HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05241994 - EB.2 EB 2
Contra
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Costa
FROM: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY - EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK Cou*
DISTRICT LIAISON COMMITTEE
Supervisor Tom Torlakson (Chair)
Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier
DATE: May 24, 1994
SUBJECT: REPORT ON POWERS-PERATA STUDY ON CONSOLIDATION OF SERVICES
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
Refer the Powers-Perata Report on Consolidation of Services to the Contra Costa County-East Bay
Regional Park District Liaison Committee for review and comment prior to Board action on this issue.
REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND
The Liaison Committee has requested an opportunity to review and provide comment on detail related
to this report. There is some additional considerations as to Park District costs, manpower and other
specific enforcement activities relative to consolidation of East Bay Regional Park District police
services with that of the County Sheriff Department.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S): zx �� U�U►Ihe
Supervisor Tom Torlakson Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier
ACTION OF BOARD ON _ ay 24 , 1994 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER x
In addition to approving the recommendation set forth above, staff was
DIRECTED to inform other members of the proposed workshop date
scheduled for June 211, 1994, at 2 p.m.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT - I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
AYES: NOES: CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact: Roberta Goulart (510) 646-2071 ATTESTED May 24, 1994
cc: Community Development Department PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE
County Administrator's Office BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND
Sheriff-Coroner COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
East Bay Regional Park District (via CDD)
BY: , DEPUTY
RG:rw
RRG2:6-24EB2.4bd 1/117
Report and Recommendations
for Special District Consolidations in
Alameda and Contra Costa Counties
Produced and Written By:
Supervisor Don Perata
Supervisor Tom Powers
Task Force Participants:.
Jane Brunner, IBEW Local 1245
Supervisor Keith Carson
Mark Finucane, Contra Costa Co Health Director
Pat Ford, Executive Director SEIU Local 616
Reid Gustafson, Businessman
Paul Katz, PE Local 1
Roger Lum, Alameda Co Social Security Director
Pat O'Connell, Auditor Controller, Alameda Co
Earl Riggs, President, Regional Ambulance
William C. Royan, Contra Costa Co Taxpayers Association
-' Augie Scornienchi, Alameda Co Superintendent of Schools
Peter Smith, Attorney
Steve Szaly, Alameda Co CAO
Chris Treble, Businessman
Perfecto Villarreal, Contra Costa Co Social Services Director
Claude V' r Marter, Contra Costa Co Assistant CAO
John Wolfe, Contra Costa Co Taxpayers Association
Patrick Yodley, Contra Costa Co Health Services
Accounting Consultant Tim Staples
El Dorado Hills, CA
April 15, 1994
Executive Summary
Fifteen months ago, Alameda County Supervisor Don Perata and Contra Costa
Supervisor Tom Powers organized a group of public, taxpayer, labor, business and local
elected leaders to discuss ways to consolidate local and regional agencies to reduce costs
and improve customer service.
The result is a succinct, conclusive study that shows how administrative
consolidation of water utility, waste disposal, library, emergency medical, county offices
of education and park police in Alameda and Contra Costa counties could save
$58,000,000 each year! Dollars that could be better used to support basic services like
education and public safety.
Among the study's findings:
• The two counties have 64 separate enterprise special districts. Enterprise
districts are those that directly generate revenue from the sale of its
services, such as water utility and waste disposal.
• There were 15 water utility districts that reported their 1990-91 operating
results to the state controller. The four in Alameda spend 26.4% of their
annual operating revenues on administrative overhead. The I I in Contra
Costa 18.9%. These overhead rates are from 35% to 89% hi her than
private industry companies managing similar operations.
• Alameda County's water districts should reduce their operating expenses
by over$30 million annually. This would bring their level of operating
income in line with private industry standards.
• The Alameda County water districts spend far more on fixed assets than
neighboring cities and counties, and twice as much as their operating level
can justify. These districts added 18% ($195.1 million) to net fixed
assets in 1990-1991.
• Contra Costa's 16 waste disposal districts spend 34.4% on administrative
overhead. Consolidation could reduce costs by more than $10.7 a year.
• Alameda and Contra Costa have virtually identical emergency medical
services systems. Each operates autonomously. Potential savings of$2.4
million a year and improved response time could result from creating
r a single administration. This is roughly the fiscal deficit now facing
Alameda EMS consumers.
• A consolidated library system could yield $2.5 million in savings, largely
through common administrative and technical-support. More on books,
less in overhead.
Police services are increasingly balkanized. Too many separate agencies
exist outside county and municipal departments. This creates
duplication of Protection services and overhead costs. If the county
sheriffs assumed service responsibilities for the now autonomous East
Bav Regional Park District Police. almost $ 4,000,000 annual savings
could result.
Page Two:
The offices of education in the two counties show the folly and
anachronism of this redundant layer of government. A simple, straight'
line administrative consolidation could alone cut overhead as much as
$3.2 million a year.
Conclusion:
There is little doubt that millions of dollars can be saved and reinvested in basic
services by consolidating and in some cases eliminating special districts. This Alameda
Contra Costa study is a prototype. Its methodology and findings we fully expect can be
extrapolated statewide, yielding BILLIONS of DOLLARS in savings.
Only legislative action, however, can make these changes. Given the likely
onslaught of special interests likely to converge in Sacramento to protect the status quo
and defeat reforms, we make the following recommendations:
Recommendation One:
This report and its findings will be submitted to the Legislative Joint Audit
Committee and the Assembly and Senate Committees on Local Government. We will
seek the identified reforms through legislation.
Recommendation Two: 1
Before submitting this report to the legislature in June,Alameda and Contra Costa I
counties boards of supervisors will hold public hearings on the study to solicit public
opinion and awareness. Copies will be circulated among the traditional civic and good
government organizations and others interested upon request.
Recommendation Three:
Anticipating efforts by the status quo to kill these recommended reforms, and
acceding to the logic that rationalizing and economizing local and regional services
cannot be performed best by legislative committee, we suggest that a commission be
impaneled to accomplish the intended results.
The commission would function much as the federal commission used to close
.and realign the nation's military bases. Appointed by the governor, controller, Senate
President Pro Tem and Assembly'Speaker, this commission would evaluate and
recommend consolidations among the special districts and redundant services in state,
regional and local governments.
The panel would make recommendations in three, two-year cycles. Its final
recommendations would be submitted to the legislature for an "up or down" vote. The
state controller would have the authority to implement the recommendations once signed
into law.
REPORT ON THE CONSOLIDATION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
BACKGROUND
In March 1993, Supervisor Don Perata of the County of Alameda and Supervisor Tom Powers of
Contra Costa County initiated discussions regarding a joint effort into the consolidation of services for
the two Counties. These discussions were prompted by the Supervisors' mutual awareness and
appreciation of the growing problem within the state of California - namely, the proliferation of
independent special districts and their negative impact on local government to meet the needs of its
citizens in providing services in an efficient and cost-effective manner.
It was clear to both Supervisors Perata and Powers that the budget difficulties facing the state of
California over the recent years were being felt dramatically at the local level due to the state
government's ability to shift the burden of delivery of public services to local governments.
Unfortunately, the convoluted structure of local government, which developed as a function of the
growth in the state's population and its geographic concentrations over the last thirty years, presented a
considerable stumbling block to the assimilation of this shifted burden. For local governments to
effectively react to this change in accountability, they must take the lead in restructuring their own
environment. Only by doing so can they more effectively and accurately determine the requirements of
their citizens and control the resources necessary to meet the established priorities.
In order,to pursue the effort of addressing this challenge, Supervisor Perata convened a joint
task force of representatives from the Counties of Alameda and Contra Costa. The Task Force consisted
of representatives from local government (i.e., city, county, school and special districts), private industry,
organized labor and taxpayers' associations. Members of this task force met on a frequent and regular
basis over the past year. Subcommittees were established and information was obtained to determine
representative service areas to consider for restructuring and consolidation.
SCOPE
Early research into the extent and nature of the problem led to the determination of a number of
kev facts. On an annual basis, approximately 6,700 agencies of local government spend over S72 Billion
throughout the state of California. Of these local agencies, only a small number account for the
traditional structure of city and county governments, ,vith approximately 460 cities and 58 counties
formed within the state of California. The remaining number of local government agencies in the state,
nearly 6,200, are made up of 5,122 special districts and 1,006 school districts.
1
Special Districts:
The 1990-91 Annual Report of Financial Transactions Concerning Special Districts of
California, prepared by the State Controller's Office, is the most current and accurate data available on
special districts. This. data shows that of the 5;,122 special districts in California, 3,193 of these districts,
over 62 %, have their own governing body, either elected or appointed. Of the remainder of special
districts in California, 1,781 of them fall under the authority of a county board of supervisors, while only
158 are governed by a city council. Special districts have substantially the same general governmental
powers as those shared by most cities and counties under the.State's Constitution and Statutes. These
powers,*for themost part, give the district autonomy and continuous corporate life, the ability to sue and
be sued,the right of eminent domain, to appoint and employ work force, to employ counsel, to enter into
and perform contracts, to adopt a seal, and to tax. Some'districts, have the statutory power to issue bonds
and to adopt ordinances under which violations are punishable.
Special districts are different from most other
r governmental entities in that they may 'cover only
a small portion of a city or county, or they may be multi-city or multi-county in scope. They may be
contiguous or nota They may be limited to a single mission or purpose, or they may perform a
multiplicity of functions or activities.
Special districts are categorized and reported on by the State Controller's Office based on the
activity performed by the district, such as, air pollution control, fire protection, transit services, etc.
These districts are further classified into performing either enterprise or non-enterprise activities.
Special districts that perform their activities on an enterprise basis are those that directly generate
revenue from the sale of their services, as in the case of electric or water utilities, hospitals or -,vaste
disposal districts. Non-enterprise districts, by contrast, are those that are operated and administered as a
government unit, and are financed from taxes or other general revenues.
A breakdown of the numberofspecial districts by enterprise and non-enterprise activities for the
Counties of Alameda and Contra Costa,as well as the for the State, is as follows
CONTRA CQSTA CALIEFO—RMA
Enterprise Activities:
Electric 1 0 49
Hospitals 2 4 80
Transit 4 9 74
Waste Disposal 9 16 621
Water Utility 5 14 885
Other 0 29
Subtotal-Enterprise 21 43
2
CALIFORNIA
AIA EDA ,CONTRA COSTA
Non- Enter rte=
Ambulance Service 1 1 73
Cemetery 0 2 256
Drainage 0 5 198
Fire Protection 9 16 578
Flood Control 1 1 95
Land Reclamation 1 12 127
Library Services 3 4 38
Lighting 1 9 735
Planning 3 0 44
Parking 0 1 26
Pest Control 2 1 70
Police Protection 1 8 50
Recreation&Park 5 11 292
Resource Conservation 1 1 113
Streets&Roads 4 8 381
Animal Control 1 0 7
Self-Insurance 8 5 147
Financing Facilities 25 22 565
Government Services 0 2 38
Other _. 0 _._0 _.68
Subtotal-Non-Enterprise 66 -192 3.901
Totals
It is worth noting for clarification that when categorized by separate activity performed, the number of
districts is approximately 10% higher than the actual number of districts in the state, i.e., 5,122. This is
attributable to the fact that some districts perform multiple activities, and are accounted for more than
once.
A significant measure of the financial impact of special districts is the level of annual expenses
incurred in the support of their operations. For 1990-91 the total expenses for California's special
districts was $12.9 Billion Dollars, of which enterprise activities accounted for $9.7 Billion _of
expenditures and non-enterprise activities $3.2 Billion. For Alameda County's 87 special districts, the
total expenses for 1990-91 were $1.062 Billion with $873 Million in enterprise activities and 5189
Million in non-enterprise activities. Contra Costa County's 152 special districts spent a total of 5470
Million for expenditures in 1990-91, enterprise activities accounting for$334 Million and non-enterprise
activities $136 Million.
School Districts:
The 1,006 school districts in the state of California can be broken down into elementan. high
f school and unified school districts. The following table reflects this breakdown for Alameda and Contra
Costa Counties as well as for the State.
3
ALAMEDA , CONTRA COSTA CALIFORNIA
Elementary l 9 601
High School 0 2 l09
Unified - 7
Total School Districts
Within each county there is an Office of Education, that coordinates and oversees the school districts
within its boundaries.
OBJECTIVES
From the outset, the Task Force recognized the diversity and number of special and school
districts within the two Counties, and the complexities of their common and overlapping authorities and
functions with city and county governments. The Task Force agreed that it should concentrate on a
select number of.community services for a more detailed analysis. By looking at a select number of
specific cases, the Task Force felt that it could better understand and determine the approach to
consolidating such service areas, as well as estimate the potential cost savings of such consolidations.
After an extensive review of the special district service areas in the Counties, the Task Force
decided to concentrate on a select number of representative districts, two enterprise activities and four
non-enterprise, for detailed consideration and analysis. They were:
Enterprise Activities:
• Water Utility
« Waste Disposal
Non-Enterprise Activities:
• Flood Control
+ Ambulance/Emergency Medical Services
• Library Services
• Police Protection
With respect to school districts, the Task Force wantedto focus on the service area of theOf:ice
of Education both in Alameda and Contra Costa County and the relationship with their respective school
districts as well as each other.
In terms of its objectives, the Task Force planned to follow a standard review process of each
district with the goal of accomplishing the.following steps:
1. Review and Assessment.
a) Evaluate current operations as to: services performed, manner of governance.
inter-relationships with other local governmental agencies level of operating
expenditures, and staffing.
b) Identify areas of waste,duplication and redundancy.
2. Recommendations.
3. Potential Annual Savings.
4
WATER UTILITY SERVICES
Review and Assessment,
There are 19 special districts enumerated in the State Controller's Report that perform water
utility services throughout the Counties of Alameda and Contra Costa; this compares to a state-wide total
of 885.. Each district has its own independent governing body,'a board of directors, which is generally
composed of 5-7 members,and a general manager to direct district operations on a day-to-day basis.
The services provided by water utility districts involve the acquisition, treatment, and
distribution of water to business, industrial, residential and institutional users. Water districts operate
and maintain water treatment and conveyance facilities as well as ensure that the water quality is
maintained. A summary of revenue, expenses and net income by county, as well as fixed asset
additions, for the water utility service districts that reported results for the 1990-91 year is as follows:
(S Million's) Fixed 1990-91
Total Asset Percentage
County Revenue Expenses Income Additions Increase
Alameda County (4) $195.4 $165.4 $30.0 $195.1 18.3%
Contra Costa (11) 76.7 41.3 35.4 63.7 37.0%
Totals (15 Districts) $272.1 $206.7 $65.4 $258.8 20.9%
Alameda County:
The County of Alameda has four special districts to perform water utility services. They are:
East Bay Municipal Utility, Alameda County Water, Alameda Flood Control and Dub)irdSan Ramon
Services.
The East Bay Municipal Utility District is by far the largest water utility district in Alameda
County. It has operating revenue three times that of the rest of the districts combined. It evolved from
the original Oakland Water Company, and has grown to serve a population of 1.2 million people. The
District spans the East Bay from Crockett to San Lorenzo, encompassing an area of 325 square miles.
The major cities served by the system include Richmond, Berkeley, Oakland and San Leandro. The
District's distribution network maintains over 3,800 miles of pipe drawing from the Pardee Reservoir as
the primary source, and pumping an average of 200 million gallons per day to its users. The District has
approximately 1,800 employees.
The second largest water utility in the County is the Alameda County Water District. It was
organized in 1914.. It serves an area of 96 square miles and a population of nearly 280,000 people,
including the major cities of Fremont,Newark and Union City. The District maintains over 757 miles of
pipe, and supports an average daily consumption of 41.23 million gallons per day. The district functions
with a staff of 176 full-time employees.
The four water utility districts in Alameda County range widely in size. In the 1990-91 Annual
Report by the State Controller, annual operating expenses for the districts range from less. than S4
Million (Dublin/San Ramon Services) to nearly $104 ilylillion (East Bay Municipal Utility). A review of
the operating statements, along with a breakout of administration and general expenses, for the County
and its four water utility districts reflects the following:
- ($ Million's) Admin & % of
Operating General Operating
Water Utility Districts Revenue Expenses Income Expenses Revenue
East Bay Municipal Utility $110.35 $103.81 $6.54 $24.13 21.9%
Alameda County Water 21.64 25.55 -3.91 8.31 38.4%
Alameda Flood Control 5.18 7.41 -2.23 1.88 36.3%
Dublin/San Ramon.Services 2.57 3.63 -1.06 2.52 98.1 %
Totals (4 Districts) $139.74 $140.40 $-.66 $36.85 26.4%
Contra Costa County:
Contra Costa County has I I special districts providing water utility services. They are: Contra
Costa Water, Oakley Water, East Contra Costa Irrigation, Byron-Bethany Irrigation, Castle Rock Nater,
Diablo Vista Water, Crockett-Valona Water, El Sobrante Water, County services Area M-25, Oakley-
Bethel Island Water Management Authority,and County Water Agency.
Of these eleven,the dominant district in the County is Contra Costa Water District. It accounts
for 90% of the County's annual operating revenue. It was formed as a legal entity in 1936. The District
serves approximately 400,000 people over the central and northeastern parts of the County; an area in
excess of 188 square miles, in the cities of Martinez, Pleasant Hill, Concord, Walnut Creek,
Pittsburg and Antioch. The District's main source of water is the Sacramento-San Joaquin (Bay-Delta)
estuary. Its supply system consists of the 48 mile Contra Costa Canal and the reservoir storage facilities
at Contra Loma, Mallard and Martinez. Contra Costa Water District's distribution nerwork maintains
over 735 miles of pipe, 42 storage reservoirs,.and 32 pump stations. The District's customers consume
water throughout the year at a rate of 91 million gallons per day. The district maintains a staff of 275
full-time equivalent employees.
The eleven water utility districts in Contra Costa County differ dramatically in the size of their
operations. Looking at the 1990-91 annual operating expenses, only three of the eleven districts had
expenditures of more than $1 Million. Collectively, the three accounted for over 95% of the total annual
operating expenditures made for water utility services in the County.
A review of the operating statements, along with a breakout of administration and general
expenses, for the three water utility districts and for the County in total reflects the following:
6
($ Million's) Admin & % of
Operating General Operating
Water Utility Districts Revenue Expenses Income Expenses Revenue
Contra Costa Water $51.07 $26.18 $24.90 $9.11 - 17.8%
Oakley Water 4.03 2.71 1.32 0.54 13.4%
East Contra Costa Irrigation 1.01 1.57 -0.56 0.44 43.6%
All Other Districts (8) 0.77 0.49 0.28 1.65 214.3%
Totals (11 Districts) $56.88 $31.95 $24.94 $10.74 18.9%
Recommendations:
After reviewing the water utility districts with respect to service activity, structure and cost of
operations in both Alameda County and Contra Costa County, the following recommendations can be
made:
1) Consolidate administration and general functions within each county.
• Alameda County has 4 separate districts, all of which maintain some level of
administrative activity. This is clearly inefficient and redundant. Administrative and
general expenses in the private industry sector average approximately 14% of operating
revenue. The water utility districts in Alameda County are collectively running at a level
of operating expense of over$36.8 Million annually, a rate in excess of 26.4%, or
approximately 89% higher than private industry companies managing similar operations.
This translates into unnecessary expenditures in excess of$17 Million per year.
• ,gontra Costa County's 11 water utility districts incur over$10.7 Million each year for
administrative and general expenses, or 18.9% of operating revenue. The County is
experiencing a rate of administration and general overhead 35% higher than privately-
owned companies in the same industry. On a consolidated basis, the county could
expect a reduction of their annual operating expenses by more than $2.8 Million.
2) Reduce operating and maintenance expenditure levels.
• As reflected above, the water utility districts in Alameda County in 1990-91 reported an
operating loss of$700,000. Financial & Operating Data for Investor-Owned Water
Utilities (100 companies throughout the United States) reported a combined operating
income in 1992 that was 22% of their operating revenues. Using this standard, Alameda
County should have generated an operating income of over$30 Million. Adjusting out
the $17 Million of savings for the consolidation of administration and general expenses
noted above, this would still mean that the County should reduce its operating and
maintenance expenses by an additional $13 iVli)lion to achieve an average level of
operating results.
,
3) , Reduce fixed asset expenditures.
• Alameda County water utility districts began the year with net fixed assets of$1.1
Billion (i.e., an original cost of 11.4 Billion with an accumulated depreciation of$.3
Billion). The Financial &Operating Data for Investor-Owned Water Utilities (100
private-industry companies throughout the United States) reported a combined operating
income in 1992,that was 7%of their net fixed assets. This would be a measure similar to
A return on investment(ROI)used in the private sector to measure the success of
operating results as well as to justify fixed asset expenditure levels. By applying this
same measure,Alameda County.would have been expected in 1990-91 to have generated
an operating income of approximately$75 Million on the net assets employed
throughout the year. As noted above, based upon its operating revenue the County
should have earned an operating income of$30 Million. The conclusion drawn is that
Alameda County has an amount of net fixed assets well over twice that which is justified
based upon its level of operating activity. Nevertheless,the County continued to
increase its fixed assets,.adding$195.1 Million,or over 18%to the net fixed assets
during the 1990-91 year.
Potential AnnualS_ aviu=. $32.$Million
WASTE DISPOSAL SERVICES
Review and Assessment:
There are 25 special districts that perform waste disposal services throughout the counties of
Alameda and Contra Costa;this compares to a state-wide total of 621. In most cases, each district has its
own independent governing body, a board of directors, which is generally composed of 5-7 members,
and district operations are directed on a day-to-day basis.by a general manager.
The services provided by waste disposal districts encompass the collection, treatment and
disposal of both wastewater and solid waste. .Not all districts provide services in both areas. The
wastewater or sewerage operations initially involve the collection and transportation of wastewater from
residential, industrial and commercial sources, which is done through a network of sewer pipers and
pumping stations. The next step deals with the treatment of the wastewater in a plant that combines
physical and biological processes to remove the required levels of the solid and organic materials found
in the wastewater. The final phase is to dispose of the solid waste and to discharge the treated water.
The solid waste operations are the traditional garbage collection and disposal, including the operation of
a solid.waste disposal site.
A summary of revenue; expenses and net income by county, as well as fixed asset additions, for
the waste disposal service districts in the 1990-91 year is as follows:
8
($ Million's) Fixed 1990-91
Total Asset Percentage
County Revenue Expenses Income Additions Increase
Alameda County (9) $117.1 $77.1 $40.0 $92.2 -18.8%
Contra Costa (16) 83.6 59.2 24.4 35.3 8.0%
Totals (25 Districts) $200.7 $136.3 $64.4 $127.5 13.7%
Alameda County:
The County of Alameda has nine special districts to perform waste disposal services. They are:
Dublin/San Ramon Services, Oro Loma Sanitary, Union Sanitary, East Bay Municipal Utility, Castro
Valley Sanitary, Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management Agency, Tri-Valley Wastewater
Authority, East Bay Discharges Authority, and County Services. Although some of these districts were
formed in the early 1900's, such as Oro Loma in 1911, most of these districts came into existence later
with the significant population growth throughout the County.
The Union Sanitary District distinguishes itself as one of the two largest in the County (the other
being the East Bay Municipal Utility District). Union Sanitary was formed in 1918, and has grown to
serve a population of 265,000, including the cities of Fremont,Newark and Union City, in an area of 125
square miles. Its system of wastewater collection maintains over 716 miles of sewer pipes, and its
wastewater treatment plant processes an average of 24 million gallons per day. The district has 143
employees.
The nine waste disposal districts in Alameda County vary quite dramatically in size. In the 1990-
91 Annual Report by the State Controller, annual operating expenses for the districts range from less
than $3 Million in expenditures to more than $30 Million. Each of the first four districts detailed above
have an annual-operating expenditure level in excess of $3 Million, and account collectively for over
90% of the total annual operating expenditures made for waste disposal services in the county. A review
of the operating statements, along with a breakout of administration and general expenses, for the county
and its four major waste disposal districts reflects the following:
($ Million's) Admin & % of
Operating General Operating
Waste Disposal Districts Revenue Expenses Income Expenses Revenue
Dublin/San Ramon Services $6.50 $5.84 $.66 $1.04 16.0%
Oro Loma Sanitary 6.27 6.09 .18 1.42 22.7%
Union Sanitary 23.36 21.17 2.19 6.11 26.2%
East Bay Municipal Utility 34.21 29.44 4.78 3.92 11.5%
All Other Districts (5) 4.73 6.64 -1.92 1.06 22.1 %
Totals (9 Districts) $75.07 $69.18 $5.89 $13.55 18.0%
9
Contra Costa County:
Contra Costa County has 16 special districts providing waste disposal services, They are:
Central Contra Costa Sanitary, West Contra Costa Sanitary, Delta Diablo Sanitation, Richmond
Municipal Sewer, Byron Sanitary, Crockett-Valona Sanitary, Mountain View Sanitary, Oakley Sanitary,
Rodeo Sanitary, Stege Sanitary, County Sanitation No. 5, County Sanitation No. 78, County Sanitation
No. 15;County Sanitation No. 19,Oakley-Bethel Island Water Management Authority, and West County
Agency. On a combined basis, these districts employ over 450 people to perform operational, technical,
professional and administrative activities.
Of these sixteen, the largest district in the County is-Central Contra Costa Sanitary District,
which is larger than all of the other waste disposal districts combined. It was formed in 1946 to provide
services to a primarily rural and agricultural area with a population of 14,000. Toda y, the District serves
a total of approximately 386,000 people in terms of wastewater treatment. ' Its system of sewage
collection includes nearly 1,300 miles of underground pipes and 21 pumping stations. Central Contra
Costa Sanitary District has 280 full-time equivalent employees.
The sixteen waste disposal,districts in Contra Costa County, as in the county of Alameda, differ
significantly in size of operations. Looking at the 1990-91 annual operating expenses, the districts ran in
magnitude from less than $3 Million in expenditures to more than $30 Million. Each of the first four
districts detailed above have an annual operating expenditure level in excess of$3 Million, and account
collectively for 87% of the total annual operating expenditures made for waste disposal services in the
Contra Costa County. A review of the operating statements, along with a breakout of administration and
general expenses, for the county and its four major waste disposal districts reflects the following:
($ Million's) Admin & % of
Operating General Operating
Waste Disposal Districts Revenue Expenses Income Expenses Revenue
Central Contra Costa $25.93 $30.49 $-4.66 $7.56 29.2%
West Contra Costa 6.92 4.87 2.05 .95 13.7%
Delta Diablo 8.07 8.76 -0.69 2.13 26.4%
Richmond Municipal Sewer 4.96 4.22'. 0.74 4.22 85.1%
All Other Districts (12) 6.65 7.27 -0.62 3.20 48.1%
Totals (16 Districts) $52.53 $55.61 $-3.08 $18.06 34.4%
Recommendations:
After reviewing the waste disposal districts with respect to service activity,structure and cost of
operations in both Alameda County and Contra Costa County, the following recommendations can be
made:
10
1) Consolidate administration and general functions within each county.
• Alameda County has 9 separate waste disposal districts, all of which maintain some level
of administrative activity. This is clearly inefficient and redundant. Administrative and
general expenses in the private industry sector average approximately 14% of operating
revenue(East Bay Municipal Utility District's administration and general expenses ran
at a rate of 11.5%of operating revenue). The waste disposal districts in Alameda
County are collectively running at a level of operating expense of over$13.5 Million
annually, a rate in excess of 18%, or approximately 29% higher than private industry
companies. This translates into unnecessary expenditures in excess of$3 Million per
year.
• Contra Costa County's 16 waste disposal districts incur over$18 Million each year for
administrative and general expenses,or 34,4%of operating revenue. This is a level two
and a half times that of private industry standards. On a consolidated basis, the County
could expect a reduction of their annual operating expenses by more than $10.7 Million.
2) Reduce fixed asset expenditures.
• Alameda County waste disposal districts began the year with net fixed assets of$490
Million (i.e., an original cost of$640 Million with an accumulated depreciation of$150
Million). The County's operating income in 1990-91 was only 1.2%of their net fixed
assets. As noted above,this is a measure similar to a return on investment(ROI)used in
the private sector to measure the success of operating results as well as to justify fixed
asset expenditure levels. This amount of operating income in relation to the amount of
net assets utilized is below an unacceptable level. Nevertheless, the County continued to
increase its fixed assets,adding$95.2 Million, or nearly 19% to the net fixed assets
during the 1990-91 year.
• --rContra Costa County waste disposal districts began the year with net fixed assets of$443
Million (i.e., an original cost of$535 Million with an accumulated depreciation of$92
Million). The County had an operating loss in 1990-91 of$-3.1 Million. This operating
loss in relation to the amount of net assets utilized is unacceptable. During the year,
Contra Costa County increased its fixed assets, adding $35.3 Million, or approximately
8%to the net fixed assets during the 1990-91 year.
Potential Annual Savings: 513.7 Million
FLOOD CONTROL
Review and Assessment:
The Counties of Alameda and Contra Costa each have one district to address the activity of flood
control and water conservation. The activity level and resource commitment of the flood control and
water conservation district in Alameda County is substantially greater than that of Contra Costa County.
Through 1991, Alameda County had acquired fixed assets of $95 Million as compared to$1 Million in
Contra Costa County.
11
Alameda County:
Alameda County's Flood Control and Water Conservation District was created in 1949. The
District-was formed to provide for the conveyance and conservation of flood and storm waters; the
protection of watercourses, watersheds, public highways, and life and property from damage or
destruction from such waters; the prevention of waste or deterioration of the water supply; and the
devefopment and importation of water for beneficial use within the district. The District's boundaries
coincide with those of Alameda County.
In terms of governance, the Board of Supervisors of Alameda County are also the Board of
Supervisors for the District. They have the authority to adopt all ordinances, resolutions, and other
legislative acts necessary for the administration and governing of the District. The basic act of the
District provides for the.formation of zones in the areas where improvements are to be constructed. The
zone boundaries are established so that each zone generally constitutes a major watershed. Each of these
zones is a financial entity which provides the funds for construction and maintenance of the facilities
within its particular zone. The Board of Supervisors are empowered to levy taxes or assessments in each
or any of the zones to pay the cost of constructing and maintaining the approved projects. The Alameda
County flood control system, consisting of 10 active zones, is an integrated flood protection program
which includes such means of controlling water as dams, debris basins, levees, channels, pump plants,
pipelines,etc. .
Zone,7,which comprises 425.square miles, or more than half the area of Alameda County, is the
only zone which has its own elective board of seven directors. All proposed budgets, projects or taxes of
Zone 7 must first be approved by the Zone Board of Directors prior to consideration by the Board of
Supervisors. In addition to its flood control work, Zone 7 imports water from the California Water
Projects, filters and purifies the water at two water treatment plants and delivers it into the municipal
distribution systems in the Livermore,-Pleasanton and Dublin areas.
A rey ew of the 1993-94 Budget for the County of Alameda Flood Control and Water
Conservation District reflects the following:
1993-94
BUDGET
Salary&Benefits $27,246,308
Services&Supplies 6,7851722
Other 1,045,389
Fixed Assets 827.216
Total District Costs 535.904.635
The staffing in support of this budget includes 88 management and 383 non-management employees for
a total of 471.
Contra Costa County:
The Contra Costa County Flood Control District has the same geographical boundary as the
County, and is governed by its Board of Supervisors. Within the District, individual flood control zones,
subzones, drainage areas and stormwater utility areas have been formed to construct and/or maintain
drainage systems to reduce stormwater pollution. There are approximately 25 watershed basins within
the County that have been subdivided into approximately 184 drainage areas.
12
The purpose of the District is to plan, design, construct and maintain the drainage infrastructure
in Contra Costa County. The District.maintains hydrology records for use in forecasting quantities.of
stormwater runoff, reviews development/improvement plans to insure adequate drainage improvements
are provided as a part of the development process, solicits support from state and federal agencies in the
construction of regional channel improvements and develops regional drainage plans to serve both city
and County areas. The District owns capital facilities in the County consisting of dams, drop structures,
concrete lined channels,concrete culverts, earth and rock lined channels and storm drain pipe systems.
The 1993-94 Budget for the Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District is as
follows:
1993-94
BUDGET
Salary& Benefits $ 0
Services& Supplies 387,819
Other 0
Fixed Assets 40.000
Total District Costs $ 427.819
Recommendations:
1) Consolidate the two county flood control districts into a single regional entity.
• Each county functions autonomously in the area of flood control and water conservation.
Alameda County's level of activity and staffing is significantly greater than Contra Costa
County's. It is reasonable to believe that Contra Costa County's flood control effort
could be maintained on a regional basis by Alameda County without additional staffing.
Potential Annual Savings,; $.4 Million
AMM11 ANCE /EMERGENCY DTC'Ai SFRUCES
Review and Assessment:
The County of Alameda and Contra Costa County each have one special district to perform
ambulance/emergency medical services within their respective county boundaries. These districts are of
a type of special district within the county called a County Service Area (CSA) District. There are 15 of
such CSA districts in Alameda County and 30 in Contra Costa County. Activities performed by such
districts are overseen by the county, and are coordinated through the county's organizational structure.
Ambulance/emergency medical services are incorporated into the Health Care Services Agency of the
counties.
13
Alameda County:
in Alameda County, the CSA District EM-1983-1 provides emergency medical services to the
residents of the County. The emergency medical services budget covers the total cost to the County of
providing paramedic emergency medical services and associated EMS program activities including
trauma system costs. The budget provides for subsidizing of emergency paramedic ambulance services,
funds for EMT-I training and* equipment for fire department first responders,_County central dispatch
(CMED),trauma system subsidy and Agency administration and medical direction of the EMS program.
A review of the 1993-94 District EM-1983-1 Budget for the County of Alameda reflects the
following:
1993-94
BUDGE
Salary&Benefits $ 795,662
Services& Supplies 15,896,798
Other 621,182
Fixed Assets 478,000
Total District Costs $17.791 642
The staffing in support of this budget includes 10 management and 5 non-management employees.
Contra Costa County:
In Contra Costa County, the CSA District EM-1A and EM-1B provides the emergency medical
services. The County's 1993-94 budget includes the following:
1993-94
_BUDGET
Salary&Benefits $ 187,848
Services & Supplies 5,035,443
Other 231,879
Fixed Assets 430,000
Total District Costs 55,885,17n
Recommendations:
1) Consolidate the emergency medical services districts into a single regional entity.
• Each county provides its own ambulance/emergency medical services,and operates
autonomously within their respective county boundaries. Each county maintains
separate and distinct certification requirements with respect to emergency medical
professionals. As a result,there are occasions when response time is less than optimal
due to these restrictions. Consolidation would offer more efficient and effective service
to the public, at the same time saving on purchased services and administrative costs.
Potential Annual Savings: 52.4 Million
14
LIBEARY SERVICES
Review and Assessment,
Alameda County: _
The Alameda County Library, which incorporates three special districts, provides library
services throughout the county, except for the cities of Berkeley, Oakland, Piedmont, Emeryville,
Alameda, Hayward, San Leandro and Livermore. The unincorporated areas are served by branch
libraries in San Lorenzo and Castro Valley. The Main Library is located in Fremont with services
provided by branches located in the cities of Dublin, Newark, Union City, Pleasanton and Albany.
Additionally, outreach services are offered through the Bookmobile, the Literacy Program, the Senior
Outreach Program,the County Jails and by contract with the federal Correctional Institution in Dublin.
The library services provided by the County can be broken down into three major service areas;
public services, administration and support services, and automated and technical services. Public
services are the core services made directly available through the collection of materials, including
books, magazines/newspapers, videos, etc., for users of all ages. It also includes reference and
information services in person and by telephone. Other public services involve specialized programs for
children, literacy tutoring and senior outreach.
Administration and support services provide centralized system-wide management and
administration of the County library including personnel and payroll services; emergency staffing and
scheduling; secretarial and clerical support; building maintenance; centralized purchasing of office
equipment and supplies; business and accounting services for the payment of system invoices; delivery
services from the Administrative Headquarters to and between the branch libraries; centralized mail
services; and community and public relations coordination for the system.
Automated and technical services provide system-wide support for the management and
maintenance of..:,an integrated automated system, providing both circulation services and catalog
information for the public, system automation training, and public and staff PC support; centralized
ordering, cataloging, and processing of library material; centralized interlibrary loan services within the
library system and to outside libraries; and the maintenance of information and referral files. The library
system software,provided and supported by Innovative Interfaces of Berkeley, is the latest-generation of
software, and is a fully integrated circulation system.
The 1993-94 Proposed Budget for the County Library called for $9.9 Million of appropriations
with a breakdown as follows:
1993-94
BUDGET
Salary& Benefits $6,147,618
Services& Supplies 3,256,597
Other(net of Intra Fund Transfers) 363,916
Fixed Assets 110.210
Net Appropriations 1 •gam 4X
The projected staffing needs for the Alameda County Library for the 1993-94 Budget year called for 35
s management and 124 non-management employees for a total of 159.
15
The Alameda County Library is organized under the 1911 County Free Library Law which now
constitutes Sections 19100 - 19180 of the State of California Education Code. As such the Board of
Supervisors serves as the governing board for the library. While for purposes of property tax allocation
the county library is considered a special district, for operational purposes it operates as a county,
department and is subject to all the policies, rules and regulations of such. The Board of Supervisors
established an advisory Library Commission which now operates with 15 members.
Contra Costa County:
The Contra Costa County Library, which incorporates four special districts, provides services
throughout the county, except for the city of Richmond, through a central library, 17 branches, 3 outlets,
2 detention facility libraries and a bookmobile. Its major areas of service are branches and extension
services,the central library,community relations,administration and support services.
The 17 branch libraries serve specific cities and communities in the county with a wide range of
collections, programs and services for library users of all ages. Each of the branches offers reference
services and recreational reading materials for adults and children, building collections that reflect the
special interests and composition of the community service areas. In addition, the branches offer a full
range of children's programs designed to promote reading and lifelong use of the library for recreation
and information. Examples of such program's are Toddler Time and Picture Book Time for preschoolers,
and story hours for older children and adults.
The Central Library in Pleasant Hill functions simultaneously as a branch to its immediate
geographic area, as the main resource center for the general public of Contra Costa County, and as a
back-up for each branch library. The Central Library offers materials and services too costly or
impractical to duplicate in every community, but of interest to residents in many communities. As a
resource for the branch libraries, the Central Library is where the branch staff look for help, information,
advice and service to meet the needs of their users.
As wf 'Alameda County, Contra Costa County Library provides its own Administration and
Support Services. Administration is responsible for the overall operation of the library and the effective
provision of library'services to the public. Major areas of responsibility include planning and evaluating
library services,; budget development, expenditure of funds, and the library's additional fiscal
responsibilities; personnel administration and labor relations; facilities maintenance, capital projects and
new library construction; local, state and federal legislation of interest to libraries; legal requirements
and compliance; development and implementation of library policy; and staff development and training.
Support services include both the technical and automation services of the library. The technical
services involve the acquiring, cataloging and circulating of library materials. The acquisition unit
coordinates the selection of material which is performed by public service staff, identifies and negotiates
.discounts with vendors and maintains the financial and accounting records,-Once materials arrive at the
library, they are catalogued on a CD-ROM based system-and processed to make them available to the
public. The processing unit prepares the material for circulation by entering information into the
library's database of materials, and making physical changes to the book, such as putting a label on the
spine.
16
The Contra Costa County Library uses a variety of automated systems and applications to
improve the quality and efficiency of services available to the public. The Automation Department
maintains the library's automated circulation system on a UNIX-based system operating on a Sequent
minicomputer, using 90 terminals to link the 21 library branches with the system at the central
administration site. The Automation Department also manages an IBM token ring local area network at
the Administration site, enabling the staff to share information and peripherals, and providing training to
library staff in word processing, spreadsheets,and graphic design.
The 1993-94 Proposed Budget for the Contra Costa County Library called for $11.1 Million of
appropriations with a functional breakdown as follows:
1993-94
BUDGET
Administration $1,894,973
Branch& Extension Services 5,684,919
Central Library 2,006,442
Community Relations 222,938
Support Service 1,337.628
Net Appropriations S1L146.900
The projected staffing needs for the County Library for the 1993-94 Proposed Budget year called for 156
employees.
The Contra Costa County Library was organized under the 1911 County Free Library Law which
now constitutes Sections 19100- 19180 of the State of California Education Code. As such the Board of
Supervisors serves as the governing board for the library. While for purposes of property tax allocation
the county library is considered a special district, for operational purposes it operates as a county
department and-is subject to all the policies, rules and regulations of such. In 1991 the Board of
Supervisors established an advisory Library•Commission which now operates with 26 members. The
specific advisory duties of the Commission include participating in the planning process, holding public
hearings, monitoring the achievement of goals and reporting on such achievements to the Board of
Supervisors and County Librarian, making recommendations on the library budget, assisting in the
development of policies, and determining necessary funding levels and alternative levels of financing.
Recommendations:
After reviewing the library systems with respect to functionality,structure and cost of operations
of both Alameda County and Contra Costa County,the following conclusions became evident:
1) Consolidate the two county library systems into a single regional entity.
Each county functions autonomously providing administrative and technical support to
the branches it serves. In the case of Contra Costa County, 36 employees out of a total
of 156 are involved in the administrative and technical support effort. In terms of
budgeted dollars, this is approximately $3? Million, or 29 % of the total budget of$1 1.1
Million, spent on administrative and support activities.
17
• In terms of tech nicalservices, both counties currently support their own library systems
with computer hardware, software and staff. This is a costly duplication in tight of ever-
changing computer technology. A system analysis should be made to determine which
county's computer system can better support the combined entity on a going forward
-basis.
2) Assimilate city library systems currently outside the counties' systems into the consolidated
structure as branches with the governing authority jointly exercised by the two boards of
supervisors.
• Major cities in both counties have independent and autonomous library systems which
duplicate administration and technical support. This is an obvious area of redundancy,
and should be eliminated.
P.otential Annual a vin R: $2.5 Million
Note: This does not include the additional costs to consolidate the city libraries, which are presently
outside the county system,nor does it include the significant savings(more than offsetting)that would be
realized due to such consolidation, since city library budget information was unavailable.
EQLICE PROTECTION
Review andAssessment:
The County of Alameda and Contra Costa County both maintain a Sheriff's Department. The
centrai mission of both departments is to preserve the peace and to maintain, order within their
unincorporated area through the active enforcement of state and local laws, the arrest of violators, the
investigation of criminal offenses, and the execution of court orders. To achieve this comprehensive
mission, the Sheriff's Departments are staffedaccordingly. The 1993-94 budgets reflect a personnel
commitment of 1,051 in Alameda Countyand 459 in Contra Costa County.
The East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) is .a special district.that falls geographically
within the consolidated boundaries of both Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. The District's police
operations provide basic police services to its parks.and recreation areas as well as to the properties of
the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). The department is responsible for criminal
investigations, crime analysis and crime prevention. It consists of patrol teams, an investigations unit
and a helicopter unit. The helicopter unit also provides specialized support to other divisions within the
District. The 1993-94 budget for the*East Bay Regional Park police services is as follows:
1993-94
$IST_
Salary& Benefits $3,543,854
Services & Supplies 311,911
Capital Outlays _110,210
Total Budget S3.851W
The projected staffing to support this budget is 51 full-time equivalent employees.
18
Recommendations:
•S
After reviewing police protection for certain special districts with respect to their functionality,
structure and cost of operations in both Alameda County and Contra Costa County, the following
conclusions became evident:
1) Consolidate the police services of the East Bay Regional Park District into the Sheriff's
-Department within each County-
• EBRPD functions autonomously providing police services and support to the parks and
recreation areas within the District. Both Counties maintain the capabilities to carry
.such services. To have a separate police department for the EBRPD is a redundancy,
.and a poor utilization of resources currently available.
Potential Annual Savings: $3.9 Million
CO TNTY SCHOOLS
Review and Assessment:
Both the County of Alameda and Contra Costa County are structured similarly with respect to
the Office of Education and the school districts that are located within their boundaries. As previously
noted, county offices of education have had traditional ties with both the state and the local school
districts that lie within the county boundaries. The county offices have served the role of interpreter and
reviewer of state policy, and have had the responsibility of ensuring compliance in the school districts in
such areas as fiscal integrity, district boundary changes, credentialing, staff assignment, district
organization, and student due process appeals.
The office of education within each county is managed by the superintendent who reports to the
board of education. The board of education (7 members in Alameda County and 5 in Contra Costa
County) represents the county, and carries out its oversight responsibilities. A primary focus of the
Superintendent and the county office is to ensure the level of standards with respect to the professional
credentials of certified staff employed at school districts throughout the county. To do so, the county
office maintains a fully staffed personnel department.
The following'reflects 1992-93 data, compiled by the California Basic Educational Data System
(CBEDS), regarding enrollment and staffing for the school districts in Alameda County, Contra Costa
County, and the State:
AL.A_M_EDA CONTRA COSTA CALIFORNIA
Enrollment 190,362 134,035 5,195,777
Total Staff 17,419 12,111 488,158
19
The main functions of the county office of education have developed over the years to include
instructional and business services in addition to the basic student services. Instructional services
include those that support and give guidance to the districts in the areas of curriculum and basic
instruction. The office of education develops and provides the school districts with educational resource
programs for their use. Additionally, the counties offer professional development programs to the school
districts. The office of education also assists the districts in applying for research and other grants.
- The county office of education provides a full range of business services in support of the school
districts. These services include not only business and administrative services such as purchasing,
payroll, accounting, and data processing, but also support activities such as repair and maintenance of
equipment,media circulation,and printing services.
In the area of student services, the county office of education provides a number of core
programs and services including the regional occupational program, neighborhood youth corps,
alternative education and special education services.
Alameda County:
The 1993-94 Budget for Alameda County's Office of Education called for $14.5 Million of
appropriations with a breakdown of expenditures as follows:
1993-94
BUDGET
Salary&Benefits $9,974,387
Services& Supplies 3,895,477
Other 219,103
Fixed Assets X904.132
Net Appropriations !tt4.493.099 ,
This annual budget supported a staffing level of 197 full-time employees.
Contra Costa County:
A summary of the Proposed 1993.94 Budget Appropriations and Staffing by Program Unit for
the Contra Costa County Office of Education is as follows:
1993-94
SET STAFF
SuperintendentBoard of Education $1,009,239 14
Business Services 4,575,021 -- 52
Instructional Services 936,412 14
Student Services 25,249,051 369
Lottery 313,125 -
Interprogram Charges (2,194,966)
Totals 529.888.882 44
20
Recommendations:
Upon reviewing the current situation with respect to the Office of Education and its relationship
to the school districts within both Alameda and Contra Costa County, the following conclusions have
been reached:
1) Consolidate both county offices of education into a single regional entity.
Both counties currently provide support services in the areas of administration, business
and instructional services to their respective school districts. It is reasonable to conclude
that these support functions can be performed on a consolidated basis with only modest
increases for computer hardware capabilities and staffing,thus eliminating the need for
duplicative resources in these functions. In the case of Contra Costa County, so
employees out of a total of 449 are involved in the administrative,business and
instructional support effort. In budgeted dollars,this is approximately$6.5 Million,or
approximately 22%of the total budget of$29.9 Million,spent on administrative and
support activities. Assuming a proportionate reduction to the Alameda County Office of
Education budget with the elimination of these duplicative fu'nctions, an estimated
annual savings of$3.2 Million could be realized through this consolidation.
• Both counties, as well as a substantial number of school districts, currently operate their
own separate and competitive data processing systems. Some school districts buy
services from other counties. A consolidated Office of Education, serving school
districts in both counties, could maintain a centralized management information system
to meet the needs of the districts for fiscal, personnel, and student data on a more cost
effective basis.
• As in data processing,training and professional development is currently being planned
'and offered by the counties and the individual school districts. This results in
-,,dpplicative effort and excessive cost. The opportunity to plan,purchase, and schedule
training and professional development on a consolidated basis should realize substantial
savings over the current practice.
Potential Annual Savings: :x,3.2 Million
CONCLUSION
This report represents an effort by the joint Task Force to initiate the process of consolidation of
special districts and local government agencies within the Counties of Alameda and Contra Costa. By
reviewing and analyzing a representative sample of special districts, it has established the fact that
greater efficiencies and significant cost savings can be achieved through an aggressive program of
consolidation. A potential annual savings of$58.9 Million was calculated based upon the application of
reasonable and conservative judgments with respect to these special districts. An expanded scope of
effort by a fully-staffed team of consolidation professionals across the hundreds of special districts and
local government agencies throughout the two Counties would eliminate waste and yield substantial
savings.
21