HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11241992 - 1.49 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
FROM: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator _
Costa
o`er s
DATE: November 19, 1992 County`°*Tq c�U�
SUBJECT: COST OF PLACING MEASURE "B" ON THE BALLOT
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION:
Accept this report from the County Administrator commenting on the
costs to the County of placing Measure "B" on the ballot and
concluding that there was no additional, direct General Fund cost
to the taxpayer from the Board of Supervisors having done so.
BACKGROUND:
BASIS OF THE REFERRAL:
At the Board meeting on November 17, 1992, the County Administrator
was asked to determine the cost to the County of placing Measure
"B" on the ballot, and more generally the cost to any jurisdiction
of placing any measure on a ballot. The following is in response
to this request.
Information was provided to the Board of Supervisors on November
17, 1992 to the effect that the "cost" to the County of placing
Measure "B" on the ballot was approximately $152,000 . At the same
time, it was noted that the Board of Supervisors had been advised
orally by the County Administrator when Measure "B" was placed on
the ballot, that the "cost" of placing the measure on the ballot
would be held to the absolute minimum possible and would probably
be. only a "few thousand dollars" . The Board of Supervisors had
also been advised in writing on July 28, 1992 that the cost of
placing any measure on the ballot would not exceed $50,000 (See
attached Board Order) . Based on the estimate that the cost would
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON November 24 , 1992 -APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED �1 OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
�( I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS MTHE DATE SHOWN.
ATTESTED 9��
Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
CC: County Administrator SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
County Clerk-Recorder
Assistant Registrar of Voters
County Counsel
BY DEPUTY
be held to an absolute minimum, the Board of Supervisors voted to
place Measure "B" on the November 3, 1992 ballot. Each of these
figures is understandable and can be explained, particularly once
it is clear how the budget for the Elections Division is calculated
and how charges to various jurisdictions for placing measures on
the ballot are assessed:
EXPLANATION OF THE CHARGES MADE TO JURISDICTIONS:
The Elections Division of the County Clerk's Office has a
substantial overhead cost which exists regardless of how many
elections are held .in a year and regardless of how many measures
are placed on any particular ballot. These costs have to do with
registering and re-registering voters, establishing and staffing
precincts, advising individual candidates, organizations and
jurisdictions on the laws regulating elections, maintaining records
on committees, campaign finances and disclosure statements, and in
establishing an automated system to handle whatever number of
elections and whatever length and type of ballots are needed in any
given year. It is only fair that some of these overhead costs
should be recovered from each jurisdiction which places a measure
on the ballot, based on the number of precincts which are involved
in voting on a particular measure.
The actual "cost" of placing a measure on the ballot depends on a
great many factors . These can include the number of other measures
on a particular ballot, whether a given measure results in the need
to add another ballot card in one or more precincts, the actual
additional printing costs for ballot arguments and rebuttals for a
given measure, the cost of verifying and counting absentee ballots
and similar costs which can vary widely depending on the length of
a given measure, the geographic area of the County voting on the
measure and the number of absentee ballots which are cast.
In an effort to approximate the actual costs of conducting an
average election with an average number of candidates and measures
and assign costs in an equitable manner, consultants retained by
the County to study the County's fee structure have advised the
County to charge other jurisdictions a fixed fee based on the
number of precincts which are involved in a particular measure or
candidate' s election. Thus, each city, fire district, hospital
district, water district, or other special district, school
district and other jurisdiction which asks the County to conduct an
election which is consolidated with a General or Primary election
pays a fixed fee per precinct for the election.
In 1992, this fee was calculated to be $150 per precinct. This fee
covers all of the ongoing overhead costs noted above, plus the
actual "out-of-pocket" expenses which the addition of a particular
candidate or measure adds to the overall costs of the election.
Thus, a city or other jurisdiction which calls an election in an
area consisting of 50 precincts will be charged a fee of $7,500
($150 x 50) . A jurisdiction calling an election in an area
consisting of 500 precincts will pay a fee of $75,000 ($150 x 500) .
A countywide election that includes every precinct in the County
will cost the jurisdiction $141,900 ($150 x 946 ) . This averages
out to 28 cents per registered voter in a precinct.
ACTUAL "MARGINAL" COSTS FOR A GIVEN MEASURE VERSUS FEE:
0
It is essential at this point to distinguish the actual "marginal"
or "out-of-pocket" costs of placing any given measure on the ballot
from the "charges" which are made to a jurisdiction for placing a
measure on the ballot. The analogy which is perhaps most easily
understandable at this point is that of the "cost" of admitting a
single patient to a hospital which is already operational and has
several vacant beds, versus the "charge" which is made to that
patient. The "cost" may consist of some additional food, an
additional change of linen, a small amount of nursing time and
perhaps some medications and laboratory work. However, the patient
(or the patient' s insurance company) may be "charged" $1000 a day
or more for these services . This is because the hospital has to
recover not only the incremental cost of serving one patient more
-2-
or less, but also recover all of its overhead and fixed costs.
When a patient is admitted to a hospital, the patient is
immediately benefitting from the availability of many personnel and
services which the patient may or may not actually use, but which
are still available if needed. While many of these services are
recovered only from the patients who use the service, many more are
charged to all patients, whether or not any particular patient may
use any particular service.
In the same way, the Elections Division charges a fee for the use
of all of its available services and for its ability to conduct an
election accurately and efficiently. It would be difficult to
imagine any other individual jurisdiction in the County being able
to conduct an election fully in accordance with the State laws and
to do so as fairly, efficiently, accurately, and inexpensively as
the Elections Division does . Thus, any jurisdiction that wishes to
make use of these facilities and services is expected to pay for
them. It should be noted that many jurisdictions are not required
to use the County Clerk's Office to conduct elections . These
jurisdictions can conduct their own election if they wish to do so.
The fact that almost all jurisdictions consolidate their elections
with the County-operated elections is a testament to the fact that
it is economical to do so.
HISTORY OF MEASURE "B" :
When the Board of Supervisors first considered placing what became
Measure "B" on the November 3, 1992 ballot, a question was asked
regarding what the costs to do so might be. The Elections Division
staff, without having any solid information regarding the length,
complexity or nature of the measure indicated that the "cost" would
absolutely not exceed $50,000 . This figure is reflected in a
report from the County Administrator to the Board of Supervisors
dated July 27, 1992, which was presented to the Board of
Supervisors on July 28, 1992, at which time the Board directed the
preparation of a ballot measure which the Board considered on
August 4, 1992 .
The County Administrator was asked to determine whether it was
possible to refine this figure prior to the time that the Board
gave final consideration to the matter on August 11, 1992 . In a
subsequent conversation with the County-Clerk, the County
Administrator was assured, based on the information that was
available at that time, that everything possible would be done to
keep the costs to an absolute minimum since the election was being
consolidated with the General Election and there were obviously
going to be a number of other measures on the ballot. Based on
this information and other considerations, a majority of the Board
of Supervisors voted to place the measure on the November 3, 1992
ballot.
The fact is that the only directly measurable "out-of-pocket" costs
involved in placing Measure "B" on the ballot, were the direct
costs of printing the ballot argument in support of Measure "B" .
This totalled $10,291 .
CHARGES FOR A COUNTYWIDE MEASURE:
Now we come to the question of what was meant when the figure of
$152,000 was used, apparently in answer to the question of what it
"cost" the Board of Supervisors to place Measure "B" on the ballot.
We must go back to the fixed charge of $150 per precinct. At this
rate, a countywide election will involve a "charge" of $141,900 for
a measure which is consolidated with the Primary or General
election. In addition, there is the actual "cost" of $10,291 for
printing the ballot argument. Together these two figures total
$152, 191 . This is the figure which was provided in answer to the
question which was apparently asked. However, it is important to
consider the relationship between the Board of Supervisors and the
.Elections Division, compared to the relationship between the
Elections Division and any other jurisdiction which calls
elections .
• -3-
RELATIONSHIP OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO THE ELECTIONS DIVISION
OF THE COUNTY CLERK' S OFFICE:
Any other jurisdiction wishing to know what it will cost the
jurisdiction to place a matter on the ballot need only call the
Elections Divisions . The jurisdiction will be told that the charge
will be $150 per precinct for each precinct involved in the
election. Except for additional "per name" costs for candidates
and the agency's proportional share of the cost of processing
absentee ballots, the charge will be neither lower nor higher than
this and this is a figure the jurisdiction can depend on in
determining whether to place a matter on the ballot.
The Board of Supervisors is, of course, responsible for the
Elections Division' s budget. The Board of Supervisors is liable
for the total cost of the election for all federal offices, all
state offices, all statewide measures and all County measures which
it places on the ballot. The overwhelming portion of these costs
involve federal and state offices and measures . In addition, the
Elections Division can only make an educated guess at what its
revenue will be. As has been explained above, the Elections
Division' s revenue depends almost entirely on the number and
magnitude of measures which are consolidated with other elections
which are already being conducted.
Given that the vast majority of the Elections Division' s costs are
fixed, and that the amount of revenue to be offset against those
costs depends on the decisions made by dozens of other independent
jurisdictions, the Board of Supervisors is left, at times, in a
somewhat precarious position at best in judging how much County
General Fund money will be required to operate the Elections
Division. If some jurisdictions that were expected to place
measures on the ballot decide not to do so, revenue is reduced, but
costs remain essentially fixed. The Board of Supervisors is liable
for making up the shortfall. On the other hand, if costs are kept
down and revenue proves to be greater than had been anticipated,
some of the County General Fund money which had been provided when
the budget was adopted may not be needed. In this case, any fund
balance at the end of the fiscal year is returned to the County
General Fund. As a result of this rather unique relationship, it
seems unnecessary for the Elections Division to "bill" the Board of
Supervisors for the normal "charges" for measures which the Board
of Supervisors places on the ballot. To do so would simply require
that the Board of Supervisors move money from one pocket to
another, and at the end of the year move the money back again,
without having accomplished anything of any material significance.
Therefore, while the Elections Division keeps track of the "out-of-
pocket" expenses which have been incurred as a result of measures
the Board of Supervisors has placed on the ballot, the fact is that
the Board is never billed for these expenses .
If the Elections Division has unexpected expenses without
corresponding offsetting revenue, it may run a deficit, which the
Board of Supervisors is required to make up. If the Elections
Division stays within its budget, as has been the case in the
recent past, any fund balance is returned to the County General
Fund. This, in effect, can be seen as offsetting any actual "cost"
of having placed a measure on the ballot. On the other hand, the
Board pays a great deal of General Fund money to operate elections,
regardless of whether the Board of Supervisors ever places a
measure on the ballot.
"COST" OF PLACING MEASURE "B" ON THE BALLOT:
As has been explained above, because of the responsibility the
Board of Supervisors has to finance elections in this County,
assuming the Elections Division's budget remains balanced for the
balance of the current fiscal year, there is, in fact, no
additional cost to the County, General Fund for having placed
Measure"B" on the ballot.
-4-
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
_ /— .• +
FROM: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator Costa
o... •5
DATE: July 27 , 1992 ;r, .'*` Count y
cov4't'
SUBJECT: POTENTIAL BALLOT MEASURES ADDRESSING THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL
REVENUE
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION:
Review each of the following potential revenue sources and provide
direction to staff regarding whether or not any measures should be
prepared for inclusion on the November 3, 1992 ballot and, if so,
to return proposed ballot language to the Board on August 4 , 1992
for further consideration.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The Assistant Registrar of Voters estimates that it will require
approximately $50, 000 to place one or more measures on the November
3, 1992 ballot . All funds for this purpose have been removed from
the County Clerk-Recorder' s budget.
BACKGROUND:
In order to get a complete picture of the status of Phase I budget
reductions following the actions taken by the Board on July 20 ,
1992 , we have outlined below those reductions which fall into one
of the following five categories :
1 . CATEGORY # 1 : DEFERRED LAYOFFS
Reductions which will take place, but where the elimination of
the positions have been delayed by one month ( from August 31,
1992 to September 30, 1992 ) .
2 . CATEGORY # 2 : UNBUDGETED GA EXPENDITURES
Anticipated expenditure reductions to the General Assistance
Program for which a methodology to achieve the reductions has
not yet been implemented.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
'L APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON July 28, 1992 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
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: ATTESTED
PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
M382 (10/88) "' -- DEPUTY
3 . CATEGORY # 3 : CANCELLED COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATION CONTRACTS y
Program reductions or eliminations on which the Board has
taken action, but where there was also an expressed interest
in restoring at least a portion of the planned reduction.
4 . CATEGORY # 4 : EXPLORATION OF REVENUE ALTERNATIVES
Program reductions or eliminations on which the Board has
taken action, but where the Board has directed that
alternative methods of funding the program be explored.
5 . CATEGORY # 5 : PROGRAMS AT RISK IN PHASE II
Substantially reduce the Sheriff ' s Patrol
Close the West County Detention Facility
Additional reductions in the Sheriff ' s Investigation
Division services
Additional reductions in Crime Lab services
Potentially eliminate most misdemeanor and some felony
prosecutions in the District Attorney' s Office.
Close the Byron Boys ' Ranch
Further reductions in the Public Defender' s Office
Eliminate Basic Adult Care clients from Contra Costa Health
Plan & Reduce their access to outpatient clinics .
Eliminate urgent care and drop-in clinics
Close Brentwood Clinic
Reduce staffing at regional family practice and specialty
clinics by 25%
Reduce staffing of Adult Protective Services, Child Welfare
Services, In-Home Supportive Services, Income
Maintenance and GAIN by an additional 38 positions .
Reduce a significant number of contracts with community-
based ,organizations that provide mental health and
alcohol/drug treatment services
Following is a more detailed description of each of these
categories , along with the amount of money. which would be required
to maintain the position or program for the balance of the current
fiscal year and the amount of money required for a full fiscal
year.
. Funds Required
Remainder of Full Year
1992-93 1993-94
CATEGORY # 1 : DEFERRED LAYOFFS
1 . Sheriff ' s Department
Patrol : 9 Deputy Sheriffs and 6 Sgts . - $ 762 ,750 $1, 017, 000
Investigation: 4 Deputy Sheriffs- $ 189 , 000 $ 252, 000
Crime Lab: 1 Criminalist & 1 Forensic
Toxicologist $ 99 , 756 $ 133, 008
2 . Orinda Fire Protection District
3 Firefighters $ 166 ,500 $ 222 , 000
3 . Veterans Service Office
2 clerical positions $ 51, 264 $ 68, 352
CATEGORY # 2 : UNBUDGETED GA EXPENDITURES
General Assistance Shortfall $5,400, 000 $5, 400, 000
CATEGORY # 3 : CANCELLED COMMUNITY-BASED
ORGANIZATION CONTRACTS
(See attached list) $1, 364 , 826 $1, 364 , 826
CATEGORY # 4 : EXPLORATION OF REVENUE ALTERNATIVES
1 . Career Development Employment Pgm. $ 69 , 950 $ 83, 940
2 . Training Institute $ 1781930 $ 214 , 716
GRAND TOTAL $8,282 , 976 $8, 755, 842
2
' CATEGORY # 5 : PROGRAMS AT RISK IN PHASE II
1 . ADDITIONAL PHASE II REDUCTIONS WILL BE REQUIRED. IT IS
IMPOSSIBLE AT THIS TIME TO PRECISELY QUANTIFY THE TOTAL DOLLAR
VALUE OF THESE REDUCTIONS. IT IS LIKELY, HOWEVER, THAT THERE
MAY WELL BE TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN ADDITIONAL
REDUCTIONS REQUIRED BY PHASE II .
2 . EVEN IF A SOURCE OF REVENUE IS IDENTIFIED, IT IS QUITE LIKELY
THAT IT WILL NOT BE POSSIBLE TO HAVE SUCH A SOURCE IMPLEMENTED
IN TIME TO FORESTALL THE NEED FOR SOME OF THE PHASE II
REDUCTIONS .
3 . IT IS ALSO POSSIBLE THAT THERE WILL BE ADDITIONAL MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS IN REDUCTIONS BUILT INTO THE 1993-94 COUNTY BUDGET BY
THE ADOPTION OF THE STATE BUDGET IF THE STATE BUDGET
IMPLEMENTS THE AB-8 SHIFT, ELIMINATION OF THE SDAF OR OTHER
MEASURES ON A TWO OR THREE YEAR BASIS .
Therefore, these planned reductions are not the only programs,
services and personnel in jeopardy.
In an effort to consider ways to blunt the impact of these massive
reductions , the Board of Supervisors directed staff to outline
several potential revenue sources . Following are revenue sources
the Board currently has authority to impose and several which
require additional authority from the Legislature.
TAXES FOR WHICH THE BOARD CURRENTLY HAS AUTHORITY:
UTILITY USERS TAX IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF THE COUNTY:
The Board currently has authority to impose a utility users tax for
general revenue purposes without a vote of the people . Each 1% of
such a tax produces approximately $1,500, 000 of revenue, depending
on the assumptions used. This estimate assumes a maximum charge to
the largest utility users and an exclusion for lower income persons
or "lifeline" users . It should be noted that this figure will have
to be reduced by the offsetting loss of revenue from any major
industries which choose to annex to a contiguous city to escape the
utility tax. Further research will be necessary to develop
appropriate data from which to refine this estimate.
BENEFIT ASSESSMENT FOR FIRE DISTRICT PURPOSES :
The Board currently has authority to impose such assessments for
fire district purposes, subject to specified property owner protest
provisions which can either require that the proposed assessment be
placed on the ballot or which can entirely preclude further
consideration of the assessment. Currently the following districts
have benefit assessments in place in the amounts indicated:
Riverview Fire Protection District, $29 . 00; East Diablo Fire
Protection District, $14 . 50; Oakley Fire Protection District,
$13 . 00 .
The following Board-governed districts do not have a fire district
benefit assessment in place: Bethel Island, Contra Costa County,
Crockett-Carquinez, Moraga* , Orinda, Pinole and West County.
* Moraga does not have a benefit assessment, but does have a voter
approved special tax (Fire Flow Tax) .
SPECIAL TAXES FOR POLICE SERVICE AREAS - UNINCORPORATED AREA:
The Board currently has authority to impose a special non-ad
valorem tax for supplemental police services upon a two-thirds vote
of the voters . The voters approve a maximum tax amount and the
Board annually levies up to the maximum amount by a majority vote
of the Board of Supervisors .
3
COUNTYWIDE AUTHORITY FOR A TAX TO SUPPORT SPECIAL POLICE SERVICES :
Currently, the Board has the authority to impose a tax on residents
within defined police service districts with approval of two-thirds
of the voters . Also, the Board has authority to impose a similar
non-ad valorem tax countywide to support special police services,
such as the Crime Lab, narcotics units, anti-gang task forces, etc.
with a two thirds vote of the voters .
POTENTIAL REVENUE SOURCES REQUIRING STATE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY:
COUNTYWIDE UTILITY USERS TAX:
The Board currently cannot impose a utility users tax within any
incorporated area of the County. Some Legislators have discussed
providing such authority to counties, with or without the
concurrence of the cities and with or without the approval of the
voters . Currently, five cities impose such a tax on gas , electric
and telephone billings at the following rates :
E1 Cerrito 8%
Hercules 5%
Pinole 7%
Richmond 6%
San Pablo 8%
In addition, Pleasant Hill has a 1% tax on only a portion of
telephone billings .
If imposed Countywide, a 1% tax on gas and electric billings would
generate over $4 , 000, 000 a year, depending on the assumptions used,
such as maximum charges on the largest utility users, exclusion of
lower income persons and credits to the residents of cities which
already impose such a tax. Further research will be necessary to
develop appropriate data from which to refine this estimate.
BROADENED BENEFIT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY FOR COUNTY SERVICE AREAS:
The Board currently has the authority to impose a benefit
assessment for fire service and certain other fairly limited
purposes, not including libraries' and police services . Some
Legislators have discussed broadening this authority, similar to
the proposal contained in AB 1505 (Farr) which passed the
Legislature in 1991 but was vetoed by the Governor because it did
not require. a vote of the people. Expanding this authority might
allow the Board to impose such a benefit assessment for some
additional services which are now provided to residents of the
County.
INCREASED SALES TAX IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF THE COUNTY:
Currently, the sales tax in Contra Costa County is 8 . 25% . This
includes the following elements :
State General Sales Tax 4 . 75%
City & County General Sales Tax 1 . 00%
County Road Maintenance Sales Tax . 25%
SUBTOTAL 6 . 00%
Bay Area Rapid Transit District . 50%
Measure "C" Transportation . 50%
Program Realignment . 50%
Additional State Sales Tax . 75%
TOTAL 8 . 25%
The County has no authority to impose any additional sales taxes at
this time. Legislation (SB 1364 ) has been drafted which would
provide the Board and the cities with a system for imposing an
additional . 75% sales tax on July 1, 1992 and up to a total of
1 . 25% on and after July 1, 1993, without a vote of the people.
Each . 25% increase in the sales tax countywide produces $18,800, 000
of revenue .
4
PARCEL TAX OVERRIDE FOR RETIREMENT COSTS:
Cities and counties had authority during the 1982-83 and 1983-84
fiscal years to impose a parcel tax to cover the costs of a voter-
approved retirement system. That authority expired on June 30,
1984 . Assemblyman Campbell was successful in getting legislation
through the Legislature in 1989 to reopen this window. However,
the bill was vetoed by then-Governor Deukmejian. A similar effort
was made by Assemblyman Campbell in 1991 (AB 394 ) . The bill was
abandoned when it became clear that there was not sufficient
support in the Legislature to insure the approval of the Governor.
Several counties are now looking at this alternative again. The
County' s contribution to the retirement system for the 1991-92
fiscal year was $44 million. However, it should be noted that when
the Legislature passed such legislation in 1989 , it was necessary
to "cap" the maximum amount which could be raised in this manner at
$10, 000, 000 . A similar cap might be placed on such legislation
again in terms of a percentage of the actual contributions for the
prior fiscal year.
5
1
COMMUNITY-BASED CONTRACTS AFFECTED BY BUDGET REDUCTIONS
Annual Total Restoration Cost:
Social Service Department Contract Balance of FY 92-93
Community Food Bank $ 119,532 $ 119,532
Contra Costa Assn. for Retarded Citizens 9,550 9,550
Mayflower 9,000 9 ,000
Meals on Wheels 15,312 15, 312
Family Stress Center, Inc (2 Contracts) 75,408 75,408
Contra Costa Child Care Council 68,088 68,088
Family Stress Center 56,928 56,928
Child Abuse Prevention 68,772 68,772
West Coast Children's Center 24,992 24,992
Subtotal $ 447,582 $ 447,582
Health Services Department
Mental Health Community Concern $ 160,226 $ 60,000
CC Crisis and Suicide Prevention 74,515 38,000
Phoenix Programs 2, 341,513 88,000
Bi-Sett Corporation 1,310, 016
North Richmond Neighborhood House 275,870
Sunrise House 384,061 490,000*
East County Community Detox 336,2 3
Subtotal $4, 882 ,494 $ 676, 000
District Attorney
Battered Women's Alternatives $ 207,914** 133,624
Rape Crisis Center 117,620 107 ,620
Subtotal $ 325,534 $ 241,244
TOTAL $5,655,610 $1,364,826
* Loss of rehab beds may increase General Assistance grant costs - analysis
of fiscal impact underway.
**Includes $74,290 of marriage license fees (restricted) which has already
been awarded to contractor.
h26:redcont.cht