HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10301990 - IO.8 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS L Contra
FROM: Cotta
INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE x�•. County
DATE: �Os------
October22, 1990
SUBJECT: REPORT ON MEETING WITH CHILD CARE TASK FORCE AND
RELATED ISSUES
SPECIFIC REOUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1 . Direct staff from the Community Development Department to
continue working on proposed .amendments to Ordinance 88-1 as
outlined in the attached staff report from Karl Wandry with
the suggestion that the change in Section 82-22. 406( 2) be to
15 years, rather than 10 years, that further consideration
be given to exactly what size the fee in Section
82-22. 406( 3) should be, determine the extent to which funds
obtained through the Child Care Ordinance or facilities
constructed pursuant to the Ordinance can be used for Head
Start classes and other State funded child care programs and
return to our Committee on December 10, 1990 with final
proposed Ordinance changes.
2. Express the Board' s thanks to the County Supervisors'
Association of California (CSAC) for sponsoring AB 1853
(Speier) and to Assemblywoman Jackie Speier for authoring AB
1853, the California Child Care Partnership bill, which was
co-sponsored by the Board of Supervisors.
3 . Endorse the reintroduction by Assemblywoman Speier of
legislation similar to AB 1853 and request CSAC to again
co-sponsor the bill with the Board of Supervisors.
4. Acknowledge receipt of the attached reports from staff
addressing child care legislation which was enacted in 1990
and on the Social Services Department' s Child Protective
Services Child Care Program.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMOVecYES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
f
APPROVE OTHER 5
SIGNATURE(S): TO WRRS
ACTION OF BOARD ON_ Qntnhe r 1 O f 1990 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X_ OTHER
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: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON JJT��HE DATE SHOWN.
CC: ATTESTED �.c. U0� 1990
PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Please see Page 2.
M382 (10/88) BY ,DEPUTY
5 . With the exception of the item on proposed changes to the
Child Care Ordinance which will be reported back to our
Committee on December 10, 1990, remove all child care
related referrals from our Committee and instead authorize
the 1991 Internal Operations Committee to meet with the
Child Care Task Force in March, 1991.
BACKGROUND:
On May 1, 1990 the Board of Supervisors approved a variety of
recommendations from our Committee on the subject of child care.
Our Committee met with the Child. Care Task Force again on. October
22, 1990 and formulated the above recommendations as a result of
that meeting. In regard to the Child Care Ordinance, we
discussed the changes proposed by Mr. Wandry and have asked that
these proposals be worked on further by staff and be reported
back to our Committee on December 10, 1990.
We also received a presentation from Rose Manning of the Social
Services Department on the Department' s CPS Child Care Program,
as is outlined in the attached report. We also reviewed the
attached report on child care legislation which was enacted in
1990. While the Governor vetoed AB 1853, we understand that
Assemblywoman Speier is prepared to reintroduce similar
legislation in 1991 and are recommending that our Board of
Supervisors and CSAC again co-sponsor such legislation. Finally,
we are asking that the 1991 Internal Operations Committee
continue to meet about twice a year with the Child Care Task
Force in an effort to stay in close touch with the child care
community and with events which are taking place in Contra Costa
County regarding child care.
cc: County Administrator
Social Services Director
Community Development. Director
Karl Wandry, Deputy Director, CDD
County Counsel
Assemblywoman Jackie Speier (Via CAO)
Larry Naake, Executive Director, CSAC (Via CAO)
Child Care Task Force (Via CAO)
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TO: Claude Van Marter DATE: October 22, 1990
Assistant County A istrator
FROM: Karl L. Wandry
Deputy Director
SUBJECT: Report to Internal Operations Committee/Child Care Task Force
Child Care Council representatives and I have met and discussed some of the changes I had
in mind regarding the Child Care Facilities Ordinance.
We first concluded that the ordinance was essentially solid, representing the good work and
long hours that were put into it by all the persons and agencies involved. There are;however,
some changes that could be made that would make the ordinance more flexible and therefore,
more effective. Reference is made to Chapter 82-22, Child Care Facilities (attached).
Section 82-22-406(2) specifies that the facility built be available for a 25-year period.
We feel that a 1.0-year period will provide for the initial need generated by the project;
and that once the facility was established, it will continue beyond the 10 years based
on overall need and market conditions.
Add Section 82-22-406(3) Projects with 29 or fewer units will satisfy this requirement
by either providing a child care facility as in part (2) above or by payment of fees in
lieu of a facility. The fee shall be $500 per single family unit, $350 per townhouse or
condominium unit, and $250 per apartment unit.
Adding this section will help to affect the cumulative impacts of smaller projects not
now covered by the ordinance.
Delete Section 82-22.1002(9) exempting residential developments of less than 30
units.
In addition, provisions to allow fees to be collected in lieu of facilities for major projects should
be added to be used where the fees could be used to enhance an existing or proposed facility
or where program enhancement would better serve the needs of the area. This provision
would only be used at the discretion of the Zoning Administrator upon a showing of good
cause. We have successfully used this approach with one major project,.resulting in the
provision of a new facility as well a small surplus of funds.
Claude.Van Marter
Page 2
Facilities to be provided by the developer should include the ability to help with expanding old
.and new centers or help with a portion of a new facility. This provision would provide a
flexibility not currently available in the ordinance.
While the current ordinance has resulted in a successful program, the changes suggested will
simply make it that much more successful.
Since the last report on facilities obtained through the application of the Child Care Facilities
Ordinance, we have accomplished the following:
$24,000 being held in trust for a day care center to be built in Oakley
$14,000 contract with the Child Care Council to provide training for in-home
providers
$140,000 for a child care facility in San Ramon
A successful program indeed!
KLW/jn
12:marter.mem
attachment
z
ti
o 0 7
ORDINANCE NO. 88-1
(Child Care Facilities)
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows
(omitting the parenthetical footnotes from the official text of
the enacted or amended provisions of the County Ordinance Code) :
SECTION I: SUMMARY. This ordinance adds Chapter 82-22 to the
County ordinance Code to require the establishment of child care
facilities in connection with residential and non-residential
developments.
SECTION II: FINDINGS. This Board makes the following findings
in connection with the adoption of a Child Care Facility Or-
dinance:
It is the policy of this County to assist and encourage the
development of adequate child care, as set forth in the Child
Care Component of the Community Facilities Element of the County
General Plan, adopted on October 21, 1986.
This Ordinance promotes the policy and goals as set forth in
the Community Facilities Element of the General Plan.
It is a legitimate role of government to promote the
provision of a child care system.
This ordinance promotes the public health, welfare and
safety of the County.
Contra Costa County encourages the participation of parents,
providers, public officials and employers in the planning and
decision-making process relating to the provision of child care
facilities.
New development often creates or expands a need for addi-
tional child care facilities.
The provision of child care facilities pursuant to this
Ordinance will help satisfy child care infrastructure require-
ments associated with new growth.
SECTION III : Chapter 82-22 is added to the County Ordinance Code
to read:
6HAPTER- 82-22
CHILD CARE FACILITIES
Article 82-22. 2
General
82-22. 202 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to
implement the Child Care component of the Community Facilities
Element of the County General Plan. It is the policy of Contra
Costa County to assist and encourage the development of adequate,
ORDINANCE NO. 88-1
1
I
affordable child care. it is recognized that the provision of
child care requires a partnership between public and private
participants and that the role of this County is to establish
land use policies and ordinances to promote the establishment of
child care facilities and the initiation of child care services
in this community. It is further recognized that it is the
developers' responsibility to address the child care needs
associated with the development of their projects within the
County, and that the establishment of such child care facilities
and initiation of services will help satisfy the child care
infrastructure requirements associated with new growth. Further,
it is a policy of this County to encourage, whenever possible,
joint use facilities such as but not limited to public schools,
churches, parks or other community facilities.
(Ord. 88-1 5 3. )
82-22. 204 Administration. The community development
department shall be responsible to ensure the coordination of
child care needs assessment and the provision of information
concerning child care, to assist in the preparation of child care
programs (where appropriate) , and to coordinate the -development
of a child care program within County government.
(Ord. 88-1 5 3. ) '
82-22. 206 Regulations.. The Hoard of Supervisors may issue
regulations for the administration of this chapter, including
procedures and policies.
(Ord. 88-1 5 3. )
Article 82-22. 4
Definitions
82-22.402 General. Unless otherwise specifically provided,
the following definitions shall govern the interpretation of. this
chapter.
(Ord. 88-1 5 3. )
82-22. 404 "Child care facility." "Child care facility"
means an existing or proposed child care facility as defined in
Health and Safety Code Section 1596.750. The three basic
designations covered under this section are:
( 1) Small family day care home, as defined in Health &
Safety Code 5 1596.78(2) (a facility Licensed for the care of six
or fewer children) .
(2) Large family day care home, as defined in Health &
Safety Code 5 1596.78(1) (a facility licensed for the care of
seven to twelve children) .
(3) Child care center, as defined in Health & Safety Code
5 1596.76 (a facility licensed for the care of more than twelve
children) .
"Child care ity" includes the building, modifications
to buildings, ipme t and any accessory structures, in-which
there are prog personnel -licensed by the State for direct
child care services including but- not limited to shelter, food,
education, and play opportunities for fewer than 24 hours per
day.
(Ord. 88-1 5 3. )
82-22.406 "Project." "Project" means a proposal for the
. development of land, requiring a land use entitlement, whether
residential or non-residential, or both, which conforms to County
requirements. A project includes but is not limited to the
development of a lot or parcel or larger acreage, conversion of
-an existing use to a different use, and expansion of a use.
(Ord. 88-1 5 3. )
4
ORDINANCE NO. 88-1
2
having a floor area of 15,000 gross square feet or more shall
provide for a child care facility (and the initiation of its use)
on- or off-site as part of the project consistent with the needs
assessment and response program as required by this. chapter or
shall demonstrate that the child care needs of the project are
mitigated through the use of existing facilities.
(2) The applicant or developer of a residential project of
more than 30 units shall provide a child care. facility on- or
off-site consistent with the needs adsessment and response
program required by this chapter or shall demonstrate that the
child care needs of the project are mitigated through the use of
existing facilities. The new facility constructed by the
developer for the purposes-I& satisfying the requirement of this
chapter shall be available on an ng basis to satisfy the
public need for not fewer than25 year unless approved for a
change of use by the Board on a mmendation by the zoning
administrator through a public hearing process.
(Ord. 88-1 5 3. )
82-22. 810 Integration with other facilities_. To the extent
possible, child care facilities shall be integrated with other
facilities. Cooperative efforts with public and private schools
shall be encouraged as the preferred method to provide off-site
child care. Coordinated use of recreational or common areas
within projects, with churches, parks or community facilities is
to be fostered as a secondary method to provide child care
facilities.
(Ord. 88-1 5 3. )
82-22. 812 Deed notification. The developer shall provide
deed notification to all purchasers or lessees that a child care
facility may be located. at any residential unit or lot or in any
common area or facility within the project, as determined by the
zoning administrator.
(Ord. 88-1 5 3. )
82-22.814 Restrictive covenants. The applicant or develop-
er shall provide in the covenants, conditions and restrictions,
if any, or in similar documents, that a child care facility may
be located at any residential unit or lot or in any common area
or facility within the project, as determined by the zoning
administrator.
(Ord. 88-1 § 3. )
Article 82-22.10
Exemptions
82-22:1002•Exem ttions. The provisions 'of- this_ chapter do
not apply to the following:
_ ( 1) Any project, as determined by the director of community
development, which will not have a significant child care impact.
(2) The significant remodeling or rehabilitation of a
residential or non-residential building, provided there is no
intensification of the use or enlargement of the building.
( 3) The significant repair or reconstruction of a building
resulting from damage by fire or other natural disaster, provided
there is no intensification of the use or enlargement of the
building.
( 4) Any modification or remodel of an existing, legally-
established dwelling unit that does not create an additional
dwelling unit, or the temporary occupancy of a mobilehome not
situated in a mobilehome park.
( 5) Child care facilities.
( 6) Any pfoject for which a final development plan approval
has been given by the planning agency or for which a development
agreement or amended development agreement exists prior to the
ORDINANCE NO. 88-1
4
effective date of this chapter, except those projects which
include as part of the conditions compliance with this chapter or
with the child care requirements of a TSM ordinance or program.
(7) Studio and one-bedroom dwelling units shall not be
counted in multi-family residential projects of more than 30
units.
( 8) senior housing project.
opm11 t
Non-residential projects having fewer than 100
potential employees or having a floor area of fewer than 15,000
gross square feet.
(Ord. 88-1 S 3. )
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this ordinance
is held invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent
jurisdiction, the holding shall not affect the validity or
enforceability of the remaining provisions, and the Board
declares that it would have adopted each part of this ordinance
irrespective of the validity of any other part.
SECTION III. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective 30
days after passage, and within 15 days of passage shall be
published once with the names of the supervisors voting for and
against it in the Contra Costa Times a news-
paper published in this County.
PASSED ON January 26 , 103$ by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Powers , Fanden, McPeak; Torlskson , Schroder.
NOES: None ..
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: clone.
ATTEST: PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk
of the Board of Supervisors and
County Administrator
By
Deputy oard Chair
1
[SEAL]
SBM
(3-2-87) - -
(1-12-88) ---
ORDINANCE N0. 88-1
5
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
C O N T R A C O S T A C O U N T Y
Administration Building
651 Pine Street, 11th Floor
Martinez, California
DATE: October 18, 1990
TO: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE &
CHILD CARE TASK FORCE
FROM: Claude L. Van Marte
Assistant County A i trator
SUBJECT: LEGISLATION ENACTED DURING 1990 DEALING
WITH CHILD CARE
The following is a complete list, as nearly as I can identify it,
of all bills which were enacted this year dealing with Child Care
and related issues.
CHAPTER BILL NUMBER SUMMARY
21 SB 1331 Provides an alternative set of
education and experience
requirements which a child day care
center teacher may meet
(Urgency) as an alternative to the more
traditional educational requirement.
24 SB 173 School facilities funding bond
issue which was on the ballot in
June, 1990 and would permit
(Urgency) capital funding for certain
specified child care facilities.
388 AB 4316 Provides additional exemptions from
licensure requirements for
specified child care programs
(Urgency) operated by or under contract with
public school districts, programs
which operate no more than 4 hours
per week, programs which offer
temporary child care services and
satisfy specified criteria and
programs which operate only during
the summer and satisfy other
specified criteria.
-3-
not own the home and where the
owner does not have liability
insurance as required specify that
the parent has been i nformed that
the insurance of the owner may not
provide coverage for losses arising
from the operation of the home.
Also requires that where the tenant
carries liability insurance to name
the owner of the property as an
additional insured on the liability
insurance or bond if certain
conditions are met.
1141 SB 2295 Allows the welfare department,
under the GAIN child care program,
to deny payments to child care
provider who is exempt from
licensure if the provider has been
convicted of certain crimes and
provides procedures for
investigation of the situation and
to defer payments pending the
outcome of the investigation.
1163 SB 2733 Requires the State Department of
Health Services, in consultation
with specified parties, to adopt
regulations regarding the design,
installation, maintenance,
inspection, supervision and
training of personnel involved in
playgrounds which are operated
either by public agencies or where
the playground is open to the
public. The regulations would have
to be at least as protective as the
guidelines published by the US
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
The regulations would have to
provide special provisions for
playgrounds in day care settings.
The bill provides for upgrading
existing playgrounds and for new
playgrounds to meet the new
regulations within specified time
periods. Restricts the use of state
funds for playgrounds which do not
meet the new regulations.
1331 AB 1428 Appropriates $900,000 from the Prop
98 contingency reserve for
allocation to the child care
resource and referral agencies.
5-
parents -of children 3 years of age
and younger. The program would be
coordinated through the office of
the County Superintendent of
Schools. officers that apply for
participation would provide a
course of instruction in specified
child development skills for
parents who enroll in the course.
The State Department of Education
would be required to report on the
results of the program by January
1, 1995.
1596 SB 2194 Prohibits specified child care
contractors from denying services
to an otherwise eligible child on
the basis of the child' s disability
unless at least 5`s of the
contractor's enrollment of children
receiving subsidized child care and
development services are children
with exceptional needs. Alters the
definition of "children with
exceptional needs" . Redefines the
requirement on the Superintendent
of Public Instruction relative to
meeting the needs of eligible
children with exceptional needs.
CONTRA cc c COSTA
Child Care Coun-cil
August 27 , 1990
Mr. Claude Van Marter
Assistant County Administrator Vv
Administration Building
651 Pine St, 11th Floor CC,
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Van,
Thank you for sharing with me Mr. Rydingswords' memo describing his
Child Protective Services Child Care Program. I certainly don't
disagree in any way with his comnents .
However, they do raise a number of additional questions in my mind .
Probably the biggest surprise to me, and to everyone else I have
talked to, is that only a small portion ( 23%) of the Department's
Child Protective Services Child Care Program is actually serving
C.P.S. families and children. The general perception in the
community has been that this money was being used exclusively for
C.P.S. families and children.
This does raise a number of questions .
Firstly, the Child Care Council and other state funded child
development centers receive numerous phone calls each year
from C.P.S. Social Workers looking for child care for their
clients. We are constantly told that the Department has run
out of C.P.S. child care funds. We do what we can to serve
these families, but it often means using funds that would
otherwise be used to assist a low-income family who is working
or in training . I question how much sense this makes when the
Department has over $375,'000 which could be used to provide
supportive child care services tc these C. P. S. families .
Secondly, I philosophically question the wisdom of asking low-
income working families to go to the Department of Social
Services - the Welfare Department - to access child care
subsidies . We have been struggling for years to separate
child care from Welfare and the stigma that is unfortunately
attached to being a welfare recipient.
ADMINISTRATION WEST BRANCH EAST BRANCH SOUTH BRANCH CENTRAL BRANCH
El L G
u727 uc <s '- �5c._P._ _. _ .°- _.
(-,t.c:_.ar; }C a.:..... :t:J:: ., c- F,, _ C%.C.'E ,
SOCIAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
TO: Claude L. Van Marter DATE: October 18, 1990
Assistant, County Administrator
FROM: Rose Ma
Assistan n Welfare Director
SUBJ: CHILD PRO ECTIVE SERVICES CHILD CARE PROGRAM
I plan to be present at the October 22, 1990 Internal Operations
Committee to discuss Kate Ertz-Berger's questions about the Social
Service Department's Child Care Program, as you requested.
Following is our response to her specific concerns.
In our 6/18/90 report to the Internal Operations Committee, we
stated that approximately 23% of our child care services were for
Child Protective Services (CPS) families and children. This
percentage was derived from the number of child care hours we
report to the State Department of Education (SDE) for CPS families
vs. all familieswe serve in the Child Care Program, i.e. , the
actual number of hours of child care provided for CPS children
under this program.
At the time of the 6/18/90 report we did not have data available
on the breakdown of our actual child care expenditures between CPS
an non-CPS families. We have since evaluated our expenditures by
program and we are projecting that approximately 47% of our SDE
child care care funds for 1990-91 will go to families and children
receiving Child Protective Services (based on current expenditures
and number of cases in CPS child care) . In addition, the 53% non-
CPS expenditures include some families who were originally
identified as needing child care and other child protective
services to prevent child abuse/neglect. These families are still
assessed to be "at risk" of abuse/neglect, but their only service
need is child care.
The higher percentage of CPS child care expenditures vs. child care
hours reported to SDE results primarily from the higher cost, in
general, for the type of child care services needed to meet the
needs of CPS families and children as compared to non-CPS families.
As described in our 6/18/90 report, our SDE Child Care Program is
not, and never has been, limited to providing services and funding
exclusively to CPS families. SDE regulations under which we
operate the program require us to give priority to serving CPS
families. However, any child care funds available after current
CPS child care needs have been met must be made available to non-
CPS families waiting for those funds.
Gen 9c (New 3/86)
Once we have committed (encumbered) funds for a family's ongoing
child care plan, we cannot discontinue that family's child care
payments unless they become ineligible for child care services or
voluntarily request discontinuance. We cannot discontinue services
to non-CPS families in order to serve CPS families who are later
identified as needing child care services.
Historically, SDE child care funds have been needed and used
primarily by low income families, which includes working families
as well parents seeking employment, teen-age parents, temporarily
disabled parents, parents with disabled children, and others who
may or may not be receiving other services from our Department.
Recently, the need for CPS related child care has been rapidly
increasing. As non-CPS families drop out of our program, we are
using any released funds for CPS families needing child care.
Thus, our SDE funds are gradually shifting from non-CPS to CPS
families.
At any given point in time, our available SDE funds (due to non-
CPS discontinuances) are not sufficient to meet all CPS child care
needs at that moment. Therefore, the Child Care Council and SDE
funded child care centers can expect to continue receiving calls
from our CPS staff seeking child care resources.
Any agency receiving SDE child care funds is required to follow
SDE priorities for serving families, i.e. , CPS families have first
priority. We agree that CPS families should be provided child care
services through our agency to the extent we have funds available.
However, if we are unable to meet this need due to limits on our
funding as described above, CPS families should be able to seek
child care resources through other SDE funded agencies and be
served on a priority basis.
Non-CPS families seeking assistance with child care costs come to
our agency voluntarily, and include many families who are already
receiving other services from our department. However, we have no
problem with those families accessing child care subsidies through
the Child Care Council. In fact, we will be unable to serve the
majority of such families as our funds shift to CPS families. We
are currently unable to respond to new child care requests from
non-CPS families and must refer them to other community resources,
including the Child Care Council.
RM:mr
cc: James A. Rydingsword, Social Service Director
Supervisor Sunne Wright McPeak
Supervisor Tom Powers