Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10271992 - 2.1B THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on October 27, 1992 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, Schroder, Torlakson, McPeak NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ----------- -------- SUBJECT: Adoption of the Final Budget for the 1992-1993 Fiscal Year The Chair convened the hearing on the Proposed Budget for the 1992-1993 fiscal year. Phil Batchelor, County Administrator, provided an overview of the eight recommendations set forth on the attached report and included as a part of this document. The following persons commented on the need to control expenditures and do more with less fiscal resources, the legality of the Alternate Defense Unit in the Public Defender' s Office, recovery of a larger amount of the tax dollars collected to fund special districts such as the fire service, and impact of layoffs and the delivery of need services: John Wolfe, Executive Director, Contra Costa Taxpayers Association, 820 Main Street, Martinez 94553; Marsha Nichols, Criminal Conflict Program, 706 Main Street, #C, Martinez 94553; Darren Kessler, Criminal Law Section, 706 Main St. , #C, Martinez 94553 ; Peter Dodd, 6306 Eureka Avenue, E1 Cerrito; Henry Saar, 101 Camino Don Miguel, Orinda; and Jim Hicks, AFSCME, Local 2700, 1000 Court Street, Martinez 94553. All persons desiring to speak having been heard, Board members discussed the areas • of concern as noted by the County Administrator and the speakers relative to the Alternate Defense Unit in the Public Defender' s Office. There was agreement that the services of the Bar Association would still be required in some criminal conflict cases. Supervisor McPeak spoke on the need to establish a technical pool that will permit employees who have been layed-off to be able to apply and compete for employment in other classifications. At the conclusion of the discussion, the Board then proceeded to adopt the recommendations of the County Administrator as amended and set forth on the attached document; TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: Costa Phil Batchelor, County Administrator o . m Count DATE: October 27, 1992 SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF THE FINAL BUDGET FOR: 1992-1993 SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: 1 . Adopt the Adjusted Proposed Budget, approved by the Board on September 22, as the Final Budget for 1992-93 . 2 . Direct County Administrator to monitor caseload of the Public Defender' s Office including the Alternate Defense Unit, and report back to the Board by December 15 as to what further adjustments in staffing and funding levels might be required in the budget to adequately represent indigent defendants, including those served by the Alternate Defense Unit. 3 . Amend Resolution No. 92/624 with respect to the Public Defender' s Office (Attachment Y) regarding the termination date of certain positions in those departments . 4 . Direct County Administrator to work with the Municipal Court, Superior Court, and County Clerk to further develop programs that will increase the cost effectiveness and efficiencies of court operations . 5 . Direct the County Administrator to report back to the Board in January on the effectiveness of the various steps taken to avoid costs and to generate revenues required to ensure a balanced budget for the courts for FY 1992-93 . 6 . Direct the County Administrator to report back to the Board on November 17, as part of the First Quarter Report on the current status of the Sheriff ' s Budget Reduction Plan. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT; YES SIGNATURE: J(r1 l c ' RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON October 27 , 1992 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED _X OTHER —X_ The Board APPROVED the recommendations set forth above and ADOPTED the Adjusted Proposed Budget of September 22, 1992, as the Final County Budget for the 1992-1993 fiscal year. The Board REFERRED to the Finance Committee for monitoring issues pertinent to the Public Defender/Alternative Defense Office, Trial Court Funding Legislation (AB 3027 ) , and budgetary shortfalls in the Sheriff ' s, Health Services, and Social Services Departments. 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 THE DATE SHOWN. CC: Auditor-Controller ATTESTED October 27 , 1992 Superior Court PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Municipal Court SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Public Defender County Administrator �� ` M382 (10/88) BY�I _ DEPUTY 4 -2- 7 . Direct the County Administrator and Health Services Director to continue to explore various cost saving measures and additional revenue sources to offset an estimated Health Services budget shortfall of one to three million dollars . 8 . Direct the County Administrator and Social Services Director to continue to explore various options to offset a potential $1 . 5 million loss in Child Protective Services funds from the State. BACKGROUND: The Board of Supervisors has reviewed the 1992-93 Proposed Budget in a number of meetings and hearings since June. The Proposed budget was adjusted on July 20, August 4, August 11 and September 11 . On September 22, the Board approved the details of these adjustments . Recommendation one would formally adopt the adjusted budget figures approved by the Board on September 22 as the 1992-93 Final Budget. Also in September, the Board directed that the County Administrator negotiate with the Superior and Municipal Courts to make appropriate adjustment in their budgets to reflect any reductions which may be required by revenue losses from Trial Court Funding. What follows is the result of those discussions as well as other outstanding issues related to several Departments . Public Defender/Alternative Defense Office As indicated in the County Administrator's report to the Board on Phase II budget reductions (adopted by the Board on September 11, 1992 ) , the Public Defender' s Office in Phase I had reductions consisting of 17 positions to be abolished. Of these, 4 attorney positions were eliminated August 31, 1992 and the other 13 positions are scheduled for abolishment on October 31, 1992 ( 12 attorneys and 1 investigator) . Additionally on September 11, the Board directed the County Administrator' s Office to further explore with the Public Defender the transfer of additional attorneys to the Alternate Defense Office in order to handle indigent defense cases that otherwise would have to be referred to the Bar Association' s Conflict Defense Program for representation at greater cost. There are a number of justice system reforms currently in progress or under consideration that can decrease costs and improve efficiency in the justice system. These reforms include the Court Coordination Plan of the Superior and Municipal Courts which is scheduled for implementation January 1, 1993 and the Traffic Adjudication Program of the Municipal Court, also scheduled for implementation on that date. In addition, the District Attorney' s Office has begun to use a criminal grand jury to return indictments, which means that such cases will not require any Municipal Court involvement. All these programs have the potential for affecting the caseload of the Public Defender' s Office as well as the availability of judicial time to handle various types of cases . It is anticipated, for example, that significant Municipal Court Judges ' time will be freed up which will permit these judges to handle Superior Court work, both criminal and civil . At this point, however, it is not possible to predict the impact of all these activities upon the caseload of the Public Defender' s Office. Therefore, this Office is recommending that of the 13 positions scheduled for abolishment on October 31, 1992, 9 positions be continued until December 31, 1992 and that 4 attorney positions (2 Public Defender II ' s and 2 Public Defender III ' s) be removed from the list. It is anticipated that in order to pay for the additional costs for these positions, savings will be achieved in Budget Unit 0248, Conflict Defense Services, that can be transferred to the Public Defender' s Office. Maintaining these 4 additional attorney positions for the balance of this fiscal year will permit gradual expansion of the Alternate Defense Unit so that -3- increased numbers of felony cases can be handled within that unit. Since these are the most expensive cases, on the average, for the Conflict Defense Program of the Bar Association to handle, handling such cases within the Public Defender's Office will ultimately achieve the greatest savings. At the current time, the Alternate Defense Office consists of 8 attorneys and 2 clerical . This unit now handles dependency and delinquency cases, misdemeanors and some felonies . The Public Defender anticipates that, given existing caseload, approximately 16 attorneys, 3 clerical and 1 investigator will ultimately be needed to staff this Office, for an annual cost of approximately $1 . 8 million. However, more time is needed to assess likely caseload, particularly given the other court and justice reforms referred to above. This Office will continue to monitor the Public Defender caseload including any required growth in the Alternate Defense Unit and report back to the Board by December 15 on what further actions might be required to achieve the maximum efficiencies and cost savings in the entire area of indigent defense services . Trial Court Funding On September 11, 1992 the Board of Supervisors directed the County Administrator to report back on what further adjustments were required in order to reflect the estimated reduction in State Trial Court Funding in the County' s Budget. At that time it was estimated that, unless clean-up legislation was enacted, the County' s share of State in Trial . Court Funding reduction would be approximately $6 million. Such legislation has recently passed the Assembly and the Senate and is now on the Governor' s desk for signature (AB 3027) . In addition to providing clarification and corrections to SB 617, SB 844 and SB 1559, this legislation will allocate the remaining $140 .5 million of Trial Court Funding money which has already been appropriated but which was not allocated by AB 1344 . The 1992-93 State Budget appropriated $430 million for the Trial Court Funding program but AB 1344 ( Isenberg) only allocated $289 million. AB 3027 amendments allocate the remaining $141 million to counties . If AB 3027 is signed, Contra Costa County will receive $6 ,757 , 669 for the first six months of 1992-93, $3,278,000 on January 25, 1993 and funds accrued in the Trial Court Trust Funding during the 1992- 93 fiscal year allocated on a formula derived from actual expenditures of the courts as reported by the Judicial Council . Contra Costa' s estimated share (2 . 333%) of the $158 million, which is the current estimate of filing fee transfers to the State Trial Court Trust Fund is $3,686, 140; therefore it is estimated that Contra Costa County will receive $13,721,809 in Trial Court Funding for 1992-93 ( $206, 385 over 1991-92 ) . However anticipated filing fee revenue loss from AB 1344 is $2,049,000, which results in a potential shortfall of $1,842,615 . If counties transfer more than the estimated $158 million into the Trust Fund, then Contra Costa's share will increase for this fiscal year, thus decreasing any potential shortfall . Pursuant to your Board' s directive we have been exploring efficiencies in court operations . During Phase I the Municipal Court took a reduction of $881,730 and the County Clerk of $534,650 . In addition, this Office has met with the Superior Court to discuss what budget reductions and improved efficiencies are possible given the mandates of the court in both the civil and criminal areas . A number of operational areas which could yield both cost savings and increased justice system efficiencies have been identified. We believe that given the opportunity to further explore this matter with the Superior Court, that such savings and efficiencies can be mutually agreed upon and implemented. -4- Sheriff ' s Department On September 11, 1992, a number of adjustments were made in the Sheriff Department' s budget involving both expenditure reductions and revenue increases. These were made at the request of the Sheriff ' s Department in order that certain positions could be maintained in that Department. This Office was directed to review the implementation of the Department' s budget reduction plan and report back to the Board on November 17 . At this time, the Department is meeting with the Deputy Sheriffs ' Association in order to obtain work rule changes that could reduce expenditures, such as overtime. The November 17 report will indicate whether further expenditure and staff reductions will be necessary in order to insure a balanced budget. Health Services The Health Services Department faced a 1992-1993 budget shortfall of nearly $19 million. The Department has reduced the shortfall to between $1 - $3 million by identifying new revenues, eliminating positions and reducing contracts . Additional budget balancing efforts are continuing with specific emphasis on Mental Health and generating additional revenues . Social Services The Social Services Department experienced a $3 . 7 million budget cut in 1992-93 . This budget reduction is in addition to significant reductions in the last half of fiscal 1991-92 in anticipation of state revenue cuts for 1992-93 . Significant efforts are continuing in the General Assistance program. such as centralizing the Administration of the program, increasing quality control measures and intensifying work program. A potential revenue loss of $1 .5 million in Child Protective Services, due to a reallocation plan by the Administration is currently under study, and planning is underway to address this challenge.