Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06081993 - 2.2 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra Costa FROM: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator ..:. . 's County yr \ 4 DATE: crTq cdJKt` ' June 8, 1993 SUBJECT: FOLLOW-UP REPORT FROM MAY 25 BUDGET HEARING ; SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Approve the report on budget items requiring follow-up information as requested by the Board on May 25. 2. Adopt the attached resolution, which amends the May 25 resolution setting forth the specific positions by classification and department which are to be eliminated as part of the phase one budget reduction plans. BACKGROUND: On May 25, the Board approved a $20.5 million phase one budget reduction which addressed the known county problem, exclusive of anticipated future state budget cuts. The Board approved the elimination of 101 positions and deferred action on Community Services budget reductions and 2.8 full-time equivalent temporary deputy probation officer positions until phase two budget reductions. Also, the Board reduced the Sheriffs budget reduction target by $105,000 to preserve positions in the patrol division while 'increasing the Public Works Department reduction plan by a like amount. During the phase one budget deliberations, the Board requested additional information on a number of items. What follows is a report on each of these items based on information readily available. A subsequent report will be prepared on issues requiring more extensive data collection and analysis. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: 2_1( 4 -k1� RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON June 8, 1993 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER X APPROVED the recommendations of the County Administrator as amended to include referral to the Agricultural Director and Social Service Director on the feasibility of referring General Assistance clients to the agricultural community for employment; REQUESTED the County Administrator and Sheriff to report to the Board on June 22, 1993, on the staffing level for patrol/detention services and funding sources for the Crime Lab; REQUESTED the County Administrator to analyze the feasibility of contracting for vehicle maintenance services outside of the County's General Services Department; REQUESTED the County Administrator to review the feasibility of relaxing the freeze on filling vacant deputy positions in the Sheriff's Department; REQUESTED the Personnel Department to review the feasibility of a freeze on COLAs; merit and salary step increases; and REQUESTED the County Administrator to provide the Board with a list of performance indicators on June 22, 1993. ADOPTED Resolution No. 93/327, VOTE OF SUPERVISORS - — ---- - —-- I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE __XY_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: Auditor General Services ATTESTED June 8, 1993 County Administrator Social Services PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Health Service Personnel SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Sheriff County Counsel Public Works Agriculture Cooperative Extension _ M382 (10/88) BY k' DEPUTY -2- Merit and Step Increases Each year, an estimate is prepared on the cost to provide employee salary adjustments for merit and step increases as well as anticipated promotions. An estimate was prepared in March which forecasted a $1.5 million net county cost. Currently, the deferral or freezing of these step increases and promotions is being discussed as part of the meet and confer process. Health Services Overmatch Questions were raised during the May 25, 1993 budget hearings regarding tie Health Services Department financial maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement and the County overmatch for realigned health programs. The County's contribution to the Health Department is approximately $55.5 million, including $15.9 million of motor vehicle license fees (state law requires expenditure of an amount equal to the motor vehicle on health programs as part of the health program MOE requirement). Consequently, the net County cost for the Health Department is often shown as $39.5 million, not the $55.5 million. However, these revenues can be used to meet the $39.3 million financial maintenance-of-effort requirement. Consequently,the County's overmatch for the Health Services Department is approximately $16.1 million (the difference between the total County subsidy, including motor vehicle license fees and the financial MOE requirement). The details on the overmatch, by program, are listed below: FY 92-93 Financial Gross County MOE Program Expenditures Subsidy" Requirement Overmatch Health $207,457,304 $43,470,566 $37,359,018 $6,111,548 Mental Health $42,639,406 $10,078,413 $1,770,265 $8,308,148 Alcohol Abuse $5,659,675 $1,372,952 $103,838 $1,269,114 Drug Abuse $7.527,397 $529,262 $98,843 $430,419 TOTAL $263,283,782 $55,451,193 $39,331,964 $16,119,229 *Includes $15.9 million in motor vehicle license fees. The Health Services Department's financial MOE requirements are set by state law. The two most significant are health and mental health. 1. Health: The California Health Care for Indigents Program (CHIP) M.O.E. level is set in statute in Welfare and Institution (W & 1) Code Section 16990. For FY 1992-93, the MOE amount is $37,359,018. Failure to meet this MOE will result in a dollar-for-dollar reduction in the County's CHIP allocation ($3.0 million for FY 29-93). The Realignment MOE requirements contained in W & I Code Sections 17608.10(a) and 17608.10(b), total an estimated $25,327,264 for FY 92-93. A portion of this amount is fixed at $10,114,331 annually, with the balance representing "general purpose" revenues equal to motor vehicle license fees actually transferred to the County. Failure to meet this MOE will result in the loss of all sales tax funds ($3.5 million for FY 92-93) due the County. -3- These two MOE requirements are not cumulative, ie. satisfying the CHIP or larger of the two requirements fulfills the smaller Realignment Maintenance of Effort requirement. 2. Mental Health: The Realignment MOE requirement contained in W & I Code Section 17608.05 and 17608.10(c), totals an estimated $1,770,265 for FY 92-93. This amount is comprised of two components: a fixed $1,636,558 MOE based on County expenditures at a historical point in time, and a component which equals the amount of M.H. - V.L.F. funds actually received by the County ($133,707 for FY 92-93). Failure to meet this MOE will result in a loss of all sales tax funds due the County ($17.3 million in FY 92-93). Cooperative Extension The Cooperative Extension Program leverages about $100,000 in County funds and support staff against approximately $1.2 million in University of California-paid staff to activate large volunteer systems and to bring out-of-school educational programs to citizens of the County. The Program provides County residents with a link to the resources of the University through its local educational programs and applied research. Cooperative Extension operates many programs throughout the County aimed at low- income residents and special groups such as pregnant teens and children, such as the Nutrition Program and the Family Resource Management Program. It operates the popular 4-H volunteer program, the Master Gardener program, and provides advisory services for farmers, cattle producers and public land managers. The Program has also played a key role in community groups such as the Food Bank board, the Nutrition Council, Delta 2000, Contra Costa Child Care Council, the Agricultural Task Force and many others. Public Works This fiscal year, the Public Works Department has been allocated $550,000 in General Fund monies for three programs. The County General Drainage Maintenance program budgets approximately $200,000 of County funds for routine (60%) and special drainage system maintenance (40%). Maintenance of large drainage systems and channels crossing the road or under the pavement are funded by other revenue sources. Tasks include cleaning ditches/basins, repairing eroded channels and culverts, chemical spraying to control weeds and maintaining the North Richmond Pump Station. County Resolution 77/210 created the program to prevent or alleviate damage from flooding and drainage problems to property in the unincorporated area, including County owned property. The School Crossing Guard program is required under the California Vehicle code and costs the General Fund $60,643 each year. When specific traffic criteria are met at a school crossing intersection in the unincorporated area, a school district may request County funding for crossing guards. The County currently funds five crossing guards for Oakley, Martinez and Richmond School Districts. The County Surveyor function, required under the California Government Code (Sections 27551-27601), includes making surveys, keeping a correct and fair record of all surveys, providing copies of those records upon request, and making base maps for the County. Of the $284,576 budgeted in Fiscal Year 92/93 approximately 42% went to base mapping activities, 34% went to records and the remainder was spent on survey tasks. Actual program costs are greater, but whenever appropriate, General Fund costs have been minimized through charges to the Road Fund, Flood Control District and other funding sources. In Fiscal Year 93/94 the department had planned to spend more on base mapping, but will cut back these efforts by $105,287. -4- Automated Law & Justice Systems The Law and Justice Systems unit was created in 1975 as staff to the Justice Automation Advisory Committee (JAAC) (This Committee is composed of all justice department heads, County Clerk, Data Processing, and city police agencies.). The goal of the unit is to create a more efficient justice system by; 1) automating the transfer of information both within and among departments, 2) eliminating duplication in the recording of information, 3) improving the accuracy of the information and 4) providing more timely information. It has enabled County justice system departments to absorb increasing workload, while clerical positions have been cut, by reducing duplication of work across department lines and by automating manual functions. Along with maintaining and coordinating modifications to existing systems, the most recent focus of this unit has been the completion of the All County Criminal Justice Network (ACCJIN) and related applications. This network connects all City and County computers that contain criminal justice applications. This was accomplished though agreements with the Cities and funded by the County's settlement of the DUI lawsuit with the cities. Other applications that will use the network facilities are the Countywide Name Index and Countywide Warrant Systems funded by restricted revenue. These will provide more information to agencies about individuals, reduce processing efforts in relation to warrants and provide access to arrest information that county agencies need for state reporting purposes. The amot of this budget unit that is allocated to development for fiscal year 1993-94 is $60,381. This represents changes that are necessary for court coordination purposes. � Mun* ipal and Superior Court were mandated to develop a coordination plan. They have aeveloped such a plan as it relates to criminal processing and the changes will affect the processing for the Municipal Court, Superior Court, District Attorney, Public Defender and Probation systems. The development funds allocated were to make sure all of these systems would still function with the changes necessitated by the new coordination plan. The balance of the net County cost $158,883 is required to support staff to maintain automated systems currently in development and production. Failure to maintain these systems would negatively impact the ability of the courts and other justice agencies to prosecute and adjudicate cases, because of the lack of reliable case information on criminals. The need to maintain these automated systems is even greater given the probability of further budget and staff reductions in justice agencies. General Assistance Workfare/Work Opportunities The Board requested staff to examine the feasibility of expanding both the GA Workfare program and the availability of job opportunities for GA clients (such as seasonal work on farms). Over the past year, the Social Service Department has vigorously pursued expanded Workfare program opportunities at both of the General Services Administration operated programs - the recycling center and the litter control/open space maintenance work crews - as well as those with other public and private non-profit agencies. GSA Workfare programs are funded through the Board's allocation of landfill mitigation fees. Each GSA work crew leader can supervise approximately 9 GA clients, while the recycling enter attendants can supervise more due to the facility configuration. The other non-profit agencies' contracts require no more than a 9:1 supervisory ratio. Currently, there are approximately 1200 Workfare assignment "slots" available each month, and 834 other slots. The Department has investigated further expansion of Workfare program participation. The Dep_artment-has ezis9ing non-financial contracts with 30 public and private agencies other-than GSA; the average number of monthly Workfare slots per agency is 28. Liability and supervision costs have been major deterrents to participation by other -5- agencies which might be able to provide significant numbers of slots. For example, a proposal to the East Bay Regional Parks District to use GA Workfare crews for trail maintenance was not successful due to liability concerns. In addition to a monthly Workfare assignment, each employable GA recipient is required to attend a monthly Job Club, a program to encourage and support GA recipients in finding full time jobs. Some recipients also may participate in approved vocational training/education assignments. Both Workfare and employment assistance are integral to the Department's effort to encourage self sufficiency among GA clients. At this time, efforts are limited to the extent of funding for Workfare supervisors and Departmental staff to elicit and coordinate employment opportunities. Certainly, the Department is willing to investigate all alternatives and will look specifically into the farm work alternative. Patrol Function During the phase one budget deliberations on May 25, questions were raised about the allocation of deputies to the unincorporated patrol function of the Sheriff's Department. Questions were raised about how vacant positions are allocated between various divisions of the department and the extent to which patrol deputies are utilized within the detention facilities to meet MOU staffing requirements. In addition, a question was raised about the extent to which such transfers are made between patrol and detention to save on overtime costs. We have asked the Department to explore these questions as well as to look at such issues as: increased use of civilians to perform duties in both the detention facilities and in the Patrol Division currently being done by sworn officers; the extent to which departmental policies regarding transfers between detention and patrol can be changed to maximize time spent on patrol duties; changes required in the MOU to more effectively utilize existing deputy sheriff positions and whatever other methods the department can identify to maximize the use of sworn officers in essential patrol functions within the constraints of authorized positions and budget appropriations. We would anticipate this report to be ready in time for phase two budget reductions which will be considered as part of the final budget adoption. Criminalistics Laboratory On May 25 the Board approved phase one reductions to the Crime Lab of 11 positions and $745,000. This amount represents a significant part of the cities' fair share for their use of this non-mandated but important service. Immediately after Board action, a memorandum was sent to all city managers informing them of this action and stating that these reductions would be made at the close of business June 30, 1993. Subsequently, a committee of police chiefs asked for a meeting with the County Administrator and Sheriff's Department to explore this issue. At this point, it is not clear to what extent the cities wish to contribute their fair share for support of the Crime Lab. They have indicated, however, a desire to keep meeting to see how some city/county agreement can be reached before the budget reductions take place. Special District Augmental�on Fund/allocation to Library In the current fiscal year $2,719,300 had, been allocated in SDAF in support of County library services. This r�gresents 23.7%lof the library's budget. In FY 1993/94 such funds could be allocated by the Board of/Supervisors to other purposes such as County patrol. Obviously, this would-cause a,significant degradation of County library services. Since the State may decrease or eliminate the SDAF, this matter can be considered as part of the final budget process. -6- Contracting Vehicle Repair & Maintenance in Outlining Areas An issue was raised at the budget hearing as to whether money 05uld be saved if the . repair and maintenance of county vehicles used in East County were serviced by the private sector rather than through the shop in Martinez. Currently, the fleet services program and the assignment of County vehicles is under review as well as the feasibility of reducing the County fleet. This item will be incorporated into these other studies and reported back to the Board prior to the phase two deliberations. Status Report on Performance Outcomes The Ad Hoc Budget Committee reported to the Board of Supervisors on April 30, 1993 on its position regarding performance outcomes. The following is a quote from that report: "...the Committee concurred that an overall objective of the County should be cost effective, quality service. The Committee strongly endorses the Board's move to look at outcomes rather than process measures. In developing these measures, the Committee felt there should be measures of both efficiency and quality, particularly in the services area. Measures must be carefully developed to adequately assess the quality and effectiveness of the 'caring nature' of the service, along with the more quantitative and fiscal measures." There are many types of performance measures, including measures of resource inputs, work levels, complexity of work processes, internal measures of service/product quality, external client needs, external client satisfaction, timeliness of services/products, final products, financial measures and efficiency measures. It is important that performance measures accurately and comprehensively reflect the mission of a department, since these measures will drive the focus of effort. The County Administrator's Office has reviewed the performance measures presented to the Board during the Budget Workshops and will be working with the Departments on the effort. It should be recognized, however, that proper configuration of appropriate performance measures is a complex project which will require considerable staff support. Employee Suggestions In response to the Board's request, the Ad Hoc Budget Committee reviewed the employee suggestions submitted to the Board as part of the budgetary process. In reviewing the suggestions, the Committee thought that many were excellent and felt that employees should be commended for their efforts. However, the Committee also recognized that adequate review of the suggestions required time, expertise and objectivity. Consequently, the Committee recommended that the Board establish a process and format for the evaluation of suggestions. The Committee felt that suggestions should be organized into categories and then evaluated according to their feasibility; practicality; potential results (savings, revenue, better service, efficiency); whether the results are worth the time/effort to achieve them; and legality (and if legislative reform was warranted). Each department is reviewing priority employee suggestions from its department which relate directly to the department's operations. Attachment A is a status report on evaluation and implementation of employee suggestions from the Animal Services Department, Assessor's Office, Auditor-Controller, Community Services Department, County Administrator's Office (including Clerk of the Board, Data Processing and Risk -7- Management), District Attorney's Office, General Services Administration, Library, Municipal Court Administrator, Private Industry Council, Probation Department, Public Defender's Office, Sheriff-Coroner and Social Service Department. For suggestions that are not within the control of any one department, the Personnel Department is chairing a committee composed of representative departments which will identify appropriate referrals for evaluation of suggestions that have cost-saving potential. Amendment to Position Resolution On May 25, the Board ordered changes to the positions to be eliminated as part of the phase one budget reduction. This amendment, included as Attachment B, amends the Sheriff's portion of the Resolution 93/280, as approved by the Board on May 25, 1993, by replacing 4 positions (3 vacant and 1 filled) with 5 other positions to be eliminated (4 vacant and 1 filled). Please note that the approved May 25, 1993 Resolution removed 4 sworn patrol positions from elimination on June 30, 1993 and substituted 2 crime lab positions. COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE Determination 2. 2 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA Date: June 7 , 1993 To: Board of Supervisors From: Victor J. Westman, County Counsel I 21z ..,�,P- Re: Proposed Measure A "Tax Revolt" Ordinance, Pending Alhambra case, and .Sales Tax Status This is to update your Board on the subject matters . 1 . Measure A - Ordinances of Other Counties Los Angeles County, Amador County, San Diego County and San Francisco have adopted ordinances similar to that proposed in Contra Costa. Also, we are informed that several other counties are considering such ordinances (eg, Ventura, Kern, Santa Barbara) . Counsel for several counties have indicated that they are reluctant to advise their boards to adopt such an ordinance because they are concerned about litigation or other retribution by the State. 2. City of Alhambra Litigation The City of Alhambra and its Redevelopment Agency sued the Los Angeles County Auditor and the State Controller, Treasurer, Director of Finance and Governor to obtain a judicial determination that the property tax shift from local governments to schools is unconstitutional . The Case initially was filed in the Supreme Court, asking that Court to exercise its original jurisdiction. The Supreme Court referred the Case to the Court of Appeal for the Second District (Los Angeles ) . The Court of Appeal in turn refused to exercise its original jurisdiction, referring the Case to the Los Angeles Superior Court. While also arguing that the property tax shift violates the school funding standards of Serrano v Priest ( 1976 ) 18 C3d 728, the primary argument in Alhambra is very similar to the primary theory upon which Contra Costa County' s proposed Measure A Ordinance is based: Proposition 98 (Article XVI, Section 8) established property tax funding for schools at the 1986-7 level (with minor adjustments ) and the remainder of school funding up to the levels contemplated by the Proposition is the obligation of the State; thus, the shift of Board of Supervisors 2 June 7 , 1993 additional property taxes to schools violates the funding scheme established by Proposition 98. In addition, Alhambra raises the home rule issue, which is one of the three theories supporting this County's proposed Ordinance, but does so in a manner somewhat different than our Ordinance. Suprisingly, Alhambra does not raise the Article XIIIB, Section 6 , State mandate issue, which is the third theory supporting this County' s proposed Ordinance. It is conceivable that Petitioners might add the Article XIIIB issue to the Alhambra litigation. Because the 1992-3 allocations were already largely made and spent by the time the Alhambra action was filed, and because it would be very difficult to recover money already spent, it appears that the strategy of the Alhambra Petitioners is to attempt to obtain a Superior Court ruling on the 1993-4 fiscal year allocations prior to September of this year. If the Prop 98 issue were resolved in favor of the Alhambra Petitioners by this September, the Los Angeles Auditor would be able to implement the decision for the 1993-4 fiscal year allocations . However, there is a strong likelyhood of an appeal . It is difficult to predict whether, pending completion of an appeal, the 1993-4 allocations would be impounded, distributed to the schools, or distributed as prior to the shift.. If the funds were impounded or distributed as prior to the shift and the schools not otherwise made whole (eg, by interim State funding of the shortfall) , schools could be severely impacted during the appeal . 3. Contra Costa Strategy Re Litigation It has been suggested that this County " join" in the Alhambra litigation. Although counties other than Los Angeles could request leave to file amicus briefs, which is quite unusual at the trial court level, such counties would have no way to become parties to the Alhambra action, unless separate actions were filed and a motion successfully made to coordinate the actions with the Alhambra litigation. Such a tactic could be counterproductive, because it probably would cause substantial delays in the Alhambra litigation, and it is to the benefit of everyone to have these issues resolved quickly. Of course, concerned counties could file amicus briefs or letters when the Alhambra Case reaches the Appellate Court. In any event, this Office has already offered Contra Costa County amicus participation to the attorneys representing the Alhambra Petitioners . (See attached 5-3-93 letter. ) Another approach would be for the counties that adopt similar ordinances to consider filing a joint action, similar to but litigated separate from the Alhambra action. Given the head start of the Alhambra case, it is likely that the Prop 98 issue would be resolved by the Court of Appeal in that case prior to an adjudication in any other case. Thus, the primary purpose of a separate case would be to resolve issues not addressed in Alhambra. Since the Alhambra action should resolve most of the issues that might be raised in another action (see above discussion) , at this point it appears that filing a separate Board of Supervisors 3 June 7 , 1993 action would accomplish little. Because an action similar to Alhambra likely would be very complex and time-consuming, there may be considerable advantage to several counties joining forces . With approval of CSAC, such an action could be coordinated through the CSAC Litigation Coordination Office. A third approach would be for the Auditors of the counties adopting "tax revolt" ordinances to refuse to allocate according to the State shift, which would almost certainly provoke a lawsuit by the State, schools, or taxpayers . Provided the ordinances were similar, the united defendant counties and auditors could move to coordinate all the actions in a single court. Because there are inherent advantages to being a defendant, this might be the best legal approach. Of course, school funding during such litigation would remain a paramount concern. 4 . Sales Tax Issues The Attorney General recently opined that Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7285 provides authority for the County to impose an additional one-half cent local sales tax if 1 ) two-thirds of the Board approves, 2) a majority of those voting on the measure approve, and 3 ) the County contracts with the State Board of Equalization to administer the tax. (See Ops . Cal. .Atty. Gen. , No. 93-402 [May 21, 1993] . ) Notwithstanding confusion in previous Attorney General opinions and appellate court decisions, the Attorney General now opines that the Section 7285 requirement of a majority vote approval is not a violation of the Constitutional proscription against referendums on tax legislation because it is a precondition to the imposition of the tax. The proceeds of such an increase in the sales tax would not have to be shared with the cities in the County. ( Id. ) As you may know, the Governor has "set" a special statewide election on November 2, 1993 to allow counties to put such a tax before the voters . At this time, we have not seen any specific proposed legislation in bill form by the Governor to extend the existing half cent sales tax for six months or to clarify that the existing half cent sales tax could be collected for the period from January 1, 1994 to April of 1994 in counties where the voters approve an additional local sales tax in November. Further, it is not clear if legislation will be pursued this year to clarify that the State Board of Equalization is authorized to collect additional local sales taxes in the event such taxes would bring the total of all sales taxes in a county to more than eight and r Board of Supervisors 4 June 71 1993 one-quarter cents, as would be the case in this and several other Bay Area counties under some circumstances if additional local sales taxes were approved. DCG:df attachment cc: Ken Corcoran, Auditor Phil Batchelor, CAO c:bdrepah.doc CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COUNSEL 651 Pine Street, 9th Floor P.O. Box 69 Martinez CA 94553 (510) 646-2058 Fax (510) 646-1078 May 3, 1993 J. Robert Flandrick, Esq. .Burke, Williams and Sorensen 611 West Sixth Street, 25th Floor Los Angeles CA 90017 Re: City of Alhambra et. al. v Ikemoto, et. al., Second District No. 8073771 Dear Mr. Flandrick: As you may have heard, Contra Costa County has introduced an Ordinance which relies (inter alia) on the Proposition 98 theory upon which the subject case is premised. Because Contra Costa is vitally concerned with the State's threat to confiscate another 2.6 billion dollars of property taxes for fiscal 1993-4, we would be pleased to join in amicus letters/briefs, if you think such would be helpful. A copy of the materials on our proposed Ordinance is enclosed. Please call if we can offer further explanation or be of assistance in any other way. Thanks very much for your outstanding work on this important public issue. ours truly, victor J n,, ours Counsel Deputy By: Dienni Graves, Deputy cc: Board of Supervisors County Administrator c:alhlet rilmmv . . ....... W ME ..............-XX Is m .... ........................... ............ KRI-m M:�xx .. .... ..... .... ................ 811iii, �i� Km g.' ..!May lag ............ ............ xx Mom 1% 00 . ......... I town toasts M MW A ........... .r ....... .... Mom .. ....................... .......... .......ME > 1 mg X% .......................... g Wg mx: m W ................ "OHM", x ......... RM tv ...................... . ............... .................... ............... ,............. sg ........... ............ ........... ........... 0?% 'Z -:JR.:10 M X 11-11 .............� .......... ... ............. ............. . .................. ......MIS f a • R 19) Change the current County employee reward system, tie it to customer satisfaction. Encourage risk taking and reward entrepreneurship. 20) Ensure there is prior County employee participation in as well as review and comment of all further CAO budget suggestions/recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. 21) Decentralize County Training Program, use video tapes and other multi media systems to economically provide training to small groups and even individuals applied at point of application/usage in the operational work environment. Use this training to change/improve current work culture, broaden horizons of all levels of employers, attack complacency and encourage rick taking. 22) Give departments and employees an incentive/reward to save money. Introduce entrepreneurial and pride of ownership into work environment, provide recognition. Eliminate the "use it or lose it" budget mentality. PERSONNEL SYSTEM 23) Change/rationalize existing layoff rules= increase flexibility to move across department lines and classifications. If a position is open and an individual qualifies but has never filled that position (it e. , had status in the classification) let the individual be able to claim the open position. Develop a County personnel system rather than a departmental personnel system that fosters department self interest and turf protection at the expense of a broader County interest. USE OF TECHNOLOGY 24) Technology should be introduced/applied for the purpose of efficiency, not just for the sake of technology. Make sure technology applications meet County needs, are fundable into the foreseeable future and do not create more work for operational staff. REVENUE GENERATION/ADVOCACY 25) Look into pros and cons on economy of instituting a County income tax; sales tax is too regressive. 25) Lobby for legislation that will alleviate/lessen the burden on County resources; advocate legislation to protect County revenues; accomplish the preceding through statewide .cooperative efforts with other agencies and units of local government. RZMGMISE 11) Study current County organization to effect better program consolidation and coordination in order to save money and provide better service. Put common programs into the same department to effectuate better provision of services and administrative savings; combine like service such as employment and training (under the PIC). Eliminate existing duplication as there clients receive multiple assessments, eligibility determination, etc. by many different departments. Study and implement an electro/magnetic coded individual client card that is readable and enterable by the different departments and that contains identification and other key data. Establish a common human service centralized intake system. 12) Have an (external) efficiency study completed and then implement it. Study to include a focus on automation and its application, improved organizational efficiency, client services and available resources. 13) Establish a County strategic planning unit. Currently move from crisis to crisis in ever shortening frequency cycles; need to protect the future, identify trends, do contingency planning and move from an on-going crisis management operation. 14) Study non-mandated services and the appropriate or minimal level of need for mandated services; implement fees for all non-mandated services. 15) Convert charge out departments - such as Data Processing and some units of General Services - to budgeted departments and instill them with budget discipline. ENTREPR UMMIAL 16) Implement a program such that individuals incarcerated can earn income, a portion of which goes to pay for court costs, child support, etc. 17) Implement economic development activity to support County employment, encourage small business formation, assist the profitability of existing businesses, build the tax base and eliminate as much red tape as possible. Implement a 900 phone system but provide additional information and advice in support of economic development. 18) All levels of County employees need to be more cognizant of taxpayers; there is a need for customer service training/marketing orientation program for all County employees that is an on-going process. ACOFA, CA 94520 616-5239 TL: - Marsh 9, 1993 cc: Harry Cisterman, ' Personnel Director PIC Staff Phil Batchelor, County Administrator Board Members ee'002 �K: Arthur C. Miser, Executive Director Private Industry Council I.=: PIC STAFF INPUT - BUDGET CRISIS In response to your 10 February request, the office was closed and PIC staff met on 17 February to brainstorm consensus positions and suggestions in response to the anticipated County budget crisis. My only role was to convene the meeting and act as the scribe. Attached is a listing of those items on which there was complete consensus of those present. PIC staff were also encouraged - especially for their suggestions when consensus was not reached - to submit individual input. The attached are not listed in any order of priority; an attempt has been made to cluster them by common topic. After the time out meeting, there was some additional discussion which surfaced a major concern which was a request that the County examine the rationale for applying monetary reductions to County employees who are paid with non-general fund money, keeping in mind that reductions in federal funds to a department, for example, have not been applied County-wide. Therefore, why should reductions in general funds be applied County-wide - to include federal funded programs. Perhaps certain reductions should be applied County-wide for equity sake (for example only - eliminate word processing differential) , while others should not (for example, do not furlough-those that are paid with non-general fund money, so they may continue to administer/provide services/programs) . There is a need to be clear/open about the rationale for applying .reductions to non-general fund departments, . such as: Board of Supervisors wants to close everything down (as much as possible) on certain days/weeks so public will know extent of budget problem; and/or, if support departments (Auditors, General Services, CAO) are closed, non-general fund .departments cannot function; and/or cutting public hours or closing non-general fund office will save on operational overhead expenditures which effect general funds, etc. ' If, for example, furloughs are planned for a specific period of time (Christmas holidays) , then perhaps every department needs to participate. If, however, a certain number of days of furlough are to be taken by an employee over the course of a year, then only general fund employees should be affected. ACM:baj Ila CHM COSTS 1) All compensation reductions to be across the board for all - management and union, elected and appointed - employees. 2) Study perks beyond the basic salary scale received by all employees - from top to bottom. Eliminate/reduce perks such as: allowance given to department heads and others allowances for word processing allowances for longevity freeze COLAs only after perks eliminated. 3) Absolutely no involuntary reduction in current retirement and health plan benefits for retired employees or current employees. It is essential the health plan coverage be available for County employees after retirement. 4) Before County pays . greater share of employees retirement as an offset to wage reduction - study the effect on future retirement benefits if wage is reduced as a result; implement a system to hold harmless the eventual retirement allowance. S) implement cafeteria fringe benefit plans for all County employees; properly targeted benefits could be of greater value yet cost the County less than the current fringe benefit package. OPERATIONAL COSTS 6) Cut public hours and close offices - saving on beat, light and other operational overhead expenditures. 7) Decentralize if not eliminate purchasing; allow departments to use other than assigned vendors when they can obtain a better cost; allow departments to make direct purchases through a bank of assigned PO numbers for small items; restrict centralized purchasing authority to large items of expenditure. 8) Increase Department oversight by empowering Departments to select alternative service providers when the County service provider is non responsive or more expensive that what can be purchased in the open market place. 9) Monitor the lights in parking lots, use light sensors so outside lights come on only at dusk and go out at dawn. - Lights in our parking lot are currently going on about 4:30 p.m, year-round. 10) Before eliminating County auto fleet and use of County vehicles, clarify to all. insurance status/liability of employees using personal cars while on County business, ensure employees are held harmless if there is any change in existing County vehicle operation. Even if there is no change, this is an issue that needs to be clarified. .ONTRA COSTA COUNTY 2RIVAT,E INDUSTRY COUNCIL 2425 BISSO LANE, SUITE 100 MNMRD CA 94520 646-5239 ATE' May 27,1993 co. CONTRA COSTA COUNT, RECEIVED ro: Phil Batchelor, CAO Attn: tar Castr , Budget Analyst MAY 2 8 j9M /�� = ArtFur .( Mine,E Executive Director Contra Costa County Private Industry Council OFFICE OF ,TWECT, COUNTY ADMINISTRATUf Implementation of Priority "Time-Out" Employee Suggesti --' This is in response to your 18 May request on the above subject. The majority of the PIC staff suggestions, copy of which is.attached for your ready reference, are general or County-wide and beyond my authority to implement. Suggestion #18 has been addressed for this department through the process itself and I have reinforced it at subsequent PIC all staff meetings and other times when the opportunity arose. Suggestion#9 was attempted to be implemented by a phone call to General Services, who did reset the clocks. However, the exterior lights are still starting prior to dusk. Accordingly by 4 June we will submit a work order to disable the clock (if possible) and covert the exterior lights to a sensor`'based system so the exterior lights are only in operation between dawn and dusk. Unless General Services declines to complete the work order for factors we as laymen are unaware of, I would expect full implementation by 30 July 1993. ACM:pk #1:EXTLIG.mem 0 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE MUNICIPAL COURTS BAY •DELTA - IMT. DIABLO- WALNUT CREEK-DANVILLE P.O.Box 4068. Walnut Creek,California 94596-0068 (510)646-6007 Fax Number(510)646-6002 TO: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator FROM: Kiri Torre, County Municipal Court Administrator SUBJECT: Implementation of Priority "Time-out" Employee Suggestions DATE. May 24, 1993 The Municipal Court Presiding Judges have been given a copy of suggestions from our employees to improve efficiencies, reduce costs and raise revenues in the Municipal Courts. The judges will take these suggestions into consideration when preparing the proposed Municipal Courts' budget for Fiscal Year 1993/94. The timetable for submission of our budget documents is based on when the State takes action in regard to Trial Court Funding adjustments received by the counties. I will keep you apprised of any updates in this area. KT:krj cc: George Roemer Senior Deputy County Administrator Julie Enea. Budget Analyst K-93-127 CDNTRA COSTA COUNTY RECEivED MAY2Q OFFICE OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR material preprocessed could save $64,000. Timeline: Purchase material preprocessed June 15, E'93: Develop processing profile for children's books July 7, 1993: Discuss profile at Youth Services Librarians meeting July 14, 1993: Discuss profile at Monthly Manager's meeting August/September, 1993: Work with vendor October, 1993: Initiate orders with preprocessing Timeline: Centralized selection of material Timeline dependent on final budget reductions effect on materials budget and staffing. In addition to the above five suggestions, an additional 11 suggestions have also been implemented within the last quarter. Another two projects, the implementation of a voice-mail substitute scheduling system and a patron self-check circulation system at the Central Library, will be implemented by September 1993. Both of these last two systems will have full cost recovery within two years. Finally, another 26 suggestions are being costed out with recommendations on potential implementation expected within the next month. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RECEIVED JUN 21993 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY LIBRARY INTER-OFFICE MEMO OFFICE OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR DATE: June 1, 1993 TO: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator FROM: Anne Marie Gold, County Libr� SUBJECT: Time-Out Employee Suggestion Implementation The Contra Costa County Library received several hundred suggestions from staff as part of the budget development process for 1993/94. From all of the suggestions received, the following five were identified as the top priorities. 1. Install a network of fax machines in all library facilities. This will improve library reference service, increase public access to all library resources, including those in the centrally located core collection, and will save approximately $27,000 by reducing the need to purchase duplicate library.resources for each location. Timeline: May 13, 1993: Requisitions for equipment prepared May 14, 1993: CAO approved capital purchases May 26, 1993: Purchasing investigating equipment costs and features June 1, 1993: Recommendations of fax policies and procedures task force presented to administration June 4, 1993: Purchasing to provide comparative cost data June 9, 1993: Fax policies and procedures,including new fee schedule for faxing, to be discussed at Monthly Managers Meeting June 15, 1993: Final decisions made on selection of equipment July 1, 1993: Purchasing to issue purchase order July 1 - September 1, 1993: Telephone work as needed to accommodate fax machines July 15, 1993: Final fax�policies and procedures approved; new fax fee schedule submitted to CAO for Board approval September 1, 1993: Delivery of fax machines October 1, 1993: All equipment installed and tested October 1, 1993: Implementation complete 2. Assign one person at a centralized location to do data entry for all library card applications and renewals. Currently this function is dispersed to all locations. It is estimated that this would save over 500 hours of clerical staff time annually, or approximately $6000. Timeline: June 1, 1993: Automation staff completed computer program to enter patron registration information on a personal computer June 9, 1993: Discuss at Monthly Manager's Meeting June 1 - 15, 1993: Debugging of program June 15, 1993: Develop procedures and logistics for staff to send in registrations and renewals July 1, 1993: Install 3$6 computer in automation July 1, 1993: Hire temporary data entry clerk July 7, 1993: Complete training and set standards for data entry clerk July/August/Sept: Change temporary staffing to permanent staffing as a result of budget reductions 3. Contract out services currently provided by General Services. The inability to do this results in an inordinately high cost for building occupancy. During FY 1992/93 General Services was able to contract out janitorial services for six branch libraries,with a resulting cost reduction from $79,552 to $27,552 annually. In addition to the overall cost savings, better service provision is the frequent result because of enhanced accountability. In addition, appropriate use of volunteers interested in working in specific areas such as minor repairs,painting and gardening would also provide cost-savings in this area. Because this concern was expressed by library staff at most locations, it was included on our list of priorities. However, since we are unable to implement it independently within the library, a timetable has not been developed. 4. Institute a mandatory furlough program. Since the primary requirements of the voluntary furlough plan are that levels of public service cannot be reduced and the department can incur no cost to backfill the position while the employee is on unpaid furlough, it has not been able to be used by the majority of library employees. However, a significant number of library employees have shown an interest in mandatory furlough as an alternative to reduced service levels resulting in staff layoffs. A one week mandatory furlough is estimated to save $92,000. If the library were to close for the two week holiday period in December, it is estimated that $129,000 could be saved. Either of these dollar cost savings could then be used to eliminate the need for a specific service program reduction, resulting in fewer staff layoffs. Because there was significant interest in a mandatory furlough by library staff, it was included in our list of priorities. Discussions currently occurring between the county and the employee associations will determine the timeline for possible implementation of this idea in the library. 5. Centralize some ordering of library resources and purchase some material preprocessed. These two suggestions were among a number of ideas proposed that will streamline internal operations to ensure that the return on available resources and revenues is maximized and to ensure that the library operates at an optimal level of productivity. It is estimated that ordering some material centrally could save $103,000 and that buying some Re: Implementation of Priority Time Out Employee Suggestions May 27, 1993 Page -3- 9. Another suggestion wns to require employees to use County fueling facilities to fuel County vehicles. A memorandum was sent to County departments explaining the cost savings available to departments by using the County fueling facilities, but some departments still feel that they need to have Shell and Chevron credit cards because employees are not always near a County fueling facility. We shall continue to advise departments to use the County fueling facilities instead of service stations. - 10. Reducing the number of high-speed copiers in County departments would require policy direction, but departments can save $.03-.06/copy plus clerical time in not having to wait to make lots of copies when the work is done in a Central Service Copy Center. Departments tend to use high-speed copiers to handle internal copying quickly, but often use them for large jobs too. Departments should not use their in-house copiers for large copy jobs because it is cheaper for Central Service to do the work. Departments should be advised that large copy jobs should be sent to Central Service Copy Centers to save money. In addition, the large copiers at Central Service can offer printing on 1111 x 1711 paper, glue binding of up to 50 pages, highlighting on a document, stapling up to 60 pages, and folding documents so maps or other inserts can be included. Central Service can prepare another memorandum to County departments to advise them of the cost savings and features available by using Central Service copy centers, but it would receive more attention if it came from your Office. A policy decision could require a maximum size on office copiers, so departments do not lease larger copiers than needed. 11. Removing mail meters from County departments requires a policy decision on whether all mail is to be sent through Central Service. The pre-sort contract saves the County approximately $100,000 per year, plus $44,000 on three large mailings done recently. Eliminating in-house mail meters could increase that savings. Central Service can decide on the best way to send items to achieve savings, but still meet delivery dates . 12 . Changes in work schedules and mandatory unpaid furloughs for all County employees require Board policy and "meet and confer" sessions, which are handled by the Personnel Department and are in process. BJG:KB:mak cc: Kathy Brown r -77- GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT 1220 Morello Avenue, Suite 200- Martinez, California 94553 Extension 3-7100 -_MAY 2,:8 199,., ,0ATE: May 27., 1993 TO: Phil Batchelor, Conty A st --ator FROM: Barton J. Gilbertwhor of General Services SUBJECT: Implementation of Priority Time Out Employee Suggestions You requested a timetable for implementation of suggestions made from the Time Out Employee Suggestions. Our suggestions fall Into one or more of three categories; those which General Services can implement now, those which may require "meet and confer" sessions with employee organizations; and those which require policy direction from your office or the Board of Supervisors. 1 Purchasing is meeting with a lender currently to review all of the equipment lease purchase agreements that County departments have to identify those which can be refinanced at lower interest rates. This review should be completed within the next month and renegotiations ions implemented to reduce interest payments beginning next fiscal year. 2. Purchasing has proposed a Small Purchasing Program to allow departments to purchase items under $500. This program is for those items which are not covered by contracts or for which there are restrictions for departments, such as building materials, automotive parts, or other items which departments do not have approval to purchase i. This Small Purchasing Program can save a significant amount of time, both for Purchasing and for departments. Departments may order and process the invoices for small purchases, without having to process through Purchasing. This allows the Purchasing staff to concentrate their time on negotiating major contracts and large purchases to save more money. Purchasing staff will monitor the use of this program to ensure departments are using it appropriately. Purchasing has sent already a draft of this proposal to the County Auditor-Controller for review and any suggested changes. This proposal might be incorporated into the Warrant Request Program. Staff from Purchasing and Auditor-Controller will assess how to bring this forward to the Board. 3. The General Services Department is notifying departmental users of computer equipment to turn off the computers or printers when they will not be used within 10 minutes. This saves electricity and does not affect the computer equipment. This suggestion could be implemented by other departments to save electricity countywide. Re: Implementation of Priority Time Ott Employee Suggestions May 27, 1993 Page -2- 4. Building Maintenance is currently identifying buildings for ligI.-ting retrofits to save on energy and maintenance costs. The buildings to be recommended for retrofits should be available by the end of June, 1993. Depending on the estimated costs for retrofits, rebates available, and the estimated period of payback to achieve energy savings, a plan for implementation will be presented to your office if financing is required. General Services will develop contracts to do the retrofits and oversee the work. Savings might not result in the first year, but they will be available within a few years. With utility rates expected to continue to rise, the savings will be greater by making lighting retrofits to reduce the amount of electricity in buildings.. 5. A suggestion to turn off hot water, except where required in institutions and food service areas, requires a policy decision, and it may require "meet and confer" obligations with employee organizations. General Services will implement if approved. 6. Another recommendation is to unplug and cap the electric cordg.. for water coolers. Again, this requires a policy decision and may require "meet and confer" with employee organizations. The drinking fountains will have tepid water and not the refrigerated cold water if the electric cords are capped. This will save on electricity costs, but employees may be unhappy about not having cold water for drinking. If this is approved, General Services will implement. 7. Eliminating County purchased bottled water could save approximately $70,000 per year, but this requires a policy decision and will . be a "meet and confer" issue with employee organizations. Currently some County employees buy bottled water and pay for It themselves, while some departments purchase bottled water for employees and have the County pay for it. If the decision is to end County paid water service, Purchasing will terminate purchase orders with bottled water vendors. 8. Reduce the number of paid subscriptions not mandated by program requirements is another suggestion. Subscriptions totaled $60,000 last year. This again requires a policy decision and might require "meet and confer" meetings with employee organizations, and the Management Council. A purchasing policy could be monitored by Purchasing staff. Gary T. Yancey District Attorney OFFICE OF DISTRICT ATTORNEY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY To: Phil Bal-chelor County Administrator From: Gary T. Yancey, District Attorne ministration by Ren6e Goldstein, D.A. Chief o esration and Planning Date: June 1, 1993 Subject: Implementation of "Time-Out" Suggestions In response to your May 18 memo, we have developed implementation schedules for the six "Time-Out" suggestions we sent to you on April 14. However, some of the suggestions are beyond the Department's authority. We have indicated this, as appropriate, below. Encourage people to drop dual health.plan coverage, by allowing employees to reinstate coverage, if they need to, at a time other than open enrollment. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE Beyond Department's authority to implement. ♦ Eliminate the Training Institute. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE Beyond Department's authority to implement. CONTRA CMA COUNTY 0 Eliminate the Wellness Coordinator. RE } IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE OFFICE OF Beyond Department's authority to implement. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ♦ Charge clients for $ 5.00 fee banks charge us for copies of checks (Family Support)- IMPLEMEI-rATION SCHEDULE Projected Activity Completion Date - Determine legality of implementing suggestion 07/01/93 - If legal, develop procedure for charging 07/15/93 clients the fee - If legal, begin collecting fee from clients 07/15/93 ♦ Consolidate forms by using front and back. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE Projected Activity Completion Date Evaluate all forms in the office to 06/15/93 determine which can be consolidated front and back Consolidate forms front and back As soon as possible (depends on when we next order them-- Some have already been consolidated as a result of this suggestion). ♦ Eliminate home garaging of County cars unless required for law enforcement purposes IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE Projected Activity Completion Date Reinforce existing policy regarding home Done garaging of County vehicles Please let me know if you need any additional information. Contra Costa County COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE RECEIVED CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AUG 2 .. 1991 MARTINEZ,, CALIFORNIA Office of Dale: August 23, 1991 County Administrator To: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator Attn: Tony Enea, Deputy County Administrator From: Victor J. Westman, County Counsel By: Andrea W. Cassidy, Deputy County Counsel RECEIVED MAY 7 1993 Re: Use of Automated Phone Response ( "900" Numbers) CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ASSESSOR Question: Can the Municipal Court lawfully impose a fee on .callers for access to automated court data bases? Answer: Yes . Background: The Municipal Court seeks funding from the Productivity Investment Board to install a 24 hour voice response system utilizing "900" numbers. Automated general responses about court hours and scheduling would be available to touch tone phone callers for free. If the caller seeks access to the court's computer files for specific data, a fee would be charged. At the present time, callers may obtain general information from the court either in person or by telephone. It is however, often difficult for callers to get through by telephone. Specific information contained within the court files, is available to patrons who personally appear at the court. Discussion: Government Code section 72054 sets forth the fees for specific services performed by municipal court clerks . it states in pertinent parts : "Except as otherwise provided by law the clerk of each municipal court shall charge the fees prescribed by this article (and specified sections including Gov. Code, § 26831] . . . for all services to be performed. " Government Code section 26831 authorizes the County Clerk (and by virtue of § 72054 the clerks of the municipal, courts) to charge a reasonable fee to cover the cost of preparing copies of any records maintained by that office. The municipal court proposal provides for production of court records through a computer data base. The patrons will be charged a reasonable fee to cover the cost of reproducing the record by way of computer and telephone across. Therefore, we believe our courts are authorized to impose the fee as long as it is limited to recovering the cost of producing the record via another medium. Tony Enea -2- August 23, 1991 In as much. as the proposed fees are related to judical matters and functions, the fees are exempt from the provisions of Government Code section 54985 (no public meeting required per Gov. Code, § 54986 ) . The proposed automatic response system is voluntary. Any person may obtain general information at no cost and only those patrons who seek additional specialized information access will be :charged a fee for the computer access. People who choos6 to utilize the automatic response system, will be advised of the fee, and may discontinue the call if they object to the fee. This appears to be analogous to the court returning filed documents by express mail upon payment of the postage by the party requesting the copy. Specialized services to obtain court information without appearing at the court will be available to patrons choosing to pay a user's fee which recovers the cost of providing the computerized information. Patrons may still appear personally at the court during business hours, obtain these services and review the original public documents at no cost. AWC/jh:.df cc: Kiri S. Torre, Municipal Court Administrator �7 County Administrator Contra RECEIVED Board Supervisors _ Tom Powers County Administration Building Costa MAY 10 1993 Ir.District 6S7 Pine Street,11th Floor i JeM Smith Martinez.California 94SS3-1225 ��` 2nd District 1V CONTRA COSTA (FAX(510)510)646-4098 �d�Nn{ � � 3rd District C t Phil Batchelor `= o Sunne Wright McPeak County Administrator :Y = 4th District 7 Tom Tortakson C' 5th District Ysa:.,i.M.sJ:m co May 7, 1993 Les Spahnn Heim, Noack & Spahnn Bank of California Center 770 L Street, Suite 960 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Les: As you requested, we have prepared amendments to AB 419 (Cortese) , as amended April 26, 1993 and corrected April 27, 1993 to 'insert the additional $1 fee for automating the Assessor's records. This language provides that the fee is optional with each county, provides for the Recorder to be reimbursed for his or her costs in collecting the additional $1 and sunsets the provision after six years. It is my understanding that you will attempt to have these .amendments made to AB 419 . We can, of course, make the bill mandatory, but we run the risk of a veto again if we do. Very truly yours, Claude L. Van Marter Assistant County Administrator CLVM:amb spahnn7s Attachment a cc: John Biasotti, County Assessor Stephen L. Weir, County Clerk-Recorder Tony Enea, Senior Deputy County Administrator PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO AB 419 (CORTESE) AS AMENDED APRIL 26, 1993 Amendment # I Insert on page 6, beg:nn.*,ng at line 14: SECTION 6 Section 27631. 10 is added to the Government Code, to read: 27361. 10. (a) The board of supervisors of any county may provide, by resolution, for a recording fee, in addition to any. other recording fee required or authorized by thi's title, of one dollar ($1) for recording every document for which a recording fee is charged pursuant to Section 27361. In any county In which this fee is imposed, the proceeds of this additional fee shall be forwarded to the county treasurer for deposit in the general fund of the county. These funds shall be available for the purposes identified in subdivision (b) upon appropriation by the board of supervisors. (b) The funds received from this additional fee shall be used only to defray the cost of automating the county assessor's records and pay for, the cost of maintaining the system and information. The funds received from this fee shall supplement and not supplant any other funds available for these purposes. Priority shall be given to the assessment and administration of the supplemental. roll. (c) The board of supervisors of any county which imposes the additional recording fee provided for in subdivision (a) may, by resolution, authorize the county recorder to withhold from the proceeds of the additional fee the recorder's actual costs of administering this section as determined by the board of supervisors, or 5 percent of the additional fee, whichever is less. (d) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2000, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, which is enacted before January 1, 2000,, deletes or extends that date. 834court Street Contra Costa County Assessor Martinez,California 9450 DATE: May 25, 1993 TO: Victor J. Westman, County Counsel FROM: Joh iasotti, County Assessor SUBJ: Ne fees for Specialized Services We are planning to implement new fees for two services that have not been charged for in the past. Filing Builders Exclusion: Revenue and Taxation Code Section 75.12 (a) (1) allows certain owners of construction to apply for exclusion from the supplemental assessment process. In addition 'to the loss in supplemental revenue, this section places a burden on the assessor to process additional paperwork. Can the assessor charge the owner/applicant. a processing fee? If so should the charge be per parcel excluded or per application? Tax Letters on New Subdivisions: In order to process subdivisions through the Tax Collector's system, the County Code Book, Subdivision Section, Article 94-4, Supplementary documents, requires the assessor to provide a "Tax Letter" to the Tax Collector. Can the Assessor charge the applicant a processing fee? If so, should the fee be per parcel or per application? Please issue an opinion as to the legality of my office charging a fee for these services. Since these additional fees are part of our "Time-Out" suggestions for which the County Administrator has requested an implementation timetable, we would appreciate a prompt response. a34 Court Street Contra Costa County Assessor Martinez,Calif0mia 945W DATE: May 25, 1993 TO: Victor J. Westman, Coun'-y Counsel FROM. hn 2 A� kda�County Assessor BUW: e of 900 Number for Providing Assessment Data We are planning to install a 900 number and charge for providing assessment information to non property owners, eg: ownership verification, building square footage, addresses, parcel numbers, etc. The fee charged would be the reasonable cost of providing the information utilizing the 900 service. Any of this information that is currently available without charge would still be available at no charge to anyone who comes to our public service counter. Please issue an opinion as to the legality of my office using a 900 number to charge for these services. Attached for your information is an opinion fromyouroffice regarding use of a 900 number to provide certain information regarding court data which may or may not apply to our situation. Since this is one of our "Time-out" suggestions for which the County Administrator has requested an implementation timetable, we would appreciate a prompt response. Attachment: County Counsel Opinion 8-23-91 Court Street Contra Costa County Assessor 834 Martinez,California 945W DATE: April 13, 1993 TO: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator FROM: John Biasotti, Assessor SUBJ: Time-Out Suggestions There were no time-out suggestions submitted that will result in any significant immediate cost reductions or revenue increases. We have in the past few years implemented some significant procedural changes to streamline the appraisal function to improve the quality of assessments. The most significant of these were: - Direct enrollment on sales - Computerized comparable sales for valuation - Computerized drawing of floor plans - Computerized mailing of the Building Permit Questionnaires - computerized mailing of Sales Questionnaires We did receive a number of excellent suggestions from our staff, however, those that could result in the most. significant savings will require new legislation prior to being implemented. Some of . these suggestions are: - Have the DMV charge an in-lieu tax on all boats (boats are currently registered with DMV) and share revenues with counties. - Have the HCD charge an in-lieu tax on all mobile homes. Currently HCD is taxing some mobile homes and each county assesses the others. Share revenues with counties. - File Homeowners exemption on the State Income Tax similar to the renters credit. This could save counties and the State millions of dollars. We also received a number of suggestions that will improve our operation and in'the long term will result in savings or increased revenues. 1 - we are currently 'investigating installation on a 900 phone number to increase revenues for services provided. We would continue to provide free telephone responses related to valuation issues, but would charge for verification of ownership, square footage and other characteristic data. Most of the requests for non valuation data come from private companies (eg. Insurance companies, loan companies, Pac Bell, real estate companies, etc.) . This would result in increased revenues or decrease the number of inquiries from non homeowners which currently require a lot of time in our public service section. Contra Costa County Assessor Mart strut ez,CallforrlW 11553 DATE: May 28, 1993 RECE,,_ TO: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator 2 � �`- FROM: John Biasotti, Assessor SUBJ: "Time-Out" Suggestions Implementation OFA OF COUNTY MINIS. Attached is a copy of my memo dated April 13, 1993, that details the Department's Time-Out suggestions. The three suggestions listed below will result in the most significant saving to my office. - DMV charge in-lieu tax on boats. - HCD charge in-lieu tax on mobile homes. - State Income Tax credit to replace Homeowner exemption. These three changes will require a complicated process working with both the legislature and the California Assessors' Association. There is certain to be opposition from many county assessors on some of these issues. We are starting to pursue the process with the California Assessors' Association, and will attempt to sponsor the required changes in State Law during the next Legislative session. The other six suggestions submitted will result in smaller savings or increased revenues. 1. Install 900 phone number to charge for non property owner inquires. A memo has been written to County Counsel requesting an opinion as to the legality of implementing a 900 number for these purposes. We have met with Pacific Bell and will continue to meet with them to work out the details for installation of the 900 System. Assuming a positive response from County Counsel, we plan to inform the major users of this service of our intention to switch to the 900 System. We estimate that the System can be implemented within_ 90 days after legal approval from County Counsel and fee charge approval from the Board of Supervisors. 2. Add Assessor's automation fee to recorded documents. We are attempting through the County Lobbyist to charge an additional $1 fee for recording all documents in the County. We are trying to have AB 419 (Cortese) amended Y to include the fee for automating the Assessor's records. (See attached letter dated May 7, 1993. ) Assuming we are successful in getting our amendment into AB 419 and assuming the Bill passes, money from the fee would be forthcoming after January 1, 1994. 3. Increase Direct Bill limit from $30,000 to $100,000. We sponsored AB 695 (Rainey) to increase the amount we can direct bill on business accounts from $30,000 to $100,000 in personal property. The bill passed the Assembly on a vote of 69-0 and is currently waiting to be heard in the Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee. There appears to be no opposition to the Bill. The Bill should be in effect January 1, 1994 when we can start implementation. 4. Develop County ordinance requiring developers to provide maps at a scale suitable for Assessor's drafting requirements. We have meetings scheduled with Community Development to start reviewing what is necessary to implement the desired changes. We plan to have changes in place by the early part of next fiscal year. 5. Investigate feasibility of implementing charges for the following services. - Filing of Builders exclusions. - Processing of tax letters. A memo has been written to County Counsel requesting an opinion as to the legality of charging fees for the above services (see attachment) . When we receive our response from County Counsel we will present our proposed fees to the Board of Supervisors prior to implementation. 6. Improve communication between our office and Clerk of the Board regarding assessment appeals. We are in the process of connecting the Clerk of the Board to the Assessor's PC Network. This will improve communication and reduce the storing of duplicate data regarding assessment appeals. The hardware has been ordered and the programs are being written. We plan to implement the new system in the 1st quarter of next fiscal year. Attachments: Time-Out Memo 4-13-93 Letter to County Counsel 5-25-93 Letter to Les Spahnn 5-7-93 Letter to County Counsel 5-25-93 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RISK MANAGEMENT Administration Building,6th Floor Martinez, California June 3 , 1993 TO: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator FROM: Joseph J. Tonda Risk Manager 4:8 C-L� ' SUBJECT: Status Report on Risk Management's Top Priority Time-Out Recommendations The status on our recommendations are: 1. Item 25. Reduce 88% to 66 2/3% of full salary for one year for workers' compensation. This action would save $500,000. There would be greater savings if the benefits were reduced to six months. This recommendation was submitted to the Personnel Director as a proposed workers' compensation change to the MOU's. The County Administrator also sent a memo to the Personnel Director supporting this recommendation. 2. Item 10. Stop charging workers' compensation trust fund for Wellness Program and make it self-sufficient. This would save the County approximately $291,000 per year. The Risk Manager had discussed this with the County Administrator and Chief Assistant County Administrator. The Risk Manager and Chief Assistant County Administrator will be following up with Personnel on this recommendation. 3. Item 36. Hire a second tort attorney which would save approximately $130,000 per year. The Risk Manager is in -discussions with County Counsel regarding this recommendation. 4. Item 38. Select a contractor to administer a workers' compensation medical cost containment program which would save approximately $100,000 in addition to the $140,000 already saved in-house. Requests for Proposals for this program have been sent out. Vendors have until June 30, 1993 to submit proposals. 5. Item 2. Countywide 10/40 schedule. This would save $520,000 per year (figure given by Terry Mann, General Services) . 6. Item 1. Countywide 9/80 schedule would save $10,000 per day or $260,000 per year (figure given by Terry Mann, General Services) . . These recommendations affect countywide policy and are under CAO's jurisdiction. JJT:py COMM COSTA COUNTY RECEIVED OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE BOARD Inter - Office Memo OM OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO: Phil Batchelor DATE: May 28, 1993 County Administrator FROM: Jeanne Maglio, Chief Clerk SUBJECT: implementation of Priority "TIME-OUT" Employee Suggestions Following are suggestions presented during the Budget Workshop which are being implemented: Remodeling and rearranging the office to provide for better deployment of staff - We are currently in the process of securing bids for relocating electrical and phone outlets as well as access to the Information Center's computer and limited access to the Assessor's records. Automation of the Assessment Appeals Function - We are awaiting the completion of the rewiring for this office and the installation of the new computer with additional memory. The Assessor's staff is currently working with us in adapting/redesigning our forms to their program. We hope to be operable this July in time for the filings of the 1993. appeals. Automation - three of the new computers ordered have been delivered and are operating. Staff is currently in the process of learning the WordPerfect for windows Program. Board Orders drafted by Clerk of the Board staff are being limited to the action of the Board without summarizing the dialogue that provides insight to the motion. May I suggest that we modify our policy resolution on retention of the taped recordings of Board Meetings from one year to at least five years. It needs to be pointed out that our workload is dependent on what others submit to the Board of Supervisors for action. With the severity of the budget situation the County is facing, I have not as yet noticed a decline in our workload. It is becoming increasingly difficult to do "business as usual" with our reduced resources. OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DATA PROCESSING SERVICES May 28, 1993 TO: Marinelle Thompson FROM:John W.Fallon SUBJECT.Time Out Suggestions Here are my responses to the Time Out Action items: 1. 1 did look into lease plans for PCs so that the County could keep with technology. However, the technology is moving so fast that leasing companies have to charge high monthly amounts for PC leases. The cost of one year of leasing can purchase the equipment at our pricing. I used Compaq as the PC and compared several lease companies to Compaq's GSA pricing. The monthly charge for leasing a Compaq Prolinea 486 PC was roughly 5150 per month(S 1800 per year)and the total GSA price would be$1746 plus tax. 3. PCS has been marketing the PC training services to other agencies. We have put together a presentation and have presented our training capabilities to various cities within the County and even Emeryville. We have done training for Antioch, Martinez, Pittsburg, Diablo Sanitation, and Richmond to name a few of the other agencies. At present we are in the midst of training a group from Richmond Police. Byword of mouth advertising we have also extended our classes to private individuals as long as their attendance does not interfere with County personnel training. We have done extensive training for Rossmoor Medical and I am worldng with an accounting VAR to do training for his company. We have trained over 1900 individuals since the training was started late in 1990. Our training costs$65 per class compared to$200 or more for other comparable training. 6. The County present PROFS E-Mail system will be replaced by EMC2/TAO. The new E-Mail is more efficient in machine resources and will allow lower monthly charges for its usage. In addition, more functionality is available to E-Mail users. Them is an electronic intelligent forms capability that will allow such paper documents as a purchase requisition to be electronically routed through the County offices for electronic sign off—saving time and paper. EMC2/TAO is scheduled to begin implementation on July 1, 1993 and all PROFS.users will be converted to EMC2/TAO by the middle of December 1993. Attached is a tentative time table of the conversion. Attachment Conversion Schedule Departments Number Number Start Date End Date . of People of Sessions Data Processing 90 16 July 1 July 29 Law and Justice 2 Probation 88 15 August 3 AuRust 26 CAO 22 4 August 31 September 2 Personnel 27 S September 9 September 16 Merit Board 1 Muni Courts 27 5 September 21 September 27 Public Defender 18 3 September 29 October 6 District Attorney 10 2 October 7 October 7 Superior Court 2 Building Inspection 10 2 October 12 October 12 LIS 2 Auditor 20 4 October 14 October 18 Assessor 9 2 October 20 October 20 Tax Collector 1 Social Services 73 13 October 25 November 16 Agriculture 2 2 November 18 November 18 Animal Services 2 Clerk of the Board I Community Services 2 Coop Extension I County Counsel 4 Emergency Services 3 3 November 22 November 23 General Services ' 8 GMEDA 2 Health Services 4 Library 8 7 November 30 December 10 PIC 3 Public Works 8 Sheriff 10 Veterans Services 3 Clerk Recorder 4 Community Development 6 During this time there are 19 make up session scattered throughout the July to December time frame. Additional sessions will be regularly scheduled starting in January. Schedule and Work Plan for Converting Information Center Applications 1. Identify Information Center product features used. Completed 2. Select and purchase replacement products. Completed 3. Establish FOCUS coding standards.' June, 1993 4. Train DPS staff in the use of FOCUS. July, 1993 5. Set up Departmental conversion schedules. July, 1993 6. Convert File Extracts which use the Information Center to June - facilitate downloads to straight mainframe downloads. August, 1993 7. Convert IC applications: June - • to FOCUS applications December, 1993 • to other software (on other platforms?) • or discard the application 8. Train customers in the use of FOCUS. Customers will be June - trained as their applications are being converted. December, 1993 The schedule assumes tasks will run concurrently. Also, as we learn more about this product and its capabilities, we will review and revise the schedule accordingly. OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR CONTRA COSTA COUNTY DATA PROCESSING SERVICES April 14, 1993 TO: Harry Cisterman Director of Personnel FROM: Marinelle Thompson Director of Data Processing SUBJECT: Time Out Suggestions I 've attached the results of our four timeout sessions with Data Processing Services staff and also several other suggestions that came in later. Several suggestions seem to merit early attention based on probable savings. In some other cases I don't really have enough in- formation to assess whether significant savings might result. In cases of internal division items for improved service, we will inves- tigate those which seem to offer the significant County benefit. Those items that appear to offer greatest immediate potential are: 1 . Switching from PC purchases on a Countywide basis to a lease plan which provides regular replacement for aging equipment on a two to three year cycle - or at a lower cost on a five year. cycle. This would also have the effect of getting lower pricing by negotiating for substantial numbers of units annually. 2 . Rental of available office space in the 30 Douglas Drive building is being pursued with Lease Management. 3. We are marketing our personal computer training classes to other local public agencies and have been accepting local non-government applicants on a space available basis as well. 4 . We are exploring the possibility of a partnership with two vendors to offer eligibility and welfare case management processing to small counties and counties with computer capacity problems and to non-profit organizations .in the County. 5. We are preparing a mailing to go out to cities and other govern- ment agencies offering our services in programming, computer proc- essing, desktop publishing, printing, as well as personal computer training. 6. We are in the process of converting our information center ser- vices platform for end user computing to more cost effective soft- ware on our production system and to PCs where appropriate. We will save software and hardware maintenance costs that will reduce processing costs to our customers for these services . 7 . We are installing special software on a test basis to offer online report viewing that can reduce printing costs to customers who only need to look at small random portions of these reports or who will benefit from rapid access to specific parts of the reports rather than searching through hardcopy printout. This may be a cost effective substitute for some microfiche also. S. We believe that the County could do a better job of reorganizing and re-engineering if a qualified training consultant were hired to train us. A group of higher level County staff from all de- partments could be trained to facilitate and train in the depart- ments so that a more effective approach could be taken in implementing organizational changes . 9. We like the suggestion for a boxed weekly column in local papers, devoted to County information supplied by the County. It would be a long-term investment in better public understanding. Even the high schools get regular columns they control. Particularly it seems there is a need to give a good explanation of the differ- ences in counties funding and why that exists. Also some graphics and an explanation of where tax dollars go now and where they would go under Wilson's plan would be valuable. Too many taxpay- ers still think the counties are losing state "bailout" funds they don't really deserve! CONTRA COSTA COUN-1 Y RECEIVED ' OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ADMINIS RATO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY �iCE�F DATA PROCESSING SERVIC COM ADMINISTRATO .J June 1, 1993 TO: Phil Batchelor County Administrator LAFROM: Marinelle G. Thompson Director of Data Processing Services SUBJECT: , Implementation of Priority "Time-Out" Employee Suggestions We submitted nine suggestions that seemed to offer greatest imme- diate potential for savings/revenue-generation. The first seven were items that DPS can pursue and I've attached plans and .status for these. The last two suggestions were outside DPS so we've not taken any action on these. (See attached memo listing all nine suggestions.) Status: Item 1 -- leasing PC's countywide - not practical at this time. Investi- gation with several potential lessors indicates that the volatility of products and prices makes this suggestion impractical at this time. No further activity is planned but the idea will be reviewed at least annu- ally. Item 2 -- rental of office space at 30 Douglas Drive -- Several County departments have viewed available space so far but none are actively pursuing this yet due to their own budget constraints. Lease Manage- ment will continue to make departments aware of what is available here, and is also keeping private leasing agents aware of our space. Item 3 -- marketing DPS' training to other agencies -- on going. Training has been done for staff from cities of Antioch, Martinez, Pittsburg and Richmond as well as for Diablo Sanitation, Richmond Police, individuals and several private companies on a space available and special arrangements basis. The letters we're sending to cities will reinforce the visits made previously to some cities. Item 4 -- private-public partnership to provide services to community- based non-profit organizations and to other counties. We have had several meetings with Paradigm Innovations (Jim Rydingsword) and TMG to solidify a proposal to the Association of Homeless and Housing Ser- vice Providers for office automation, client intake and tracking, and information and referral support services. Another meeting is sched- uled for June 11th at DPS and we hope to have 50 workstations in- stalled beginning in August. DPS will house an AS400 server; provide (OVER) E-Mail, tr4ining and help desk support with all hardware and the client 1stem provided by TMG-%nd Paradigm. The services can be W expanded to a much larger group of non-profits as need arises. Milment of Social Services is reZluiring a lengthy approval before--counties can actively pursue interim systems until SAWS is available so we may be a year away from being able to bid on con- tracts for Kern and other counties who want to have Case Data (or CDS and Freedom) until a SAWS solution is ready. We will continue to monitor the situation. We have also approached the County SSD about providing program training and support as a partner when we do bid on other counties interim system work. Item 5 In June we plan to send a letter to the mayors and city managers of all cities in the County as well as other government agen- cies. We will be offering them a full range of automation services including development and processing services, office automation, training and desktop publishing. Obviously we will not commit to deadlines that adversely affect our County customers but increased volumes will also help us to hold down.or reduce rates. Item 6 -- Conversion of the information center services to allow removal of the VM system, thereby reducing software and maintenance costs and providing better, more cost effective tools. Our goal is to be off the VM platform by the end of the 1993 calendar year. More detail is included in the attached documents. Item 7 -- online report viewing -- testing is underway. We have installed a trial version of a report distribution and on-line viewing system. We are in process of evaluating the time required to convert some of our more complex jobs to an on-line viewing and report distri- bution system. The next step will be to meet with two of our major print users, Auditor and Social Services, to determine the feasibility of moving to on-line print viewing. As part of these discussions with our customers, we will develop a cost justification for proceeding with on-line viewing and report distribution. This justification should be completed by mid-July. MGT:jr Attachments cc: Tony Enea. Linda Bulkeley CONTRA COSTA COUNTY OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR J 651 Pine Street, 10th Floor Martinez, California 94553 Telephone: 646-1390 DATE: June 2, 1993 ,,bay:.. TO: FILE FROM: Sara Hoffmanj Senior Deputy County Administrator SUBJECT: Status of CAO Employee Suggestions Each of the CAO central support divisions are reviewing and evaluating employee suggestions which relate to their own divisions. Employee suggestions for the core CAO office have been reviewed by senior staff. Some were deemed impractical, others relate to countywide activities and/or MOU issues. The following is a list of those which are deemed promising: 1. Review budget system to simplify - Staff has investigated alternative budget hardware and software systems which could increase the flexibility of the budget, improve budget monitoring and allow for development capacity. Recommendations will be forthcoming on appropriate systems. 2. Make MBE/WBE Self Supporting - Staff is currently investigating alternative ways to reduce general fund expenses, such as charging fees, using another agency's certification or adding its costs onto contracts. 3. Increase Video Information for the Public - CCTV is currently expanding its outreach efforts with programming every Monday evening. Further expansion is dependent upon new franchise agreements with cable companies which will allocate a dedicated CCTV channel for the County (with the same channel number countywide). hWfileemp.mem Commundy ServicesDepartment pstst4t'"brand fax tralUmittal naertl0 7677 •a t+�rpee 1, FWVW Ac1> st1w 2426 6fto.Lane,tubee 120 °' � C.m)0 d.0Wff ,W 945'20.4854 000t Anon. t (610)W45" Fax(510)645-WS1Joan V. �for mks, Al DATE June 1., 1993 1 TO: Phil Batchelor, County .Administrator ATTK- .9taar Castro, Management Analyst FROMI' Joan Sparks, Direct6r, Cotnttiunity Services Department BY: W Al Prince, Administrative Services Officer SUB: Implementation of priority *time out* employee suggcstiong , --------- ------- ----------- -----.-,-----.._._-----------_--------- In our memo to the County dated April iS, 19.93, the Department listed a total of four ,suggestions that would either generate revenue orlachieve additional cost savings for the County. Two of the Four suggestions could only be implemented at the: County level, anel not by the Department. A third suggestion, while potentiall1 cost saving, would be extremely eotpanoive and time consuming to actually monitor. The only suggestion that can: planned and tracked with available resources is : (i) Asaig4 additional staff to identify and secure new revenue sources. The Department has already earmarked CSBG funds and staff for calendar : y ar 1993 to idtify and secure new revenue sources. Given the len limited CSBG funds available, our calendar 1993 goal is modest: identify at least six new potential revenue sources for the Department, Wd secure at least two new revenue sources for ..the Dipartment. The Department has already begun implementing the work plan for this 1993 00all. The Department will provide to the CAO's office quarterly report data on this goal. Please call me at 6-5544 if you have any questions regarding this matter. cc: Joan $parks JUN-03-1993 08:15 P.01 Office of COUNTY AUDITOR-CONTROLLER Contra Costa County j 2 sm Martinez, California .pal May 26, 1993 OFFICE OF TO: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: Kenneth J. Corcoran, Auditor-Controller By: Judith Van Note, Assistant Auditor-Controller SUBJECT: Implementation of Priority "Time-Out" Employee Suggestions This is in response to your request for our department's timetable and workplan for implementation of priority "time-out" employee suggestions. SAVINGS 1. Eliminate vacation buy-back $ 89000 2. "Mandatory Time Off" once-a-week 8639739 3. Work hours reduced to 7.5 per day 269,806 4. Take away pay equity increases 539000 All of the above-mentioned suggestions have to be either negotiated or countywide policies developed to implement. Ken is a member of the committee that will be reviewing all of the time-out suggestions within the new two weeks. 5. Discontinue existing mid-month payroll for hourly employees 259000 Personnel is negotiating with the unions to replace the traditional 25th hourly payroll with a special 50% advance. This can be accommodated on our own advanced-system and eliminate the need to run a full-blown MSA payroll for the 25th hourly payroll. A letter was sent by our department to Personnel on May 20, 1993, requesting the status of this proposal . 6. Charge for wage verifications 129000 Our department is in the process of studying the feasibility of implementing provisions to charge for wage verifications. By June 30, 1993, we will have determined if this action is feasible and/or legal to implement. JVN/EG:pm ASA93-24 IT' Animal Services DepartmentContra Diane Iwasa :Animal Services Director 4849 Imhoff Place Costa — Martinez,California 94553-4393 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY (510) 646-2995 County RECEIVED - 6§1 Pinole Shores Drive Pifellk,-California 94564-2632 aWjtt 374-3966 .MAY 2 .9 IM - OFFICE OF _ COUNTYADMINIS' WOR TO: Phil Batchelor DATE: May 24, 1993 County Administrator FROM: Michael G. Ross SUBJECT: Your May 18, 1993 Memorandum - Administrative Officer Implementation o,f_.Priority ' "Time-Out" Employee Suggestions- The uggestionsThe Animal Services Department intends to implement all of the priority employee suggestions as part of our fee resolution which becomes effective August 1, 1993. The only exception is the suggestion that cats be licensed. Licensing t!le cats would require mandatory rabies vaccination before cats! licensing ' couId be _ successfully implemented. The State Health Department is `seriously considering mandatory rabies vaccination of cats. We will notify you if :-:his occurs.'- ;IV ;t MGR-ah Time-Out cc: Files D. Iwasa CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Probation Department RECEIVED Ge i 31d S.Buck Contra Coui t y Probation Offtcer Administrative Offices Costa JUN KW 50 Douglas Drivc-,Suite 201 Martinez,California 94553-8,500 County (510)313-4180 (510)313-4191 FAX OFFICE OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR T° Phil Phil Batchelor, 5/28/93 County Administrator From: Gerald S. Buck, Subject Implementation of Coun Probation�_Dfficer Priority "Time-Out" Suggestions The short list of suggestions included: . 1. Enhanced automation applications. 2. Increase fee revenues. 3. Reduce Juvenile Hall costs. 4 . Explore DMV funded auto theft program. 5. Close Boys' Ranch. 6. Close San Pablo office. 7. Assign a full-time staff person to write grants. . In light of the uncertainty of funding for 1993/94,, we have not taken steps to implement No. 5, 6 and 7. Progress Toward Implementation and Timetable I . Automation Enhancements Many of the general suggestions for use of more "computers" are not feasible without infusion of additional funds in the Department's budget. We have less than $10,000 budgeted for fixed asset purchases. All deputy and supervisor staff except those at Juvenile Hall Intake now have access to E-Mail and main frame data bases through assignment of "dumb" terminals. Access at Juvenile Hall Intake will require costly wiring and we're not sure when we'll be able to do it. The Department has requested it be one of the first to convert to the new and improved "TAO" E-Mail system. Many supervisors and managers produce documentation and communicate via E-Mail, thereby reducing the typing burden on our overworked clerical staff. At the direction of the Superior Court, the Department's long range Automation Plan was updated by a broad based staff committee in 1992 . A copy of the plan is attached. Phil Batchelor 2 5/28/93 Some months ago we responded to your solicitation for ideas on automation applications. Because of many changes in the content, time turn-around and staff shortages, we proposqd a study to assess whether we could go to a "paperless" Probation report system for reports on adult criminal matters. Cecilia Baird was assigned to work with us and Data Processing to explore the feasibility and examine the cost of implementing such a system. There have been several committee meetings and our conclusion Is that it is feasible to produce and transmit probation reports via terminals using the E-Mail 'system linked to the Law and Justice Automated System. By our next meeting, June 2, 1993, we will have a preliminary estimate of equipment and programming costs. Currently, it appears that $100,000 would be needed for equipment. Much of this, if not all, would be offset by reduced need for clerical typists. Cecilia Baird will be submitting a feasibility report on this project in June. II . Increase Fee Revenues We have already taken the following steps to increase Probation fee revenues: A. The Court has authorized an increase of the maximum monthly fee from $25 to $50 for adult. probationers. B. Our instructions to ORC on disbursement of money collected has been changed to credit fees owed on a pro rata basis along with fines and restitution. C. We have been discussing the role of ORC with Nancy Bischoff, toward the end of having ORC be more active in enforcing collection. They have indicated they can mail monthly statements to probationers. D. We've re-enforced the importance of fee revenues to our deputies. E. We've sponsored and lobbied SB 177 which has cleared Committee. This bill .will expedite the setting and ordering of Probation fees. In addition, we have researched the use of contract services to collect fees via phone billings .using a 900 number system. We've temporarily tabled a decision on this pending the outcome of the 1993/94 budget.. Phil Batchelor 3 5/28/93 III. Reduce Juvenile Hall Costs Several measures have been taken or are underway to reduce the operational costs at Juvenile Hall without jeopardizing its capacity or the well being of residents and staff. In Budget Phase I, the Board of Supervisors adopted recommendations to cancel non critical vacant positions and to transfer responsibility of nursing services to the Health Department. The potential savings identified or implemented to date are $300,000 for FY 1993/94. IV. Explore DMV Grant for Auto Theft Services Via $1.00 Assessment on Registrations. We have become more familiar with this opportunity in which Alameda County Probation, Sheriff and District Attorney share $1 million in revenue annually. We have discussed this with Gary Yancey and Warren Rupf and may be submitting a specific proposal later in the budget process. It is estimated $500,000 might be available if the Board of Supervisors agreed to levy the $1.00 registration tag-on and the three agencies can develop specific auto theft law enforcement efforts which are cost effective. V. Close Boys ' Ranch We do not support this suggestion, but realize the Ranch funding is in jeopardy. Along with 16 other Probation Departments, we are lobbying AB 799 which calls for the State to fund one-half the cost of camps. Currently planning is underway to access Title IV-A Federal funds to be the source of the State's subvention. I and other Chiefs and Social Service Directors are meeting on this June 2, 1993 . GSB:ds Attachments Gerald S. Buck ' Probation Department Contra County prohationOfficer Administrative Offices Costa 50 Douglas Drive,Suite 201 Co t U'n} Martinez,California 94553-8500 l (510)313-4180 (510)313-4191 FAX f To: Judge John C. Minney, - �..o Date: 6/24/92 Superior Court, Dept. 12 From: Gerald S. Buck, Subject Probation Department County Probation Officer Automation Plan In response to your directive Number 5, "Provide for the design of a modern information storage and retrieval system" , attached is the Probation Automation Plan. This document is the product of several months of work by the Automation Task Force. The following task force members represent a wide cross section of the Department' s functions and organization: Ron Afdal Deputy Probation Officer, Adult - FIU Arvilla Davis Senior Clerk, Boys' Ranch Marilyn Fowler Probation Supervisor, Adult - CAPS Judy Gabriel Supervising Clerk, Adult - West County Carol Haglund Supervising Clerk, Records Eric Hutchinson Department Systems Specialist, Admin. Ed Jimison Director, Juvenile Harold Keck Deputy Probation Officer, Juvenile, West Co. Sandy Kerr Supervising Clerk, Juvenile Hall Betty Larsen Supervising Clerk, Adult, East County Larry Leal Director, Adult Frances Lingar Supervising Clerk, Juvenile - Central County Jinx McCombs Probation Supervisor II, Training Dan Riordan Probation Supervisor I, Juvenile - Central John Szucs Probation Supervisor II , Adult Bill Thomas Director, Administration Tim Ward Admin. Services Officer, Administration Paul Zaro Probation Supervisor II, Juvenile In addition to the task force members, Cecilia Baird and Tony Cellini of Data Processing gave valuable assistance and input to the plan. Because of the County's current financial situation, it is unlikely that any substantial funding will be available to implement the plan. The plan refers to the ideal system (page 2 ) . The cost estimate for the ideal system varies greatly (up to $1,000,000) dependent upon if the current systems can be upgraded or if they should be Judge John C. Minney -2- 6/24/92 replaced. The task force recommends that funds be requested to hire a consultant to determine the best course of action. This cost would be y.n the $50,000 range. It is unlikely ev"*,,n this amount will be approved during FY 1992-93. There are portions of the plan that are feasible and are in progress. The goal of every field worker having access to the current systems is being implemented and should be substantially completed by the end of FY 1992-93. Individual items of smaller amounts may be feasible during the coming year. Once Probation's cuts are known and implemented, I plan to reconstitute the Automation Task Force to continue automation planning. GSB:ds Attachment Prabation Automation Plai, June 16, 1992 Probation Automation Plan Introduction This Automation Plan is brief and general in format because of the unknown future facing the probation department. Once the impending cuts are known. then a more detailed plan can be completed that will include more precise cost estimates, prioritization. possible funding sources, and time frames. This plan identifies general areas of currently known needs and concepts for an ideal system. Once our eventual staffing and which retained functions are known. it is recommended that this task force be reconstituted to continue automation planning. Major Areas 1. Mainframe Systems. This section will address access to existing systems, upgrades to existing systems. and needs for additional new systems. A. Hardware. 1) Goal — It is a goal of the automation plan that by the end of Fiscal Year '92/'93 every DPO, supervisor. manager, interview room. living unit and clerk with needed access to the mainframe. will be connected. At the current time. to allow all DPOs. supervisors. managers. and most clerical staff easy access to existing mainframe systems. we have a need for 266 terminals department wide. See attached spreadsheet for details of equipment requirements. 2) We currently have 96 terminals installed at our various offices. 3) We currently have 64 terminals in storage. 4) That leaves an unmet need of 346 terminals. 5) At $400 each. the cost would be $42.400 Prabation Automation Plan June 16, 1992 B. Software. I) PROMs. a) Providing PROFS access to all department employees, and establishing a policy for its use, will allow for a more rapid dissemination of information throughout the department. b) Use of the PROFS calendar system will simplify the process of scheduling meetings. c) There would be no capital outlay for PROFS, just usage charges paid to Data Processing. 2) Ideal System. The ideal system would be a useful tool for DPOs. Supervisors. Managers. and Unit Clerks. and would have the following features. It is not known at this time if the ideal system can be accomplished by making upgrades to the existing PAMS j JuvVIS. or if these systems should be replaced. It may make sense to program some features as separate systems. a) Caseload Management. Ideally. each DPO would have a PC connected to the mainframe. would be able to download data from the mainframe. and create Ad Hoc reports. For example. a juvenile DPO would be able to generate a listing of all of his own cases sorted by school, b) Statistics. Statistics would be available online for various levels of the departmental organization. from individual caseload up through division level. c) Calendaring. The ideal system would have a built-in calendaring system for keeping track of meetings, training sessions. court dates. and generating tickler reports of upcoming events. (It may be more cost effective to use the calendar which is available through PROFS.) PAGE 2 Prabation Automation Pla,, June_16, 1992 d) Electronic field notes. Ideally, we would provide field staff with.Notebook PCs with which they could record field notes, and later upload for storage on the mainframe with the probationer's file. An alternative would be `o provide free floating text space for the deputy to transcribe field notes when in the office. e) Electronically generated reports. This Mould be similar in concept to what is currently done on the Juvenile Automated Petition system using Yancey Writer. Certain "boiler plate" text could be drawn from a database, based on the charges or other key information, while other descriptive narrative would be supplied by the Deputy. This feature would also capture the concepts used by CAPS by merging pre-existing data with narrative to efficiently generate correspondence. Placement clerks could use this type of a system to generate the many forms required without having to retype information common to several forms. f) Exchange of information with other agencies. The system should connect with agencies such as ORC for online access to account balances. the courts for automated referrals and electronic filing of reports. the Sheriff's Jail Management System. and other systems as identified. Our current Adult system has access to Municipal and Superior Court files which allows us to inquire into the status of current and past court cases. Our Juvenile MIS has an interface to the District Attorney's system which allows us to electronically file petitions. Our current systems do not have an interface to ORC or the Sheriff's Jail Management System. In the future we will have access to various systems, including the Sheriff's Jail Management System, and police agencies, via the All County Criminal Justice Information Network (ACCON). g) Automated Flex-o-lane. This would require little programming to modify the existing probationer names lookup screen to include whether a person is active. and his current DPO. PAGE 3 Prabation Automation Plan June 16. 1992 h) Costs. ` The costs to accomplish the ideal system will certainly be expensive and take time. if the ideal system can be accomplished or nearly accomplished by ui.grading the existing systems over a period of time. then it may be economically feasible. However. caution must be given that it may not be wise to pour more money into inadequate existing systems. If a new Adult / Juvenile system were developed. the cost could easily reach seven digits. Perhaps the best approach would be to seek funds to hire a consultant that could advise us on the best cost effective approach. The cost to hire a consultant could be in the 150.000 range. 3) New applications. aj Community resource list~ This would be a database of many types of community resources. Staff could query based on multiple key fields and get a list of resources that exactly match a client's needs. For example, placement could use the list to find treatment programs based on sex. age. and type of offense. Victim/Witness could use the list to find resources for victims based on similar criteria. b) Others as identified. II: Juvenile Hall Booking System. A. Introduction. There is a need to develop a Juvenile Hall Booking System. This can be approached in basically two ways. One would be to obtain a pre-existing package that would run on a stand-alone PC or a IAN. This approach would be relatively inexpensive with a short startup time. The disadvantage is that this would limit direct accessibility by staff. It would also require duplicate data entry. The second approach would be to develop a module for the current Juvenile MIS on the mainframe. This approach would take longer and probably cost more for the programming and development. One advantage of this approach is that everyone who has access to the Juvenile MIS would also have access to the booking system. Another advantage is that by using a common, data base. the amount of data entry could be kept to a minimum. PAGE 4 Prabation Automation Plai, June'16, 1992 B. Features. Either approach should incorporate the following features: 1) Track all minors within Juvenile Hall as to physical location. 2) Maintain the current detention status such as temporary release. home supervision. awaiting CYA delivery. 3) The system should incorporate the features of the current detention control system. 4) The system should provide a history of all Juvenile Hall activity. 5) It should maintain statistics that can be used for ongoing and ad-hoc reports. 6) The system should be capable of remote access by field and institutional staff. C. Costs. The estimated cost of a booking system is dependant upon the basic approach. If the system were to run on a Local Area Network. the hardware could be purchased for about $25.000. The software cost would depend on if another Probation Department developed it or if an outside vendor developed it. If another County developed it the cost would be minimal. with perhaps a few modifications. If an outside vendor developed it. the cost would be a few thousand dollars. If the booking system were developed as a module of the current Juvenile MS. the hardware cost would be minimal, since existing terminals could be used. The programming cost, however. could become quite expensive because of the complexity of the current system. It would not be surprising if the programming cost were in the $100.000 range. D. Recommendation It is recommended that a task force be formed, to include Juvenile Hall representatives and DP staff, to study current booking systems in place at other Juvenile Halls. if any good systems are found that run on PCs. this should be considered. especially as a possible short term solution. At the same time a request could be made to DP to prepare a cost estimate to program a module for the current Juvenile KIS to accomplish the needed features. If the cost is high. this could be considered as a long term approach. PAGE 5 Prabation Automation Plan June 16. 1992 III. Additional Automation Needs. A. Juvenile Hall. 1) PC for secretary to superintendent. The secretary needs a dedicated PC because of being located on a different level from the other clerical staff. and the nature of the work. The PC would be used for the superindendent's correspondence. and for personnel transcribing. It is estimated that an IBM "clone with printer can be purchased for $2.004. 2) PC for Building Supervisors' office. (1S 11) The use of this PC would be to maintain more accurate records of staff availability. Automation would enable the building supervisors to have more time to provide supervision to subordinates as well as coordinate building operations. The PC would also assist in the maintenance of training. MAB and volunteer records. It is estimated that an IBM "clone" with appropriate software can be purchased for 52.500. B. Boys' Ranch. 1) PC for Administrative Secretary. There is a need for an additional PC. This will allow the Administrative Secretary to work on word processing without leaving her area unattended. There is currently only one PC at Boys' Ranch. This PC is heavily utilized. The estimated cost of an IBM "clone" with needed software is $2.500. 2) Connection to Juvenile Hall Boolang System. Once a Juvenile.Hall Booking System is in place. connecting Boys' Ranch to that system would provide a major time savings by eliminating the need for double data entry. PAGE 6 Prabation Automation Play, June"1'6, 1992 C. Victim/witness. 1) There is a need to connect the existing PCs in the kartinez and San Pablo offices. This will allow a wide range of statistical data to be transferred via computer rather than the current mail exchange system. 2) There is a need to purchase a pre-programmed Victim/Witness software program to acquire and transfer data. The estimated cost to accomplish these two items is $2.000. It may be possible to seek state funds during Fiscal Year '92/'93 if there are any surplus funds. 3) A long range need for Victim/Witness Specialists is laptop computers. This would allow Victim/Witness Specialists to enter required data while in the field. resulting in more timely services to clients. The estimated cost for two laptops is $6.000. D. Training. 1) There is a need for one PC dedicated to the training secretary. This would eliminate the need to use the Victim/Witness equipment. The estimated cost of an Mk "clone" with needed software is $2.500. 2) There is a need to purchase an additional PC with word processing capabilities for the Training Officer. This need has become critical with the addition of Public Information Officer to her list of duties. The estimated cost of an IBM "clone" with needed software is $2.500. 3) There is a software package available that handles a variety of training organizational activities as follows. a) Record of individual training hours. b) Attendance rosters. course content, instructors. etc. c) mould avoid the need to access mainframe to gather information for required statistical reports. d) Enable Probation staff to call Training for number of SIC hours to date. The estimated cost of this software package is $2.000. PAGE 7 Prabation Automation Plan June 16. 1992 E. Administrative Clerical. 1) Purchase a new PC for the Executive Secretary. The existing PC has limited hard disk storage which is incapable of running certain applications. The existing PC would t given to the Personnel clerk to enhance her workload. The estimated cost of an 113k clone with needed software is 13.000. 2) There is a need to adapt an existing laser printer to be used as a system printer. It could then be used by all administrative staff. The estimated cost is 11.500. F. PC Software Upgrades. Ij Mord Processing Software. There is a need to upgrade our existing word processing software to a more capable. full featured. user friendly package. The current software is obsolete. It has fewer features than current software. and is more difficult to use. The cost of this upgrade would depend upon which software package we eventually choose. 2) DOS Upgrade. Upgrading all department PCs to run under DOS 5.0 (or whatever level is current at the time we upgrade) will provide better memory management allowing users to run concurrent applications such as PC327O emulation and word processing software. without running out of memory. Standarizing on one level of DOS will assure that files can be easily shared between PCs. The cost of this upgrade would be approximately 165 per copy. We have 32 PC which would need to be upgraded. that comes to 12.084. PAGE 8 Prabation Automation Raj, June 16. 1992 IV. Summary. The costs of some of the features of this plan are as follows; A. Cost of consultant to study feasibility of upgrading or replacing PANS /Juv}d1S - $50.000. B. Up to $1.000.000 or more to upgrade or replace existing Adult and Juvenile Management Information Systems. C. $42.400 for additional terminals to improve mainframe access D. Up to $100.000 or more to purchase or program a Juvenile Hall Automated Booking System. E. Additional Automation Needs. 1) Juvenile Hall. 4 a) PC for Superintendent's Secretary - $2.000. b) PC for IS Ds - $2.500 Total - $4.500 2) Boys' Ranch. a) PC for Administrative Secretary - $2.500. b) The cost for a connection to Juvenile Hall Booking System cannot be calculated at this time. Total - over $2.500. 3) Victim/Witness. a) Purchase Victim/Witness program - $2.000. b) Two Laptop computers for Victim/Witness Specialists - $6.000. Total - $8.000. PAGE 9 Prabation Automation Plan June 16. 1992 4) Training. a) PC for training secretary - 12.500. b) PC for training officer - 12.;,00. c) Program to track STC credits - 12.000. Total - $7.000. 5) Administrative Clerical. a) New PC for Executive Secretary - 1x.000. b) Printer sharing device - 11.500. Total - 14.500. 6) PC software upgrades. a) Hord Processing Software - cannot be calculated at this time. b) DOS upgrade - 12.080. Total - over 12.080. Total - over 128.580. Total - possibly over 11.220.980. Many of these figures are rough estimates that cannot be refined accurately until more information is available. The actual cost is likely to range from 1500.000 to 12.000.000. PAGE 10 Number of Number Required Currently Available Equipment Location - Unit Hook-ups Hooked up Equipment Needed 50 Douglas Drive: Fowler 9 1 Dodds 9 8 Bradshaw 10 0 Bergamini 10 1 Davis 11 1 Cozens 9 6 Lingar 12 5 Special Services 5 5 Victim / Witness 3 1 Records 6 6 Administration 10 11 Interview Rooms 7 4 Rochelle (Douglas) 2 2 103 51 24 28 938 Main Street: Rochelle (Main St . ) 8 Fassiotto 8 Triglia 9 Interview Room 1 26 9 0 17 MDF: Rochelle (MDF) 3 Clerk 1 4 0 0 4 2555 E1 Portal : Gotchall 9 Mowry (San Pablo) 8 Birss 8 Gabriel 8 Interview Rooms 5 38 17 15 6 Number of Number .Required Currently Available Equipment Location - Unit Hook-ups Hooked up Equipment Needed 1820 Peerless : Ruth 13 Momono 10 Mowry (E1 Cerrito) 2 Rarden 7 Interview Rooms 4 ---36 8 24 4 Rodeo: Mowry (Rodeo) 1 ----i 0 1 0 213 G Street: Vasquez 8 Jiminez 9 Larsen 6 Interview Rooms 3 26 5 0 21 Boys ' Ranch: Administration 2 Cierical 2 Storeroom 1 Living Unit 1 --- 6 1 0 5 Juvenile Hall: Intake 8 Intake Clerical 2 Sierra 2 Administration 5 Admin. Clerical 3 Living Units 5 Storeroom 1 26 5 0 21 Department Total 266 96 64 106 11A`, Et '93 05:09F rl DSS BUDGET EUF:. F. VAR OF CAM"AA—MMYN AND w Iir.sw AGEhK1r DEPARTMENT Of SOCIAL SERYICES 744 P Street, Sacramento, California 95814 May 26, 1993 TO: SELECTED COUNTY WELFARE DIRECTORS SELECTED CHIEF PROBATION OFFICERS SUBJECT: COUNTY CAMPS - EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE STAKEHOLDERS MEETING This is to inform you that the Department of Social Services has agreed to work with the counties in developing a federal Title IV-A, Emergency Assistance (EA) program for county probation camps. EA is a federal program under Title Iv-A of the Social Security Act With a federal participation rate of 504 and requires federal approval. Under this proposal, the Department will facilitate withthe federal government the establishment of an EA program to be matched with county only funds. Towards this end, a meeting has been scheduled for Nedneeday, June 2, 1993; 10 AM - 1 PM, at the State Capitol Building Annex Room 3191, lacramento. The purpose of the meeting is to provide an overview of the proposed EA program and to present a workplan and timeframes. In order to expedite this process, each county will be requested t4 help defray the a costs of the Ins Human Services ManaSement. The participation of each Count Welfare Director and Chief Probation officer 1n a counties 1;th active (or close'F) camps is very important to ensure earliest implementation. Should you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Loren Suter, Chief, Fiscal Policy and Procedures Bureau at (916) 657-3440 or Susan Wyckoff at (916) 657-3438. Sincerely 4 I O4S puty Direc r Administration Division 04-30-1993 09:26 _ . COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES •. ; CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE tk,4 ..� >mrn+s:rt.ww►+ car"WM"A? / %MOOR c�sasaarL►aaoss V.r • ' HARRY L HUFFORD ✓� April 22, 1993 s Eloise Anderson, Director TMt"brand fax transmittal memo 7E�Tr *of"V" • FMW California Department of Social Services N-L 744 P Street Sacramento, California 85814 °iVt' � r Dear Ms, Anderson: PROPOSAL FOR PRORATION RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES We are writing In regard to funding for the services provided by the Probation Department for youth who have been determined to be delinquent and are currently receiving services in County owned and operated residential facilities. We believe that working together as partners in developing a resolution to this very Important Issue will result In an optimum level of service for the youth currently served by this program. Marilyn Brown met with John Healy and Marge Kelly, of your Department, on April 2,1993, regarding this issue. Mr. Healy suggested that the County develop a proposal outlining the services to be provided by the Probation Department and the Issues Involved with funding those services. Enclosed Is that proposal. it Includes the services to be provided, the potential funding sources for those services and the issues that must be resolved prior to implementation (see enclosure). The proposal includes two aitematives. The first alternative would be to fund these services under Title IV-A Emergency Assistance. The second alternative identifies potential funding sources It it is determined by the Federal government that Emergency Assistance Is not an appropriate funding source for these services. This alternative Is presented as a conceptual prototype of how the services could be structured M the various facilities. It is not necessarily reflective of the current structure. As you are aware, Governor Wilson in his letter to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors on March 31, 1993, stated that he recognized the public safety value of the youth camp program and that he had asked the Secretaries of Health and Welfare and Youth and Adult Corrections to explore the avallabliity of federal funds to provide support to the County's youth probation camp program. The attached proposal maximizes Federal revenue and Is contingent upon State actions to seek that funding. There are also two other potential funding sources of which you may be aware. Spec ifloally: • AB 789, T. Friedman, provides partial funding for Probation camps. It would - '"°" +� �„ Mete General Fund appropriation. •-www. w.. ww P 02 Y V Y V V V w 4 Eloise Anderson Page Z • Another option proposed by Supervisor Mollna of los Angeles County, would be to Increase fees for Court ordered orobation enalty assessments and tees, This =Id provide a viable source of funds for camps. We continue to strongly support both of these proposals recognizing that Federal funds will not fully fund the Probation residential program. All of these Issues have been discussed with Peter Dlpre, Director of Children's Servloes and Barry Nidorf, Chief Probation Officer. By their signatures to this letter, they are in agreement with the Information presented,In the attached proposal. This proposal Is designed so that there will not be an adverse effect on either the funding for Children's Services or on the services that families and children currently receive from Children Services. Due to the Immediacy of this Issue, we are requesting that you review the attached material as expeditiously as possible. Please notify us of your decision by April 30, 1923' regarding which option you believe Is most viable and what actions you are willing to take to asslat us In resolving0 tie Issue. Marilyn Brown is avaliabie to most with your staff regerding the technicalities of the attached proposal. Your commitment to services to children and families and your willingness to word with us to resolve all of these Issues are very much appreciated. Very truly yours, HARRY 1. HUFFD Chief Adminlstra e O car PETER DIGRE Direct=, Department of Chltdre 's S ices AR .Y NID R , Chief Probstla 'Offlcer HH:PD:BN:MB:mb G:Prob3 Enclosure c: Each Supervisor Executive Officer, Board of Supervisors Russell Gould, secretary Health and Welfare Joe Sandoval, Secretary Youth and Adult Corrections 04-30-1993 09:x? LOS ANGELES COUNTY PROPOSAL TO FUND SERVICES PROVIDED TO YOUTH RECEIVING RESIDENTIAL SERVICES THROUGH THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT April 22, 1993 04-30-1993 09:26 ALTERNATIVE I FUND ALL SERVICES PROVIDED IN COUNTY OWNED AND OPERATED PROBATION DEPARTMENT RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT FACILITIES UNDER TITLE IV-A EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE iN ACCORD WiTH THE PARAMETERS OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE PROVISION OF EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE SERVICES. Aackg1ou Emergency Assistance (EA) provides funding for services to families and children as defined by each state in their Title IV-A State Plan. The definition of emergency is not limited by Federal law or regulation. It is up to each State providing services under this provision of Title iV-A to define emergency, determine the scope and type of services to be offered and delineate the population to receive the EA services. This Information Is embodied in an amendment to the State Title iV-A Plan and must be approved by-the Department of Health and Human Services, prior to a State claiming reimbursement for those services. Title iV-A Emergency Assistance is an entitlement program and is reimbursed at a 50% level by the Federal government for those persons eligible to receive the services. A recent (1/5/93) regional Federal interpretation provided to the State of Wyoming indicates that the duration of EA services may be as long as six months. The requirements for receipt of Emergency Assistance services are less rigorous than for other types of Title iv services. The person receiving services has to have lived with their family or other relative within the past six months. Services can only be provided one time during any twelve-month period to a family or any member of a family. if one member of a family receives services, no other member of the family may receive services during the same twelve-month period. Currently, approximately 31 states have an Emergency Assistance program in effect. The scope of services provided range from emergency help for victims of natural disasters to a broad spectrum of social services and direct financial assistance provided for unspecified crises threatening the family. The 1990.91 edition of"Characteristics of State Plans for Aid To Families With Dependent Children", published by Health and Human Services, does not contain characteristic data on the specific behaviors of the children receiving EA services. rr t Stiltilg& l M The joint California Department of Social Services (CRSS) and County Welfare Directors Association (CWDA) Task Force on Child Welfare Services has identified Title iV-A Emergency Assistance as a potential funding source for Child Welfare Services received h« a child and/or its family during the first six months after a referral is made to Children's 04730-1993 39:28 Services. This same funding source appears to be appropriate to fund the services provided to yout`is served by the Probation Department in their public owned end operated residential treatment facilities. The Task Force is currently In the process of Identifying the services to be provided under Emergency Assistance preparatory to developing the amendment to the State's Tltie ivA Pian. As part of the development of that amendment, the meaning of an emergency for these purposes must be defined. it is Just as emergent to provide services to youth and their families, where the youth Is at risk of entering the adult correction system If these services are not provided, as it is to provide services to familles at risk of abusing their children, to preserve them and to prevent disruption of the family. it Is also just as appropriate to provide residentiai treatment for delinquent children under EA as it Is to provide foster care for dependent children under EA since the eligibility for financial participation under foster care is tied to the facility and not the status of the child. Benefjs Benefits of providing these services under the Emergency Assistance program include, but are not limited to: • Service pians and goals can be developed to meet the specific needs of the youth. This results In a more positive outcome to the provision of those services than Is possible when services are dictated by funding requirements and limitations. • Broader eligibility requirements, i.e., having lived with a family or relative within the past six months and not having received EA services within the past twelve months. • Ease of administration of the program, when only one primary funding source is involved. • The eligibility requirements for this program ensure that the largest portion of the youth receiving services will be eligible for them, resulting in reduced local cost. • 'mere is not any State General Fund cost involved with funding Probation services under EA, as the funding ratio Is 50% Federal and 50% County match. • The program can be implemented in a relatively short period of time, thereby providing a stable funding source for these services. • The program maximizes the utilization of Federal Financial Participation and reduces the pressure on the State fiscal system to provide the resources required to deliver these services. 04-30-1993 09:29 r • The program reduces the potential for Increased costs for the California Youth Authority, by maintaining these youths In the most appropriate and least restrictive environment. Potential tatugs.: Several Issues have been identified as potential reasons for not pursuing the inclusion of Probation services In the proposed Title 1V-A Plan Amendment for Emergency Services. Those issues and the Identified resolution for each Issue are as follows: • We know of no Instance In which a State has defined 'emergency under Title IV•A explicitly to cover delinquent youths in public owned and operated residential treatment facilities. The federal response could be negative:with a possible argument that the statute's reference to avoiding 'destitution' of children alms the program at dependent rather than delinquent youth. However,traditionally,states*have had broad latitude in defining emergency, as evidenced by the fact that 22 states Include "unspecified crises threatening the family" as part of their definition of emergency. • Including Probation services in the Plan Amendment berg completed for Child Welfare Services could adversely impact the timely completion and approval of that document,thereby reducing the,emount of savings that the State can achieve this fiscal year, by implementation of Child Welfare Emergency Assistance services. There Is no reason that including Probation services in the State Pian Amendment for Child Welfare Emergency Assistance should prolong the process for completing and submitting the Amendment. County staff are willing to work with COSS to ensure timely completion of the Amendment. The County Is also willing to. help pay for the cost of a consultant to complete the Amendment if CDSS believes that this Is necessary. It is also our understanding that approval of the Child Welfare Services portion of the Plan Amendment will not be jeopardized by inclusion of the Probation services, as each portion of the Amendment can be approved as separate entity. It Is not a comprehensive approval or denial of the total. Amendment. • The Emergency Assistance program requires a data base that includes all children and families who have received EA services during the past twelve months. 11. Is our understanding that consideration is being given to using the State Meds System to maintain the required data. Because of confidentiality Issues, Probation staff does not have access to this system. It Is our understanding that the Legislature will support any legislation required to enable Probation staff to access the State Meds System solely for purposes of clearing names and entering data pertaining to the provision . a . 04-3�—iSS3 ©5:23 a of EA services. We are not aware of what, If any, modifications would have to be made to the Meds System to enable access-by Probation, but the County is willing to work with CRSS In order to effect timely resolution of this Issue. • The issue of statewideness must be addressed In the Plan Amendment and may be problematic because not all counties In California directly provide the same services as los Angeles County. It is our understanding that the Issue of stateKndeness can be addressed by defining the services to be provided In such s way as to encompass the various ways in which different counties provide residential care to the youth Involved, rather than by defining the services as a particular type of residential care. • Children may be denied Emergency Assistance services under the auspices of the Child Welfare Services system, If any member of their famlly has received EA services through Probation during the previous twelve months. The County Is willing to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that any services that are only available under Child Welfare Emergency Assistance will not be denied to any child because a member of that Child's family received EA services within the last twelve months. If that Instance should arise, the claim would be abated for the services provided under Probation so that services could be provided under Child Welfare EA. The services provided under Probation would then be funded with County monies. gummary: In summary, Emergency Assistance appears to be a realistic,viable source of funding for the services currently provided by the Probation Department for youth In County owned and operated residential facilities. Approximately ninety percent of the youth currently receiving these services would be eligible for Federal Financial Participation under the Emergency Assistance program, without any adverse Impact on the State General Fund. Any other funding altemative would require a multiplicity of sources due to the specificity of eligibility requirements in the other human services programs. This would make it more difficult to ensure that services appropriate to the needs of each youth are available to all of the youth currently served by the Probation Department. . 5 . . �-33-1393 09:3G ALTERNATIVE 11 FUND ALL ELIGIBLE SERVICES PROVIDED IN COUNTY OWNED AND OPERATED PROBATION DEPARTMENT RESIDENTIAL.FACILITIES UNDER A MULTIPLICITY OF HUMAN SERVICES FUNDING SOURCES INCLUDING TITLES IV-E AND XIX OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT Bi�ckaro>,tad: The Probation Department provides services to approximately 4,500 youth annually, in nineteen facilities,who require a structured residential care environment. The services are intended to provide an Intervention into the youth's 1lfestyle by providing positive behavior modification and improved interpersonal and coping skills. The services also Improve self-esteem through Intensive educational and vocational training and the use of various counseling modalities. The youth served by Probation are ages 13.18 years old and have sustained WIC 602 petitions, which means that they have committed a Crime other then a curfew or other status offender violation. The range of delinquent behavior ranges from"soft"crimes such as shoplifting to major felonies such as rape and assault. The average length of stay in the Probation residential program is 5.8 months. 95.5% of the youth are mate, 87.5% of the youth are Black or Hispanic with two-thirds of them Hispanic. 36.3%of the youth are ages 14-15, and 50.7% are ages 18-17. Many of these youth have previously received services under the auspices of the Child Welfare system, either at home as a member of a family, or in foster care when the risk to the youth required removal from the home. A large number of them have some type of gang Identification or association, very often by virtue of the geographic or cultural environment in which their family lives. Nationwide, only 10% of the youths who have participated In a Probation residential care program ultimately end up in the State prison system as adults. The services required by each youth depend on numerous factors including past and present'behavlor,age, gender, history of offenses,substance abuse history,family history and education and language skills. Health needs and emotional or mental health also impact the youth's service needs. Youth are assessed at the time that the court orders services in the County's Probation Department residential services program. In order to most appropriately address the Identified service needs of each youth, a mutt- faceted services delivery system Is required. The Probation residential services program currently has special treatment components for youth with substance abuse related behaviors, both drug and alcohol. There are also special programs for youth who are seriously emotionally disturbed and who require medication and close monitoring including assessment of risk for suicide. There are components for youth who are facing emancipation from their families and require Independent living skills. emancipation as a young adult. The length of stay is based on the skill level of the youth at time of entry into the program, but averages approximately six months. This program is most appropriately financed with Title ME Independent lJving funds at a sharing ratio of 50% Federal and 50% County funds. Potential additional funding sources are Job Training Partnership Act funds to pay for work performed under the vocational component, and Housing and Urban Development (HUD) grant funds to pay for the actual living costs of the youth to be emancipated. The HUD grant funds are for a five year period and are Federal monies, however they require a local match of 25% during years one and two, and a 50% match during years three five. The annual operating cost for these services Is $2.6 million. The Issues to be resolved prior to implementation of this program are to determine whether the State will participate in any of the costs for the independent Living component and to apply for and receive acceptance of the HUD transitionai living grant. Drug Abuse Tre=2 t_Proaram The residential services program at these two facilities will serve 210 youth at any one time. These are open facilities. This program serves males ages 16-18, each with a documented history of substance abuse. Program components Include a highly structured para-military style environment, school, work, drug education, parent training and intensive aftercare supervision. It includes both Individual counseling and rigorous physical training. The goal of the program is to help the youth develop enough self- control, self-confidence and discipline to be able to function effectively In the larger community without the use of drugs. The length of stay Is based on the progress that the youth makes In the program and the positive level of functioning that is achieved during his stay. The average length of stay Is five months. This program is most appropriately financed with Title XiX Drug and Alcohol Prevention funds. The Federal share is 60.9%, the State share is 30.49 and the local match is 8.8 '0 County funds, discounted by the percentage of Medi-Cal eligibles. Since all of these youth are over age twelve, they are eligible for Medi-Cal as a family of one, so there is no discount. The annual operating cost for these services is $5.6 million. The issue to be resolved prior to implementation of this program Is to determine what steps must be taken to allocate current and/or new funds to this program as part of the County planning process for these funds. Alcohol..Intervention Centers The residential services program provided at these Centers will serve 216 youth at any one time, who require alcohol treatment services. These are open facility. The program serves males ages 16.16, each with a documented history of substa.ice abuse. Program components include school, substance abuse education, counseling for behavior modification and vocational education. Its goals are to decrease the use of alcohol and controlled substances, to reduce recidivism, and to Increase the social, education and . 9 - personal skill functioning of the youth. The Centers provide an environment In which the youth can acquire the skOls necessary for sober living and the Centers provide a resource to mobilize the community to offer meaningful supportive services upon release. Positive rewards and negative sanctions are used at We Centers to encourage youth to maintain the goals imparted through their individualized treatment. This program is most appropriately financed with Title XiX Drug and Aicohol Prevention funds. The Federal share Is 60.9%,the State share Is 30.4%and the local match is 8.8% County funds, discounted by the percentage of Medl-Cel eligibles. Since all of the youth in the facility are over the age of twelve and are eligible for Medl-Cal as a family of one, there is no discount The annual operating cost for this service is $4.6 million. The issues to be resolved prior to implementation of this program are to determine what steps must be taken to allocate current and/or new funds to this program as pert of the County planning process for these funds and to obtain a waiver from the State Department of Health for the provision of these service to adolescents. Foster Care Programs This residential services program serves 347 youth at any one time, who are able to benefit from the services provided by the Foster Care Program, but for whom appropriate facilities are not now available within the larger community. These are open facilities. The program will serve males and females ages 13-18, who can benefit from the services provided by an intensive level of foster care services.. Program components include school, counseling,behavior modification, self esteem development and support services that will enable the youth to be positively reunified with their family and effectively adjust to living in the larger community. The average length of stay in these Centers is 21.26 weeks. These facilities are eligible for Foster Care reimbursement If they are private not-for-profit facilities, as they do not most the Federal definition of "primarily serving delinquent children A facility that primarily serves delinquent children is one that is secure (not open) and would have no viability as a residential facility if it were not filled with delinquent children. Each of these facilities are non-secure. Additionally, they would have viability as centers for non-delinquent children because of the chronic shortage of appropriate foster care resources within Los Angeles County. Also. the definition of primarily serves delinquent children does not relate to the number of delinquent versus non-delinquent Children within a foster care facility. Currently los Angeles County has numerous group homes that only serve delinquent children. The characteristics of the facility determine Its eligibility for foster care reimbursement, not whether a child is delinquent or dependent. This program is most appropriately financed with Title ME Foster Care funds. Under the current sharing ratios,the County share is 60%of the non-federal share of cost. Because Los Angeles County's Federai eligibility ratio is approximately 67%, this would result in a sharing ratio of 5096 Federal, 20% State and 30% County funds overall. The annual operating cost for these services is $6.6 million. . 10 - The Issues to be resolved prior to Implementation of this program are to privatize these Centers so that they have non-profit status and are thus eligible for Federal Financial Participation. This would require contracting with current Foster Clue providers or'a consortium of providers. Also waivers will be required as part of the process of licensing them as community residential care facilities. Current State licensing regulations only permit two youths per sleeping room. All of these facilities contain dormitory style sleeping arrangements with up to twenty-five youth per location. The degree of probation staffing, if any, must also be resolved. Bebavioraf Iteatmgnt Proorem This residential services program serves 1256 youth at any one time in secure facilities. The program serves males ages 13-18 who have extensive histories of dysfunctional behavior and would be at Jeopardy in an open non-structured environment. Program components include school, assessment of health and mental health needs, counseling for behavior modification and vocational education. Its goals are to decrease the dysfunctional behavior through Improved self-esteem and more appropriate inter-personal relationships. The program provides a safe, non-threatening, highly structured environment in which the youth can acquire the skills required to live productively in the community at large. The average length of stay in the program is thirty-six weeks. As part of Implementing the programs outlined in this alternative, a re-assessment will be conducted of the youth who are currently in closed facilities to determine if they are appropriate to transfer to one of the above-mentioned services programs. However, it is possible that some portion of this population will not be eligible for any service program that is currently funded with State and Federal funds. This program Is most appropriately financed with Ttle XIX Medi-Cal funds for the diagnostic and treatment services. The sharing ratio is 50% Federal and 50% State for these services, discounted by the Medi-Cal eligibility ratio of the youth in the facility. Because all of the youth are over age twelve and are out of home for more than thirty days, there Is no discount factor. The annual operating cost for these services is $42.0 million. The issue to be resolved prior to implementation is that each youth in the facility must have a court order stating that the youth is placed In the Center for a temporary period pending other arrangements appropriate to the minor's needs. This order Is necessary to satisfy the requirements of CFR 435.1008 and 1009 regarding the provision of Medical services for a person in a public Institution and will have to be approved by the Juvenile Court. fiUmmax in summary, the options outlined above appear to be viable sources of funding for the services currently provided by the Probation Department for youth in County owned and operated residential treatment facilities. However, as stand previously, it will be more difficult to operatlonalize this alternative than it would be to fund the services under Title . 11 . p4-3Q-1S�3 Q9:37 r.v-. IV A Emergency Assistance. Additionally, the timeframe required to fully implement this alternative will be dependent on the amount and timeliness of the support and c-3operation that will be required from the California.Department of Social Services, the State Department of Health and any other agencies that may be identified during the implementation process. This alternative is based on types of services required by the youth currently served by the Probation Department, however the ability to respond to changing service needs.16 much more limited because of the specificity of the types of services offered in'each facility and the difficulties involved In adjusting service levels without changing the focus of an entire facility. _ 'i2 , ' r OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER County of Contra Costa Martinez, California Date: May 27, 1993 To: Phil Batchelor, County Administrao From: Charles James, Public Def endec. Subject: Implementation of Employee Suggest ons I am responding to your memo of May8, 1993 regarding the implementation of employee "time out" sugg stions. As indicated in our Department' s previous memo (a copy is attached) , few of the employee suggestions could be implemented solely at this Department' s discretion. Many of the suggestions either would entail changes governed by the MOU or the adoption of policies by other departments of county and state government. Of the four suggestions set forth in our memo to the personnel department, I can report the following actions: (1) One of the managment employees of the Department with pending elgibility for retirement is currently considering retirement; (2) In addition to our on-going maternity leave program, 1.5 . incumbents in attorney positions are currently on leave without pay in excess of 30 days; (3) Our Department has been working with the Sheriff' s Department to iron out some details regarding the operation of the Work Alternative Program to insure that more of the clients of our Department can be included in that program without having to serve costly jail sentences in a local facility; and ( 4) The proposal regarding Lanterman-Petris-Short Act commitments would require policy changes that are beyond the authority or jurisdiction of the Department. Attachment 1' OFFICE OF TSE PUBLIC County of Contra Costa Martinez, California Date: May 27, 1993 To: Theresa Mena Personnel Department From: David Coleman, Chief Asst. Public Defender Subject: Employee Suggestions for Budget Reductions Our Department has been requested by you to forward to your Department the top five or six employee suggestions for budget reductions and I am responding to that request on behalf of Mr. James. First, I want to explain the format for our departmental "time out" approach. ' Since our Department is geographically divided with substantial branches in both Richmond and Concord as well as two separate divisions in Martinez, no single departmental meeting was held. Rather suggestions were developed from meetings held in each branch. lasts of suggestions ranging in number from 6-20 items were developed at each site. As all suggestions were received and listed at these meetings without management presence, it is impossible to ascertain whether only one or a few employees made a particular suggestion; or whether there was widespread agreement and support for any particular suggestion. Additionally, it is impossible to ascertain the job category or function the employee performs who made the suggestion. As a rationale for responding to the request for this list, I made the following assumptions: ( 1) examine the various lists for those items which would have large budgetary impacts; ( 2) exclude suggestions clearly covered by labor-management agreements in the county that transcend our Department and the many represented labor units within our Department;' (3) examine the lists for items in which our Department has a peculiar function or expertise, as opposed to items that may be almost universally applicable for all departments; and ( 4) examine the lists for items that in our Department' s view might save money 2-At least one employee suggested a mandatory day off each month for a limited period of time for all employees, but such a requirement would seem to be part of the larger labor management picture beyond the purview of one department. 2Suggestions such as automatically shutting off all lights in county offices after working hours. 1 but would be completely unacceptable to another county department'. It should be noted that our Department --unlike the District Attorney or the Sheriff or the Municipal Courts, for example-- has no "jurisdiction" to initiate the services we are mandated to provide to indigent defendants. Nevertheless, several of the suggestions speak to reduction of our costs as well as the costs of other dewho "serve" our clients without any reduction in, the number of court proceedings initiated by the Departments which have such "jurisdictional" powers to. initiate matters. Using these assumptions as a protocol for selecting the so- called "top employee suggestions", the list is as follows: + Encourage employees eligible for retirement with the requisite years of service to retire. + Encourage employees to take leaves without pay for up to 30 days without the loss of benefits. + Expand the capacity of the Sheriff's Electronic Home Detention Program so as to avoid costly incarceration 3a-- county- facilities of persons convicted of misdemeanor offenses + identify lower cost local housing and supervision facilities for mentally disabled patients/clients with Lanterman-Petris-Short Act commitments rather than continue placements at out of county higher costs facilities like Napa. State Hospital. In forwarding these selections to you, please understand that I am serving as a conduit for "employee suggestions" only. None of the items listed above were generated by management personnel within our Department. And as already noted above, the breadth of employee support for any oneor more of , these suggestions cannot be ascertained. It is impossible and inappropriate at this time to associate specific dollar figures with any of the suggested reductions. It is the intention of the Department Head to incorporate high priority suggestions from employees into the upcoming Departmental budget presentation. The employees of the Department at all levels will continue to . be consulted as the Department's proposed budget is developed and refined. The separate lists in raw form are available to you if you would like. Please contact me if I can be of further assistance. /dcc 3For example, the cost to our offices and the courts of capital prosecutions by the office of District Attorney. 2 SHER2 FF—CORONER • S DEPARTMENT Contra Costa County CONTRA CSTA COUNTY Administration Division ' NCFJVM 646-2402 Date: June 1, 1993 ���N 2 M To: Phil Batch lor, Cou ty Administrator M OFFICE O. From: Warren f heriff-Coroner COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR •--_ -_._ Subject: Imple enta o riority Time-Out Suggestions On March 3, 1993 I sent you a list of 57 suggestions from our employee "Time-Out" process. Many of these suggestions involved county-wide or meet and confer implications and it was later determined, in conjunction with your staff, not to prioritize these items. I have aggressively pursued a number of our suggestions, and the following items have been implemented in our department: 1) Home garaging has been severely restricted, and the few managers who retain vehicles will pay for that privilege. I have asked the county to negotiate with the DSA regarding home garaging practice for represented employees. 2) Bottled water has been eliminated in all but a few 24 hour facilities, with the option for employees to purchase the services themselves. 3) We are in the process of reducing the number of phone lines in the department. 4) Training and travel have been virtually eliminated with the exception of that mandated or reimbursed. The sum total of employee suggestions for our department, including those implemented above, involve relatively small amounts of money and a symbolic rather than substantial savings. I have, however, sent you a number of suggestions that would provide real alternatives to reducing Sheriff's Services. A summary of items which I have brought to your attention include the following: 1) Eliminate $250,000 of GSD overhead for Detention maintenance by having employees assigned to the Sheriff's Department. 2) Evaluate $1 million in discretionary AB-90 funding 3) Evaluate $240,000 for Law and Justice Systems automation 4) Reduce county contributions to CCHP and 1st Choice 5) Reallocate Mental Health "overmatch" to General Fund WER:mg CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT MAYJ"MSIA COUP TY DATE: may 27, 11,93 OFFICE OF TO: Phi l .Batchelor, county Administrator COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: Perftcto villarreal, Director cc: Executive Team Eileen Bitten Jim Hicks D. Davis-Howard SUBJECT: IMPLEMENTATION OF PRIORITY "TIME OUT" EMPLOYEE SUGGESTIONS The Social Service Department has continued the process of implementing the priority suggestions identified to you and the Board in my April 14 memo. As requested, the following work plan and timetable are in progress and the status of each is shown below: Priority Goals: (Category: Departmental) ♦*Apply for SSI benefits for disabled children on AFDC or in foster care ("Zebley") . Estimated county cost savings per year: $1 million. Status: Board of Supervisors took action May 11 to implement regulations. Department is gathering information, target date of June 30 to implement. Further information will be submitted to Board in mid- June to allocate staffing for administration of program. ♦Expand and enhance welfare fraud efforts in all program applications. Estimated county cost savings per year: $600, 000. Status: -Request to Administrator's Office was approved to hire additional staff (cost justified by savings) ; conditional offers of appointment subject to successful passing of required background checks currently underway; goal for new staff to be in place near end of June. The Department- continues to monitor the cost effectiveness of fraud preventions, thus far found to be extremely successful. -"Affirm", the proposed finger imaging program modeled after Alameda County program, is being explored and costed for possible trial use in General Assistance program. Gen 9c (New 3/86) Memo to Phil Batchelor Page 2 Subj: Employee/Department priority suggestions • ♦Pursue alternative funding sources to substitute for County expenditures Status: Department continues to explore enhanced federal funding for homeless shelter program funding. Also exploring possible access to Title IVE funds. The Department wishes to model future funding efforts such as Personal Care Services Program (PCSP) , which is anticipated to provide better client service and minimize use of County dollars in In Home Supportive Services Program. ♦*Redesign and streamline After Hours Emergency Response program Status: options being developed for discussion in meet and confer process with SEIU Local 535. Goal is for process to be completed and program redesigned by September 30, 1993. ♦Review and evaluate outside contracts for cost benefit Status: The Department continues to review all contracts prior to renewal to determine cost efficiency and feasibility of discontinuing service or replacing with existing County staff. The Family Preservation contract is under discussion at the Finance Committee, and further recommendations are scheduled to be made to the full Board in June. Also, the Child Care Council contract is being specifically reviewed for cost effectiveness. (Category: County) ♦#a) Close offices and save utilities Have all staff on similar schedules b) As necessary to save further costs, do not pay for days closed. status: subject to County wide Cost Coalition discussions. • Memo to Phil Batchelor Page 3 Subj : Employee/Department priority suggestions (Category:- State/Federal) *Universal eligibility simplification and consolidation of requirements in Income Maintenance Programs with goal of expedited services to clients and a'lleviating unnecessary work for workers; seek program waivers on mandates. Status: A meeting is scheduled the week of May 31 with Congressman Baker's and Congressman Miller's offices to discuss welfare reform/simplification and relief of program mandates. Information has been gathered and furnished to the County Administrator's office on Income Maintenance issues for coordination of lobbying efforts for the State legislative package. a:empsug. imp jc d 27 :. Attachment B BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Resolution on June 8, 1993 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Smith, Bishop, MCPeak and Torlakson NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None RESOLUTION NO. 93/327 AMEND attachment F to Board Resolution 93/280 as follows: Deletes from positions to be abolished positions #25-00676, 25-01068, 25-00864, and 25- 00574. Replaces these filled positions with the following positions to be deleted #25-01040, 25-01035, 25-00476, 25-00770, and 25-00562. I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. Attested: June 8, 1993 Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By Deputy cc: Personnel Department County Administrator Sheriff-Coroner Resolution No. 93/327 1 Attachment F Page 1 of 2 ' Revised 6/8/93 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY POSITIONS TO BE ABOLISHED DEPARTMENT: Sheriff-Coroner Department EFFECTIVE: Close of Business on June 30, 1993 unless otherwise noted Position Position Filled/ Number Class Code Type Vacant 25-00146 Deputy Sheriff 6XWA 40/40 Vacant 25-00337 Deputy Sheriff 6XWA 40/40 Vacant 25-00351 Deputy Sheriff 6XWA 40/40 Vacant 25-00353 Deputy Sheriff 6XWA 40/40 Vacant 25-00363 Deputy Sheriff 6XWA 40/40 Vacant 25-00374 Deputy Sheriff 6XWA 40/40 Vacant 25-00422 Deputy Sheriff 6XWA 40/40 Vacant 25-00429 Deputy Sheriff 6XWA 40/40 Vacant 25-00536 Deputy Sheriff 6XWA 40/40 Vacant 25-00591 Deputy Sheriff 6XWA 40/40 Vacant 25-00613 Deputy Sheriff 6XWA 40/40 Vacant 25-00688 Deputy Sheriff 6XWA 40/40 Vacant 25-00766 Deputy Sheriff 6XWA 40/40 Vacant 25-00779 Deputy Sheriff 6XWA 40/40 Vacant 25-00780 Deputy Sheriff 6XWA 40/40 Vacant 25-00053 Supervising Criminalist 6DHA 40/40 Filled 25-00055 Criminalist III "-- 6DTB 40/40 Vacant 25-00545 Criminalist III 6DTB 40/40 Filled 25-00056 Criminalist III 6DTB 40/40 Filled 25-00593 Criminalist III 6DTB 40/40 Filled 25-00058 Criminalist III 6DTB 40/40 Filled 25-00059 Forensic Toxicologist I 6CWA 40/40 Filled 25-00615 Forensic Toxicologist II 6CWA 40/40 Filled 25-01126 Forensic Toxicologist II 6CWA 40/40 Filled Revised 5/25/93: This revision removes from the list three Deputy Sheriff Positions (position numbers 25-00786, 00939, 00962) and the Sergeant position (25-01001) from the Patrol Division and adds a Criminalist III (25-00058) and a Forensic Toxicologist (25-01126). 1 Resolution 93/280 revised by Resolution 93/32 Attachment F Page 2 of 2 Revised 6/8/93 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY POSITIONS TO BE ABOLISHED DEPARTMENT: Sheriff-Coroner Department EFFECTIVE: Close of Business on June 30, 1993 unless otherwise noted Position Position Filled/ Number Class Code Type Vacant 25-00020 Clerical Supervisor JWHF 40/40 Filled 25-00313 Clerk-Senior Level JWXC 40/40 Filled 25-01072 Clerk-Senior Level JWXC 40/40 Filled 25-00770 Clerk-Experienced Level JWXB 40/40 Filled 25-00279 Supervising Dispatcher 64HD 40/40 Filled 25-00621 Sheriff's Dispatcher II 64WM 40/40 Vacant 25-00304 Sheriff's Dispatcher I 64WK 40/40 Vacant 25-00474 Sheriff's Dispatcher II 64WM P. I. Vacant 25-00886 Sheriff's Specialist 64VE 40/40 Vacant 25-00722 Sheriff's Specialist 64VE 40/40 Filled 25-00562 Lead Cook 1 KTA 40/40 Vacant 25-01040 Head Detention Cook 1 KHB 40/40 Vacant 25-01035 Detention Services Aide 64WG 40/40 Vacant 25-00476 Sheriff's Property Technician I 64WQ 40/40 Vacant Revised 6/8/93: This revision deletes from positions to be abolished positions #25-00676, 25- 01068, 25-00864, and 25-00574; and replaces these filled positions with the following positions #25-01040, 25-01035, 25-00476, 25-00770, and 25- 00562. Resolution 93/280 revised by Resolution 93/327 Z.. Z DATE: REQUEST To SPEAK FORM 7/ (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) �/ Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the d NAME: PHONE: ADDRESS: CITY: I am speaking formyself_ -01 organization: Check one: (NAME ORGANII-V-10%) I wish to speak on Agenda Item # My comments will be: general for against I wish to speak on the subject of I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider. SPEAKERS 1. Deposit the "Request to Speak" form (on the reverse side) in the box next to the speakers' microphone before your item is to be considered. 2. You will be called to make your presentation. Please speak into the microphone. 3. Begin by stating your :name and address: whether you are.--.speaking for yourself or as a representative of an organization. 4. Give the Clerkl a copy;of your presentation or support documentation, if available. 5. Please limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous speakers.... (The Chair, may limit'length of presentations so all persons may be heard.), DATE: REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (THREE (3) MINUTE umrr) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. NAME:_ 1����,� 2 `�9 PHONE: `� v ADDRESS: CITY: I am speaking formyself OR organization: Check one: AME OF ORGANIZATION) I wish to speak on Agenda Item # My comments will be: general for against I wish to speak on the subject of �) I do not.wish to speak but leave these comments for.the Board to consider. SPEASEIM . 1. Deposit the "Request to Speak" form (on the reverse side) in the box next to the speakers' microphone before your item is to be considered. 2. You will be called to make your presentation. Please speak into the microphone. 3. Begin by stating your name and address: whether you are speaking for yourself or as a representative of an organization. 4. Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation, if available. 5. Please limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous speakers. (The Chair may limit'length of presentations so all persons may be heard.) '��aHEH1Ffp�� CONTW. ��C0S,TA;;�Jr0UNTY DEPUTY SHERI' itS' `A`;SS`OCIAT10N INC. 1780 MUIR ROAD (510)(510)228-9710 MARTINEZ,CA 94553 � FAX(510)228-1637 We the undersigned declare our support for the men and women in charge of public safety for the County of Contra Costa. We understand that the county must mak( cuts, but PUBLIC SAFETY MUST BE A PRIORITY! Therefore, cuts to the Sheriff'! Department are unacceptable! We support the Sheriff' s Department and the work the'. do to stem crime in Contra Costa County. We hereby sign this petition tc demonstrate our dedication and support for the men and women who lay their live., on the line for Contra Costa County every day. We urge you to abandon any plan.tc cut the budget of the County Costa County Sheriff ' s Department. SIGNATURE ADDRESS OPITIONAL PHONE -(320 SEcLcnR- RN7/0cf•F, - 73 lar- too /I&kbr � , 41 u r Gam. 01 14(5w N- T;I oc- j+ ftk-q a 3 1 ' u G. r 'u w k " i N M , CWNK 1 ZO PQ kj ; l G fi . RaYJ, 0 J� 7 Co -3-)--o 0 Com, ' 3112— M I Lr Af&Yt (2—J ki r t u c,1� I i go S Ll 2r,o, 1 0.11I m kM I MAI via ';�_ ����, / .fit//��� �/ �/�i�� � � _ i" / i . i�• � - .E.. i _ 0 j EMI c 7 .• �_ m hoF :' + • • Ml— Fj I,� / - / / • - i /� J iy,SHERIfFs, CONT.RrAy—o-COSTAE, LINTY DEPUTY SHERI :,S:':d'A'SSt)CIATION INC. 1780 MUIR ROAD rnST, 510)228-9710 MARTINEZ,CA 94553Y; FAX(510)228-1637 We the undersigned declare our support for the men and women in charge of public safety for the County of Contra Costa. We understand that the county must make cuts, but PUBLIC SAFETY MUST BE A PRIORITY! Therefore, cuts to the Sheriff's Department are unacceptable! We support the Sheriff ' s Department and the work they do to stem crime in Contra Costa County. We hereby sign this petition to demonstrate our dedication and support for the men and women who lay their lives on the line for Contra Costa County every day. We urge you to abandon any plan to cut the budget of the County Costa County Sheriff ' s Department. SIGNATTJRE ADDRESS OPITIONAL PHONE /342 / AZ376 o — 3a�7o � ,. Zu" , 41W5c .Orr - �9yD - • 6: JA 17 AV to-A!�YAgf 44tl i" [A A 3 " 1� 5+.7�- e..�; tic aoa an `t r mcY U22J<Sj C� i OPITIONAL PHONE, 01"m"i UA�WAIW I'MIT WWI s Imo. �� `�.• � - ' MI 'llwaff.mlMR!,M. 1`!_.... � ��•�..���AV' � � .'•�111 � I / � <L J� r •• MVP �014 d_W%Irdr M • / 9.-!W.W. .1,caww"I \ . ..... WAMAllir ift- I� Wd IN _ a .` y,c,NEfllFF�ll C0NT.,R&A�'C0STA;X-0UNTY DEPUTY SHERI'F`FS.' ASSOCIATION INC. r;is•j'..:.:`::.:•'�';..`!`� 1780 MUIR ROAD Li- �''�< ,. �r - u� (510)228-9710 MARTINEZ,CA 94553 FAX(510)228-1637 . We the undersigned declare our support for the men and women in charge of public safety for the County of Contra Costa. We understand that the county must make cuts, but PUBLIC SAFETY MUST BE A PRIORITYI Therefore, cuts to the Sheriff's t Deparment are unacceptable! We support the Sheriff ' s Department and the work they do to stem crime in Contra Costa County. We hereby sign this petition to demonstrate our dedication and support for the men and women who lay their lives on the line for Contra Costa County every day. We urge you to abandon any plan to cut the budget of the County Costa County Sheriff ' s Department. SIGNATURE ADDRESS OPITIONAL PHONE !� Com., Akp, f 041e' ;evC�9 .. 320 'o -5A 6 *&,)z4 Z6,dx- D"�- CcJ2A O (.q o K a z,-1, d1-u 7k::; tiVa" L/ t, i aviz -ra r PC n; . � N 0 13Q Z i r L �J ei Si'iiiiE� �� OPITIONAL PHONE MPF .1,0M14 MIA JIM AM JAMM INA MIN f �% I��_�wrlb���i='"� � ibi .ter: A�� � �.'l�'y► (//_" �. , ' :...,ilk sw _..r`• --/ �. { i r l.i u �.�yHER!1'� CONTRA',-C0ST&,W-0 UNTY DEPUTY SHERI,F'FS, -A'.S_S`OCIATION INC. 1780 MUIR ROAD L=-�'��_,. a (510)228-9710 MARTINEZ,CA 94553 FAX(510)228-1637 . We the undersigned declare our support for the men and women in charge of public safety for the County of Contra Costa. We understand that the county must make cuts, but PUBLIC SAFETY MUST BE A PRIORITY! Therefore, cuts to the Sheriff's t Deparment are unacceptable! We support the Sheriff ' s Department and the work they do to stem crime in Contra Costa County. We hereby sign this petition to demonstrate our dedication and support for the men and women who lay their lives on the line for Contra Costa County every day. We urge you to abandon any plan to cut the budget of the County Costa County Sheriff 's Department. IGNA'ITUE ADDRESS OPITIONAL PHONE 1220 222 -9 2-9 Q� c. S Com' � �� �.'��••w-a-- � Q 1 223 =� ��' L-I `w1 �5 �c� WSJ ax � -!o p3131,1 � G. lt-5Y M A-L i L-VAJ 5-vs E �' t-29 951 a 3 221111,W--d-All �� 510- 9 't, it l( (, $ I fl yKr UTP-0 IT- vC -416( 64.,1+ 1 �'Nsza S-ro- g-zs--.?o Y r '1 SIGNATURE ADDRESS OPMONAL PHONE a 70 wood I?� SlQ pq- 9f4 YQvioLi Vod.(&,-w NAW) Lm-of ,CA-76-q% io :3a �vao �'C' S-i E�)CIWV A-kl,)"715a o -F — T z - r-I,`✓� ` o� �7�Z�7oL A& a ice- v�. C�,t-�,�,�. Qys►y �, ��7 2 � bS P'F-A-k-e CT C q-70 Ll Cl -z-z�,e/q YAlq,�",�:Q.AJV LA-44 -&9? -33y9 064 (:7w `J Ce-e f� 31� I'Vl u f-�- Z 3 5-10 -3-70 02toO ORdAt,1 14 W-1 G 7 &LC.If i LORD C-4 q43,1, 1 G. 1 y4� rt V .. _ �C• -976 5I0 -935 ZOSO Mone t l v �cJ irv�r%i�' e,67 /5UC�,'''1 P-nT <� M o/✓n E v,`StlERI F� . CONTR;A„ACOSTAI;,C--OUNTY DEPUTY SHERIt'P5'-4AS'S0CIATION INC. 1780 MUIR ROAD'^.;'��.y'=�=� (510)228-9710 MARTINEZ,CA 94553 FAX(510)228-1637 We the undersigned declare our support for the men and women in charge of public safety for the County of Contra Costa. We understand that the county must make cuts, but PUBLIC SAFETY MUST BE A PRIORITYI `Therefore, cuts to the Sheriff's Department are unacceptable! We support the Sheriff' s Department and the work they do to stem crime in Contra Costa County. We hereby sign this petition to demonstrate our dedication and support for the men and women who lay their lives on the line for Contra Costa County every day. We urge you to abandon any plan to cut the budget of the County Costa County Sheriff's Department. SIGNATURE + ADDRESS OPITIONAL PHONE 1 ( 16 -:1 ' Z ' Z: 1 SIGNATURE ADDRESS OPSTIONAL PHONE ..- f to 1 .02 o Ae7D- 7 1 C-j- Lo 25�-1 /lW. Cerner Ue.• (of ? c vcl� Y _iYc�=C- �`�{ att}�oc►� C �tcs 2 'tsj "'S� c L CA - P-0 ccs y5 Id" �t via l' �k e i;�.;. j° P <�[�(c'• a-u.i L iz.. 2c-e- oejk eA qo-a� 1 to .4(� 3sAp en c-&-iii f �1 S S- 0 ;17 b` — l•Sr'j .4 f CONT.RA,, 0STa;,3G0UNTY DEPUTY SHERI ��t=S' �ASSOCIATION INC. 1780 MUIR ROAD (510)228-9710 MARTINEZ,CA 94553 FAX(510)228-1637 We the undersigned declare our support for the men and women in charge of public safety for the County of Contra Costa. We understand that the county .must make cuts, but PUBLIC SAFETY MUST BE A PRIORITYI Therefore, cuts. to the Sheriff's Department are unacceptable! We support the Sheriff' s Department and the work they do to stem crime in Contra Costa County. We hereby sign this petition to demonstrate our dedication and support for the men and women who lay their lives on the line for Contra Costa County every day. We urge you to abandon any plan to cut the budget of the County Costa County She'riff's Department. SIGNATURE ADDRESS OPITIONAL PHONE z� Zq o i3IzA L 1 L. �- . O�i4 E i r- ►q q C 1z 2211 L Zz17 f--,,5LQc, ��- 1q5 -C> 65 COAJ 5r( jS /C P0.523 - 9 ti i Yq Jar r I � �Z3crCA zi8 1 ` 1 `� I �/ D `? io ,c G✓ e- Z 2-717 ...� � /a Ll ITIONAL SIGNATUP OPl lz M� ,Ol ■� �y►_ _ t��.mt±,Is�.i .y ��� i�"a r `• moi_3/l �A t MA WOW 4147tili'.4 TN' , MUM Jw COMPARYMA C0NTRA,`C0STN,EC,OUNTY DEPUTY SHERIt'Ps'. �AS_SOCIATION INC. JT 1780 MUIR ROAD L�"� 1�;��: "'�=� (510)228-9710 MARTINEZ,CA 94553 FAX(510)228-1637 We the undersigned declare our support for the men and women in charge of public safety for the County of Contra Costa. We understand that the county must make cuts, but PUBLIC SAFETY MUST BE A PRIORITYI Therefore, cuts to the Sheriff's Department are unacceptable! We support the Sheriff' s Department and the work they do to stem crime in Contra Costa County. We hereby sign this petition to demonstrate our dedication and support for the men and women who lay their lives on the line for Contra Costa County every day. We urge you to abandon any plan to cut the budget of the County Costa County Sheriff's Department. SIGNATURE ADDRESS OPITIONAL PHONE 12-11 Z 6iNe,00 - ST �.�I���Y Ck `L K ►c S'-305 !D `l- 77 9 sG0 35'78 i / AAV6*,d 9 91 S 7 71*,Z) 421?s cN%AsT(N CA g4/r2_ (gfs)334-C6Z 6 1 Wee-j- P"C-- CON oe O Gid Av,. F/ Cc-!rF 0 . CA 9q 5' C51d 237—G�8$ I i��-� w,�m5arc wP Ux'NTVW/J) >9 �2 •$ 3,;L y �� Iw i 11516)711- 15-Pi �- /5�! l=c ►t�HE"iT P(. L�urzw�.l �r� 9yssc� 5!G �fti?-72`13 . t � •� wkr�o SC� Q �a G4�� � Seo-g2o-S"�1� is).sx 5-C6 t 8z 6/ 22D1 VEtrNTN02 LAN9,00LEY CA 9y5 OPITIONAL PHONE-, FA WillKI p 1,M/Al •1 Y BONN Wm A WA W m a m #MR r 1 r I M i CO-NTP-A'X0ST&W-0UNTY i DEPUTY SHER [PFS, As_SOCIATION ] NC. 1780 MUIR ROAD -�' •ter;" = ] (510)228-9710 MARTINEZ,CA 94553 FAX(510)228-1637 We the undersigned declare' our support._for•the men and women. in charge I,of -publi safety for" the Caunty, af Contra Costa. We understand that the county must1makE cuts, but PUBLIC SAFETY MUST BE 'A PRIORITY1 Therefore cuts tothe Sheriff' Department are unacceptable! . We support .the Sheriff.'s Department and the work"theY do to stem crime in Contra Costa County. , We hereby sign this petition tp demonstrate our dedication and. support for the men and women, who lay their live on the line for Contra Costa County every day. We urge you to abandon ''any plap:-t cut the budget of the County Costa County Sheriff's Department. SIGNATURE ADDRESS OPITIONAL PHONE 4 i r 2 CA 9 -3 (51013, 2-?3 � •�ti f`� �� 5 lid/ �`�• 2`'�,9,1 'v i/% 11A,4 � �- � � ! � �� rS7,1 C�alAe6cs� b cA R7 7�-- o/Y1 YZI to�i ( 7�r L bo G a " QCT Jv3- �?I 04 t 1 L4 1A ID All Zai-21 --- { �, L,2JCqlI � t C i ell SIGNATURE ADDRESS OPITIONAL PHONE ' 4 � S' _ - Z- CIA S C 1 =-;�p1n s,o 757' G/ .32-33-71 -70 ! j ,Z G fact,,+G �f w Nese_�.. - 6 . .,7 rC�; ADDR--S S IOPITIONAL PHONE SWAM. 5:0" - 4 A AtM Do, W&R-OWN=rT TIMM ji�jjii�� A prom raill �:f "�� _ .Y.� .. i ,jt ., y ow FAM ME q, M r'S WA- V � '�-=�� �C-,MW= NMI MAN, ;r2l AR ADDRESS A PHONE M/}/I i r . _ 4 1 �! _ r_ s ! • Of Wl&-AA Y ~ . A f�ti/i1 • � r * ' y r � '� i r y FORT IN, Ti "Ar . i�l x M�- will , i Illiplipil NA r I i IONAL- i I � .J/� � ► /./I if � a�If.1 � �,,.■• PHONE r ` big �, - ►� / IMF" fiYl�'L'1I %�.�■I. �i_'! ,/��'.J�. '.iia����.�� r�.��r11L?.l7► � s�._ MIS tri ' � MIL MWI .�cr I s lipillipirl KIA •✓,� � � milli r ADDRESS OPITIONAL PHONE. QT W M-**- MMMA- W-WMA win NOW . ism • �r .` ' ' Win 11 Mi / Wo .. _. l/.tom: !'' ► !� / 1 _ �' :f ' ,, r Com. ; .�l� ►� . .. - �. . � , . ���' ,r - `i r W , . .v � � • OPITIONAL PH ONE / /�✓Ji uII/ II t✓. Win Weld- WN OWN I I MMW ME ` I � / "WIMP, - // , G � if. I r d I go I'M Max V- 111.1as MISM @1211�111` WPM- FA IM M -wa MIT L i PSMOM 0 M M. - - V� 1. ./ �_�,°` OPITION� PH'ON'E . pS1D�SS C-P- %tax INV P ok � OPITIONAL PHONE / 021, in Qq .......... r� mrd spa m ��'/��!! �����"' ��,•�o,.��l� _,_mss WA Wl j ~�p tom.�U'rrr7 X11►_ . . , e , . rM 4/4 a_ ME it V 1 VM A M- WAIM11 IN Of.1,�" i ► II . i a t � � - OPITIONAL PHONE rP.i R .. i M / l � -M�Fmlmdfi�m, 11,000'aill Ow"N MIN ifilik 10 WE i III Ml Ell it 1 a./ SI _ L%� / F I ,W,. --A Mol M-4 or W FM FJ.- INUMUMME ` `�1 _ - ;i - r i PIT 01, ILA wo r, _ MMMSAi iQ OEM Win EMS MEMOS i GV1 ILWAM , IVA/ '��//, A LTJ .� /,/L� // i ��_�. L ./ // / .���`�J ♦ � i i i FAI Ino omit! �11' vi KIM R f �, • ' t �,_W, 41111 Me, MRS! 4 0 ME ON Ifirelply"MMA,"All"AtIRM M��MIIRIAIMMMII I C �� • I l I TA � 1 I • /_. ii MAI SIGNATURE // ADDRESS OPITIONA., PHONE -� � vrrrt�.., 'i-- � f., 1 / S x7 7 ff/?�11 �". f r,i�r�t1s^rs �t y;%SFT '�Ski"—rfrJ t/_.,/ # (l�7 f ol'I>°&J 7c^w —0'$Z-;6 /IPV7 5_70 (- C !C2 Ll 6V cH R.'5 A ale t! �X9 � 04.4 60, 04 (6t 6 �� .`�4 s- 4W)J F)AV f S 1 �ti� !3 L-�t ut I�KI V( U l�TIO orf .� 2 r 1 .4 I -�- �. • FAM li�lljjlll- ma Me l Id plow Milill Ill ATE �ll�_�i� 1.�: � �--. � �_I. �i lit i/...j �f r + �J //�t�Z..1'+► �!' mss.. �.-_ /Cp7�hAr� ♦ lL...'.� ,..[ � ..!' "'q 1 i SIGNATURE ADDRESS OPITIONAL PHONE 'r Cvt i tr t 2, -9 ' � :. t ph CQ '5i qct 4` tom-- 33 3 k C dEA - Pt H(jlJa(,%)"J }� JAI 6 96 7��", ,�v r 13lC,t-��fg laoc:c.o-A� G3 a�/,1,c�.!ft�r-;x..11 tt/i?�"1'�r �.�yt.`���•/����= "" e.�i,�/fJ` ,�Or9'.�'j ,%%�',�J�3'"' ` � kyr' -C f Aeowlll� Mi I CDC* L.. r • I SIGNATURE ADDRESS .—TOPITIONAL PHONE br Pat 390 0 t s /s- UN l oll c - • t c.r.+ C� "A& 5-t 0,37th 37 u6- "411Ql� > , G �Og Y i G [� Icr�� set-- o+/c.0 t -CAo f A ) ] ! L� 'iC? tt_ir'r C vw. t Ut l 7.�`{ (C i 1 { _S r75 1 3 U �C4.1,.�"YN-D tL�-• ..�. � �. Q.'jl.(,t'�2.(:�.: £ �� �� -� � _.��4=_,23. f a - CONTR&, COST�11;W-OUNTY DEPUTY SHERIrFES.''ASSOCIATION INC. 1780 MUIR ROAD ...,. .. �1 (510)228-9710 MARTINEZ,CA 94553 FAX(510)228-1637 = We the undersigned declare our support for the men and women in charge of public safety for the County of Contra Costa. We understand that the county must make cuts, but PUBLIC SAFETY MUST HE A PRIORITYI Therefore, cuts to the Sheriff'. Department are unacceptable! We support the Sherif f ' s Department and the work thel do to stem crime in Contra Costa County. We hereby sign this petition tc demonstrate our dedication and support for the men and women who lay their lives on the line for Contra Costa County every day. We urge you to abandon any plan tc cut the budget of the County Costa County Sheriff' s Department. SIGNATURE ADDRESS OPITIONAL PHONE . 2Lf ` �- •a� 91Z E:Lr't - � o � o 725'-70/ - r� OCA S r' waoc0 S- Z 2S51- WS (o —0 31/ y.. ,,, , CONT.RrA� O5TrERiFFr'AI;, OU N T Y . .:. <. .. .'. DEPUTY S H E R CIATION INC. !.'pST1 1780 MUIR ROAD a�� �'`- �..,.;..r.. (510)228-9710 MARTINEZ,CA 94553 FAX(510)228-1637 We. the undersigned declare our support for the men and women in charge of public safety for the County of Contra Costa. We understand that the county must make cuts, but PUBLIC SAFETY MUST HE A PRIORITYI Therefore, cuts to the Sheriff': Department are unacceptable! We support the Sheriff ' s Department and the work the) do to stem crime in Contra Costa County. We hereby sign this petition - tc demonstrate our dedication and support for the men and women who lay their live: on the line for Contra Costa County every day. We urge you to abandon any plan tc cut the budget of the County Costa County Sheriff's Department. SIGN E ADDRESS OPITIONAL PHONE 9-79/ AA- -7 7 � _ a-, o X-,s vis �►�'IC5 u.r _ fAAC,Iq 9 2_233 ;)kPJTT5j3PLjC(- 9V5&5 y5 ,?167 8r v w r S�C•r Sys G S I `��'�'���y (o ISPAl cay` ! , 3 :3 j —SIGNATURE iOPITIONAL a FA NO ' '' _ - J� � � rt fl • it s 1 i ft ,� �� 1 �► /�� � ,' .� � ��"!lac=��� i, ! ♦ 1 a � � I �I WK00'.,"MR,A '.� off �.L/ - ■Ia!�/.,tits_ i % SIGNATURE ADDRESS OPITIONAL PHONE F Dr) Rvibec. wr4n J. LLI L-v I I If'ILI u )_p4N-1 _ f ✓ �, --,, _ J, �r. 314L CSAR, _v 0 -30e "It rJv"o 071 Y l I�'1L �.�-'mss: ��? �7"�':4"*r 1��7 fit' �'Ll C.l�� ��fio'�r. �!/(.Rx/-l�� '�rW f�st ���✓.� �7 /�",,��G�'j� 's A tfa' N ; :9114 1 Y M,?r'T r 1 A �- Jt ''' �:;';tai r i y CONT,R-A';=COSTa.,00UNTY DEPUTY SHERIFFS'. 1,A.S.50CIATION INC. 1780 MUIR ROAD 'r '0'' ` j ,. (510)228-9710 MARTINEZ,CA 94553 FAX(510)228-1637 We the undersigned declare our support for the men and women in charge of public safety for the County of Contra Costa. We understand that the county must make cuts, but PUBLIC SAFETY MUST BE A PRIORITYI Therefore, cuts to the Sheriff's Department are unacceptable! We support the Sheriff' s Department and the work they do to stem crime in Contra Costa County. We hereby sign this petition to demonstrate our dedication and support for the men and women who lay their lives on the line for Contra Costa County every day. We urge you to abandon any plan to cut the budget of the County Costa County Sheriff' s Department. SIGNATURE ADDRESS OPITIONAL PHONE J 0- A--111-& y o 6C 164 CL-T 3 4 w, 5717 Sr. r9N'F► o C 1 �11f - 3 _d 3 ZY3 i.. OPITIONAL PHONE . OV I'MAI LOW BROWN- vilum AID, 'law"I rma _ . . -i • WAVION :. I SIGNATURE ADDRESS OPITIONAL PHONE / r ? ovt 1 7 9 Y S0 �-- j? 27SZ cJ�.�ct 'K L� R es► Sv - cepa. a ao96g��(A 301i , ,�: .. sip ���qT 00 SIGNATURE ADDRESS OPITIONAL PHONE c CIV Oil (ARvi&�W- tA-- a � 3 7 3 r M �__ � .. � I � � I ,' I ri •'I ;' is SIGNATURE ADDRESS OPITIONAL PHONE I i i I A COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE Determination 2 . 2 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA Date: June 7 , 1993 To: Board of Supervisors From: Victor J. Westman, County Counsel 9/ Re: Proposed Measure A "Tax Revolt" Ordinance, Pending Alhambra case, and Sales Tax Status This is to update your Board on the subject matters . 1 . Measure A - Ordinances of Other Counties Los Angeles County, Amador County, San Diego County and San Francisco have adopted ordinances similar to that proposed in Contra Costa. Also, we are informed that several other counties are considering such ordinances (eg, Ventura, Kern, Santa Barbara) . Counsel for several counties have indicated that they are reluctant to advise their boards to adopt such an ordinance because they are concerned about litigation or other retribution by the State. 2. City of Alhambra Litigation The City of Alhambra and its Redevelopment Agency sued the Los Angeles County Auditor and the State Controller, Treasurer, Director of Finance and Governor to obtain a judicial determination that the property tax shift from local governments to schools is unconstitutional. The Case initially was filed in the Supreme Court, asking that Court to exercise its original jurisdiction. The Supreme Court referred the Case to the Court of Appeal for the Second District (Los Angeles ) . The Court of Appeal in turn refused to exercise its original jurisdiction, referring the Case to the Los Angeles Superior Court. While also arguing that the property tax shift violates the school funding standards of Serrano v Priest (1976 ) 18 C3d 728, the primary argument in Alhambra is very similar to the primary theory upon which Contra Costa County' s proposed Measure A Ordinance is based: Proposition 98 (Article XVI, Section 8 ) established property tax funding for schools at the 1986-7 level (with minor adjustments ) and the remainder of school funding up to the levels contemplated by the Proposition is the obligation of the State; thus, the shift of Board of Supervisors 2 June 7 , 1993 additional property taxes to schools violates the funding scheme established by Proposition 98 . In addition, Alhambra raises the home rule issue, which is one of the three theories supporting this County' s proposed Ordinance, but does so in a manner somewhat different than our Ordinance. Suprisingly, Alhambra does not raise the Article XIIIB, Section 6, State mandate issue, which is the third theory supporting this County' s proposed Ordinance. It is conceivable that Petitioners might add the Article XIIIB issue to the Alhambra litigation. Because the 1992-3 allocations were already largely made and spent by the time the Alhambra action was filed, and because it would be very difficult to recover money already spent, it appears that the strategy of the Alhambra Petitioners is to attempt to obtain a Superior Court ruling on the 1993-4 fiscal year allocations prior to September of this year. If the Prop 98 issue were resolved in favor of the Alhambra Petitioners by this September, the Los Angeles Auditor would be able to implement the decision for the 1993-4 fiscal year allocations . However, there is a strong likelyhood of an appeal. It is difficult to predict whether, pending completion of an appeal, the 1993-4 allocations would be impounded, distributed to the schools, or distributed as prior to the shift. If the funds were impounded or distributed as prior to the shift and the schools not otherwise made whole (eg, by interim State funding of the shortfall) , schools could be severely impacted during the appeal . 3. Contra Costa Strategy Re Litigation It has been suggested that this County " join" in the Alhambra litigation. Although counties other than Los Angeles could request leave to file amicus briefs , which is quite unusual at the trial court level, such counties would have no way to become parties to the Alhambra action, unless separate actions were filed and a motion successfully made to coordinate the actions with the Alhambra litigation. Such a tactic could be counterproductive, because it probably would cause substantial delays in the Alhambra litigation, and it is to the benefit of everyone to have these issues resolved quickly. Of course, concerned counties could file amicus briefs or letters when the Alhambra Case reaches the Appellate Court. In any event, this Office has already offered Contra Costa County amicus participation to the attorneys representing the Alhambra Petitioners . (See attached 5-3-93 letter. ) Another approach would be for the counties that adopt similar ordinances to consider filing a joint action, similar to but litigated separate from the Alhambra action. Given the head start of the Alhambra case, it is likely that the Prop 98 issue would be resolved by the Court of Appeal in that case prior to an adjudication in any other case. Thus, the primary purpose of a separate case would be to resolve issues not addressed in Alhambra. Since the Alhambra action should resolve most of the issues that might be raised in another action (see above discussion) , at this point it appears that filing a separate Board of Supervisors 3 June 7 , 1993 action would accomplish little. Because an action similar to Alhambra likely would be very complex and time-consuming, there may be considerable advantage to several counties joining forces . With approval of CSAC, such an action could be coordinated through the CSAC Litigation Coordination Office. A third approach would be for the Auditors of the counties adopting "tax revolt" ordinances to refuse to allocate according to the State shift, which would almost certainly provoke a lawsuit by the State, schools, or taxpayers . Provided the ordinances were similar, the united defendant counties and auditors could move to coordinate all the actions in a single court. Because there are inherent advantages to being a defendant, this might be the best legal approach. Of course, school funding during such litigation would remain a paramount concern. 4 . Sales Tax Issues The Attorney General recently opined that Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7285 provides authority for the County to impose an additional one-half cent local sales tax if 1) two-thirds of the Board approves, 2) a majority of those voting on the measure approve, and 3) the County contracts with the State Board of Equalization to administer the tax. (See Ops . Cal. Atty. Gen. , No. 93-402 [May 21, 1993] . ) Notwithstanding confusion in previous Attorney General opinions and appellate court decisions, the Attorney General now opines that the Section 7285 requirement of a majority vote approval is not a violation of the Constitutional proscription against referendums on tax legislation because it is a precondition to the imposition of the tax. The proceeds of such an increase in the sales tax would not have to be shared with the cities in the County. ( Id. ) As you may know, the Governor has "set" a special statewide election on November 2, 1993 to allow counties to put such a tax before the voters . At this time, we have not seen any specific proposed legislation in bill form by the Governor to extend the existing half cent sales tax for six months or to clarify that the existing half cent sales tax could be collected for the period from January 1, 1994 to April of 1994 in counties where the voters approve an additional local sales tax in November. Further, it is not clear if legislation will be pursued this year to clarify that the State Board of Equalization is authorized to collect additional local sales taxes in the event such taxes would bring the total of all sales taxes in a county to more than eight and Board of Supervisors 4 June 7 , 1993 one-quarter cents, as would be the case in this and several other Bay Area counties under some circumstances if additional local sales taxes were approved. DCG:df attachment cc: Ken Corcoran, Auditor Phil Batchelor, CAO c:bdrepah.doc CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COUNSEL 651 Pine Street, 9th Floor • P.O. Box 69 Martinez CA 94553 (510) 646-2058 Fax (510) 646-1078 May 3, 1993 J. Robert Flandrick, Esq. Burke, Williams and Sorensen 611 West Sixth Street, 25th Floor Los Angeles CA 90017 Re: City of Alhambra et. al. v Ikemoto, et. al., Second District No. 8073771 Dear Mr. Flandrick: As you may have heard, Contra Costa County has introduced an Ordinance which relies (inter alia) on the Proposition 98 theory upon which the subject case is premised. Because Contra Costa is vitally concerned with the State's threat to confiscate another 2.6 billion dollars of property taxes for fiscal 1993-4, we would be pleased to join in amicus lettersfbriefs, if you think such would be helpful. A copy of the materials on our proposed Ordinance is enclosed. Please call if we can offer further explanation or be of assistance in any other way. Thanks very much for your outstanding work on this important public issue. ours truly, Victor J n, County Counsel By: Denni&.- Graves, Deputy cc: Board of Supervisors County Administrator c:alhlet