HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10211997 - D8 8
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
FROM: � ~
PHIL BATCHELOR COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Iz Costa
°y °� County
DATE: October 16, 1997 '� c
SUBJECT:
IMPACT OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE'S AND GOVERNOR'S ACTIONS ON
THE 1997-98 COUNTY BUDGET
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Coordinated Trial Courts/Trial Court Funding:
1. RECOGNIZE that the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act of 1997 (AB
233, Chapter 850, Statutes of 1997) significantly reforms the Trial Court
Funding Program and redefines the fiscal and budgetary relationships
between the County and the Coordinated Trial Courts beginning with the
current fiscal year.
2. FURTHER RECOGNIZE that this Act removes the coordinated Trial Courts
from the County budget process and caps the County's contribution to the
Trial Courts at the FY 1994/1995 level.
3. FURTHER RECOGNIZE that, although funding the Trial Courts is now the
responsibility of the State and not the County, it is nonetheless important for
the County to maintain a cooperative working relationship with the Courts.
4. DIRECT the County Administrator to work with the Coordinated Trial Courts
and the County Auditor-Controller to implement necessary budgetary, fiscal,
accounting and other changes that may be required by the Act and bring back
to the Board any further items which require Board action.
r
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON October 21, 1997 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
ATTESTED October 21, 1997
Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
cc: See Page 14 SUPER ORS AND COU Y ADMINISTRATOR
(J,
BY-CL DEPUTY
5. ACKNOWLEDGE that the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act of 1997
recodifies the responsibility of the County with respect to Court facilities. It
establishes the State Task Force on Court Facilities to study the facility needs
of the Courts throughout the State and directs it to develop recommendations
to the Governor, Legislature and Judicial Council for funding such facilities.
6. DIRECT the County Administrator to work with the Coordinated Trial Courts
and return to the Board of Supervisors with a plan to provide for immediate
court facility needs that is consistent with the provisions of the Act, and further
DIRECT the County Administrator to provide to the Statewide Task Force on
Court Facilities any information that may be requested from the County
regarding current facilities.
Probation Department:
7. RECOGNIZE that the State Budget, by providing $4.4 million to the Probation
Department in TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) funds, will
significantly increase the ability of the Department to improve the
effectiveness of its operations, particularly in the juvenile area.
8. APPROVE the TANF Spending Plan which is required by the State before the
County can draw down those funds, as recommended by the Juvenile
Systems Planning Advisory Committee (JSPAC).
9. APPROVE construction of the 26-bed dormitory at the Orin Allen Youth
Rehabilitation Facility at an estimated cost of $1,460,000 and an annual
operating cost of $910,000 (all costs to be funded by General Fund
appropriations freed up as a result of TANF revenues), and DIRECT staff to
take all steps necessary to expedite completion of the project.
10. APPROVE a 16-bed Girls' Treatment Program to be located at the Lion's
Gate building of the Juvenile Hall complex, estimated to cost $1,560,000, and
an annual funding commitment by Probation toward the operating cost of the
program of$400,000 (all costs to be funded by General Fund appropriations
freed up as a result of TANF revenues), and DIRECT staff to take all steps
necessary to expedite completion of the project. The Probation and Health
Services Departments will determine total annual operating costs for the
program as a result of discussions on a program configuration.
11. APPROVE the attached Resolution [Attachment #1] creating 17 additional
positions for Juvenile Probation Field Services to be phased in according to
an approved budget plan agreed upon jointly by the County Administrator and
the County Probation Officer and RECOMMEND that 6 of the additional
Deputy Probation Officers be utilized in coordination with schools in the
community as anticipated in the Challenge Grant Program proposal. (This
school program may be further augmented if Round 2 Challenge Grant
funding materializes.)
12. APPROVE the attached Resolution [Attachment # 1] adding 2 Deputy
Probation Officers in Adult Probation Field Services to be phased in as
indicated in the prior recommendation.
13. APPROVE the attached Resolution [Attachment # 1] adding 13.additional
positions at the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility to be used to operate
the 26-bed dormitory when completed, with positions to be phased in as
-2-
needed upon joint agreement of the County Administrator and County
Probation Officer.
14. APPROVE allocation of up to $95,500 of Probation's TANF funds to be used
for probation foster care eligibility determination since financing for that
function has been transferred by State law from the Social Service
Department to the Probation Department, and DIRECT the Social Service
Director and the County Probation Officer to prepare an interagency
agreement.
15. DIRECT the County Administrator to work with the County Probation Officer
on the feasibility and timing of adding an additional 7.9 administrative,
support, and institutional positions as requested by the Department.
16. APPROVE the attached appropriation and revenue adjustments [Attachment
#2] to recognize TANF revenue, to provide for capital projects, and to make
other changes in the Probation Department's approved FY 1997-98 budget
as required by the preceding actions.
17. REQUEST the County Probation Officer to evaluate the increased
effectiveness of probation services made possible as a result of the preceding
actions and to report the results to the Board during the FY 1998-99 budget
hearings.
Social Service Department:
18. ACKNOWLEDGE that the fiscal consequences of the CalWORKS program
are still not fully known and DIRECT the County Administrator and the Social
Service Director to return to the Board with recommendations for any actions
necessary for implementation of CalWORKS.
Health Services Department:
19. ACKNOWLEDGE that the Health Services Department's projected shortfall
has been reduced from $10 million to $5.2 million since adoption of the
Recommended Budget.
20. DIRECT the County Administrator and Health Services Director to return to
the Board with corrective actions as necessary to ensure a balanced year-end
budget.
Code Enforcement:
21. APPROVE the attached appropriation adjustment[Attachment#3] allowing for
a one-time appropriation of$50,000 for high priority Code Enforcement needs
in the County.
Cost-of-Livina-Adjustments:
22. APPROVE the attached appropriation adjustment [Attachment#4] distributing
employee cost-of-living adjustments to Departments.
-3-
Tier III Retirement Plan:
23. ACKNOWLEDGE the enactment of AB 180 (Chapter 254, Statutes of 1997)
which establishes a Tier III Retirement Plan for Tier II County employees,
each of whom will be able to choose whether to join Tier III or remain with Tier
II.
24. REQUEST the County Administrator to report back to the Board on the
implementation of Tier III as events warrant a further report.
Other Issues:
25. EXPRESS the Board's appreciation for the enactment of AB 719 (Chapter
420, Statutes of 1997), which extends the Property Tax Administration
Program for an additional three years.
26. EXPRESS the Board's appreciation for the-enactment of SB 431 (Chapter
786, Statutes of 1997, which clarified that the County Library does not need
to contribute to the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF), now or
in the future.
BACKGROUND:
A. Coordinated Trial Courts/Trial Court Funding:-
Where We Were in August. At the time the County budget was adopted, the future
of the Trial Court Funding Act looked bleak. Shortly before the County Budget was
adopted, the Governor announced his decision to repay the State's $1.36 billion debt
to its pension fund (PERS) in a lump sum instead of stretching payments over
several years. This action eliminated some of the funds that counties anticipated
receiving, and increased the sense of gloom surrounding the State Budget.
Counties were being advised that trial court funding issues were in danger of being
obscured by higher profile welfare issues.
Where We Are Today. The Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act of 1997 (AB
233, Chapter 850, Statutes of 1997), passed both houses of the Legislature with
strong bi-partisan support shortly before the close of the Legislature's 1997 session.
The Act, which will become effective January 1, 1998, will consolidate all court
funding at the State level, giving the Legislature authority to make appropriations and
the Judicial Council responsibility to allocate funds to State Courts. Counties'
financial obligation will be capped at the fiscal year 1994-95 level for fiscal year
1997-98 and will be decreased to an equalized statewide pro-rata share of 42%
beginning fiscal year 1998-99. The Act requires the State to fund all future growth
in court operations costs. A companion bill, AB 420 (Baca), was passed and signed
by the Governor (Chapter 858, Statutes of 1997). It authorizes 40 new judgeships
statewide, contingent on an appropriation made in future legislation. The financing
mechanism to enable the State to absorb the growing court costs is the enactment
of new filing fees. California cities will also benefit from the Act through the
redirection of 100% of the base of all traffic fines written within city jurisdictions
effective for fiscal year 1998-99; currently, the State receives 50% of city traffic fines.
For Contra Costa County, the Act will cap the County subvention to the Courts at
approximately $27.3 million in fiscal year 1997-98, which represents the amount
spent by the County to fund court costs plus the 75% of County fines and forfeitures
transferred to the State in fiscal year 1994-95. In conjunction with the cap, however,
-4-
the County will continue to be responsible for those court-related costs that are
outside the definition of "court operations" including the maintenance of court
facilities, enhanced revenue collection, indigent defense, pretrial release and
probation services. There is concern over the Legislature's intent to continue to
define "court operations" as currently established in law; changes in that definition
could result in increased financial responsibilities for counties. Moreover, the extent
to which changes in the court system might impact other justice system agencies
such as the District Attorney, Public Defender and Probation cannot be determined
at this time. Thus, until these issues are resolved, the financial relationship among
the State, County and Courts is unclear.
Also passed and signed into law was AB 1438 (Escutia), Chapter 857, Statutes of
1997, which resolves the trial court collective bargaining issue through a Rule of
Court.
What Other Actions/Decisions Need to be Taken. The Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court
Funding Act of 1997 almost completely redefines the fiscal and budgetary
relationships between the County and the Coordinated Trial Courts beginning in the
current fiscal year. During the transitional period of the next three months, fiscal and
budgetary issues will be reviewed and redefined by the Courts, the Auditor-
Controller, and the County Administrator. Because the Act removes the Coordinated
Trial Courts from the County budget process, these issues are quite significant.
Although funding the Trial Courts is now the responsibility of the State and not the
County, it is more important than ever for the County to maintain a cooperative
working relationship with the Courts. The County Administrator is working with the
Courts and the County Auditor-Controller to implement the budgetary, fiscal,
accounting,, and other changes that may be required as a result of the Trial Court
Funding legislation and will recommend further actions to the Board as required.
Some of the transitional issues currently being reviewed are:
O The FY 1997-98 Adopted County Budget reflects the County's support of trial
court operations as an operating transfer (subsidy) to the Trial Court Operations
Fund. Consistent with the Act and generally accepted accounting principles, this
Trial Court Operations Fund will need to be unappropriated and a new fund will need
to be established. This new Trial Court Operations Fund will operate similar to
school district funds. By definition, the Board of Supervisors will have no authority
over the expenditures in this fund. There are, however, certain operations that will
stay in the General Fund and require some mechanism for transfer of costs. As
mentioned above, child dependency cases (Welfare & Institutions Code Section 300)
where, because of a conflict, representation is assigned to private counsel, and court
security will (at least for the time being) remain in the General Fund. The Act
generally requires that the County make payments to the State rather than to the
special revenue fund. A mid-year budget adjustment will be required to move these
appropriations between the funds: The only amounts remaining in the fund should
be those amounts required for funding the Trial Courts during the first half of the
current fiscal year (July 1 - December 31, 1997) and amounts required to fund
operations during the last half of the current fiscal year (January 1 - June 30, 1998)
which are not funded by the State.
4 The Auditor-Controller will need to process transactions to reflect the "disposition"
of equipment which, by law, becomes the property of the Courts. The County will
also have to work with the Courts to determine what sort of alternative fixed asset
accounting mechanism they desire and then implement that alternative.
-5-
4 The Courts will have to determine the level of budgetary accounting and control
they want the County's accounting system to provide as well as their procedures for
preparing, approving, and submitting budget changes. The Auditor-Controller's
procedures will have to be modified accordingly.
4 The Courts currently have to comply with a variety of County ordinances and
procedures dealing with administrative matters such as employment, travel, pay
practices, and procurement. Although the legislation requires that the County
provide, and the Court use, existing support services through June 30, 1999, it does
not address whether County administrative policies and ordinances have to be
followed. Discussions have begun to ensure there is resolution of this issue before
January 1, 1998.
4 The County has long term debt associated with court operations recorded in the
General Fund. A determination needs to be made regarding whether this debt
remains as a County obligation. If it does not, the Auditor-Controller needs to make
appropriate changes in accounting procedures.
� The legislation indicates that, with the exception of collection costs, grand jury
costs, etc., the County is not obligated for funding the cost of trial court operations,
as defined, beyond what we pay to the State. At the same time, the legislation
removes Board of Supervisors' budgetary control over the Courts, requires the
County Auditor-Controller to "make payments from the funds (provided by the State)
as directed" by the Presiding Judge, or his or her designee, and prohibits County
charges to the Courts for interest expense. Policy needs to be developed regarding
whether the Auditor-Controller will process Court payment requests if there is not
sufficient cash in the fund to make the payment. Cash flow problems could arise
from State delays in adopting budgets, the,fact that the State will not make payments
on the first day of the quarter, the fact that certain court operations will be paid from
resources arising from grants which may not be received until well after the related
expenditures occur, because the Courts could overspend their State approved
budgets, and because Court expenditures may not be spread out evenly throughout
the year. If the County does decide to refuse to accept payment requests when
there is no cash, the County will have to establish procedures to more promptly pay
the Court for any County-funded programs which remain in the Court budget.
� The legislation changes the allocation of fines and eliminates the "maintenance
of effort" (MOE) requirement associated with fine revenues. The legislation also
continues the "Comprehensive Collection" program. The Comprehensive Collection
Program allows counties which use certain specified collection techniques to collect
delinquent fines and penalties to offset the cost of the collection techniques from
fines collected before remitting them as required by law. Since the MOE
requirement will be eliminated, the County needs to reevaluate whether participation
in the Comprehensive Collection Program would be beneficial.
4 The legislation contains language (Government Code Section 77205) which is
intended to require that fine revenue growth be shared between the County and the
State. As it reads now, cities will get no part of the growth in fines. Based on past
experience, cities will redirect law enforcement priorities to areas which do not
generate fines if such a law remains in effect. It is likely that this language will be
changed in a "clean-up" bill.
Because of Contra Costa County's strict interpretation of previous trial court funding
regulations, which were designed to hasten the implementation of State funding, this
County has far fewer changes to make than most; however, many more issues than
those listed here need to be addressed in the very near future.
-6-
Although there are complex transitional issues yet to be worked out between the
County and the Courts, the County Administrator's Office has already begun to work
with the Courts and Auditor-Controller and will come back to the Board on specific
implementation requirements.
B. Probation Department:
Where We Were in August. At the time the County Budget was adopted, the budget
situation for the Probation Department was precarious. Decisions made at the State
level had the potential for causing huge swings in financing for probation services.
Since specific recommendations could not be made, a status report was provided
on pending funding issues including Round 2 of the Juvenile Challenge Grant, Camp
Subsidy, TANF Grant Funds, the Federal Crime Bill (Construction), Juvenile
Construction Bonds and Future Corps. A list of needs was also reported including
Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility (the Ranch) Expansion, Girls' Treatment
Program, Juvenile Hall Improvement, Family Preservation Program, Juvenile Hall
Medical Services, CYA Fees, Electronic Monitoring Expansion, the Community
Probation Officers Program, SafeFutures Program Enhancements, and an
Outcomes Evaluation. The County took a holding position until the necessary
decisions were made by the Governor.
Where We Are Today. Foremost for the Probation Department, the Welfare Reform
Bill was passed with the TANF allocation for probation services intact [see Chapter
3.2 of Part 6 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code (commencing with
Section 18220) as added by AB 1542, Chapter 270, Statutes of 1997]. Moreover,
the statewide TANF allocation for probation services of $140.9 million was
augmented by $33 million to include the camp subsidy, formerly paid from the State
General Fund.
The State Budget eliminated funding for Round 2 of the Juvenile Challenge Grant,
which would have allowed for the expansion of the pilot Community Probation Officer
program in this County. The County Probation Officer is optimistic that mid-year
funding may be forthcoming because of an anticipated healthy California economy.
The Probation Department's adopted budget includes sufficient funds required to
match any forthcoming Challenge Grant. Earlier this fiscal year, the Department
opted to apply the matching funds towards 3 new positions throughout the
Department.
Legislation which would have eased the strain of new CYA fees by phasing them in
over a two-year period failed to pass [AB 70 (Woods) was.held in the Senate
Appropriations Committee]. Moreover, counties were recently advised that the CYA
intends to increase its fees to counties due to the abrupt drop in CYA commitments
resulting from the levying of the fees. Probation departments across the State have
protested the fee increase and are exploring more feasible alternatives to CYA
incarceration. Provision for CYA fees was made in the Probation Department's
approved 1997-98 budget; however, in light of these recent developments, the
adequacy of such provision cannot be certain.
What Other Actions/Decisions Need to be Taken. The amorphous Federal Violent
Offender Incarceration Grant Program (Federal Crime Bill) now appears to exclude
Contra Costa County's proposal to expand the Boys' Ranch in the latest revision of
its eligibility requirements. The program has now been divided into two statewide
funding pots, one for adult facilities construction of$17.2 million and one for juvenile
facilities construction of $37.4 million. Of the $37.4 million pot, $17.4 million is
available to all counties and the remaining $20 million is available to counties with
populations of less than 200,000. As originally described, the eligibility requirements
-7-
for the $17.4 million pot were sufficiently broad to encompass the proposed
expansion of the Boys' Ranch since the expansion would "free up" secure beds at
the Juvenile Hall for violent offenders. However, earlier this month, the Federal
guidelines were changed to stipulate that only "Boot Camp" beds may be added to
free up secure beds. Boot Camps are defined as corrections programs for juvenile
offenders of no more than six months confinement involving commitment of non-
violent offenders; adherence by inmates to a regimented schedule that involves
discipline, physical training and work; participation by inmates in appropriate
education, job training and substance abuse counseling or treatment; and post-
incarceration aftercare services. Though improbable, the County Probation Officer
is presently exploring the possibility and practicality of reclassifying the Boys' Ranch
into a Boot Camp facility to allow for participation in the Federal Crime Bill program.
The State requires a Board-approved TANF Spending Plan consistent with TANF
goals and objectives in order for the Probation Department to claim and receive
TANF funds. Working with the JSPAC, the Probation Department has developed
the.required TANF Spending Plan which consists of measuring and estimating the
costs via time studies for existing probation services qualifying as eligible costs
under the 23 qualifying TANF activities or services. While the State has not
prescribed a specific format for the required Board approval, it is recommended that
the Board approve the above methodology for identifying and capturing TANF-
eligible costs. The TANF Spending Plan will allow the Department to submit claims
for TANF funds this fiscal year for approximately $4.4 million. In future years, the
TANF allocation for the County Probation Department is expected to decrease to
about $3.8 million due to an anticipated switch in the allocation formula from an
historical to a per capita basis.
The influx of $4.4 million this fiscal year in TANF funds for probation services will
allow the Department to meet its highest-priority needs. The Probation Department,
with the support of the County Administrator and JSPAC, has identified its budget
priorities for consideration by the Board. The budget plan comprises two types of
costs: one-time and on-going. The one-time costs include a $3 million set-aside for
construction costs to expand the Boys' Ranch, estimated at $1.46 million, and
renovate the Lion's Gate Facility, estimated at $1.56 million, to house a proposed
Girls' Treatment Program. Although the Department originally planned to finance
part of the construction costs with Federal Crime Bill Funds, receipt of those funds
now appears unlikely, placing the full financing burden on funds made available
through the award of TANF funds. The County will pursue financial assistance for
both of these worthy projects from Future Corps in the hopes of mitigating some of
the County financial burden.
On-going costs in the budget plan include costs to maintain and restore some
services eliminated during prior-year budget reductions, and some program
enhancements. It is proposed that the positions requested by the Department to
restore and enhance services be phased in according to a schedule agreed to by the
County Probation Officer and the County Administrator to allow for sufficient funds
to be available to expedite the two recommended construction projects. Therefore,
the Department will incur only partial-year costs for those positions added mid-year.
With regard to the on-going costs, the budget plan places the highest priority on
juvenile needs, adding 17 positions to reduce per deputy caseloads in supervision
and investigation, to eliminate the banked (computer-monitored)juvenile caseload,
to reduce the use of overtime, to provide transitional and aftercare services for
youths graduating from the Summit Unit, and to provide more responsive services
to the courts and to arresting agencies. It is recommended that the juvenile
-8-
supervision deputies be assigned to specific school campuses, consistent with the
ideals of the Community Probation Officer program, to enhance the presence of
probation services in the community. The annual cost of the additional 17 positions
is estimated at $1.2 million. The plan also adds 2 positions in the Adult Division to
increase responsiveness to the courts on presentence felony investigations and to
augment supervision of persons convicted of felonies involving domestic violence.
The annual cost of the additional 2 positions is estimated at $130,000. The annual
cost of institutional services, clerical and administrative support positions requested
by the Department is estimated at $420,000.
The budget plan includes additional on-going costs beginning in FY 1998-99 for
funding towards the annual operational costs of the new Boys' Ranch dormitory and
the Girls' Treatment Program. The full-year cost for the Boys' Ranch dorm, which
is expected to open in October 1998, is projected at $910,000. The full-year cost for
the Girls' Treatment Program, which is expected to become operational in March
1999, will depend on the final program configuration which is being developed jointly
by the Probation and Health Services Departments. The Probation Department's
annual funding commitment to the Girl's Treatment Program is $400,000.
C. Social Service Department:
Where We Were in August.
At the time the Board of Supervisors adopted the Recommended County Budget, the
State Legislature and Governor had not yet agreed on California's welfare reform
plan. Since then, AB 1542 (Ducheny) has been enacted, creating the California
Work Opportunity and Responsibility for Kids (CaIWORKS) program.
Where We Are Today.
AB 1542 recasts programmatic as well as fiscal provisions related to welfare and
other social service programs. John Cullen, Social Service Director, will be
presenting a workshop for the Board of Supervisors at its October 28, 1997, meeting
to review the programmatic changes required under the new law. This report
focuses on the fiscal consequences of welfare reform.
Under CalWORKS, the County will receive a single block grant allocation for
administration of what used to be the following programs: AFDC, GAIN, CalLearn,
Child Care Health and Safety(Provider Self-Certification and Trust Line)and the four
County child care programs: Transitional Child Care, GAIN Child Care, Non-GAIN
Education and Training Child Care and CalLearn Child Care. Contra Costa's State
allocation for FY 1997-98 is $23,519,486 with a preliminary maintenance of effort
(MOE) requirement of $4,143,897, for a total of$27,663,383.
There are numerous transitional issues and caveats associated with the allocation:
The child care portion is only for the first six months of the fiscal year
and the allocation for January through June 1998 will be made at some
later, unspecified date.
The County MOE requirement is preliminary and will only be finalized
after the FY 1996-97 closeout for all of the programs which now
constitute CalWORKS.
The County's FY 98-99 MOE will be the same as the finalized FY 97-98
MOE.
-9-
If the County does not spend 100% of its MOE, the State block grant
allocation will be reduced proportionately.
If the County spends all of its MOE, but not 100% of its State allocation,
unspent State funds can be carried forward for up to two years (as
opposed to the former system where funds unspent by counties were
reallocated among counties based on need).
For FY 1997-98 only, Contra Costa could receive an increased State
allocation based on the old system of reallocating unspent FY 1996-97
GAIN funds. If so, the increased allocation would be one time only and
would not affect the County's MOE.
The fiscal rules of the former system will continue until December 31,
1997.
Detailed tracking of expenditures is still required, using the 49 program
codes supported by worker time studies.
Prior State approval is still required for certain types of expenditures,
such as purchase of computers or building modifications.
Under Federal law, administrative costs for TANF are capped at 15%.
At this time, however, there is no clear definition as to what constitutes
an administrative expense versus a direct service expense.
All of the County's CalWORKS expenditures must be financed within the State block
grant allocation. Any excess expenditures are 100% net county cost. Also, all
expenditures must be consistent with the County's CalWORKS plan. However, the
State does not specify the relative amounts of money that the County must spend
on the different CalWORKS components or on meeting State and Federal reporting
requirements. There will need to be a balance between fully meeting the funding
requirements of each of the County's plan components and other requirements and
the allocation of available revenues among those components.
Foster Care Administration, Food Stamps and Medi-Cal were also affected by the
CalWORKS legislation. Foster Care Administration now has an MOE of $215,296
with an allocation from the state of $558,237. Including the Federal funding, the
Foster Care total is $1,594,963. Foster Care eligibility for probation wards is now the
financing responsibility of the Probation Department, rather than being folded into
the Social Service allocation. Public Assistance Food Stamps were separated from
the former AFDC program and combined with the non-assisted Food Stamps into
a single Food Stamp program which is still an entitlement program with cost sharing
(50% federal, 35% state, 15 % county). The Medi-Cal program is still an entitlement
program; however, the State administrative allocation is capped and any over
expenditures are the financial responsibility of the County.
What Other Actions/Decisions Need to be Taken.
To date, there has been no clarification of the State's position on the aid portion of
CalWORKS. It is unclear if aid is still an entitlement program, if our share is still
2.5% of the total or whether we will be given an allocation based on prior year
expenditures.
The State has indicated that it will be issuing at least a minimal fiscal letter by
November 1, 1997, with time study instructions by late December. Hopefully, some
-10-
of the outstanding questions will be resolved prior to January 1, 1998, when the
CaiWORKS program becomes effective.
D. Health Services Department:
Where We Were in August.
The Recommended Budget reported that the Health Services Department faced a
budgetary challenge of approximately $10 million for FY 1997-98, due to a variety
of factors largely outside the control of the Department. Contractor COLAs,
employee COLAs, pay equity and other salary and benefit increases were estimated
at $4.9 million. Increases in worker's compensation, medical liability premiums,
general liability premiums and maintenance costs for the new hospital were
estimated to be as high as $5 million.
Where We Are Today.
At this time, the shortfall has been reduced to an estimated $5.2 million, due to a
variety of factors. These include:
• AB 1139 (Chapter 723, Statutes of 1997), a disproportionate
share funding bill was passed which may provide an additional
$1 to $3 million in revenue. Approval by the Federal Health Care
Financing Administration is anticipated, but not certain, and will
likely not be known until mid-January or February 1998.
• The Local Initiative appears to be performing at appropriate fiscal
levels with a projected revenue surplus of approximately $1.1
million. This projection is very "soft" due to the relative minimal
start up time with this patient population and anticipated State
reimbursement rate changes scheduled sometime in October
1997.
• The County Administrator's Office has provided funding of$1.2
million to partially offset COLA-related increases.
• On the negative side, adoption of the Federal Budget and
changes in Medi-Care reimbursement for such items as
diagnosis related group (inpatient DRGs), medical education,
etc. is anticipated to reduce revenues by approximately
$500,000.
What Other Actions/Decisions Need to be Taken.
In summary, the Health Services Department is now facing a projected $5.2 million
problem. The County Administrator's Office and Health Services Department will
monitor the situation and provide the Board of Supervisors with appropriate
recommendations for corrective actions as necessary.
E. Code Enforcement:
Where We Were in August.
During the Budget Hearings, the Board discussed the merits of authorizing a one-
time $100,000 for code enforcement. The Board decided to allocate $50,000 for the
• -11-
program and delay the remaining $50,000 until December, when the Summit
Program for girls would be decided.
Where,We Are Today.
However, as discussed in an earlier portion of this report, the Girls' Treatment
Program is recommended for approval as a result of an allocation of TANF monies
freeing up general fund monies. Thus, the concern by the Board for financing the
Girl's Program prior to the code enforcement program has been met.
F. Cost-of-Living-Increases (COLA's):
Where We Were in August.
.During the July presentation of the Recommended Budget, it was pointed out that
for the most part, costs for employee salary and benefit increases were not included
in the budget. During the Budget Hearings, the Board directed that the County
Administrator work with several Departments to prepare a budget plan with Cost-of-
Living-Adjustments included. On September 23, an appropriation adjustment was
approved by the Board which added cost-of-living-adjustment to these Departments.
Where We Are Today.
Attached to this Board Order is an appropriation adjustment which allocates
appropriations to the remaining Departments for COLAs and other required costs to
complete the Final Budget. The total adjustment is $3.4 million, and does not
include the costs to be offset by departmental revenue.
G. Tier III Retirement Plan:
Where We Were in August.
As a result of contract negotiations with the Contra Costa Labor Coalition, the Board
of Supervisors sponsored legislation to provide a Tier III Retirement System for
County employees now members of Tier II. Assemblyman Tom Torlakson agreed
to carry the legislation and introduced AB 180 for this purpose.
The Tier III Retirement Plan permits employees with five (5) years of retirement
credited service to make a one-time irrevocable election to opt for the Tier III Plan.
All benefit entitlements for Tier III will be the same as Tier I, except for disability
which will be the same as the current Tier II disability provisions.
The County's employer contributions and subvention of employee contributions for
employees electing Tier III will_be financed by reducing the employees' October 1,
1997 wage increase by $3 million (this includes 1% increase, benefit load, and pay
equity). Costs to the County in excess of$3 million per year will be funded by future
wage increases. Savings accrued to the County will be used to offset future County
Tier III retirement costs.
Where We Are Today.
The Governor signed AB 180 on August 9, 1997. The bill is now Chapter 254,
Statutes of 1997. The bill becomes effective January 1, 1998.
What Other Actions/Decisions Need to be Taken.
-12-
The County is currently working with the Retirement Association and the Labor
Coalition to develop a timeline for implementation including member education, a six
(6) month initial election/enrollment period, the actuarial review and report, and the
thirty day period within which the Labor Coalition may notify the County to implement
the one percent (1%) October 1, 1997 wage increase in lieu of implementation of the
Tier III Retirement Plan.
The County and the Labor Coalition have tentatively agreed that the Tier III
Retirement Plan will include conversion of Tier II retirement time to Tier III time with
all costs, including those of the employer, to be borne exclusively by the employee
electing conversion.
The Human Resources Director is consulting with the County Counsel's Office to
determine what actions, if any, are required to effect the conversion component of
the Tier III Retirement Plan. Additional actions will be brought to the Board as they
are identified. The principal decision the Board has to make under the legislation is
when to trigger the six-month election/enrollment period.
H. Other Issues:
❑ AB 719 (Torlakson) - Property Tax Administration Program - (Chapter
420, Statutes of 1997).
❑ SB 431 (Lee) - Library ERAF Clarification - (Chapter 786, Statutes of
1997).
Where We Were in August.
Property Tax Administration Program:
AB 719 (Torlakson) was of vital interest to the Assessor. The Property Tax
Administration Program, which began in the 1995-96 fiscal year, provides significant
financial support for the Assessor and incentive to keep property tax assessments
up to date and to reduce the backlog of assessment appeals. Contra Costa County
receives a loan of$2 million a year. To receive these funds, the County enters into
a contract with the State Department of Finance. If the performance by the
Assessor's Office meets the conditions in the contract, the State Department of
Finance can forgive the loan and the County keeps the money. We have'received
our allocation of $2 in each of the three years and, to date, have not had to return
any of the money. The program was set to expire June 30, 1998.
Library Contribution to the ERAF:
SB 431(Lee) was of equally vital interest to the County Librarian and the Auditor-
Controller. We have been engaged in an appeal with the State Controller's Office
over an interpretation of the requirements that certain special districts contribute
property tax revenue to the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF). The
State Controller concluded that Contra Costa County should have contributed to the
ERAF on behalf of the County Library for the 1992-93 and 1993-94 fiscal years. The
Controller also concluded that libraries did not have to contribute after the 1993-94
fiscal year. The Legislature felt that the Controller's conclusion that libraries did not
have to contribute to the ERAF following the 1993-94 fiscal year was in error and not
consistent with their intent so they enacted a provision this summer (AB 1589,
Chapter 290, Statutes of 1997) which was intended to clarify that libraries were
intended to contribute after the 1993-94 fiscal year and into the future. This
provision was of concern to the County because it immediately placed at risk some
-13-
$5.5 million retroactively and $1 million + per year into the future. If we were to lose
our appeal with the State Controller, the County might have been forced to
retroactively contribute to the ERAF on behalf of the County Library.
The County has argued that the Library is not required to contribute to the ERAF
because it did not impose a separate property tax rate prior to the passage of
Proposition 13 and was, therefore, ineligible for any of the State bailout that was
provided to cities, counties and special districts following the passage of Proposition
13 in proportion to the amount of property tax that had been imposed prior to
Proposition 13. The State has rationalized the existence of the ERAF as an effort
by the State to recover some of this bailout.
Two other counties (Sacramento & Sonoma) were in similar circumstances as
Contra Costa but for different reasons. The three counties agreed to pursue
legislation to clarify that for each county's separate reason the three counties'
libraries did not have to contribute to the ERAF.
Where We Are Today.
Property Tax Administration Program:
AB 719 was authored by Assemblyman Tom Torlakson in an effort to extend the
sunset date of June 30, 1998. Mr. Torlakson was successful in getting the bill
through the Legislature and signed by the Governor. It is now Chapter 420, Statutes
of 1997. The bill extends the sunset date for the Property Tax Administration
Program an additional three years - through June 30, 2001.
Library Contribution to the ERAF:
SB 431 was also passed and signed into law by the Governor. It is now Chapter
786, Statutes of 1997. The bill confirms the position taken by the County that the
County Library does not need to contribute to the ERAF for the reasons indicated
above.
cc: County Administrator
Auditor-Controller
County Assessor
Health Services Director
Social Service Director
County Probation Officer
Executive Officer, Coordinated Trial Courts
County Librarian
Director of Human Resources
Tony Enea, Senior Deputy County Administrator
George Roemer, Senior Deputy County Administrator
Sara Hoffman, Senior Deputy County Administrator
-14-
Attachment# 1
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Resolution on October 21, 1997, by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Gerber, Canciamilla and DeSaulnier
NOES: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Uilkema
ABSTAIN: None
Resolution No. 971 563
WHEREAS, the Probation Department stands to receive up to $4.4 million in Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families (TANF) revenues from the State for qualifying probation activities; and
WHEREAS, receipt of TANF funds will release obligations from a like amount of appropriations in
the Probation Department and allow for the enhancement and restoration of probation services;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT BY THE BOARD RESOLVED that the following positions are added
effective November 1, 1997 and are to filled in accordance with an approved budget plan agreed upon jointly
by the County Administrator and the County Probation Officer.
Class
Classification Coe Quantily Program
Clerk-Experienced Level JWXB 1.0 Boys' Ranch Dormitory
Deputy Probation Officer III TATA 6.0 Juvenile Supervision (in schools)
Deputy Probation Officer III TATA 2.0 Juvenile Intake
Deputy Probation Officer III TATA 1.0 Juvenile Placement Transition
Deputy Probation Officer III 7ATA 3.0 Juvenile Investigation
Deputy Probation Officer III 7ATA 1.0 Adult Felony Supervision
Deputy Probation Officer III 7ATA 1.0 Boys' Ranch Dormitory
Deputy Probation Officer III 7ATA 1_0 Domestic Violence
Sub-total 15.0
Institutional Services Worker 1 KVB 1.0 Boys' Ranch Dormitory
Institutional Supervisor I 7KHA 1.0 Boys' Ranch Dormitory
Probation Counselor I 7KWB 2.0 Juvenile Electronic Monitoring
Probation Counselor I 7KWB 8.0 Boys' Ranch Dormitory
Probation Counselor I 7KWB 1_0 Juvenile Placement Transition
Sub-total 11.0
Probation Manager 7AGB 1.0 Juvenile Field Services
Probation Manager 7AGB 1_0 Boys' Ranch Dormitory
Sub-total 2.0
Probation Supervisor I 7AHA 1.0 Juvenile Supervision
TOTAL 32.0
1 hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Supervisors on the date shown:
ATTESTED:October 21,1997
PHIL BATCHELOR,Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
and County Ad 'nistrator
,
Contact: Julie Enea (510)335-1055 BY Deputy
cc: Probation Department
Human Resources Department
County Administrator
RESOLUTION NO. 97/563
Attachment # 2
AUDITOR-COWROU.ER USE ONLY
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FNrAL APPROVAL NEEDED BY:
APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENT QX BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T/C 27 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
ACCOUNT CODING BUDGET UNIT: PROBATION(0308), PLANT ACQUISITION(0111), FLEET SERVICES(0063)
EXPENDrTURE
OROANMATION SUB-ACCOUNT EXPEWITURE ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 40ECREASE> INCREASE
4413 4136 Boys'Ranch Expansion 1,602,420 00
4413 4137 Lion's Gabe Remodel 1,515,000 00
4263 4953 Autos and Trucks 275,000 00
3000 2132 Minor Computer Equipment 295,000 00
3000 2310 Professional Services(Automation Consultant) 50,000 00
3060 3060 Requested Maintenance(San Pablo Safety Issues) 25,000 00
3060 2131 Minor Equipment(Mobile Communications) 30,000 00
3060 2160 Clothing(Bullet Proof Vests) 10,000 00
3041 2310 Professional Services(Electronic Monitors) 42,000 00
3000 2310 Professional Services(Automation Coordinator 35,000 00
3000 1011 Permanent Salaries 22,030 00
3041 1011 Permanent Salaries 10,950 00
3060 1011 Permanent Salaries 213,570 00
3120 1011 Permanent Salaries 134,270 00
3160 1011 Permanent Salaries 36,920 00
3000 1042 FICA 740 00
3041 1042 FICA 370 00
TOTALS
APPROVED EXPLANATION OF RECAJEST
AUDITOR-CONTROLLER. To set up appropriations and new revenue for the Temp-
DATE,,/ orary Assistance for Needy Families(TANF) program.
COUNTY ADMI STRATO This source of funding replaces the former Emergency
BY: DATE l0 �3 � Assistance(Title IV-A)that became part of Welfare
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Reform. This adjustment is part of the Board action that
YES: SUPERVISORS ROGERS, creates additional positions and approves the TANF
GERBER,DESAULNIER,CANCIAMILLA
spending plan.
W. Nobe
1�BSr�tIT:SuPE2u tsoa. u it,��mh �
Phil Batchelor,Clerk of the Board of d 8 Prj Coord 10/15/97
Supervisors and Car*Administrator TUR ATE
r
APPROPRIATON APOO
DATE IO- -q ADJ.JOURNAL NO
(Deputy)
(M129 Rev 2/86)
AUDITOR-CONTROLLER USE ONLY
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FINAL APPROVAL NEEDED BY:
APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENT �X BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T/C 27 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
ACCOUNT CODING BUDGET UNIT: PROBATION(0308), PLANT ACQUISITION(0111), FLEET SERVICES(0063)
EXPENDITURE
ORGANIZATION 8UBACCOUNT EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION -OECREASE> INCREASE
3060 1042 FICA 7,140 00
3120 1042 FICA 4,490 00
3160 1042 FICA 1,230 00
3000 1044 Retirement Expense 4,250 00
3041 1044 Retirement Expense 2,110 00
3060 1044 Retirement Expense 41,210 00
3120 1044 Retirement Expense 25,910 00
3160 1044 Retirement Expense 7,120 00
3000 1063 Unemployment Insurance 40 00
3041 1063 Unemployment insurance 20 00
3060 1063 Unemployment Insurance 370 00
3120 1063 Unemployment Insurance 240 00
3160 1063 Unemployment Insurance 60 00
3000 1070 Workers'Compensation 400 00
3041 1070 Workers'Compensation 200100
3060 1070 Workers'Compensation 3,8601 00
3120 1070 Workers'Compensation 2,430 00
3160 1070 Workers'Compensation 650 00
0990 6301 Appropriable New Revenue 4,400,000 00
0990 6301 Reserve for Contingencies 4,400,000 00
TOTALS 4,400,000 00 8,800,000 00
APPROVED EXPLANATION OF REQUEST
AUDITOR-C ER: To set up appropriations and new revenue for the Temp-
BY: DAT o /� 7 orary Assistance for Needy Families(TANF)program.
COU M N RA This source of funding replaces the former Emergency
BY: DATE ���23 Assistance(Title IV-A)that became part of Welfare
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Reform. This adjustment is part of the Board action that
YES: SUPERVISORS ROGERS,NOM creates additional positions and approves the TANF
GERBER,DESAULNIER,CANCIAMILLA spending plan.
NO: AJ o k9 6
I-BSBAT(': 5UPwv�u tsoR U iLZOVnA
Phil Batchelor,Clerk of the Board of "— d S P ' Coord 10/15/97
Sage ors and Coanty dministrator SIGNATURE TITLE
APPROPRIATION APOO
BY: u DATE-UL-awl k1--a-7 ADJ.JOURNAL NO.
(ePtAy)
(M129 Rev 2W)
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
ESTIMATED REVENUE ADJUSTMENT
T/C 24
ACCOUNT CODING BUDGET UNIT: PROBATION(0308)
REVENUE
ORGANIZATION ACCOUNT REVENUE ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION INCREASE <DECREASE>
3120 9473 Federal Aid TANF 3,800,000 00
3160 9473 Federal Aid TANF 600,000 00
TOTALS 4,400,000 00
APPROVED EXPLANATION OF REQUEST
AUDITOR-CONTROLLER: To set up new revenue for the Temporary Assistance
BY:� DATEID7 for Needy Families(TANF) program.
COUNTY ADMI TRAT
BY: DATE 1
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
YES' SUPERVISORS ROGERS,
GERBER,DESAULNIER,CANCIAMILLA
NO: N oto b`
A8-'*&Tr: SU PsQ,u isoR. u t L.l;.—
Phil Batchelor,Cleric of the Board of Bud& Prj Coord. 10/15/97
Sup ors and Cw*Administrator SIGKATURE TITLE DTE
a REVENUE ADJ. RAOO S'oa-y
B DATE) =2I—`1 JOURNAL No.
Page 1
Attachment# 3
AUDITOR-CONTROLLER USE ONLY
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FINAL APPROVAL NEEDED BY:
APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENT X❑ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T/C 27 F-1 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
ACCOUNT CODING BUDGET UNIT: 0591 Building Inspection
EXPENDITURE
ORGANIZATIONSUB-ACCOUNT EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION <DECREASE> INCREASE
0591 2310 Professional and $50,000 c
Specialized Services
0990 6301 Reserve for Contingen cies $50,000 00
0990 6301 Appropriable Revenue $50,000 Oo
TOTALS $50,000 go $100,000 o c
APPROVED EXPLANATION OF REQUEST
AUDITOR-CONTROLLER:
BY: �'' DATE To finance code enforcement program.
COUNTY ADMIN TRATOR:
BY: DATE/0-23-97
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
SUPERVISORS ROGERS,
YES: GERBER,DESAULNIER,CANCIAMILLA
NO: 00 AJ 15
A G.Ssk-r : suPErz v l s oR U t uz�.e MA
Phil Batchelor,Clerk of the Board of SIGNA RE TITLE DATE
Supery ors and County Administrator
APPROPRIATION APOO
BY: DATE ADJ.JOURNAL NO.
(M129 Rev 2/86)
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
ESTIMATED REVENUE ADJUSTMENT
• T/C 24
ACCOUNT CODING BUDGET UNIT: 0005-General County Revenue
REVENUE
ORGANIZATION ACCOUNT REVENUE ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION INCREASE <DECREASE>
0005 9122 Landfill Surcharge $50,000 cc
_ TOTALS $50,000100
APPROVED (EXPLANATION OF REQUEST
AUDITOR-CONTROLLER: (Recognize revenue f,for a county code
BY: DATE !° �`��� lenforcement program.
I
COUNTY ADM1N TRATOR: ^� I
BY: .DATE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
YES: SUPERVISORS ROGERS,
GERBER,DESAULNIER,CANCIAMILLA
NO: fV W G1 :7
A bs r::,,VT; Su P e�R.0 i so 2 U i L.Ic =•-Ana
Phil Batchelor,Clerk of the Board of LrTLI
Supervisors and Coolly Administrator SIGNAT E TITLE DATE
IREVENUE ADJ. RAOO
BY: O� ° DATE O';Ll—q7 JOURNAL NO.
(M 8134 Rev.2/86)
Attachment # 4
« AUDITOR-CONTROLLER USE ONLY
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FINAL APPROVAL NEEDED BY:
APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T/C 27 ❑ COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
ACCOUNT CODING 0145 Employee Benefits
EXPENDITURE
ORGANIZATION SUB-ACCOUNT EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION <DECREASE> INCREASE
1695 1011 Permanent Salaries 2,399,103 00
(see page 2) 4,599,103 00
0990 6301 Reserve for Contingencies 1,000,000 00
0990 6301 Appropriable New Revenue 1,000,000 00
0995 6301 Reserve for Contingencies 1,200,000 00
0995 6301 Appropriable New Revenue 1,200,000 00
TOTALS 4,599,103 00 6,799,103 00
APPROVED EXPLANATION OF REQUEST
AUDITOR-CONTROLLER: Transfer costs for salary and benefit increases and other necessary
BY: DATE n �`� gJ costs to appropriate budget units.
COUNT AD I TRATOR� o_ -7
DATE /0 23 ^9/
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
YES: SUPERVISORS ROGERS,
GERBER,DESAULNIER,CANCIAMILLA
NO: Q C)"-is
bS EtiTT : SuPs Flu t5o0. u t t�►c�M,4 �„�— WT"
Phil Batchelor,Clerk of the Board of SIG TURE T LE DATE
Supe rs and Court rttirtistrator
APPROPRIATION APOO ; ,�
BY: DATEJ_Q L•3 7 ADJ.JOURNAL NO.
(M129 Rev 2/86)
APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENT T/C 27 PAGE 2
EXPENDITURE EXPENDITURE
ORGANIZATION SUB-ACCOUNT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION DECREASE INCREASE
1100 1011 PERMANENT SALARIES $16,634
0002 1011 PERMANENT SALARIES $5,126
1200 1011 PERMANENT SALARIES $120,798
0o10 1011 PERMANENT SALARIES $35,072
0015 1011 PERMANENT SALARIES $25,414
oo16 1011 PERMANENT SALARIES $55,000
0020 1011 PERMANENT SALARIES $5,410
4V30 1011 PERMANENT SALARIES $24,000
1300 1011 PERMANENT SALARIES $167,380
0037 1011 PERMANENT SALARIES $3,904
2353 1011 PERMANENT SALARIES $200,000
1505 2310 SPECIALIZED SERVICES $1,000,000
0235 1011 PERMANENT SALARIES $2,130
0243 1011 PERMANENT SALARIES $187,479
3300 1011 PERMANENT SALARIES $8,501
0357 1011 PERMANENT SALARIES $48,580
0364 1011 PERMANENT SALARIES $2,064
0465 3570 CONTRIBUTION TO ENTERPRISE FUND $1,200,000
0540 1011 PERMANENT SALARIES $1,200,000
5000 1011 PERMANENT SALARIES $265,000
0579 1011 PERMANENT SALARIES $19,723
0591 1011 PERMANENT SALARIES $3,588
4500 1011 PERMANENT SALARIES $3,300
TOTAL $4,599,103
COLA-97.XLS 10/14/97 11:31 AM
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
ESTIMATED REVENUE ADJUSTMENT
T/C 24
ACCOUNT CODING BUDGET UNIT: 0005-General County Revenue
REVENUE I
ORGANIZATION ACCOUNT REVENUE ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION INCREASE <DECREASE>
0005 9225 Motor Vehicle License $1,000,000 00
0540 8381 Hospital Subsidy $1,200,000 00
i
I
i
I
i
TOTALS $2,200,000 O 0
APPROVED EXPLANATION OF REQUEST
AUDITOR-CONTROL ./ Recognize revenue for employee salary and benefit adjustments and
BY: l DATE �Y 9, and other necessary costs.
COUNTY AD I TRATORR. j
BY: `�' DATE /a^)-3_ 7
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
SUPERVISORS ROGERS,
YES: GERBER,DESAULNIER,CANCIAMILLA
NO: k)C) (?�
W'>S)-?T •. S�PcfLu15c�2 t91 t.1=C.- M1' Sr• ��2 KT ��/l�1 17
Phil Batchelor,Clerk of the Board of SIGNATURF TITLE DATE
Supe Jors and Co my,Administrator
REVENUE ADJ. RA00
BY: `O DATE1 o-a(-Ci 7 JOURNAL NO.
(M 8134 Rev.2186)
Request to Speak Farm ` u
( THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
CAmplete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' mtrum
before addressi the Board.
Nm :6
'6
AgLhesc ctx-4--s1-
• f or zation:
1 am si�eakmn8 for Rrysel ---- �'�'i *MW of 0 Pid"t;«a
CHTK CSC ONE:
1 wish to speak an Agenda Reim #.L., ? Daty
�! My comments will be: #nmat .for40ns .._•
! wish to speak on the sub a ct of _ ._._—
___,__ i do not wish to but leave these +camrnents for the Board
to consider: I�_I