Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01241995 - 2.1 �'; moi.>rK �• t.Fi. TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra . CostaFROM: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator ;r January19 1995 ���� County � :, .•fit DATE: sT+cbi i+ SUBJECT: REPORT ON THE EXTENT OF THE LOCAL BUDGETARY PROBLEMS CONFRONTING THE COUNTY FOR THE 1995-96 FISCAL YEAR AND THE ADDITIONAL IMPACT OF THE GOVERNOR'S. 1995-96 BUDGET ON THE COUNTY SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)8 BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. ACCEPT this report on the challenges which the Board of Supervisors will face in formulating the 1995-96 County Budget and the impact which the Governor's Budget will have on the County. 2. ACKNOWLEDGE a local budget problem for 1995-96 of an estimated $24 to $26 million due to non-recurring revenues and additional costs carried forward from the current fiscal year's budget. [See pages 5-6] 3. DIRECT the County Administrator to schedule a meeting between the Board of Supervisors and the Retirement Board as soon as it can be arranged, to discuss the impacts which retirement rates and contributions will have on the County. [See page 5] 4. ACKNOWLEDGE that because the 1% salary increase granted to most employees effective January 1, 1995 was in effect for only one-half of the 1994-95 fiscal year, it must be annualized to a 12-month basis in order to accurately calculate the cost of salaries and benefits for the 1995-96 fiscal year. [See page 6] 5. ACKNOWLEDGE that salary increases were granted to the Deputy Sheriffs' Association (DSA) in accordance with the MOU with DSA effective October 1, 1994 and January 1, 1995. and that because these increases were in effect for only a portion of the 1994-95 fiscal year, it is necessary to annualize these increases to a 12-month basis in order to accurately calculate the cost of salaries and benefits for the 1995-96 fiscal year. [See page 6] CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE (S): ACTION OF BOARD ON January ' 1995 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER X APPROVED the recommendations set forth above as amended to direct that the budget be program based and to instruct the County's lobbyist to work with the Association of .County Administrators, School Districts, California Association of Cities, and Association of Bay Area Governments to protect in the Governor' s Budget those programs providing services to children and families. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE XXUNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT:— ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN, ATTESTED January 24 , 1995 Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF CC: SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR County Administrator BY DEPUTY 6. DIRECT the County Administrator to determine how much of the cost of the contractual obligations to the DSA can be offset with Proposition 172 funds. [See page 6] 7. DIRECT the County Administrator to conduc a review of General County revenues to formulate an estimate of the amount of rlIevenue which would be available for financing services in fiscal year 1995-96 ad to ADVISE the Board of any new financing options. [See pages 6-7] 8. ACKNOWLEDGE that, as a result of the settlement of the "Williams" case and due to the. loss of legislative authority to adjust grants for shared housing, the General Assistance Program is currently running a deficit of more than $1 million for the 1994-95 fiscal year and that there is little likelihood of balancing this budget before the end of the fiscal year. [See pages 6-7] 9. RECOGNIZE that changes being proposed by the State and Federal Governments to reduce welfare grants and tighten eligibility have the potential to further exacerbate the General Assistance deficit Situation and increase costs for the 1995-96 fiscal year by an unknown amount unless these changes are implemented in such a way as to protect counties from having individuals "dumped" onto General Assistance. [See pages 6-7] 10. RECOGNIZE the serious situation which exists regarding the suspension of all SB 910 payments in California by the Federal overnment and the potential impact that this decision will have on the County if it is not resolved satisfactorily in the near future. [See page 7] 11. . RECOGNIZE the fact that the State seized $200 million of SB 910 funds from counties in the 1994-95 fiscal year, $3.28billion of which represented Contra Costa County's share of this revenue. ACIINOWLEDGE that the entire SB 910 Program is in jeopardy and that if the State does not receive these Federal funds it may well try to seize other County GeneraFund revenues to order to balance the State's Budget. [See page 7] 12. ACKNOWLEDGE that contracts with most aployee organizations expire October 1, 1995, that negotiations will be taking place between now and then, and that this will once again provide a forum for examining the need for cost-of-living adjustments (COLA's) versus maintaining this existing workforce. [See page 7] 13. ENCOURAGE the Superior Court and Munic pal Court in Contra Costa County to coordinate their courtrooms and activities un,der a single presiding judge for the entire County in order to improve the efficient and effectiveness of the trial courts in this County. [See pages 7-8] 14. CONSIDER separately item 2.2 on today's Determination Calendar which is a report from the County Administrator on a tions which are required to begin implementation of the Juvenile Justice Continuum of Care concept, including approval of an expanded Home Detention Program. [See page 8] 15. DIRECT the County Administrator to continue to meet with the Ad Hoc Budget Committee for the purpose of seeking community input to the budget process. [See page 9] 16. CONSIDER adjustments, as may be determined to be necessary, to the membership of the Ad Hoc Budget Committee. [See page 9] 2 i 17. NOTE that in 1991 the State transferred the responsibility for some 16 programs to the counties which cost $2.2 billion (Realignment 1) and also transferred a revenue source to the counties to fund those programs which did not produce as much revenue as had been estimated by the State, leaving the counties to resolve the funding shortfall in whatever ways they were able to design. [See pages 9-10] 18. ACKNOWLEDGE that the Governor's proposal for realignment of CWS, Foster Care and Adoptions Programs, is only feasible if the transfer is accompanied by a growing revenue source which adequately funds the programs being transferred as well as the future growth of those programs. [See pages 9-10] 19. DIRECT the County Administrator and Acting Social Services Director to report to the Board again as additional details become available regarding the adequacy of the sales tax revenue which is projected to be received by this County to cover the existing cost of the CWS, Foster Care and Adoptions Programs, which is $17.5 million for the current fiscal year. [See pages 9-10] 20. DIRECT the County Administrator and Acting Social Services Director to report to the Board again as additional details become available regarding the extent of added discretion the Board of Supervisors will have under the proposed transfer of responsibility for the CWS, Foster Care and Adoptions Programs. [See pages 9-10] 21. NOTE that AB 1297 (Chapter 90, Statutes of 1991) established a reimbursement schedule which called for the Trial Courts to be funded by the State at 50% for the 1991-92 fiscal year and at an additional 5% each additional fiscal year until the Trial Courts were substantially funded by the State, meaning 70% in the 1995-96 fiscal year, and that this reimbursement schedule did not include any requirement that counties take on additional fiscal burdens in exchange for the increased State funding of the Trial Courts. [See pages 11-12] 22. ACKNOWLEDGE that, based on preliminary estimates of Trial Court expenditures for the 1994-95 fiscal year of $34.5 million, under the Governor's proposal, the State would be required to provide the County with $24.15 million, representing 70% of$34.5 million, an increase of$11.45 million over the $12.7 million which we expect to receive for the 1994-95 fiscal year. [See pages 11-12] 23. ACKNOWLEDGE that if the State were to allow the counties to retain all fines, forfeiture and penalty funds which are now sent to the State, Contra Costa County would receive an estimated $9.1 million in additional revenue. [See pages 11-12] 24. ESTIMATE that the combination of funds the County would receive from the Trial Court portion of the Governor's proposal would total $20.55 million, as follows: $11.45 million - Additional Trial Court Funding Revenue $ 9.10 million - Fine, Forfeiture and Penalty Revenue $20.55 million - POSITIVE BENEFIT FROM TRIAL COURT PORTION OF THE PROPOSAL [See pages 11-12] 25. ACKNOWLEDGE that 50% of the AFDC grant costs which are budgeted for the 1994-95 fiscal year equals $25,500,000, an increase of $22;950,000 over the current costs of $2,550,000. [See pages 11-12] 3 26. ESTIMATE that the net cost to the County of the Trial Court/AFDC Realignment proposal may be approximately $2.4 million, calculated as follows: $22.95 million - Increased Cost for AFDC Grants $20.55 million - Increased -Revenue from Trial Court Funding $ 2.40 million - NET COST TO THE COUNTY OF THIS PROPOSAL [See pages 11-12] 27. ESTIMATE that this County's portion of the $241 million deficit resulting from the Trial Court/AFDC Realignment could easily be as much as $6 million in addition to the $2.4 million noted above, assuming that the County represents about 2.5% of the statewide population and depending on how the allocations among counties are determined. [See pages 11-12] 28. REQUEST the County Administrator to report back to the Board of Supervisors as additional details becomes available regarding refinements to elements of the Trial Court/AFDC Realignment Proposal and the projected fiscal impact of this Proposal on the County. [See pages 11-12] 29. REQUEST the County Administrator to examine the feasibility of utilizing the areas outlined by the Governor's Budget as mechanisms for offsetting all or a portion of the deficit resulting from the Trial Court/AFDC transfer and report back to the Board of Supervisors regarding the likelihood of using some or all of these items for this purpose, including improving AFDC administration, improving controls over General Assistance, reducing the County's Maintenance of Effort for Proposition 99/Realignment Health Programs, reducing the County's Maintenance of Effort for Realignment Mental Health Programs, and other unfunded mandates which may be identified by the State Administration. [See pages 12-14] 30. NOTE that all of the AFDC grant reduction proposals require approval by both the State Legislature and the Federal Government and require that approval on what appears to be a fairly tight timeframe in order to keep the State Budget in balance. [See pages 14-15] 31. REQUEST the County Administrator and Acting Social Services Director to report back to the Board of Supervisors as additional details become available regarding how realistic it is to include in the 1995-96 County Budget the savings which are projected from the grant reductions in AFDC being proposed by the Governor, based on how receptive the Legislature and the Federal Government are to these proposals and their timing. [See pages 14-151 32. CONCUR with the emphasis the Governor wants to place on the important responsibility undertaken by a young man in deciding to father a child through a campaign to highlight the rights and responsibilities of being a father, including aggressive enforcement of child support laws. [See page 16] 33. REQUEST the County Administrator and Acting Social Services Director to report back to the Board of Supervisors as additional details become available regarding any possible savings from the Governor's proposals regarding increasing participation in the GAIN Program. [See pages 16-17] 34. EXPRESS to this County's legislative delegation the Board's concern with the extent to which the anticipated $732 million in Federal reimbursements for health care costs and correctional costs are reasonable and can legitimately be included as anticipated revenue in the State Budget. [See page 19] 4 1 1 BACKGROUND: L INTERNAL BUDGET CHALLENGES FACING THE COUNTY IN THE 1995-96 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET. A. Local Problem The County has a number of internal budget problems which must be addressed regardless of what the State and Federal Governments do or do not do to the County. The local problem consists of two components. One component involves problems which will roll forward from this budget year in the form of non-recurring revenues or one-time appropriation decreases. The second component consists of normal increases in costs due to inflation, contractual obligations and costs otherwise not controllable by the County. What follows is a preliminary breakdown of how the local problem is estimated in terms of net County cost to the General Fund. Item Amount Non-Recurring Revenue $9,300,000 For the current year budget, the use of $9,300,000 in non-recurring revenue from the Tax Losses Reserve Fund was used to offset a small portion of the $58.0+ million permanent property tax losses required by the State in the last fiscal year. In fiscal year 1995-96, this $9,300,000 sum becomes a part of the local problem unless replacement revenue can be identified. Retiree Health Benefits $7,500,000 Last year, the Retirement Board transferred monies from its undistributed earnings and contingency reserve to subsidize the cost of retiree health benefits. For fiscal year 1995-96, the Retirement Board's investments are expected to be $30 to $35 million below target. This item anticipates no continuing subsidy for the cost of retiree health benefits. Retirement Plan Rates for Employees $5,500,000 to 10,600,000 For the current fiscal year, the Retirement Board subsidized employee retirement plan rates to the extent of $7.5 million in gross dollars because investment earnings exceeded investment targets. The impact on the General Fund translated to $5.5 million when adjusted for federal, state and other revenue sources which finance retirement costs. For fiscal year 1995-96, no subsidy is expected because of lower than anticipated investment earnings as mentioned above. Additional costs may be incurred by the County if the Retirement Board decides to resolve its expected $30 to $35 million under-realized revenue problem by raising retirement rates. Retirement officials report that if this policy is followed, the problem will be spread over a five year period. This will mean an additional $6 to $7 million gross cost to the County in fiscal year 1995-96 which translates to a $4.4 to $5.1 million net county cost. 5 Existing Employee Contractual Obligations $2,015,000 The cost of employee salary and benefit adjustments which will carry forward to 1995-96 are those which were in effect for a part of this fiscal year. Therefore, the 1% COLA effective January 1, 1995 has a six month impact on the 1994-95 budget, but a twelve month impact on the 1995-96 budget. In addition, the Deputy Sheriffs' Association received 4% COLAs on October 1, 1994 and January 1, 1995 which will have a similar impact. Combining these two items would roll forward a $2,015,000 net county cost increase for fiscal year 1995-96. General County Revenues $<4,000,000>to<3,500,000> General County revenue is estimated to increase approximately 2% next fiscal year. The primary reason is that property tax revenue, the largest revenue source, is expected to increase only about 1.5%. Proposition 13 normally provides for an annual inflation adjustment of 2% for property tax assessments on property which has not been sold during the year, regardless of how high inflation may actually have been. However, if inflation is actually less than 2%, this adjustment factor is reduced accordingly. Since the market value of many properties has actually declined over the past year and so many assessments have actually been reduced as a result of appeals, it appears that the adjustment factor probably will amount to only 1% in 1995-96, according to State estimates. Other major revenue sources such as sales taxes and motor vehicle license fees, are expected to increase slightly more than 2% in 1995-96, leading to an overall estimate of a 2% increase in General County revenues. GRAND TOTAL $20,315,000 to 25,915,000 B. Department Revenues/Future Contracts/Uncontrollables In addition to the above items, a number of revenue losses and cost increases must be considered in the local problem formulation, which cannot be quantified at this point. 1. General Assistance 2. SB-910 3. Future Employee Contractual Obligations 4. The Impact of "Three Strikes" on the Justice System 5. Juvenile Hall i 6. Uncontrollable Cost Increases We comment below on each of these items in more detail: 1. General Assistance At this time General Assistance expenditures for the current fiscal year are estimated at $12.2 million, $1.2 million more than the $11 million budget. Projected overexpenditures in General Assistance are primarily due to the fact that the State Legislature allowed the law which had permitted the shared housing adjustment to expire January 1, 1995. Until January 1, 1995, legislation was in place which allowed the General Assistance grant to be adjusted if individuals shared housing with others, to reflect the lower cost of living. 6 Another factor affecting the General Assistance budget has been the settlement of the "Williams" lawsuit. In accordance with the settlement, Contra Costa does not now impose a sanction for the first violation of program regulations, but rather just issues a warning notice. Proposed changes in State and Federal eligibility requirements could have the effect of eliminating individuals and families from AFDC and thereby making them eligible for General Assistance unless counties are protected from this possibility by providing that individuals who are made ineligible for AFDC are also ineligible for General Assistance. 2. SB 910 (Medi-Cal Administrative Claiming) SB 910 is a mechanism under which the state allowed the counties to claim federal revenue for eligible Medi-Cal administration. As with many federal programs, the state acted as the fiduciary agency in packaging the claims and receiving and distributing the revenues. County revenues under SB 910 have received a double blow in the 1994-95 fiscal year: 0 As a means of balancing its budget, the state seized $200 million of county SB 910 revenues. Contra Costa County's share of this seizure was $3.28 million, which exceeded total SB 910 revenues for the county in the 1993- 94 fiscal year. 0 Following this action, the federal government has suspended all SB 910 payments to the State of California following a finding of discrepancies in an audit of Los Angeles County. No discrepancies were found in two subsequently audited counties. At this time, there is considerable debate concerning California's regulations under SB 910 and a delegation recently went to Washington to discuss resolution of the federal 'concerns and resumption of the SB 910 payments. There are indications that the Federal Government is leaning in the direction of denying reimbursement for all of California's SB 910 program, both retroactively and prospectively. We are concerned about the impact such an action would have on this County. 3. Future Employee Contractual Obligations Most of the County's contractual obligations with its employee organizations expire October 1, 1995. Negotiations will begin in the near future and will no doubt continue through the spring and summer. These negotiations will again open the issue we have faced for the past several years regarding whether to provide our employees cost-of-living adjustments (COLA's) at the risk of reducing the overall workforce or forego COLA's in order to conserve jobs. 4. Three Strikes Last November the voters approved a ballot measure which incorporated the three- strikes legislation into the State Constitution. This law significantly increases sanctions particularly on the third felony offense when there are two prior violent felonies. Unfortunately, the rules governing due process were not changed. Because of the severity of the sanctions on the third offense, it can be anticipated that there will be fewer criminal pleas, more pre-trial motions and delaying tactics on the part of the defense attorneys, and more criminal trials. Although the overall number of criminal felony cases may not increase, the time it takes to try these cases may increase dramatically. Some of this has already begun to occur in our 7 court system. An initial accommodation by the court system that can be anticipated is delaying civil cases so that more Superior Court Departments will be available for criminal courts. This, in turn, will make it more difficult for the District Attorney to adequately cover all the various court locations with existing personnel. The judges of this County could significantly mitigate some of the impact of the "three strikes" law by coordinating their courtrooms and activities under a single presiding judge for both the Superior and Municipal Courts combined. This would make for a more cost- effective and efficient court system and would reduce personnel and fiscal impacts on other justice agencies. This has been proposed by the County Administrator to the Superior and Municipal Court judges in this County. At this point, such an arrangement has failed to occur. 5. Juvenile Hall The Juvenile Hall was recently inspected and certified to be in compliance with the minimum standards for juvenile halls. However, after two years maintaining acceptable population levels at Juvenile Hall, crowded conditions have once again resumed. For 24% of fiscal year 1993-94, the average daily population (ADP) exceeded the maximum capacity of 160 beds. For the first half of fiscal year 1994-95, the ADP exceeded the maximum on 50% of the total days. Overcrowded conditions at the Hall are cause for concern because of the difficulty of managing the increased number of youth, the increased use of temporary staff, and the negative budgetary impacts. Population control has been an ongoing challenge for Hall administration. In fiscal year 1990-91, the Hall was under threat of decertification by the California Youth Authority because of the crowded conditions. Emergency measures including a court-ordered population cap of 130 and more stringent intake criteria, coupled with other administrative measures, stabilized and reduced the Hall population to acceptable limits from a capacity standpoint. However, the Hall capacity was not meeting the needs of the Juvenile Court and local police agencies and, in response to their needs, the County opened in January 1994 the 20-bed Serious Offender Unit, raising the maximum Hall capacity to 160 and the court-ordered and budgeted capacity to 150. It is apparent, however, that population control will continue to be a challenge despite the increased capacity at the Hall. Short-term measures are being exercised in an attempt to mitigate and avoid overcrowding. These measures include sleeping youth in the previously closed Boys' Center (closed for budgetary reasons in 1990), expanding the use of home supervision and expediting placement of post adjudicated youth at available facilities. A proposal to establish an electronic monitoring program has also been developed and follows this report on the Board's Determination Calendar today. Juvenile Hall population will continue to be closely monitored. We will update the Board on the status of this situation in the second quarter budget report. i 6. Uncontrollable Cost Increases As the Board is aware, first class postage costs have been increased by 10% effective January 1, 1995. These increased costs have to be factored into the County Budget for the 1995-96 fiscal year. In addition, there are unavoidable increases for such items as the purchase of drugs for the Health Services Department, increases in the cost of paper and paper products and increases in the cost of utilities which must be factored into the 1995-96 Budget. In a budget the size of the County Budget, these items can easily add hundreds of thousands of dollars to existing costs. 8 C. Ad Hoc Budget Committee Over the last four years, the County has been advised on budget matters by the Ad Hoc Budget Committee. This Committee is comprised of a wide range of interests, including business, labor, community-based organizations, and the chairs of a number of County advisory committees. A roster of the Committee membership is attached for the Board's information. The Board of Supervisors may, of course, wish to modify this membership. ll. MAJOR PROPOSALS CONTAINED IN THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET FOR THE 1995-96 FISCAL YEAR. A. Expansion of Realignment to include Child Welfare Services (CWS, Foster Care and Adoptions. ✓ The State will transfer .22330 of State sales tax to counties to a new Children's Services Account in the Local Health and Welfare Trust Fund. ✓ The State claims that this will produce $710 million in 1995-96 statewide. Of The State will combine this money with the existing Social Services Account to form a pool of $1.1 billion for the existing Social Services Programs, plus CWS, foster care and adoptions. ✓ Counties will assume responsibility for 100% of the non-federal costs of the CWS, foster care and adoptions programs. In 1991, the State "realigned" several programs by transferring authority to operate some 16 different programs, costing at that time some $2.2 billion, to the counties, along with a source of revenue - a portion of the State's sales tax and a portion of Vehicle License Fee (VLF) revenue. This sales tax and VLF revenue is transferred by the State to a"Local Health and Welfare Trust Fund" in the County. In turn, this Trust Fund is divided into several "Accounts", one each for Mental Health, Social Services and Health Services. Most other sources of State General Fund revenue which had been supporting these programs were eliminated. Realignment has the advantage of reducing the extent to which State funds are tied to specific programs, thereby increasing the Board's discretion to utilize funds where they are needed. Unfortunately, because of the downturn in the economy, the State overestimated by $242 million the amount of revenue which would be generated from 1/20 of sales tax in the 1991-92 fiscal year, leaving counties short of funds with which to operate these programs. A significant problem is created when human service programs are funded with a revenue source which is as dependent on the economy as is sales tax. What happened in 1991 was that 1/20 of sales tax revenue generated less revenue than had been projected and the demand for services stayed at the same level or actually increased. In the 1995-96 State Budget, the Governor is proposing to expand the Social Services Account to include Child Welfare Services (CWS), Foster Care and Adoptions. The State would transfer .22330 of State sales tax revenue to the counties to fund these programs and the counties would assume 100% funding responsibility for the non-federal share of these programs. The State projects that .22330 of sales tax revenue will produce $710 million in the 1995-96 fiscal year. 9 This new revenue will be combined with the existing Social Services Account to form a new Children's Services Account within the Health and Welfare Trust Fund. When combined with the existing Social Services Account, the State projects that there will be a fund of $1.1 billion available to finance the non-federal share of these programs. The specific programs which can be funded from the Social Services Account currently include: o Crime and delinquency programs funded pursuant to Welfare and 'Institutions Code (W&IC) § 1794. o Youth Service Bureaus funded pursuant to W&IC § 1904. o The required State match for Social Services Programs as specified in W&IC § 10101. o The State share of the County Services Block Grant pursuant to W&IC § 10101.1. o The State share for the GAIN Program, pursuant to W&IC § 11322 and 11322.2. o The State share of the In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) Program. o The State share of certain Social Service Programs specified in W&IC § 15200, including the costs of foster care and hard-to-place adoptive children. o The State share of administering the AFDC grant programs. o The State administrative costs of the Food Stamp Program, pursuant to W&IC § 18906.5. o The State share of the California Children's Services (CCS) Program, pursuant to Health and Safety Code § 265. o The State share of county justice system subvention programs funded pursuant to W&IC § 1806. . The immediate question which comes to mind based on the counties' past experience is whether .22330 of sales tax will actually generate $710 million in the 1995-96 fiscal year. The next question is what the cost of the existing CWS, Foster Care and Adoptions Programs are statewide and whether $710 million can realistically be expected to cover the existing level of services. The biggest risk the counties face, of course, is that in the future. the growth in the revenue produced by .22330 of sales tax will not begin to cover increasing demands for these children's services. The other big unknown at this point is how much additional discretion counties will have to shift funds among these children's services programs and to operate the programs somewhat differently than they are operated today. If the counties gain sufficient discretion and control over the operation of these programs then undertaking some additional fiscal risk may be appropriate. I 10 B. Trial Court - AFDC Grant Alignment ✓ The State will increase Trial Court funding to 70% of costs in 1995- 96 fiscal year, for a total State cost of $1.255 billion, $916 million of which is a new cost to the State. ✓ This increase will cost the State (save the counties) $605 million in 1995-96, assuming Trial Court costs are $1.7936 billion. ✓ The State will return fine, forfeiture and penalty revenue to the counties. ✓ The return of fines, forfeitures and penalties to the counties is estimated to cost the State (save the counties) $311 million in 1995- 96. ✓ The Trial Court portion of the package, therefore, costs the State (saves the counties): $605 million - Trial Courts funded at 70% Return fine, forfeitures and penalty $311 million - revenue to counties $916 million - TOTAL SAVINGS TO THE COUNTIES ✓ In exchange, the counties would become responsible for 50% of the non-federal share of AFDC grants, beginning July 1, 1995. ✓ The State maintains that this cost is $1.157 billion annually. ✓ The State agrees that there is, thereby, a funding gap of: $1.157 billion - AFDC grant cost to the counties $ 916 million - Trial Court savings to counties $ 241 million - SHORTFALL ALLOCATED TO COUNTIES The Governor proposes a funding tradeoff between the cost of the Trial Courts (Municipal and Superior Courts) and the cost of the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) Program. These are admittedly two of the major programs which are funded in part with local revenue but over which boards of supervisors have little control. The proposal involves increasing State funding for the Trial Courts to 70% statewide and allowing counties to retain the fine, forfeiture and penalty revenue which is now forwarded to the State. In return, the counties would increase their responsibility for the funding of the AFDC Program from the current 5% to 50% of the non-federal share (from 21/2% to 25% of total costs). The ironic thing about this proposal is that State law already expresses the Legislature's intent to increase the State's share of the Trial Courts to 70% bY the 1995-96 fiscal year without any increased responsibility on the part of the counties! The Governor's Budget determines that the amount of money required to bring State funding of the Trial Courts up to 70% is an additional $605 million. Currently the State spends $625 million on the Trial Courts, but $300 million of this is fine, forfeiture and penalty revenue.which is sent to the State by the counties. The State begins by using the approved State Trial Court Budgeting Commission approved budget for 1995-96 of $1.7936 billion. Seventy percent of this figure is 11 $1.255 billion. The State would continue to fund $339 million which is not fine, forfeiture and penalty revenue,presumably $325 million for the 1994-95 fiscal year and $14 million inflation for the 1995-96 fiscal year. In addition, the State would add an additional $605 million and would allow counties to retain the fine, forfeiture and penalty revenue which now goes to the State, which is estimated to total $311 million in the 1995-96 fiscal year. $ 339 million - Existing State Funding $ 605 million - New State Funding $ 311 million - Retain Fine, Forfeiture and Penalty Revenue $1.255 billion - 70% State Funding for the Trial Courts The State projects that the increased cost for the counties to move to 50% funding of the non-federal share of AFDC grants is $1.157 billion in the 1995-96 fiscal year. When the new State funding for the trial courts of $916 million ($605 million in new State funds and $311 million in fine, forfeiture and penalty revenue) is subtracted from the new cost of the AFDC grants of $1.157 billion, one can readily see that the counties are short $241 million, a figure the State agrees represents the unfunded balance that has to be made up in some way. C. Possibilities for offsetting the deficit to counties. The State has suggested several ways in which counties can offset their share of the $241 million deficit: ✓ The State will provide a fund of $40 million ($20 million each State and Federal funds) for competitive application grants to improve AFDC administration in order to help reduce grant costs: Increase fraud prevention and detection efforts Increase child support efforts Increase job training and evaluation efforts Increase error rate reduction efforts The Governor's Budget Summary includes the following explanation of this proposal: "An important corollary of this change is an effort to improve county AFDC administration activities. The Department of Social Services will initiate an effort aimed at giving counties the necessary flexibility to achieve welfare program objectives. This proposal is consistent with the Administration's view that the state should participate in the formulation of policy and overall program objectives, and focus on results rather than day-to-day operations. "The Department will work with counties to further define areas where fiscal incentives or increased areas of flexibility would further the goals of reducing fraud and promoting self- sufficiency. The Department believes counties will respond to this framework by reevaluating the efficiency and effectiveness of their activities in a variety of areas. Examples include a possible reduction in error rates, increased activities to prevent, detect and prosecute fraud, a renewed emphasis on the transition from welfare to work, and improved coordination with the District Attorney's Office for child support collections. These activities will assure that resources are available to provide assistance to the truly needy. 12 This County, however, has already undertaken an aggressive program to enforce child support obligations. As a result, additional savings may be more difficult to achieve than in counties which have been less aggressive in this area. "The budget contains $20 million, with no county share of cost, to assist counties initiating efforts to improve county administration. These incentives, coupled with an increased county share of cost in AFDC grant expenditures, are estimated to result in AFDC grant savings to counties of $70 million." It is difficult to imagine that in this County, at least, our share of $70 million would be achievable given past efforts to improve the administration of the AFDC Program. Obviously, without knowing what chances this County would have of competing successfully for these funds it is impossible to place a price tag on the value of this proposal to this County. It is, however, certainly one alternative that should be pursued strongly. ✓ Improve controls over General Assistance costs by proposing legislation re shared housing, durational limits, counting medical care as a part of the benefit package and more flexibility in the use of alternatives to cash payments. The Governor's Budget Summary includes the following explanation of this proposal: "Counties currently spend close to $500 million for cash grants and administration of General Assistance, and have had little success in court in limiting their costs for this program. The Administration will propose legislation giving county boards of supervisors broad authority to determine what assistance they choose to provide and for counties that choose to continue a program, options to assist them in controlling program costs. Options will include extension of the shared housing reduction allowances that sunset on December 31, 1994; the ability to impose time limits on the duration of aid; authorization to include medical care as part of the benefit package; and, greater flexibility in the use of alternatives to cash payments. "Savings to counties would depend on board action to take advantage of available cost containment measures." The Board of Supervisors has adopted a self-sufficiency program which encourages seeking work, working, and drug and alcohol treatment when appropriate. Without seeing specific language it is difficult to estimate the possible impact on this County of the proposed changes in the General Assistance Program. Certainly, this Board of Supervisors has demonstrated its concern with the humane treatment of its citizens as well as with the value of encouraging General Assistance recipients to become self- supporting members of the community. ✓ Relief of Maintenance of Effort in Proposition 99/Realignment Health area. 13 The Governor's Budget Summary includes the following explanation of this proposal: "Proposition 99 requires that counties maintain a specified financial maintenance of effort, defined as realignment health funding with a county match, plus an additional amount based on what a county was spending for health services in 1988-89. "This proposal would allow counties to reduce the Realignment portion of the maintenance of effort by up to 10 percent. If all counties took this action, savings would approximate $96 million." As we understand this proposal, taking advantage of reducing the County's maintenance of effort requirement would have the effect of reducing the level of services to indigent residents of the County. Whether this is feasible will have to be decided by the Board of Supervisors if this alternative becomes a reality. ✓ Relief of Maintenance of Effort in Realignment Mental Health area. The Governor's Budget Summary includes the following explanation of this proposal: Through 1994-95, counties have the authority to reduce their maintenance of effort match payments for Realignment mental health money by up to $15 million. This proposal would extend that authority to the extent it does not jeopardize the receipt of federal matching funds. It is possible that this could be expanded to provide maintenance of effort relief of approximately $25 million. As we understand this proposal, taking advantage of reducing the County's maintenance of effort requirement would have the effect of reducing the level of services to mentally ill residents of the County. Whether this is feasible will have to be decided by the Board of Supervisors if this alternative becomes a reality. ✓ Other, unidentified, mandate relief proposals which are to be identified. The Governor's Budget Summary includes the following explanation of this proposal: With direction from Governor Wilson, the Administration has ' undertaken an aggressive review of all unfunded state mandates to reduce the unnecessary mandate burden on all local governments. Legislation will be introduced to repeal, simplify or amend unnecessary and/or obsolete state mandates. Without knowing exactly what unfunded mandates the Governor is referring to, it is impossible to measure the potential value of this proposal. However, past proposals in a similar vain have proven to have wildly inflated values attached to them. In addition, many have become so much a part of the accepted way of life in the local community that abolishing them is, for all practical purposes, impossible. We will report back in more detail once we see some of the specific proposals the Administration has in mind. 14 D. AFDC Grant changes proposed: ✓ Assumes that the 2.3% grant reduction approved in the 1994 State Budget will be approved by the Federal Government for implementation by March 1, 1995. ($52.8 million State savings in 1995-96) ✓ Assumes an additional 7.7% grant reduction to be effective September 1, 1995, requiring approval by the Legislature by July 1, 1995 and by the Federal Government. ($166.7 million State savings in 1995-96) ✓ After being on AFDC for six months, beginning March 1, 1996, AFDC families with an able-bodied adult would continue on a grant 15% below the above reduced grant. The earned income exemption would be increased. ($100 million State savings in 1995-96) ✓ A mother under the age of 18 must live with her parents as a condition of receiving AFDC, unless the home is judged dangerous for the mother or child. (No savings are projected because of increased CWS expenditures to check out the adequacy of the home) ✓ After 24 months on AFDC, an able-bodied adult in an AFDC family would be eliminated from the grant, although the rest of the family could continue to receive aid. This would be effective July 1, 1997 and would have no effect during the 1995-96 or 1996-97 fiscal years. (No savings until the 1997-98 fiscal year) The major problem with all of these proposals is that they require concurrence by the State Legislature and approval by the Federal Government. The Governor's Budget outlines what appears to be a rather optimistic timetable for implementation of these proposals, even if they are approved by the Legislature and the Federal Government. The first 2.3% grant reduction, which has been approved by the Legislature as a part of the 1994-95 State Budget but which has been delayed by the courts until the State actually receives Federal approval, would have to receive Federal approval in time to be implemented on March 1, 1995. Given the lead time required by most counties for implementation of an across-the-board grant reduction, counties would probably have to be advised within the next couple of weeks that Federal approval had been obtained in order to make the change effective March 1, 1995. The additional 7.7% grant reduction would have to be approved by both the Legislature and the Federal Government by July 1, 1995 to be effective September 1, 1995. Then, the 15% grant reduction for a family headed by an able-bodied parent, which is to be effective March 1, 1996, would likewise have to receive approval by the State Legislature and the Federal Government, the proper households would have to be identified and the grant reductions implemented, not an easy task. The Governor's Budget also proposes to require that a mother who is still a minor be required to live with her parents in order to receive AFDC, unless it can be established that her parents' home is an unfit place for her or her children to live. The Governor's Budget admits that there will be no monetary savings from this proposal because of the number of instances in which it will be necessary for social workers to investigate the parents' home to determine whether it is a fit or unfit place for the mother and her children to live. 15 The Governor's Budget also proposes to remove an able-bodied adult from the AFDC budget after two years, although the adult would continue to be eligible for Medi-Cal and Food Stamps. Removing the adult from the grant would reduce the amount of money going to the family, without changing anything else about the family's situation. Since this proposal would not be effective for two years, it would provide no savings to either the State or counties until July 1, 1997 for the 1997-98 fiscal year budget. E. Other Welfare/Social Services Program Initiatives: ✓ Focus on Fathers The Governor proposes that the State Department of Social Services conduct a campaign to highlight the rights and responsibilities of being a father. This campaign will be conducted within existing resources and will be coordinated with local community-based efforts and the Department's child support public awareness effort. We certainly agree with the Governor that it is important that young men be reminded of the responsibilities associated with becoming a father and of the importance of a father's presence in the raising of children and of their long-term responsibilities to provide both financial and emotional support to their child and to the child's mother. ✓ Increase participation in Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) The Governor's Budget notes the incentives which have been put in place in recent years to encourage counties to improve GAIN performance and notes that the recommendations of the Governor's GAIN Advisory Council will be implemented using existing unspent GAIN funds from the 1993-94 and 1994-95 fiscal years. These recommendations, as outlined in the Governor's Budget, are in four major areas: • "Modifications to current criteria to reduce exemptions and deferrals, including those instances where recipients have employment but do not earn at least the minimum wage. • "Modifications to the current conciliation process which allows an extensive number of conciliations for recipients who do not participate appropriately in GAIN. Recipients who do not cooperate with GAIN requirements would enter into the conciliation process once before being subject to sanctions. In addition, subject to federal waiver, other program benefits, such as Food Stamps, would not increase when sanctions are imposed. • "Strengthening the program's employment orientation by focusing job club and job search activities as the initial steps in the GAIN program. Further, even those recipients in education programs would be requires to participate concurrently in training or work activities. 16 • "Expansion of job club and job search activities within available funding for AFDC applicants and for non-custodial parents. This requirement would not apply to disabled adults, child only cases, immediate assistance, and homeless assistance cases." We need to see more details about these proposals before we are able to comment on their value to the County. We are, however, committed to seeing as many AFDC recipients as possible trained for and seeking employment which will allow them to support their families and become self-supporting members of the community. As we obtain additional information about the details of these proposals we will provide further reports to the Board of Supervisors. ✓ Welfare Program Integrity - Increased fraud detection and prevention efforts which are already underway. These efforts are described in the Governor's Budget as follows: • "During the fall of 1993, the Department of Social Services convened a strategic .planning group consisting of county welfare directors, chief county fraud investigators, and representatives from the Departments of Health Services and Social Services to identify the factors that weaken the integrity of welfare programs. The goal of this group was to assist the Department in developing a comprehensive five-year plan for restoring integrity to welfare programs in California. Many of these concepts'are proposed for implementation in 1995-96. Altogether, activities designed to combat fraud are estimated to save $72 million in 1995-96. The major themes included in anti-fraud activities include prevention, improving the tools and _technology to detect fraud, increasing accountability, program reform and managerial efficiency." We will continue to study and attempt to quantify these proposals and develop estimates of the possible savings to the County from their implementation. ✓ Implementation of Automated Fingerprint Image Reporting and Match (AFIRM) Program statewide during 1995-96. This program is described in the Governor's Budget as follows: "One of the innovations in this area has been the use of an automated fingerprint imaging system to detect and prevent duplicate aid cases. This system was first used three years ago in Los Angeles County in its General Relief program. In April 1994 the county and the Department of Social Services began using this system in the AFDC program. ...Based on the success of AFIRM in Los Angeles County the Department of Social Services intends to implement this system statewide once necessary State and federal approvals are obtained." 17 ✓ Eliminate SSVSSP for those with Drug/Alcohol diagnosis. This proposal is described in the Governor's Budget as follows: • "Therefore, the Department of Social Services will propose federal legislation to eliminate drug addiction or alcoholism as criteria for SSI/SSP eligibility. It is assumed that necessary State and federal legislation will be enacted by October 1, 1995. General Fund savings in 1995-96 are estimated to be $24.8 million in grants and $26.5 million in Medi-Cal expenditures." The concern here, of course, is whether it will be possible for the County to avoid the inevitable increase in the General Assistance populations, assuming that the Federal Government approves of this change. ✓ Grant reductions in SSI/SSP Program. This proposal is described in the Governor's Budget as follows: • "The Governor's Budget proposes a reduction in SSI/SSP grants of 8 percent for individuals and 10 percent for couples, exempting those in Non- Medical Out of Home Care living arrangements. In addition, anyone whose grant is eliminated because of other income will retain Medi-Cal eligibility at no cost to the individual. It is assumed that federal legislation eliminating the current maintenance of effort requirement would be enacted by October 1, 1995." ✓ Eliminate Federal Administrative fee for SSI/SSP Program. This proposal is described in the Governor's Budget as follows: • "Unlike AFDC, Food Stamps and Medi-Cal, the federal government not only establishes eligibility standards for SSI, it administers the program. In 1993-94, the federal government began charging states a fee for administration of the Supplemental Security Income's (SSI) State Supplemental Program (SSP). This fee will cost the General Fund $38 million in 1994-95 and is scheduled to increase to $61.2 million in 1995-96. "California and other states believe they will be successful in convincing the federal government to accept its responsibility to r support SSI/SSP administration. General Fund savings in 1995-96 are estimated to be $50 million based on an October 1, 1995 implementation date. i 18 ✓ Eliminate 10 optional Medi-Cal benefits. The Governor's Budget proposes to eliminate the following ten optional Medi-Cal benefits: • adult dental • psychology • chiropractic • podiatry • independent rehabilitation centers • acupuncture • medical supplies • 'speech services • audiology services • non-emergency medical transportation These services would continue to be provided to children under the age of 21, persons in long-term care and persons with developmental,disabilities. The elimination of these benefits is estimated to save $142.6 million in State General Fund dollars in the 1995-96 fiscal year. The question for the County is whether it is actually feasible to totally eliminate these services, just because the State determines that it will no longer pay for these services. In addition, the elimination of these optional services has been suggested on numerous occasions in the past and the Legislature has always rejected their elimination. ✓ Increase utilization management, limit rate increases for hospital contracts and reduce use of long-term care facilities. • Changes in these areas detailed in the Governor's Budget are estimated to save $75.8 million in the 1995-96 fiscal year. F. Anticipated Federal Reimbursement. The Governor's Budget anticipates reimbursement from the Federal Government for certain costs of service to illegal aliens: ✓ $310 million for health costs. ✓ $422 million in corrections costs. $732 million TOTAL The Governor's Budget identifies over $3.6 billion in services which are provided to illegal aliens, including $1.7 billion for education costs, $503 million in incarceration costs and $414 million in health case costs. In addition, the Governor's Budget identifies $954 million in the cost of providing education, health and welfare services to the citizen children of illegal immigrants. Despite the fact that the State has to date received only $130 million to reimburse the State for the costs of incarcerating illegal immigrant felons, the Governor has included $732 million in Federal reimbursement in the 1995-96 Budget, as is noted above. Not included are the $1.7 billion in education costs and the $954 million in the cost of providing services to the citizen children of illegal immigrants. While this seems a far more responsible position to take than was assumed in past State Budgets, there is still a great risk that the State will not receive some or all of these Federal funds, thereby placing the entire State Budget and therefore local governments in jeopardy again. 19 Ill. IMPACT OF THE MAJOR PROPOSALS CONTAINED IN THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET ON CONTRA COSTA COUNTY'S 1995-96 BUDGET. A. Expansion of Realignment to include Child Welfare Services (CWS), Foster Care and Adoptions. The Governor's budget proposes to transfer full funding responsibility for Child Welfare Services, Foster Care, Adoption, the Adoption Assistance Program, the Independent Living Program, Emergency Assistance and Family Preservation to the counties. In return, the counties would receive the proceeds of .22330 of sales tax revenues which would be deposited into a new realignment account. The California Department of Social Services would receive t/2 of one per cent of the new realignment funds. The sales tax growth would also be kept with the realignment funds. At this time, it is not known how the realignment fund would be allocated among the counties. Based on fiscal year 1994-95, the Governor's proposal would reduce state funding for the county's programs by $17,546,134. Of this, approximately $9.2 million lost is in categorical aid and approximately $8.3 million in administration. EFFECT OF REALIGNMENT II STATE ALLOCATIONS TO BE REPLACED BY REALIGNMENT FUNDS Categorical Aids: Foster Care 7,450,379 Severely Emotionally Disturbed 866,667 Adoption Assistance Program 885,439 9,202,485 Administration: CWS 5,597,818 Independent Living Program 249,344 Adoptions 270,702 Family Preservation 1,000,000 Adoptions Assistance Program 4,540 Emergency Assistance 11,349 Foster Care 603,876' Teen Pregnancy Disincentive 47,680 Homeless Assist./AFDC Restricted 68,660 Payments. Specialized Care 137,592 Options for Recovery 239,930 Foster Parent Training & Recruitment 112,158 8,343,649 GRAND TOTAL ' The current AFDC administration allocation covers administration of foster care eligibility. The$603,876 assumes the state will back that amount out of the AFDC allocation. Total is an estimate based on 10%of the AFDC allocation. 20 The Governor's budget also proposes unspecified new flexibility for counties. Other features include: requiring counties to develop county service plans with community involvement in the expenditure of children and family service funds; • development of outcome measures and performance indicators; a redesigned oversight role for the state that relates to setting minimum standards, providing competency training and technical assistance and encouraging intra-county integration. No specifics are yet available on the new role of the state in overseeing the counties. Questions which need to be answered over the next several weeks include the following: o What does the State project we will receive in 1995-96 from their proposal compared to our projections of our costs? o What real regulatory reform and flexibility will come with the transfer of funds and responsibility? o What regulatory reform and flexibility do we want from this proposal in the use of CWS, foster care and adoptions funds? o What input do we want to have to the formula for the distribution of the "growth" in this account beginning in the 1996-97 fiscal year? o How does this proposal coordinate with/conflict with our AB 1741 pilot project? B. Trial Court - AFDC Grant Alignment It appears from a very preliminary assessment of the proposed funding increase of the Trial Courts and return of the fine, forfeiture and penalty revenue versus the assumption of 50% of the AFDC grant costs that this County stands to lose approximately $2.4 million in the 1995-96 fiscal year. The Social Services Department reports that 1994-95 budgeted AFDC grant costs are $101,440,000, of which the County share is $2,550,000 (representing 2.5% of total costs or 5.0% of the non-federal share). The Governor's proposal increases the County's share by 10 times, from 5.0% to 50.0% of the non-federal share (from 2.5% to 25.0% of total costs). This will increase County costs to $25,500,000, an increase of $22,950,000. Offsetting this is a proposal to move to 70% funding of the Trial Court costs. The approved Trial Court budget for the 1994-95 fiscal year is about $34.5 million. The County receives approximately 37% of this amount or $12.7 million. If the County were to receive 70% of this amount, the total revenue would equal $24.15 million, an increase of $11.45 million. In addition, the County would be allowed to retain the fine, forfeiture and penalty revenue which is now sent to the State. In the 1994-95 fiscal year, this amount is estimated to total approximately $9.1 million. Combining these two revenue sources, the County would benefit by a total of $20.55 million. 21 However, when this benefit is offset against the increased cost of the AFDC grants, it is obvious that the County could sustain a loss of approximately $2.4 million. The question then becomes whether the County can obtain enough benefit from the other proposals suggested by the State to offset this net loss. C. Possibilities for offsetting deficit to counties. The State has suggested several ways in which counties can offset their share of the $241 million deficit: ✓ The State will provide a fund of $40 million ($20 million each State and Federal funds) for competitive application grants to improve AFDC administration in order to help reduce grant costs: Increase fraud prevention and detection efforts Increase child support efforts Increase job training and evaluation efforts Increase error rate reduction efforts We obviously have no way of knowing at this time whether the County would be successful in obtaining any of these funds. ✓ Improve controls over General Assistance costs by proposing legislation re shared housing, durational limits, counting medical care as a part of the benefit package and more flexibility in the use of alternatives to cash payments. Automation of the General Assistance system has just been completed. While it should result in increased program efficiencies, the system is just too new to accurately estimate the magnitude of these savings. The governor's proposal includes giving "broad authority" to counties over General Assistance. Mentioned options include: re-institution of the shared housing reduction allowances; the ability to impose time limits on the duration of aid; authorization to include medical care as part of the benefit package; and greater flexibility in the use of alternatives to cash payments. The county would certainly welcome broader authority for General Assistance; however, past experience has shown that the Legislature has not been willing to give that authority to the counties. ✓ Relief of Maintenance of Effort in Proposition 99/Realignment Health area. ✓ Relief of Maintenance of Effort in Realignment Mental Health area. ✓ Other, unidentified, mandate relief proposals which are to be identified. Questions: o What potential is there for this County taking advantage of each of these proposals? 22 D. AFDC Grant changes proposed: The Social Services Department has been able to estimate the savings from the 10% AFDC grant reduction (combining the 2.3% and 7.7% portions) and has been able to estimate the savings from the 15% grant reduction for AFDC families who remain on aid after six months and who have an able- bodied adult in the family budget unit. The 10% reduction would reduce what would otherwise be County costs by $2.56 million a year, assuming that the shift in the AFDC sharing ratio is implemented so that the counties are responsible for 50% of the non-federal share of the AFDC grants. This means that if the shift in grant sharing is implemented, the County stands to be at risk for some or all of $2.56 million if the 2.3% grant reduction and then the 7.7% grant reduction are not approved either by the Legislature or the Federal Government. In terms of the additional 15% grant reduction for AFDC families which remain on aid after six months where there is an able-bodied adult in the family budget unit, the County's costs would be reduced by $1.7 million annually from what they otherwise would be once this provision is fully implemented. Of course, as is true for the basic grant reduction, if the shift in AFDC grant sharing takes place and then the 15% additional reduction does not get approved either by the Legislature or the Federal Government, then this County would also be at risk for some or all of the $1.7 million in grant costs. It is our understanding that these grant reductions are incorporated in the State's estimates of the cost of shifting the sharing of the AFDC grants to the counties. Therefore, any failure or delay in implementing these reductions would have a direct and dramatic impact on this County (as well as every other county in California). We are not yet in a position to estimate any potential fiscal impact from the other elements of the AFDC grant reductions which are proposed by the Governor, although it is not expected that there are any additional savings to the counties in the 1995-96 fiscal year from these other provisions. E. Other Welfare/Social Services Program Initiatives: We are not yet in a position to evaluate the possible impact of these proposals on this County. As additional information becomes available to the County, we will certainly share that information with the Board of Supervisors. F. Anticipated Federal Reimbursement. The Governor's Budget anticipates reimbursement from the Federal Government for certain costs of service to illegal aliens: We are not yet in a position to evaluate the possible impact of these proposals on this County. As additional information becomes available to the County, we will certainly share that information with the Board of Supervisors. 23 IV. SUMMARY Including all of the items outlined above, the potential problem facing the County as we approach the 1995-96 County Budget can be summarized as follows: LOCAL PROBLEM $20,315,000 TO $25,915,000 REALIGNMENT II ? TRIAL COURT/AFDC TRANSFER $2,400,000' REMAINING DEFICIT AFTER TRIAL COURT/AFDC TRANSFER $6,000,000 EFFORTS TO OFFSET ? REMAINING DEFICIT AFDC GRANT REDUCTIONS ?2 OTHER INITIATIVES ? PENDING FEDERAL . ? REIMBURSEMENT POSSIBLE FISCAL EXPOSURE $28,715,000+ TO $34,315,000+ This figure is based on 199495 figures and assumes they will continue the same sharing ratios In the 1995-96 fiscal year. This figure could be reduced, depending on action taken on the AFDC grant levels. 2 This item can actually result in a savings ff the grant reductions receive State and Federal approval In a timely manner. 24 AD HOC BUDGET COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP COMPOSITION All members, Contra Costa Board of Supervisors Auditor-Controller Chair, CCC Health Plan Advisory Board Chair, Contractors' Alliance Chair, Family & Children's Services Advisory Comm Chair, Family & Children's Trust Comm Chair, Juvenile Justice Commission Chair, Maternal, Child and Adolescent Health Advisory Board Chair, Mental Health Advisory Board Chair, Mental Health Coalition Chair, Public & Environmental Health Advisory Board Community Services Director County Administrator County Counsel County Health Officer County Sheriff County Welfare Officer County Probation Officer Director, Crisis & Suicide Intervention Director, Office on Aging Executive Director, Contra Costa County Health Plan Executive Director, Family & Community Ser. Executive Director, Family Stress Center Exec. Vice President, CC Taxpayers Assn Health Services Department, Office of Service Integration Health Services Director Mental Health Director Representative, Council of Churches Representative, Advisory Council on Aging Representative, Drake House Representative, FACT & FACSAC Representative, Family Stress Center Representative, Juvenile Justice Comm Representative,Team sters Union, Local 315 Superintendent, CCC Office of Education Superior Court Judge Also invited to attend the meetings are representatives of the City/County Relations Committee and representatives of the Executive Directors of the Chambers of Commerce within the cities and unincorporated areas of the County.