HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10111994 - 2.1 2 . 1
THE BOARD OR SUPERVISORS OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on _October 11, 1994 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Smith, Bishop, DeSaulnier, Torlakson, Powers
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SUBJECT: Follow-up Report on the 1994-1995 Budget
The Board considered the recommendations of the County
Administrator as set forth on the attached report (copy of which
is attached and included as a part of this document) .
At the conclusion of the discussion on the recommendations,
the Board took the following actions:
1. APPROVED the recommendations of the County Administrator
as amended to allocate $56,900 of Supervisor Smith's
Supervisorial salary to provide funding for three
community based organizations;
2 . REQUESTED the Finance Committee and County Administrator
to explore the potential for local initiatives to fund
County services;
3 . REQUESTED the Internal Operations Committee to review a
proposal for the establishment of a Contra Costa
Foundation comprised of representatives from the
business community knowledgeable about the operation of
government;
4 . REQUESTED the Finance Committee to report to the Board
on October 18, 1994, on the restoration of property tax
revenues to local governments through the enactment of
a constitutional amendment; and
5. REQUESTED the County Administrator to report on archi-
tectural costs associated with the acquisition of the
Los Medanos Hospital as a County facility.
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered On the minutes of the
Board of SuPervilsore on the date shown.
ATTESTED: •f' f_a,e l/ , /fI q
cc: County Administrator PHIL BATCHELOR,Clerk of the Board
• Finance Committee of Supervisors and County Administrator
Internal Operations Committee
Auditor-Controller By - -- ' Deputy
Health Services
Social Services
District Attorney
TO: BOARD Of' SUPERVISORS Contra
CostaFROM:
Phil Batchelor, County Administrator
;4 County
DATE: October 11, 1994 't .. ..'.....`�
' CUUh�
SUBJECT: FOLLOW-UP REPORT ON THE 1994-95 BUDGET
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. ACCEPT the following report from the County Administrator on items referred by
the Board on July 28, when the 1994-95 Budget was adopted.
2. ACKNOWLEDGE the problem of defining what constitutes "public safety"
programs in the Proposition 172 maintenance of effort legislation, and DIRECT
the County Administrator to report back to the Board on this issue.
3. ACKNOWLEDGE the current potential revenue shortfall in the Health Services
Department of approximately $4 million, the status of which should be known
within the next 60 days, and DIRECT the Health Services Department and County
Administrator's Office to closely monitor revenues and to report to the Board with
recommended adjustments as appropriate
4. ACKNOWLEDGE the potential $1.1 million increase in General Assistance grants
due to legislative and court action and DIRECT the Social Service Director and
County Administrator's Office to closely monitor the GA aids budget and to report
to the Board with recommended adjustments as appropriate.
5. ACKNOWLEDGE the loss of $1.4 million potential property tax administration
revenues because of the Governor's veto of AB1826.
6. ACKNOWLEDGE the Governor's veto of AB1448, which would of allowed local
governments the authority to impose a benefit assessment to finance library
services.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: � (
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
_.APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
CTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
SEE SEPARATE BOARD ORDER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HER CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORR COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED O E MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON T DATE SHOWN.
ATTESTED
Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF BOARD OF
CC: County Adminis ator SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMIN RATOR
Auditor-Co ol.ler
Health rvices
Soc' Services BY UTY
strict Attorney
J '
Page 2
7. ADOPT the budget adjustments for the Board of Supervisors budget and transfer
$112,150 to the District Attorneys budget to help restore that Department to a
1993-94 maintenance level.
8. ADOPT the appropriations adjustment for three community based organizations
by $99,700.
BACKGROUND:
BUDGET LEGISLATION/ADMINISTRATIVE/COURT ACTIONS
The Trigger - (SB 1230)
There is a good deal of understandable skepticism in the financial markets about
whether or not California is serious about balancing its budget or making the
necessary tough decisions to keep the budget balanced. This is only relevant
when the State needs to borrow money from those markets. California needed
to borrow some $7 billion to meet its cash flow needs for this fiscal year and next
fiscal year. The banks and rating agencies, whose opinions influence the rate of
interest that will have to be paid on borrowed funds, were not impressed with the
proposal to balance the State Budget by anticipating some $3 billion in federal
funds for the cost of providing services to illegal aliens. It was only in the third
week of June, when the banks and rating agencies told the State to get serious
with balancing the budget if it expected to borrow funds at any kind of a
reasonable interest rate, that the Governor issued a "June Revision" to the State
Budget, which reduced the anticipated federal funds from $3.1 billion to $763
million, but which then pushed the balance of the anticipated revenue into the
second year of a two-year financing scheme. Only after the banks and the rating
agencies warned the State of California of the danger of further delays was the
Legislature inspired to enact a State Budget, although one which most experts still
recognize only postpones the problem until the 1995-96 fiscal year.
In an effort to bring some fiscal discipline to the budget process, the banks and
rating agencies insisted on enactment of a mechanism which would automatically
reduce expenditures if revenue projections not realized, or if expenditures
exceed projections, and if the Legislature and Administration are unable to enact
measures which bring the budget back into balance. S131230, authored by the
Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee, provides this "trigger", a
mechanism which will hang over our heads throughout this fiscal year and the
next fiscal year. The legislation does the following:
✓ Requires the Legislative Analyst to prepare an analysis of General Fund
revenues and expenditures for the 1994-95 fiscal year for use by the
Controller.
✓ Requires the Controller, on November 15, 1994, to provide a detailed
report to theLegislature and the Governor on the estimated cash condition
of the General Fund for the 1994-95 fiscal year and requires the Legislative
Analyst to comment on the Controller's report within five working days.
This report is to identify the amount of any cash shortfall for the fiscal year
and the projected amount by which "unused borrowable resources" on
June 30, 1995, will differ from the cash flow analysis included in the official
statement accompanying the sale of the July 1994 revenue anticipation
warrants. If this amount is more than $430 million, then the 1995 cash
shortfall is the amount by which this figure exceeds $430 million. For
example, if the difference between "unused borrowable resources" on June
30, 1995, is projected to differ from the cash flow analysis included in the
Page 3
official statement accompanying the sale of the July 1994 revenue
anticipation warrants is $500 million, then the shortfall is $70 million. This
is the amount by which unprotected State General Fund expenditures must
be reduced.
✓ The Governor, by January 10, 1995, is required to propose legislation
providing for sufficient expenditure.reductions and/or revenue increases to
offset the amount of the estimated cash shortfall as reported by the
Controller. This, or equivalent legislation, is required to be enacted by
February 15, 1995.
✓ If the required legislation is not enacted by February 15, 1995, then, within
five days, the Director of Finance is directed to reduce all appropriations
for the 1994-95 fiscal year that are not otherwise protected by the State
Constitution, general obligation debt service, or law of the United States,
by the percentage equal to the ratio of the 1995 cash shortfall to total
remaining General Fund appropriations for the 1994-95 fiscal year, after
excluding the appropriations that are not subject to reduction.
Of Similar provisions are provided for the 1995-96 fiscal year.
✓ The State of California pledges in writing that it will not limit or alter the
obligation provided in the "trigger" legislation until the registered
reimbursement warrants and revenue anticipation notes, together with
interest thereon, are fully met and discharged.
Clearly, this legislation leaves the County at grave risk between now and June 30,
1996. If, at any of these "trigger" points, the Legislature or Governor are unable
to act to balance the State Budget, major revenue sources from the State to the
County could be affected in ways which are difficult to predict today. Of course,
even if the Legislature and Governor come to agreement on an expenditure
reduction plan, it is likely that counties will be affected since such a large amount
of the State's unprotected expenditures are for funds which go to the counties.
The most recent information we have from CSAC is that the projections as of the
end of August, 1994 show that the State is within $56 million of hitting the trigger
amount. This is primarily because of anticipated federal revenues which are
unlikely to be forthcoming this fiscal year. Any additional erosion of anticipated
revenues or increase in expenditures will put the State over the trigger point and
implement the above described process.
There seems to be growing agreement that the trigger is likely to be implemented
when the Controller's report is issued on November 15, 1994. It will then be up
to the new Legislature which will be sworn in on December 5, 1994, and the
Governor, to determine what actions to take within the 72 days which are
available from the time the Legislature begins its new Session until February 15,
1995. Of even more concern is what will happen with the 1995-96 State Budget.
As was noted above, when the 1994-95 State Budget was adopted, much of the
anticipated federal revenue for the costs of serving illegal immigrants was
removed from the 1994-95 Budget and pushed back to the 1995-96 Budget.
Therefore, there is a huge block of anticipated revenue in the 1995-96 State
Budget which is unlikely to be received and which will affect the "Trigger".
AB 2788 (Willie Brown) - Proposition 172 maintenance of effort
Requires each county and city that receives Proposition 172 funds to maintain at
least the 1992-93 fiscal year level of spending on "public safety" programs and
Page 4
increases that amount by increases in the receipt of Proposition 172 funds from
one year to the next. If, for example, the County's total "public safety"
expenditures in the 1992-93 fiscal year were $50 million, then the County could
not spend less than that amount, including the Proposition 172 revenue, in any
fiscal year in the future. This 1992-93 base amount is increased each year by the
difference between the amount of Proposition revenue the County received in the
previous fiscal year and the amount of Proposition 172 revenue the County
received in the next preceding fiscal year. Turning again to the example above,
if the 1992-93 base is $50 million, and the amount of Proposition 172 money
received in the 1994-95 fiscal year is $42 million and the amount of Proposition
172 money received in the 1993-94 fiscal year is $38 million, then this is how we
would determine the amount we would have to spend on "public safety" programs
in the 1995-96 fiscal year:
Proposition 172 revenue 1994-95 = $ 42 million
Proposition 172 revenue 1993-94 = $ 38 million
Difference = +$ 4 million
1992-93 Base amount = $ 50 million
1995-96 REQUIRED EXPENDITURES = $ 54 million
For the following (1996-97) fiscal year, we return to the 1992-93 base and
calculate the change in Proposition 172 revenue, for the two preceding years as
follows:
Proposition 172 revenue 1995-96 = $ 48 million
Proposition 172 revenue 1994-45 = $ 42 million
Difference = +$ 6 million
1992-93 Base amount = $ 50 million
1996-97 REQUIRED EXPENDITURES = $ 56 million
Signed into law by the Governor September 26, 1994, effective January 1, 1995,
although applicable to the entire 1994-95 fiscal year.
Trial Court Funding
Under current Trial Court Funding law, the State allocates funding for local trial
courts to the State Trial Court Budget Commission which is administered by the
Judicial Council. This body reviews the budgets from all the courts throughout the
State and makes allocations based upon their own criteria.
At this point in time, it looks like we will receive the amount of trial court funding
currently allocated in the adopted final County budget for this fiscal year. The
County Administrator's Office is working with the County Auditor and the courts
to set up the accounts required in the Auditor's Office to properly allocate and
claim our share of State Trial Court funds. If, as a result of the Trial Court
Funding Budget Commission's further actions, it appears that changes will have
to be made in the County budget for the courts, this Office will submit to the
Board of Supervisors the appropriate required actions.
Page 5
Revenue Shortfall in Health Services Department
During the budget hearings, it was reported that the Health Services Department
faced a $3-8 million revenue shortfall due to potential losses in four areas: SB910
Medi-Cal administrative claiming reimbursement; reductions in the prepaid health;
state takeback of SB855 intergovernmental transfer revenues; and tobacco tax
revenues.
Phase I budget adjustments reduced net county costs in the department by $1.5
million. The state has acted on S13910, taking back $3.28 million of revenues.
This may be offset by payment of outstanding SB910 claims currently under
review. Resolution of other revenue issues are also pending, however, deposition
should be known within the next 60 days. At this time, the Department estimates
its revenue shortfall at $4 million.
Impact of Legislation and Court Decisions on General Assistance
The State's plan to reduce AFDC grants by 2.3% is on hold as the State awaits
word from the federal government on its modified welfare reform waiver request.
Two lawsuits successfully challenged the federal government's approval of the
State's plan to reduce AFDC grants. Implementation of the County's counterpart
2.3% reduction in General Assistance grants has been deferred pending federal
action on the state's waiver request. Consequent additional cost to the GA
budget is about $20,700 per month or $248,400 per year.
In addition, AB 1965 (Goldsmith) allowed the current shared housing provisions
in Welfare and Institutions Code section 17001.5 to sunset on January 1, 1995.
The monthly impact of this sunset is approximately $642,000 for a yearly total of
$1,284,000.
On the positive side, AB 1965 did continue General Assistance residency
requirements and continued authorization for counties impose sanctions for failure
to comply with the program requirements. These provisions now have a new
sunset date of January 1, 1997.
In addition to the legislation, the County is currently petitioning for rehearing in
Freitas v Contra Costa County, a case concerning General Assistance grant
amounts for family members in shared housing. The court struck down the
County's rebuttable presumption that parents are legally responsible for the
support of their indigent adult children and adult children are legally responsible
for the support of their indigent parents. The court found that only parents of
minor children and spouses are legally responsible relatives. Under the decision,
the amounts of most General Assistance grants for family members in shared
housing will be governed by Welfare and Institutions Code section 17001.5, not
section 17000.5. A final negative decision could cost the County approximately
$49,400 per month or $593,000 per year.
In toto, the sunset legislation, restoration of the grant reduction and an
unfavorable Freitas court decision could cost the County as much as $2.1 million
per year. The impact in FY 94-95 could be as much as $1.1 million.
Property Tax Administration Revenue
The Governor vetoed AB1826 which would have provided $50 million in revenues
to all counties for enhanced property tax administration. Contra Costa is
estimated to receive $1.4 million for allocation to the Assessor, Tax Collector and
Auditor's offices. The bill received strong support in the legislature since the
Page 6
revenue to the counties was conditioned on the requirement that counties
generate an additional $50 million in property tax revenue to be allocated the
schools.
Other Legislative Actions
SB 1448 (Roberti) - Library Benefit Assessment
Would have allowed a county to impose a benefit assessment for library services,
subject to simple majority approval by the voters. Would have required separate
written notification to every affected property owner, a public hearing and
opportunity for protest. If a protest equalling 50% or more of the dollar amount
of the proposed assessment is filed and not withdrawn, the proposed assessment
must be abandoned. If a 50%+ protect is not filed, then the Board of Supervisors
could have placed the measure on the ballot. Approval of the benefit assessment
would have required only a simple majority approval.
• Vetoed by the Governor September 30, 1994.
AB 786 (Hannigan) - Property Tax Administration clean-up
Technical clean-up bill which had to be signed in order for the counties to receive
the $25 million in property tax administration funds which was included in the
State Budget for the 1994-95 fiscal year. If this bill had not been signed, the
counties would have been unable to receive the $25 million in property tax
administration funds which has been budgeted.
• Signed into law by the Governor September 29, 1994, effective September
29, 1994.
STATUS OF BOARD REFERRALS
Board of Supervisors Budget Reduction
On July 28, the Board voted to work with the County Administrator toward the
goal of a 10% net county cost budget reduction of the five district budgets in the
aggregate as well as the non-district portion of the Board budget. A net County
cost reduction could mean a reduction in appropriations, an increase in revenues
or a combination of both. Each Supervisor would have the discretion to make the
level of cuts necessary to meet the need of their District. The Board earmarked
the amount to be saved for the District Attorney to help restore that office to a
1993-94 maintenance level. Attachment A is an appropriation adjustment
transferring $112,150 of the Board budget to the District Attorney's office. What
follows is a description of the reduction plans by supervisorial district.
District One
The reduction plan would maintain a position vacant through the remainder of the
calendar year. Additionally, the plan would budget reimbursement revenues from
the Water Agency for costs incurred as a result of Water Committee activities.
Salary and benefit cost savings from the vacant position would total $15,900 and
water agency revenues are estimated at $10,000.
District Two
The reduction plan would budget an additional $10,000 in water agency revenue
for costs incurred as a result of Water Committee activities over a 12 month
period. Budgeting the revenue would reduce the net county cost for the District
office by $10,000.
Page 7
District Three
The reduction plan would cut salary costs by $8,250 with a goal of$16,500 by the
end of the fiscal year. Also, travel and other office expenses will continue to be
carefully monitored in an effort to achieve additional savings.
District Four
The reduction plan contemplates a $5,000 cut in communication and travel
expenses over the next year. Additionally, it is anticipated that less expensive
leased office space will be secured for an estimated additional savings to the
County General Fund of $5,000, with greater savings over a 12 month period in
future fiscal years.
District Five
The reduction plan consists of budgeting $25,000 in revenues from a variety of
sources for costs incurred by staff dealing with land use issues. Additionally,
$2,800 will be reduced from several office expense accounts. Finally, a search
for less expensive office space will continue in an effort to achieve additional
savings this fiscal year and greater savings in future years.
Non-District Portion of Budget
This portion of the budget consists of the costs for the Assessment Appeals
Board, memberships to CSAC and ABAG as well as the cost to contract for the
annual County Financial Audit. The County Administrator proposes to budget
$30,200 in property tax administrative revenues to reduce the net county costs for
this portion of the budget by 10%.
Finance Committee Referrals
On July 28, the Board identified referrals for Finance Committee review and
recommendation. These referrals are:
1. the cost effectiveness of housing State prisoners as West County Detention
Facility, including the feasibility of shifting inmates to other facilities and
using an empty housing module for juveniles;
2. the issue of whether or not the use of correctional officers in the jails is
fiscally and operationally feasible;
3. the feasibility of selling Marsh Creek Detention Facility land and utilizing
funds to build a replacement facility else where;
4. consideration of the Probation Department's budget within the context of
Prop 172 funding; and
5. consider financing options and opportunities for the Human Relations
Commission.
One referral has been discussed by the Finance Committee while the others are
in various stages of staff study and will be presented to the Committee over the
next several months
Page 8
Funding for Community Based Organizations
The Board also requested staff to explore funding sources for $99,700 of
contracts with the Contra Costa Food Bank ($67,500); Family and Community
Services ($7,500); and Child Abuse Prevention Council ($24,700). Staff
conducted a detailed review of potential program and contract reductions in the
Social Service and Health Departments, as well as a broad review of the total
County budget. What follows is the County Administrator's proposal to finance
the three organizations.
1. Reduce $22,100 from the general liability insurance account for the Health
Services Department.
2. Reduce $23,500 from a contract with the Institute for Medical Disease,
which provides skilled nursing care for mentally ill patients.
3. Reduce $33,400 from the Adult Protective Services program in the Social
Services Department.
4. Increase $20,700 in sales tax revenues due from a recent audit of prior
year transactions.
Attachment B details these transactions and provides appropriations for the Social
Services Department to contract with the three community based organizations
for fiscal year 1994-95.
Women's Advisory Committee
During the budget Hearings, the Board of Supervisors considered the possibility
of relocating the Women's Advisory support staff function from the Private Industry
Council (PIC) to the Health Services Department. It was thought that a larger
department may be able to provide greater staff support to the Advisory
Committee.
The Women's Advisory Committee considered the suggestion at their September
meeting and would like to explore the feasibility of transfer to the Health Services
Department. The County Administrator's Office has requested that the Committee
provide an overview of support requirements, such as meeting space requirement
and expected scope of staff support. A meeting has been scheduled with the
chair of the Women's Advisory Committee, Health Services Department, Private
Industry Council and the County Administrator's Office on the transfer. Transfer
would also require an appropriation adjustment for the $5,436 staff support
general fund allocation.
FUTURE BUDGET REPORTS
Future Budget Reports
The first quarter budget monitoring report is scheduled for the November 8 Board
agenda. At that time, we will have completed our first comprehensive review of
the progress of the 1994-95 Budget.
ATTAC
'
AUDITOR-CONTROLLEY
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FINAL APPROVAL NEEDED BY:
APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENT ko
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T/C 2 7
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
;couNt cootNs BUDGET UNIT:
Social Services-0465, 0467/ Health Services - 0540
ITi1N EXPENDITURE
SUS-ACCOUNT EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION DECREASE INCREASE
loo loo
1 22� 00.0b ?•�
5000 2310 Professional & Specialized Services -80
_ I '
0465 3570 Contributions to Enterprise Fund 22,100.100 I
I '
0540 2882 Insurance 22,100.100
I I
0990 6301 Reserve for Contingencies 20,700. 00
0990 6301 Appropriable New Revenue 1 20,700. '00
I
I
0995 6301 Reserve for Contingencies 22,100.100 1
0995 6301 Appropriable New Revenue 1 22,100. 100
1 1
I I
1 1
I I
I I
I 1
I 1
I 1
I
I I
I c I
TOTALS -3z���-q�-��
APPROVED EXPLANATION OF REQUEST 1
TOR-CONTROLLER
Date
Adjustments provide funding for three
4TY ADMI ISTRATOR Community Based Organizations pursuant
to October 11 Board Order.
Date �� S
OF SUPERVISORS
SUPUMMUR
Phil Batchelor,Cleric of the Board of
Supervisors and County Administrator C — Sr.Dep.Co.Admin. /Q/S/��!
SItMATURE TITLE DATE /
APPROPRIATION
ADJ. JOURNAL NO.
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
ESTIMATED REVENUE ADJUSTMENT
• r T/C 24
ACCOUNT COOING BUDGET UNIT: =
General County Revenue-0005
tNIZATION REVENUE
ACCOUNT REVENUE DESCRIPTION INCREASE <DECREASE>
100 100
t I
0005 9045 Sales Tax 20,700.100 1
I '
0540 8381 Hospital Subsidy I 22,100.' 00
I ,
I r
I 1
I 1
I
I I
I �
I I
I I
• I I
� , I
I I
1
I ' �
TOTALS 20 700.00 22 100. 100
APPROVED EXPLANATION OF REQUEST
DITOR-CONNTTRROOLLER
Dole/r L:
Adjustments provide funding for three
Community Based Organizations pursuant
UNITY ADMIN15
I OoteTRATOR to October 11 Board Order.
aA d S
6", r J
OF SUPERVISORS
0Wom,DISOMmMp'.G
'p�A
-.Sr-.Dep.Co.Admin. /O
SIQNATURE TITLE- 0,TE
'0 Nth
r.,.., rd of
Dote JDREVENUE ADJ. RQQQ,_,.-�!;
JOURNAL NO.
(,V'8134 Rev. 2/86)
ATTACHMENT A
AUDITOR NTR R USF ONLY
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FINAL APPROVAL NEEDED BY:.
APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENT
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T/C 2 7
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
COUNT coDlNs BUDGET UNIT:
Board of Supervisors - 0001/ District Attorney - 0242 $1e-i2/ Strv,ee 7
f1)N EXPENDITURE
SUE-ACCOUNT EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION DECREASE INCREASE
100 100
1101 1011 Permanent Salaries 15,900.b0 I
1103 1011 Permanent Salaries 8,250.0 ,
1104 2110 Communications 3,300.00 1
1104 2301 Auto Mileage 900.b0 1
1104 2303 Other Travel 800.bO
1 I
1105 2100 Office Expense 2,400.b0 1
1105 2270 Equipment Maintenance 400.00
I I
4331 2262 Occupancy Costs 5,000.PO
2800 1011 Permanent Salaries i 112,150.pO
I
0990 6301 Reserve for Contingencies 75,200.bO 1
D990 6301 Appropriable New Revenue I 75,200.00
1 I
L102 1011 Permanent Salaries 56,900 :OCn'51 =
I I
I
5000 2310 Professional & Specialized Services 1 56,900T02'
1 1
� I
I 1
I I
i I
I 1
TOTALS 169.050 I 1
APPROVED EXPLANATION OF REOUEST
R-CONTROLLER
/�/�� Adjustment provide appropriations to District
Date �L' Attorney per Board Order of October 11, 1994.
AOMINIS RATOR
Date—�
OF SUPERVISORS
SLG1prvisorc arr' V, ..::,nf E_40_ �Qk/7 y
Sr.Dep.Co.Admin.
S NATURE TITLE DATE
D.teAPPROPRIATION A PQQ,5U 242
ADJ. JOURNAL N0.
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
cc ,Teeriy Mann ESTIMATED REVENUE ADJUSTMENT
T/C 24
ACCOUNT CODING BUDGET UNIT; -
Board of Supervisors - .0001
CNIZATION REVENUE
ACCOUNT REVENUE DESCRIPTION INCREASE �DECREASE>
loo loo
I I
1100 9607 Property Tax Admin. 30,200. 100 I
I '
1101 9895 Misc. Current Services 10,000. 100 1
1102 9895 Misc. Current Services 10,000. 100 '
1
1105 9895 Misc. Current Services .25,000. 100
1 I
' 1
I I
I 1
1 1
I I
I
1 ' I
I
TOTALS 75,200. ,00 ;
APPROVED EXPLANATION OF REQUEST
EDITOR-CONTROLLER
X" ate Adjustments provide appropriations to District
LINTY ADM, NISTRATOR Attorney per Board Order of October 11, 1994.
Dole to
Qoard
OF SUPERVISORS
SIIPERVfSORS 0111 ,BISf .
OWULNIER,TORWL APDWEi;9
-Sr-.Dep.Co.Admin. /04s
SIG.' TURE TITLE- GCTE
Phil Batchelor, C'^-k c'the Board of
Supervisors and Ccwnity ictrator _
/J REVENUE ADJ. RAQQ
D' JOURNAL NO.
(M 6134 Rev. 2/86)