with certain exceptions . B. County. County has entered into a Franchise Agreement effective May 9, 1995 ("County Franchise") with Garaventa Enterprises, a California corporation owned and controlled by Garaventa. Under the terms of the County Franchise, County grants Garaventa Enterprises exclusive rights to col- lect and dispose of all solid wastes originating within cer- tain unincorporated areas of County designated in such County Franchise. Such areas, excluding the Ironhouse Area, are the "Other Garaventa Areas". C. Act' s Responsibilities. County has certain solid waste responsibilities under the California Integrated Waste Man- agement Act of 1989, California Public Resources Code Secs. 40, 000 et seq. (the "Act") . In partial fulfillment of such responsibilities, County has joined with other local agen- cies in the adoption of its Countywide Integrated Waste Man- agement Plan (Parts I-IV in two volumes, and a third volume, Responses to Comments on Draft, all dated May 1993) , and has prepared and adopted its Source Reduction and Recycling Ele- ment dated May 1993, its Household Hazardous Waste Element dated May 1993, and its Non Disposal Facility Element dated May 1993. The Plan and three Elements are together called the "Solid Waste Plans". 1 IR00-09.01.85 01/62/10 D. Purposes . Ironhouse and County desire to coordinate their solid waste efforts, in order to avoid unnecessary du- plication, better meet the diversion and other goals of the Act, and better serve the public. Text of Agreement Accordingly County and Ironhouse agree as follows. 1 . Mutual Cooperation. The County is instituting certain programs (the "Programs") implementing the Solid Waste Plans . Ironhouse and the County shall cooperate and work together (a) in implementing the Programs in the Ironhouse Area, and (b) on matters concerning the Act' s diversion goals in the Ironhouse Area. Recognizing that the Act' s solid waste requirements and State interpretations of them are changing and can be expected to change in the future, the parties agree to work together to meet the changing State requirements, adapting the Programs as appropriate. To this end Ironhouse and the County shall meet annually on the anniversary date of this Agreement, and upon the request of either party, from time to time, to review implementation of the Programs and this Agreement. 2 . Program Implementation. A list of the current Programs is attached as Attachment 1 . Ironhouse and County responsi- bility for implementation of the current Programs shall be as set forth in Attachment 1, which Attachment 1 is incorpo- rated in this MOU by this reference. As state requirements change, the parties shall change the Programs and their im- plementation in the Ironhouse Area and the Other Garaventa Areas as reasonably appropriate to meet State requirements. The changes shall fairly and equitably allocate responsibil- ity for the changed Programs and their implementation, using the criteria set forth at the beginning of Attachment 1 . If the parties are unable to agree on the Programs, any changes in the Programs, the Programs' implementation or the alloca- tion of responsibility for any of the foregoing, the parties shall submit their differences to informal mediation. Any differences remaining unresolved by mediation shall be de- termined by binding arbitration under the auspices of the American Arbitration Association. 3. State Reporting. The County will continue to be re- sponsible for the Act' s disposal reporting requirements. Ironhouse will cooperate with the County in its disposal re- porting, including (a) reporting materials diverted from the waste stream by re-use on Ironhouse Property, and (b) as- sisting the County in arranging reporting for the Ironhouse 2 IR00-09.01.85 01/62/10 Area which meets the state formatting and other requirements and reasonable County requirements . 9 . Ironhouse Franchise. Ironhouse will continue to admin- ister the Ironhouse Franchise, consulting with the County and providing the County with such reports and information as the County reasonably requests . The Ironhouse Franchise will remain in effect pursuant to its terms, as such Fran- chise may be amended. S. Ironhouse Default. a. Default. An Ironhouse "Default" for purposes of this MOU shall be Ironhouse' s substantial and continuing failure to implement the Programs in the Ironhouse Area for which Ironhouse is responsible under Attachment 1 . For this purpose Ironhouse shall not have failed to implement the Programs if Ironhouse implementation of its responsibili- ties, taken as a whole, is substantially equivalent to County implementation of the same Programs in the Other Ga- raventa Areas which are comparable to the Ironhouse Area, giving due consideration to the extent to which the respec- tive Programs are actually contributing to meeting the Act' s diversion goals. b. Termination. If Ironhouse is in Default, County may provide Ironhouse with written notice listing with specificity the Ironhouse failures and the County' s imple- mentation of the same Programs in the Other Garaventa Areas during the same period. In the 60 days thereafter Ironhouse and County shall (upon request of Ironhouse) meet and confer concerning the failures, with each party providing such in- formation as the other reasonably requests on the Ironhouse failures and County implementation in the Other Garaventa Areas . At or before the end of the 60 day period, Ironhouse may elect to cure, in which event Ironhouse shall have a pe- riod of 180 days to cure by implementing in the Ironhouse Area the Programs for which Ironhouse is responsible to sub- stantially the same extent as the County has implemented the same Programs in the Other Garaventa Areas which are compa- rable to the Ironhouse Area, giving due consideration to the extent to which the respective Programs are actually con- tributing to meeting the Act' s goals . If Ironhouse does not elect to cure in the 60 day period, or having elected to cure, fails to cure in the 180 day period, then County may in the 120 days thereafter elect by written notice to Iron- house to terminate this MOU. 6. Amendment of Ironhouse Franchise. The Ironhouse Fran- chise will be amended to reflect the increased franchise fee 3 IR00-09.01.85 01/62/10 (below) . This amendment will be subject to County' s review and approval as to its conformity to this MOU, and will be subject to the agreement of Garaventa, which agreement Iron- house will seek to obtain. 7 . Amendment of County Franchise. The County Franchise will be amended to reflect this MOU by (a) deleting the Ironhouse Area from the "Franchise Area" (as such term is defined in the County Franchise) , effective as of the effec- tive date of the County Franchise; (b) adding a provision to the effect that the Ironhouse Area will not be added to the Franchise Area in the future unless either the County termi- nates this MOU under Section 5.b above, or Ironhouse and the County agree to terminate this MOU; (c) deleting the Iron- house Area from Section 46.c of the County Franchise; (d) providing a suitable mechanism for adding the Ironhouse Area to the Franchise Area at County election upon termination of the MOU either under Section 5.b above, or upon the agree- ment of Ironhouse and the County to terminate this MOU; and (e) including a provision to the effect that any such addi- tion of the Ironhouse Area upon termination of the MOU under Section 5.b above or upon the agreement of Ironhouse and the County to terminate this MOU is without prejudice to the contentions of County or Ironhouse. Such amendment shall be subject to Ironhouse' s review and approval as to its confor- mity with this MOU and will be subject to the agreement of Garaventa Enterprises, which agreement County will seek to obtain. The five year notice given by County to Ironhouse in 1991 is rescinded. During the term of this MOU, County will not grant any franchise or contract, or issue any li- cense or permit, for solid waste collection, hauling and disposal services in the Ironhouse Area. 8 . County Franchise Fee. The County will receive a fran- chise fee from the Ironhouse Area in order to cover the County' s costs of administering the Programs and complying with the Act. These actual costs are currently estimated at an amount which translates to a franchise fee of 28 . In ad- dition, prudence suggests that provision be made for future expenses not included in the current budget. Accordingly, Ironhouse will ask Garaventa to pay an additional franchise fee of 3%, of which 2% will go to the County and 1% into a trust fund. With the existing franchise fee of 2% paid Ironhouse, this change will result in a total franchise fee of 58 . The increase in the franchise fee (a) will be timed to coincide with any rate adjustment resulting from County' s anticipated review of the rates being charged by Garaventa Enterprises in the Other Garaventa Areas, so as to minimize the impact to the rate payer and Garaventa; and (b) is con- 4 IR00-09.01.85 01/62/10 ditioned on the County imposing a franchise fee of 5% in the Other Garaventa Areas and the areas served by BFI . 9. Trust Fund. The 1% for the trust fund will be allo- cated as follows. a. Half of the 1% will be for use by the Oakley and Bethel Island Municipal Advisory Councils for solid waste purposes, broadly understood, including the MACS' assistance in meeting the Act ' s diversion goals and other requirements in their communities . As between the MACs, the funds will be shared in proportion to the number of sewer connections with Ironhouse, the number of occupied households or such other objective criterion as Ironhouse may reasonably deter- mine. b. The other half of the 1% will be used to fund ma- jor non-recurring expenses, such as a study determining com- pliance with the Act, an audit of Garaventa rates, etc. Once accumulated funds have reached $40, 000, any excess will be returned to the ratepayers in the form of a rate reduc- tion or by other means, unless both Ironhouse and the County agree otherwise. C. The funds will be collected and held by Ironhouse. The half for non-recurring expenses will be spent only pur- suant to mutual agreement between the County and Ironhouse. The half for the MACS will be administered by Ironhouse, and Ironhouse will relieve the County of any responsibility for this half. Ironhouse shall provide the County with periodic reports on how the MACS spend this funding in support of the Act' s purposes . 10. County Ordinance. For County, this MOU is an agreement or MOU with a public agency pursuant to Chapter 418-7 of County' s Ordinance Code. Approval of this MOU by County' s Board of Supervisors shall constitute a finding and agree- ment by such Board and County that this MOU meets the re- quirements of Section 418-7 . 606 of such Code, and accord- ingly satisfies Section 418-7 . 602 of such Code. 11 . Term. This MOU shall terminate twenty-five years after its date, except as the parties may otherwise agree or un- less earlier terminated pursuant to Section 5.b above or the last sentence of Section 12 below. 12 . Effect. After County completes its anticipated review of Garaventa Enterprises' rates and the Board of Supervisors has acted on the rate review, Ironhouse and County shall meet to review the status of this MOU, the parties' respec- 5 IR00-09.01.85 01/62/10 tive implementation of the Programs, and to negotiate in good faith a further written agreement on substantially the same terms as above, with such additional and supplemental terms not inconsistent with the above as the parties shall mutually agree. Such meeting shall be within 30 days of the Supervisors' action, except as the parties shall otherwise agree. The parties shall use their best efforts in good faith to complete and enter into such further agreement within one year following such Supervisors' action. This MOU shall remain legally binding on both parties pending en- try into such further agreement, or if such further agree- ment is not entered into, then until this MOU is terminated as provided in Section 11 . The further agreement shall likewise remain in effect until terminated as provided in Section 11 . However, if the franchise fee payable under the Ironhouse Franchise is not increased to the same level as the franchise fee in the other Garaventa Areas within 120 days after such Supervisors' action, then except as both parties may otherwise agree, County may in the 120 days thereafter elect by written notice to Ironhouse to terminate this MOU. Date: July 31 , 1997 . IRONHOUSE SANITARY DISTRICT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY B By: 6 IR00-09.01.85 01/62/10 Attachment 1 Solid Waste Programa Allocation This allocation of responsibility between County and Iron- house for implementation of the Programs is based on the al- location of franchise fees between the parties under Section 8 of the MOU, the parties' individual assessments of the Programs' feasibility and likelihood of success in meeting the Act' s diversion and other goals, meeting the needs and desires of residents, anticipated state requirements, and costs of implementation. A. Exclusive Ironhouse Responsibility. 1 . Household Hazardous Waste. Ironhouse to include in the new rates, and cause to be paid to County, (a) the same per pickup charge to support the County Health Depart- ment' s HHW program as County includes in the new rates for the Other Garaventa Areas, presently expected to be $2 per pick-up per year, and (b) the same additional charge to sup- port DDSD' s BOPA for the coming year. 2 . A concrete re-use program on Jersey Island. 3 . Assist and encourage utilization of sewage sludge. B. Exclusive County Responsibility. 1 . Vocational training. 2 . Business License Fee Reduction. 3 . Resource Evaluations. 4 . Land use Policies to Remove Institutional Barriers or to Facilitate Storage and Collection. 5. Encourage Direct Linkages Between Generators and Users of Wastes. 6. Construction/Demolition Recycling through Land Use Permits and Building Permits. 7 . Assist Schools in Establishing Recycling Programs. 8 . Return to Source Plastics Drop-off. 9. Residential Public Education. 10. Commercial Public Education. 7 IR00-09.01.85 01/62/10 11 . Land Use Permit Review. 12 . Composting Program Assistance. 13 . Compost Market Development and Public Agency Utilization. 14 . Food Waste Public Education. 15. Develop Pilot Projects and New Projects . 16. Monitor Agricultural Waste Disposal Practices. 17 . Report to BOS on use of reusable items, waste pre- vention, and recycling at Merrithew Memorial Hospital. 18 . Recycling and composting in County, State and Re- gional parks . 19. Reduce tire Disposal . 20 . Develop Educational and Public Information for An- nual Mass Media Program. 21 . Produce County Waste Reduction and Recycling Guide. 22 . Operate County Recycling Hotline. 23 . Speakers Bureau. 24 . Publicize new drop-off and buy-backs . C. Shared Responsibility - Programs. (Ironhouse provides a meeting place or other location and publicity upon request of County; County assembles the program' s content and pro- vides the program' s speakers, equipment, and needed person- nel . ) 1 . Fast food packaging. 2 . Disposable diapers. 3. Reducing the generation of organic wastes. (Ironhouse to also store and sell bins. ) 4 . Annual reminders. 5. Information Services (Ironhouse also helps tailor the information to the Ironhouse Area) . 8 IR00-09.01.85 01/62/10 6. Oversight and coordination of EPI Campaign. 7 . Rate Structure Review. D. Shared Responsibility - Other. 1 . The monies in the trust fund established pursuant to Section 9.b of the MOU shall be paid to County until County has received an amount equal to an Ironhouse pro rata share of the cost of: (a) the County' s new rate-setting methodology (expected to be $25, 000) , and (b) the County' s rate setting process for Garaventa Enterprises. Ironhouse' s share for the methodology shall be based on the number of solid waste pickups in the unincorporated areas of County served by Bayview, BFI and Garaventa Enterprises, and Iron- house' s share for the rate-setting will be based on the num- ber of solid waste pickups in the Ironhouse Area and Other Garaventa Areas. 2 . Work together with Garaventa Enterprises to de- velop: a. Multi-family recycling. b. Establish recycling routes for commercial and industrial districts. C. Establish Yard Debris Collection Programs. d. Publicizing New Program Start-up. (Ironhouse to also investigate local publications, newsletters, etc. ) . 3 . Yard Waste Composting Facility. Ironhouse to in- vestigate development of a composting facility or a drop off site for pick up by an outside company. E. Deferred Pending Rate Setting. County is expected to determine its implementation of the following programs in the Other Garaventa Areas in conjunction with the County' s anticipated Garaventa rate setting. If Ironhouse does not implement the following programs in the Ironhouse Area to substantially the same extent as County implements them in the Other Garaventa Areas within six months after County has completed its Garaventa rate setting, or provide alternate programs which, subject to the reasonable approval of County, have substantially equivalent effect in meeting the Act' s goals, then County may elect to terminate the MOU on notice pursuant to Section 5. 9 IR00-09.01.85 01/62/10 1 . Variable can pricing. 2 . Yard Debris Collection Program. F. Defer for the time being. 1 . Resource Evaluations . 2 . Curbside collection of food waste. 3. Curbside used oil pickup. Note: The above is not a complete list of all solid waste programs or a complete allocation of responsibility for them in the Ironhouse Area. The parties will work to develop their respective roles further, and will seek to complete the list and allocation as part of doing the further agree- ment called for by Section 12 . Any failure to agree shall be subject to mediation and arbitration in accordance with Section 2 of the MOU. 10 IR00-09.01.85 01/62/10 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: HARVEY BRAGDON �, Costa DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT �N ' DATE: JULY 8, 1997 V�.�' "� SUBJECT: CONSIDER REQUESTING VOTING MEMBERSHIP ON THE WEST CONTRA CONTRA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Accept the staff report review of background, and 2. Determine that the County is interested in pursuing a voting membership for a Board of Supervisor member on the Board of Directors of the West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority (WCCIWMA), and direct staff to prepare a letter for Chair signature requesting that the WCCIWMA Executive Director place the request for voting membership on the WCCIWMA Board Agenda at their October meeting, or Determine that this issue was addressed adequately in prior years and that the current status of the County representation on the Authority Board is adequate and provides the opportunity for the County to initiate and participate in issues of County concern. FINANCIAL IMPACT: It is anticipated that the cost of processing the request will be the responsibility of the County. The cost is currently unknown but will include seeking modification of numerous documents and approval of the Authority Cities, the State and the bank. The "Study Fund" established by the RSS Franchise Fees is currently obligated beyond its current balance and into approximately September, 1997. The Board is also considering a secondary study at a cost of approximately $45,000 for additional review of the RSS operational efficiencies. General funds may be needed to provide for the cost of processing the request. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X 'YES SIGNATURE: A• RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _ RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMIT E APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON July 8, 1997 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER XX Please see Addendum (Attached) for a list of speakers and Board action. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT --------------- I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND AYES: NOES: CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact: Mary Fleming (510) 335-1230 cc: Community Development Department(CDD) ATTESTED July 8, 1997 West Contra Costa Integrated Waste PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE Management Authority(via CDD) BOARD OF SUPERVISOR D Supervisors UNTY ADM TRA iR MF:rw Christine Wa er J:\Groups\cdadpool\mary\vote7-8.7bo D. ],-L, Board Order Consider Requesting voting membership on the West CC Integrated Waste Management Authority Board July 8, 1997 Page 2 BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR.RECOMMENDATIONS: The West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority was formed on April 2, 1991 by the Cities of EI Cerrito, Hercules, Pinole, Richmond and San Pablo and the West Contra Costa Sanitary District. The West Contra Costa Sanitary District subsequently withdrew from membership. The Joint Powers Agreement forming the Authority in 1991 provides for a non-voting ex officio member to represent the County. The Joint Powers Agreement specifies that all members of the Authority Board, including the ex-officio County Board member, be an elected official of the governing body of the jurisdiction represented. The County entered into a contract with the West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority on May 25, 1993 which defined the County and Authority responsibilities in relationship to development and regulation of the West County IRRF. The County entered into a Franchise Agreement with Richmond Sanitary Service on October 12, 1993 to provide for solid waste services for the unincorporated areas in West County. The Authority member cities amended the Joint Powers Agreement on December 21, 1993. At the request of Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema the Ad Hoc Solid Waste Committee was asked to review the possibility of requesting a voting membership on the Authority Board. Staff requested information from the Authority's Executive Director regarding the process required to explore the option of acquiring voting status on the Authority Board. A summary of the Executive Director's response is as follows: The Joint Powers Agreement creating the Authority would need to be amended. In order to become effective, amendments to the Joint Powers Agreement must be approved by a majority of the Member Cities representing a majority of the voting Director's seats. Contra Costa County would need to approve the entire Joint Powers Agreement as amended. Additionally, the financing documents for the IRRF require that Union Bank, as the issuer of the letter of credit securing repayment of the IRRF Bonds, approve any and all amendments to the Joint Powers Agreement. It would appear that, at a minimum, the Joint Powers Agreement would need to be amended to provide voting status for the County and, if the County representative and/or alternate is to be other than a member of the Board of Supervisors, to allow such to occur. Other matters may emerge as the process proceeds. Please note also that the Authority is a State-approved Regional Agency under AB 939. In order to obtain this approval, the Joint Powers Agreement was submitted to and approved by the California Integrated Waste Management Board. The California Integrated Waste Management Board has also approved the Regional Integrated Waste Management Plan and Regional Education and Public Information Program for the area within the boundaries of the Authority. County voting membership on the Authority Board of Directors would mean that (1) the amended Joint Powers Agreement would need to be approved by the California Integrated Waste Management Board and (2) the boundaries of the Authority would change necessitating an amendment to the existing approved Regional Integrated Waste Management Plan and Regional Education & Public Information Program and approval of the amended Plan and Program by the California Integrated Waste Management Board. Board Order Consider Requesting voting membership on the West CC Integrated Waste Management Authority Board July 8, 1997 Page 3 Background/Reasons for Recommendations (cont'd) believe that the Authority Board of Directors and the Member Agencies of the Authority would likely expect Contra Costa County to bear the cost of (1) amending the Joint Powers Agreement, (2) obtaining the approval of the amended Joint Powers Agreement by the individual Member Agencies, Union Bank, and the California Integrated Waste Management Board, (3) preparation of an amendment to the Regional Plan & Education Program to address the area to be represented by the County, (4) obtaining the approval of the amended Regional Plan by the California Integrated Waste Management Board, and (5) any other costs which may arise during the process. Please note that Section 7.4 of the Contract between the Authority and Contra Costa County dated May 25, 1993, (the "Authority - County Contract") provides that IRRF Rates set by the Authority must be uniform for all sections of the area within the boundary of the Authority and the unincorporated County Area served by the IRRF. Section 14.1 of the Authority - County Contract provides that the Authority is responsible for any AB 939 penalties which are actually imposed on the County for the unincorporated area served by the IRRF and which are specifically attributable to a failure of the IRRF resulting from acts or omissions of the Authority. With respect to a failure of the IRRF resulting from acts or omissions of the IRRF Operator, the Authority is required to enforce the agreements between the Authority and IRRF Operator and to convey to the County any amounts which are the responsibility of the IRRF Operator under the agreements but are not paid by the IRRF Operator. If this were to occur, the Authority would seek recovery under the agreements it has with the IRRF Operator. It should be noted that the Authority - County Contract is terminated by the County becoming a voting member of the Authority. Upon termination of the Authority- County Contract, (1) the County Board of Supervisors would regulate IRRF Rates, (2) West County Resource Recovery, Inc. And the County would be required to enter into a franchise agreement for the IRRF, (3) Host Mitigation Fees of $2.00 per ton escalated by changes in the Consumer Price Index would be required to be paid to Contra Costa County, (4) a Regulatory and Waste Recovery Fee of$0.75 per ton of waste and recyclable materials received at the IRRF, or such other amount as may be established by the Board of Supervisors during the rate setting process, would be required to be paid to Contra Costa County, and (5) the County would determine the area to be serviced by the IRRF, the amount of diversion required to be accomplished at the IRRF and the Household Hazardous Waste Services required to be provided at the IRRF. The foregoing response was on the agenda for the June 12, 1997 meeting of the Authority Board of Directors with the option to receive and file or to direct an alternative response be prepared. The Authority Board acted to receive and file the response. At their meeting on June 18, 1997 the Ad Hoc Solid Waste Committee requested that the matter be referred to the entire Board to determine the interest in pursuing the modification to membership status. J:groups\cd a d po o f\m a ry\vote 7-8.7 b o D.12 ADDENDUM Item D.12 July 8, 1997 Val Alexeef, Director, Growth Management and Economic Development Agency, and Mary Fleming, Community Development Department, presented the attached report to the Board of Supervisors for consideration. Subsequent to the staff report, Chairman DeSaulnier invited the public to comment on the issues and the following persons spoke: Milt Ketter, El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council, 4 Oak Creek Road, El Sobrante Bill Kassel, El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council, 115 Renee Court, El Sobrante; Rick Gulledge, 650 El Centro Road, El Sobrante; Reva Clark, EI Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council, 4556-1 Appian Way, El Sobrante; All persons desiring to speak having been heard, Chairman DeSaulnier ended public comment on the matter. The Board members discussed the issues and took the following action: 1. APPROVED Recommendation No. 1, as set forth in the attached report,; and 2. AUTHORIZED the Chair, Board of Supervisors, to address a letter to the West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority (WCCIWMA) Board of Directors inquiring about their interest in granting the County a voting membership on the WCCIWMA Board of Directors. cc: Supervisors Director, GMEDA Community Development Department (CDD) West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority (via CDD) All THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on July 8, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Uilkema, Gerber, Canciamilla and DeSaulnier NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Adjournment IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the Board of Supervisors' meeting on July 8, 1997, was ADJOURNED in honor of the memory of Shirley Zavala, a County advocate of programs for youth, as recommended by Supervisor DeSaulnier. I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the data shown. ATTESTED July 8, 1997 Phil Batchelor,C rk of the Board of Supervisors acs C4Eavty Aden i strafor B Barbar.S.G st,T Clerk c.c. County Administrator AJ 1 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on July 8, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Uilkema, Gerber, Canciamilla and DeSaulnier NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Adjournment IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the Board of Supervisors' meeting on July 8, 1997, was ADJOURNED in honor of the memory of Frank V. Pizzamenti, Principal of Pittsburg High School and longtime educator and friend of young people, as recommended by Supervisor Canciamilla. I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED July 8,1997 _ Phil Batchelor,Cli rk of the Board of Supervisor t unty Administrator BY Barbara S.Citric, uty Clerk c.c. County Administrator