HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06271988 - IO.1 To: BOAYtl?*OF SUPERVISORS I. 0. 1
FROM: VVI Itra
a
INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
DATE . June 20, 1988 C"^
SUBJECT: Child Care Issues
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
A. INCOME TAX DEDUCTION FOR DEPENDENT CARE ASSISTANCE
1 . Support legislation to increase the maximum child care
expense which is eligible for a federal income tax
deduction from $2400 for one child to $3600 for one
child, and from $4800 for two or more children to $7200
for two or more children.
2 . Support legislation to implement a federal income tax
rebate program under which a family would receive a
rebate from the Internal Revenue Service for any
eligible child care deduction which exceeds a
taxpayer' s federal income tax liability.
B. DEPENDENT CARE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
3 . Direct the County Administrator to formulate a
dependent care assistance program for recommendation
to the Board. After the program is adopted:
a. Urge the chambers of commerce and Contra Costa
Council to sponsor training for small employers on
the benefits of offering dependent care assistance
programs to their employees.
b. Authorize the Director of Personnel to request
proposals from several private firms to provide
consultation to the County in the marketing and
training related to the dependent care assistance
program for County employees.
C. Request the Director of Personnel to prepare a
brochure for County employees on the relative
advantages and disadvantages of the dependent care
assistance program and on federal and state child
care income tax deductions so employees have the
information necessary to make informed decisions
about the extent to which they should utilize the
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _ YES SIGNATURE:
_ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
X APPROVE OTHER S _
r .
SIGNATURE s : Sunne W. McPea Tom Torlakson
ACTION OF BOARD ON June zu, I 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.
CC: Listed on Page 5 ATTESTED 0?, /98ff
P L BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY ,DEPUTY
M382/7-83
Page 2
dependent care assistance program versus the
income tax deduction in order to take the maximum
advantage of each.
d. Request the Director of Personnel to prepare a
general brochure on the dependent care assistance
program and child care income tax deduction which
can be made available to private employers and
their employees in the County, but which will not
infringe upon the properietary materials prepared
by private firms doing consulting work in this
area.
e. Request the Director of Personnel to meet with the
Subcommittee consisting of Ken Jaffe, Teri Dean,
Naomi Zipkin, Bette Boatmun, and Carol Brilon in
an advisory capacity for the preparation of
educational and training materials for County
employees, and in the preparation of both
County-specific and general brochures on the
relative advantages and disadvantages of the
dependent care assistance program and child care
income tax deduction.
f. Request the Director of Personnel to report to the
Board of Supervisors by February 1, 1989 on the
extent of participation in the dependent care
assistance program and, on the projected savings to
the County in Social Security taxes and retirement
contributions. Indicate at this time the Board' s
intent to dedicate all such savings to the
proposed child care affordability fund.
4 . Indicate to the Director of Personnel and employee
organizations the Board' s preference to wait to
implement the dependent care assistance program until
January 1, 1989 thereby allowing time this fall for the
necessary marketing, education, and training of County
employees on the advantages of the dependent care
assistance program and child care income tax deduction
so all employees who are interested will have as much
information available as possible. In connection
therewith authorize the Director of Personnel to Meet
and Confer with employee organizations on delaying
implementation of the dependent care assistance program
from August 1, 1988 to January 1, 1989.
5 . Request the County Administrator to obtain from the
Internal Revenue Service and Franchise Tax Board data
on the utilization during 1987 of the dependent care
assistance program and income tax deduction for child
care, and to obtain such additional information as may
be available to accurately project the cost to the
federal and state governments of implementing
recommendations 1 and 2 above.
C. CHILD CARE LEGISLATION
6. Endorse S. 1855, the Act for Better Child Care Services
of 1987, and direct the County Administrator to
transmit the Board' s support to Congressmen Miller and
Dellums and each member of the Senate Committee on
Labor and Human Resources, the Majority Leader of the
Senate, the Minority Leader of the Senate, and Senators
Cranston and Wilson.
Page 3
7 . Take the following position on legislation pending in
the State Legislature and direct the County
Administrator to transmit the Board' s position to
appropriate members of this County' s legislative
delegation and other appropriate members of the
Legislature, as well as the County's lobbyist:
AB 1967 - SUPPORT
AB 3148 - SUPPORT
AB 3961 - OPPOSE
SB 304 - SUPPORT if amended to include
Contra Costa County
SB 722 - SUPPORT
AB 1763 - SUPPORT
AB 2736 - SUPPORT
AB 3145 SUPPORT if amended to remove the
penalty for progressive local juris-
dictions which have already
established child care coordinator
positions
8 . Request the Subcommittee consisting of Ken Jaffe, Teri
Dean, Naomi Zipkin, Bette Boatmun, and Carol Brilon to
continue to serve as a legislative committee on child
care issues and authorize them to advocate for the
Board' s positions on the above legislation, and to work
cooperatively with the County Administrator in this
regard.
9. Request the County Administrator to report to our
Committee September 26, 1988 on the outcome of all
legislation dealing with child care which was reviewed
by our Committee on June 20.
D. TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX AND SALES TAX REVENUE
10. Request the Public Works Director to report to our
Committee September 26, 1988 on the amount of sales tax
revenue which is expected to be generated from proposed
development at Buchanan Field Airport.
11. Request the Director of Community Development to
determine the amount of transient occupancy tax which
would be generated countywide by an increase in the
transient occupancy tax by each jurisdiction of 1% (for
the County an increase from 8 . 5% to 9 . 5%) , and report
the results to our Committee on September 26, 1988.
E. OTHER RELATED CHILD CARE ISSUES
12. Request the Director of Community Development to report
to our Committee as soon as possible on the contract
with the Contra Costa Child Care Council for
implementation of the needs assessment review pursuant
to Ordinance 88/1 and on the status of grant
applications to foundations to support the Contra Costa
Child Care Council in its coordinative role on behalf
of the County.
13 . Request the Director of Personnel to report to our
Committee September 26, 1988 on the various options
which are available for providing sick child care for
County employees, including the possibility of
subsidizing child care consultants in existing
programs.
Page 4
14. Request the Director of Public Works to be present at
our Committee meeting on September 26, 1988 to continue
the discussion of the use of available County property
which might be used for a public-private sector youth
entertainment project.
15. Request the County Administrator to meet as soon as
possible with staff from the Social Services,
Department, the Contra Costa Child Care Council and the
Community Services Department regarding the request for
proposals for GAIN child care services to resolve
outstanding issues identified in the Council' s letter
to Supervisor Torlakson dated May 5, 1988 and report to
our Committee in writing as soon as possible.
BACKGROUND:
On March 29, 1988 the Board of Supervisors approved a number of
recommendations made by our Committee dealing with various child
care issues. In response to those referrals, our Committee met
with a number of child care advocates in the community as well as
staff from the County Administrator' s Office, the Personnel
Department, Community Development Department, Public Works
Department, Social Services Department, and County Counsel' s
Office on June 20, 1988 .
Rather than attempting to repeat or summarize all of the reports
provided to us, we have attached several documents which provide
the background for the recommendations we have made above. These
include:
1. A report from the County Administrator' s Office on the
federal income tax deduction for child care expenses
and the dependent care assistance program.
2. A report from the Director of Personnel on sick child
care and the implementation of the dependent care
assistance program for County employees.
3 . An analysis by the County. Administrator' s Office of
5. 1855 .
4. A report from our Committee summarizing the pieces of
State legislation on which we are recommending the
Board take a position.
5. A report from the Redevelopment Director on the
Pleasant Hill-BART sales tax and the proposed transient
occupancy tax from the hotels which are proposed in the
Pleasant Hill-BART area.
6 . A report from the Public Works Director on surplus
County property which might be utilized as a youth
entertainment center.
7. A report from the Social Services Director on GAIN
child care along with correspondence from the Contra
Costa Child Care Council to Supervisor Torlakson
expressing concerns about the manner in which the child
care contracts for the GAIN program have been awarded.
Page 5
On this last issue in particular we feel it is urgent that the
County Administrator' s Office meet with the Social Services
Department, Contra Costa Child Care Council, and the Community
Services Department to clarify any misunderstandings and insure
that the most appropriate agency is administering the child care
program for GAIN.
The legislation which we are recommending the Board support was
selected from some 47 bills identified by the County
Administrator' s Office which are currently still pending in the
Legislature dealing with child care. We will continue to work on
many of these issues at our September 26 meeting and will return
further recommendations to the Board following that meeting.
cc: County Administrator
Public Works Director
Community Development Director
Director of Personnel
County Counsel
Social Services Director
Director, Community Services
Katherine Ertz-Berger
Teri Dean
Jim Kennedy
J
ATTACHMENT #1
OFFICE OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Sunne Wright McPeak Administration Building
Tom Torlakson Martinez, California
To: INTERNAL OPERATIONS Date: June 17, 1988
Child Care Income Tax
Claude L. Van Marter Deduction and Dependent
From : Assistant Administra Subject: Care Assistance
A subcommittee, consisting of Ken Jaffe, Teri Dean, Naomi Zipkin,
Bette Boatmun and Carol Brilon, has reviewed federal income tax
child care deductions and the dependent care assistance program
in an effort to determine what changes are needed to achieve the
goal of having a family not have to spend more than 100 of their
gross income on child care.
Attached are six examples which we believe are fairly typical of
the problems confronted by single parents and low-income
two-parent families.
Among the conclusions which can be drawn from these examples are
the following:
1. For most low-income taxpayers the current federal child care
deduction provides very little benefit because of the
combination of the relatively low percentages of child care
expenses which are allowed and the low income tax brackets
in which these taxpayers find themselves.
2. Assuming that child care expenses which are paid through a
dependent care assistance program are not deductible as a
child care expense on the taxpayers income tax return the
dependent care assistance program is only financially
attractive to the extent that actual child care expenses
exceed the federal allowable maximum of $2400 for one child
and $4800 for two children, or where the allowable child
care deduction exceeds the taxpayers federal tax liability.
Otherwise, the taxpayer is sacrificing the child care
deduction for non-taxable income which would be taxed at a
lower rate than the child care deduction.
3 . The goal of holding child care expenses to 100 of gross
income cannot be achieved without a tax rebate program
similar to the renters credit in California which is paid
even if there is no tax liability. For many taxpayers their
federal tax liability is already so low that the child care
exemption at, existing levels eliminates the total tax
liability, but leaves a substantial available deduction
which cannot be taken.
Internal Operations
June 17, 1988
Page 2
4 . Because the federal maximum deductible child care expenses
are capped at $2400 for one child and $4800 for two or more
children, many families will spend their 100 of gross income
simply covering the difference between the federal maximum
and their actual costs. At $6000 for two children, $1200 is
not allowable. Therefore, a family with a $12,000 income
will be at their 10% limit even if they were allowed a 1000
deduction for the first $4800 in expenses.
RECONNENIDATIONS
1. Allowable child care expenses should be increased to
$3000 for one child and $6000 for two or more children.
2. A rebate must be implemented where the allowable child
care -deduction exceeds federal tax liability.
3 . The dependent care assistance program should be used
carefully to cover only expenses which exceed the
federal maximums or, in the absence of a rebate
program, where the allowable child care deduction
exceeds the taxpayers tax liability.
4. Federal tax laws should be based on the net
out-of-pocket expense to the family rather than
arbitrary limits and percentages, which discriminate
against low-income families with high child care
expenses. It should be possible to provide a rebate
for all reasonable child care expenses which exceed 100
of the family' s gross income.
5. The County should indicate its willingness to allocate
any savings as a result of the dependent care
assistance program to child care programs. The county
(and nearly every other employer) will achieve savings
in reduced retirement and FICA contributions for nearly
every employee.
6 . The subcommittee has recommended that training should
be available to small employers on why they ought to
offer dependent care assistance programs to their
employees.
Internal Operations
June 17, 1988
Page 3
7. Because of the complexities involved in the child care
dependent care assistance program, a brochure should be
available to employees explaining how to calculate the
relative benefits of the two programs and how to figure
the maximum tax advantages which .'can be achieved by
using the two systems in tandem.
There are undoubtedly other recommendations which members of the
subcommittee would like to add to the above.
CLVM:clg
Attachment
INCOME TAX DEDUCTION FOR CHILD CARE EXPENSES
Features of federal income tax deduction for child care expenses:
1 . Limited to $2400 in expenses for one child.
2 . Limited to $4800 in expenses for two or more
children.
3 . Maximum deduction is $720 for one child.
4 . Maximum deduction is $1440 for two or more
children.
5. Deduction cannot exceed the lesser of two
spouses incomes.
6 . Deduction is a straight deduction from tax
liability after tax due is figured.
7. Maximum deduction is 300 of $2400 or $4800
(gross income not exceeding $10,000 ) .
8 . Minimum deduction is 200 of $2400 or $4800
(gross income exceeding $28,000)
9. No maximum income. Anyone can take deduction,
but it is limited to 200 of allowable expenses.
10. No rebate if deduction exceeds tax liability.
California deduction is a flat 300 of federal
deduction.
EXAMPLE 1•
Two wage earners - one earns $20,000; the other earns $10,000.
Take standard deductions. Two children in child care. Actual
expenses = $6 ,000.
Maximum allowable expenses $4,800 $6,000
Percent of expenses deductible 20% 500
Deduction $ 960 $3 ,000
Tax Liability $3 ,244 $3 , 244
Child care deduction 960 3 ,000
Net Tax Liability $2,284 $ 244
Out-of-pocket child care
expenses $5,040 = $3 ,000 =
16% of gross 10% of gross
income income
Page 2
EXAMPLE 2 •
Single parent earning $9,900. Takes standard deduction. Two
children in child care. Actual expenses $6,000.
Maximum allowable expenses $4,800 $6 ,000
Percent of expenses deductible 300 83. 50
Deductible $1,440 $5,010
Tax Liability 436 436
Child Care Deduction (cannot 436 436
exceed tax liability)
Net Tax Liability -0- $ ( 4,574)rebate
Out-of-pocket child care expenses $5,564= $ 990=
56% of gross 10% of gross
income income
EXAMPLE 3 :
Single parent earning $15,000. Takes standard deduction. Two
children in child care. Actual expenses $6,000 .
Maximum allowable expenses $4 ,800 $6 ,000
Percent of expenses deductible 270 750
Deductible $1,156 $4, 500
Tax Liability 1,201 1, 201
Child Care Deduction 1,156 4, 500
Net Tax Liability $ 45 $ ( 3 , 299)rebate
Out-of-pocket child care expenses $4,844 = $1 , 500 =
32% of gross 10% of gross
income income
EXAMPLE 4:
Single parent earning $10,000. Takes standard deduction. One
child. Actual child care expenses $3 ,000.
Maximum allowable expenses $2,400 $3 , 000
Percent of expenses deductible 290 670
Deductible $ 696 $2 ,000
Tax Liability 736 736
Child care Deduction 696 2 , 000
Net Tax Liability $ 40 $ ( 1 , 264 )rebate
Out-of-pocket child care expenses $2304 or $1, 000=
23% of gross 10% of gross
income income
Page 3
EXAMPLE 5: (Suggested by Subcommittee to be Target group)
Two wage earners - one earns $14, 000; the other earns $8,000.
Take standard deductions. Two children in child care. Actual
expenses = $6,000.
Maximum allowable expenses $4,800
Percent of expenses deductible . 230
Deduction $1,104
Tax liability $1,474
Child care deduction $1,104
Net tax liability $ 370
Out-of-pocket child care $4, 896 =
expenses 22 . 20 of gross
income
EXAMPLE 6: (Suggested by Subcommittee)
One wage earner - earns $18, 000. Takes standard deduction. One
child in child care. Actual expenses = $3 ,000.
Maximum allowable expenses $2, 400
Percent of expenses deductible 250
Deduction $ 600
Tax liability $1,651
Child care deduction 600
Net tax liability $1, 051
Out-of-pocket child care $2,400=
expenses 13 . 3% of gross
income
ATTACHMENT #2
• `•r
Contra Personnel Department
Costa Administration Bldg.
County Ma Pine Street
Martinez, California 94553-1292
DATE: June 15, 1988
TO: Internal Operations Committee
FROM: Harry Cisterman, Director of Person
n
By: Kim Franklin, Personnel Analy
SUBJECT: Status Report Regarding the Implementation of the Dependent Care
Assistance Plan and the Sick Child Care Facility
At the meeting of March 21, 1988 the Internal Operations Committee
requested detailed information regarding the development and implementation
of the County's Dependent Care Assistance Plan. Additionally, the Internal
Operations Committee directed staff to explore the option of marketing the
County's Dependent Care Assistance plan to other public jurisdictions and
private agencies.
A synopsis of the components of the Dependent Care Assistance Plan which
list proposed marketing strategies, cost and systematic concerns are
included in the report together with the status of a County operated sick
child care facility.
Implementation of the Dependent Care Assistance Plan.
The Personnel Department will be responsible for marketing the Dependent
Care Assistance Plan to the employees. The marketing plan will consist of
an ongoing publicity campaign to educate employees about the program as
well as the development of work site meetings which will be designed to
introduce and explain the new employee benefit.
The Personnel Department will also be responsible for enrolling employees
in the program, reviewing completed forms, determining eligibility of
reimbursement claims, and authorizing reimbursement for dependent care
expenses. Following authorization from the Personnel Department, a payroll
deduction form will be forwarded -to the payroll section of the Auditor's
Office. The payroll system will be modified to deduct the specified amount
from the employee's salary prior to the deduction of federal and state
income tax. Deductions will be posted to individual trust accounts which
will then be available for disbursement to employees on a bi-monthly basis.
A monthly trust fund balance report will be generated by the payroll
which itemizes trust fund deposits, withdrawal, and ending balances. This
report will be maintained in the Personnel Department so that employees may
receive current information regarding the status of their account.
s
Internal Operations Committee -2- June 15, 1988
There will be an estimated one-time start-up fee of $1000 to modify the
payroll system to accommodate the salary deductions. Additionaly, $100 a
month will be required to maintain the operation of the system and to
produce the trust fund balance reports.
The marketing aspect of the Dependent Care Assistance Plan is vital to the
success of the program. It is very important that employees understand
the options available in the area of -tax savings for dependent care
expenses. For example, eligible employees may receive a tax deduction for
dependent care purposes in either one of two ways: as a tax credit
deducted from income- tax returns or as a pre-tax.salary reduction under a
Dependent Care Assistance Plan. The County should not be in the position
of providing tax advice to employees because -the tax laws are quite complex
and to do so would increase the the County's liability. Therefore, it is
recommended that the County enlist the services of a benefits consulting
firm to provide training to staff on the development of educational
materials to orient employees to the program. The William M.
Mercer-Meidinger-Hansen, Inc. consulting group has proposed an hourly
fee-for-service of $140 per hour to provide such training.
Alternatively, Mercer Inc. will administer the Dependent Care Assistance
Plan for the following fees:'
System Requirements $ 2000-3000
- Software System Set-up $ 2000-3000
Reimbursement Claims Adjudication $ 1.60 per claim
Ongoing Processing $ 1.15 per participant
per month
Typically, 5 to 10% of an agency's employees will participate in a salary
reduction program. Consequently, the County could expect to pay as much as
$6000 in start-up fees, plus an additional $130 per month in administrative
costs if the County elects to contract with a benefits consulting group to
provide these services.
Please note that the estimates provided for the implementation of the
Dependent Care Assistance Plan do not include the Pesonnel Department's
administrative costs.
It is recommended that the Personnel Department administer the County's
Dependent Care Assistance Plan in conjunction with staff from the Auditor's
Office. It is also recommended that the County contract with a benefits
management group to provide training and consulation to insure that the
County's Dependent Care Assistance Plan is in compliance with the
applicable IRS regulations.
Internal Operations Committtee -3- June 15, 1988
Marketing of the Computer-Software to Public and Private Industries
In the past, the County has maintained a policy of free exchange with
regard to systems developed with tax-payer funds with other government
jurisdictions. Conversely, the County has adopted a policy of charging
private agencies for the use of systems designed by the County.
The likelihood of marketing the system that the County designs for
tax-deferred child care reimbursement to outside agencies is quite remote.
The payroll system utilized by the County is a copyrighted system licensed
by Management Science of America. Therefore, the County is legally unable
to sell or market the system. The only items that the County could make
available are the forms and procedures developed for use with the
Management Science of America system, but these items are worthless without
the compatible payroll system.
Sick Child Care
The Internal Operations Committee received a report from the Personnel
Department which provided information on the operational costs and
considerations associated with the establishment of a sick child care
facility at the March 21, 1988 meeting. There have been no changes in the
information that was provided to the Internal Operations Committee since
that time. Therefore, staff is awaiting further direction from the I.O.
Committee with regard to the implementation of a sick child care program.
In the interest of maximizing cost effectiveness and increasing the
probability of use by larger numbers of employees, it is recommended that
the County develop a center which will provide basic child care services,
but which can also accommodate a small number of sick children.
Subsidizing slots in established child care centers is another option which
the County might consider in lieu of implementing its own child care
center. Staff has recently been in contact with representatives of the
Richmond YWCA to discuss the possibility of subsidizing slots for County
employees in their newly developed infant care program.
This option could also be expanded to included subsidization of other types
of child care services (i.e. of after school care, sick child care etc. )
in various locations throughout the County. This subsidy program could be
implemented as a pilot program offered to a limited number of employees.
HDC:KF:jd
Contra Personnel Department
Costa Adrninisuation Bldg.
651 Prne Street
County Martine:. California 945531292
DATE: March 15, 1988
T0: Internal Operations Committee
FROM: Harry D. Cisterman, Director of Personnel
By: Kim Franklin, Administrative Analyst
SUBJECT: Sick Child Care Program
In accordance with your request, a report on the establishment of a sick
child care program is provided below.
BACKGROUND
Within the last few years the number of women who comprise the national
workforce has increased. In addition, the number of men who are single
parents has also increased. It is estimated. that in California, one worker
in four has a child under the age of 14 who requires child care. The
changing demographics of the workforce has had a pronounced affect on
employee's needs for child care, consequently, Contra Costa County has
become more aware of its responsibility as an employer -to effectively
respond to the child care needs of its employees.
On July 16, 1986, a survey was conducted by the staff of the Personnel
Department in order to ascertain the child care needs of the employees and
to determinethe level of interest in an employer-sponsored child care
program. A total of 3,483 questionnaires were distributed in 25 different
County departments and 1,038 employees responded (300) . In the latter part
of September, an additional 3,099 questionnaires were sent to 13 departments
that had not previously participated in the survey. A total of 820
questionnaires were completed and returned to the Personnel Department
(26.4%) . In combining the two surveys it was estimated that a total of
5,982 employees received questionnaires with 1,858 employees responding. Of
those employees who responded, 1,349 (72%) expressed no present or antici-
pated need for child care services.
Although 72% of the respondents expressed no need for child care services,
25% of the respondents indicated. a present or anticipated need for child
care services while 3% were undecided. Major problems most commonly
reported were:
1) Affordability of child care
2) Availability of extended day care (after school, weekends)
3) Availability of sick child care or emergency care
4) Availability of quality day care resources
Based upon the information collected, it was concluded that there is a
demonstrated need for a child care program which includes provisions for
sick child care.
A final survey was conducted on July 5,1987 by staff of the Personnel and
Health Services Departments in order to gain more finite information on the
number of employees who would participate in a County-sponsored sick child
care program. A representative sampling of parent-employees from both the
Health Services and Social Services Departments were surveyed. In total,
311 responses were received from employees who have children under the age
of twelve years. Complete survey results are provided in attachment A. The
following summary highlights the significant findings of the survey:
- 50% of employees surveyed have children within the age range of 6-12
years.
- 73% of the respondents stated that either they or their spouse stay home
from work when their child is ill.
- 60% of the respondents state that they would utilize the services of a
sick child care center if one were available to employees.
- The preferred locations for a sick child care center are:
Martinez (45%) Richmond (21%)
Pittsburg (15%) Concord (14%)
PROGRAM DESIGN, IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATION
The proposed staff for the sick day care program includes one full-time
administrator with a background in early childhood education, who would
serve as the Center Director; one full-time Nurses Aid and one half-time
Registered Nurse responsible for screening the children for eligibility for
admission to the center.
Please note in the attached detailed cost estimate (attachment B) that
approximately $17,000 has been allocated to the start-up costs for marketing
purposes. This is based on an analyses of other hospital-based sick child
care centers located throughout the country. The anaylsis which was
conducted by the National Association for Sick Child Day Care (NASCDC)
concluded that underutilization of sick day care centers can be attributed
to poor marketing strategies. Therefore, the Contra Costa Health Plan
(CCHP) Marketing Director has recommended that a comprehensive survey of
potential users of the center be conducted in order to insure that the sick
day care program is responsive to the user's needs. Consequently, we have
included cost estimates for having a consultant assist in the survey and
promotional activities of the program. The result of these activities would
directly impact program planning.
2 -
. i
It is also recommended that program staff time be made available to provide
worksite informational seminars about program content to the employees. We
believe that this may " personalize " the center concept and would be an
effective way to introduce the program to employees.
Estimates are based on the operation of a 15 bed facility filled at 100%
occupancy. The summary of start-up and annual costs is as follows:
One-Time Annual
Start-Up Ongoing
Costs Costs
I. . NONPERSONNEL COSTS
A. Equipment/Furniture $ 5,539.00 $ -----
B. Misc. Furnishings, Toys, etc. 2,310.00 1,090.00
C. Medical Supplies 339.99 775.87
D. Food Costs ------ 10,058.00
E- Marketing Costs 16,750.00 6,400.00
F. Misc. Operating Costs 860.00 788.00
II. PERSONNEL COSTS
A. Staff 3,024.00 571782.00
B. Benefits (23%) 695.52 13,289.86
TOTALS $29,518.51 $90,183.73
Given the above estimates, the cost of setting up the program and the
first-year operations would be approximately $120,000 and the cost of
operations for successive years would be $90,000. Using straight line
depreciation of equipment and furniture over 10 years, the daily cost of
operation per bed would be:
1. Equipment and Start-up Medical Supplies ($5,879/10 years) Annual
Ongoing Costs.
$ 588
90,184
$90,772
2. $90,772 divided by 15 beds results in an annual cost per bed of $6,051.
3. Given 260 work days per year, the working day cost per bed would be
$23.27.
Listed below are four options which Staff has developed for the provision of
child care services for mildly ill children.
A. LEASE AND REMODEL A RESIDENTIAL FACILITY
The County may choose to lease a residential building and make the necessary
modifications as specified in the California State Day Care Licensing
regulations. Cost data was provided by staff of the General Services
Department's Lease Management Division. Cost estimates are outlined below.
- 3 -
Lease and remodel of a typical 1,500 square foot residential building:
I. PROJECT COST FOR DEVELOPMENT
A. Remodel 1,500 sq. ft. @ $35/sq. ft. $ 52,500
B. Site Work 5,000
C. Project Design and Administration - 35% 20,125
of construction.
D. Site Selection and Lease Negotiations 5,000
Total Project Cost 82,625
II. ANNUAL COSTS
A. Base Rent $.80 X 1,500 sq. ft. $ 1,200/mo
B. Utilities maintenance and Janitorial
1,500 sq. ft. X $.45 675 mo
C. Total monthly costs $' 1,875/mo
x 12 mos
Total Annual Cost $22,500
If the County required the owner to remodel the premises according to County
plans and .specifications, at the owner's expense, the County's cash outlay
would be reduced by the remodeling cost ($52,500) and site work ($5,000) and
the rent would be increased during the first five years by approximately
$1,300 per month. If there is an immediate need for a facility, there are
two buildings available now in. downtown Martinez that might be suitable for
conversion. Both of the buildings have recently been remodeled and upgraded
for office use. Since these buildings have plumbing, electrical, heating,
etc. , which meet current building code requirements, the remodeling cost of
$35 per square foot should be reduced somewhat. The locations are:
- 611 Escobar Street - 4,000 sq. ft. $1,500 to $1,800 per month.
- 815 Estudillo Street - 1.,962 sq. ft. - $1600 per month.
B. LEASE A MODULAR BUILDING
The County may elect to operate a child care facility along the lines of the
San Diego County Child Care Center although some modifications will be
nessecary to provide sick child care services.
In 1981, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors donated two mobile
trailers to serve as the child care facility. In addition, $50,000 was
allocated to renovate the trailers in accordance with State licensing
regulations. A child care task force was appointed by the Board of
Supervisors subsequent to the completion of the trailer renovation. The
task force was responsible for defining the program objectives, developing
program content, and establishing a non-profit corporation to operate the
center. It should be stressed that although the initial capital was
supplied by the County, daily operations are conducted by a non-profit
corporation which leases the center from the County for $1.00 per year.
4 -
I
The reduction of overhead expenses reduces the yearly operational. costs
considerably and allows parent-employees affordable, assessable child care.
The center opened on September 20, 1982 with a total enrollment of four
children. Currently, there are 45 children enrolled on a full-time basis.
The costs for child care are $65 per week for full-time care and $1.75 per
hour for part-time care. The total start-up cost of the project was $60,800
(see attachment). The center is now totally self-supporting through revenue
generated by the child care fees.
Staff has conducted a rudimentary analysis of the cost of leasing a modular
building to be located on County property. Monthly operational costs would
be reduced significantly since no rent would need to be paid on County
property. The estimated cost for a modular office unit with toilet and
kitchenette amenities is as follows:
1. PROJECT COSTS FOR DEVELOPMENT
A. Set up .and tear down $20,000
,B. Site preparation, sewer, utilities, and
handicap ramp . $38,000
C. Architect, engineer, contingency
(35% of construction) $20,300
Total Start-Up Cost $780,300
II. ANNUAL COSTS
A. Rental of modular office unit with toilet $1,210/mo.
and kitchenette, base rent $.90 X 1,345
square feet.
B. Utilities, maintenance and janitorial $605/mo.
1,345 square feet X $.45
C: Total monthly costs $1,815
Total Annual Cost $21,780
C. CONTRACT WITH A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION
The County may choose to contract with a local non-profit organization to
provide sick child day care services. There are obvious advantages to this
type of arrangement. Many non-profit agencies have extensive experience in
the area of child care and are also insured which may reduce the County's
liability. Staff has already made initial contact with the West County YWCA
in order to determine their level of interest in contracting with the County
to provide the desired services. No cost data is available at this time
regarding this option.
5 -
D. DEVELOP A FACILITY FOR WELL AND SICK CHILD CARE
The County may choose to operate a child care facility which provides
"regular" child care services but which also has an adjoining area to
accommodate mildly ill children.
This option is particularly attractive as it would allow the County to serve
more children since licensing requirements for sick children are quite
restrictive. This is turn makes it possible for the County to provide a
benefit for a greater number of employees while still addressing the severe
deficiency in the area of sick child care.
CONCLUSION
There are certain operational considerations which must be addressed
regardless of the. method selected for the development and implementation
of a sick child day care program. The following ideas will be helpful in
adjusting the child care program to employee utilization patterns and also
in maximizing cost efficiency.
- Implement an educational campaign so that employee's will know about and
understand the program.
- Design a sick child care program which is flexible so that it will
meet the changing needs of its users.
- Involve parents in program planning to ensure that the program is
designed to serve the needs of its users.
- Start with a relatively small program and add on more components as the
demand for services grows.
- Allow time for parents to assess the program and to make new
arrangements before expecting full utilization of the day care center.
Direct involvement by the employer in the area of child care services is
advantageous to the organization as awhole. It can reduce turnover,
decrease absenteeism, raise employee morale, and improve recruitment. Above
all, employer-supported child care is a practical solution to a critical
problem.
6 -
ATTACHMENT #3
OFFICE OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Administration Building
Martinez, California
To: Internal Operations CommitteEbate: June 6,1988
Supervisors Sunne McPeak
& Tom Torlakson
From: Claude L. Van Marter, Subject: ANALYSIS OF 5. 1885
Assistant Administrat (ACT FOR BETTER CHILD CARE
SERVICES OF 1987 )
On March 29, 1988 the Board of Supervisors directed that a number of
reports be provided to your Committee on June 20, 1988. Among these
was an analysis of 5. 1885, the Act for Better Child Care Services of
1987 . This report fulfills that requirement.
Introduction: 5. 1885 was introduced November 19, 1987 by Sen.
Christopher Dodd and is co-authored .by 22 other Senators. The bill
has been referred to the Senate Committee on Labor and Human
Resources. The following analysis references section numbers as the
bill was introduced.
Section 1 - .Section 1 contains the short title, "Act for Better Child
Care Services of 1987" , and the table of contents.
Section 2 - Section 2 sets forth a number of findings regarding the
need for additional child care resources and establishes as the
purpose of the legislation to meet those unmet needs.
Section 3 - Section 3 contains a number of definitions of words and
phrases as they are intended to be interpreted in this legislation.
Section 4 - Section 4 authorizes $2. 5 billion for federal fiscal year
1988 and such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 1989, 1990,
1991 and 1992.
Section 5 - Section 5 sets forth the formula by which funds which may
be appropriated are to be allocated among the states.
• First, up to $12. 5 million each fiscal year is reserved for the
territories and possessions of the United States.
• Second, up to $75 . 0 . million each fiscal year is reserved for
transfer to the Secretary of the Interior to make payments for child
care services for Indian Children on Indian reservations.
• Third, up to $125 .0 million each fiscal year is reserved for
grants to states which can demonstrate that all licensed and regulated
child care services within the state satisfy the minimum child care
standards set forth elsewhere in the bill and that all such child care
services are subject to the enforcement provisions specified in the
State plan. In these cases, a state can reduce its non-federal match
from 20% to not less than 15% and the $125 million grant is available
to make up the difference between the 15% and 20% match requirements.
A
S. 1885 (continued) -2- June 6, 1988
• The remaining funds (approximately $2, 287, 500, 000) are allocated
to the states, excluding the territories and possessions, 500 on the
basis of the number of children under the age of 5 in the State and
500 on the basis of the number of children in the state who are
receiving free or reduced price lunches. These allocations are based
on the proportion of such children in the State compared to the number
of such children in all the states.
In order to compensate states where the per capita income is below the
national average the ratio of children under the age of 5 and the
ratio of children receiving free or reduced price school lunches are
adjusted by a factor resulting from dividing the per capita income of
the United States by the per capita income of the state. However,
this adjustment is limited to a range of . 8 to 1. 2. In other words,
if the per capita income of the United States is $10, 000 and the per
capita income in California is $13,000 the adjustment would be .7692
but is limited to . 8 . Likewise if the per capita income in the United
States is $10, 000 and the per capital income in Mississippi is $6, 000,
the adjustment factor would be 1. 667 but is limited to 1. 2.
The Secretary of HHS is also authorized to reallocate funds determined
not to be needed by a state to other states. If California' s share
of the funds were to approximate 100, then the state would receive
approximately $228,750, 000 each fiscal year under the provisions of
5. 1885, assuming the full authorization is appropriated.
Section 6 - Section 6 requires the Governor to designate to the
Secretary a lead agency for purposes of this legislation. The lead
agency must have the capacity to administer the funds, to coordinate
support programs and services with other involved state and local
agencies and must have the authority to establish policies and
procedures needed to carry out the purpose of the legislation. This
section also spells out the duties of the lead agency.
Section 7 - Section 7 requires each state, in order to receive funds
under the legislation, to submit a plan covering a five year period of
time. Section 7 spells out in some detail what must be included in
the plan. The plan must provide that not more than 100 of the funds
received will be used to administer the plan. The plan also must do
all of the following:
• Provide that all child care providers receiving funds are
licensed or meet specified regulatory standards that are at least as
stringent as those applied to other child care providers.
• Provide that procedures will be established to comply with
minimum federal standards, the development of which are provided for
elsewhere in the legislation.
• Provide that the state will not reduce the level of regulation of
child care providers which was in effect on the date of enactment of
the legislation, even if such standards already exceed federal
standards.
A ,
5. 1885 (continued) -3- June 6, 1988
• Provide that federal funds provided under the legislation will
only be used to supplement or increase the level of funding expended
for child care programs (a maintenance of effort requirement) .
• Provide for a low interest loan program and a grant program that
will be available to nonprofit child care centers and family day care
homes to help them establish programs and make renovations and
improvements to existing facilities.
• Provide that at least 75% of the funds will be used to provide
child care services on a sliding fee scale and that at least 10% of
this 75% will be used to extend part-day programs as described below.
• Provide that no more than 150 of the funds will be used for
activities to improve the quality and availability of child care for
all families, including the development of local resource and referral
programs, improving compliance with licensing standards, providing
in-service training to child care staff and personnel in centers,
ensuring that providers can meet the minimum federal safety and health
standards and ensure that staff receive adequate salaries.
• Provide that child care assisted with these federal funds will be
reimbursed at the market rate in the area and that higher
reimbursement will be provided for infant care, services to adolescent
parents and care for handicapped children.
• Provide that priority for services will go to children with the
lowest family incomes.
• Provide for parental involvement in state and local planning,
monitoring and evaluation of child care programs and services.
• Provide that within five years the state will have in place a
licensing, enforcement and inspection program meeting specified
standards.
• Provide for the collection of specified data on the number of
children being assisted and other related data.
Section 8 - Section 8 spells out certain special rules for using the
allotment of federal funds, including that funds are to be provided by
contract or grant to eligible child care providers or by distributing
child care certificates to parents of eligible children. Certificates
can be used only when a resource and referral program is available to
help parents locate child care services. In addition, as was noted
above a minimum of 10% of the 75% of funds going to direct child care
services must be used to enable part-day programs to extend their
hours of operation to meet the needs of working parents and other
parents of eligible children.
Section 9 - Section 9 allows a state to apply for a planning grant in
the first year where it cannot otherwise meet the requirements of the
state plan. This planning grant cannot exceed one percent of the
allotment that would go to the state.
S. 1885 (continued) -4- June 6, 1988
Section 10 - Section 10 requires any state which is not in compliance
with the minimum federal standards to use a portion of its allotment
during the five year period to bring itself into compliance with those
standards. No state can receive any further assistance under the act
after five years after the minimum federal standards are released
unless it is in compliance with those standards.
Section 11 Section 11 requires the Governor to establish an
interagency advisory committee on child care to assist the lead agency
in carrying out its responsibilities. The Advisory Committee must
have between 15 and 30 members and must include specified
representatives. This section spells out the functions of the
Advisory Committee and provides for the number of meetings,
reimbursement of expenses, etc.
Section 12 - Section 12 requires the Governor to establish a state
committee on licensing of not more than 15 members with specific
composition. This section defines the function of the state committee
on licensing and requires the committee to make a report to the
Governor within 12 months and defines particular items which must be
included in the report. The Governor in turn must forward the report
to the Secretary of HHS with the Governor' s comments.
Section 13 - Section 13 requires the state to recognize and provide
funding for resource and referral programs. This section defines the
requirements for a resource and referral program in order to obtain
recognition from the state. The section also specifies the
information which a resource and referral service must gather and
provide in order to be recognized as a resource and referral service.
Section 14 - Section 14 requires that all child care providers
complete at least 15 hours per year of in-service, continuing
education and requires the state to ensure that such training is
available. The section requires the state to make grants and enter
into contracts with organizations to develop a system of child care
training. The section spells out what an organization receiving such
a grant must provide. The state is also required to establish a
clearinghouse to collect and disseminate training materials. The
section also defines the content of training which is to be provided.
Section 15 - Section 15 requires the Secretary of HHS to establish and
Administrator of Child Care to carry out the provisions of the
legislation. This section spells out the duties of the Administrator.
Section 16 - Section 16 provides for review of state plans by the
Secretary for conformity with the legislation and notes what the
Secretary must do when he finds a state out of compliance.
Section 17 - Section 17 provides for the conditions under which
payments are made to states including the 200 local match requirement.
S. 1885 (continued) -5- June 6 , 1988
Section 20 - Section 20 prohibits any provider receiving funds under
this legislation from discriminating against any child on the basis of
race, color, national origin, etc.
CLVM:cm
ATTACHMENT #4
OFFICE OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Administration Building
Martinez, California
To: Board of Supervisors Date: June 20, 1988
. Internal Operations
From: Committee Subject: Child Care Legislation
We recommend that the Board take positions on the following child: .
care legislation:
1 . AB 1967 (Bates) - Last amended March 10, 1988. Provides,
beginning in 1989-90, that all State-funded child care and
development programs will receive an annual cost-of-living
adjustment equal to the inflation adjustment applied to
school district revenue limits.
Status: Passed by the Assembly June 25, 1987. Passed
Senate Education Committee March 16, 1988. Pending in
Senate Appropriations Committee.
Position: Support
2. AB 3145 (Cortese) - Last amended April 27, 1988.
Establishes a grant program to assist counties and cities to
fund the initial cost of a county or city child care
coordinator or coordination group. Prohibits awarding a
grant where a city or county already has a child care
coordinator or coordinating group. Grants could not exceed
$25,000 and require at least a 50% match, which can include
in-kind contributions. For 1988-89, the Department of
Education is directed to use $250,000 of specified carryover
funds to finance the grants. Thereafter grants are to be
funded out of the Budget Act.
Status: Passed the Assembly Human Services Committee March
23 , 1988. Passed Assembly Ways and Means Committee June 9,
1988 by' 18 : 4. On third reading on the Assembly floor.
Position: Support if amended to delete prohibition on
counties and cities receiving funds if they already have a
child care coordinator or coordinating group in place.
Board of Supervisors
June 20, 1988
Page 2
3 . AB 3148 (Cortese) - Last amended April 25, 1988.
Appropriates $42. 5 million to expand the State' s preschool
and subsidized child care programs. Specifies how the funds
are to be distributed, but also indicates that if SB 1758 is
chaptered the funds will be distributed as provided for in
SB 1758 rather than as specified in this bill.
Status: Passed Assembly Human Services Committee March 23 ,
1988. Passed Assembly Ways and Means Committee on June 9,
1988 by 20: 2. On third reading on Assembly floor.
Position: Support
4. AB 3961 (Ferguson) - Last amended April 5, 1988. Exempts
from meeting the educational requirements imposed upon child
care licensees any religious organization operating a child
day care center.
Status: Passed Assembly Human Services Committee June 15,
1988 by 7 : 0. Pending in Assembly Ways and Means Committee.
Position: Oppose
5 . SB 304 (Presley) - Last amended June 29, 1987. Authorize
the Board of Supervisors in Riverside County to impose a fee
of up to $10 on civil filings for dissolution of a marriage,
legal separation, or nullity of a marriage and on the
response to such a petition to fund the operating expenses
of a child waiting room within the courthouse for children
in the courthouse for court appearances or whose parents are
in the courthouse for family mediation services.
Status: Passed by the Senate April 2, 1987. Pending in
Assembly Judiciary Committee.
Position: Support if amended to include Contra Costa
County.
6. SB 722 (Hart.) - Last amended May 3 , 1988. Authorizes a tax
credit equal to 30% of the cost, not to exceed $30, 000 per
year, paid by a taxpayer for the startup expenses of
establishing a child care program or constructing a child
care facility in California to be used primarily by the
children of the taxpayer' s employees or for contributions to
Board of Supervisors
June 20, 1988
Page 3
6. (continued)
California Child Care information and referral services, or
for both. The bill also authorizes a tax credit equal to
500 of the cost, not to exceed $600 for a contribution to a
full-time qualified care plan and $300 for a contribution to
a part-time qualified care plan made on behalf of any
dependent of the taxpayer' s California employee.
Status: Passed by the Senate January 21, 1988. Passed the
Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee May 2, 1988.
Scheduled- for hearing in Assembly Ways and Means Committee
June 22, 1988.
Position: Support
7. AB 1763 (Wright) - Last amended January 20, 1988.
Authorizes a tax credit of 500 of the cost up to $100,000
for startup expenses of establishing a child care program to
be used primarily by the children of the taxpayers '
employees.
Status: Passed by the Assembly January 28 , 1988 . Pending
in the Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee.
Position: Support
8 . AB 2736 (Hansen) - Last amended April 28, 1988. Authorizes
a tax credit_ of 500 of costs incurred for child care
assistance provided to employees, up to $2500 per employee.
The same tax credit of 500 of costs incurred is available
for providing information and referral services to assist
employees in obtaining child care services. Also authorizes
a tax credit for the cost incurred by an employer to
construct or renovate real property to be used as a child
care facility. This tax credit would be the lesser of 500
of the cost, $2,500 times the number of full-time employees,
or $100,000 and would be taken at a rate of loo a year for
10 years.
Status: Passed the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee
April 18, 1988. Pending in Assembly Ways and Means
Committee.
Position: Support
ATTACHMENT #5
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
DATE: June 15, 1988
TO: Supervisor Sunne W. McPeak
Supervisor T lakson
INTERNAL ER IO S COMMITTEE
FROM: Jim K nedy, D uty Director-Redevelopment
SUBJECT: Sale Tax Transient Occupancy Tax Estimates-
an ill BART Station Area.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attached is an estimate of sales and transient occupancy taxes that may be
reasonably expected to be generated from development in the Pleasant Hill BART
Station Area. A summary of tax revenue estimates is as follows:
Estimated sales tax and transient occupancy tax revenue accruing to the
County of Contra Costa from the Pleasant Hill BART Station Area:
L,_j
Year
Revenue Source 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
Sales Tax $20,805 $35,805 $97,055 $835,555 $859,555
Transient Occupancy $522,151 $532,699 $543,248 $1,123,880 $1,862,338
Tax
TOTAL (Estimate) $542,956 $568,504 $640,303 $1,959,435 $2,721,893
JK:krc
Attachment
ra25/estimate.mmo
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: June 9, 1988
TO: Jim Kennedy
FROM: Gerald E. Raycraf
SUBJECT: Pleasant Hill BART Sales Tax Revenues
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Per your request, I have prepared an estimate of anticipated
sales tax and Transient Occupancy Tax Revenues in the Pleasant
Hill BART Station Area.
Sales Tax Revenues by Year and Type
Spec. Type Amount of Taxable Gross
Plan of Retail Sales/ Taxable County Year
Area Retail l (sq.ft. ) sq.ft./yr2 Sales/Yr Portion/yr 3 Generated
4
10B CS 440 $250 110,000 1,100 1990
10B R 5,250 300 1,575,000 15,750 1990
10B CS 1,582 250 395,500 3,955 1990
15 R 5,000 300 1,500,000 15,000 1991
1 CS 18,500 250 4,625,00 46,250 1992
7 & 8 MS 10,000 150 1,500,000 15,000 1992
7 & 8 R 4,000 300 1,200,000 12,000 1993
7 & 8 CS 600 250 150,000 1,500 1993
12 & 13 CR 50,000 400 20,000,000 200,000 1993
12 & 13 MS 350,000 150 52,500,000 525,000 1993
12 & 13 R 4,000 300 1,200,000 12,000 1994
l0A R 4,000 300 1,200,000 12,000 1994
1. R = Restaurant = $300 taxable sales/square foot/year
CR = Convenience Restaurant(s) _ $400 taxable sales/square foot/year
CS = Convenience Retail Shopping = $250 taxable sales/square foot/year
MS = Mall-type Shopping = $150 taxable sales/square foot/year
2. Source: Richard Berksen, Economic and Planning Systems
3. County Sales Tax Revenue is calculated at 1% of Gross Taxable Sales
4. Represents first full year the project may produce Sales Tax Revenue
Sales Tax Revenue Cumulative by Year
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100
15,750 15,750 15,750 15,750 15,750
3,955 3,955 3,955 3,955 3,955
20,805 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000
35,805 46,250 46,250 46,250
15,000 15,000 15,000
97,055 12,000 12,000
1,500 1,500
200,000 200,000
525,000 525,000
835,555 12,000
12,000
859,555
GR6/salestax.rev
. I
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) By Year
Specific Year # of Rooms Total Room Tax 3
Plan Area Generated Taxed Receipts/Yr Generated
10B 1990 170 -$6,142,950 $522,151
7/8 1993 175 6,706,875 570,084
12/13 1994 216 8,435,880 717,050
1. Based on 70% occupancy rate.*
2. Room Rate based on $90-$110 range in 1988 is assumed to be:*
1988 $ 95
1990 99
1993 105
1994 107
3. TOT is calculated at 8.5%.*
*Source: Richard Berkensen, Economic and Planning Systems.
Transient Occupancy Tax Cumulative, by Year
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
$522,151 $532,699 $543,248 $ 553,796 $ 564,345
570,084 580,943
717,050
522,151 $532,699 543,248 $1,123,880 $1,862,338
GR6/salestax.rev
Specific Plan Area Assumptions
Specific Plan Area 1: 18,000 square feet of convenience
retail is proposed with the Park
Regency Project. While some of this
will most likely be located in Area
3, for discussion purposes, all is
assumed to be located in Area 1.
Specific Plan Area 2: None - Previously developed.
Specific Plan Area 3: See Area 1.
Specific Plan Area 4: None.
Specific Plan Area 5: None - Previously developed.
Specific Plan Area 6: None - Southern Pacific ROW.
Specific Plan Area 7 & 8: One 250 room luxury hotel with a
restaurant, a small amount of
convenience retail and one floor
level of retail within an office
building is assumed. This appears
to reflect the developers latest
proposal . The restaurant- is assumed
to be 4,000 square feet; the
convenience retail within the hotel
is assumed to be 600 square feet;
and the floor level retail within
the office building is assumed to be
10,000 square feet.
Specific Plan Area 9: None.
Specific Plan Area 10A: A 4,000 square foot restaurant is
assumed within one of two office
buildings.
Specific Plan Area 10B: A 5,250 square foot restaurant, and
440 square feet of convenience
retail is located within the 242
room Embassy Suites Hotel . 1,582
square feet of retail has been
approved adjacent to an office
building.
Specific Plan Area 11: None - BART parking structure.
Specific Plan Area 12 & 13: A 4,000 square foot restaurant is
assumed within one 308 room hotel .
350,000 square feet of retail and
50,000 square feet of convenience
restaurants are assumed within a
retail complex.
Specific Plan Area 14: None.
Specific Plan Area 15: A free-standing 5,000 square foot
restaurant is assumed.
Specific Plan Area 16: None - Southern Pacific ROW.
GR/jb
GR6/salestax.rev
ATTACHMENT #6
OFFICE OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Administration Building
Martinez, California
Internal Operations
To: Committee ( Supervisors Date: June 10, 1988
McPeak and Torlakson)
Phil Batchelor, County-Owned Property
From: County Administrator ./ '- j/�j Subject
by D. Bell, Deputy %-
Attached is a report prepared by the Public Works Department
concerning County-owned property. The report is compiled in
response to the Committee request for a review of property that
might be suitable for a variety of entertainment projects to
raise revenue for child care programs.
Most of the sites included on the Public Works list are not well
suited for such use because of topograhic considerations or poor
location. My staff and Public Works staff will be available to
discuss each of the listed sites with your Committee.
DB: lmj
Attachment
cc: Mike Walford,
Public Works Director
PUBLIC VKKW DEPART
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
DATE: June 9, 1988
TO: D. Bell, Deputy County Achnini for
FIM: J. Michael Walford, Pubic Works D' r
SUBJECT: Surplus County-owned Space
As you requested I have had the Real Property Division search the entire
list of County-am-)ed property to determine if the County owns any property
which might be suitable for develcpnent of an amusement and/or recreation
project for children and young people. The criteria used were a-minimum
area of three acres and that the property is either currently vacant or has
3+ acres of unused land. We did not consider current zoning or General Plan
designation. We also did not include land purchased with special district
funds which would have to be paid off for the County to use the property.
The attached list and maps show the properties identified. It is our
opinion that none of these properties is suitable for the proposed use, but
they are the only vacant (General Fund money purchase) properties that the
County owns of the required size.
JMW:PBG:rs
bell.t6
Contra Cosa County
RECEIVED
in 101988
Office of
Cern!" Administrator
VACANT COUNTY PARCELS OVER 3 ACRES IN SIZE
ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NO. SIZE IDCATION PROPOSED USE
033-130-017 3.64 acres Delta Road, Future corpora-
Oakley-Brentwood tion yard
078-120-011 154 acres Marsh Creek Rd. Cattle grazing
(Approx. 60 Near Morgan for County Jail
acres in use) Territory Road Farm
Clayton-Brent-
wood
125-010-016 490 acres Concord Avenue Buchanan Field
25 acres (Funds generated (Restricted use)
available for on B.F. must go
non-aviation use to B.F. per FAA
ex t sales tax
and possessory
interest tax.)
149-230-005 8 acres Oak Park Blvd., Diablo Valley
Pleasant Hill Justice Center
former school
leased to
R various tenants
155-280-006 15 acres Glacier Drive @ County Offices
(approx. 10 Muir Rd., (Community
acres in use) Martinez Developnent)
159-140-047 11.24 acres Blum Road, Corp yard site
159-150-001 13.67 acres Martinez (2/3 Rd. Fund
150-049-050 +3 acres 1/3 G.F.)
355-010-004 12.02 acres 0mudngs Skyway. None (Road Fund)
& Hwy. I-80
Crockett
355-160-011 6.9 acres - 3 San Pablo Scenic view-
acres usable Avenue - point (Road
Crockett Fund)
The above list does not include land purchased with special district funds,
such as the Flood Control District, Fire Districts, etc., which would have
to be paid back for the County. to use the property.
PBG:rs
.t6
4
O M V
x ' civ _,,.,� Sallooi
h 4 a
'3RV ��-- --. 52�3'1'13S _ ,�+ g Mu
CL cj�
9n l0 0 - 1 c "i s Q a CS
N
00 a
, to +9 0 � Q '•� /f i
a. M.
Q
� �
cv
COit
y=
LLJ
O
CU O 2 Atsis rww^ + eft o..v-.._yt-
�"' a C'� .�.:w�`_ �•. a� : (/yam,}'fie
1'1 � CO
Q
C.) M
�, j .. 4.
�AT
i_`v .0 ..�/.^'.M l�iV f' •m \/ k � ri•SII iC•1iZ �� � f'lP� „;.4C1/,.s } —�—
�N7' CR£EKui ': r•r,_... r .. O
ANNEL
Ln OL:cna rr- pNtfiO4CO2 2
O C31Y'1 �^"J•' yc.,..:t^~ -Y., .... - - y t'J i�
CPAtr
to
Cj
i J• {(')• �w
>
100, 2
0 E
0
fSC
I on
to u
Cd
Z
41
to, ug
a
Cr
co
(r-
N
IT
z "T ;I-C\J tc)
CL q:a-q: snd
C\j (M co Q:00
Lo
I- w 1 .CO OD PO co
K-) K)
AV.
0%
LJ
co
t1 N
to
C\j WRGAN
0
0 ;3-N M 0i oC5 ro
ti
rG 2i
2 M CL L-L
N po ro co
V)
All
w
wd, 4
3 0 �
r r
O
C4 A
h0 � �
iD`c1 r+ C V
o'to
a
0119 '�
Y
{n ♦�
14
Y
r
s O
W Z f�
d
Ic.CC
N
co
4 �
•� �dJ
•� yid�
,0
few
1
w
` '
N 0
P N 0 'd .K -. 7 (20N
71L N
, 0 . 6"
G�e"f Jn37J 1: r� 0
� v
u
yr e~j6 O
C x t
U
` N �
no
L,I J
ti Y co
Z
co
1
r Y
x
K -
+• �' hrry OiL qm
—0t)
"�♦ Olt M
G e 17
f Q+ '3A• VIS343 31NOw
�a a
cr
m
p
N a°
1
2
P
�y
0
`- Rte,
U') co
CV .
• n
L
Q 'RJ'r 4 M.11 sr, L�4P '•r.I�"'•ff 4•
y N1 h'm6 1—
"b
�a �t•o, ..
ysr CV
N
O T
� e 3
• r j �
♦X Go � O W �Fxj \ � •• � Y
Y to s� �m %• i.
J t ��• om�Q � aC_� Q �' 1
r• F-NY}N w �, !" t N
M Y
N _ -{I
�Y
r
DO) Cb
• o a ci
to
W U-) .t
<�..y 3
_ CV „
(^*i � M ._� m h 0y
.a•..sr F M d n
h
�„ N - i NMS N. � «•r � i
Jin
J ` �
a< M •�.^v .. \ �\ F it
m • \
" y 9Z'$CZ/ QNQ �0.
Z " Q N\ \ \ r
L i
CK) M�• u
o \ \
IZ
�ti M
Y's
c.
,
d v
—+� °s ars c^:Qr _ ••• 6 t
or-
N
}
d
d � r
d
O
.n d
�~`L d as d,,
CA q
V�
Z �
�3
.y -
_ r
ma
LLJ
a
o
ds
.fi Faiw' V V 1
z
.y
W \\
r
.s ^
of M1w
�N" •1 �1•�^• ,G<
. * 1
end 076y�y
� f
f
ATTACHMENT #7
SOCIAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
GAIN CHILD CARE REPORT TO
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
JUNE 20, 1988
The contract for Child Care Administration has been awarded to
Community Services Department. We are pleased with this outcome
because the Community Services has offered several other services
to our GAIN clients aside from child care referral services .
Among the services they will provide are:
1 . Assistance with child care services for 6 months after
the GAIN participant secures employment.
2 . Development of special plans for children with "special
needs" .
3 . A data base with a printed directory of all licensed
child care providers indexed and sorted by each
category.
4 . Development of sick child care facilities .
5 . Provision of services by nutritionist, speech
therapist, psychologist, and special needs coordinator
to work with GAIN participants to develop special
services for GAIN children with special needs .
6 . Head Start services for GAIN participant ' s children.
Community Services will begin their office hours at the three
Social Service GAIN offices on June 22 , 1988 . They will be on-
site once a week for four hours to interview GAIN participants
about licensed child care and to place the participant' s name on
all subsidized child care waiting lists .
Since May 9 , 1988 , when GAIN began in Contra Costa County, the
GAIN Case Managers have approved, or are in the process of
approving 27 child care plans . To date, there have been no GAIN
participants who have been unable to participate in GAIN due to
lack of child care.
Child Care Council raised an objection to our department' s method
of paying for GAIN child care. The Council contends that child
Gen 9c (New 3/86)
A page two
care payments should be made directly to the provider of the
care. Because GAIN is a new program and we only have estimates
on how many GAIN participants will need child care for their
children, we chose to have our GAIN Case Managers authorize the
payments directly to the GAIN participant. In this way, our
department will be able to more closely monitor child care
costs , enabling us to have better control of that segment of our
GAIN budget.
We also believe that because the purpose of the GAIN program is
to encourage self sufficiency, the GAIN participant should take
responsibility for making their child care payments . We will
have a procedure whereby we can issue vendor payments or two
party checks to the child care provider should the GAIN
participant fail to pay the provider.
We plan to reevaluate this policy after GAIN has been operating
in our county for a year.
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICE DEPARTMENT
CHILD CARE DISCOVERY PROGRAM
TELEPHONE 646-5545
Hi There:
The Community Services Department welcomes you to the GAIN Program. Our role is to help
you find Child Care. We manage the Child Care Discovery Program. We will use our skill and
our computer to match your need for childcare with a nearby child care provider.
After you have signed up with the Child Care Discovery Program you may call us at any time of
the business day for additional referrals or just for advice about childcare.
Our telephone number is 646-5545 (you may call collect) . *Ask for"Child Care Discovery".
We will meet you at any of the places listed below
or
By Appointment we will come to a location near you.
Antioch Social Services Office Monday Afternoons
Brentwood 125 Oak Street (United Council) Friday Afternoons
Concord 2425 Bisso Lane, in Stanwell Park All day Tuesday & Thursday
Martinez . Muir Road, Social Services Office Monday Afternoons
Richmond Social Services Office Wednesday Afternoons
IDA DANIEL BERK BoB LoFASo
Executive Director Manager,Discovery Program
Contra Costa County
RECEEIVED
SOCIAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
JUN 1 '.11988
Offfc,o of
Covn:tY Adr:i;.^,i trator
TO: Phil Batchelor DATE: June 9, 1988
County Administrator
FROM: James RydingswordV/ CC: Board of
Director Supervisors
SUBJ: CHILD CARE COMPONENT
OF THE GAIN PROGRAM
On May 24, 1988, Tom Torlakson forwarded to our Department for
response, a letter from Teri Dean, Co-President of the Contra
Costa Child Care Counsel. Attached is a copy of Ms. Dean's
letter, Supervisor Torlakson's request, and our Department's
response.
In her letter Ms. Dean raised several questions regarding GAIN
Child Care. Supervisor Torlakson requested that our agency
respond to Ms. Dean's letter with a copy to his office. This we
have done. In addition, we are forwarding copies of Ms. Dean' s
letter and our reponse to the other four Supervisors.
Should you have any questions or comments regarding our response
to Ms. Dean's letter or on GAIN Child Care in general, please
contact me.
JR:dp
Disk:9
PHIL.DOC
Gen 9c (New 3/86)
SOCIAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
e
TO: Tom Torlakson DATE: June 9, 1988
Supervisor, District 5
FROM: James Rydingsword CC: Phil Batchelor
Director County Administrator
SUBJ: CHILD CARE COMPONENT
OF THE GAIN PROGRAM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On May 24, 1988, you asked our Department to respond to a letter
you had received from Teri Dean, Co-President of the Contra Costa
Child Care Counsel.
Attached is our response to Ms. Dean's letter. We are also
forwarding our response to the other Board members and to Phil
Batchelor, County Administrator.
We hope that our letter addresses all of the concerns that
Ms. Dean raised.
If there is any other information or any questions that you might
have about our response to Ms. Dean' s letter or on GAIN Child
Care in general, please contact me.
JR:dp
Disk: 9
Tom
Gen 9c (New 3/86)
Please reply to:
Social Service Department Contra
2401 Stanwell Drive,#200
James A. RydingswordCoC`ta P.O.Box 5488
Director Costa Concord,California 94524
County
June 3 , 1988
Teri Dean
Co-President
Contra Costa Child Care Council
3020 Grant St.
Concord, CA 94520
Dear Ms. Dean:
Your letter of May 5, 1988 to Supervisor Tom Torlakson regarding
GAIN child care has been referred to me for reply.
1. In your letter you expressed concern over the collection of
State Department of Education (SDE) fees. You stated that
the child care providers are reluctant to give up these fees
to expand the GAIN Child Care Administration contractor' s
child care services or resources.
State GAIN regulations require the county to ensure that
there is a mechanism for collecting fees from GAIN
participants receiving GAIN child care subsidies. The fees
collected must be used to expand child care services or
resources (EAS 42-750.25 copy attached) . Our county's GAIN
plan envisioned that SDE fee collections paid to child care
providers by GAIN participants could be utilized to
accomplish the expansion of child care services in this
county. How the contracted agency accomplishes this is left
up to them. Thus, if the contracted agency decides to allow
the subsidized centers to use the fee money to serve more
children, that would meet our requirements. However, since
our GAIN participants are AFDC recipients we expect very
few, if any, GAIN participants will be paying SDE fees.
Thus, this issue is a remote one and may never occur.
GAIN legislation also requires that local "resource and
referral programs shall assist the county welfare
departments to determine the child care needs of Greater
Avenues for Independence participants, provide them with a
listing of available child care services in the service
area , and facilitate the efforts of county welfare
departments, school districts, local child care providers
and parent groups for the expansion of child care services. "
2 . Your second area of concern was with the GAIN participant
being responsible for paying the child care provider with
GAIN child care funds. You stated there is higher risk that
GAIN participants will not pay the child care providers.
You also stated that the GAIN child care administrative
agency would be placed in an awkward position of making
referrals and not being able to ensure that providers will
be paid.
We are equally concerned about child care providers being
paid for their services in a prompt and timely manner. GAIN
can issue advance payments for supportive services.
Therefore, in cases where it appears necessary for the
success of a particular GAIN participant's plan, our
department could make advance payments for child care.
However, we must be cautious with advance payments as they
could lead to overpayments, putting the county in jeopardy
of having to use county funds to cover the costs.
We are certainly sympathetic to the needs of the child care
providers and are committed to cooperating with them in any
way possible. In our department's experience, it does not
appear that GAIN participants will have any more of a
problem paying their child care providers than the general
public. GAIN participants will tend to be motivated towards
successful GAIN participation and compliance because of the
program' s philosophy.
We will, however, be exploring these payment issues further.
3 . Your last concern was that the County was seeking to
reimburse the child care administrative agency on a Unit
Cost Reimbursement basis.
Our GAIN budget is based on a fixed unit fee. That is how
the state pays us. To be fiscally sound we must also pay
the Child Care contracted agency on a fixed fee basis.
The services we expect from the contracted agency include
placing all referred GAIN clients on all appropriate SDE
waiting lists, referring clients wanting licensed child care
to licensed providers, and developing the child care plan
with all clients wanting licensed care.
Our department's staff, in the GAIN group orientation
session, provides counselling on how to choose child care.
The developing of on-site care with county school districts
and licensed child care slots is a contracted goal. Our. RFP
stated that one of the objectives of the program would be to
pursue the development of school on-site child care.
It is regrettable that the Child Care Council chose not to
submit a proposal to us for child care administration. I hope
this letter answers your concerns.
Sincerely,
y in wor rector
��aes,
ial Sery e Department
cc:Tom Torlakson, Supervisor, District 5
Tom Powers, Supervisor, District 1
Nancy Fanden, Supervisor, District 2
Robert Schroder, Supervisor, District 3
Sunne McPeak, Supervisor, District 4
Phil Batchelor, County Administrator
George Roemer, Director, Justice System Programs
JR:dp
NONLINKING FACTORS OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE ELIGIBILITY
Regulations GREATER AVENUES FOR INDEPENDENCE 42-750 (Cont.)
( 42-750 SUPPORTIVE SERVICES (Continued) 42-750
\` (b) The regional market rate means care costing no more than
1.5 standard deviations above the mean market cost of care
for that region.
(1) The mean market cost for care in a region shall be
determined based on a statistically valid survey of the
rates established by child care providers for pr'i'vate
clients.
(A) The regional market rate shall be updated every
two years with recent survey data.
.234 Reimbursement to child care providers for GAIN participants shall
not exceed the fee charged to private clients for the same service.
Reimbursement shall be made at a rate lower than that charged to
private clients for the same service, if the child care program
agrees to charge a lower fee.
.235 GAIN funding will be available to pay for child care services when
the child is temporarily absent from care, if it is agreed to pursuant
to .223(g) above. Payment may be made for temporary absences only
for the following verified reasons:
(a) Illness or quarantine of the child;
(b) Illness or quarantine of the parent;
(c) Family emergency;
(d) Court ordered visits with a parent or other relative of the
child; or
C (e) Other reasons approved by the CWD.
.24 If a GAIN registrant terminates AFDC dependency due to unsubsidized
employment, payment for child care services in accordance with Section .221
above shall be available for a transition period of three months.
(a) This transition period commences immediately following the
discontinuance of AFDC.
.25 The CWD shall ensure that there is a mechanism for collecting fees from'
4_ participants receiving GAIN child care subsidies in _a_c_cordance__wi_th__ the#
L most recent version of the SDE Family Fee Schedule.
o —--- _
fee is charged-tfVa participant- s-f-ami-ly--i-n come;--tne-ludi-ng tke- AFDC
sr_a-nt,_1_s-1_e_ss than 50 percent of_ the annually adjusted state median.
,income. - -.._ _
.251 The fees collected by the CWD, or agency contracting with -the CWD,
---shall be used to expand child care services or resources.
CALIFORNIA-SDSS-MANUAL-EAS
MANUAL LETTER, NO. EAS-86-05 Effective 6/13/86
Rev. 94 replaces Issue 27
Tom Torlakson `' 300 East Leland Rd.
Supervisor, District Five ?� y:;;a Suite 100Pittsburg,California 94565
Contra Costa Count �-` (415
County ) 427-8138
-Board of Supervisors
r
DATE: May 24 , 1988 ,
TO: James Rydingsword, Director, Social Services
FROM: Tom Torlakson, Supervisor, District V i 'I .
i
SUBJECT: CHILD CARE COMPONENT OF THE GAIN PROGRAM
Attached is a copy of a letter dated May 5, 1988 , from Teri
Dean, Co-President of the Contra Costa Child Care Council.
Ms. Dean raises several questions regarding the child
care component of the GAIN program. I would appreciate your
responding to Ms Dean' s letter, with a copy to my office.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
TT:cad
cc: Vicki Glover
Attachment
s-
/terYf
RECEP ED i ;
CONTRA cc c COSTA
Child Care Cou c ni l
May 5, 1988
Supervisor Tom Torlakson
300 E. Leland Rd.
Pittsburg, CA 94565
Dear Supervisor McPeak;,
Our agency (and our two ancestor ijeen in
discussions with the Department of Soc_a.L Services about the
child care component of the GAIN program for well over a year.
We conceptually support the program and would like to work
with the Department of Social Services to insure the child care
needs of GAIN participants are addressed in a manner which
reflects sensitivity to both the families and the child care
providers. Unfortunately, at this point in time, that appears
impossible. There are several items in the Request for Proposals
for Child Care Administration under GAIN which pose serious
obstacles to our participation in this program.
Specifically, they are as follows :
1 . Fees
According to the RFP issued, the Child Care Administration
agency is to "for those GAIN participants receiving California
State Department of education (SDE) child care subsidies , collect
fees in accordance with the most recent version of the SDE Family
Fee Schedule. These fees shall be used to expand Contractor ' s
child care services or resources. "
While fees are not part of the cost of care ( the state
reimburses the full cost of care) , subsidized centers use the fee
money to provide an increased level of service - either more days
or serve more children. Therefore, they have expressed extreme
reluctance to just give up this money.
1
ADMINISTRATION I I WEST BRANCH EAST BRANCH IJ SOUTH BRANCH CENTRAL BRANCH
3020 Gran!513727 Band;Avenue 300 r a,,Leland b 106 300n E-ecuGve Park.ag c t 3020,ran;Si
Co^co•d.CA 94520 Ro—i,ond.CA 94805 �s:wg.CA 94565 San Ramon,CA 94563 Concerti,CAP.c20
t4151676-5442 (415)233-KIDS 1415;427-KIDS (415)8300508 (415)
1415,676-6177 -rl„Uiiior
Also, there is some question about the county' s authority to
determine the use of this money since it comes under the auspices
of a program's contract with the state. (There is no question
about the County's authority to determine the use of the fees
when the child's care is being subsidized with GAIN subsidy
money, only once a child has moved into a SDE subsidized slot) .
'l. Payment Mechanism
Again, according to the RFP issued, "The participant will be
responsible for paying the provider with County-authorized VAIN
child care funds. "
This is the major problem in the whole plan. It poses two
major difficulties -
a) If a provider agrees to accept the children of GAIN
participants, it places them at higher risk of not being
reimbursed for the services they provide.
While it has been suggested that this procedure will
merely put GAIN participants on an equal footing with other
full fee paying parents, this is clearly not the case when
they will be paying providers retroactively, anywhere from
six to eight weeks after care -has begun. Parents who pay
providers directly are virtually always required to pay
before care starts .
However, our concern is not just for the providers . In
fact our informal discussions with providers indicate they
will simply refuse to accept children of GAIN participants
under these conditions . Thus, we are also concerned that
parents will be unable to participate in the program or be
forced to use exempt care, which may not be their
preference.
b) It puts the Child Care Administration agency in the
awkward position of making referrals (almost placements ) and
not having the where-with-all to insure that the providers
are indeed paid.
Every time we 've raised this issue with county staff
their response has been that their attorney has advised them
that they cannot pay providers directly because it would
mean that the provider might be construed to be a county
employee. Please be clear - no one is suggesting that the
county pay the providers. We are suggesting that the
contracted agency pay the providers - just as we do with all
of our other subsidy programs, including PIC which is a
county contract.
2
As far as we have been able to determine, no other Bay
Area county is proposing the payment mechanism that Contra
• Costa County is proposing.
3 . Unit Cost Reimbursement
The County is seeking to reimburse the contracted Child Care
Administration agency on a Unit Cost Reimbursement basis. This ;
means that the agency would be paid on a 'per referral' basis.
Which might be OK, if referrals were all the agency is being
asked to do. However, that is not the case.
The county is seeking parent education and counselling for
all GAIN participants - whether or not they choose licensed child
care and need referrals - as well as, some significant resource
development. (The Child Care Administration agency is to "pursue
the development of on-site care with County school districts" and
"develop and monitor sufficient licensed day care slots pursuant
to the Child Care Needs Assessment in the GAIN Plan. "
None of these activities is directly related to actual child
care referrals and, therefore, to be reimbursed on a per referral
basis would not be financially possible for our agency.
Please let me underscore the fact, that we want very much to
work with the County on this project. However, as currently
constructed, we do not think that what is being proposed is in
the best interests of parents and children, or child care
providers. Nor, can we maintain our own fiscal responsibility by
entering into such a unit cost reimbursement contract.
I will be in touch in the next few days to answer any
questions you might have.
As always, thank you for your ongoing support and
understanding of the needs of children and families, as well as,
child care providers .
Sincerely yours,
Teri Dean
Co-President
3
$.00TAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
TO: Sunne Wright McPeak DATE: June 9, 1988
Supervisor, District 4
FROM: James Rydingsword CC: Phil Batchelor
Director County Administrator
SUBJ: CHILD CARE COMPONENT
OF THE GAIN PROGRAM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On May 5, 1988, Teri Dean, Co-President of the Contra Costa Child
Care Counsel, sent a letter to Supervisor Torlakson asking
several questions about the Child Care Component of the GAIN
program. Supervisor Torlakson requested that our office respond
to Ms. Dean.
Attached is our response to Ms. Dean's letter. If in your review
of the correspondence you have any questions or comments about
GAIN Child Care, please contact me.
JR:dp
Disk: 9
CCCOMP.DOC
Gen 9c (New 3/86)