HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12121988 - 1.30 PM FINANCE COMMITTEE
JOINT MEETING WITH INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
MONDAY, DECEMBER 12 , 1988
1 : 30 P.M. - 2: 30 P.M. - BOARD CHAMBERS
1. Discussion of Revenue Stream for Child Care
2. Update on Status of Trial Court Funding
Negotiations (postponed until further notice)
OFFICE OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Administration Building
Martinez, California
Finance Committee
To: Supervisor Nancy Fanden Date: November 9, 1988
Supervisor Tom Powers
From: Kerry Harms-Taylor, Assistant Subject:
REPORT ON CHILD CARE FINANCING
County Administrator
RECOMMENDATION:
Consider alternative sources of financing quality,• affordable child
care for all families not able to afford such care on their own.
BACKGROUND:
On October 11, the Board adopted 12 recommendations on various child
care issues, which are attached. Recommendation 12 was referred to the
Finance Committee and involved identification of potential revenue
streams for child care funding.
Summarized below is some Board requested and other pertinent
information for your consideration of this issue.
1. It will be very difficult to balance the 1989-90 budget rendering
scarce new and discretionary revenue sources of paramount
importance. Two new challenges facing the Board for next fiscal
year are $9,800, 000 needed to operate the new jail and
commitments to implement the pay equity program. In addition,
the first quarter budget report identified potential
overexpenditure problems this fiscal year with the General
Assistance Program and the Juvenile Hall. In the past, the Board
has avoided dedicating future revenues for new programs and
instead has reserved first priority for such revenue for existing
programs.
2. A 1% increase in transient occupancy tax by the County and each
city would yield $340, 000, according to estimates by the
Community Development Department staff. If each city and the
County adopted a uniform T.O.T. of 9 . 5%, an estimated $490,735
could be raised. Details of these estimates are attached.
3 . New transient occupancy and sales taxes accruing to the County
from the Pleasant Hill BART Station are estimated at $543 ,000 in
1990 , increasing to $2,722,000 in 1994. The estimates were
generated by Community Development Department staff and are
attached for your information.
Finance Committee -2- November 9, 1988
4. New sales tax revenue from Buchanan Field is uncertain at this
time. The unwillingness of the contractor to -proceed with the
adopted building schedule has seriously delayed development at
the airport. However,. if we were to proceed with development
expeditiously, the county general fund could receive an estimated
$300 ,000 in sales tax within two years.
5 . The Redevelopment Agency is currently $5,000, 000 in debt with
repayment of loans uncertain as of this date. The attachment
lists the agencies' outstanding debts, including a $1, 933 , 278
debt to the General Fund.
TE:gm
Attachments
cc: Members, Board of Supervisors
Community Development
Public Works
General Services
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
DATE: November 14, 1988
TO: Phil Batchelor,,Cpunty Administrator
FROM: Ji"-enned epu�y Director-Redevelopment
SUBJECT: PI t} ill BART Finances
This memorandum responds to your request for the following:
1. Five year projection of revenues and expenditures; and
2. Alternative expenditure options for Agency Tax Allocation Note
proceeds.
I . Five year Revenue/Expenditure Projection.
Table 1 presents a projection of expected revenue and expenses for the
Pleasant Hill BART Redevelopment Project Area. The following assumptions and
limitations should be understood in reviewing the projections:
1. Projected tax increment is only for the original project area as
adopted in 1984, and does not include the recent Area 3 amendment
area (the tax increments from Area 3 are to be devoted to the
multi-family project to assure affordability to low and moderate
income households) ;
2. Projected tax increments do not include the housing set aside (20%
of the total tax increment);
3. Debt service figures do not include interest accruing as a result of
Agency debt to the County.
4. Projections of tax increment reflect completion of the Embassy
Suites Hotel and Taylor Woodrow's office building. No tax increment
from other area developments are expected either because of
uncertainty of final development approvals or lack of firm
commitments for construction financing.
The following findings and conclusions may be made:
° The Agency is unable to make payments to its County creditors
(Appendix A) from current revenue until at least 1991-1992;
° Any repayment of debt to the County would have to come from
remaining proceeds of the 1987 Tax Allocation Notes. Uses of the
Note proceeds involve opportunity costs. (See Section II. )
° Uponj efinancing of the tax allocation notes in 1992-1993 the Agency
will have revenue sufficient to support approximately $4.8 million
in additional bonds;
° The additional $4.8 million in bond proceeds in 1992-1993 will not
be sufficient to retire Agency debt to the County at that time;
° The ability of the Agency to finance additional improvements
(traffic mitigation projects) can happen only if developments other
than the Embassy Suites and Oak Court office building are approved
and completed.
. .
. .
Il ' Expenditure Alternatives - Remaining Tax Allocation Note Proceeds.
The Agency has approximately $3.45 million in unexpended proceeds from
its sale of $7'5 million Tax Allocation Notes in 1987' Alternative areas for
expenditure of these funds are summarized on Table 2' Background on the three
alternatives are as follows:
l' Acquisition of Hookston Station - The Agency is currently
negotiating with the private owners of the portion of . the SP
right-of-way between Hookaton and Mayhew. Appraised value is $3'7
million. This right-of-way is required for the ultimate
construction of the Bancroft extension. Due to the scarcity of
light industrial properties, the property's current use, the Value
of the property is expected to appreciate significantly' The Agency
is attempting to secure other funds to supplement Agency funds to
complete the acquisition. Due to federal tau law constraints the
Agency may be able to realize a reduced sales price in return for
the lease revenues continuing to accrue to the private owner until
the private uses are removed' Likely capital expenditure from
Agency sources estimated at $2'5 million'
2' Repay TSM Fund - 8D 83-1 contained $l million for a TSM program in
the BART Station Area. The funds were borrowed by the Agency with
accrued interest the Agency owes $1,4 million (as of 6/30/88). &
TSM program is being developed and will be ready to implement in the
current fiscal year. It is estimated that the tl million will be
required for the proposed TSM measures over the next two years. The
Agency will not have sufficient funds to repay during the early TSM
implementation period if the debt is not paid from current Tan
Allocation Note proceeds. The TSM program is an essential component
of the traffic mitigation measures necessary to meet established
goals and ordinance requirements'
3' Repay the County - The Agency owes the County almost' over $2.5
million for prior debt. Annual interest accruals are almost
$300,000 currently, and will rise'
The ability of the Agency to finance additional traffic mitigation
measures and repay the County is inexorably linked to additional development
beyond that existing today and expected over the next few years' That
additional development is tied to the traffic mitigation measures planned
(Bancroft extension and TSM) and proposed' Because of this link the Agency
/as no choice but to devote its currently available Tax Allocation Note
proceeds in such a way as to facilitate implementation of the TSM program, and
development of the Bancroft extension' Without these measures further
development in the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area is politically difficult to
defend'
cc: Harvey E. Bragdon
TABLE 1
PLEASANT HILL BART REVENUE/EXPENSE PROJECTIONS
Projected 1 4 Fixed Opera ing Budget
Tax Increment Debt Service Expenses Surplus/Deficit
88-89 $616 , 487 $450, 000 $350, 500 ( $184 , 013 )
89-90 $676 , 030 $450, 000 $368, 025 ( $141 , 995 )
90-91 $896 , 295 $450,000 $386, 426 $59, 869
91-92 $1 , 602 , 7765 $450, 000 $405 ,748 $747 , 028
92-93) $1 , 634 , 831 $775, 0002 $426, 035 $433, 796
1 . Tax Increment from 1984 Redevelopment Project Area only
(not including Area 3 ) ; does not include housing- set-aside
2 . Refinancing of $7 . 5 million notes to 30 year bonds
with 1 . 1 debt service coverage ratio & six month
'debt service reserve fund;
3 . Includes staff, legal expenses, audit expenses , and
charges for County services
4 . Debt service on Tax Allocation Notes/Bonds only. Does not
include interest to to Agency debt to County creditors;
5 . Reflects development in place in 1988 plus the Embassy Suites
Hotel & Taylor Woodrow' s Oak Court office building.
TABLE 2
PLEASANT ILL BART SIPENDITUR3 ALTERNATIVES--CAPITAL ACCOUNT
Tax Allocation Not;. Proceeds S7.5GC,000
EXPEndltures To -'at2
Issuance Ccsts 5196,750
Retirement ol SP Note $3,851,917
Total Expended To Date 54,648,667
Availahle Proceeds 53,451,333
E3PENDI' URI ALTERN!.TI'vE5 COMMENT
Alternative 51
Hookston Station Acq. ;3,451,3333 - would preclude funded TSN prograa
Regaining P:cceeds $0 - may be only way to acquire
- no repayment to County
Alternative *K
Repay TSM fund $1,000,000 - would allow for both TSH & ROW
nookstor, Station Acq $2,451,333 acquisition to proceed
Remaining Proceeds $0 - no repayment to County
A1tErpative 13
RepayCounty S3,4SI,333 - no TSM n ROW acquisition
?emain:ag PrccEeds Sp
APPENDIX A
Redevelopment Agency Indebtedness
to Contra Costa County - 6/30/88
The Redevelopment Agency has the following outstanding debt obligations to the
County.
Principal Source of Outstanding
Date Amount Loan Funds Term Interest Rate Debt (6/30/88)
1/84 $ 100,000 AD 83-1 Indefinite Prime plus 1% $ 157,896
9/84 1.00,000 AD 83-1 Indefinite Prime plus 1% 146,134
12/84 1,000,000 TSM Program 30 Years 12% 1,428,712
84-87 530,368 General Fund Indefinite Prime plus 1% 609,015.
4/86 1,616,684 r/w convey Indefinite Prime plus 1% 1,966,725
10/85 433,132 AD 83-1 Indefinite 12% 570,975
TOTAL $3,780,184 $4,879,457
The Redevelopment Agency's debt obligations may be summarized as follows:
Due to County $2,575,740
General Fund $609,015
For right of way $1,966,725
Due to AD 1983-1 875,005
Due to TSM Program $1,428,712
$4,879,457
JK:krc
ra30:batchlor.mem
ATTACHMENT #5
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
DATE: June 15, 1988
TO: Supervisor Sunne W. McPeak
Supervisor Tlakson
INTERNAL ER IO S COMMITTEE
FROM: Jim Kennedy, D uty Director-Redevelopment
SUBJECT: Sale Tax Transient Occupancy Tax Estimates-
Plea an ill BART Station Area.
Attached is an estimate of sales and transient occupancy taxes that may be
reasonably expected to be generated from development in the Pleasant Hill BART
Station Area. A summary of tax revenue estimates is as follows:
Estimated sales tax and transient occupancy tax revenue accruing to the
County of Contra Costa from the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area:
Year
Revenue Source 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
i Sales Tax $20,805 $35,805 $97,055 $835,555 $859,555
Transient Occupancy $522,151 $532,699 $543,248 $1,123,880 $1,862,338
Tax
TOTAL (Estimate) $542,956 $568,504 $640,303 $1,959,435 $2,721,893
JK:krc
Attachment
ra25/estimate.mmo
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: June 9, 1988
TO: Jim Kennedy
FROM: Gerald E. Raycraf
SUBJECT: Pleasant Hill BART Sales Tax Revenues
Per your request, I have prepared an estimate of anticipated
sales tax and Transient Occupancy Tax Revenues in -the Pleasant
Hill BART Station Area.
Sales Tax Revenues by Year and Type
Spec. Type Amount of Taxable Gross
Plan of Retail Sales/ Taxable County Year
Area Retail l (sq.ft. ) sq.ft./yr2 Sales/Yr Portion/yr 3 Generated
4
1OB CS 440 $250 110,000 1,100 1990
10B R 5,250 300 1,575,000 15,750 1990
10B CS 1,582 250 395,500 3,955 1990
15 R 5,000 300 1,500,000 15,000 1991
1 CS 18,500 250 4,625,00 46,250 199'2
7 & 8 MS 10,000 150 1,500,000 15,000 1992
7 & 8 R 4,000 300 1,200,000 12,000 1993
7 & 8 CS 600 250 150,000 1,500 1993
12 & 13 CR 50,000 400 20,000,000 200,000 1993
12 & 13 MS 350,000 150 52,500,000 525,000 1993
12 & 13 R 4,000 300 1,200,000 12,000 1994
10A R 4,000 300 1,200,000 12,000 1994
I. R = Restaurant = $300 taxable sales/square foot/year
CR = Convenience Restaurant(s) = $400 taxable sales/square foot/year
CS = Convenience Retail Shopping = $250 taxable sales/square foot/year.
MS = Mall -type Shopping = $150 taxable sales/square foot/year
2 . Source: Richard Berksen, Economic and Planning Systems
3. County Sales Tax Revenue is calculated at 1% of Gross Taxable Sales
4 . Represents first full year the project may produce Sales Tax Revenue
Sales Tax Revenue Cumulative by Year.
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1 , 100
15,750 15,750 15,750 15,750 15,750
3,955 3,955 3,955 3,955 3,955 -
20,805 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000
35,805 46,250 46,250 46,250
15,000 15,000 15,000
97,055 12,000 12,000
1,500 1,500
200,000 200,000
525,000 525,000
835,555 12,000
12,000
859,555
GR6/salestax. rev
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) By Year
Specific Year # of Rogms Total Room Tax 3
Plan Area Generated Taxed Receipts/Yr Generated
108 1990 170 $6,142,950 $522,151
7/8 1993 175 6,706,875 570,084
12/13 1994 216 8,435,880 717,050
I. Based on 70% occupancy rate.*
2. Room Rate based on $90-$110 range in 1988 is assumed to be:*
1988 $ 95
1990 99
1993 105
1994 107
3. TOT is calculated at 8.5%.*
*Source: Richard Berkensen, Economic and Planning Systems.
Transient Occupancy Tax Cumulative, by Year
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
$522,151 $532,699 $543,248 $ 553,796 $ 564,345
570,084 580,943
717,050
$522, 151 $532,699 $543,248 $1 , 123,880 $1 ,862,338
GR6/salestax. rev
' -
Specific Plan Area Assumptions
Specific Plan Area l: 18,000 square feet of convenience
retail is proposed with the Park
Regency Project. While some of this
will most likely be located in� Area
], for discussion purposes, all is
assumed to be located in Area l'
Specific Plan Area 2: None - Previously developed.
Specific Plan Area 3: See Area l'
Specific Plan Area 4: None.
Specific Plan Area 5: None - Previously developed.
SpecificPlan Area 6: None - Southern Pacific ROW'
Specific Plan Area 7 & B: One 250 room luxury hotel with a
restaurant, a small amount of
convenience retail and one floor
level of retail within an office
. building is assumed. This appears
to reflect the developers latest
proposal . The restaurant is assumed
to be 4,000 square feet; the
»
convenience retail within the hotel
is assumed to be 600 square feet;
and the fluor level retail within
the office building is assumed to be
10,000 square feat'
Specific Plan Area 9: None.
Specific Plan Area lDA: A 4,000 square font restaurant is
assumed within one of two office
buildings.
Specific Plan Are'a lOB: A 5,250 square foot restaurant, and
440 square feet of convenience
retail is located within the 242
room Embassy Suites Hotel . 1 ,582
square feet of retail has been
approved adjacent to an mffice
building'
Specific Plan Area ll: None - BART- parking structure .
. .
' . -
Specific Plan Area 12 Q 13: A 4,000 square foot restaurant is
assumed within one 308 room hotel '
350,000 square feet of retail and
50,000 square feet of convenience
restaurants are assumed within a
retail complex.
Specific Plan Area 14: None' '
Specific Plan Area 15: A free-standing 5,000 square foot
restaurant is assumed.
Specific Plan Area 16: None - Southern Pacific ROW' ,
/
CR/jb
CRO/salestax. rov
Lo. 3
TO*.
BOARD OF SUPERV 'ORS
FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE u=ra
DATE* September 26, .1988 Cost
SUBJECT: Status Report on Various CO^
Child Care Issues
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKC1ROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Commend the concept of a Child Care Fund 'as outlined by the
Contra Costa Child Care Council as a starting point for
providing quality, affordable child care for all families
not able to afford such care on their own.
2. Request the Deputy Director of the Redevelopment Agency to
obtain from the Contra Costa Centre the Centre' s specific
plans for where in the Pleasant Hill-BART Redevelopment Area
the Centre plans to locate the on-site child care facility,
and report his - findings back to the members of the Internal
Operations Committee.-
3 . Request the County Administrator to write to the
Superintendent of Public Instruction indicating that Contra
Costa. County is interested in implementing the child care
coordinator function along the lines of AB 3145 (Cortese) if
the State is able to do so using existing funds since AB
3145 did not pass the Legislature.
4 . Request the County Administrator to report , to our Committee
on December 12 regarding the data which has been requested
from the Internal Revenue Service and the State Franchise
Tax Board on the cost of increasing the child care tax
credit as was outlined in our Committee' s report to the
Board on June 28, 1988.
5. Reaffirm the Board' s order of June 28 , 1988 that the
Director of Personnel prepare a dependent care assistance
program and report the details of the program to the Board
of Supervisors by November 1, 1988 since the program must
be in place and available to employees by January 1, 1989.
6. In addition, request the Director of Personnel to report to
our Committee December 12 on the status of . the
implementation of the contract between the County and the
Child Care Council for the employee Information and Referral
Program.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENTt - YES SIGNATURE:
- RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
X APPROVE/ OTHER - I--
0a"
Sunne W. McPeak Tom Torlakson
ACTION OF BOARD ON October 11, 1988 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER )
AMENDED Recommendation #12 to REQUEST Finance Committee together with internal
Operations Committee to review the feasibility of use of new revenue streams
to fund the Child Care Fund.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES'. NOES:_ AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ARSTA IN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SKWN.
cc: Listed on Pa.ge 4 ATTESTED &
PHIL BATCHELOR. CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
M382/7-83 BY DEPUTY
V
Page 2
7. Request the County Administrator to reconvene the Child Care
Task Force so the Internal Operations Committee can brief
the members of the Task Force on the actions which have been
taken by the Board of Supervisors on the subject of child
care since the Task Force completed work on their report in
December, 1985.
8 . Endorse the application submitted to the San Francisco
Foundation by the Community Development Department staff for
funds to support the Child Care Broker function and request
the Chairman to send a letter to the San Francisco
Foundation indicating that the Board supports the
application.
9. Request the Social Services Director to contact Ms. Patty
Siegel, Director of the Network of Resource and Referral
Agencies in California, and request information from Ms.
Siegel on how other counties are. handling the GAIN Child
Care Program.
10. Request the Social Services Director to consider the
possibility of making GAIN child care payments directly to
the provider of child care rather than to the GAIN
participant and report his decision in writing to the
members of the Internal Operations Committee by October 18,
1988.
11. Request the Community Development Director to designate a
member of his staff to meet with the various city recreation
directors throughout the County and with the Service Areas
in the unincorporated area of the County to brainstorm
possibilities of developing city, city-county or service
area County-sponsored recreation programs for young people
in this County that could generate revenue for the Child
Care Fund and report the results of his meetings to our
Committee on December 12, 1988.
12 . Identify the following new revenue streams as potential
sources for the Child Care Fund: new sales tax from
Buchanan Field, new transient occupancy tax from the
Pleasant Hill-BART Station (Embassy Suites Hotel) , increased
transient occupancy tax from an increase countywide and
development of an entrepreneurial venture, such as a
recreation program that generates revenue for child care.
Request the Child Care Task Force and the Internal
Operations Committee to review the feasibility of the new
revenue streams for use to fund the Child Care Fund.
BACKGROUND:
On June 28, 1988, the Board of Supervisors approved a number of
recommendations from our Committee dealing with child care. in
many cases, these recommendations requested information from
staff. On September 26, 1988, our Committee received a number of
reports from County staff in response to the referrals made on
June 28 .
In regard to legislation, we were distressed to learn that AB
3145 by Assemblyman Cortese did not pass the Legislature. AB
3145 would have appropriated a small amount of money to assist
counties establish a child care coordinator function. However,
at our meeting on September 26 , we were advised that
Superintendent Honig may be interested in implementing
essentially the same program as would have been established by AB
3145 and would finance it by reprogramming some existing funds.
We believe that the County should indicate . to
to' Superintendent
Honig our interest in applying for these funds.
Page 3
We received a concept paper fron the Contra Costa Child Care
Council entitled "Child Care Fund". We have reviewed the concept
paper with the Executive Director of the Child Care Council and
believe that conceptually it serves as a good beginning point
from which to discuss affordability criteria for the child care
fund, as the Board asked our Committee to develop on March 29,
1988. The proposal is that we would use the same income
standards currently in use by the State Department of Education.
Under their guidelines, a family is entitled to subsidized child
care if their income is no more than 84% of the statewide average
income. For a family of four this is currently $2159 per month.
A family pays for their child care on a sliding scale based on
the family size and number of members in the family. once
eligible, a family may continue to receive subsidized child care
until their income equals 115% of the statewide average income.
The problem with this is that there is no way under the State
guidelines for a family with an income between 84% and 115% of
the statewide average -income to initially qualify for any
assistance with their child care costs. We would like to address
this group eventually, but believe that first we must assist
those lower income families who are otherwise on State waiting
lists, often for many months.
We have received data on the possible sources of funding which
could be used for this purpose. The increased sales tax from
development at Buchanan Field, if all potential projects are
developed as proposed, would generate as much as $450, 000
annually, although this is admittedly an optimistic figure. A 1%
increase in the transient occupancy tax by the County and each
city in the County would yield $340,000 annually in added
revenue. The anticipated transient occupancy tax in the Pleasant
Hill-BART Redevelopment Project Area would yield $1 .8 million
annually by the year 1994 . The sales tax from the Pleasant
Hill-BART Station area is estimated to produce $860, 000 in annual
revenue by the year 1994 .
Our Committee is recommending that we and the Child Care Task
Force be authorized to determine the feasibility of using these
revenue sources to fund the Child Care Fund.
We are also asking that a meeting between our Committee and the
original child Care Task Force be convened so we can give the
members of the Task Force a status report on what the Board has
done with the Task Force's recommendations since the Task Force
Report was formulated in December, 1985.
In response to the Board' s directions on June 28 , 1988 , the
Community' Development Department has prepared and submitted to
the San Francisco Foundation an application for a three-year
grant totaling $35, 000 to support the Child Care Council ' s Child
Care Broker function until other sources of funds are developed .
and on-line. The grant would be for $20,000 the first year;
$10,000 'in the second year, and $5,000 in the third year. At the
conclusion of the three-year grant the County would be committed
to continuing the Child Care Broker function without any further
funding from the San Francisco Foundation. we are recommending
that the Board endorse this application and authorize the
Chairman to sign a letter to the Foundation indicating the
Board' s support.
We continue to be concerned about the GAIN Child Care Program.
The Executive Director of the Child Care Council reported to us
that one of their major concerns is with the decision of the
Social Services Department that GAIN Child Care payments only be
made to the GAIN participant. A number of child care providers
are concerned that if this is done they may have difficulty
collecting from the 'GAIN participant. Many of the providers
Page 4
have, therefore, asked that the department consider making
payments directly to the provider. We are asking Mr. Rydingsword
to review this decision and determine whether there is any
possibility of making payments directly to the child care
provider and let our Committee know his decision.
Finally, in reviewing all County property with the Public Works
Department, it appears that there are no existing parcels of
property that might be suitable for a joint public-private
venture whereby the County could enter into an arrangement with a
private company to operate a recreation center of some kind on
County property. The only possibility is the use of the Pleasant'
Hill Detention Basin property during the summer months when it is
not needed as a detention basin. However, the County is probably
five years away from acquiring the property for this detention
basin so even this possibility does not hold any hope in the
immediate future. As a result, we are asking Public Works staff
to meet with the city recreation directors and do some
brainstorming over what they might be able to come up with to
suggest to the County and cities.
We will report back to the Board following our December 12 , 1988
meeting.
cc: County Administrator
Deputy Director, Redevelopment Agency
Director, Community Development
Director, Social Services Dept.
Public Works Director
Executive Director, Contra Costa Child Care Council
Supervisor Fanden
Supervisor Powers
Chl'Id
Fund
A concept paper
Prepared for:
Internal Operations Committee
by:
Contra Costa Child Care Council
The Vision
The vision is simply "one stop shopping" for
parents seeking child care. One place for parents
to come to get their child care questions
. answered, get referrals to appropriate child care
programs and access any and all available parent
choice subsidy •programs.
Funding
Funding for the .Child Care Fund will come from a
variety of sources.
Currently the Child -Care Council manages seven
parent choice subsidy programs totalling .
approximately $250, 000 in subsidy monies. These
will be incorporated into the Fund and additional
sources of revenue would be sought.
Basically, these fund development efforts will
take two tracks.
The first will be efforts to increase contracted
child care subsidy funding. This will include
increased funding from all levels of government;
city, county, state and federal, as well as,
generating resources from employers to support
child care for their own employees.
The second track is to build a Trust Fund, the
income from which would be used to provide child
care subsidies through the Child Care Fund while
the principal remains intact. The Trust Fund will
be developed with foundation support, and through
Planned Giving and Endowment Programs .
How. It .. Will .
A family seeking child care will contact one of the
Council's offices . Based upon the information
garnered by the Referral Counselor, they will be
given the names of child care providers who appear
... to meet their particular needs. Parents will also
be provided with information and counseling to,
assist them in making the most informed choice.
If the family is interested in receiving subsidy,
the applicable information and documentation will
be gathered to determine the family' s eligibility
for one or more of the funding streams within the
Child Care Fund.
Eligibility criteria will be determined by funding
source or by the Council Board of Directors for
unrestricted sources of revenue. (See attached) .
If a family is determined eligible for one or more
of the of funding streams incorporated in the Child
Care Fund, the Subsidy Counselor will determine if
funding is available in the applicable accounts .
Recommendation: That families access the
most restrictive funding
sources first.
Rationale: This will allow us to
insure continuity of care
to the greatest degree
possible.. (See section on
Continuity of Care) .
If no funding is available, the family will be
placed on a Wait List and will receive the first
available funding for which they are eligible.
Once enrolled in the program, parents will pay fees
to the Child Care Fund on a sliding scale basis
with the exception of families receiving subsidy
. .because the child(ren) is at risk of abuse or
neglect, and Partnership Project families.
Recommendation: That effective July 1,
1989 the State Department
of Education sliding scale
be used for the entire
Child Care Fund.
Rationale: It is unduly cumbersome to
administer two separate
sliding scales.
Appropriate contracts, agreements, and intake
documents will be signed with the parents/guardians
and selected child care providers.
Monthly, providers will be reimbursed the full cost
of care from the Child Care Fund..
Recommendation: Effective July 1, 1989,
the Child Care Fund will
have uniform documents .
Rationale: Again, it is unduly
cumbersome to operate a
subsidy program with
different forms and
documents , and confusing
to providers .
A family' s eligibility will be reassessed every six
months .
oContinuity
If child care is viewed as a necessary support
service to a family seeking economic self
sufficiency, it is contradictory to cease subsidy
when the mother reaches the arbitrary age of . 20 or
when a parent completes a -training program and is
about to start employment (or three months later
as in the case of Gain) . Rather the only reasons
to terminate subsidy to a family moving toward
economic self sufficiency would be in the event
that family achieves economic self sufficiency
(i.e. can afford to fully pay for their own child
care) , ceases to move along a path toward economic
self sufficiency (i.e. quits their job) , or moves
out of the county.
Therefore, the Child Care Fund should be managed
in such a way to insure continuity of care to
families who are moving toward economic self
sufficiency.
Practically, this means that families who cease to
be eligible for a particular funding stream within
the Child Care Fund because they .have reached a
certain age, completed a training program or moved
from one location to another location still within
the county, would receive priority for subsidy
from the less restrictive funding streams (new
revenues from county or income from the Trust
Fund) .
Continuity of care would not be applicable to
families receiving emergency respite care or
families who are receiving subsidized child care
because the child(ren) is at risk of abuse or
neglect.
• %m1sw we"Ja�K r11rision
•tboo pe,►, s-r-
'VWULT OEE Ott XI!
for fiscal Toor W-Ill tffactIve dates 7.1.87
• ..•.r•.r••r..r. ..•..........•.rrr•.r..rr.r..rww.w•w...w..•..r.ww•w..rr..w.••••..•....
Mj#r In gorily
.r•..r.r.rwwrw• •..r.w..mors•...w.w.errswwww......w.w..w•...........•..................
0011y foe 1-3 4 f 6 t 0 9 10 1/ 12
............... .....................................................................
part full Utourl
Time list IMTELY IMCOW LEVEL Family fee
.... .... . .. ................................... .........
i0.SO 50.90 10110 1285 +1491 1697 1735. 1773 1012 1850 4889 "27 0.10
0.60 1.06 1102 1311 ISM 1731 17/0 1808 1848 1887 1927 1966 0.12
0.70 1.26 1123 1336 1SS1 1765 1004 1844 1081 1924 1965 2004 . 0.14
0.00 1.44 1145 1362 1580 1799 1839 1079 1921 1961 2002 2043 0.16
0.90 1.62 1166 1388 1610 1033 1074 1915 1957 1996 201,0 2081 0.18
1.00 1.00 1188 1414 1640 186T 1409 1950 1993 2035 2078 2120 0.20
1.10 1.98 1210 439 1670 1901 1943 1986 2029 2072 2116 2158 0.22
1.20 2.16 1231 1465 1700 1935 1978 2021 2066 2109 2153 2197 0.24
1.30 2.34 12$3 1491 1730 1969 2013 2057 2102 2146 2191 2235 0.26
1.40 2.S2 1274 1516 1759 2002 204? 2092 2136 2183 2229 2274 0.28
1-SO 2.70 1296 1342 1789 2036 2082 2128 2174 2220 2267 2312 0.30
1.65 2.97 1318 1568 1819 2070 2117 2163 2211 ,VST 2305 2351 0.33
1.00 3.24 1339 1593 1649 2104 2151 2199 2247 2294 2342 2389 0.36 -
1.95 3.S1 •1361 1619 1879. 2138 2186 3234 .2203 2331 2380 2428 0.39
2.10. 3.48 1382 1645 1908 2172 2221 2269 2319 2368 2418 2467 ' 0.42
2.25 4.05. 1404 1671 1938 2206 2256 2305 2356 2405 2456 2$05 0.45
2.40 4.32 1426 1696 1%8 2240 2290 2340 2392 2142 2493 2544 0.48
2-SS 4.59 1447 1722 1998 2274 2325 2376 2428 2479 2S31 2582 0.S1
2.70 4.06 1469 1748 2028 2308 2360 2411 2464 2S16 2569 2621 0.54
2.85 S.13 1490 1773 2058 2342 2394 2447 2501 2553 2607 2659 O.S7
3.00 5.40 1512 1799 2087 2376 2429 2482 2537 2590 2"S 2698 0.60
3.15 5.67 1534 1825 .2117 2410 2464 2518 2573 2627 2682 2736 0.63
3.30 5.94 1555 1850 2147 2444 2498 2553 2609 2644 2720 2775 0.66
3.45 6.21 1577 1876 2177 2478 2533 2589 2646 2701 2758 2813 0.69
3.60 6.48 1598 1902 2207 2512 2568 2624 ZW 2738 2796 2852 0.72
3.75 6.?5 1620 1928 2237 2546 2603 2660 2718 2775 2834 2891 0.75
3.90 7.02 1642 1953 2264 2579 2637 2695 2754 2812 2871 2929 0.78
4.0S 7.29 1663 1979 229+6 2613 2672 2730 2790 2849 2909 2968 0.81
4.20 7.S6 1685 2045 2326 2647 2707 2764 2827 ZW 2947 3006 0.84
4.35 7.83 1706 2030 2356 2681 2741 2801 2863 2923 2985 3045 0.67
4-SO 8.10 1728 2056 2386 2715 2776 2.837 2899 2960 3022 3043 0.90
4.70 0.46 1750 2082 2415 2749 2811 2872 2935 2997 3060 3122 0.94
4.90 4.62 1771 2107 2445 2783 2445 2908 2972 3034 3098 3160 0.98
5.10 9.18 1?93 2133 2475 2817 2880 2943 3008 3071 3136 3199 1.02
5.30 9.54 1814 2159 2505 2851 2915 2979 3044 3108 3174 3237 1.06
..................................................................................._.
5.50 9.90 4836 2185 2535 2885 2950 3014 3080 3145 3211 3276 1.10
5.75 10.35 1858 2210 2565 2919 29% 3050 3117 3182 3249 3314 1.15
6.04 10.80 1879 2236 2594 2953 3019 3085 3153 3219 3287 3353 1.20
6.25 11.25 1901 2262 2624 2987 30% 3120 3189 3256 3325 33921.25
6.50 11.70 1922 2287 2654 3021 3088 3156 3225 3293 3362 3430 1.30
6.75 12.15 1944 2313 2681 3055 3123 3191 3262 3330 3400 3449 1.35
7.00 12.60 1966 2339 2714 3089 3156 3227 32" . 3367 3438 3507 1.40
7.25 13.05 1967 2364 2743 3122 3192 3262 3334 3404 3476 3546 145
7.50 MSO 2009 2390 2773 3156 3227 SM3370 3441 3514 3584 1..S0
7.75 13.95 2030 2416 2803 3190 3262 3333 3407 3478 3551 3623 1.55
8.00 14.40 2052 2442 2833 3224 3297 3369 3443 3515 3589 3641 1.60
8.25 14.85 2074 2447 ZW 3258 3331 3404 3479 3552 36,27 3700 1.65
8-SO 15.30 2095 2493 2893 3292 3366 3440 3515 358'9 3665 3738 1.70
8.75 15.75 21`17 2519 2922 3326 3401 3475 3S52 3626 3702 3777 1.75
9.00 16.20 2138 2544 2952 3360 3435 3511 3588 3663 3740 38iS 1.60
9.25 16.65 2160 2570 2982 3394 3470 3546 3624 3700 3778 3854 1.85
1. Part-time: Enrollment for fewer than 6.5 bours per day.
2. full-time: U:nroIlaent for 6.5 moans or *ore per dry.
3. Nourly family fee: Used by county welfare departments.
Eligibility for Child Dory Care
..............................
A family 010ce Bross monthly income at the time of application is more than 84
percent of the state median Income is inett8iblc for aUxidized child
develoQaent services. the 84 percent level is underlined in the above dart.
Any easily receiving child development services shore gross monthly family
Income increases beyond the auxnt entered at the bottom of the column for the
appropriate family size becomes lr*tfglble for wAa ldlzed child development
services.
families bavlro only one or two awubers are for purposes of deteratning
eligibility and teas treated as three member fam i1 les.
go m {ZD ((D 0 r
b O to m M O H H
lD N a Y• CLC O H 6)
O rt a H
K Y• rD n cD R7 tz�
.9 O J m H H
ra ::1 n > r
::3 m H
rt O H
rn rC
i •
z nn z > ntn v
> G � n C N . H. ro ro rt
�$ rt to 7r' fy -- n a rD
'Ca H IN. O O0g �
rs zr» w tin rn a
aro 0 -- adrt
rn rn"J N rt C
rt
a G h
cA rt
• i
o o a ' w . c a " (
> G � O r_ N H. tnm
0 rt* n N X, (1 v�v N
�c a m � 0 c N
@
r m H
a n n
rt H.
rt
z nn E c) ro < n
> rtn N O " C = H
o � CL n n<o �
0A Z a C) �a
C C
2 �
a �
H trJ
�+•� � 7c' � K a O O
O O ro ►� C M
¢. °a 0 n
nu• ro �
0ncn
0 rt O• i�
• i .,
to
aG \ 0 0 0 0 C C nm y
� r � ct o as ZZ
w t7• G t0-+H t%+ ft hs M
°, m tri
a r* �• cn a
La a La
r U U H r•S G Q C]
� c � n a Y• t� o
ct
rt
'•C a Y• N ct n
n w �
O rD ro
N Y• to H
rt n
a --
z n E Cy C n
\ n a G C n a
>
rt N rt
Y•
ro
■ i-
w ° 0 (D 0 r
PC {) N fD ►t A H H
N+ tv t— ty C 0 ►•3 0
'•OC N t�D A m 'v b7
rt H
�. 00 no nca 00N rt�
rt 0 K 0 Cid fD 0
rt !i O N• 0 (D Er n
Ka ON rrro
h @ fD N• h
0 O lD A 0
N iZ 0' to & G
m w a art
to M
C3
M
H
r
H
ro til ro
rt X a aH
'0 tN7 � � F-+ � �•C H D►
H
(D Z fD O �'
r
to ro
0
c� b
^
o o n � 0 n c d � ro
z
0
rt rom ((D O( DDS G "21 z M
h to cD
CD ro to
� ct H.
rt (D N 0
W 0 h
til
ro �
a
y
\ Y Or hj O tt G O G N• d
y' rt :z ft ►Q
Krt 0 Aa a
P. 0 N 0 !D N
A � � 5 t-• O
n a a to
ro ro
a1 a.
O rt A ?s` A a to 0
�C w 0 � O N rt �
O p n
cn a a to a 0
a ca