The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 05031994 - 1.61 � c 1 .160 through 1 .162 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on May 3,1994, by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Smith, Bishop, DeSaulnier, Torlakson and Powers NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: CORRESPONDENCE Item No. 1.60 LETTER dated April 20, 1994, from C. M. Tong, Chair, Procurement Committee, Asian Business Association, 1091A Orchard Road, Lafayette 94549, expressing concern that the "Notice of Request for Statements of Prequalification" for construction of the replacement of Merrithew Memorial Hospital restricts the participation of minority and women business enterprises on this project due to the fact that many of them do not have a union agreement. ***REFERRED TO COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR 1.61 LETTER dated April 5, 1994, from M. K. Fong, Vice Chairman, State Board of Equalization, 13200 Crossroads Parkway North, Suite 450, City of Industry 91746, regarding implementation of Proposition 172. ***REFERRED TO COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR 1.62 LETTER dated April 13, 1994, from Greg Feere, Chief Executive Officer, Contra Costa Building and Trades Council, 935 Alhambra Avenue, Suite No. 2, Martinez 94553, submitting its proposal on employment goals for the Merrithew Hospital Replacement Project. ***ACKNOWLEDGED RECEIPT I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copyof an action taken andenteredon the minutes of the Board of SuV\ on the data shown. ATTESTED-T=a� 1?�I la( +-1 PHIL BATCHEL Clerk of the Mrd of Supawlsors and County Administrator Bv_i A�Y1SZQn� o iwD �Jv --�,Deputy cc: Correspondents County Administrator SE.,L OF 91f+evwswv�as.mme• ECEIVED CqL IFpNN�' OR 2 61994 MATTHEW K. FONG CLERK BOAR"a OF SUPERVISORS MEMBER CONTfs ,COSTA CO. STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION April 5, 1994 The Honorable Tom Powers Contra Costa county Supervisor 651 Pine Street, 11th F1. Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Mr. Powers: The public agrees we need increased funding for local law enforcement. That is why they approved Proposition 172 . Now, many cities and counties are not allocating these new funds for law enforcement and fire prevention. I have spoken with a number of sheriffs and district attorneys throughout California in recent days about this issue and I am concerned. Admittedly, I opposed Proposition 172 because the language of the measure was not worded to ensure that law enforcement agencies would receive the new tax money. The taxpayers of California were told that the revenue generated by the permanent half-cent sales tax increase would be earmarked for public safety programs. Proponents inferred that our streets would be safer because this money would enable local government to hire more deputies; more district attorneys and more firefighters. It has become evident that local governments have not been allocating this revenue to law enforcement-related budgets. Although the proposition dedicates these funds to public safety, the official ballot repeatedly indicates that the tax will be used for programs, such as sheriffs, police, firefighters, and district attorneys. In short, the people of California believed they were voting for a permanent tax that would be used to make their streets safe from crime and fires. Many of your colleagues, however, are directing the money to programs under the generality of "public safety. " 13200 CROSSROADS PARKWAY NORTH,SUITE 450 1020 N STREET,ROOM 125 CITY OF INDUSTRY,CA 91746-3497 SACRAMENTO,CA 95814 (310)908-0524 (916)445-4664 (310)908-0534 FAX (916)324-3984 FAX The Honorable Tom Powers April 5, 1994 Page 2 During debate on the measure, I was concerned that this "reallocation" might take place. Local officials have a moral obligation to uphold the will of the people and not circumvent the voters' decision based on generalities. At a time when the public views fighting crime as our state's highest priority, elected officials need to deal honestly with the voters. Further, and most importantly, the men and women who put their lives on the line, to protect us and keep the peace, deserve more. Elected officials must embody integrity since people do not follow those, whom they cannot trust. I urge you not to play budget games with the Proposition 172 money. Allocating the revenue to law enforcement, and then imposing budget cuts equal to or in excess of those dollars, is not what the people had in mind when they passed the measure. Warmest re ards, CA , I Matthew K. Fon Vice Chairman MKF/SD:msw L r� _�y,,..� * 4 n CA et � M r 0. 1: cn i O cn 0 td.� TA X41 `C. ,n a ZW t7 V M a O 00- 0 O Y4 U d; croO N U- � NCO d w 0 �o M SEn�OF t F H •��i� liL7 MATTHEW K. FONG MEMBER STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION April 5, 1994 The Honorable Thomas Torlakson Cuhtra Costa county Supervisor 651 .Pine Street, lith Fl. Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Mr. Torlakson: The public agrees we need increased funding for local law enforcement. That is why they approved Proposition 172. Now, many cities and counties are not allocating these new funds for law enforcement and fire prevention. I have spoken with a number of sheriffs and district attorneys 'throughout California in recent 'days about this issue and I am concerned.- Admittedly, oncerned:Admittedly, I opposed Proposition 172 because the - language of the measure was not. worded to ensure that law enforcement agencies would receive the new tax money. The taxpayers of California were told that the revenue generated by the permanent half-cent sales tax increase would be earmarked for public safety programs. Proponents inferred that our streets would be safer because this money would enable local government to hire more deputies, more district attorneys and more firefighters.. It has become evident that local governments have not been allocating this. revenue to law enforcement-related budgets. Although the proposition dedicates these funds to public safety, the official ballot repeatedly indicates that the tax will be used for programs, such as sheriffs, police, firefighters, and district attorneys. In short, the people of California believed they were voting for a permanent tax that would be used to make their streets safe from crime and fires. Many of your colleagues, however, are directing the money to programs under the generality of "public safety. " 13200 CROSSROADS PARKWAY NORTH,SUITE 450 1020 N STREET,ROOM 125 CITY OF INDUSTRY,CA 91746-3497 SACRAMENTO,CA 95814 (310)908-0524 (916)445-4664 (310)908-0534 FAX (916)324-3984 FAX The Honorable Thomas Torlakson April 5, 1994 Page 2 During debate on the measure, I was concerned that this "reallocation" might take place. Local officials have a moral obligation to uphold the will of the people and not circumvent the voters' decision based on generalities. At a time when the public views fighting crime as our state's highest priority, elected officials need to deal honestly with the voters. Further, and most importantly, the men and women who put their lives on the line, to protect us and keep the peace, deserve more. Elected officials must embody integrity since people do not follow those whom they cannot trust. I urge you not to play budget games with the Proposition 172 money. Allocating the revenue to law enforcement, and then imposing budget cuts, equal to or in excess of those dollars, is not what the people had in mind when they passed the measure. Warmest regards, Matthew K. Fon Vice Chairman MKF/SD:msw . �. #¥«* IL r CP % iCl 6 C f : W`A K - � �IPA r \. 00 $ m � o � \ � 0 m . m JP � \ . � \ � may» �kk . OOW 0 gfƒ 00. ■ 9 � f$° 0 �\ e � �� /tai-of c'1CF.01", MATTHEW K. FONG MEMBER STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION April 5, 1994 The Honorable Gayle Bishop Contra Costa County Supervisor 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 • Dear Ms. Bishop: The public agrees we need increased funding for local law enforcement. That is why they approved Proposition 172 . Now, many cities and counties are not allocating these new funds for law enforcement and fire prevention. I have spoken with a number of sheriffs and district attorneys throughout California ..in recent days about this issue and I am concerned: "- Admittedly, ' I, opposed .Proposition 172 because the language of the measure was not worded to ensure that law enforcement agencies would receive the new tax money. The taxpayers of California were told that the revenue .generated by the permanent half-cent sales tax increase would be earmarked for public safety programs. Proponents inferred that our streets would be safer because' this money would enable local government to hire more deputies, more district attorneys and more firefighters. It has become evident that local governments have not been allocating this revenue to law enforcement-related budgets. Although the proposition dedicates these funds to public safety, the official ballot repeatedly indicates that. the tax will be used for programs, such 'as sheriffs, police, firefighters, and district attorneys. In short, the people of California believed they were voting for a permanent tax that would be used to make their streets..safe, from crime and fires. Many of your colleagues, however, are directing the 1 .money to programs under the generality of "public safety. " 13200 CROSSROADS PARKWAY NORTH,SUITE 450 1020 N STREET,ROOM 125 CITY OF INDUSTRY,CA 91746-3497 - SACRAMENTO,CA 95814 (310)908-0524 (916)445-4664 (310)908-0534 FAX (916)324-3984 FAX The Honorable Gayle Bishop April 5, 1994 Page 2 During debate on the measure, I was concerned that this "reallocation" might take place. Local officials have a moral obligation to uphold the will of the people and not circumvent the voters' decision based on generalities. At a time when the public views fighting crime as our • state's highest priority, elected officials need to deal honestly with the voters. Further, and most importantly, the men and women who put their lives on the line, to protect us and keep the peace, deserve more. Elected officials must embody integrity since people do not follow those whom they cannot trust. I urge you not to play budget games with the Proposition 172 money. Allocating the revenue to law enforcement, and then imposing budget cuts equal to or in excess of those dollars, .is not what the people had in mind when they passed the measure. Warmest re ards, Matthew K. Fon Vice Chairman MKF/SD:msw W M m tYl v, yI C� M H w U! 1 0 a FA J LO O ++ 0 U Q) 4� N rt ul to )a 0 U-W N O (Cl -H Z x M [L •-1 1! +1 Q) r..r-4 ;4 4 cn ro L \) %CLO H 0 a Z O_H ~fin 'V �(1)rn zJ=C? Q �¢~v 00� �+ Wzrn xLL>- o > Q¢¢ W maw x W(n0 �o LL 0 Q ¢Cf)} co2U W U O N t7 pr SEPI.OF j p1 , Nuc P: U I�11 q</FOPNP MATTHEW K. FONG MEMBER STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION April 5, 1994 • The Honorable Mark Desaulnier Contra Costa County Supervisor 651 Pine Street, 11th F1. Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Mr. Desaulnier: The public agrees we need increased funding for local law enforcement. That is why they approved Proposition 172 . Now, many cities and counties are not allocating these new funds for law enforcement and fire prevention. I .have spoken with a number of sheriffs and district attorneys. throughout `California in recent days about this issue and I am concerned. Admittedly, I opposed Proposition 172 because the language of the measure was not worded to ensure that law enforcement agencies would receive the new tax money. The taxpayers of California were told that the revenue generated by the permanent half-cent sales tax increase would be earmarked for public. safety programs. Proponents inferred that our streets would' be safer because this money would enable local government to hire more deputies, more district attorneys and more firefighters. It has become evident that local governments have not been allocating this revenue to law enforcement-related budgets. Although the proposition dedicates these funds to public safety, the official ballot repeatedly indicates that the tax will be used for programs, such as sheriffs, police, firefighters, and district attorneys. In short, the people of California believed they were voting for a permanent tax- that would be used to make their streets safe from crime and fires. Many of your colleague`s, however, are directing the money to programs under the generality of "public safety. " 13200 CROSSROADS PARKWAY NORTH,SUITE 450 1020 N STREET,ROOM 125 CITY OF INDUSTRY,CA 91746-3497 SACRAMENTO,CA 95814 (310)908-0524 (916)445-4664 (310)908-0534 FAX (916)324-3984 FAX The Honorable Mark Desaulnier April 5, 1994 Page 2 During debate on the measure, I was concerned that this "reallocation" might take place. Local officials have a moral obligation to uphold the will of the people and not circumvent the voters' decision based on generalities. At a time when the public views fighting crime as our state's highest priority, elected officials need to deal honestly with the voters. Further, and most importantly, the men and women who put their lives on the line, to protect us and keep the peace, deserve more. Elected officials must ,embody integrity since people do not follow those whom they cannot trust. I urge you not to play budget games with the Proposition 172 money. Allocating the revenue to law enforcement, and then imposing budget cuts equal to or in excess of those dollars, is not what the people had in mind when they passed the measure. Warmest re rds, Matthew K. ong Vice Chair an MKF/SD:msw