HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10111988 - IO.3 o. 3
TO
. 'F• BOARD Of'SUPE Rf.• ORS
FRO1' ' INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE C ra
September 26 , 1988 Costa
DATE .
Status Report on Various ��a �
jit
SUBJECT; Child Care Issues
SPECIFIC REQUESTS) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKCROUND 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 .
ommittee: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 ATTACHMENT: _ YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR �_ RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROV ✓`- OTHER
SIGNATUREIsI: Sunne W. McPeak Tom Torlakson
ACTION OF BOARD ON October 11, 1988 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER X
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 ) AAD CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES:_ AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT; ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Listed on Page 4 ATTESTED ��.
PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
4382/1-83 BY ,DEPUTY
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 Furid: 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 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 1150 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
• - � � O t�D fZD CSD
to 0 N fD K f} H H
H ort a r 5 H
'< P. tD H tz
a 0 ro >
ct 0 H
� K
y+ :j K N F, tri �d ►d rt
'C W
yz s Fl- M� p
n acD a -- art
0 i1 ro tt
N � ► N C
1-10 0
y Gw CGN mW
0 rt K N x O+ O r0
rt
H.
(D � 0 art
zM N ro
0 G ((G to
N (D N _
a 0 n
rt H.
rt
�
Z K P. 0 N 0 , CO bd
H
0 � m tn
K 000 7q
0 Q
N K �Ct
cc
z �
d �
n n z E .' z N C) H
0ct
� x a o O
nrr
�, 0 0 n
0(D I
p0cn
0 r* �
o �.
• a
G
C) \ 0 0 0 0 Ctn n cD to
r C rt � rpt 0 X
ti rt Ka rKn G
n 0 �4
M � N
N d K
tz rt �
ri
ro
G n a
`«3 rt
rt K N H
4t a r• t-r rt n
0 ro b
cn }+• N H
rt n
a
> N v (D H
FJ
xrl M rl
rt rt
m
N
M O fD M m H T V
t�
r' n N ( K n H H
0 rwt of a' fC,. O H H
M
t�D G fD fD
n H �
� r
rt H
y
►C
\ 0 0 K O K G O G
> G w fD K tD H-M K rt
rt H ° H. �O3 rt fD
O 0 1D n 0
tnDi
rt (DD M N rt G
w a a ar
,.< p
H
b�
H
r
M
ro
N ro 2 0 cn ►� t�7 �
y
Kn O ~ ~ O H
z rt
a ° �
� b
ro
> � � neo co � czj° nE c
z
d
►ca � � � om �OG (D z H
G ,�• a � �• � a �' p
n � W o
vOi rat �- trtD a N d d °
F-
0 P• 5 a r' H
o0 � 4A
r�
a
z
I--, d G N C
ft rt nx 0al a�
P. o �•
LQ
a 0 m
K a am
a a
:5 ft 0K � a � nO
r o H•o N rt5
m
o � � (DZ
a la,
m ao
v v
r
Chl' Id Care 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.
r
• unin
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 .
�0
PC/
How It .. Will Work
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/guardian's
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 .
Continuity . o are
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 -traininig 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.
1W11tT Kt BCK"I
for llecA Weer 1107.01 Effactlre rtes 1.1.07
............... ......................................................................
Okwber M family
............... .....................................................................•
0*1ly toe 1-3 4 S 1 0 9 10 11 12
............... .....................................................................
►ort Tutt No+rlrr
11mt star 11INTILT 101,MW 161161 favi tyre
............... .........................................:.................
. ....--•--
O.SO 0.90 1060 1285 1491 1697 1735. 1773 1812 1150 1889 1927 0.10
• 0.60 1.06 1102 1311 1521 1731 1770 1808 1846 1867 1027 1966 0.12
0.70 1.26 1123 1336 1SS1 1765 1804 1841 1884 1024 1%S 2004 0.14
0.60 1.k 1145 1362 1580 1799 1839 1879 1921 1961 2002 2043 0.16
0.90 1.62 1166 1388 1610 1833 1874 1915 1957 1996 2040 2061 0.18
1.00 1.00 1188 1414 1640 1867 1909 1950 1993 2035 2078 2120 6.20
1.10 1.98 1210 1439 1670 1901 1943 1966 2029 2072 2116 2158 0.22
1.20 2.16 1231 1465 1700 1935 1978 2021 2046 2109 2153 2197 0.24
1.30 2.34 1253 1491 1730 1969 2013 2057 2102 2146 2191 223S 0.26
1.40 2.52 1274 1S16 1759 2002 2047 2092 2138 2183 2229 2274 0.28
/.So 2.70 1296 1542 1789 2036 2082 2128 2174 2220 2267 2312 0.30
1.65 2.97 1318 1568 1819 2070 2117 2163 2211 A157 2305 2351 0.33
1.60 3.24 1339 1593 1849 2104 2151 2199 2247 2294 2342 2389 0.36
1.95 3.51 •1361 1619 1879. 2138 2186 2234 2283 2531 2380 2428 0.39
2.10. 1.79 1382 1645 1906 2172 2221 2269 2319 2368 2418 2467 0.42
2.25 4.05. 1404 1671 1936 2206 2256 2305 2356 2405 . 2436 2305 0.45
2.40 4.32 1426 1696 1%b 2240 2290 2X0 2392 1142 2493 2544 0.48
2.55 4.59 1K7 1722 1998 2274 2325 2376 2428 2479 2531 2392 O.S1
2.70 4.96 1469 1748 2028 2308 2360 Nil 24" 2516 2569 2621 0.54
2.65 S.13 1490 1773 2058 2342 2394 2447 2501 2SS3 2607 2659 CST
3.00 5.40 1512 1799 2087 2376 2429 2482 2537 2590 WS 2698 0.60
3.15 S.6T 1534 1825 2117 2410 2464 2518 2573 2627 2682 2736 6.63
3.30 5.94 1555 1850 2147 24" 249E 2553 2609 2664 2720 2775 0.66
3.45 6.21 1577 1876 2177 2478 2533 2589 2646 2701 2758 2813 0.69
3.60 6.48 1S98 1902 2207 2512 2568 2624 2682 2738 2796 2852 0.72
3.75 6.7S 1620 1928 2237 2546 2603 2660 2718 2775 2834 2891 0.75
3.90 7.02 1642 1953 2266 2579 2637 2695 2754 2612 2671 2929 0.78
4.05 7.29 1663 1979 2296 2613 2672 2730 2790 2849 2909 2968 0.81
4.20 7.S6 1685 2005 2326 2647 2707 2766 2827 ZEE6 2947 3006 0.84
4.35 7.03 1706 2030 2356 2661V41 2601 2663 2923 2985 3045 0.87
4.SO 8.10 1728 2056 2366 2715 2776 2137 2899 2%0 3022 3083 0.90
4.70 6.46 1750 2082 2415 2749 2611 2872 2435 2997 3060 3122 0.94
4.90 0.62 1771 2107 2"S 2783 2645 2906 2972 3OU 389E 3160 0.98
5.10 9.18 1793 2133 2475 2817 2860 2943 3006 3071 3136 3199 1.02
S.30 9.54 j 1814 2159 2505 2851 2915 2979 3044 3108 3174 3237 1.06
......................................................................................
S.SO 9.90 1636 2185 253S 2885 2950 3014 3080 3145 32113276 1.10
5.75 10.35 USS 2210 2565 2919 2964 3050 3117 3162 3249 3314 1.15
6.00 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 3392 1.25
6.50 11.70 1922 2287 2654 3021 3088 3156 3225 3293 336? 3430 1.30
6.75 12.1S 1944 2313 2684 3055 3123 3191 3262 3330 3400 X69 1.35
7.00 12.60 1966 2339 2714 3069 3158 3227 .32% . W 3438 3507 1.40
7.25 13.05 1967 2364 2743 3122 3192 3262 3334 3404 3476 3546 1.45
7.50 13.50 2009 2390 2773 3156 3227 3295 337D 3441 3514 3584 1.50
7.75 13.95 2030 2416 28x3 3190 37b2 3333 3407 3478 3551 3623 1.55
8.00 14.40 2052 2442 2833 3224 3297 3369 3"3 3515 3589 3661 1.60
8.25 14.85 2074 2"? 2663 3258 3331 34% 3479 3552 3627 3700 1.65
9.50 15.30 2095 2493 2693 3292 3366 3440 3515 3589 3665 3738 1.70
8.75 15.75 2117 2519 2922 3326 3401 3475 3552 3626 3702 3777 1.75
9.00 16.20 2138 2544 2952 3360 3435 3511 3588 3663 3740 381S 1.60
9.25 16.65 2160 2570 2982 3394 3470 3546 3624 3700 3778 3454 1.65
-------------•----------.----------------------------------------•--------------------
1. Part-time: Enrottetnt for fewer than 6.5 boors per day.
2. Putt-time: Enrollment for 6.5 hours or sort per day.
3. Hourly family fee: Wised by Canty aetfare departments.
Eligibility for Child bay Care
-----------------•------------
1 family af►oet Bross monthly income at the time of application is wore than 84
Percent of the state median income Is inettsibte for *Jx1d1zed child
devetopamt services. the 84 percent level is ur erllned in the above chart.
Any tartly tttetving child devttopment services show Grass wonthtr fa.,tty
income Increases beyond the amcxnt anterad at the bottom o1 the to an for the
appropriate family size becomes ineligible for athsidtzed child development
aervi us.
families having only ont or two aenbcrs are forQurposet of determining
n n l
otigibitity and fees treated as three member fa1 S ,
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TO: Internal Operation mm-lttee DATE: September 23, 1988
Supervisor S e W�ght i�kPeak
Supervi s Tom To, 1 akson/
FROM: Jim K ne
Dep y Director - R evelopment
SUBJECT: ransient Oc ncy Tax
The Community Development Department was requested to ascertain the revenue
effects of increasing the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) by 1% in each
jurisdiction. Additionally, we have estimated the revenue effects of all
jurisdictions raising the TOT to a uniform 9.5%.
The revenue effects of these changes are summarized below with more detail on
Table 1.
Incremental Revenue
Due to 1% Increase
in TOT (based on
1987-88 revenues) $340,993
Incremental Revenue
Due to a Uniform
TOT Rate of 9.5%
(based on 1987-88
revenues) $490,735
JK/jb
jkl/intrnop.mem
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TO: Nancy C. Fanden DATE: July 19, 1988
Supervisor, Distri
FROM: James 6edy SUBJECT: RedevelopmentAgency Indebtedness
Deputy development to Contra Costa County
The Redevelopment Agency has the following outstanding debt obligations to the County:
Principal Source of Outstanding
Date Amount Loan Funds Term Interest Rate Debt (6/30/87)
1/84 $ 100,000 General Fund Indefinate Prime plus 1% $ 143,451
9/84 100,000 General Fund Indefinate Prime plus 1% 132,786
12/841 ,000,000 AD 83-1 30 Years 12% 1 ,308,877
84-87 530,368 General Fund Indefinate Prime plus 1% 576,808
.4/86 1 ,616,684 r/w convey. Indefinate Prime plus 1% 1 ,782,166
10/85 433, 132 General Fund Indefinate Prime plus 1% 505,426
8/86 337,985 General Fund Indefinate Prime plus 1% 364,161
8/87 192,383 General. Fund Indefinate -Prime plus 1% 210,646*
TOTAL $4,310,552 $5,024,321
*As of 6/30/88
The Redevelopment Agency's debt obligations may be summarized as follows :
Due to General Fund $1 ,933,278
Due to AD 83-1 1 ,308,877
Due County for r/w 1 ,782,166
TOTAL $5,024,321
i
I
CC: Board Members
County Administrator
I County Counsel
i
14W
V
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
DATE: June 15, 1988
TO: Supervisor Sunne W. McPeak
Supervisor T lakson
INTERNAL Q ER IO S COMMITTEE
FROM: Jim Kennedy, D uty Director-Redevelopment
SUBJECT: Sales 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
t
County of Contra Costa from the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area:
Year
Revenue Source 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
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
IN� k
Ve
t t D
C"J a`JJ