Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10051993 - 2.1 .2. Yah BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SE ` Contra FROM: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator Y �► Costa October 1 1993 �' � County DATE: / Y1.q _ 'L� SUBJECT: STATUS OF THE 1993-94 COUNTY BUDGET AND IMPACT OF THE LEGISLATURE'S ACTIONS ON THE BUDGET SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS : 1 . NOTE the impact on the citizens of Contra Costa County due t the failure of the State to comply with the law relating t Trial Court Funding, seizing local revenues and cuttin reimbursements for mandated programs over the past two fisca years totalling $99,426,307, as follows : Property Tax Loss - 1992-93 $14,041, 17 Property Tax Loss - 1993-94 $58,926,00 Special District Aug. Fund Loss - 1992-93 $ 2,573,24 Special District Aug. Fund Loss - 1993-94 $ 5,435,489 Property Tax Administrative Fee Loss - 1993-94 $ 700,00 Trial Court Funding Deficit - 1992-93 & 1993-94 $13,884,40 Social Services Losses - 1992-93 & 1993-94 3, 66,000 TOTAL LOSSES TO CONTRA COSTA CITIZENS $99,426,30 2 . RECEIVE a presentation on the significant impact of the loss of $38.2 million in revenue if Proposition 172 fails to be approved by the voters . (See Attachment # 1) CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON October 5, 1993 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Supervisor Smith abstained from voting on Recommendations 9,, 13, and 14, citing a possible conflict of interest. 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 vQDATE 'SHOWN. ATTESTED ^/��'�" /9 113 Contact: County Administrator PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF cc: All County Department Heads (Via CAO) SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY DEPUTY 1 Y 3 . APPROVE the attached Resolution providing the Board's commitment on the future use of funds from the passage of Proposition 172 . (See Attachment # 2) 4 . DIRECT the County Administrator and all Department Heads to undertake contingency planning which can be implemented in case Proposition 172 fails statewide on November 2, 1993 and be prepared to make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors as soon as possible thereafter. 5 . APPROVE the following actions which will assist in eliminating a portion of the remaining deficit in the County Budget for the 1993-94 fiscal year: A. APPROPRIATE approximately $95,000 in new revenue which will result from the increase in various fees pursuant to recently enacted legislation (AB 392 and SB 86) . [See Trial Court Funding discussion on pages 16 & 17] B. APPROPRIATE new revenue in the Office of Revenue Collection (ORC) in the amount of $45,000 as a result of the transfer of the parking citation program and parking amnesty program from the Municipal Courts to ORC. [See Trial Court Funding discussion on pages 16 & 17] C. APPROPRIATE approximately $100,000 in additional revenue due to increased claims for reimbursement of juvenile placement administrative costs under Title IV-E in the Probation Department. [See Trial Court Funding discussion on pages 16 & 17] D. APPROPRIATE approximately $200,000 in revenue from the sales tax portion of the 1992-93 base restoration for realignment. E. UTILIZE $2 .7 million of the funds allocated to mitigate cuts in State Trial Court funding to assist in balancing the Courts ' budgets . F. ENDORSE the agreement of the Municipal Court to judiciously control the filling of positions in the Municipal Court in order to reduce salary costs by an additional $100,000. G. DIRECT staff to continue to pursue the exemption of .police districts from the property tax transfer in order to assist in offsetting all or a portion of the $1 .9 million in property tax funds which was transferred to the State from the P-6 special district. [See discussion on pages 6 & 7] H. DIRECT the County Administrator and the Social Services Director to continue to explore potential new revenue available through Title IV-A - Emergency Assistance reimbursement for eligible children in foster care in the Social Services Department. [See Social Services Department Revenue discussion on pages 15 & 16] I . DIRECT staff to determine whether there is any portion of the special funds, the balances of which will be eligible to be transferred to the General Fund if the Governor signs AB 1519, which have not previously been committed by the Board of Supervisors and report back to the Board of Supervisors on October 26, 1993 . [See discussion under staff response "A" on page 11] J. CONTINUE to monitor revenues in the Social Services Department and Health Services Department as more fully discussed in the Responses on pages 15 - 18. 2 6 . DIRECT staff to continue to work with CSAC and the County's lobbyist to encourage the Governor to sign the following pieces of legislation which provide potential financial assistance to the County in balancing its Budget: ✓ Traffic Amnesty Program - SB 149 $ 700,000 ✓ Property Tax Administrative Costs - AB 491 $ 700,000 ✓ County Recorder Fee Increases - AB 130 $ 200,000 ✓ Assessment Appeal Application Fee - AB 1422 $ 50,000 If any of these measures are signed, DIRECT the County Administrator to return appropriation adjustments to the Board of Supervisors which will assist in eliminating any remaining deficit in the 1993-94 County Budget. [See discussion of the individual bills on pages 12-14] 7 . DIRECT the County Administrator to return to the Board of Supervisors if the Governor signs AB 2286, reducing revenue to the County from the booking fee by approximately $158,000, along with recommendations for actions which need to be taken to keep the 1993-94 County Budget in balance. [See discussion on pages 13 - 14] 8. DIRECT the County Administrator to return to the Board of Supervisors if the Governor signs AB 1519, the "Caboose Bill", with an analysis of the impact of the bill on the County and recommendations for actions which need to be taken to keep the 1993-94 County Budget in balance. [See discussion under staff response "A" on page 11] 9 . DIRECT staff to explore the possibility of having the Hospital Enterprise Fund and Redevelopment Agency repay loans due to the General Fund during the 1993-94 fiscal year. [See footnote 5 on page 6] 10. DIRECT the County Administrator to include in the Board's 1994 Legislative Program legislation designed to exempt from the property tax transfer for the 1993-94 fiscal year special districts which provide police services, including County Service Area P-6 and the Kensington Community Services District and DIRECT the County Administrator and the County's Legislative Representative to pursue such legislation as an urgency matter. [See discussion on pages 6 & 7] 11 . AUTHORIZE the Chair to send letters of appreciation to those cities and towns which have contributed funds in order to provide services in the Library branch in their community. [See Status of County Library Funding discussion on page 7] 12 . ADOPT the attached Resolution (See Attachment #3) amending Board Resolution 93/502 to retain certain positions in the Library due to supplemental funding from the cities of Antioch, Concord, Danville, and Martinez . [See Status of County Library Funding discussion on page 7] 13 . DIRECT staff to work with employee organizations and the Management Council to discuss and plan for the implementation of a mandatory time off program, and continue to discuss the feasibility of the suspension of vacation and sick leave buy- backs, and salary step advances and merit increases . [See Status of Discussion regarding Benefit Changes on page 8] 14 . ACCEPT the report on the savings to date from the voluntary time off program of some . $900,000 over a 15 month period of time. [See Savings from Voluntary Time-Off discussion on page 8] 15 . DIRECT staff to continue to implement those employee suggestions resulting from the "time out" process which appear to be feasible and economically advantageous . [See Status of the Implementation of "Time-Out" Suggestions on page 8] 3 16 . ACCEPT this report, including the staff responses to the direction provided by the Board of Supervisors on July 30, 1993 [See Background Section beginning at page 10] . 17 . DIRECT the County Administrator to return to the Board of Supervisors on October 26, 1993 with recommendations for any final actions which are required to eliminate any remaining deficit in the 1993-94 County Budget, based on the final actions taken by the Governor on legislation. BACKGROUND: At the beginning of Phase II Budget Hearings, the County Budget for the 1993-94 fiscal year contained a projected deficit of $29 million, calculated as follows : SUMMARY OF BEGINNING POINT FOR PHASE II REDUCTIONS Property Tax Transfer to the State = $ 58,926,000 + Phase I Budget Problem = $ 20,500,000 + Trial Court Block Grant Reduction = $ 2 , 675,000 + Loss of Property Tax Administration Fee = $ 570,000 + Potential Loss of the Entire SDAF = $ 31,200, 000 SUB-TOTAL OF BUDGET PROBLEMS = $113,871,000 Offsets to the Deficit: Eliminated in Phase I = $ 20,500,000 + Exemption of Fire from the SDAF Loss = $ 25, 000, 000 + One-half cent sales tax for one-year = $ 40, 929,000 Transfer of Sales Tax to the Cities = ( $ 2,746,000) + One-time T.P. & D. Fund Transfer = $ 1, 180,000 SUB-TOTAL OF OFFSETS = $ 84 ,863, 000 BEGINNING PHASE II DEFICIT LEVEL $ 29,008,000 At the conclusion of Phase II Budget Hearings on July 30, 1993, the County Budget still contained a deficit of $3,475,466 . This is calculated as follows : BEGINNING PHASE II DEFICIT LEVEL $ 29, 008, 000 - Phase II Program Reductions = $ 21, 347 ,215 - Additional Revenue Recognized = $ 2,550, 000 - Reduction in SDAF Loss = $ 764,511 - Contribution from Fund Balances = $ 870,808 Total of All Adjustments = $ 25,532,534 ENDING PHASE II DEFICIT LEVEL = $ 3,475,466 4 Since July 30, 1993, we have been refining these figures and reflecting changes made as a result of actions taken by the Legislature. The ending Phase II deficit level needs to be adjusted to reflect the following: ENDING PHASE II DEFICIT LEVEL = $ 3,475,466 Additions to Phase II Deficit Level : + Additional Loss to Trial Court Block Grant = $ 797,500 + Loss from Property Tax Administrative Fee = $ 200,000 + Loss of court filing fees transferred to the State = $ 2,789 ,500 + Required to eliminate budget maintenance gap in the County Clerk and Municipal Court budgets = $ 560,000 Total Additions to Phase II Deficit = $ 4,347,000 Phase III Deficit Prior to Adjustments = $ 7,822,466 Offsets to Phase III Deficit - See Recommendation # 5 for additional details on these adjustments : - Increase in Various Fees = $ 95,000 [See Recommendation # 5A] - New URC Revenue from Municipal Courts = $ 45,000 [See Recommendation # 5B] - Title IV-E Revenue - Probation Dep't. _ $ 100, 000 [See Recommendation # 5C] - Additional Realignment Revenue - Base Restoration [See Recommendation # 5D] _ $ 200,000 - Transfer from Budget Unit 325 = $ 2, 700,000 [See Recommendation # 5E] - Additional Salary Savings - Muni Court = $ 100,000 [See Recommendation # 5F] Adjustments in designations, reserves, appropriations, and fund balance = $ 2 ,533,000 Remaining Deficit - 10/5/93 = $ 2,049,466 5 • r Possible Additional Revenue Problem Areas : The above remaining deficit figure of $2,049,466 may be understated, depending on the following issues : O Potential Loss of Booking Fee Revenue - AB 22861 ( $158,000) O Potential Losses of Health Services Department Revenue O Potential Losses of Social Services Department Revenue Possible Solutions for any Remaining Deficit, Depending on Actions Taken by the Governor: Any remaining deficit may be able to be eliminated through some combination of the following legislation, other actions or further program reductions to County Departments . Traffic Amnesty Program - SB 1492 $ 700,000 Property Tax Administrative Costs - AB 4912 $ 700,000 County Recorder Fee Increases - AB 1302 $ 200,000 Assessment Appeal Application Fee - AB 14222 $ 50,000 Domestic Violence Fee - SB 53 $ 8,570 Transfer of Balances in Special Funds to the General Fund - AB 15192 $1,240, 1574 Potential Payoff of Loans Due the General Funds $ 737 ,000 1 Revenue loss if bill is signed. 2 Requires Governor's Signature to be available. 3 Already signed into Law by the Governor 4 All or a portion of this money may already be committed. A written analysis of this is being prepared by the Public Works Department. 5 This includes money previously loan to the Hospital Enterprise Fund for capital equipment purchases and to the Redevelopment Agency for land acquisition. To the extent that funds are available, we will ask that these funds be repaid during the 1993-94 fiscal year. Legislation to Exempt P-6 from the Property Tax Transfer: As soon as the property tax transfer legislation was enacted in June, staff raised with the State Administration the issue of exempting special districts which provide law enforcement services, as had been done with the special districts which provide fire services . The initial reaction from the State Department of Finance seemed to indicate that they did not have a serious objection, but that they would determine the cost of doing so. Language was drafted and placed in AB 2373 which would have allowed any special district which provided law enforcement services to continue to receive funds from the property tax transfer in the same amount the district received from the Special District Augmentation Fund (SDAF) in the 1992-93 fiscal year. This was particularly important to Contra Costa County because the Sheriff 's Patrol services received $1 . 9 million from the SDAF. In addition, the Kensington Community Services District received $600,000 from the SDAF for law enforcement services . The loss of this revenue might mean that Kensington would have to look to the Sheriff to provide law enforcement services within the Kensington community, thereby putting additional pressure on the Sheriff 's budget. It was only after AB 2373 was abandoned as the primary caboose bill and AB 1519 was placed in a Conference Committee as the primary caboose bill that the State Department of Finance decided that exempting all special districts which provided law enforcement services would be too expensive. This was announced at the Conference Committee on AB 1519 and the State Department of Finance indicated their opposition to the law enforcement exemption provision. This doomed making the exemption a part of AB 1519 . On September 8, 1993, 48 hours before the Legislature was to adjourn, Assemblyman Rainey went to the Governor and attempted to persuade the Governor to overrule Finance and agree to the exemption of law enforcement special districts . It is our understanding that the Governor, in effect, promised to sign a bill exempting law enforcement special districts if Assemblyman Rainey could get the necessary language into a bill and get the bill out of the Legislature. 6 1 For the next two days, Assemblyman Rainey, Assemblyman Campbell and the County' s lobbyist attempted to find a bill into which the necessary language could be placed. Several authors were contacted. Each insisted on an iron-clad guarantee that the Governor would sign their bill, if it contained our exemption language. Unfortunately, at the critical point where such an assurance was needed, the Governor was out of town and not reachable. Finally, we simply ran out of time and the Legislature recessed early on the morning of September 11, 1993 without passing the necessary exemption language. It is our hope that Assemblyman Rainey can get a commitment from the Governor to sign a bill exempting the law enforcement special districts from the property tax transfer as soon as the Legislature returns on January 3, 1994 . However, no such assurance has been provided as of this date and whether such an assurance can be provided probably depends to a large extent on the outcome of Proposition 172 . Status of County Library Funding: At its August 17, 1993 meeting, the Board of Supervisors reaffirmed its approval of the County Library' s plan to proceed with layoffs and library service hour reductions effective September 3, 1993 . In addition, the Library was directed to continue its efforts to obtain supplemental funding. The Board delegated authority to the County Administrator to defer layoffs and library service hour reductions if firm financial commitments were made by cities or others prior to the layoff date. At that time, the following had contributed funding to buy additional hours for their libraries : ■ The City of San Ramon ( $154,200) ■ The City of Orinda ($28,825) ■ The Orinda Friends of the Library ($28,825) and ■ The Inmate Welfare Fund Committee ($92, 342) . Since that time, the Library has obtained commitments of supplemental funding from the following to provide additional hours for their libraries : ■ The City of Antioch ($82,400) ■ The City of Concord ($42,900) ■ The Town of Danville ( $64,200) and ■ The City of Martinez ($17,250) . The attached Resolution (Attachment # 3) amends the previous layoff Resolution (93/502) , delaying or restoring positions as necessary to reflect these additional commitments. Contingency Planning in Case Proposition 172 Fails : As the Board of Supervisors is well aware, the failure . of Proposition 172 to pass statewide will plunge this and all other counties statewide into a truly desperate situation. Statewide, some $700 million will have to be eliminated from county budgets immediately. An additional $700 million will have to be eliminated going into the 1994-95 fiscal year because the six month extension of the sales tax will not be available for the July 1 - December 31, 1994 period as it was this year. In Contra Costa County, at least $19 .2 million will have to be eliminated from the budget virtually overnight. An additional $19 .2 million will also have to be eliminated from the 1994-95 budget. We all hope that Proposition 172 will be approved by the voters statewide, making reductions of that magnitude unnecessary. However, with the election only four weeks from today it seems only prudent to begin to plan for the possibility that such reductions will be necessary. In this way, we will be able to do some contingency planning and be prepared to move as quickly as possible to reduce staff as soon as possible after the election if Proposition 172 is not approved by the voters . 7 Status of Discussions regarding Benefit Changes : In accordance with the Board' s direction for cost savings, County representatives formally proposed to the Labor Coalition the suspension of the vacation buy-back benefit available to represented managers and the discontinuance of salary step advancements . These proposals are still outstanding within the context of overall deliberations with the Coalition. Personnel Department staff met with Management Council representatives on September 14, 1993 and explained and discussed in length, the cost saving measures that have been proposed including mandatory time off (MTO) , the discontinuance of salary step advancements and the suspension of the vacation buy-back and sick leave payoff programs . We will continue to work on determining the extent to which MTO is required to offset the loss of property tax revenue as the Governor takes action on the hundreds of bills which remain on his Desk. We will have this information available for the Board of Supervisors within a few weeks . Savings from Voluntary Time-Off: Since inception of the Voluntary Time Off (VTO) program in mid- 1992, County employees have accumulated a total of approximately 11,655 days of unpaid furloughs and leaves of absence. Not counting leaves for medical purposes, the value of this time off, in terms of savings to the General Fund, has been estimated at over $900,000 for the 15 month period. Including fire districts, employees from over 20 departments have participated in the program which allows them to take unpaid time away from the job while maintaining group health plan coverage. Status of the Implementation of "Time-Out" Suggestions : A Committee of Department Heads has completed its preliminary review of several hundred "time out day" suggestions submitted by employees . The Committee developed a list of General Principles For Review that were followed in consolidating suggestions and grouping them into categories . These categories include: ( 1) Recommendations for further study; (2) Recommendations for further study from the County Labor Coalition; ( 3) Suggestions for increasing revenues; (4 ) Suggestions to cut costs; (5) Suggestions involving reductions in pay and benefits; ( 6) Suggestions involving the restructuring of programs; ( 7 ) Suggestions on the use of automobiles; (8) Departmental issues; and (9) Miscellaneous suggestions . Several ideas have already been implemented. For example, the General Services Department has implemented a small purchasing program which results in a more efficient way to purchase small items which cost less than $250 . In addition, General Services has implemented its day custodial program which has resulted in substantial cost savings by not having to pay a night differential . Also, the Social Service Department has implemented a program that has resulted in increased efforts in applying for SSI benefits for disabled children in foster care. The General Services Department is in the process of refinancing all equipment lease purchases to obtain lower interest rates . The feasibility of implementing other suggestions that have a County-wide impact is continuing to be considered. July 30, 1993 Directions from the Board of Supervisors : e <> 'oun m n ;s r:a :or.. o;..ze ;o:r> ac v ::: .: a . .. .. . Y... «:.::::: P::.:.;.;;;;;;;... .. :.... . $u e;rv; sors; on Tues:. a :>. Se ;te e;r' 8> «;I '9'3:»>ott< ;theollowin �. .: .. . Y...:::::: .P.::::::::::::: : •: ............. . . .. ................... 5 .;; . ;: : . . . :.. . F na,l : an 1 s a t e .zm act:::><>:of' :t e:> ; ••: : :.:� : : Y;;:.;0 ht:: P h :;:::.;firml, r "BzI 1 s.> and: .. ..... Cab:o:.ose B;l ''' 's «'> :>:on ;the .:.>Gount »';s`;:Hud et; q:::: a s s o >« e <:> m ac: o ax1: ;< < na a:ctf on <:»> Y. ; .... . . . . .P. ...... Y s;.;;taken ;;b > ;;the L6.91 e . ature ; : r o «:><;:to >:<:>b:e in s>;>:<> - ug: . ....... p. ::r r rY ..... t : ::. .e$r end. rec, s ;.; an ... .`�..... .............. . .. ... .....::::::::::::g.: .....::::::�:... Y.... . Septemt er i;]0 19> :3; Rec:ommenda;t:i;ons vr» >ad us tment's; :wh ch ::ar:e>; re u :red :to .:..::.::.::.:::::.::::.::.:.,.:..:..:;::::.:; .<.; ::.;:;;:.;:..::.:::.;:.::.:.:.;:.;:.::.:::.::.:.:......:.:::.::.::.;:.;:.::;.:4 ;;:;..thy. a o to ..fount Bu: : et or:> t::;e..' 93.... ;; 'Y;scal;; eaz: .. p::.. ......... . ..Y. . ...... 8 a ';us men s : > >t a ma ;>:: a << . necess;ar : .once:;:>::::var :ous ....Y ...... 1...... ... .... Y ........... . ..............Y............. ......... ........... . ......... . . ..... .... deQar:tmentai revenuea:;;;can; he. > rrtaiet . :.....:. .......:.:...:... .. ACKNOWLEDGE:. that.::>;:;.t:e::>;:;Hea t, er 1:...9 De:' a:rtment ::: :'as«:>a. r.essi:ve.l:: bud eted> >in : xce:ss of > 11 > t 11'fan '< n revenues;>;>for the.......I993 g4 9 .. $.. :..:: : . .:.. .:. .: . ........ .. : ::::... 2t:y:::.:: .:'.. .. .. ...................... ..:. fOscal . ear :>from sources«wh ch> have' et :to> b::.full authdr zed ©r Y:.;.; .: Y;;;;;; Y . .. .::.: .:.::.:.. . . .... ..... .... . . allocations:; fully; ;;deelo ed; at <the;;; s;t;ae;; ;br federal;«l;evel'.;;;'; 'he . . P ..: : .. .. .... . .. ... , ......... r4, ram Yevelltie5: W 3c 8re cons e];`:�+ � {a to. materia ze; ut ...........,... ...... ...... ....:... are not assured nclude::<:> SB 85:5 Inter. overnmenta::::: :even e. r::..::. .. ... ..:..:::::::.r::..... . ....:..... .:::::::::.::.:.:.... u.. . . ..:::<::;. ..................... . Pro ram. : :SB 125:5; ; D s ro: ort3 ona'te: Ho ti 1: <Pro ram real: nment ..: .......::....:...:................... .............:::. .........,...:::.. :.:.:..: . re ora ion o<;>base. : a fu ;< :... . t .... .. ar. nci3n. , . .SB 91 ;;Medi W a.l Adm n stmt;i e s t :.: t Y �3 ... Claims tate: ...L l: 'z'at o i :8nd » >Iftimi rat'ioi:n:>:>:ASs:is.t:anCe: :: '':r$rit .......... . .................... .......... .......... .............. .... ..... .... ...... 0. iorLIAR heMenta �eaZtham Rehabil itat ;on q� ;;toh< dn «; .... ........... .. . .. .. ....... .. .......................... .... .... ........... .. DIRE T; t e Heli th > ServiCe;s > DreC:tor re ort««:ta; the > >Soard an ....::..... .::.::::::::::.... ...... P: ..........:..:...:..:::::...:.... .. ...... ';:.:rep:,:.:4. e;r.>r r:: ><on .:.:;:.;:.:e::.:s., a:. usI :U...these revenues:;:::an an:..::.re :ev:a..n.':: Y state>>or«« fe era> acts:ori on the;>:stb;'; ct and> t e e ':en an .::::::: . . ... ........ . . additional :;reduc ..i ......ch»:ma: be re w.:ed at: .that> me ............ .......: ........... D.1RHCT:::the alt ;S;e;rva:ces ;:::3;rec;:Qr;><to: re ort back: :to ::the ;�3 aard :on «.;: P «:.:.; . Se :tember:> $ l99 with;>a status ;; :e ort:! �.m ;lementation lan> on .. each ro ram `< ome. He: t enc; ; :and .tJT: Pro :r:ami and an s ecific. . .. .. P. g;:;. :. ... ...... 9 . . ;Y' ;;;;;; . .. Y .P . P osi,:t ori> re...0 t. ons: : deme' >>ne+ essay at>;t pit time to<:;;ach end <the ...: . Phas;e: .I bb 4 0t taargets >;;: a n ; coo er;a; on;>; ws. ;;; e«< ;u er or :an Municipal: .. : ;; . ........ p .. .. . . Co ;;;;a . roximate ; 7 ; 00:0 ha:s;><been ;l:dent f ed<:>::to c;3ase >tr is' PF Y ;f; . .. . . . . :.. :....:.::::: a lvaun an >am4unt of< 3 :4 .... ......... . .: :.$ 3. ... .50ff 'tha;t;has 'tv be . nti f ;ed and take.::.:. the fo11 win «>>addit oral ::::: t dns to>» > dent 'f » urt . g : «<> Y ; ;;:;: her ..::: .. ................ ........ ........... ........ ..... expert ;<<:.ur;e re: uc . ons. an: ;;xevenue>en..ancemem.::s «; ;. P »> e;;; trans :er o a u su envision: deputies: in > the .... .. P:rob.a't :ori.:: D.e: r'tmerit:««::>:t:o::>:::>::: uven .1e»>::>:>>:su''er.v: cion:;. laceme':t diversion for ossble s:avn''s;due `to ab3lit o' claim d Title::XV-E:. reimburse ent. T is : wou.l.d<> h2tve the ad it ........... ;ro. r:ammat< e. benefit:it:...;;; :u t n :scarc;e: ro atfvn seruice:s into . . . ..: . .. ..... .. . t e uven� e;>:;are;a....where; ; t ere s<; lke1 ;> ><to tie a neater .. 7 . . ..:::: . Y:;.; bene f } .: :::.:. ..... an en ance.:.:<«;; aGement: :diversion ro: "ram A. the I . ; ;;<>> P;;;;9; . Probation :De: artment that ''+could. result:> irY> :r +etCost .... . . S.A.M.i n :s ::in» lacement costs< c::urir.entl :; >bud me: e: .:in h :; g:; . ;;................;:.:.. :;; ;;;;;;;;;:: YM..; e Sic i al ......... ........... ....... Herv, ;ce De az..... .....:: :.:...... . . .. ...:.: .: .:::::...: . ±►:>; .. IDENTIFY> t: .e< extent. to:.: which:...::> revenuers><ma accru;e to the oCr:.::...:; a:r:;v.:x.ce ;;::. .e a:r:>::...ern::.i;::.:.:ecaus.e:: o:;::::::a.:.::.::.:'..: tro::<C.' a:' Ttle; IV=A rembursemeit fcr>eritier enc ' :assistan; e in>the chi d .. ..::: .. . .. .. I q:::: : Y. . . .... .. . ... welf are:: sery des i:;Areae. ... . ......................... . :::::i ;:e un c a ousts»>:to <es. a s >::a more:..a ressi.ve . : : > .. ... ; 9 ;.; tre ; c :f`; ,ne amnest.;:>> ro ram f;S8< 1;49 ra ; ch is;;ncw;; endrii . ...... . .;;:: . .......; .... ..;;; :.;.. :. . ;;;:.;; ... .. J. f3'' al>> c o n . .a n on e< sse oar; ::s;;; enac e: in;<<erde;r to '. :: ... a ncre;ase 'ant c pate neve nue; ;; •;;;;; WORK :;;wit t e Munc3 a: courts : to' ' ''+crease>> euen: es f n r , ; .. nom imposing-civil: r>assessments of>; :25(� :on ersons who hav : P; a>>fa .led ear oo et «; . !> :;;:::COOPERATE::with::t a Munic a1 .Court to: determine the >amount. of P<:;;;;; ..... salar ..sayings t at«>:cAn be realrf zed> from the:.Munici o : 9. : ;..::. ;:.;;.;;; .. «««:.. Pa Court urt vacancies..: ..... .... ....... ........ ............ ..; . «< ; > DIRE T t e unt ;>A mnstrator to>:re ort: back: to.::the o C. » : :.Y . . . P ... B ,and rt ... e ;; em r w a an .. c ma e r . u er;<a:::: ;ustmerts;:;fin . an a artment& u : "ets to;>c 'one::g;M..fun in a ;that;:>rema hs: P .. ..... ::;< ... ::: ,.t :r:rr:.. edu, ;r.:::: . ..:::::. ::::.:.::::.:::. after; ;the.. .. ...;exr.::fin o a ereduc; ions ;are;;known;:; ........ ... . ....... :t at: : a .ea ear; me;n;t as vi' :ozous l » ursued:> c t «>: .. >:: ::: 9 ;X.. Y. P . oe .. . efficienaids.....an : new<«:.reve.nues;.tar :o v: ate >:the :need for<>< ro am . .: . ... r. ...... ..... »;>>;... .;>.» > P: reductions. and. . 9 .. ..::.. .....:...:.:.. ...:...:'::.:y'.:::::•:: ..: ::.. :'::::'.::::.::.::':' :::::::::::::...: •. DIRECT;«<:the>. Hea th:::.:s ces; >:>D rec>tear ta<>>Contin a such efforts ud ;n :;; the; f;ol lowiz add tiona3 <:acti:ons g . .. . . . >.;. t 'e ea >:th:Services;.Director<>to>:;thoreau hl exam3 t . .: .. ... . ..::::: 4 . Y ne. :. he a scab ;�t t�: »:» he >> ent&l »He l t: ;;;;> h > . « PP .;; Y . ::: ;;;;.;: ;;:;;: ;; ;:: a,.::::h.:::::Re ab ,tat ort:..>. O ;J xon «. . . �... ...... . ... . :fundin for.. al;l>:>:of;;;i.t:s<<:mentaJ health>:>.con�ract: and in-*hvuse: .....:.n .:. ...::::::..: .............. :.. ........ ..;::.::.: :.:...... ro. xams::. ; .................. B. DIRECT t e:::::::::.ea t. Sery e;es »D rector;:>::>::>and ocia er re bice t:or>>to..>:devel:o and>»erster::<: nto..an > ntera enc ::; :a regiment P ....:.. 9 Y.::.: 9 or< the Famil ;: Preservat�;an;;Pra ram,s.o;;tha. the mertta3 health .. :: . ..;...... . . c;om orients;;; of:;:this:::; ro ram: <'t an become . gill' ible :<for.::::.M tal Healt '<Re ab }itat'n:><I :t br and`n DIRE T;it e;Hea th> u1CS:5>J:: re to ..>:>: C. . C .e.r.::: : :. c .:::: :::to:e.xam ne;;the .e;as ;l l<t .:::::::..::.....:::::::::::.......:::::::.......::::::::: ..... . ............. and otent 'a ; c sst a:j ectfveness<::»:>of:> >establ »» ::. ..<.;;;;::::..;.F.: . ...... :.....::;:.;. >:.;':.;;..;;;;;; : :::::: <s h: ;ng:;;;a > < as t Count;';:; Menta < Health Cress ;Cerster as:><a:> means:::p. rov; services»to ::the:mentall i11::a d <reducih costs a : M ... : .::::. «.; Y;:;;.; 3::::.::.:.. . .::t:... . x.r ;thew ........................... .. Memorial;:;Hos l:;< . ...... . .. ::. p . . .................................................... D ............ .... . ,.:...> ;' DIRECT t e«Health> a v :ce <:>Derecto ::>:::t..o::exam ne: the fea b S;.�........;.::s.::<:::::. :.. :: r.:: .:: s i:::z t Y an o: ;:en a c:os.. <:e e;ct veness:<:of a<<< ail d ve sioxi ro ram P ... . .. ;:. P.: ..... .... » .. ' . for ,.chron ra.11' ..:>:<menta],1 > » 11 c;l ertts ;:><such: as the >> ro rant ...... «<. . ... . : curren;tl; >:;in;;:. . .......... .er�ver; Y P r................ .. ... RECT' t a Health:' Services Director;:to:>examine th. e. s: ....... ...... .;...:.. ..:::...::::.:.::........:;:.:: .: .:.:::......:...,...::.:.:.......::::.::. :... and cost offect veness:::of<re ana3:;;adrn niStratiori>of.detent tori .:: hospital .' ser<>'ce n zr ; 3, on junct; n >w3 the Alameda Count if. Staff Responses .to the July 30, 1993 Board Directions : As is frequently the case when legislation is drafted and enacted quickly, errors are made or oversights occur which have to be corrected in the future. This was certainly the case with the 1993-94 State Budget and the mass of "Trailer Bills" which were necessary in order to implement the Budget. These corrections and changes were made in what came to be known as a "Caboose Bill" because it came along at the end of train of budget and trailer bills . Initially, AB 2373 was identified as the caboose bill and a number of corrections and changes to the trailer bills were placed into AB 2373 . Some of these provisions were, in fact, only technical corrections . In other cases, the changes were more substantive amendments that were made because of the unanticipated and unintended consequences of what had been done in one or another of the trailer bills . In yet other cases, the caboose bill was seen by legislators as a convenient vehicle into which to place provisions which were not otherwise connected to the trailer bills or the budget. Eventually, AB 2373 became so encumbered with these provisions that were important to the author, but were otherwise entirely outside the scope of the budget and trailer bills, that their sheer number and cost threatened to sink the caboose bill and insure a veto from the Governor. As a result, a new bill was selected as the caboose bill and was sent to a Conference Committee. The Conference Committee let it be known that nothing would go into the new caboose bill, AB 1519, that had not been cleared with the State Department of Finance and the Governor, thus insuring that the bill, once passed, would be signed by the Governor. These conditions, of course, eliminated most of the provisions which had been in AB 2373 and left AB 1519 with almost no provisions that are of any substantive value to this County. Among the measures which were lost between the earlier versions of AB 2373 and the final version of AB 1519 are the following: 10 A. Transfer of Special Funds to the County General Fund A provision had been included in earlier versions of AB 2373 which would have allowed the Board of Supervisors to transfer to the County General Fund the uncommitted balances in any special fund that was established by state law and not otherwise protected by federal law or the State Constitution. This provision was narrowed down in AB 1519 to where it includes only two groups of funds : 1) certain AB 939 funds intended for the preparation of the Integrated Waste Management Plan, and 2 ) any fund balances from a dependent special district which contributed to the SDAF in the 1990-91 fiscal year, but received no distribution from the SDAF in that fiscal year. We are advised by the Auditor-Controller that we have two such funds, Service Area R-7 (Zone A) and Service Area R-7 (Zone B) , the balances in which total $1,240, 157 . B. Property Tax Administrative Costs A provision had been included in earlier versions of AB 2373 which would have allowed the County to recover the property tax administrative costs on that portion of the property tax that was transferred to the State from the cities and special districts . In the 1992-93 fiscal year the counties were able to recover these administrative costs on the $1 . 3 billion that was transferred to the State. The legislation provided that this recovery would continue into the future. However, in one of the trailer bills this summer this provision was repealed, leaving the counties with no ability to continue to recover the administrative costs on either the $1 . 3 billion transferred in 1992-93 or the $2 . 6 billion transferred in the 1993-94 fiscal year. The recovery of these costs is worth approximately $700,000 to this County in the 1993-94 fiscal year. This provision was, however, included in another bill which is on the Governor' s Desk. [See discussion of AB 491 in the response on page 12 ] . C. Exemption of P-6 from the Property Tax Transfer A provision had been included in earlier versions of AB 2373 which would have allowed the County to exempt County Service Area P-6 from the property tax transfer, as was done with the fire districts . This language would also have exempted the Kensington Community Services District from the property tax transfer. The savings to P-6 would have been $1 . 9 million, plus $600, 000 to the Kensington Community Services District, for a total of $2 .5 million. This language was eliminated from the final version of AB 1519 . [See further discussion of this issue under the background on page 6 ] . D. Increase in Fees to Recover Full Cost A provision had been included in earlier versions of AB 2373 which would have allowed the Board of Supervisors to increase all fees to recover the full cost of the service being provided. This was later narrowed to cover only the services of the Agricultural Commissioner and the device registration fee which is charged by the Sealer of Weights and Measures . Eventually even these provisions were completely eliminated from AB 1519 . 11 E. San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District Provisions AB 1519 does contain language originally inserted into AB 2373 at the request of the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District and carried over to AB 1519 which provides that the property tax transfer and exemption provisions which apply to other fire districts do not apply to the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District and that, instead, the District' s finances will be governed by the judicial branch of government through the currently pending lawsuit involving the County and the District. F. Special Library Provisions Language was included in AB 1519 which was intended to protect libraries in three counties (Contra Costa, Fresno and San Diego) from having to transfer a portion of their base property tax to the State when they did not, in fact, receive any "bail-out" money following the passage of Proposition 13 . This language was revised in AB 557, which is now also on the Governor' s Desk) . Legislation Considered by the Legislature: A wide variety of bills were passed by the Legislature in the last few days before the Legislature began its recess on September 10, 1993 . Most of these bills remain on the Governor' s Desk as of this date. The Governor has until October 10, 1993 to sign or veto each of these bills . Below we comment on several of these bills which will have positive or negative fiscal consequences for this County. In all but one case, these bills remain on the Governor' s Desk. It is, therefore, impossible to tell what the eventual outcome of each will be. We will report back to the Board with a final accounting on which bills were signed, which were vetoed and what the fiscal impact on this County will be. A. Property Tax Administrative Costs - AB 491 (Farr) As was noted above, the ability of the counties to recover the property tax administrative fee on that portion of the property tax which was shifted to the State was eliminated in the education trailer bill this summer. A provision reinstating this ability to recover the costs of administering the property tax was included in AB 2373, but was eventually eliminated from AB 1519 . Instead, AB 491 was amended to restore this language. We have already included $200,000 of this revenue in the 1993-94 budget. It is anticipated that AB 491 will be vetoed by the Governor because of the cost to the State. If AB 491 is vetoed, it will be necessary to delete this $200,000 in revenue, leaving an additional $200, 000 hole in the budget. If by some chance, AB 491 is signed into law, there will be some additional revenue which can be used to assist in offsetting the remaining deficit in the County Budget. CSAC has requested that the Governor sign AB 491 . B. Charges for Court Reporter Costs - SB 291 (Beverly) One .of the trailer bills passed this summer (SB 86) contained a provision allowing the courts to charge litigants the full, actual cost of court reporter services . Previously, the amount the court could charge was limited to $100 per half day, beginning on the second day of any trial . SB 291 was amended late in the Session to again limit the amount which could be charged - this time to $120 per half day. SB 291 is on the Governor' s Desk. CSAC has requested that the Governor veto SB 291 . 12 C. Traffic Amnesty Program - SB 149 (Boatwright) The Board of Supervisors sponsored legislation in 1993 (SB 149, Boatwright) which would allow the Municipal Court to conduct an amnesty program for delinquent traffic tickets (other than parking tickets) and to include all citations which have been delinquent for at least six months as of the beginning date of the amnesty program. The amnesty program can be conducted only once between January 1, 1994 and December 31, 1996 . The County will keep all of the revenue which is collected through the amnesty program. As was noted earlier in this report in Recommendation # 6, we are hoping to receive some $700,000 in revenue from SB 149 . The bill remains on the Governor' s Desk at this time. D. Library Benefit Assessment with Voter Approval - SB 566 (Roberti) The Board of Supervisors co-sponsored a bill in 1993 which would authorize the imposition of a benefit assessment for library services with a majority vote of the people, SB 566 (Roberti) . This bill is on the Governor' s Desk. If the bill is signed by the Governor, the Board could put the measure on the ballot as early as the June 7, 1994 Primary Election, would allow collection of the benefit assessment with the property taxes beginning in December, 1994 . In no case will this bill assist the County during the current fiscal year. E. Domestic Violence Funding - SB 5 (Presley) The Board of Supervisors has been concerned about the reliability of funding for services provided by Battered Women' s Alternative and the Rape Crisis Centers . Legislation has passed and been signed into law which would provide some backfill funding for the $158,271 net county cost ($93,271 excluding Supervisor Smith' s salary contribution) of the 1993- 94 fiscal year contracts . SB 5 would increase the marriage license fee by an additional $4 and provide that, to the extent feasible, this additional $4 should be used to develop or expand domestic violence centers to target underserved areas and populations . Based on the 1992-93 fiscal year revenue of $73,786 and budgeted 1993-94 fiscal year revenues of $80,750, SB 5 would provide an additional $8,570 in revenues . This legislation becomes effective January 1, 1994 . F. Booking Fee Revenue Reduction - AB 2286 (Pringle) AB 2286 , an attempt at resolving booking fee issues legislatively, is currently on the Governor' s Desk and, if signed, will reduce booking fee revenues . The bill has three major areas of impact: it defines the chargeable components of "booking or other processing" ; it restricts counties on the types of bookings for which a fee may be charged; and it requires counties to levy a fee, as a condition of probation, against persons arrested by county deputies and convicted of a criminal offense. Contra Costa County is currently in compliance with most of the provisions of this bill, but we expect a reduction in revenues due to changes in the definition of chargeable components of booking and limitation on types of bookings for which a fee may be charged. We anticipate that if AB 2286 is signed into law, the cost to Contra Costa County will be $158,000 annually. The booking fee hearing before Judge Ford in the coordinated litigation is scheduled for November 8 . The hearing will focus on two issues : the fee calculation methodology, and the scope of activities included in "booking or other processing" for which a fee is charged. The hearing may be continued into 1994 because of a change in legal representation for the cities . Unlike AB 2286, which is prospective as it applies to the booking fee, the results of the litigation would impact fees levied from July 1, 1990 through December 31, 1993 . 13 Depending on the court's interpretation of the two issues, the County could be required, after a final judgment, to refund some booking fee revenues to charged agencies . Counties are confident, however, that their position on booking fees is supportable under current law. CSAC has requested that the Governor veto AB 2286 . G. Priority of Property Tax Liens on Bankruptcies - AB 1498 (Campbell) As a result of a recent decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, it is now much more difficult for the Tax Collector to collect property taxes which become due after the date on which a bankruptcy petition is filed. Language in other states has been upheld by the courts, but California' s language was judged inadequate by the Court, meaning that such post-petition taxes no longer have first priority upon the sale of property held by a bankrupt individual or estate. AB 1498 would amend California law to conform to the Court' s decision and clarify that all uncollected property taxes that are unpaid as a result of bankruptcy have first priority for collection upon sale of the property. It is estimated that $500 million in property taxes statewide might be at risk without the enactment of AB 1498 . This bill is on the Governor's Desk. CSAC has requested that the Governor sign AB 1498 . H. Change in Definition of a "Change of Ownership" for Property Tax Reassessment Purposes - SB 413 (Kopp) SB 413 would provide that whenever a transfer of a majority of the voting stock or other ownership interest in a corporation occurs in a single transaction, it shall be judged to constitute a "change of ownership" of the corporation, thereby allowing the County Assessor to reassess all real property directly or indirectly owned or controlled by the corporation to current market value, something that is not now possible. This provision would apply to all transfers completed on or after January 1, 1994 . SB 413 is on the Governor' s Desk. CSAC has requested that the Governor sign SB 413 . I . Assessment Appeal Application Fee - AB 1422 (Frazee) AB 1422 would require that each application for a reduction in assessment of real property be accompanied by an application fee of $50 for each parcel for which a reduction is requested. Owner-occupied residential property would be exempt from the fee. AB 1422 is on the Governor's Desk. CSAC has requested that the Governor sign AB 1422 . J. Increase in Recording Fees - AB 130 (Tucker) AB 130 would give the Board of Supervisors the authority to increase certain copying fees charged by the County Recorder. In addition, it would provide the Board of Supervisors with the authority to impose an additional $1 fee on each document which is filed for recording, providing that the County Recorder is required to be open for business each business day except for legal holidays and judicial holidays . The Board of Supervisors could also impose an additional $1 recording fee, providing that every document be required to be indexed within two days after the date of recordation. AB 130 is on the Governor' s Desk. CSAC has requested that the Governor sign AB 130 . 14 Social Services Department Revenue: At this time, several revenue issues have been identified which could significantly affect the Social Services Department 's budget, and consequently require close monitoring. These include: the Child Welfare Services (CWS) allocation, Realignment revenues, the In-Home Supportive Services/Personal Care Services Program ( IHSS/PCSP) allocation and the new Title IV-A Emergency Assistance Program. It should be noted that the State' s seemingly arbitrary and capricious changes in regulations and allocations are the source of budgetary concerns for the Social Services Department. Currently, the CWS allocation is $288,714 less than the 1992-93 fiscal year allocation despite an authorized increase of 1 . 9 FTE. This shortfall is surprising in that the statewide allocation to counties is greater for the 1993-94 fiscal year than for the 1992- 93 fiscal year. The Social Services Department has requested detailed breakdowns from the State, to determine the source of the discrepancy. To date, the State' s response has been a one-page summary that does not justify the imposition of an over $1 . 35 million allocation reduction in order to "comply with budgetary restrictions on funding prior year COLA' s" . The COLA allocation reductions for the 1989-90 and 1991-92 fiscal years are not consistent with the 1992-93 fiscal year adjustments . The allocation reduction puts the County into an automatic overmatch in CWS. The Department will be returning to the Board of Supervisors with recommendations for corrective actions if the allocation issue is not successfully resolved with the State. When the State modified the IHSS program to incorporate the Personal Care Services Program (PCSP) in order to access federal Title XIX financing, counties were assured that the program would have a positive fiscal impact on them. In reviewing the proposed program with the Finance Committee, it became evident that the State' s position on pass-through of Title XIX funds to the counties was not certain. The June 10, 1993 Finance Committee report noted that the PCSP fiscal picture "looks promising, although caution is still warranted. " Given that PCSP was the only option for recovering increased county costs for the State increase in IHSS provider payments, the Board authorized the Department to begin implementing the program. Currently, the PCSP has temporary staff : 2 clerks, 1 account clerk, 6 social workers, 1 social work supervisor and 1 .5 nurses for an approximate cost of $90,000 per month. Overall the combined IHSS/PCSP administrative costs are approximately $225,000 per month. At this time, the County has not yet received its 1993-94 fiscal year State allocation for these programs . In addition, the State has informed the counties that the federal government has withdrawn its commitment to fund 75% of the nurse and physician costs . At this time, the Social Services Department estimates that the PCSP program could result in a loss of $350, 000 up to a net gain of $260,000 a range of $610,000 . The budgetary situation is being closely monitored and any necessary corrective budgetary actions will be undertaken as soon as information is received from the State. The State has heralded the Title IV-A Emergency Assistance Program as an opportunity for the counties to access millions of dollars of new federal revenue for foster care. A preliminary estimate by the Social Services Department, however, indicates that the program savings could be more than offset by the administrative costs . Also, it is not certain that the State will not "cap" its share or take other actions to shift its costs to the counties . The PCSP program was initially greeted with the same type of optimism that currently is being given to Title IV-A Emergency Assistance. As already noted, the financial status of that program is still in question. As part of SB 463 (Chapter 100, Statutes of 1993) , the State Department of Finance was required to allocate 1992-93 Realignment Growth Revenues to the counties . In August, the State Department of Finance informally told the county that its allocation would be approximately $823, 000. Actual receipts, however, came in at approximately $725,000. 15 A bright spot in the Social Service budget is the GAIN program. Contra Costa County received an additional $1 . 57 million for a total of $5 . 835 million. There is no county match required for this allocation. This program will be particularly helpful in that it is designed to assist welfare recipients in transitioning to employment. The County Administrator's Office and Social Services Department are closely monitoring the revenue estimates for the Department. The track record of the State in shorting the counties, and doing so well into the fiscal year, dictates continued caution for both the PCSP and Title IV-A Emergency Assistance Program. Trial Court Funding: In the July 30 Budget Report (Phase II Budget Reductions and Adoption of the Final County Budget for the 1993-94 Fiscal Year) , the Board of Supervisors acknowledged that because of the failure of the State to fulfill its commitments regarding Trial Court Funding, including the seizure of court filing and other fees, and fines and forfeitures from the County, a gap of approximately $6,049,500 existed between what the State appeared to be providing the County in Trial Court Funds and the amount required to support the current level of operations of the courts . The Board directed the County Administrator to identify expenditure reductions and revenue enhancements to close the gap. After adoption of Assembly Bill 392 it was determined that the gap was actually $5,239,970, which includes : • the budgeted gap of $1, 192,290 between the trial court revenues budgeted ($12,326,304 ) and the trial court revenues which we will receive based upon a Statewide Trust Fund of $140 million ($11, 133,984) ; • the filing fee gap, which includes filing fees lost to the State in 1992-93 ($2,789,500) ; • the maintenance gap, which includes merit and step increases for court employees ( $560,000) ; and • $698, 180 of non-specific reductions made during the Phase I cuts . Prior to the July 30 Board Order, in working with the benches of both the Municipal and Superior Courts, $1,582 ,000 was offered in cost reductions and/or revenue increases . Since that time, the County Administrator has continued to work with the Superior and Municipal Courts, the County Clerk, Probation Department and Social Services Department to identify and finalize cost reductions and revenue enhancements to bring an adjusted budget back to the Board on September 28 . Recommendation # 5 (above) includes a description of those items identified by the Departments to close the gap. The Superior Court and County Clerk will work in cooperation with the Municipal Courts to allow the entire justice community to fully benefit from the impact of court coordination. The Municipal Courts, which worked aggressively at the Legislature in advocating an expanded moving traffic amnesty program, will institute the program upon the passage of SB 149 and will potentially earn an additional $700,000 in unanticipated revenue. The Courts will also increase miscellaneous fees pursuant to recently enacted trial court funding cleanup legislation resulting in $95,000 of additional revenue and will increase their savings goal through diligent management of personnel vacancies by $100, 000 . 16 In addition to funds identified by the Courts, the Office of Revenue Collection will increase their revenues by approximately $45,000 by assuming responsibility for parking citation processing for cities and other agencies and through a parking amnesty effort. The Probation Department is expected to recover an additional $100,000 in federal reimbursement for juvenile placement administration under Title IV-E. At this time, it is uncertain whether the Social Services Department will generate any net savings from implementation of the Title IV-A Emergency Assistance. Based on the State' s estimates of case eligibility, case turn-over and current costs per case, the Department could have substantial foster care placement savings . However, administrative requirements for the program will be extensive (based on the initial State instructions) . Administrative costs could more than offset any savings . The County Administrator' s Office will continue to work with the Social Services Department on this issue. Health Services Department Revenue: The Health Services Department aggressively budgeted in excess of $11 million of revenues anticipated but not confirmed as of adoption of the county budget on July 30, 1993 . The anticipated State and Federal revenues consist of a multitude of items ranging from the SB 855 Intergovernmental Transfer Program to Realignment restoration financing. Both the process for SB 910 Medi-Cal reimbursement and the revenue generating potential of the Mental Health Rehabilitation Option are unknown at this time. Known variances in revenues include: SLIAG - approximately $200,000 less revenue than anticipated; Realignment - approximately $500,000 more revenue than anticipated; and SB 855 - approximately $2 .2 million more revenue than anticipated. In addition, it is doubtful that the Medical Assistance Commission will hold another round of SB 1255 Voluntary Contributions (budgeted at $2 . 0 million for the 1993-94 fiscal year) . In summary, there are still outstanding issues to be resolved and numerous pluses and minuses in individual revenue categories for the Health Services Department. Both the Department and County Administrator will be closely monitoring the revenues and will report to the Board of Supervisors with recommendations for corrective action as necessary. The Health Services Department is currently finalizing the plan to ensure the required savings in the Home Health Agency. It is anticipated that office consolidation and revenue enhancements will obviate the need for additional staffing reductions . For the DUI program, the Department is working with the employee organizations to meet budget reduction targets through modification of hours, rather than by layoffs . Health/Mental Health Program Issues : A. The Health Services Department is actively pursuing maximizing the Mental Health Rehabilitation Option funding. Payment methodologies, time reporting and contract amendments are all under development. The Mental Health Division is working closely with both the State and local advocacy groups to insure a smooth transition to the new Medi-Cal payment system. B. Staff from the Social Services Department and Health Services Department have met to explore the feasibility of utilizing the Mental Health Rehab Option as a vehicle for generating additional Federal Medi-Cal revenue through the Family Preservation programs . Due to concerns about the use of Title IV funds as match for the Federal Medi-Cal component, it was concluded that rapid implementation is not possible. Follow- up work with Los Angeles County and the State is in progress. 17 C. The Mental Health Coalition recommended establishing an East County Crisis Unit, similar to the one in West County, as a means of reducing transportation and hospitalization costs . Part of their proposal was to reassign some of E Ward staff to an East County Crisis Unit. An initial review indicates that increased staff costs would not be offset by revenues realized. In addition, the success of E Ward in preventing hospitalizations is tied to its 24 hour operation where clients can be held, medicated and monitored for a sufficient length of time. Another consideration is the space and physical environment required for an effective and safe crisis service. The current location of East County Adult Mental Health Services would not be appropriate for additional staff and security needs . The issue of crisis services in East County, or for that matter a mobile crisis unit, should be considered within the context of a larger planning effort which the Health Services Department expects to undertake within the next few months . The Mental Health Division will be considering the design of the entire mental health home delivery system. Using the Mental Health Advisory Board' s Ad Hoc Planning Committee report of June 24, 1993 as a starting point, this wide-scale planning effort will include consumers, family members, staff, contractors, and Mental Health Commission members in the process . D. The Mental Health Coalition has suggested that a jail diversion program similar to one in Denver, Colorado could result in savings in jail costs and increased reimbursements through Medi-Cal billings . Jail diversion generally would divert mentally ill inmates to the mental health system either prior to booking or as soon thereafter as possible. The Jail Mental Health Supervisor contacted the Medical Director of the Denver program, as well as staff who are running similar programs in San Francisco, Alameda, Santa Cruz, and Los Angeles counties . All report no savings to either the Health Services Department, Probation Department or the Sheriff, with the exception of some small reduction of room and board costs to the Sheriff . Mental Health costs are actually increased, although there would be some offset with Medi-Cal revenues . In all cases, the Jail Mental Health Supervisor was told that the program must be adequately staffed to be successful and that there must be designated residential facilities for this population. There is no doubt, however, that jail diversion programs are a humane and clinically appropriate approach to handling the ever increasing mentally ill population in the jails . E. The Health Services Department is currently in the process of examining the feasibility of joint detention medical service administration with Alameda County. 18 L 0 T N � ui N � � cn m � v .F 0 0 � V � O Q 0 a U m z QFM W N V � M H � ti (n m M O J co OF � FM n z 0 U • mom': :a} :fit{n:ahs: :n...v.v:::n .............. . :•iiiii.:V:. y:•}:; ' . + iiiii:^:.:::.;<; ;. . ' .:......;.. v}Y..... ..........+.... {.:if......iiiiiii:i::i : iiiiiii: is :q ,hM} ra}vv f • O ................. ................ ...:::................. i$:ylxYvi:1 xt d+:C ?: MXXX X. .. • ::' ::ii:iii:i:i:: ..........:... ?'iiiiiiiiiii:i•::•i}ii:: ..................}....iiii'}•.}. iii:}:::; : :.::.....::::::"'<i:iiiiiii:::i:iii::•}}:•%:i:';i:}.:':: ilii......iii v:::.:...::..... •?. .::. iiiiiiiii}:..............................i::.:$ilii:.iiiiii::} n;:}:iiiii::i:::i::v:i:!::: .....i: :..: • • };i: iii i........ :...:,:;:y:;iii::, i........ ... • ):yi: i}:::iiiiiiiii}iiiiiiiiii}ii:............. • dp • rrrr. t ......... .2ti;Y+c:^--:tai'•. do i.••'lyy,•Yarr. rua; •y�r'3 i .Y. y+- fiM1 r+• r'iMJ. N'�N•u .t+ ,rr•"•y +rY+• A ;`Ct`.'�_."':•,{..?,:tii-:i'r:!�:.`i^r,;.t��{:,{Jr{�`)'{4.,-': ia^•y�`Gb�!- ,i K `'L vf� ybir•X :s.''':':.:'.':.:':.': •{.{S.r.:..t.. W s:•.+• r+rk '+t • Nfir.•t•• ': {"r, s't'f i x'v.•t�y„h Rc T�: .. ..+'•!4:y::i;,::.:::.Ar:t�+?.�;ti:�CrrYr+.:.w �ir�. • :::yy±F!C?%i;:::ij.�ht..r :�y;s;;yiti`s~�"`{.,�.'::�r. rsxs the . • r'i 4'7F • ``i?i,`.•i':havy >is{i..Y., a. G`is v'n'ems''.`............... • • Yom: .sc. rtx,Y t{YY•.y rY$.. .j r•.:NT`•i: h'`lr:: :ti:iiS'y4;fti;,j+.�: FstS:g .xci!y •t,�Sa t ii i:i,:Viii{'l%1 axC t �t•�tvL •.x •>'M1f :.,:: !Nq"$rt'+SC Jr tjr�lG,. ::%iii:'3:`b2r:[•r i +P;i.:.{.i i;:;:t;i.a ,.,:T•$rtfrSn J.;.ai:F'';?,::: ;�:r:._'�y';r:.':-?.•J.r..as :..: . � ��'ti;.i. ;:::ass.{..,;•r: .,�y: .�•8r {F.�st•:r :..Yn• ..Yi xl. � F . :•Y vT ;iP' :W 'isy..�'r''!1++�:1f:'::?:y�:"i:�'::is�:iij:?�i• • '..hvliYa�% • .}:vim:..y..... .....: .{:"':t{>':..�,(;; ave. r•.... ..............::..::. WX • Mm�4n•`ti4:3.t\ k;v�{h?F)6Ci+'F.{??+.?{ is is ?{a}}}y..{..':'i:')i:•?• } \v <a}YQ f ?:}},.} i..... :. h:. i:jit. v?ti i$::?+nt. v\vv.J:h k•. �ii ::: 4 Mt` a: ?'\ }v s • Yti . • • • • ,. • • 1 • 1 • • i it�.t•LR v. �:Y��..:.�:•}:�,: rink;,. . �tt4}(pY4.+,}i".'r titin n 1. ry...::tr.h:!C;'ir``-`jp. �i•::.3•.�+,.Y:G•,:}�.:.,:: 1 4W %:t;:`:kyi i±Yb-��,'..• �"u's5y .:�.c•r;�'a�y': _-i-`.f yam, ~,';•�.sr ris 5-'a�T!�•: 1 • • i 1 1 • 1 • 1 ; ............. 00 A {'S;i:jtiy .. ..if i . .i i:: ::.:::,:: • '{'{J:•:{fii:fiiipti{•:{{•.�... ${:: ti?:J:{;h{ }i;{w: Oji}:: ::::::::: : >�,::::•:x:::.v:,a�.w�'6,may,S :... , t .... .•••iiiii:i: . :'... .. .. .... :. :i:iii;:......;:.';' i iia:::: :i is i:::. i:::i:".::::v:'. • • . ...... • 1 .. • ' ................. iii .ii:ii:ii:iii:iii::: ::•::.....:: . .v::•... ........ .1 .:., ' '::i ... • • • • �x v{,v Y:S MEM �h4. ...k\??f'.i%Y.•:>..$N.......... {;.;.;.;.;.;"'';'';':::: ::_. {: {..:v'•Y:}• .................... ':iii%�i:i. v}:is ^:^iiii E MOM- .......... .Wv'v+:Y'.,vV.:,v.:.... • • - • ........,i.,}.. ..:..;.:... .....:..:.... ...:::?:::.....:is}i;}}. • i........ .. �::.:�.:::�}::iii::::.::.:::::�:i� - ::'::.:::,:..:... • .................................................. .. ..... 1 • • - • .:.;;... :::.. ................. .:.:::o::i:ii iii ......YYYYYYYYYYY»::. - . :......:i::i:i:::: :i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i: ......... • • .............................................................................. ............................................................................... as F ........................... 1 • G ► • ':;': iiiiii>i>iir .:.:.: 1 • • R:+ 4v}#ti / L . :::::::::::::::::::.�......:: A. ................ :.:i::.i:i::: ..........................::::: ... '.•. {�is j f.. a x. • y:, .::................................................... .....................................................:. • $t} :::................. . ....................... ...................... •'�X4}n• 'X'•,'{X:1':}:{:}i:f:^±;}C?r. 44.6.:x4:•X{;v:. iii::;�......................:.: •4........................... "'4+v vYlrrYY•Y• t}}.:�. Cv::.:.'�::'.:'•:.:::^} }}}}}iii}iii::: ;.;;X:v...}�y.::• ...{:h. K•}'•'fiX6'{ KL{{K {apn{•is�:-:�::!:! :: :!;:!;i::�:�: 2 '• v x� x::}rfv:T:'. ' '••rX{+ C.$<ii}iii:}:};:$;{{iii:,,,,,{. v. ......•}ir i%Jk}} ..K:4:^i'$d::i'{Y:,v,}:i'{'{S%jiii':i:}:i;}ii;}Y {•fv;}v f {N.. ..{:.::::::�.�:::::.is�: �:�':iis '.I. 'Nfv . :.v :x;}:}}} },}„ „{, :{ j xr ::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::. :::::::::...........:::...........::iii;: ^.. f.f.:.}j ; Y. 4 .SY.v.xv.. i:w 3 ... �'�' �':�}:' ...................................... ...................................... ........................... ............................:::::::::. :::.::::::::�::::::�:w::::::: �n v4 L•n• :.}w•{: 1 4...: ?•i%i:•:•+•' .� :i:`:iii:::' `:;:._'..i._".... .............................. f <: «:« :{iz 8iir{, ............................... 4:{ ........... Wx • ;: iiiiiiiiii}::..iiiiiiiiii...... a ► 1 1 1 1 0 1 •• 1 ► . ....... ............................ ........ ............. ...... ... . .Y:. ........ .. . •...' ... .....:..........:.:.::.:. :............:. }:.::.Y ......................:.........................................:.:::::::: f o: :'> . ..`. 'rho- .,. 5' a. }:K., ............................:::::::::................................ ............................ n• .;4i X?.... • }}. :•.h. x4 % •{{. N. .: • vpy,.�n xK.,yyx 4 y. S•$ti'{ n•:5.44 4 j}, SKry :. w.. ?•$ ( 4 f :S,Cvvn j h YY:i{. ...Y.C.{?LgYL.:LLi:x}:r:iC{H :::::_ ................................................. MM .... .::Y::ii..... ..tC vYY. Vvh-0f{ii Lv.{.wry. k1'lf' ... _.:. .. vYY}}iYi.ii 'N} til:;• :..:. , .....:. _:. .. .. .......................h::j'. ...::.: YY::i:.......... .. .__ .... nw:x:x.v::v.v• .v:. 'f+fi:%iiiY w.v;•. ............................ :•:::r n±, 4.. ... ' £ • • THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Resolution on October 5, 1993 _, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Smith, Bishop, McPeak and Torlakson NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Resolution No. 93/636 AMEND Board Resolution 93/502 to retain certain positions in the Library. Supplemental funding has been received from the cities of Antioch, Concord, Danville and Martinez. 85-041 Sr. Branch Librarian Fulltime 85-307 Branch Librarian Fulltime(to be cancelled 12/10/93) 85-342 Librarian Fulltime(to be cancelled 12/10/93) 85-096 Library Assistant I Parttime (32/40) 85-189 Library Assistant I Parttime (20/40) 85-177 Library Assistant I Parttime(20/40 to be canc 12110/93) 85-365 Library Clerk 11 Fulitime(to be cancelled 12/10/93) Adopted the Resolution on Octd3er 5, 1993 by unanimous vote. I hereby certify that this Is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. Attested: October 5. 1993 PhIlBatchelor,Clerkof the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By 0 114f�j D4utyV cc: Personnel Department Resolution 931 636 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION NO. 93/635 WHEREAS, the Legislature enacted Senate Constitutional Amendment # 1 (SCA 1) , and WHEREAS, the Legislature placed SCA 1 on a Special Election ballot on November 2, 1993, and WHEREAS, SCA 1 would provide for a permanent extension of the half cent sales tax which was extended temporarily by the Legislature only through December 31, 1993, and WHEREAS, SB 509 (Chapter 73, Statutes of 1993) , the implementing legislation for SCA 1 requires that all of the proceeds of the sales tax be spent on public safety services, and WHEREAS, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors has already dedicated all of the half cent sales tax received from the six month extension to the Sheriff and District Attorney, and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors believes that public safety is one of the highest priorities for funding; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA RESOLVED THAT: THE Board intends to appropriate all funds generated by the sales tax imposed as a result of the passage of Proposition 172 to the budgets of the Sheriff-Coroner and District Attorney to provide such public safety services as protection of the public from violent criminals, investigation and prosecution of drug dealers, incarceration of convicted criminals, intervention to stop gang violence, protection of the public from environmental polluters, prosecution of murders, rapists, and burglars and other criminals, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Board also intends to appropriate all growth in the revenue generated by the sales tax imposed as a result of Proposition 172 to the budgets of the Sheriff-Coroner and District Attorney in an effort to stay abreast of increases in the cost of living, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Board also establishes as a goal toward which it will work in the future to allocate additional resources to the budgets of the Sheriff-Coroner, District Attorney, and Probation Department,to the extent possible, and, in particular, to re-establish at least the 1992-93 fiscal year base of Sheriff 's Department law enforcement and dispatch staffing (21 positions) over the next three budget years . Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of Supervisors affixed this 5th day of October, 1993. PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By Dep ty Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 93/636