HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11271984 - 2.8 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on November 27 , 1984 , by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Powers , Fanden , Schroder , McPeak, Torlakson
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SUBJECT: Adjustments to County Final Budget for
Fiscal Year 1984-1985 10
The Board on October 9 , 1984 reviewed the budget adjust-
ments listed on the October 4 , 1984, report of the County
Administrator and approved additional revenue of $1 , 237 ,633 and the
availability of certain appropriations in the amount of $2,332, 367
for redistribution , a total of $3,570 ,000. The Board approved
appropriations in the amount of $1 , 892,000 on October 9 , 1984 , and
deferred the remaining proposed items in the total amount of
$1 ,678,000 to a meeting to be held on November 8, 1984 , at which time
the result of Propositions 36 and 41 could be evaluated . At this
meeting the Board approved additional appropriations in the total
amount of $783,000 and carried-over remaining items totaling
$895,000 for further consideration following receipt of additional
information from the County Administrator .
The Board considered this day the recommendations set
forth in the November 26, 1984 , report submitted by Phil Batchelor ,
County Administrator . (A copy of said report is attached hereto and
by reference incorporated herein . ) Mr . Batchelor reported on the
proposed utilization of $320 ,000 for the Sheriff' s Department and
factors affecting the request for an additional $390,000 for the
Social Service Department . In order to provide this supplemental
funding , the consequences of budget reductions to certain other
programs held in abeyance by the Board was considered . Other county
fiscal concerns also were addressed . Following discussion and eva-
luation of the program implications , Mr . Batchelor presented the
following recommendations:
1 . Allocate $320,000 to the Sheriff-Coroner and specifically
designate that these funds are to be used to add eight (8)
positions at the Clayton Rehabilitation Center .
2. If the Board wishes to add further funds to the Social
Services Department , allocate $100,000 at this time and
specifically designate that these funds are to be used in
Children' s Services programs .
3. If the Board wishes to allocate further funds to the Social
Services Department , reduce the funds available for the new
detention facility by $100 ,000; reserve these funds for the
Social Services Department , and direct the County
Administrator' s Office to report back to the Board on the
analysis of data made available by the State Department
of Social Services regarding the manner in which current
funds are being expended on Children' s Services programs .
- 1 -
00 198
4. Finance the allocation made in recommendation No . 2 by
reducing the following allocations:
Tentative Proposed
Item Allocation Allocation Savings
General Plan Review $1259000 $100 ,000 $ 25 ,000
"J" Ward Remodeling 609000 30 ,000 309000
Agricultural Commissioner 259000 159000 10, 000
"L" Facility Patch 3159000 2809000 359000
TOTAL $1009000
5 . Reaffirm that the funds for the "J" Ward remodeling and
the "L" facility patch are not to be expended or committed
until the Health Services Director submits a further
report to the Board and the Board takes final action to
approve the allocation of these funds .
6 . Reserve $50 ,000 for the conversion of the fixed-term
Deputy District Attorney positions to permanent positions ,
and direct the County Administrator' s Office and the
Director of Personnel to conduct a study and report back
to the Board on the advantages and disadvantages of
completing the proposed conversion .
7. Accept the offer of the Director , State Department of
Social Services , to have her staff meet with County staff
to review caseload and other data , comparing Contra Costa
County with other counties in terms of Children' s Services
programs; conduct whatever management audits or reviews
they believe necessary, and provide the County
Administrator with their recommendations on actions which
should be taken to improve the management of the
Children' s Services programs . Authorize the County
Administrator to transmit this request to the State
Department of Social Services and to make all necessary
arrangements with State and County staff .
8. Track all other items of fiscal concern and report their
status to the Board as a part of the mid-year budget review .
Following discussion by Board members to obtain further
clarification of the recommended items , the Chairman invited comments
from the audience .
Warren Nelson , representing AFSCME , spoke in favor of the
additional funding recommended for Social Service but urged that
the request by the Department for an additional allocation of
$390,000 be approved to provide relief to the clerical staff which
is working under the pressure of a very heavy workload; also , he
stated that permanent personnel should be employed rather than tem-
porary employees to improve efficiency. Mr . Nelson indicated that
job insecurity due to the proposed delay in authorizing the
requested additional funding is damaging employee morale .
Henry Clarke , General Manager , Contra Costa Employees
Association , Local 1 , expressed concern that employees of the Animal
Services Department would have to be laid-off due to the failure to
obtain satisfactory resolution of the funding of animal services
provided within cities . He also indicated that additional funding
should be provided to the Health Services Department to meet worker' s
compensation needs and AB 8 matching requirements . Mr . Clarke
stated that the Health Services Department had suffered substantial
layoffs and should not be expected to meet these financial problems
through further employee cuts . He urged the Board to carefully
consider the impact on employees when considering budget transfers
between departments . 2 00
199
- -
Richard K . Rainey, County Sheriff-Coroner , indicated that
additional personnel for detention are needed and referred to
Mr . Batchelor' s recommendation on this issue . However , he requested
that the Patrol Division be restored to the level prior to incor-
poration of San Ramon which would require the addition of eight
deputies . He indicated that the patrol units must cover virtually
the same mileage but with fewer deputies . Sheriff Rainey also
stated that narcotic problems and homicides are increasing and must
be dealt with in a more intense manner . The Sheriff indicated there
was a general understanding with the Deputy Sheriff' s Association
when the 4-10 plan was eliminated that the deputies released by this
change would remain in the field and not be transferred to
Detention . He urged the Board to authorize an increase of 16 posi-
tions rather than the 8 recommended in that this number of positons
could be financed under the proposed $320 ,000 allocation due to
delays in implementation .
Mr . Batchelor advised the Board that although the proposed
allocation may be adequate to finance the additional positions
requested by the Sheriff for the current fiscal year , it is
necessary that the fiscal impact of increased funding required for
the additional deputies in fiscal year 1985-1986 must be considered;
consequently, he did not recommend that the additional 8 positions
for the Patrol Division be authorized .
Supervisor T . Powers expressed concern with respect to the
need for additional positions for the Sheriff to more adequately
deal with drug problems in the west end of the County. He also
stated that discussions were being held on the possible implemen-
tation of a "J" team and requested additional information as to how
this unit would be used to reduce the drug problem. Supervisor Powers
also requested that the issue of a civilian officer versus sworn
deputies being assigned to detention facilities should be examined .
In addition he stated that the animal services issue should be
resolved to eliminate the uncertainty of employees and the public as
to the future of this service . Supervisor Powers requested that
those issues be addressed during the mid-year financial review.
Supervisor S . W . McPeak stated that she supported pro-
viding $100 ,000 at this time to the Social Service Department and
that the additional $100 ,000 be held in abeyance until after further
review and discussion with the State as to caseloads and staffing.
She indicated that she would support additional funding for the
Social Service Department only if there is a clear demonstration of
need to handle caseloads .
Supervisor T . Torlakson indicated a need to discuss the
possible modification of SB 14 and SB 1293 with Senator Presley and
the Director of the State Department of Social Service in order to
achieve a more equitable distribution of State financial assistance
for children' s services .
Supervisor Powers moved that the recommendation of the
County Administrator as set forth in his November 26, 1984, report
be approved with the understanding that an additional allocation of
only $100 ,000 be provided at this time for the Social Service
Department pending further review and that the issues which he iden-
tified with respect to the Sheriff' s activities and Animal Services
be reported back to the Board at the time of the mid-year financial
review. The motion was seconded by Supervisor R . I . Schroder .
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the aforesaid motion is
APPROVED .
1 hereby certify that this is a true er,:' ;cc".co,_v of
an action taken and entored on 19%.; miqutes of tine
cc: County Administrator
Board of Supervisors on V-e date shcein.
Welfare Director ATTESTED: '7, /9/f
Director , Animal Services PHIL BATCHELOR, C:er!> ci
Sheriff—Coroner of Supervisors and count;:,e- icisisatc•r
3 — By Depuiy
00 200
z
Board of Supervisors
County Administrator Contra Tom Powers
tat District
County Administration Building Costa Nancy C.Fehden
Martinez, California 94553 2nd District
(415)372-4080 County
o nt / Robert I.Schroder
Phll Batchelor vv1 11 Il�r 3rd District
County Administrator Sunne Wright 1ICPeek
4th District
Tom ToANuon
5th District
November 26, 1984
LED
Board of Supervisors 1984
Administration Building Nov 2.7
651 Pine Street
Martinez, California 94553 r„q►�1crrEew`+
1xe►L S
��......
Dear Board Members : ►
Re: Adjustments to Fiscal Year
1984-1985 County Final Budget
A. BACKGROUND:
On October 9, 1984, the Board approved tentative allocations of funds
freed up as a result of the passage of local government funding
legislation. This funding totaled $3,570,000. Actual approval for
expenditure of most of these funds was withheld until after the
General Election on November 6, 1984 to determine whether Proposition 36
and Proposition 41 were approved by the voters.
On November 8, 1984, the Board, in a special meeting to consider the
impact of the election results on the County Budget, noted that since
neither Proposition 36 nor Proposition 41 passed, it was possible to
confirm the allocation of most of the remaining funds that had been
tentatively allocated on October 9, 1984.
There were, however, two major exceptions to the approval .of these
tentative allocations:
1 . The allocation of $320,000 to fund eight positions for the
Sheriff's Department was withheld with a request that the County
Administrator's Office review how these funds should be utilized,
considering the competing priorities of patrol versus detention
staffing; and
2. The allocation of $260,000 (see detail below) for four specified
programs was withheld with a request that the County Administrator' s
Office determine whether additional revenue might be available from
SB 1293 (The "Presley" bill ), or other sources, and what actions
might be taken to make at least $200,000, and possibly as much as
$390,000, in additional funds available for the Social Services
00 201
Board of Supervisors
November 26, 1984
Page 2
2. (continued)
Department. The four specific allocations where approval was
withheld included:
$ 50,000 To convert fixed-term deputies to permanent deputies
in the District Attorney's Office.
25,000 To fund an intensified program of artichoke thistle
and ground squirrel eradication.
60,000 For Hospital "J" Ward improvements.
125,000 For a General Plan review and update.
$260,000 TOTAL
In addition to these two major issues which the Board asked our office
to report on November 27, 1984, there were several related reports
requested. Each of these reports will be submitted to the Board in the
near future.
B. ALLOCATION OF FUNDS TO THE SHERIFF-CORONER:
Patrol Services
The issue of an appropriate level of patrol services has been extensively
considered in past budget reviews. There are currently 102 Deputy Sheriff
positions authorized to patrol the unincorporated area of the County.
In our July 31 , 1984 report to the Finance Committee, a chart, prepared
in cooperation with the Sheriff' s Department, was presented showing
Deputy Sheriff staffing in the Patrol Division from the spring of 1980
through the summer of 1984. Attached (Attachment A) is an updated version
of that chart which shows the results of the adopted 1984-1985 Budget,
and which includes the population of the unincorporated area of the County
and the number of deputies per 1000 population. At the currently approved
level of 102 Deputies, the ratio is .69 Deputies per 1000 population.
If the eight additional positions to be financed by the $320,000 were all
added to patrol , the ratio would only increase to .73 Deputies per 1000
population. Without these added patrol deputies, the current ratio of
.69 represents a slight increase over the level of one year ago, and a
significant increase over the 1980 level of staffing.
Detention Services
At the Board's direction, the Correctional Facilities Planning Task Force
prepared a report for the Board dated August 12, 1983, which contained its
recommendations to deal with detention system overcrowding on an interim
00 202
Board of Supervisors
November 26, 1984
Page 3
Detention Services (continued)
basis pending completion of the new jail . The priority option in
that report, which the Board approved August 23, 1983, was to add
60 beds at Clayton. At that time, it was estimated that this would
require 10 to 11 additional deputies. The Sheriff similarly estimated
in his July, 1984 report to the Finance Committee that 11 deputies
would be needed. It should be noted that of all the interim overcrowding
facility solutions studied and proposed the adding of 60 beds at
Clayton is the least expensive.
As the Board is aware, we are currently in the process of adding 60
beds at the Clayton Rehabilitation Center by remodeling the old kitchen
and associated buildings. This was part of the approved 1984-1985
Budget and work is currently underway. At this time, it is anticipated
the remodeling will be completed in the late spring of 1985.
Comments and Recommendations
The Sheriff believes that all 19 positions are desirable; eight for patrol
and eleven for detention. The Sheriff recognizes that detention positions
are essential given the need to relieve overcrowding, but he also believes
that patrol service should be restored to last year's level . Funds are
simply not available to accomplish both goals. Given the current status
of the overcrowding at the Martinez Detention Facility, associated lawsuits
and increased liability, I believe that priority must continue to be
given to providing an adequate level of staff to handle the detention
system population. This is a mandated requirement on counties and failure
to adequately address this issue exposes the County to great liability
and potential court intervention.
As our analysis shows, restoring the eight positions to the Patrol Division
would only slightly increase the level of service over last year' s. In
the 1983-1984 Budget, three Deputy positions were authorized for Clayton.
Due to recruitment and training time, they are not yet on duty, but will
be shortly. If eight additional positions are authorized now, the needed
eleven will be available at Clayton.
Therefore, it remains my recommendation that these eight Deputy positions
be restored to the Sheriff's Department to provide detention services to
handle the increased population at the Clayton Rehabilitation Center.
Approval of these positions is essential at this time since from the date
of hiring a minimum of 13 weeks of training is required before deputies
are ready for detention service only. Thus, even if these deputies were
hired immediately--which is not possible--they probably will not be
available for duty until after remodeling at the Clayton Rehabilitation
Center is completed.
00 203
Board of Supervisors
November 26, 1984
Page 4
C. SOCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT FUNDING:
Introduction
The Board has already agreed to augment the Social Services Department
Budget by $400,000 in order to retain all permanent staff. The County.
Welfare Director has requested an additional $390,000 on top of the
$400,000 already provided by the Board. As has been indicated, the
Board requested that we determine ways in which at least $200,000 of
this $390,000 could be financed. We have done this by looking at both
the possibility of additional revenue, particularly from SB 1293, and
by reviewing those items on which the Board has not made final allocation
decisions.
Revenue (SB 1293)
In adopting the State Budget for 1984-1985, the Legislature provided an
additional $20 million to assist in financing cost-of-living adjustments
and in the implementation of SB 14. The Governor vetoed these additional
funds, indicating in his veto message that he had been advised by State
staff that there was no evidence of a need for more funds to implement
SB 14. Senator Presley then amended his SB 1293 to reinstate the $20
million. This time the Governor was persuaded that the funds were, in fact,
needed and he signed the bill , which is now Chapter 1608, Statutes of 1984.
We had hoped that Contra Costa County might be eligible to receive some
of these funds. However, in conversations with the Director of the State
Department of Social Services (SDSS), Board members and the County
Administrator have been advised that the County will not receive any of
the $12 million portion of the $20 million which was set aside for
Children's Services. In allocating funds from the State Budget for
1984-1985, it was the intent of SDSS to allocate funds according to a
formula that took into account a county's relative proportion of AFDC
cases, AFDC--Foster Care cases, and the number of children under the age
of 18 in the county's general population. In discussions with the County
Supervisors Association of California and the County Welfare Directors'
Association, the formula was modified to take into account caseloads for
some of the Children's Services programs. In applying this formula to the
available funds, it became clear that Contra Costa County and four other
counties would have had their allocations reduced below the level received
in 1983-1984. It was , therefore, decided to hold each county harmless by
guaranteeing that each county would receive at least the amount received
in 1983-1984. This same formula was applied in allocating the SB 1293 funds.
As a result- of this decision, Contra Costa County has been held to its
1983-1984 allocation since application of the formula, even with the
additional SB 1293 funds, would not bring Contra Costa County up to its
1983-1984 actual allocation. In several discussions with the Director of
SDSS, we have expressed our concern about these funding decisions. In
00 204
Board of Supervisors
November 26, 1984
Page 5
Revenue (SB 1293) (continued)
response, the Director of SDSS has indicated that she has considerable
concern about some data which has come to her attention which she
believes raises questions about how effectively Contra Costa County is
administering the funds it already has available. She has had her staff
communicate to our office a report (See Attachment B) she has received
documenting why she believes our County should review carefully the manner
in which we are spending the funds we already have. We received this
information shortly before the Thanksgiving holiday and have not had
adequate opportunity to analyze it or discuss it with the Social Services
Department. The Director of SDSS has offered to have a team from her
Department meet with us to review this data, our current operations,
and evaluate what this report should tell us in terms of how our Social
Services programs are being administered in relation to those of other
counties. I believe we should invite such a team to meet with staff from
our office and the Social Services Department to review this data and
prepare recommendations to the Board.
Because of the questions raised by the data from SDSS, if the Board wishes
to allocate $200,000 to the Social Services Department, I would recommend
that only $100,000 be released to the Department at this time. This
amount will maintain the Department's programs through February, 1985,
by which time our office will be prepared to make recommendations based on
the State' s data and our review of that data with the State. The other
$100,000 could be reserved for the Department, but actual appropriation
withheld until we make further recommendations to the Board.
Expenditures
Since it seems unlikely that additional revenue will be available to the
Social Services Department this fiscal year, we have reviewed those items
on which the Board has not made final allocation decisions to see how
$200,000 could be made available for the Social Services Department if
that is what the Board decides it wishes to do.
GENERAL PLAN REVIEW:
Attached is a memorandum (Attachment C) from the Director of Planning
outlining the process by which a comprehensive General Plan review would
be accomplished and the reasons such a review is necessary. As is
apparent from Mr. Dehaesus' memorandum, such a review will have to be
financed over at least three fiscal years. We believe that a savings of
$25,000 from the $125,000 tentatively allocated for this purpose can be
made this fiscal year without impacting the timetable Mr. Dehaesus has
outlined. The Board should recognize, however, that any savings made in
this fiscal year from this program will have to be funded in the 1985-1986
fiscal year budget.
0® 2.05
Board of Supervisors
November 26, 1984
Page 6
"J" WARD REMODELING:
The Health Services Director is to present the Board a report on the
details of the proposed remodeling of "J" Ward before such funds can
be allocated and spent. We believe that the most critical items included
in the proposed remodeling can be accomplished this fiscal year with the
remaining items to be funded in the 1985-1986 fiscal year budget. This
will produce a savings of $30,000 in this fiscal year although we must
note that we are simply delaying needed remodeling in some instances until
next fiscal year.
AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONER:
Attached is a memorandum from the Agricultural Commissioner (Attachment 0)
outlining the need for $25,000 to itensify the programs to eradicate the
artichoke thistle and ground squirrel . As is obvious from Mr. de Fremery's
memorandum, a minimal level of eradication will continue even without
any additional allocation of funds. The level of the eradication program
is directly related to the level of funding provided. We believe that a
reasonable compromise would be to provide an additional $15,000 for these
programs ($8,000 for the artichoke thistle program and $7,000 for the
ground squirrel program) rather than the $25,000 which was originally
allocated on a tentative basis. This will produce a $10,000 savings and
will still provide an intensified level for both programs.
"L" FACILITY PATCH:
The Health Services Director is preparing a report for the Board justifying
the need for "patching" skilled nursing home beds by paying an additional
daily rate for such beds in order to insure that the nursing home will
accept patients from this County. The Health Services Department has
estimated a need for 35 beds per day at an additional rate of $44 per day
per bed. If such a contract is put in operation on January 1 , 1985, the
cost should not exceed $280,000 for the balance of this fiscal year.
Therefore, it should be possible to save $35,000 from the $315,000
tentatively allocated for this purpose without adversely affecting the
program. This allocation of funds will also put more pressure on the
1985-1986 Budget since the program will have to be funded for a full year
if the Board desires to continue this program.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY:
The Board has tentatively allocated $50,000 to convert fixed-term Deputy
District Attorney positions to permanent positions. It is necessary for
the Personnel Department to conduct a study to determine the value of
such a conversion. It is difficult to predict the results of such a
study, but it should be conducted and the Board should reserve the funds
needed to implement such a conversion on the assumption that the study
will show that there are long-term values to such a conversion. This
study will also necessarily involve the views of whoever is appointed
District Attorney. We would not want to restrict our ability to implement
00 206
Board of Supervisors
November 26, 1984
Page 7
DISTRICT ATTORNEY (continued)
such a conversion if the new District Attorney concurs with this
change 'and the Personnel Department's study bears out the value of
such a conversion. Therefore, we recommend that no savings be
anticipated from this item pending the completion of the study by the
Personnel Department.
NEW DETENTION FACILITY PLANNING:
About the only other area which can free up the level of funding needed
to provide the Social Services Department with $200,000 is the money
set aside for the planning and site acquisition for a new detention
facility. The other recommendations we have made thus far will result
in a savings of $100,000. If the Board wishes to provide additional
funds to the Social Services Department, we would recommend that this
$100,000 be made available to the Department, and that an additional
$100,000 be reserved from the funds tentatively allocated for the new
detention facility until our office makes the proposed report on the
Social Services Department. At that time, the Board can determine the
relative priority of providing additional funds to the Social Services
Department versus the need to provide the additional funds to the detention
facility planning. We would only point out that if the County is going
to build a new detention facility, a local match of some $12 million will
have to be provided over the next few years. Any funds taken away from
such a match in the current fiscal year simply places an additional burden
on the next fiscal year's budget.
SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURE REDUCTIONS:
If it is the Board's desire to allocate additional funds to continue
temporary employees in the Social Services Department, the above reductions
from the tentative allocations made by the Board would yield the following
savings :
General Plan Review $ 25,000
"J" Ward Remodeling 30,000
Agricultural Commissioner 10,000
"L" -Facility Patch 35,000
SUBTOTAL $100,000
Reserved from new Detention
Facility Planning $100,000
TOTAL $200,000
QQ 2.07
Board of Supervisors
November 26, 1984
Page 8
D. OTHER FISCAL CONCERNS:
The Board should bear in mind in making any decision to allocate funds
at this time that there are a number of other potential fiscal problems
facing the County which either will have to be dealt with in the
1985-1986 fiscal year budget, or which may still have to be dealt with
in the remainder of the current fiscal year. We will comment further on
most of these items in our mid-year budget review in January, 1985.
We note them here simply for the purpose of reminding the Board that
the allocation of these funds in no way solves all of the fiscal problems
confronting the County.
Workers ' Compensation:
The Board has already been advised that the Health Services Department
faces a potential problem in funding its required Workers ' Compensation
premiums for the current fiscal year in the amount of $7009000. A
comprehensive review of the Workers ' Compensation Trust Fund is underway
currently. We will comment further on this in our mid-year budget review.
Animal Services:
'At the special Board meeting on November 8, our office was directed to
schedule meetings with cities to discuss the proposed termination of
animal services to those cities that do not enter into contracts with the
County whereby the city pays for such services after January 31 , 1985.
Several cities have already taken the position that the deadline for the
termination of such free services should be moved to July 1 , 1985.
Chairman Torlakson has already signed a letter to each city which has been
sent to the Mayor and City Manager inviting representatives from each of
the cities to join the Board in a workshop January 15, 1985 on this subject.
Revenue from the cities included in the adopted 1984-1985 Budget is
approximately $450,000.
Health Services Billing Problems:
I have shared with the Board members a memorandum outlining certain
problems with getting Health Services' new billing system operational in
a timely manner. While we have been assured that these problems will be
solved, it is still necessary, at this time, to take a rather cautious
view of the revenue projections made in the 1984-1985 Budget until we
see actual evidence that the computer and related problems have, in fact,
been solved and all claims for revenue are being submitted in a timely
manner.
00 208
Board of Supervisors
November 26, 1984
Page 9
D. (continued)
Social Services Revenue:
The "hold harmless" discussed above for the Social Services Department
relates only to the current fiscal year. We have no assurance that
we will not suffer a considerable loss of State and Federal revenue to
support Children's Services programs in the 1985-1986 fiscal year.
While there is no requirement that the County make up any such losses,
there will certainly be pressure on the Board to do so, particularly in
view of the reductions which have already been made over the past
several years. This possibility must certainly be taken into account,
particularly if additional funds are provided to the Department in the
current fiscal year which will have the effect of enlarging the gap
between this fiscal year's expenditures and next fiscal year's potential
revenue.
AB 8 County Health Services Plan and Budget:
As the Board is aware, the County must provide a dollar-for-dollar match
in order to receive the maximum allocation of State health care funds.
The County is permitted to drop below a 50% local match and still
receive the maximum State dollars, but only if it can be shown to the
Board's and the State 's satisfaction in a public hearing that there will
be no detrimental impact on indigents (or on the general public in the
case of Public Health programs) . In any instance where the State finds
that there has been a detrimental impact, the County can be required to
appropriate the amount of funds required to remove the detrimental impact,
or the County loses an equivalent amount of revenue to support the Medically
Indigent Adults. The Health Services Department estimates that the
1984-1985 Budget is short about $535,000 from meeting a 50% match.
This will require that the Board conduct the required hearing (commonly
referred to as a 60/40 hearing) , and make findings on whether any of the
reductions which have been made result in a detrimental impact. If we
are unable to make such findings and convince the State to adopt similar
findings, the County will be at risk for some portion of the $535,000.
Capital Needs:
In previous reports to the Board, we have identified substantial amounts
of capital needs which remain unmet and which increasingly demand attention.
Capital building projects have been detailed previously for the Board
which would require the investment of some $21 .4 million. In addition,
the Public Works Director has identified some $108 million in unmet
capital expenditures for County road repairs and replacement which remain
unfunded. These needs will simply become more severe as they remain
neglected or underfunded.
00 209
Board of Supervisors
November 26, 1984
Page 10
E. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Taking into account all of the comments and conditions addressed above,
it is My recommendation that the Board take the following actions:
1 . Allocate $320,000 to the Sheriff-Coroner and specifically
designate that these funds are to be used to add eight (8)
positions at the Clayton Rehabilitation Center.
2. If the Board wishes to add further funds to the Social Services
Department, allocate $100,000 at this time and specifically
designate that these funds are to be used in Children's Services
programs.
3. If the Board wishes to allocate further funds to the Social
Services Department, reduce the funds available for the new
detention facility by $100,000; reserve these funds for the
Social Services Department, and direct the County Administrator's
Office to report back to the Board on the analysis of data
made available by the State Department of Social Services
regarding the manner in which current funds are being expended
on Children's Services programs.
4. Finance the allocation made in recommendation No. 2 by reducing the
following allocations:
Tentative Proposed
Item Allocation Allocation Savings
General Plan Review $125,000 $100,000 $ 25,000
"J" Ward Remodeling 60,000 30,000 30,000
Agricultural Commissioner 25,000 15,000 10,000
"L" Facility Patch 315,000 280,000 35,000
TOTAL $100,000
5. Reaffirm that the funds for the "J" Ward remodeling and the "L"
facility patch are not to be expended or committed until the Health
Services Director submits a further report to the Board and the
Board takes final action to approve the allocation of these funds.
6. Reserve $50,000 for the conversion of the fixed-term Deputy District
Attorney positions to permanent positions_,. and direct the County
Administrator's Office and the Director of Personnel to conduct a
study and report back to the Board on the advantages and disadvantages
of completing the proposed conversion.
00 210
Board of Supervisors
November 26, 1984
Page 11
7. Accept the offer of the Director, State Department of Social
Services, to have her staff meet with County staff to review
caseload and other data, comparing Contra Costa County with other
counties in terms of Children' s Services programs; conduct whatever
management audits or reviews they believe necessary, and provide
the County Administrator with their recommendations on actions
which should be taken to improve the management of the Children' s
Services programs. Authorize the County Administrator to transmit
this request to the State Department of Social Services and to make
all necessary arrangements with State and County staff.
8. Track all other items of fiscal concern and report their status to
the Board as a part of the mid-year Budget Review.
Respectfully,
�-�- 1 '
PHIL BATCHELOR
County Administrator
PJB:clg
Attachments
cc: Sheriff-Coroner
District Attorney
Auditor-Controller
County Welfare Director
Personnel Director
Health Services Director
Planning Director
Agricultural Commissioner
0,0 211
.-1 a,
0
r(a Ib N O N4 V r 4 %D
N
ror-4
f�1 01 M ,a rO � �O
w r1 H m
r•1
O
N
-rl ti
OD N Q f�1 I 0) M f+1
>4 C) m H v Q
0, ,-i r•I r-1 OD
In d
Q
F Q
W '4 N N O r'1 I Q) OD
ro rn M H v of24 111 4
�o
Q
H
F--
cc
O
.,I CO Ln o Ln co r
1•I N .~-. 1-I
r-1 ri N
N r
ri
O
r-1 w r o r o
a 14 1.4
w 1(3)-41r-1 I t
w c rn
2 m r+
O �D rn
a z .�
O H
1� Gw.� a c N O 0
H � E- � m I Ln o J
I ^ to
a o m rn $4
w w m 4J
x w0) $4
4 rn
En H ro •14
a v c
EI rn� w o � o° m C v
a) CN ` ro mrow iI � H
ow a
rn w a) `1
w w A H Ln 41 w
H A w \ rl C
O u. .C-1 CO� r- -I O I ri (3) N 001 w �
a, � H tO H c
Ln
a) m ro
> h
0 c
W w 0
o a 0 •-1
14 m I c o I c m 0 w ro
Wm
,m-1 1N-4 1 rr-1 M L; C ca U)
•rj
0) .11 L
r1 0) In
b U m
N C >
ro 0 c
o ro C •r1
ODs
•r1 I ig N Q) ro w
0, m Ni 1 I +i ri aNi w 0
En y -� 0 -N
P a. .4
w c >
v w sa
c In In ro v E a,
N -wH u•- H 44 b � *► 1 1 b N
a $4 (a v cW >4 roc a) a m a
m +1
> i4 a1 0 a) 0 >~ 0 a a# a) In
.1 .0 41 aj .r-1 F C 04 0 •.4 0 # b � v
A En C (L) 14a�p cn w a +-) In W * a b
•1 �
0 >\ -. 0 w ro a� c H a) 0
.1 >, u ro > >. o 0 . r, o 0 u 41 11 C'
0 41 44
C C . 4-) c m U 7 rJ o •.+ C m 0
u Qat, •J M Q to fo 004•c ��4 '� 0 04 O m * 41 uli w
ro 8 U O a a Ql .a .-1
a C7
#
00 212
ATTACHMENT B
CONTRA COSTA BRIEFING
INTRODUCTION
The caseload in Contra Costa for the Other County Social Services (OCSS)
Program has not justified any increase to their allocation since fiscal
year 1981-1982. Limitations have been imposed by the Department in an
effort to "minimize significant all decreases . In each year, since
fiscal year 1981-1982, Contra Costa has been given additional funds, not
justified by caseload, so their allocation would not fall below specified
levels. Despite this fact, Contra Costa has experienced problems with
keeping their expenditures within its allocation.
An analysis of Contra Costa's fiscal year 1983-1984 OCSS Program has been
completed. Unique factors in the operation of Contra Costa's OCSS Program
have been identified. Comparisons have been made to the other large Bay Area
Counties of Alameda, San Francisco, and Santa Clara. A comparison of large
counties with and without Los Angeles has been made, as appropriate. We
have also identified other factors which were not unique. For these factors,
Contra Costa appears comparable to other Bay Area counties as well as other
large counties.
I. Unique Situation in Contra Costa compared to: (a) Bay Area counties,
and (b) large counties.
A. Support Ratio
The support ratio represents the relationship of support costs
to staff costs. Contra Costa's ratio appears high in comparison
to Alameda, Santa Clara, and other large counties.
Support Cost Ratio
Alameda .62
Contra Costa .80
San Francisco .84 '
Santa Clara .65
Weighted Support Ratio .72
Weighted Large Counties .68
Support Ratio
Weighted Large Counties .61
w/o Los Angeles
-1-
00 213
Page 2
B. Emergency Response (ER) Activity Levels
The activity level represents cases received and dispositions
by the Social Worker each month. The activity level for this
County is lower than any other Bay Area or large counties.
Counties ER Caseload Cases per FTE Per Month
Alameda 6,429 69.24
Contra Costa 6,670 38.04
San Francisco 5,344 81 .34
Santa Clara 11 ,099 167.79
Weighted cases per 73.84
FTE/Mo
Weighted large county 132.85
cases FTE/Mo
Weighted large county 95.38
w/o Los Angeles
II. Other Factors Checked which were not Unique to (a) or (b)
(which do not appear to be indicators)
A. Phone Contacts and ER/% of Total ER Caseloads
Contra Costa is higher than any Bay Area county for the number of
phone calls received for emergency response. The number of calls
received is currently not counted in caseload statistics for
emergency response periods. However, even with the addition of
phone calls, Contra Costa' s activity level for emergency response
is still below other Bay Area counties, as well as other large
counties .
Adj. ER Activity
Total % Total ER level inc.
Counties Phone Calls Caseload Phone Calls
Alameda -0- -0- 69.24
Contra Costa 3110 61 .1 55.77
San Francisco 1252 26.2 100.40
Santa Clara 3012 41 .2 213.32
Weighted Average 33.8 92.28
Weighted Average--Large 36.8 165.28
counties
Weighted Average--Large 38.8 121 .20
counties w/o Los Angeles
00 214
Page 3
B. Unit Cost
The unit cost represents the staff and support costs per Social
Worker. The cost per Social Worker for Contra Costa appears to
be comparable to other Bay Area counties and the other large counties.
C. Excess Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA)
Since fiscal year 1981-1982, cost-of-living limitations have been
imposed on the County:
Fiscal Year 1981-1982 6.0%
Fiscal Year 1982-1983 0.0%
Fiscal Year 1983-1984 0.0%
The percentages shown below represent COLA's granted in excess of
legislative mandates. Contra Costa's COLA is lower than the other
Bay Area counties.
Combined
Counties Unit Cost Ex oess COLA
Alameda 4,636 14.90
Contra Costa 496 8.26
San Francisco 5,347 20.60
Santa Clara 5,213 14.60
Weighted Unit Cost 5,013 --
Weighted Unit Cost--other 4,783 --
large counties
Weighted Unit Cost--other
large counties w/o L.A. 4,428 --
Weighted Excess COLA -0- 15.72%
D. Compliance
An analysis of compliance issues on emergency response, then
family re-unification, family maintenance, and permanent placement
shows that no significant conclusion can be drawn. Contra Costa
is higher in some areas of compliance and lower in others.
E. Activity Levels
Cases per Social Worker were computed for family maintenance, family
re-unification, and permanent placement. Although family maintenance
and permanent placement activity levels appear lower for Contra Costa,
the activity levels still appear comparable to other Bay Area counties.
00 215
Page 4
CONCLUSION:
Contra Costa's OCSS Program does present some unique factors which may be
indicators of why the County is failing to stay within allocation. However,
it appears that there are several other factors for which it is comparable
to other large counties, specifically in areas affecting expenditures, such as
unit cost and COLA. In fact, Contra Costa 's COLA is less than any other Bay
Area county; therefore, one may have expected Contra Costa to have a lesser
problem with their allocation than any other Bay Area county. The most
critical factor that is contributing to Contra Costa's allocation problem is
that Contra Costa is continuing to expend funds which are unjustified by
caseload.
00 216
ATTACHMENT C
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TO: Phil Batchelor DATE: November 21, 1984
County Administrato
FROM: Anthony A. Dehaes I SUBJECT: Comprehensive General Plan
Director of Plannin VY Revision
The last comprehensiveeneral Plan update, on a countywide basis, was done in 1963 —
the Land Use and Circul tion Plan. Since then, the 1963 Plan has been almost completely
revised by the yearly additions of community plans and local amendments, as well as by
the adoption of several countywide plan elements mandated by the State. In those two
decades, the General Plan has been transformed from an advisory plan of the Board of
Supervisors into a policy implemented by land development regulations. The Plans uses
also now extend to qualifying the County for subvention revenues and for substantiating
and carrying out various programs.
The County General Plan has had to grow incrementally in response to legislation which
emphasized one subject one year and another year, to new programs which required new
content material, to new land use categories and emphases, and to new directions in
growth. After two decades of this Plan evolution, the Plan is now due for a
comprehensive updating to review and reorganize its assumptions, principles, projections,
and policies with a thrust toward ways and means to finance its infrastructure.
The need to amend the County General Plan to account for new State laws and programs
will be a key factor in this program. A new basic planning law will become effective in
January, plus a new mineral resource planning requirement, plus a new flood protection
requirement, among others. These will need to be addressed in this review.
This General Plan review will take into account the current plans of the cities, special
districts and utilities. City General Plans have continued to evolve, while new cities have
incorporated and prepared their own General Plans. Special governments and utilities
have programs and plans which address programs that were not in existence several years
ago.
The existing plan does not fully facilitate the future economic growth in the County. The
Plan very much needs a more complete Community Facilities Element to provide for
public services infrastructure (water, sewerage, schools, etc.). The Local Agency
Formation Commission would also be assisted with an up-to-date General Plan to
facilitate the establishment of reasonable service boundaries for public utilities. Not
least is the necessity to better relate the General Plan to implementation programs.
Since it is no longer only advisory, it must provide more definitive criteria for the
resolution of and the collection of development fees and other financing methods.
General Plan Program Concept
A three stage General Plan update program is envisioned. The stages would relate to both
the process of developing a new plan and the County's annual budgeting process. Only the
00 217
.i
Phil Batchelor
page two
November 21, 1984
first stage, for the last half of fiscal year 1984-85, must be committed soon. The
remaining stages would be subject to review in the regular course of annual budget
reviews. It is expected that policy decisions will have to be made on funding and the
establishment of priorities for some of the later study components.
Briefly, the plan review stages would be:
1) FY 1984-85 Plan Compilation and Program Organization Stage
Secure staff, consolidate existing County General Plan components, review other
jurisdictions' plans, and propose organization for government and citizen
participation. Recommend next fiscal year's work program.
2) FY 1985-86 Policy Review and Study of Priorities Stage
Prepare projections and issue papers. Work with committees and governments to
define issues for future development and identify related policy studies. Compile
"base" plan from existing plans. Identify needs to meet new program requirements.
Carry out authorized policy and technical studies and prepare related Plan revisions.
3) FY 1986-87 Comprehensive Planning and Adoption Stage
Coordinate with Program Committees and other governments prepartory to
submitting the revisions to the adoption process. Submit proposed Plan to the County
public hearing process. Recommend new or updated implementation measures for
adoption. Recommend revisions to other governments, if appropriate.
The Board of Supervisors recently included in their listed priorities for the use of
Augmentation funds an amount of $125,000 to supplement the existing County Planning
Department budget to initiate a comprehensive revision to the County General Plan. That
amount will be adequate for the remainder of the fiscal year. It will be utilized almost
entirely for new staff.
The Personnal Department already has efforts underway to establish a new planner lists.
It is hoped that a sufficient number of qualified new candidates can be secured from this
list and can be hired and be on board by January or February of 1985 to get this program
off to a timely start. It is anticipated that staff allocated to this effort will consist of:
one Planner IV, two Planner II's, one Graphic Technician and other supporting staff.
As noted above, clerical support will be drawn from the existing department staff. The
initial period of work will consist of bringing together the existing County General Plan
into one unified document and preparing background information that will be used as a
basis for the comprehensive plan revision. This initial effort will commence the hiring of
staff and proceed into July of 1985. A Committee (or Committees) to be established by
the Board of Supervisors can begin it's work after the summer break and continue until
their work is complete.
During early 1985 a complete scope of work for the Comprehensive General Plan Revision
Program will be completed which will outline budgetory requirements for future years
(particularly, the next fiscal year) and more fully detail the program.
AAD/mg1C
00 218
' ATTACHMENT D
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Date : November 15 , 1984
To : George Johnson, Management Specialist
From : John H. deFremery, Agricultural Commissioner - Director
Weights and Measures '
Subject: Allocation of Funds for Artichoke Thistle and Ground
Squirrel Program.
In response to your request that we provide your office
with a fiscal analysis of the impact that the $25 ,000 allocation
would have on the ground squirrel and Artichoke Thistle program,
we submit the following:
Program - Fiscal Impact
If $25 ,000 were allocated to the Department budget, $7,000
would go to fund the ground squirrel program and $18,000
would be used to fund the Artichoke Thistle program.
1. Ground squirrels - 2 temporary positions would be
hired for a 2-month period (May - June) to do ground
squirrel work in agricultural areas.
Labor costs - $3 ,437.00
Materials - $3,563.00
$7,000. 00
Without the allocation the Department will be unable
to engage in any ground squirrel control work. Involve-
ment will be limited to the purchase of mixed rodenticide
baits from other counties and selling them at cost to
our growers/producers.
. 2. Artichoke Thistle - the $18 ,000 re-allocated to fund
the Artichoke Thistle program will allow the department
to purchase herbicide materials. All manpower for this
program will be derived from the existing staff. No
purchases of equipment or supplies other than herbicides
will be necessary as the Department has all support
equipment on hand.
Program Efficacy
To be biologically sound as well as cost effective, it
is necessary to perform both ground squirrel and Artichoke
Thistle control work between January and June each year.
9
George Johnson -2 November 15., 1984
Program Revenue
With the $25 , 000 -allocation the. Department can 'project
approximately $2,000 in+revenue from 'the ground' 'squirre'l
program by requesting landowners to ,pay for the costs, of ' ,'
rodenticides used on their land.
Without the allocation' no additional revenue can be-
projected
eprojected from the ground„ squirrel .program.
. J
With the $25,,000 ,allocation the ,Department can project
an additional $2,000 in revenue from the Artichoke `Thistle
program by requiring. more .landowners to _pay , a larger ,pro-
portionate cost :of the materials used on their land. -
Without the allocation the Department will be limited
to producing the approximately $5 ,000 - $6, 000 revenue
originally projected for F.Y. 1984-85 . A slight increase in
revenue (+ $1,200) from the State ' s unclaimed gas tax revenue
will be realized as a result of the increase in total expendi-
tures in the Agricultural Division' s budget Org. 3305 .
Program Staffing
With or without the allocation the Department does not
plan on requesting additional permanent staff .
Long-Range Goal
If the Department were to receive the $25,000 allocation,
we would view the program in 1985 as an opportunity to introduce
the concept that all landowners participating in the program in
the future will either be required to pay a larger proportionate
share of the total program costs or not receive the service.
RECOMMENDATION
Due to:
1. The shortness of time to determine grower/rancher support
for an abatement-cost recovery program this fiscal year.
2 . The biological need to continue to control both ground
squirrels and Artichoke Thistle to avoid additional
future costs.
3 . The possible additional revenue that may be generated from
increased voluntary financial support of the program.
We recommend your Board allocate the full $25, 000 to the
Department this fiscal year and direct this Department to proceed
with plans to increase cost recovery methods by soliciting additional
financial support from recipients of these services.
JHdF:naw "
POSITION ADJUSTMENT REQUEST No. I �lo �
RECENEG Date:
PERSORIIEL DEPART"..-"•T t
Dept. No / Copers
Department Sheriff-Coroner Budft Ur�itlldM -2W- Org. No. 2505 Agency No. 25
Action Requested: Add one Sergeant position and seven Deputy Sheriff positions
Proposed Effective Date: 11! !84
Explain why adjustment is needed: See attached memo
Classification Questionnaire attached: Yes No [] n
Estimated cost of adjustment: {,,.L by ger $
Cost is within department's budget: Yes ® No
If not within budget, use reverse side to explain how costs are to be f ded.
Department must initiate necessary appropriation adjustment.
Use additional sheets for further explanations or comments. zmw
fo Departme t ad
Personnel Department Recommendation
Date: November 16, 1984
Classify 1 Sergeant position, salary level C5-1641 (2344-2849) and 7 Deputy
Sheriff positions, salary level C5-1495 (2025-2462).
Amend Resolution 71/17 establishing positions and resolutions allocating classes to the
Basic/Exempt Salary Schedule, as described above.
Effective: ( day following Board action.
0
Date for Director of ersonnel
County Administrator Recommendation
Date:
® Approve Recommendation of Director of Personnel
D Disapprove Recommendation of Director of Personnel
d Other:
7
for County Administrator
Board of Supervisors Action N0V 2 Attest:
Adjustment APPROVED/DISARP�ROW D on 1984 Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors and County
Date:
NOV 2 71984 Adminira r
BY
Deputy Clerk
APPROVAL OF THIS ADJUSTMENT CONSTITUTES A PERSONNEL/SALARY REjV&_U1av1%
(M347) 6/82
00
221
� b
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY �
APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENT- y
T/C 27 {
I. DEPARTMENT OR ORGANIZATION UNIT: '
ACCOUNT CODING County Administrator (Various Budget Units)
iCAWATION SUB-OBJECT 2. FIXED ASSET <bECREASE> -INCREASE
OBJECT OF EXPENSE OR FIXED ASSET ITEM MD. QUANTITY
2. Sheriff-Coroner
2578 1013 Temporary Salaries 100, 000
2585 1013 Temporary Salaries 40, 000
2590 1013 Temporary Salaries 5, 000
2578 1014 Overtime 100 , 000
2585 1014 Overtime 25 , 000
2590 1014 Overtime 30, 000
2585 1070 Workers ' Comp. 10, 000
2590 1070 Workers ' Comp. 10, 000
2. Department of Agriculture
0335 1013 Temporary Salaries 2 , 825
0335 2180 Agricultural Expenses 120,175
3. Planning
035% 1013 Temporary Salaries 10 , 000
035% 2310 Professional Services 90 , 000
0629 3580 Contrib. to Other Funds 82, 633
0621 3580 Contrib. to Other Funds 352 , 367
APPROVEU 3. EXPLANATION OF REQUEST
lUDITOR-CONTRO LER To establish appropriations included in the
)Y: Dare �Z1,9 November 26, 1984 report from the County
Administrator which were approved on
November 27, 1984 by the Board of Supervisors.
;OUNTY AD INISTRATOR
3y: Dat r/31/
3OARD OFSUPERVISORS
YES; *
On// !27/
I.R. OLSSON, CLERK 4.
SIDNATURE TITLE DATE
APPAOPRIAiIDN
ADJ JOURNAL 10. U U222
(14129 Rev 7/77) SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE SIDE
17
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENT �.
T/C 2 7
I. DEPARTMENT OR ORGANIZATION UNIT:
ACCOUNT CODING County Administrator (Social Service
RGANIZATION SUB-OBJECT 2. FIXED ASSET <DECREASE> INCREASE
OBJECT OF EXPENSE OR FIXED ASSET ITEM N0. OUANTITT
5200 1011 Permanent Salaries 158, 400
1042 FICA 11, 000
1044 Retirement 14, 000
1060 Employee Group Insurance 10, 000
1063 Unemployment ,Insurance 800
1070 Workers ' Comp. 11700
5300 1011 Permanent Salaries 158, 400
1013 Temporary Salaries 100, 000
1042 FICA 18, 000
1044 Retirement 14 , 000
1060 Employee Group Insurance 10, 000
1063 Unemployment Insurance 11200
1070 Workers ' Comp. 2 ,500
5105 2310 Professional Services 20, 000
0621 3580 Contribution to Other Funds 520,000
APPROVED 3. EXPLANATION OF REQUEST
1UDITOR-CONTROLLER To establish appropriations included in the
reports from the County Administrator approved
3r: Doe / g by the Board on November 8, 1984 ($420,000)
and on November 27, 1984 ($100, 000) . These
;OUNTY AD INISTRATOR appropriations were allocated for Children' s
Protective Services ($500,000) , a COLA of
3Y: Dat f— 5% for contract agencies ($16 ,500) and for
services provided by the Center for Human
IOARD OF SUPERVISORS y � � Development ($3, 500) .
YES:,4,4�
NO:
J.R. OLSSON, CLERK 4. M 0061"1Q,y` A. - Lag/-ax
SIYNATURE TITLE q DATE
By: AIPROPRIATION A POO 5Z�L
ADJ JOURNAL 10. 00
223
(+M 129 Rev 7/77) SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE 310E