HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01172003 - ALL MATERIA County of Contra Costa
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
MEMORANDUM
BATE: January 17, 2003
TO: Board of Supervisors
FROM. John Sweeten
County Adm` `strt
SUBJECT: FY 2003-44 BUDGET RETREAT
As we turn the corner on 2003,we are faced immediately with two significant',challenges: a
shortfall of$50 million in the County's "baseline"budget for FY 2003-04, and a Governor's
Proposed Budget for FY 2003-04 that threatens serious disruption of County programs and
financing.
Budgeting in difficult times involves making tough choices among unsatisfactory alternatives.
Times have never been more difficult for the State or your Board, and the options have never
been less appealing. Having said that, it is my desire to prepare for you a Recommended Budget
and a budget development process that will give you the best opportunity to protect and promote
the community services that you, as a Board, value most.
Discussion Tonics
Today's retreat provides an opportunity for Board members and staff to exchange information
and ideas about how to approach these challenges. Discussion topics will include the following:
CI An overview of the reductions used to balance the FY 2002-03 County Budget, along with a
preliminary mid-year projection of year-end fund balance;
Ll A discussion of the baseline budget shortfall for FY 2003-04, as well as potential impacts
that may result from the State's budget,
CI A discussion of a strategy for developing and balancing the County's FY 2003-04 Budget;
U A discussion of Budget reduction options;
U A discussion of the Countywide impact of an across-the-board 10%reduction in net County
costs, with specific examples;
L3 A discussion of Board priorities regarding any additional needed program reductions;and
O A discussion of budget balancing recommendations being considered by the CAO.
CADocunents and SettingsVSWEEWY DOCUMENTS\03-04 Budget\WI1743-Budget Retreat.doe
13. DIRECT the County Administrator to work with the Public Managers Association, and
through the Chair with the City-County Relations Committee,to identify ways in which the
County and the cities in Contra Costa may combine resources and efforts to assure the
continuation of essential services;
14. DIRECT the County Administrator to participate actively in formal and informal activities
aimed at restructuring the fiscal relationship between the State and its counties;
15. DIRECT the County Administrator to work with the County's lobbyists, the California State
Association of Counties(CSAC), the Urban Counties Caucus(UCC), and the National
Association of Counties(NACo)to protect County programs and revenues;
lf. URGE the Legislature to adopt revenue increases to reduce the size of the State's budget
shortfall and its impact on counties—e.g.,restoration of Vehicle License Fee(VLF)rates,
restoration of the former higher tax rates on upper income tax brackets,broader application
of the sales and use tax, etc.;and
17. URGE the Legislature to grant local communities greater capacity to address local needs and
priorities(e.g., public safety/emergency radio communications, Bioterrorism response,
transportation, open space preservation, and libraries) by lowering the voter approval
threshold for local revenues—e.g., sales tax, documentary transfer tax,utility users tax,
parcel charges, etc.
DRAFT
CADocuments and SettingOSW EEWY DOCUWNTS\03-04 Budgetltkuft Budget Balancing Recommendations.doc
Page 2 of
Desired Outcomes
So that development of the FY 2003-04 County Budget may proceed in a manner that reflects the
Board's interests and concerns, it is hoped that the following outcomes will result from today's
retreat:
✓ The Board and staff will have better mutual understanding of the seriousness of the
factors that will impact the County's budget in FY 2003-04.
✓ The Board and staff will have an increased awareness of the range of options that are
available to address these fiscal challenges.
+/ Staff will receive direction or concurrence from the Board regarding budget development
strategy and approach.
✓ The Board will confirm its earlier direction with regard to the schedule of budget
hearings.
✓ The Board will provide direction regarding priorities that should guide staff's
recommendations regarding budget reductions.
Attachments
Attached are a number of documents that are intended to facilitate today's discussion:
• A summary of the Governor's Proposed FY 2003-04 Budget prepared by CSAC.
• A"hard copy"of a Power Point presentation that will discuss budget reduction options in
terms of potential net County cost savings, and in terms of mandated vs. discretionary service
constraints.
• A listing of County programs broken down according to their mandated vs. discretionary
qualities.
• Examples of the programmatic impacts of an across-the-board 10%reduction in net County
cost.
• A set of draft budget balancing recommendations under consideration by the CACI.
C(Documents and SetdingsVSWEMW DOCUMENTS103-04 Budget\Ns011703-Budget Retreat.doc
Board Retreat
"FY 2003-04 COUNTY BUDGET"
AGENDA
January 17, 2003
East Bay Municipal Utility District
Introduction
Public Comment
A. Overview of FY 02-03 Reductions
B. Mid-Year Preliminary Fund Balance Projection FY 02-03
C. Prognosis for Budget FY 03-04
1. Baseline Budget
2. State Budget
D. Budget Development Strategy FY 03-04
1. Baseline Budget
2. State Budget
E. Budget Balancing Approach
1. Conserve Fund Balance FY 02-03
• Mid-Year Reductions FY 02-03???
2. 10%Across-the-Beard Reductions FY 03--04
3. Business Practice Savings
4. Program Reductions for Remaining Balance
E. Discussion of Reduction Options {Power Point Presentation}
1. Where can money be saved?
2. What discretion does the Board have to reduce programs?
F. Discuss Impacts of 10%, NCC Reductions Under Consideration (Examples)
G. Board Priorities re Remaining Baseline Shortfall?
H. Budget Balancing Recommendations Under Consideration by CAC)
C:\Documents and SettingsVSWEEIMY DOCUMENTS\03-04 Eudget\Budget Retreat Draft.doc
EXHIBIT
California State Association of Counties
1100 K Street, Suite 101
Sacramento, CA 95814
916.327.7500 Facsimile 918.441.5507
VIA FACSIMILE- 15 pages
January 10, 2003
To: Chairs of the Board
CSAC Board of Directors
County Administrative Officers
From: Supervisor Tim Smith, CSAC President
Steve Szalay, CSAC Executive Director
Steve Keit, CSAC Legislative Coordinator
Re: Highlights of the 2003-04 State Budget
This afternoon Governor Gray Davis presented his outline for state spending for fiscal year 2003-
04. The Governor's plan reflects changes to the current year budget that are additional to the
mid-year reductions proposed by the Governor in December 2002. Proposed mid-year
reductions, along with current year proposals in the Governor's 2003-04 Proposed Budget, will be
considered in the First Extraordinary Session, perhaps as early as next week.
The following summary draws from presentations by the Governor and Tim Gage, outgoing
Director of the Department of Finance, at the budget release press conference with specific
attention to those proposals that relate to county programs and revenues.
For copies of the Governor's 2003-04 Proposed Budget and related documents, visit the
Department of Finance website at http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTMUBUD-DOCS/Bud-link.htm.
Budget Aggregates
The Governor's 2003-04 proposed budget provides a General Fund spending plan of $82.8
billion, representing a decrease of $1.27 billion, or a 1.7 percent decrease over the prior fiscal
year. Over 90 percent of the proposed budget is confined to only three program areas: KA 2 and
higher education (57.2 percent); health and human services (24.2 percent), and youth and adult
corrections(8.9 percent). State General Fund expenditures have grown by a total of$13.8 billion,
or a cumulative 28.2 percent since fiscal year 1998-97.
The proposed budget anticipates $89.2 billion In General Fund revenues, representing a decline
of $3.99 billion, or a 5.5 percent decrease over last year. Three primary, revenue sources
constitute more than 91 percent of General Fund revenues: personal income tax (48.5 percent),
sales tax (33.5 percent), and bank and corporation tax (8.9 percent). State General Fund
revenues have grown by a total of $20.0 billion, or a cumulative 40.7 percent since fiscal year
1998-97.
The General Fund revenue level is $8.38 billion above the General Fund expenditure amount.
The reserve amount Is $1.93 billion to guard against unforeseen expenditure Increases and
revenue shortfalls, representing 2.8 percent of estimated 2003-04 revenues.
1
Recent General Fund Revenues and Expenditures
$ in billions)
19M97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-84
Revenues 49.2 54.9 58.6 65.21 76.9 77.9 79.3 69.2
Expenditures 49.0 528 57.8 65.81 79.7 78.4 78.8 62.8
Figures do not include one-time carry-over balances in the revenue data or reserves in the
expenditure data.
2003-04 General Fund Expenditure Estimates by Category
in billions
Expenditure Category $ °!O
K-12&Higher Education 35.9 57.2
Meath&Human Services 15.2 24.2
Youth &Adult Corrections 5.6 8.9
Other 6.1 9.7
TOTAL 62.8 100
2003-04 General Fund Revenues Estimates by Category
$in bili€ons
Revenue Cat o $ %
Personal income Tax 33.6 48.6
Sales Tax 23.2 33.5
Bank and Cor ration Tax 6.4 9.3
Other 6.01 8.6
TOTAL 69.21 100
2003-04 General Fund Budget Summary
$ in millions
Car -Over Fund Balance -$4,451
Revenues and Transfers 69,153
TOTAL REVENUES 64,702
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 62,769
Fund Balance 1 933
Liquidation of Encumbrances 1,402
S eclat Fund for Economic Uncertainties 531'
The Governor Identifies a $34.6 billion budget deficit, and, in addition to his proposed Mid-Year
Reduction Proposals, which would address approximately $14.2 billion in reductions, outlines
additional reductions, transfers, and borrowing totaling $24.4 billion. The following chart outlines
the Administration's attempt to bridge the gap.
2
Addressing the Overall $34.6 Billion Gap
$ in millions
Mid-Year Proposals Additional Measures Total %
Cuts/Savings "$8,968.4 $11,761.9 $20728.3 59.9
State-Local Realignment **191.6 7,962.4 8,154.0 23.6
Fund Shifts 815.6 1,087.1 1,902.7 5.5
Transfers/Other Revenue 199.7 1,914.6 2,114.3 6.1
Loans/Borrowing 25.4 1,657.9 1683.3 4.9
Totals $1818$.7 $24,383.3 $34 582.8 100.0
*$500 million property tax from Redevelopment Agencies was classified as "Other Revenue"in
the Mid-Year Spending Reduction Proposals plan. it is now used to offset Proposition 98
expenditures(as cutslsavings).
**$151.6 million of 'Proposition 98 CaIWORKS Stage 3 elimination was classified as
"Cuts/Savings" in the Mid-Year Spending Reduction Proposals plan. This amount is currently
part of the State-Local realignment package.
Elimination of the VLF Backfill
The Administration proposes to reduce the Vehicle License Fee (VLF) backfill to cities and
counties pursuant to the reduction in vehicle license fees for car owners, for a General Fund
savings and a commensurate decrease to local governments of $1.265 billion in 2002-03 and
$2.929 billion in 2003-04. The Governor proposes implementing the backfill reduction in
February of this year to achieve current year savings. The state will continue to fund backfill
amounts related to realignment (estimated at $952.9 million) and debt repayment in Orange
County. About half the total VLF reduction can be attributed to counties.
In order to achieve the $1.3 billion in current year savings, the Legislature must adapt urgency
legislation (requiring a 2/3 vote) or must adopt legislation in the special session (by majority vote)
to take effect 90 days from the close of the special session to eliminate the backfill payments.
Revenues From Indian Gaming
The Governor is assuming additional other revenue of$1.5 billion in General Fund revenues due
to revenue sharing agreements achieved by renegotiating the Tribal-State Gaming Compacts
with 61 federally recognized Indian tribes and a number of other federally recognized tribes that
do not currently have compacts with the state. The Administration arrived at the$1.5 billion figure
by comparing revenue sharing agreements in Connecticut and New York where those states
receive 25 percent of gaming revenues. (in California, similar agreements would equate to $1.2
to $1.5 billion). CSAC has adopted a policy statement that supports the renegotiation of the
Tribal-State Compacts and advocate for county representation in the process in order to address
the myriad impacts counties are facing as a result of Indian gaming facilities and related
businesses. A working group has also been formed to finalize the current draft policy and to
advise CSAC on gaming Issues.
Loans and Borrowing
The Administration proposes to take advantage of currently favorable interest rates by pursuing
legislation to authorize pension obligation bonds to fund the state's unfunded liability obligations
to both PERS and STRS. The Administration will simultaneously be entering into discussions
with PERS and STRSboards to explore the possibility of a loan, as a part of each system's fixed-
income investment portfolio, to pay the 2003-04 state employer contributions. Whichever
approach is ultimately adapted, this proposal will result in reduced General Fund expenditures of
approximately$1.5 billion in 2003-04. CSAC Is gratified that the Administration is considering a
CSAC-endorsed proposal to utilize significant cost-savings available through pension obligation
bonds.
3
Ideas for Structural Reform
The Governor's Proposed Budget does not provide specific proposals for eliminating the State's
so-called "structural problem." instead, the Administration urges the Legislature to develop "a
new fiscal blueprint for California." The Governor indicates that he will convene the bipartisan
legislative leadership in February to discuss these proposals and solicit other reform proposals for
consideration. In addition, the Administration will consult with representatives of major
stakeholder interests.
The Governor offers the following proposals for consideration:
• Allow mid-year budget adjustments and suspension of statutes.
■ Create a state budget reserve to mitigate the volatility of the state's revenues, and re-
evaluate current spending limit requirements.
• Require sunset review of all"automatic spending laws."
• Require sunset review of all tax breaks.
• Request that the Legislature revise its appropriations process to require the identification of
future year costs of legislation, and to identify the funds available to pay those costs.
• Rebalance the portfolio of state revenue to achieve a more stable mix of major revenue
sources.
• Rebalance the portfolio of local government revenue to achieve a better mix of major revenue
sources, and encourage"rational growth."
• Restore local community control of programs and revenue-raising.
2003-04 State-Local Reallunment
The centerpiece of the Governor's Proposed Budget is a new state-local realignment package
totaling $8.154 billion in transfer of existing programs in various areas. The Administration is
proposing to realign a number of mental health, alcohol and drug programs, health programs,
social services programs, child care programs, and court security. The Governor has also
proposed dedicating three ongoing revenue streams to support these programs. Of these
revenues, $96 million will be used to backfill lost cigarette tax revenues that would otherwise be
available pursuant to the provisions of Proposition 10, Proposition 99, and the Breast Cancer
Fund program statute. Because all new revenues would be dedicated to counties, no new
revenues would be transferred to the General Fund; thus, no portion of the new revenues would
be required to fund Proposition 98. The details of this package are outlined below.
Proposed New Revenues
Increase state sales tax rate by 1 percent $4,584 billion
Add 10 percent and 11 percent personal income tax brackets 2.580 billion
Increase excise tax b $1.10 on cigarettes and other tobacco products 1.170 billion
Total $8.334 billion
2003-04 State-Local Realignment Budget Proposal
$ In millions
Program GF Cost to
Savin sI Counties
Mental Health and Substance Abuse
Alcohol and Drug Local Programs $219 $219
Drug Courts/State Operations 12 11
Children's System of Care/State Operations 20 20
Integrated Services for HomelesslState O erations 55 55
Mental Health and Substance Abuse Total $306 ' 5305
4
Program GF Cost to
Savings Counties
Children and Youth
Child Abuse Prevention,Treatment, and Intervention $13 $13
Foster Care Grants 460 460
Foster Care Administration 34 34
Child Welfare Services 596 596
Adoption Assistance 217 217
Kin-GAP 19 19
Child Care 968 1031
Children and Youth Total $2,307 $2,370
Healthy Communities
15 Percent County Share of Medi-Cal Benefits Costs $1,620 $1,620
Adolescent Family Life Program 14 14
Black Infant Health Program 4 4
Local Health Department Maternal and Child Health 3 3
(MCH)Program
Expanded Access to Primary Care(EAPC) 24 24
Indian Health Program (INP) 7 7
Rural Health Services Development Program (RHSD) 9 9
and Grants in Aid(GIA)for Clinics Program
Seasonal Agricultural and Migratory Workers 7 7
(SAMW)Program
Managed Care Counties (0.9)
California Health Care for Indigents(CHIP) (46.2)
Rural Health Services (4.4)
County Health Services Public Health Subvention 1 1
Reductions to Rural health Care and MCH State 2
Operations
Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants(CAPI) 95 95
Adult Protective Services (APS) 61 61
California Food Assistance Program (CFAP) 15 15
Food Stamp Administration 268 268
CaIWORKs Administration 120 120
CaIWORKs Employment Services 423 423
Cost of Pro 99-funded Pro rams 58
Healthy Communities Total 1 $2,671 $2,727
Long-Term Care
Realign Medi-Cal Long-Term Care $1,400 $1,400
In-Home Supportive Services(IHSS) 1,086 1,086
IHSS Administration 85 85
Long-Term Care Total $2,571 $2,671
Court Security*
Trial Court Security__ $300 $300
TOTAL Realignment for all programs $81st $8,273
`Please see discussion below; Inclusion of court security in the realignment package does not
reflect a shift of responsibility to counties, but a change in the funding mechanism.
The Administration touts the 2003-04 Realignment as a reflection of their commitment to preserve
certain programs by not reducing their funding level, either transferring responsibility or changing
the state-local cost-sharing ratios for them, and dedicating a revenue stream to support the
resulting additional local financial obligations. The proposal is categorized into,five issue areas.
1) mental health and substance abuse, 2) children and youth, 3) healthy communities, 4) long-
term care, and 5)court security.
5
Mental Health and Substance Abuse
The budget proposes to transfer the responsibility for the Integrated Services for Homeless Adults
and Children's System of Care programs from the State to the counties for a $75 million state
GENERAL FUND savings. Additionally, the Budget reflects the shift of alcohol and drug
programs to counties. The Governor proposes to realign Drug Medi-Cal services, drug court
programs, Proposition 36 funding, and non-Medi-Cal alcohol and other drug services. The
Administration believes that the funding proposed under the 2003-04 Realignment scheme will
exceed the amount required to meet the federal Substance Abuse the Prevention and Treatment
(SAPT) MOE, ensuring that the SAPT MOE will be met even if local revenues declined by 40
percent.
Children and Youth
The 29013-04 budget proposes to increase the county share of cost to 100 percent of the
nonfederal program costs for the Foster Care, Child Welfare Services, and Adoptions Assistance
Programs. The budget also proposes to transfer the Child Abuse Prevention, Intervention, and
Treatment Program and the Kin-GAP program to counties. The Administration believes these
transfers will encourage counties to seek the most cost-effective approaches to serving foster
children and children at risk of foster care placement. Federal funds for these programs will still
be available; state oversight and monitoring will continue.
The budget also proposes to shift responsibility for all subsidized child care programs currently
administered by the California Department of Education (CDE) to the counties. These programs
include General Child Care, Alternative Payment Programs, Ca€WORKs Stags 2 and Stage 3
Child Care, the Resource and Referral Program, the Quality Plan Program, the Migrant Program,
the Latchkey Program, the Campus Centers Program, and the Handicap Program. CDE is
retaining administration of two programs — State Preschool and After School Education and
Safety Programs. Also, note that CaIWORKs Stage 1 Child Care is not being realigned.
In the 2002-03 budget the Administration proposed a number of substantive changes to child care
programs; these proposals were subsequently abandoned. Unable to address its concerns with
child care programs, the Administration is transferring almost all of them to counties to administer.
The Administration believes that transferring these programs to counties will enable counties to
work with local child care planning councils to set program rules relates to eligibility, family fees,
and provider reimbursement, as well as to work collaboratively with the Children and Families
County Commissions(Proposition 10).
Healthy Communities
The 2003-04 budget proposes to transfer responsibility for several primary, maternal and child,
and county health programs to counties. The specific public health programs proposed for
transfer to the counties include the Adolescent and Family Life Program, the Bleck Infant Health
program, the Indian Health Program, the Local Health Department Maternal and Child Health
Program, Expanded Access to Primary Care, Grants-In-Ald for Clinics Program, the Rural Health
Services Development Program the Seasonal Agricultural and Migratory Workers Program, the
County Health Managed Care Program, the California Health Care for Indigents Program, the
Rural Health Services Program, and the Public Health Subvention. These programs will
continue to draw matching federal funds and $58.1 million in Proposition 99 funds. The cost of
the programs being realigned is approximately $143.4 million ($66.6 million General Fund).
Without realignment, the Administration would be proposing significant reductions to these
programs.
The budget also proposes that counties will assume 15 percent of the nonfederal costs for Medi-
Cal services; this is estimated to save the state $1.6 billion. This proposal is intended to give
counties an incentive to administer Medi-Cal eligibility determinations more efficiently.
6
The Healthy Communities Realignment also proposes to transfer 50 percent of the nonfederal
program casts for CaWORKs Employment Services, Call-earn Services and Administration,
CaIWORKs Administration, Food Stamp Administration, and the Food StampEmployment and
Training Program. The Administration believes that increasing the county share of cost for social
services programs will provide an incentive for counties to pursue the most cost-effective
approaches for services delivery.
Long Term Care
The Budget proposes a long-term care realignment that includes shifting 100 percent of the
nonfederal share of cost of the In-Home Supportive Services Program (IHSS)',to counties. The
realignment of IHSS will save the state $1.2 billion General Fund. The Administration states its
intention to work with the Legislature to provide funding flexibility for counties to meet their
financial obligation under the IHSS program by, among other things, allowing the transfer of funds
among realignment programs.
The budget also proposes to shift the cost of nursing homes stays under the MedkCal long-term
care benefit to counties. The realignment of this portion of Medi-Cal long-term care will save the
state $1.4 billion General Fund. The state will maintain responsibHity for administering services
and oversight functions, such as licensing and complaint investigation. if responsibility for Me&
Cal long-term care remains with the state General Fund, the Administration would be considering
reducing services or eliminating eligibility.
Under this proposal, state oversight of IHSS and Medi-Cal long-term care will continue. The state
would maintain responsibility for federally mandated benefits, such as pharmacy, for eligible
persons residing in long-term care facilities.
Court Security
Among the program elements contained within the state-local program realignment is court
security. It should be noted that this proposal does not represent a shift of responsibilities to
local government, but rather a change in the funding mechanism for court security. Currently,
local trial courts enter into contractual agreements with sheriffs' departments for the provision of
perimeter and courtroom security needs. Under the proposal, a specified portion($300 million)of
the revenues generated by the proposed one percent sales tax increase would be deposited in
the Trial Court Trust Fund for allocation to trial courts to meet their security needs. Furthermore,
in an effort to contain trial court security costs, the Governor proposes to give local courts greater
flexibility by contracting with either the local sheriff department or another sworn law enforcement
agency(or several of these entities in combination)to provide court security services.
How did the Administration devise this proposal?
The budget document outlines a number of principles that guided the Administration in the
creation of a second state-local program Realignment, including the following:
■ Assignment of program responsibility should be made to the most appropriate level of
government — state or local. Under this principle, programs that accrue primarily local
benefits and result in cost savings to local governments should be administered locally.
■ Assignment of program responsibility should be made to the governmental entity where the
service is currently provided. Transfer of programs currently administered by the counties
should minimize the implementation hurdle because program administration infrastructures
already exist locally.
■ Realignment should result in improved service delivery, with broad discretion given to the
responsible entity. The entity responsible for defining eligibility and service levels is in the
best position to foster innovation.
■ Revising state-local sharing ratios and sharing the financial obligation for program costs
should produce fiscal incentives to encourage the most cost-effective', approaches for
addressing program needs.
7
Identified funding sources should accompany all realigned programs to the responsible entity.
A dedicated revenue stream provides greater funding stability with no reliance on annual
legislative appropriations.
How will funding be allocated under the proposed State-Local Realignment?
The Administration is proposing to allocate funds to counties beginning July 1, 2003 from the
proceeds of the revenue increases. The allocations will be made based on the proposed level of
funding for a county for each program, absent realignment. However, effective July 1, 2004, the
Administration proposes that this county-by-county allocation be made pursuant to a single
formula. The Administration's purpose in proposing a single formula is to allow counties to spend
these revenues on any realigned program, thereby increasing local flexibility and improving local
incentives to control costs.
There will be exceptions to the single formula methodology:
• Medi-Cal: The allocation from the Realignment Fund for counties' 15 percent share of cost for
Medl-Cal services and for Medi-Cal long-term care will be made directly to the state
Department of Health Services.
■ Local Alcohol and Drug Programs:The allocation form the Realignment Fund for alcohol and
drug program will be made directly to counties. However, counties that wish to maintain
federal funds received from the Substance Abuse and Prevention dock Grant would need to
work with the Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs in order to fulfill maintenance-of-
effort requirements.
■ Court Security: A portion of the revenues generated from the proposed one percent sales tax
increase equal to $300 million will be deposited into the Trial Court Trust Fund for allocation
to the local trial courts to meet their security needs.
Additional funding sources, such as federal funds and Proposition 99 revenues will continue to be
available pursuant to current allocation formulas.
The Administration states their intention to work with the Legislature to draft the necessary trailer
bili legislation to implement the State-Local Program Realignment proposal effective July 1, 2003,
once Issues are resolved relating to revenue allocations, meeting state and federal requirements,
allowing counties to shift funds among programs, and the nature of continuing state oversight of
the realigned programs. CSAC understands that the Administration will convene a working group
with the Legislature and stakeholders on the Realignment proposal.
What will happen to the 1991-92 State-Local Program Realignment?
The current Realignment, created in 1991-92, will remain intact. The Administration's proposal is
separate from the existing Realignment structure. Elimination of the VLF backfill will not affect
Realignment. The Administration will continue to fund the portion of the backfill that affects
Realignment, counties will receive $952.9 million in 2003.04 to backfill the VLF portion of
Realignment. The Administration is estimating the following Realignment revenues for 2001-02:
$1.1 billion for mental health, $1.5 billion for health, and $1 billion for social services. They are
estimating very small revenues Increases in 2002-03 of approximately$10 million.
General Government
Local Mandate Reimbursement
As proposed in the Governor's Mid-Year Reduction Proposals, the budget proposes to defer
payment for all non-Proposition 98 mandate obligations, preserving the obligation of local
governments to provide the mandated activities as well as the obligation of the state to reimburse
those entities in the future, with interest.
8
The estimated deferred obligation in 2003-04 for non-education mandates (including the amounts
deferred in 2002-03)is approximately$769 minion.
Redevelopment Agencies
The Governor's budget proposes to require that the local school districts' share of property tax
revenue resulting from growth in assessed value in redevelopment project areas, which is
currently retained by the Community Redevelopment Agencies, be passed through to schools
beginning at the level of $250 million in 2003-04, and increasing to the full amount of diverted
property taxes over time. This proposal is in addition to the$500 million shift from redevelopment
agencies' Low- and Moderate-income Housing funds proposed in the Governor's Mid-Year
Reduction Package.
Public Library Foundation
The 2003-04 Proposed Budget adjusts the amount of General Fund revenue to the Public Library
Foundation to$95.3 minion for both 2002-03 and 2003-04, reflecting a 50 percent reduction from
the 2002 Budget Act. The Public Library Foundation provides grants to local libraries for local
library operational costs and materials.
Economic DOMAIRRment
Technology,'Trade&Commerce Agency
The Governor's Budget proposes an $8.9 minion reduction in support of economic development
programs of the Office of Military Base Reuse and Retention, Business Development, Local
Development, Small Business, Small Business Development Centers, and the Film California
First Program. The Budget also includes the elimination of the Tourism Division for a savings of
$7.3 million.
AdmlIniietration of Justice
Juvenile Justice and Citizens'Option for Public Safety(COPS)
The Governor's 2003-04 budget proposes a continuation of funding to the COPS and juvenile
justice crime prevention programs. Proposed funding for these two programs totals $232.6
million, which maintains the level of current-year support. This funding will provide$916.3 million
for juvenile justice crime prevention and intervention programs, as well as $116.3 minion for the
CLIPS program.
Local Law Enforcement High Technology Grants
The proposed budget retains the current level of funding — $18.5 million for local law
enforcement technology and equipment purchases. Whether the current minimum grant
guarantee will be maintained at$15,000 per agency is not yet known at this time.
Rural and Small County Law Enforcement Assistance Program
The Governor's budget continues the appropriation of $98.5 million to provide a $500,000
assistance grant to 37 specified local sheriffs' departments for purposes of enhancing local law
enforcement efforts.
Transfer of Undesignated Fees
The Governor's budget proposes a transfer of revenues from various undesignated fees from the
counties to the courts. Counties are well aware that there were a number of fees and fines
associate with court functions whose disposition was not specifically provided for in the Trial
Court Funding Act of 9997. According to the Governor's budget documents, the transfer of these
undesignated fees is estimated to provide approximately$31 million annually to the trial courts.
9
Court Security
Among the program elements contained within the proposed state-local program realignment is
court security. It should be noted that this proposal does not represent a shift of responsibilities
to local government, but rather a change in the funding mechanism for court security. Currently,
local trial courts enter into contractual agreements with sheriffs' departments for the provision of
perimeter and courtroom security needs. Under the proposal, a specified portion($300 million)of
the revenues generated by the proposed 1¢ sales tax increase would be deposited in the Trial
Court Trust Fund for allocation to trial courts to meet their security needs. The proposal also
offers local courts greater flexibility by permitting them to contract with any sworn law
enforcement agency for court security services.
Forensic Lab Fees
The budget assumes a$3.5 million increase resulting from a proposal to require local agencies to
reimburse the state for a portion of the Department of Justice costs associated with processing
and analyzing forensic evidence.
Booking Fees
The budget proposes to eliminate $38.2 million in state reimbursement to cities and special
districts for fees charged by counties to cover actual administrative booking costs. This funding,
originally authorized by AB 1662(Chapter 79, Statutes of 1999), reflects the full reimbursement of
actual costs claimed by cities and special districts.
CYA Sliding Scale Fees
Like the increase advanced by the Legislative Analyst's Office and in the Governor's 2002-03
May revision, the budget proposes an inflationary adjustment to sliding scale fees for
commitments to the California Youth Authority. The increase of sliding scale fees is expected to
generate$7.1 million in revenue.
Local Correctional Officer Training
The Governor's budget proposes to eliminate the Corrections Training Fund (totaling $16.8
million) contained in Board of Corrections budget. This fund provides for the reimbursement of a
portion of travel, tuition, per diem, and staff replacement costs for local correctional officers. In
addition to eliminating the local assistance portion of this program, the budget proposes to (1)
transfer $10.2 million in the CTF to the state and (2) delete the existing authority (Budget Act
Control Section 24.10) to transfer $6.5 million from driver training penalty assessments to the
CTF. In parallel action, the budget also proposes to reduce the Commission on Peace Officers
Standards and Training budget by $28.3 million associated with the elimination of the program
that partially reimburses focal law enforcement agencies for training and associated costs. The
responsibility for local correctional training costs that are now covered by the state would become
the responsibility of the local agency.
Office of Criminal Justice Planning (OCJP)
A number of program reductions and transfers are proposed for OCJP as discussed below.
■ Local Assistance Programs. In addition to nearly$3.6 million of program cuts proposed in
December 2002 as part of the Governor's mid-year reduction plan, additional reductions
totaling $3.4 million are proposed for several programs administered by OCJP. Specific
program cuts include the following:
California Community Crime Desistance Program $230,000
California Career Criminal Prosecution Program $350,000
California Career Criminal Apprehension Program $288,000
Serious Habitual Offenders Program $136,000
Vertical Defense of Indigents Program $174,000
Public Prosecutors and Defenders Training Program $6,000
10
Vertical Prosecution of Statutory Rape Program $1,600,000
Evidentiary Medical Training Program $34,000
Suppression of Drug Abuse in Schools Programs $78,000
Gang Violence Suppression Program $236,000
Multi-Agency gang Enforcement Consortium Program $31,000
Rural Crime Prevention Program $200,000
■ domestic Violence Programs. The budget proposes to consolidate a number of domestic
violence shelter programs under the Department of Health Services ([?HS). This proposal
would result in the shift of$9.5 million in both state and federal funds from OCJP to DHS for
local shelter assistance.
Trial Court Funding
The Governor's 2003--04 budget proposes a number of adjustments to the trial court funding
budget, representing an overall decrease of $5.2 million and a state General Fund decrease of
$301.2 million from the revised 2002-03 budget. It is important to recall that, with the exception
of the shift of undesignated fees to the courts, the changes to trial court funding described below
represent increases or reductions to state(not county)support for the courts.
Augmentations
■ $22.7 million in discretionary funding ($8.4 million in 2002-03 and $14.3 million in 2003-
04)to meet various trial court need including health benefits increases.
• $32.6 million to address court security (additional details on the court security proposal
provided above and in the comprehensive discussion of the state-local program
realignment).
■ $20 million for increased court employee retirement costs.
■ $4.5 million for court interpreters.
■ $3.9 million to implement the Trial Court Interpreter Labor and Employee Relations Act.
Reductions and Cast Savings
• $152 million unallocated General Fund reduction ($36 million in 2002-03 and $116
million in 2003-04), representing an adjustment from the reduction proposed in the
Governor's December 2002 mid-year reductions proposal.
■ $22 million in General Fund savings expected to result from increased flexibility to
contract with taw enforcement agencies to provide court security (see discussion
provided above and in the comprehensive discussion of the state-local program
realignment).
• $31 million by implementing electronic recording of court proceedings.
• $5.5 million resulting from court ownership of court reporting transcripts.
• $2.5 million resulting from consolidation of various administrative trial court functions.
Increased Fees Revenue(to offset General Fund support)
■ $34 million from a$20 increase on each court filing for security.
■ $1.2 million from a$10 increase in the trial motion fee.
■ $31 million from transfer of undesignated fees on court-related fees (see discussion
above).
Health
Medl-Cal
The Administration is proposing enhancements to Increase children's access to health insurance,
while at the same time reducing benefits and eligibility to adults in the Medi-Cal program. The
Governor emphasized in his press conference that protecting children's health insurance
programs is one of his top priorities.
11
The following are the 2003-04 budget proposals related to children's health:
• Accelerated Enrollment: This program implemented July 1, 2002 enables DHS to
temporarily enroll children under the age of 19 through the single point-of-entry program for
Medd-Cal and/or the Healthy Families Program (HFP), while the county welfare department
makes a final determination regarding Medi-Cal eligibility. The Budget estimates 67,000
children will receive benefits through this program, at a cost of$20.8 ($10.4 million General
Fund)for 2002-03 and 2003-04.
• CHDP Gateway to Medl-Cal: The Governor proposes to streamline enrollment into Medl-
Cal or HFP by extending immediate eligibility to pre-enrolled children for up to two months for
a CHDP health assessment and for comprehensive medical care provided through Medl-Cat
or HFP. The governor's Budget includes $283.9 million ($137.1 General Fund) for the
Gateway program but reduces CHDP by $80.6 million general Fund for a net increase of
$56.5 million.
■ Express Lane Eligibility: Children under the age of six, who are receiving free school
lunch, will be automatically enrolled in Medi-Cal. Counties will determine eligibility of children
older than six receiving free lunches. This will result in 5,850 additional children receiving
Medi-Cal coverage in 2003-04 with $4.3 million ($2.1 million General Fund) provided to
support this expansion.
Additionally, recent legislation required counties to send Medi-Cal and HFP enrollment
information to families receiving Food Stamps and to provide additional information at their
annual eligibility redetermination. These linkages will result in an additional 11,000 parents
and children receiving Medi-Cal coverage in 2003-04. The Governor's Budget provides $8.5
million($4.2 million General Fund)to support this expansion.
The following are proposed policy changes to the Medi-Cal budget:
■ Rescission of Eligibility Expansions: The March 2000 expansion of the 1931(b) program
to new applicants whose income is 100 percent of FPL is proposed to be rescinded. New
applicants will qualify only at the previous income standard. This proposal is not expected to
eliminate current beneficiaries and will result in a BY savings of $236 million ($118 million
General Fund).
The governor's Mid-Year Spending Reduction Proposals included a proposal to reinstate the
Medl-Cat quarterly status reporting requirement (eliminated by statute in 2000). The
estimated budget year savings would be $170 million ($85 million General Fund). But the
Governor's Budget notes the increased workload for counties and Includes funding of $49.7
million in 2002-03 and $33.4 million in 2003-04. This change will result in the loss of Medl-
Cat benefits to an estimated 193,00 adults in 2003-04.
• Optional Seneflfs: The Mid-Year budget proposals included the reduction of 8 of the 34
optional (as defined by federal law) benefits. The 2003-04 proposal eliminates an additional
10 optional benefits, including adult dental services, medical supplies and non-emergency
transportation.
• Provider Rate Reductions: The Governor's Budget proposes to reduce the rate increase
given in 2000 by 15 percent, This includes the 10 percent reduction proposed In the mld-year
plan)for a total budget year and current year savings of more than $1.6 billion ($811 million
General Fund).
• Drug Medi Cal Caseload: As a result of changes in caseload, lower costs for specified
services, and a change in the types of services utilized,the current year cost will decrease by
$7.6 million($3.8 million general Fund).
12
Healthy Families Program(HFP)
Due to increased enrollment and expenditures, the Governor's Budget includes one time Tobacco
Settlement Fund dollars ($220 million) for the HFP. However, the budget delays the parental
expansion of HFP to July 2006 in order to cover all eligible children.
The Governor's Budget also discontinues the aural Health Demonstration Project (RHDP) and
shifts the entirety of those funds to the HFP.
Mental Health
The Governor's Budget includes $1.6 billion to fund Community Mental Health Services. It
increases reimbursements for the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment
(EPSDT) services by $230.4 million to reflect a 42.4 percent increase in program costs (ail fund
sources) over the past year. Due to the delay between the delivery of services and the
settlement of expenditure claims, the full amount of the county share-of-cost will not be know until
the 2004-05 fiscal year.
Cather changes include an increase of$34 million for local mental health plans to reflect caseload
growth, an Increase in $4 million for HFP caseload increases, and an increase of$1.2 million for
a supplemental rate for Community Treatment Facilities.
However, the Governor's Budget also proposes elimination of the Early Mental Health Services
program ($15 million General Fund) and a 10 percent rate reduction to mental health managed
care for$46 million($23 million General Fund).
Proposition 99
Proposition 99 revenues are estimated to be $337 million in 2002-03 and $324 in 2003-04. The
budget proposes expenditures of $135.4 million for DHS programs funded by Proposition 99.
This is an average of 9.2 percent decline per health program.
Health:Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)
The Governor's Budget funds statewide HIPAA-related activities at $71.9 million ($18.3 million
General Fund), a slight decline over the 2002 funding level. The Governor notes that failure to
implement HIPAA compliance will result In federal sanctions.
Emergency Medical Services Authority(SMSA)
Consistent with his mid-year reduction proposal, the Governor's Budget consolidates EMSA with
the Department of Health Services(DHS)and assumes improved coordination, efficiency, and an
administrative reduction. Total savings are$342,000($138,000 General Fund).
Human Services
Child Support Penalties
Although, according to the Governor's Budget proposal, the state is "responsible for all costs
associated with developing, implementing, and transitioning counties into a new(automated child
support) system,' his budget once again attempts to extract a share of the penalties from
counties. In 2002-03, California will pay an estimated$188.2 million in federal penalties—despite
budgeting only$98.5 million in the 2002 Budget Act. The Administration now proposes legislation
that requires counties pay a 25 percent share of the increased penalty for the last quarter of
2002-03 and a 25 percent share of the 2003-04 penalty projected to be$207.1 million.
CaiWORKs and SSIISSP Grant Level Reductions
The Governor's Budget does not Include funding to provide a cost-of-living adjustment(COLA)to
either CalWORKs grant recipients or to SSI/SSP grant recipients in 2003-04. Further, the budget
proposes reducing the SSI/SSP grant level to the federally-required MOE level effective July 1,
2003. Consistent with that reduction, the Administration proposes to reduce the CaIWORKs grant
13
by six percent as well. SSI/SSP grant levels will, however, receive a federal COLA of 2.4 percent
in January 2004.
Adoptions
The Administration proposes to eliminate the Independent Adoption Program for a General Fund
savings of$2.8 million.
Transportation
The Governor's proposed budget contains identical proposed cuts for transportation as those
proposed in the mid-year reduction package. The reductions total $1.8 billion and are outlined as
follows:
■ Eliminate $90 million in current year apportionments to cities and counties for AB 2928 local
streets and road maintenance funds for the second, third, and fourth quarters.
• Suspend the General Fund transfer of $1.046 billion to the Transportation Investment Fund
(TIF) pursuant to Proposition 42 scheduled for 2003-04. These funds would otherwise be
allocated as follows:
■ $678 million to Governor's Traffic Congestion Relief capital projects
■ $147 million to the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
$147 to cities and counties for maintenance of local streets and roads
■ $74 million to the Public Transportation Account (50% for State Transit
Assistance, 50%for intercity rail and STIP transit projects)
■ Deferral of the $500 million General Fund loan to the Traffic Congestion Relief Fund (TCRF)
due in 2003-04.
■ Deferral of the$50 million General Fund loan to the State Highway Account(SHA).
■ Return of$100 million in unexpended funds in the TCRF to the General Fund.
• Miscellaneous other savings of$25.3 million affecting current or planned projects or funding
programs.
These proposed cuts, previous cuts to transportation, lower than anticipated revenues from
federal funds ($800 million) and commercial vehicle weight fees ($164 million), and advanced
construction over the last four years will result in insufficient funds in the State Highway Account
(SHA) to support all scheduled new projects and pay for those already under contract. The
Governor is directing the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to coordinate efforts to
redirect SHA and Public Transportation Account (PTA) allocations for State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP)projects and the 142 Traffic Congestion Relief Projects(TORP).
Further,these cuts result in$118.5 million in direct reductions to counties with incalculable losses
to individual counties for STIP and ICRP projects.
Housing
The Housing and Community Development Department is currently in the process of expending
the funds from Proposition 46, which authorizes a total of $2.1 billion for various housing
programs. The local project bond expenditures will be $255 million in 2002-03 and$463 million in
2003-04 and include the following:
■ $59.1 million in 2002-03 and $107.6 million in 2003-04 for state and local homeownership
programs for low-income fami€les.
■ $25 million in 2002-03 and $64.7 million in 2003-04 for housing projects that serve
farmworkers and their families.
■ $109.7 million in 2002-03 and $193.5 million in 2003-04 for affordable rental housing for low-
income working families,the disabled, and the elderly.
14
$31 million in both 2002-03 and 2003-04 for capital funds to construct, expand or rehabilitate
homeless shelters and transitional housing.
■ $25 million for both 2002-03 and 2003-04 to provide financial incentives to communities that
increase housing production, especially affordable rental housing production, and work to
balance the development of jobs and housing.
• $25 million in 2003-04 for down payment assistance targeted to communities that reduce
barriers to housing.
■ $4.8 million in 2002-03 and $17.2 million in 2003-04 for preservation of affordable low-income
housing.
However, the Governor's Budget also includes the following reductions:
• Shifting$11 million in farworker housing project grants to bond funds.
■ Shifting$721,000 in costs to fees for the Employee Housing Program.
■ Shifting$625,000 in costs to increased rents for Migrant Services Centers.
• Reducing $220,000 in funds to Indian gaming funds in support of the California Indian
Assistance Program.
■ Reducing$1.3 million in Emergency Housing and Assistance program grants.
■ Reducing$220,000 from the State Housing Law program.
Apiculture and Natural Resources
Williamson Act
The Governor's Budget proposes to eliminate all funding, amounting to approximately$39 million,
for subventions to counties for property tax losses incurred by enrolling agricultural land in
Williamson Act contracts.
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
The budget makes no reduction in areas that will affect public safety, including local assistance.
However, it does include a reduction of$795,000 from the consolidation of air attack bases and
$750,000 from closing lookout stations.
Department of Water Resources
The Governor's Budget proposes a reduction of$2.1 million in flood management activities and a
reduction of$1.6 million in water management activities. However, there will be additional money
appropriation from Proposition 50, which includes $51.7 million for projects that protect
communities from drought, protect and improve water quality and improve local water security.
Gfflce of Emergency Services
The Governor's Budget includes a reduction of$5 million for local disaster assistance claims.
15
EXHIBIT B
4-3
LL.
rt- -4-J
� N
u
ro
n
ARM-
V 1
V
m
C%a
Zo
C
LL I'll
UL
y • of
JI
N
z'
UW Um
w [
of
was
LW
LU
U-11,11
' s
CLuj
u
t LU4
z
L LU
t" ceL,U ul
is oto
h
LU
3:)IAN3 :10 13A31
LU
CL
0
u
Cos c
.,._
r (3) •..�
d L 0
U
LLQ '
> L.0
ic L fu
4... CL
CD CD
J "now
0 0
0 u Nor
U U CL
L U.
LL
W%
LO V-
00
00 00 L )
C`l-Ij
i - in-
i
'J
V
qqq
�.
°-
1
5 �l
E
a
i
1
Oak
-41
40
`+1
! 00 �
M �
�� ' .�
c-
- - �
.._ u � ' "�
,�.,� s.t
� ..
@� .. � _
� �
i
� �
_.... -
-. sx c-
� � -}. --
<,,
} �;
'�
�������
� �����
K. .r�,�,
� �
_:__. �
� � �►
�€
� � � �
�.
.,,� .1
�- � �
� `R `�E �
� R� �►
'�
�► f+! �
� ' '�,• ,\
��,5 i t � a' +�
�1�} p.
g � � �
#�-� t
i s r �_
+w • wr
���,�,
ti
•
s �
_�- -
IW 'M' 1R ! F
414
uji
LU."
Lu 0
0
tt3 U
I
anwot
rIq Ln
Lul m (Y) re) r%%.Lei
Ln fn
ro- iA- - }-
S
r rr�
uj
z UW
L UJ E
0
w '
L ull",
S .
o
3. qn CU(U > A:e� U—
irtrillrl..r � /� f�
' iii T�r� _.!T..J ■i/i�f\! ro Yra 4
ce
Lcn.
4-J ce
C V) CL.
c: C LO L .
com U tv
ro .4.3 L- a)
L)
j 0 *%-100
■ ■
qq- qq- Ln C) r".4
Lul �--1 C) C) C ) T
i.. ! r. kk. +*..
C k.0 r*4%,, r**.
q�r m V-4 Ul C�
ch 00 41-
qqrm rN
' "
R7 OMMENDED BUDGET FY 2002/" 13
Mandatory/Discretionary Programs EXHIBIT
Level of Net Gross
rtment Pro raam Service Service "Flex"• County Cost Expenditures FTE
Assessor €Administrative Svcs D D 1 $647,735 $867,057 7.0
Building Inspection 11-and EnIbrmation Sys D D 3 $0 $435,818 4.0
Building Inspection Meatherization D D 4 $0 $193,169 4.0
Building inspection Neighborhood Preservation D D 4 $0 $290,003 4.0
Central Support }Automated Systems Day. D D 2 $460,000 $800,000 0.0
Central Support ;Plant A uisition D D 2 $9,264,145 $9,264,145 0.0
Central S4pp2q 1RIsk Management D D 2 $7,202,684 $12,675,471 35.0
Centra[Support £Revenue Collection D D 3 $0 $2,816,754 30.0
Central Support Mgmt info System-PIF D D 4 $1,039,945 $1,039,945 0.0
Centra[ ort ;The Institutes D D 4 $398,233 $846,475 4.0
Central Support Economic Dev D D 4 $305,847 $397,692 0.0
Community Dev Conservation D D 2 $248,340 $1,646,895 5.0
Community Dev Contracts D D 2 $0 $0 0.0
Community Dov ReDev 3507 D D 3 $4,848 $1,398,073 9.0
Community Dev Water D D 4 $136,402 $343,032 3,0
Community Dev Administration 3501 D D 4 $161,751 $582,409 2.0
Communft Dev Mgmt Sys Fiscal Ops___ D D 4 $500,195 $1,200,671 14.0
ContingencyContingengy Reserve Contingency Reserve D D 4 $10,249,144 $10,249,144 0.0
Coop.Extension Youth Dev D D 4 $90,706 $90,706 0.6
Coop Extension Environmental Education D D i 4 $42,346 $42,346 0.6
Coop Extension Urban Horticulture D D 4 1 $50,397 $50,397 0.6
Coop Extension ! ric3ture D D 4 $50,397 $50,397 0.6
Coop Extension Nutr#t#ort D D 4 $50,397 $50,397 0.6
County Administrator Affirmative Acton D D 2 $333,136 $333,136 3.0
County Administrator Cap Facilities&Debt Mgmt D D 3 $0 $368,216 3.0
County Administrator Common€ Arcass TV D D 3 $0 $550,000 0.0
County Administrator Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Svc Auth D D 3 $0 $840,000 0.0
County Administrator CCTV&Public info 0 1 D 4 $51,526 $876,181 7.0
County Counsel Risk Mgt/Tort Unit D D 3 $0 $749,373 6.0
County Counsel Outside Clients/Other D D 4 $44,190 $364,336 3.3
County Library Administration D D 4 $0 $2,940,427 13.0
Court
y Library Support Svcs D D 4 $0 $1,879,336 17.0
Cou Library Coun #de Svcs D D 4 I $0 $2,067,075 18.0
Coun Libra Llb-Cornmuni Svcs D D 4 1 $0 $11,268,682 111.0
CrodrsWRodso Rev Crockett/Rodeo Revenues D I D 4 $1,442,108 $1,442,108 0.0
Dept.of Info Tech Telecommunications D D 2 $224,475 $6,882,826 23.0
Dept of Info Tech Am#n#stration D D 3 1 $0 $450,991 18.0
of Into Tech Operations D D 3 1 $0 $5,480,957 24.0
of Info Tech S terns and Program D D 3 $0 $4,803,022 29.0
Dept.of Info Tech Network Svcs D D 3 $0 $789,106 7.0
Dept.of info Tech information Security D D 3 $0 $468,783 3.0
Dept.of Info Tech Wide-Area-Network Svcs D D 3 $0 $2,013,276 5.0
District Attorney Consumer Protection D D 1 $0 $0 0.0
District Attorney.__ Environmental/OSHA D D 1 j $0 $0 0.0
District Attorme Revenue SEIF D D 1 $0 $0 0.0
# mEmp&Human Svcs Child Care Provider#> is D D 2 1 $56,151 $11,308,199 0.0
Emp&Human Svcs Independent Living Skills D D 4 $0 $648,886 2.0
Emp&Human Svcs GA Work Programs D D 4 $3,565,$31 $3,966,499 29.3
Emp&Human Svcs Ald to Ado tions Pmgram D D 1 $538,918 $8,913,834 0.0
General Svcs Purchasing D D 2 $753,493 $979,595 8.0
General Svcs Fleet Svcs D D 2 $250,000 $12,410,408 19.0
General Svcs Building&Grounds D D 2 $0 $70,733,344 230.0
General Svcs Administration D D 2 $0 $2,349,860 21.0
General Svcs General Property D D 3 $15,$37,698 $19,719,630 0.0
General Svcs central Service D D 3 $117,979 $3,213,240 19.5
Health Svcs Ambulato Gare Centers D D 2 $7,511,777 $45,826,925 361.9
Health Svcs Ph clan Svcs D D 2 $6,705,613 $39,405,038 187.0
Health Svcs Public Health Grants D D 2 $5,283,932 $17,669,381 177.6
Health Svcs Public Health Clinical Svcs D D 2 1 $4,493,317 $8,592,808 77.2
Health Svcs Commercial Groups D D 3 $218,000 $29,817,698 0.0
Health Svcs Prevention SSvcs D D 3 $112,320 1,886,8701 15.9
Health Svcs Non-Residentlal Program D D 3 $492,952 $1,755,933 7.9
Health Svcs Narcotic Treatment Po ram D D 3 $0 $3,200,000 0.0
Health Svcs S eclal P rams D D 3 $367,910 $4,320,635 15.1
Health Svcs Criminal Justice Treatment Program D _ D 3 $190,062 $1,905,177 23.1
Health Svcs Support Svcs and Countywide Prev D D 3 $633,806 $1,998,670 10.3
Health Svcs SAMHWORKs Program D D 3 $0 $1,799,289 1.2
Health Svcs Juvenile Justice Facilities D D 3 $203,816 $203,816 4.0
Health Svcs Fixed Assets D D ? 4 $1,039,052 $10,918,422 0.0
Health Svcs Fixed Assets D D 1 4 $75,000 $75,000 0.0
Health Svcs Battered Women's A#tem D D 4 $200,035 $275,035 0.0
Data Selected from Recommended Budget Book FY02-03 1 1115103
R` `"'C?MMENDEG BUDGET FY 20020 'U3
Mandatory/discretionary Programs
Level Of Net Gross
artment rogram Service Service "Flex"" Coun Cost I Exe2nditures FTE
Health Svcs !Shelter Phys Care Program D D 4 1 $0 $124,175 1.8
Health Svcs Emerg>$heltem for Single Adults D D 4 $1,204,636 $1,623,740 0.0
Health Svcs Eme Shelters for Families-ConcordI D D 4 $213,944 $357,694 U
Health Svcs Emer Shelter for Families-Martinez D D 4 $165,361 $316,611 0.0
Health Svcs Homeless Hotline D D 4 $28,555 $76,440 0.0
Health Svcs FERST Multi-service Centers D D 4 $0 $243,654 0.0
Health Svcs Multi-Service Center for yq4tlh i D D 4 $0 $140,000 0.0
Health Svcs Health&Housl Int$ ted Svcs Netwk ; D D 4 1 $0 $600,099 0.0
Health Svcs Homeless Outreach Encampments D D 4 $0 $345,275 0.0
Health Svcs Fixed A"eWCapltal Projects i D D 4 $Q $694,096 0.0
Health Svcs Ph sicfans j D D 4 $Q $417,108 O.d
Health Svcs HLxpaals D D 4 $0 $179,788 0.0
Health Svcs Domestic Violence Victim Asst D i D 4 $0 $96,000 0.0
Health Svcs Hazardous Materials Program D D 1 $93,148 $5,341,985 29.2
Health Svcs Environmental Health D D 1 $118,234 $4,412,062 40.6
Health Svcs Non-Counbe Ho ltai D D 1 $0 $147,152 0.0
Health Svcs Physician Contracts D D 1 $0 $17,104 0.0
Health Svcs Support Svcs D D 4 $362,321 $4,922,324 32.4
Health Svcs Fixed Assets D D 4 $18,819 $80,000 1 0.0
Health Svcs Senior Nutrition PTgram D D 4 $271,756 $2,303,450 ; 3.9
Health Svcs Geotge Miller Centers D D 4 $1,228,530 $4,459,821 59.9
Health Svcs Fixed Assets D D 4 $40,167 $135,167 1 0.0
Health Svcs Fixed Assets D D 4 $0 $77,138 i 0.0
Human Resources Employee Child Care D D 4 0 152,000 ; 0.0
Law System Dev/Ping Law&Justice S_vslemkev D D 4 $233,988 $343,538 i 2.0
Law System Dav/Plnq Justice Systems Programs D D 2 $3,583,027 $3,749,162 I 0.0
Probation SLESF-Probation D D 4 $39,453 $64,453 : 0.0
Public Works Public Works Svcs D D 3 $248,770 $35,292,297 59.0
Service Intogratlon Service Integration D D 4 $174,939 $628,133 0.0
Sheriff-Coroner Co.Law Enforcement Computer D D 2 $0 $0 0.0
ShertN-Coroner Law Enforce Tm Cntr D D 4 $0 $863,000 4.0
Sheriff-Coroner Office of Emergency Svcs D D 1 $2,788,576 $2,972,437 21.0
Sheriff-Coroner Co-Wide Gang&Druq_Eq. D D 1 $0 $0 0.0
Treasurer-Tax Coli Admin/Su ort Svcs D D 1 $270,323 $420,323 4.0
Veterans'Svcs Veterans Svcs D D 4 $527,707 $602,709 7.0
TOTAL D/D $911639,0119 $464.9$0,935 1,889.1
Community Dev CO Block Grant D M 4 $0 $8,023,506 6.3
Community Dev HUD Grants D M 4 $0 $5,048,044 0.0
Communi Dev Private Activity Bond 0595 D M 4 $0 $1,659,364 0.7
Community Dev Affordable HousIng. 0596 D M 4 $0 $3,025,674 0.0
Community Dev HUD Neighborhood Pres D M 4 $0 $950,000 0.0
Community Svcs Communky Action D M 2 $265,248 $1,462,608 3.0
Community Svcs Head Start D M 2 $0 $15,306,329 47.0
Community Svcs Early Head Start D M 2 $0 1 $2,675,550 55.0
Community Svcs Housing&Energy D M 2 $0 $914,722 2.0
Communi Svcs Child start D M 4 $0 $6,252,507 60.0
Communipt Svcs Chdd Dev l D M 4 1 $0 $12,987,020 189.0
commumfty Svcs Child Nutrition D M 4 $0 $1,135,313 16.0
Coo Clerk Recorder Recorder Micro/Modem D M 1 $0 $7,383,312 11.0
Death Service debt Service 0 M 11 $3,457,000 $3,457,000 0.0
District Attorney Real Estate Fraud D M 1 I $0 $180,000 0.0
District Attorney Revenue Narcotics D M 1 $0 $278,343 1.o
Emp S Human Svcs Small Business Dev D M 2 $0 $513,386 2.0
Emp&Human Svcs Ado tlon Assistance Eli lb D M 3 $6,245 $169,447 1.8
EMp&Human Svcs Adult Shelter Care Supplement D M 4 $95,617 $319,443 0.0
Emp&Human Svcs Adoptions D M 4 $710,120 $4,208,923 32.2
Em"Human Svcs Foster Home Licensing D M 4 $250,142 $995,546 7.8
E &Human Svcs ial Circumstances D M 1 $0 $167,744 0.1
Emp&Human Svcs Refugee Eli ibill D M 1 $0 $137,404 0.2
Omp&Human Svcs_ W3A Employ&Trng D M 1 $0 $7,701,712 9.0
Emp&Human Svcs Welfare-to-Work D M 1 1 $0 $300,000 1.0
Emp&Human Svcs Heafthcare TraInIng Grant D M 1 $0 $300,000 1.0
Health Svcs Hospital&Emergency Care D M 2 $18,345,998 $143,303,820 1,090.1
Health Svcs Ernergency Medical Svcs D M 2 $0 $1,069,702 6.9
flea tfai:Svcs ;Stela Mental Hos tal Care D M 2 $217,945 ; $926487 0.0
Health Svcs Local Hos Inpatient Psychiatric D M 2 $945,503 i $14,202,654 0.0
Health Svcs MedCal Mana ed Care D M 2 $0 ; $2,282,750 3.0
Has"Svcs AB-75 P slcfans D M i 2 $0 $379,39.4 0.0
Health Svcs I Residential Svcs P ram D M i 3 $1,098,073 $3,137,351 9.8
Health Svcs ;Zone A D M 1 3 1 $0 $184 091 1 0.2
Data Selected from Recommended Budget Book FY02-03 2 1/15/03
Rr 'OM'MENDEQ BUDGET FY 20021" '13
Mandatory/Discretionary Programs
Level of i Net I Gross
Department I Service Service "Flex" County Cost i Exponditures, FTE
Health Svcs ;Zone S D M 3 $0 i $4,303,165 i 1.7
Health Svcs Locked Inpatient Psych D ! M 4 $1,356,000 1 $1,355,000 1 18.6
Health Svcs Emergency Medical Svcs D M 4 $0 1 $122,256 0.0
Health Svcs Mor Risk Medical Insurance D M 4 $0 $578,084 0.0
Health Svcs County H ital D M 1 $0 $1,174,959 0.0
Health Svcs Emergeng EmergeMedical Svcs D M 1 $0 $54,887 0.0
Health Svcs Other Health Svcs D M 1 $0 $351,708 0.0
Human Resources Em io a Medical self-Insurance D M 2 $0 1,232,266 0.0
Law S tem Dev/Pin Courthouse Construction D M 2 $0 $1,003,150 0.0
Law System Dev/Ping Local Law Enforcemnst Block Grants D M 2 $0 $173,495 0.0
Law System DevIPIng Vehicle theft Program D M 2 $0 $850,000 0.0
Law System Devill3ing Automated ID&Warrant D M 1 $0 $2,085,867 0.0
Law gpLsm DeviNno Criminal Justice Automation D M 1 $0 $285;139 0.0
Law Sys-Um DeWPIng SLESF-Front Line City DM 1 $0 $2,388,189 0.0
Law S em Dev/Pln Criminal,Justice Faciit D M 1 $0 $998,564 0.0
Probation Probation Officer's Loan Fund D M 2 $0 $3,371,074 0.0
Public Works Other Special Revenue Funds D M 2 $0 $8,135,549 0.0
Public Works Airport D M 4 $0 $4,064,718 17.0
Sheriff-Coroner �SLESF D M 2 $0 : $681,000 0.0
Sheriff-Coroner ;Central ID Bureau D M 1 $0 : $2,183,415 1 0.0
Sheriff Coroner Narcotic Fotfeixure D M 1 $0 $134,012 0.0
Sheriff-Coroner Controlled Sub.Ana s D M 1 $0 $22,000 0.0
TOTAL D/M $26,788,891 $286,592,443 1,593.4
Agricutture Agricultural Division M D 2 $264,819 $2,208,087 29.0
Agriculture Weights&Measures M D 2 $385,640 $600,065 7.0
Iculture Administration M D 4 $627,675 $634,275 5.0
Animal Svcs Field Enforcement M D 2 $1,302,830 $2,195,633 41.0
Anima{Svcs Animal Licensing M D 1 $653,9Ps2 $209.039 2.0
Animal Svcs SpaWNeutar Clinic M D 1 $69,785 $417,723 4.0
Assessor Support.svcs M D 1 $3,690,610 $4,818,545 60.0
Assessor Appraisal M D 1 $4,340,932 $5,750,851 55.0
Assessor Business M D 1 $1,272,800 $1,648,578 15.0
Auditor-Controller Internal Audit M D 4 $611,731 $833,514 8.1
Board of Su
perylsors Legis&Policy Direction M D 2 $4,491,548 $3,798,547 27.0
Building Inspeolion Administrative Su crit M D 2 $0 $3,048,469 17.0
Bulldinginspectlon Inspection Svcs M D 2 $0 $5,331,591 49.0
SuRdingipspection Application&Permit Cntr M D 2 $0 $266,285 3.0
Oulkfing Inspection Code Enforcement M D 3 $0 $1,416,388 18.0
Central S rt Clark of the Board M D 2 $457,692 $584,892 c 7.0
Central S rt Merit Board M D 3 $71,948 $96,5321 1.0
Community Dev Advance Planning M D 2 $91,768 $193,568 ' 2.0
Community Dev Game Protection M D 2 $0 $72,357 0.0
communityDev Trans tionPtannin M D 3 $187,718 $8,654,341 4.0
Community Dev Current Planning M D 2 $494,510 $4,798,699 19.0
Counly Administrator 8d Support&Gen Adm M D 2 $2,634,532 $3,542,882 22.0
Counity Counsel Community Protection M D 3 $98,193 $952,887 5.8
County Counsel General Govemment M D 2 $910,467 $1,130,148 8.0
County Counsel Courts/Public Protection M D 2 1 $337,465 $371,083 2.5
County Counsel Health/Sanitation M D 1 3 1 $12,148 $363,551 2.8
District Attorne District Att me M D 2 $9,360,248 $22,972,783 183.0
District Attorney Public Administrator M D 2 ${50,538 $232,322 2.0
District Attorne Welfare Fraud M D 2 ! $0 $1,245,121 8.0
Emp&Human Svcs Adult Social Svcs M I D 2 $2,389,934 $5,598,848 68.3
Emp&Human Svcs In-Home supp2ruve Svcs M D 2 $10,967,606 $23,049,823 0.0
Emp&Human Svcs Child Care'Elt#blifty M D 2 $2,632,401 $4,735,243 50,2
Ernp&Human Svcs GA Payments M D 2 $285,941 $778,380 0.0
Emp&Human Svcs Area Agencyon A I M D 3 $363,050 $4,396,308 13.3
Emp&Human Svcs In-Horne Supporffv#Swe/Personat Care M D 3 $657,796 $7,060,622 76.0
Erap&Human Svcs Public Authors M D 3 $269,821 $1,340,084 1.0
Emp&Human Svcs Child Welfare Svcs M I D 3 $2,837,966 $40,298,818 403.8
E &Human Svcs CsIWORKSITANF M D 3 $852,411 $46,672,050 464.8
ETp&Human Svcs GA Ellgiblft M D 3 $582,368 $793,234 8.9
Ernp&Human Svcs Food Stamps.ElIgIbIlity M 1 D 1 $317,391 $12,715,915 89.1
EnV&Human Svcs Food Starry Em TrainIn M D 1 $5,025 $177,053 1.8
E &Human Svcs MediCal Eligibilityi M D 1 $479,376 $25,162,201 252.6
Emp&Human Svcs CaIWt3RKS FC M ! D 1 $706,198 i $3,050,040 32.2
Human Svcs Foster Care Payments M D 1 $2,164,818 :: $33,397,670 0.0
Env&Human Svcs TANF Cash Assistance M D 1 $555,131 1 $34,590,135 _ 0.0
General Svcs Resource RecaVS M D 2 $0 $485,548 0.0
Health Svcs :Basic Adult Program M D 1 2 1 $5,060,866 $28,470,921 0.0
Data Selected from Recommended Budget Book FY02-03 3 1/15/03
__
_k �a T raj _ _...
R." -'OMMENDED BUDGET FY 2002 � f3
Mandatory/Discretionary Programs
Lave!of Net Oross
Dep
artmertt Pro ram Service Service "Flex""* Coun Cost Expondibires FTE
Health Svcs Outp@tdqnt Mental Health M D 2 $666,008 $6,829,698 &0
Health Svcs institute for Mental Disease M D 2 $1,546,362 $7,294,104 0.0
Heath Svcs Communicable Disease Control M D 2 $3,076,472 $12,313,517 95.5
Health Svcs California Children's Svcs M D 2 $1,028,202 $5,883,748 55.8
Health Svcs Conservatorshi fGuardlanshi M I 2 $1,232,351 $1,459,613 13.8
Health Svcs Administrative Svcs M D 3 $0 $8,163,028 52.0
Health Svcs Aid to Families with De Children M D 3 ...(g52,0611 $49,810,583 89.0
Health Svcs Other Medical Members M D 3 $28,000 $7,306,359 0.0
Health Svcs Adult Svcs M D 3 $2,285,409 $16,957,274 86.7
Health Svcs Child&Adolescent Svcs M D 3 $1,745,582 $30,199,595 110.2
Health Svcs Special Client Svcs M D 3 $310,357 $2,428,687 11.8
Health Svcs Detention Facility MH Svcs M D 3 $1,329,704 $1,405,502 10.3
Health Svcs Detention Facility Med Svcs M D 3 $6,265,702 $6,425,702 30.8
Health Svcs Juvenile Flail Medical Svcs M D 3 $0 $875,000 9.4
Health Svcs Administration M D 4 $485,232 $628,413 4.5
Health Svcs Administration M D 4 $0 $79,781 0.0
Human Resources Administration M D 2 $194,850 $1,396,256 8.0
Human Resources Labor Relations M D 2 $582,677 $785,436 5.0
Human Resources Em la ee Benefits M D 1 2 $0 $3,788,309 13.0
Human Resources Personnel Svcs M D 2 $2,067,904 $2,210,941 26.0
Probation Probation Pro ms M D 4 $11,091,570 $23,861,469 250.0
Public Defender Public Defender MD 1 $15,156,043 $17,751,100 120.0
Pub0cDefender Conflict Defense M D 1 $1,148,000 $1,148,000 0.0
Public Works Engineering Svcs M D 2 $0 $7,030,307 32.0
Public works Area of Benefit M D 2 $0 $3,735,598 0.0
Public worlds Road En Inaertn -Constr M D 3 1 $5,358 $52,420,107 50,0
Public works Road Maintenance M D 3 $0 $15,541,100 105.0
Public works Drainage M 0 3 $4,000 $972,509 40.0
Shediff-Coroner Coroner M D 2 $2,239,494 $2,322,047 10:0
Sheriff-Coroner Field Enforcement M D 4 $20,041,535 $76,573,177 629.0
Su or Court Civil Grand Jury M D 3 $107,004 $107,004 0.0
Su edor CourtCriminal Grand My M D 4 $77,200 $77,200 0.0
Treasurer-Tax Coll Treasurer M D 1 $8401,195 $1,065,195 8.5
TOTAL M 1 D $134,107,946 $719,979,584 3,937.1
Animal Svcs Animal Cars&Housing M M 2 $2,717,121 $4,129,972 37.0
Auditor-Controller Payroll/Budgets M M 2 $1,124,412 $2,133,095 16.7
Auditor-Controller General Acct AF' M M 2 $541,950 $1,784,212 22.9
Auditor-Controller Propedy TaxfCost Acct /Welfare M M 2 $77,247 $1,540,471 17.1
Auditor-Controller Admin/Systems M M 4 $684,179 $930,179 7.2
Central Su ort LAFCO M I M 1 $82,314 $280,022 2.0
Child ort Svcs Child Su rt Svcs M M 1 $0 $20,953,527 247.0
county Clerk Recorder Elections M M 2 $3,589,787 $4,844,816 23.0
County Clark Recorder Recorder M M 2 $829,323 $3,280,172 40.0
County Counsel Social Service-Probate M M 2 $59,010 $1,765,938 18.0
District Attorney SLESF-Criminal Prosecution M M 2 $0 $338,491 3.0
EMP&Human Svcs Indigent Interment M M 1 2 $21,750 $34,250 0.0
Emp&Human Svcs Child Abuse Prevention M M 4 $29,500 $812,108 0.0
Emp&Human Svcs Family Preservation Program M M 4 $417,092 $2,240,617 1.2
E es/Ratiree Bnfts Em o ee Benefits M M 1 $2,936,084 $2,936,084 0.0
Em a/Retires Onfte Retiree Health Benefits M M 2 $4,000,000 $4,000,000 0.0
Health Svcs CtaWs From Other Coun De M M 3 $7,732,037 $15,419,641 0.0
Health Svcs Medicare M M 3 1 $327,192 $4,718,680 0.0
Health Svcs Proposition 36 program M M 1 $0 $1,857,500 6.8
Probation Care of Court Wards M M 2 $4,921,179 $8,793,215 0.0
Probation Juvenile Facilities M M 4 $12,182,920 $19,504,540 200.0
Sheriff--Coroner Custody Svcs Bureau M M 2 $16,718,682 $50,860,287 442.0
Sheriff-Coronsr Traffic Safety M M 2 $0 $163,165 0.0
Superior Court Trial Ct.Programs M M 2 $9,849,226 $20,673,920 0.0
Treasurer Tex Coll Tax Collections M M 1 $785,441 $2,686,196 21.0
Treasurer-Tax Coll Business License M M 4 $13,163 $134,508 1.5
Superior Court Clerk Records Automation NA NA 1 $0 $0 0.0
Supetlor Court Court Records Automation NA NA 1 $0 $0 0.0
Su for Court Change of Venue In Co NA NA 1 $0 $0 0.0
Su for Court Juvenile Dependency Mediation NA NA 1 $0 $0 0,0
TOTAL M/M $67,826,489 $1713,815,326 1,106.4
`"Flex"represents analysts'assessment of Board's discretion to reduce program costs from a practical perspective. "Flexibility"ranges from little or no
discretion(1)to substantial or total discretion(4).
Date Selected from Recommended Budget Book FY02-03 4 1/15/03
.1111..... ......... _._...... ......_.....1.111 .........
....... ........ .......... .......... ........ ..._...................... ......._.. .......... ............................
EXHIMT L)
D
ExAmPLES OF 10% NCC REDUCTION
UNDER CONSIDERATION
1. Health Services Deoartment-Ambulatory Care Clinics
Total Bud et; 634.828.329
Net Cou nty Cost; 79t`i 4 08
0°lo NC Target; 500 tI04 } FTEs; 0
Prograrr impact; A proximately 6,001 to 9,0 0 private pay vi qs will be elim hated
with a re ise ree 'ng and ap Dint ent ystern With wa and backlo of
patients o b s n it 's nti pat d t t th pr' at pay visit eduction wi I be ackfiiled
with paying p tie ts, i e. Me i-C l a d C f
2. Heath Simi es ,e art nt- ent i H Ith Co frac s
Total B u dg 34 828 32
� E
Not County os • tl 6.796.408/
10% NCC Ta eget; $175.060 TEs: W
Prograrr i Iml ac C ntr ct�d s rvic�s for Ment I Halt management a d
physicia s w I b red c d.
3. Heal Services I)e a e t- u IIc h C 'n cal 6nd Comm nl Services
Total Bt dget; $434, 28.69
Net County Cos . jJ6.7A6,48 �j
10% NCC Target: $400,000 FTEs: -5'
Program impact: Reduce services provided by Public Health clinics: family
planning, sexually transmitted disease, primary care pediatrics, immunizations,
teenage/school based clinics, refugee services, health on wheels, health care for
homeless, occupational health, WIC screening. No cuts to asthma program or breast
cancer prevention.
4. District Attorney
Total Budget: $22,953,704
Net County Cost: $9,351,169
10% NCC Target: $935.117 FTEs: -10
Program impact: To reduce Net County Cost by$935,197 would require the
elimination of 10+fixed term attorney positions. To account for an additional anticipated
shortfall of$674,000 in Proposition 172 revenues would require elimination of another 7
fixed-term attorneys. With such a staffing reduction, the District Attorney's Office would
Page 1 of 3
either have to cease misdemeanor prosecution entirely, including domestic violence and
DUI cases, PLUS cut back in additional felony prosecution areas OR disbandall
specialized prosecution units in the areas of domestic violence, sexual assault and elder
abuse. Without these vertical'prosecution units, all domestic violence, sexual assault
and elder abuse cases would be transferred into general caseloads resulting in the
continued prosecution of some, but not all of these cases; prosecuted cases would not
get the attention needed and efforts to prosecute the cases would be significantly less
effective.
5. Sheriff/Coroner
Total B $'1 145
Net Cou ty Cost: $41,717.03
10% NC Target: 141171,709 FTEs: -31
i
Progra Impact: Tte S s Mice elieve a c of nitude would esuit
in a sign ica t r duct on in l w e fordeme t s rvi es. her fore, t eriff gists
that the resent taffi 9'Vinci un ing vel be mai tain d. reduction f thi size would
require the el mi tib o ap rox at ly 3 p
it
s (3 FT s).
6. PCo tIo J en le Facilities
Total Budge:: 9 498 980 j
Net Cou nty os • 2.16-7.36&
10% NCC T Cge 21 92 TEs: 16
Progra Im c : P oba io Fa 'liti s provides c ntin um of court-ordered
custodia car d tr atnent s rvi s f r juveniles. In general, reducticns in lower
levels of care can re ult in in re ses `n acuities with ore i tense and expeiisive
programs. The $1, 8,1292 NC dec se out de r ase expenditure 5by $1,751,280
includin $532,988 f Ti le ! E r ven
I
7. Prob re'of W �
Total Budget: $8,793,215
Net County Cost: $4,921,179
10% NCC Target: $492.118 FTEs: 0
Program Impact: Historically, because these services are ordered by the Juvenile
Court, the costs have generally been outside of the direct control of the Probation
Department. The proposed 10% reduction plan may be impractical for these non-
discretionary general fund expenditures for the commitment of minors by the Juvenile
Court. A review of the level of the out-of-home placements reveals that Centra Costa is
one of the lowest in number of placing agencies in the State of California per capita and
that the numbers that out-of-home placements and commitments to the California Youth
Authority are extremely low for a population base this size.
Page 2 of 3
8. General Services
TotalBudget: $106,022,319
Net County Cost: $16,505,882
10% NCC Target: $700,588 FTEs: .7
Program Impact: General Services is proposing reductions in the areas of Vehicle
Depreciation, Repayment of Debt Financing, Maintenance to Veterans Buildings,
Electricity, Services and Supplies, and 7 positions related to Grounds and Custodial.
9. Uh-raw
Total Budget: 9.975.479
Net Cou rity Cast: $13.890.000 I
10% NC T i
g t: 38 00 TEs: 9.3 _
Progran Im ac : T e Li rar re o en th foll win : Eliminate
interdep rtm nta ch g i s ( 3 ,25 M na m t re rga lzation ($2 ,00 );
Redac#i in s ge h! rg y usi g e mai nd phone no ica ion ($ 3,000); Reduce
material bu et ',$152, 00); Reduc libr ry urs ($792,250). 1 he ma or ir'pact of this
proposal is t e re J uct or of open h rs t th ent al Library anc to bra ich ibrar€es. It
is anticipated thai the Central Libr op n h u s w uld be redo d 5-6 iour s per week
and the branch li rari s -6 urs er w ek. T is i a tesuft-of-el minati ig 1 i3 positions.
U
0
Page 3 of 3
... EXHIBIT
DRAFT BUDGET BALANCING RECOMMENDATIONS
UNDER CONSIDERATION BY COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
1. ACKNOWLEDGE the severe nature of the fiscal challenges confronting the County in FY
2043-04 and following years;
2. DIRECT the County,Administrator to implement a strict hiring freeze for all County
positions that in his judgment are not necessary to protect public health or safety, or that are
not revenue offset,
3. DIRECT the County Administrator to implement a freeze on the addition of all new positions
that in his judgment are not necessary to protect public health or safety, or that are not
revenue offset;
4. DIRECT the County Administrator to implement a freeze on all non-essential travel(CAO to
promulgate instructions to departments);
5. DIRECT the County Administrator identify net County cast reductions in contract services of
up to 10%for Board consideration;
6. DIRECT the County Administrator, in collaboration with County departments,to determine
if a reduction in current year budgeted net County cost is feasible and provide
recommendations to the Board of Supervisors for its consideration;
7. DIRECT the County Administrator, in collaboration with the Director of.Health Services, to low
determine the feasibility of eliminating non-mandated services and:programs offered by the LIM
County's hospital and clinic system;
8. DIRECT the County Administrator, In collaboration with the Director of Health Services, to
suggest means by which County costs for the Contra Costa Health plan(CCHP)maybe
reduced significantly,and provide recommendations to the Board of Supervisors for its
consideration;
9. DIRECT the County Administrator to report to the Board of Supervisors regarding the
feasibility of significantly reducing budget year and out year operating costs through the use
of pension obligation bonds to extinguish unfunded liability in the retirement system and its
impact on County contribution rates;
10. DIRECT the County Administrator to continue working with the Labor/Management Task
.Force to identify cost savings available through modification of County business practices;
11. DIRECT the County Administrator to consult with contract service providers and other
interested parties to seek their advice regarding strategies to deal with the County's fiscal
challenges;
12. DIRECT the County Administrator to seek the advice of appropriate County advisory boards
and commissions regarding cost-cutting strategies Within their areas of interest,and to seek
the recommendations of interested civic organizations—e.g.,the League of Women Voters
and the Taxpayers Association—regarding strategies for addressing the County's budget
shortfall;
CADocnments and SettingsUSWBEWY DOCUME,`NTS\03.04 Budget\Draft Budget Balancing R:ecommendations.doc
Page I oft