The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 03231993 - 1.37 -fir 1 -3 ( TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SE L Contr Costa FROM: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator ..:ms' s County March 17 1993 DATE: i CUUh SUBJECT: LEGISLATION: SB 84 (Bergeson) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATIONS)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a position in SUPPORT of SB 84 by Senator Marian Bergeson, which would authorize the Board of Supervisors to contract out for services as long as the Board determines that doing so provides a practical and more economically beneficial method of providing services than the existing method. BACKGROUND: Under current- law, there are severe restrictions on the ability of the Board of Supervisors to contract out for services . Government Code Section 31000 provides that the Board • may contract for "special services" The contract must be with persons. who are specially trained, experienced, expert and competent to perform the special services . The section goes on to define special services as follows : "The special services shall be in the financial, economic, accounting (including the preparation and issuance of payroll checks or warrants) , engineering, legal , medical , therapeutic, administrative, architectural, airport or building security matters, laundry services or linen services . They may include maintenance or custodial matters if the board finds that the site is remote from available county employee resources and that the county's economic interests are served by such a contract rather than by paying additional travel and subsistence expenses to existing county employees. " CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE: / RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVEOTHERf SIGNATURE(S): L ,%' / A ACTION OF BOARD ON March 23 , 1993 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS O E DATE SHOWN. ATTESTED Contact: County Administrator PHIL BATCHELOR.CLERK OF THE BOARD OF CC: County Counsel SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Director of General Services Les Spahnn; Heim, Noack, & Spahnn BY DEPUTY This language has always made it difficult for a county to contract for any of these services, particularly in terms of maintenance and custodial services because of the "remote site" finding which is required. Senator Bergeson has introduced SB 84 which repeals the above quoted language and replaces it with the following: "Prior to entering into any contract under this section that alters the existing method of providing services, the board of supervisors shall find, in an open meeting, that the contract provides a practical and more economically beneficial method of providing services than the existing method. " Under current law, charter counties can contract out for any service. A general law county is restricted to the language in Government Code Section 31000 . Orange County has asked Senator Bergeson to author SB 84 in an effort to provide general law counties with the same ability to contract out for services that a charter county has . It is felt that this alternative language, which places more of an emphasis on saving money, is an important change, given the budget crisis which is facing the State and, therefore, the counties . Attached is additional background information in the form of the Senate Local Government and Senate Floor analyses of SB 84 . -2- SENATE BILL No. 84 Introduced by Senator Bergeson January 11, 1993 An act to amend Section 31000 of the Government Code, relating to county contracts. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST SB 84, as introduced, Bergeson. County contracts for services. Existing law permits the board of supervisors of a general law county to contract for specified special services on behalf of the county, any county officer or department, or any district or court within the county. This bill would delete the specifically designated. special services from this authority to contract for special services. The bill would require the board to find that a contract for special services provides a practical and. more economically beneficial method of providing services than the existing method. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. State-mandated local program: no. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: 1 SECTION 1. Section 31000 of the Government Code 2 is amended to.read- 3 31000. The board of supervisors may contract for 4 special services on behalf of the following public entities: 5 the county, any county officer or department, or any 6 district or court in the county. Seek Those contracts shall 7 be with persons specially trained, experienced, expert 8 and competent to perform the special services. The 9 special services shall consist of services, advice, education 10 or training for seek those public entities or the 99 100 SB 84 — 2 - 1 employees thereof. The speeied s shale be tift 2 finanpialiaeeetwititig the 3 prepara and isshanee e€ payfell.eheeks er . 5 f� e buildiRg seeerity matters, 6 latindry serviees of liftensem- They may }fie 7 mainteitanee or eustedied mattes if the beard finds that 8 th eite is remete avegable empleyee 9 resettrees'and that the eeeety'sinterests are. 10 sem by ! stteh a eentraet rather- Otm by 11 . additienl travel aftd subs .;t,...... te. eNisting 12 , eek empleye Prior to entering into any contract 13 under this section that alters the existing method of 14 providing services, the board of supervisors shall find, in 15 an open meeting, that the contract provides. a practical 16 and more economically beneficial method of providing 17 services than the existing method. The board may pay 18 from any available funds seek the compensation as it 19 deems proper for these special services. The board of 20 supervisors .may, by ordinance, direct the purchasing 21 agent to enter into contracts authorized by this section 22 within the monetary limit specified in Section 25502.5 of 23 - the Government Code. O 99 110 all Please wait a moment; retrieving text. . . --- Retrieved analysis text is approximately 237 lines (5 pages) long --- Available formats : C Stream <c>ontinuously P <P>rinter format (page numbers & page breaks ) S Stop at every <s>creenful E <E>nd -- exit this program Which format => c Activate your "download, " "capture, " or "log" function. Remember to complete your "download" procedure when analysis display has finished. Press <RETURN> when ready. . . SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE VERSION: 1/11/93 Senator Marian Bergeson, Chairman SET: First HEARING: 2/24/93 FISCAL: No Senate Bill 84 - Bergeson CONSULTANT: Manatt COUNTY CONTRACTS FOR SERVICES Background and Existing Law: The California Constitution lets charter counties develop their own employment procedures (Article XI, S4[f] ) . The California Supreme Court ruled in Handler v. San Mateo County ( 1952 ) that the Constitution gives charter counties the authority to hire independent contractors to perform special services beyond those authorized by statute. California's 12 charter counties are Alameda, Butte, Fresno, Los Angeles, Placer, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Tehama. General law counties must follow the state's guidelines when contracting out services . Under current law, general law counties can contract with private sector firms to perform 14 "special services . " Special services include employee training, accounting and financial assistance, airport or building security, and engineering, legal, medical, therapeutic, architectural, and laundry services . If a county facility is remote from county employees, counties can contract out the facility's maintenance and custodial services . In 1991 supervisors in Orange County (a general law county) formed a privatization task force which compiled a list of 56 services to contract out. Of these services, 27 can't be contracted out under current law. Orange County wants the ability to contract out these additional services, including janitorial services, food services for jails, and adult day care services . Proposed Law: Senate Bill 84 allows the board of supervisors of a general law county to contract out for any service. Before entering into a contract, SB 84 requires the board to find that the proposed contract provides a more practical and more economically beneficial method of providing services than the existing method. Comments : 1 . Just do it. To improve local efficiency and cost-control, general law county officials want to privatize more of their functions . While state law lets charter counties contract out for any service, current law limits contracting out by general law counties to 14 special services . General law counties want to "level the playing field" with respect to service options . SB 84 repeals the specific list of services and lets general law counties contract out for any county service. 2 . County employees concerns . Public employees feel that contracting out undermines a community' s economic base by substituting low wage, low benefit jobs for those with decent salaries and benefits . Further, they stress problems with accountability once private sector administrators, not department heads, make decisions which affect clients and tax dollars . In addition, they warn that cost-savings tend to evaporate as the cost of overseeing private contracts grows . 3 . Last year. In 1992, the Committee approved SB 1544 (Bergeson) , an identical measure allowing general law counties to contract out for services . SB 1544 was subsequently defeated on the Senate floor. 4 . Charter conversions . General law counties can convert to charter status with voter approval . Subsequent charter amendments are also subject to election. Though general law counties may convert to charter counties, some may be discouraged by the election requirements for charter adoption and amendments . The Committee may wish to consider whether .state intervention is needed, or whether local voters have sufficient power to determine which services are contracted out. Support and Opposition: (02/18/93) Support: Counties of El Dorado, Glenn, Madera, orange, and Siskiyou. Opposition: American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFL-CIO) , California Independent Public Employees Legislative Council, Inc. , California Professional Firefighters, California School Employees Association, California Teamsters Public Affairs Council, Long Beach Firefighters, Orange County Employee Association, Sacramento Area Firefighters, Service Employees International Union (California Chapter) , Shasta County Employees Association, Sutter County Employees Association, United Professional Firefighters, Ventura County Professional Firefighters Association, Yuba County Employees Association. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Document 2 SENATE FLOOR ANALYSIS THIRD READING Bill No. SB 84 Author: Bergeson (R) As introduced Vote Required: 21 SUBJECT: County Contracts for Services SOURCE: Orange County DIGEST: This bill allows the board of supervisors of a general law county to contract out for any service. Before entering into a contract, it requires the board to find that the proposed contract provides a more practical and economically beneficial method of providing services than the existing method. ANALYSIS: The California Constitution lets charter counties develop their own employment procedures (Article XI, 4[f] ) . The California Supreme Court ruled in Handlr v. San Mateo County ( 1952 ) that the Constitution gives charter counties the authority to hire independent contractors to perform special services beyond those authorized by statute. California's 12 charter counties are Alameda, Butte, Fresno, Los Angeles, Placer, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Tehema. General law counties must follow the state' s guidelines when contracting out services. If the counties ' purchasing agents hire independent contractors, state law caps the amount for which they can contract out. The state has not set dollar limits on contracts authorized by county supervisors . General law counties can contract with private sector firms to perform 14 -special services- for county departments and courts . Special services include employee training, accounting and financial assistance, building security, and engineering, legal, medical, architectural, and laundry services . If a county facility is remote from available county resources, counties can contract out for the facility' s custodial services . In 1991 county supervisors in Orange County (a general law county) formed a "privatization task force" which compiled a list of 56 government functions to contract out. County officials have not yet determined whether any of the 56 functions are viable candidates for privatization, but they know that the activities go well beyond the 14 special services outlined in current law. Legislative History: In 1991 the Senate passed a bill which added -jail food services- to the list of special services for which a general law county could contract out (SB 418 , Royce, 1991 ) . SB 418 died in the Assembly Local Government Committee. Two other bills (SB 2055, Rogers, 1992, and AB 3057 , Harvey, 1992) allow general law counties to contract out for all maintenance and custodial services . Both died in respective policy committees . SB 1544 (Bergeson-R) was a similar bill which failed passage on the Senate floor. FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Committee: No Local: No SUPPORT: (Verified 2/25/93 ) Orange County (source) Cal-Tax California State Association of Counties Regional Council of Rural Counties Counties of : Amador, El Dorado, Glenn, Madera, Mendocino, Orange, Plumas, Riverside, Siskiyou, Trinity and Ventura OPPOSITION: (Verified 2/25/93 ) American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees California Council of Police and Sheriffs California State Council of Service Employees Engineers and Scientists of California California Independent Employees Legislative Council Orange County Employees Association California Professional Firefighters Ventura County Professional Firefighters Association United Professional Firefighters Shasta, Sutter, and Yuba County Employees Association California School Employees Association California Teamsters Long Beach Firefighters Sacramento Area Firefighters California Service Employees International Union California Conference Board of the Amalgamated Transit Union California Labor Federation AFL-CIO Engineers and Architects of California ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The author' s office states: "It has become clear that because of proposed cuts, local governments are going to have an excruciating time providing essential services . SB 84 will give counties the ability to deliver services in the most cost effective manner, be it by public employees or the private sector. " -There is no question that this will be a difficult year for local governments in California. At a time when they are facing a shortage of revenues, general law counties should have the same authority that charter counties have to contract out . Why should Los Angeles and San Francisco counties have this option while Orange, Napa, and 44 other counties do not. " Cal-Tax states that "taxpayers are not well served by public monopolies when contracting for services can provide more services at less expensive rates . In study after study, research has determined alternative service delivery by private vendors can save from 10 to 40 percent the usual cost of publicly delivered services . Further, an SPB study of some 68 state contracted services in 1989-90 showed taxpayers got the same services at average savings per contract of 44 percent -- this, even though some vendors compensated their employees at rates higher than state wages ! At a recent Senate Local Senate Committee hearing on "good ideas for bad times, " Cal-Tax argued in creased management flexibility for local governments is doubly a must if the state seizes more of the property tax for school support. Local jurisdictions must be allowed to provide services in the most efficient, streamlined manner possible. If contracting allows counties to provide services at a reduced unit cost, they must have the authority to do so. " ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: According to the Senate Local Government Committee analysis, "public employees feel that contracting out undermines a community's economic base by substituting low wages, low benefit jobs for those with decent salaries and benefits . Further, they stress problems with accountability once private sector administrators, not department heads, make decisions which affect clients and tax dollars . In addition, they warn that cost-savings tend to evaporate as the cost of overseeing private contracts grows . " California Firefighters believes -privatization of public safety services has become a political issue and question the appropriateness of delegating the responsibility or public safety to a profit-making corporation. As a labor organization representing over 20, 000 men and women in the fire service, we must not only protect the interests of our members, but our commitment to the public good. " END OF REPORT Enter Bill # (or END to exit) _>