Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06061989 - T.C -C JOINT MEETING of the ALAMEDA AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS June 6, 1989 Alameda County Board Chambers 1221 Oak Street, 5th Floor Oakland, California Supervisor Don Perata, Chairman, Alameda County Board of Supervisors, and Supervisor Tom Torlakson, Chairman, Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, convened the joint meeting of the two Boards. Phil Batchelor, County Administrator of Contra Costa County, and Steve Szalay, County Administrator of Alameda County, commented on the anticipated State budget cuts and the resultant impact on counties. Mr. Batchelor referred to the proposed 1989-1990 Contra Costa County Budget and spoke about potential reductions in mental health programs including the possibility of closing some juvenile treatment centers. Mr. Szalay provided an overview of the financial condition of Alameda County. He expressed concern with proposed reductions in human service programs, particularly at a time when there are new needs and demands for services. Supervisor Perata advised of a coalition meeting this past week attended by representatives of various jurisdictions and agencies to consider an alcohol tax initiative to be placed on the ballot next year. He noted that there are four current proposals which will have to be negotiated down to fund a list of six categories yet to be determined in terms of the apportionment or distribution of the revenues to be received. He advised that under consideration is allocation to emergency medical services, trauma and uncompensated care, mental health, drug, and alcohol treatment and prevention, and some law enforcement specifically related to drinking driving. Supervisor Perata spoke on the concerns of wine counties to the proposed initiative and of some modifications being proposed to make it less onerous on the wine industry. He noted that the major concern in the original draft is that it would put major wine producers in California at a competitive disadvantage with subsidized foreign imports. He spoke on the tax proposals under consideration which ranged from one cent per gallon on wine which is estimated would generate $13 million to a tax on all alcoholic beverages with estimated revenues projected at $800 million. He commented on a proposal calling for a five-cent tax on every four ounces of alcohol which has a good chance of being extended to every seven ounces of alcohol. Supervisor Perata advised that County Boards of Supervisors will be asked to appoint representatives to review and validate the draft and reach agreement upon the distribution formula. He stated that once agreement has been reached, then the group of county representatives would become the campaign committee responsible for generating the required number of signatures to qualify for placement on the ballot. Supervisor Torlakson advised that Contra Costa County is in general support of this initiative concept. There was discussion on the State Bond Act for hospitals. Steve Szalay spoke on an ambitious capital improvement program being undertaken by Alameda County for its two county hospitals. Phil Batchelor reported on progress being made by Contra Costa County on the replacement of its County Hospital and of funds budgeted for architectural schematic designs. However, he expressed concern with obtaining an adequate level of funding to finance the construction project. Jack Meehan, District Attorney of Alameda County, spoke about the problems his office (ih conjunction with other law enforcement - 1 - agencies) is experiencing in handling the large volume of felonies and particularly those involving drugs. He spoke on the need to deal with the growing problems of drug abuse through the implementation of prevention, enforcement, and rehabilitation programs. The District Attorney commented on the disruption of the family structure when either a parent or child is involved in using or selling drugs. Mr. Meehan advised of the need to reach children early in their school career (kindergarten through 5th grade) to teach them the disadvantages associated with illegal drug dealing and use. He called attention to the problems the educational system is having with "crack" babies who are entering school, who have been found to have learning disabilities, and who are prone to displays of violent or deviant behavior. Mr. Meehan spoke of success achieved with community involvement with law enforcement agencies in combating the drug problem. He also commented on the criminal justice procedure as it relates to juvenile and adult offenders. David Kears, Health Director of Alameda County, spoke on the emergency medical services program in place in Alameda County. He referred to the success of the East Bay Trauma program which has four member hospitals--three in Alameda County and one in Contra Costa County. He commented on the need to develop a stable funding source for a comprehensive trauma program. However, Mr. Kears cautioned against getting caught up in the ideology of classifying all medical emergencies as trauma cases. . Mark Finucane, Health Services Director of Contra Costa County, spoke about the recently approved ballot measure by the voters of Contra Costa County providing for the establishment of an Emergency Medical Services Benefit Assessment District scheduled for implementation by July 1 , 1990, which would include a $5 . 50 annual assessment levied against each dwelling unit. He advised that the revenue received would provide for upgraded paramedic coverage, a better communication network, and equipment and training for first responders. Dennis Fay, Alameda County Manager of Transportation Planning, provided an update on the Regional Rail program regarding BART extensions. He advised that the total rail program proposed for the Bay Area is approximately $2. 3 billion with the BART extension representing $1. 6 billion of that figure. He commented on the competition among jurisdictions nationwide for $400 billion of federal funds for light rail extensions with Southern California' s Metro project. being a prime competitor. He explained that when federal money becomes available it will trigger a portion of the San Mateo County BART buy-in that in turn triggers the East Bay extension. He noted that a related issue is the effect of the added light rail section for Santa Clara County which has increased by $140 million the total amount of money need by the Bay Area for light rail extensions. Mr. Fay then referred to a report from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission on the long-term financing of various extensions and the projected operational deficit for all transit operations in the Bay Area. He noted that over a 10-year period, MTC projected a $175 million capital deficit for BART which is largely a function of rehabilitation of the existing cars in the mid 1990 ' s with replacement of all BART cars projected in the beginning of the next century. Supervisor Warren Widener advised of a proposal under consideration for an inner city rail service between San Jose and Sacramento. He commented on the need for the two Boards to work together on this proposal. The Board then considered a status report on the Los Vaquerors Project and the East County Transportation Corridor prepared by Harvey Bragdon, Community Development Director of Contra Costa County, and Dennis Fay of Alameda County. It was noted that construction of the reservoir will require relocation of a portion of Vasco Road along with affected utilities prior to construction - 2 - of the dam. It was noted that the Draft Vasco Road and Utility Relocation Environmental Impact Report is currently scheduled for public distribution in fall 1989. On motion of Supervisor Schroder, seconded by Supervisor Fanden, and passed by unanimous vote of the Supervisors present, the two Boards agreed to participate and have their respective staffs participate in a technical advisory committee to monitor the Vasco Road replacement project and to make certain that each county receives the best results for their mutual interest. Dennis Fay then gave an overview of SB 1149 introduced by Senator Lockyer that would add Crow Canyon Road to the State Highway System. He noted that a study revealed that 80,000 cars use the road daily with an estimated 94 percent of the road trips identified as inter-county regional trips. He described the legislative process and noted that the final decision of adding Crow Canyon Road to the State Highway System rests with the Cali- fornia Transportation Commission. He requested Contra Costa County' s support for this Bill. Steve Goetz of the Contra Costa County Community Development Department advised that although his County has no direct concerns with SB 1149, he noted that the City of San Ramon would be the most affected by the proposed legislation. He advised that city repre- sentatives have meet with representatives of Senator Lockyer's office and that he was not aware at this time if the City has taken a position on the Bill. There was agreement that the staffs of both counties keep in contact with the City of San Ramon to discuss the issues of con- cern. Supervisor Torlakson expressed appreciation to the Alameda Board of Supervisors for their assistance in working out an export agreement with the Alameda Solid Waste Authority. Supervisor Ed Campbell spoke on the need to discuss positions on issues of mutual concern to both counties and particularly to bring them to the attention of each Board Chairman. On motion of Supervisor Campbell, seconded by Supervisor McPeak, and passed by unanimous vote of the Supervisors present, the Board agreed to have each Board Chairman contact the other whenever one Board is pro- posing to take action on a regional issue of mutual concern to the two counties. There being no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 4: 10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator of Contra Costa County By G% `f �a Jeanne O. Maglio Deputy Clerk cc: County Administrator Director, CDD 3 - JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTIES OF ALAMEDA AND CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA On motion of Supervisor Schroder, seconded by Supervisor McPeak, and approved by the following vote, AYES: Supervisors Campbell, Fanden, King, McPeak, Schroder, Widener and Temporary Chairman Torklakson - 7 NOES: None EXCUSED: Supervisors Powers, Santana and Chairman Perata - 3, THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED JUNE 6, 1989: NUMBER JTR 89-1 VASCO ROAD REPLACEMENT PROJECT BE IT RESOLVED that the Boards of Supervisors of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, meeting jointly, do hereby agree to participate, and have staffs participato-, in a technical advisory committee, to monitor the Vasco Road replacement project and to make certain that said counties. receive the best results for their mutual interest. JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTIES OF ALAMEDA AND CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA On motion of Supervisor Campbell, seconded by Supervisor McPeak, and approved by the following vote, AYES: Supervisors Campbell, Fanden, King, McPeak, Powers, Santana, Schroder, Torklakson, Widener and Chairman Perata - 10 NOES: None EXCUSED: None THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED JUNE 6, 1989: NUMBER JTR 89-2 REGIONAL ISSUES OF MUTUAL CONCERN BE IT RESOLVED that the Boards of Supervisors of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, meeting jointly, do hereby agree to have the Board Chairman contact the other Board Chairman whenever one Board is proposing to take action on a regional issue of mutual concern to the counties.