HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06211994 - H.7 11"7
t
THE BOARD OR SUPERVISORS OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on _June 21, 1994 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Smith, Bishop, DeSaulnier, Torlakson, Powers
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SUBJECT: ReportandRecommendations for Special District
Consolidations in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties
Chairman Powers presented the "Report and Recommendations
for Special District Consolidations in Alameda and Contra Costa
Counties" jointly produced and written by Supervisor Don Perata
of Alameda County and Supervisor Tom Powers of Contra Costa
County. He expressed his regret that the consultant who assisted
with the drafting, of the report was unable to be present at the
meeting this day. Supervisor Powers advised that it would be his
recommendation following the presentation of the report today to
submit the report to the special districts in Contra Costa County
for their further review and more detailed comments which are to j
be submitted to the County Administrator.
Followinglan overview of the scope of the report by Mr.
Van Marter, the following persons spoke:
Doug Sizemore, representing the Sheriff's Department,
commented on the Easy Bay Regional Park contract concept.
a
Mike Walford, Public Works Director, expressed concern
with some of the 'data referenced in the report as it pertains to
the proposed merger of the Alameda and Contra Costa County Flood
Control Districts.
Bob Berggren, Chair, Contra Costa Special Districts
Association, 147 Gregory Lane, Pleasant Hill, favored an approach
which provides for the most informed analysis which maximizes
public input, and requested no action be taken on the Report but
to refer this matter to the Local Agency Formation Commission.
Board members concurred with the recommendation of
Supervisor Powers to solicit further input on the Report.
Therefore, IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the County
Administrator is JNSTRUCTED to distribute the referenced Report
to the special districts in Contra Costa County with the request
that they reexamine the report and provide any detailed comments
to the County Administrator to be incorporated in a revised Task
Force Report.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the County Administrator is
REQUESTED to schedule the revised report for consideration at a
Board meeting in ,September 1994.
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
cc• Count Administrator an action taken and entered on the minutes of trigy Boats of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: '« Z/, l x;19 Z n
PHIL BKTCHELOR,Clerk of the Board
offSupervisors and county Administrator
by ---p (J'• �� - ,Deputy
wIw.
1
HEARING H.7
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
C O N T R A C 0 S T A C O U N T Y
i
Administration Building
651 Pine Street, 11th Floor
Martinez, California 94553
DATE: June 16, 1994
TO: Supervisor Tom Powers
Supervisor Jeff Smith
Supervisor Gayle Bishop
Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier
Supervisor Tom Torlaon
FROM: Claude,- L. Van Martie
Assistant County A m' traitor
SUBJECT: BACKGROUND INFORMA ON FOR THE HEARING ON THE REPORT ON
SPECIAL DISTRICT CONSOLIDATION
On your agenda Tuesday, June 21, 1994 at 2 : 00 P.M. a hearing has
been scheduled at the Board's request, to receive input from the
special districts, affected County departments and the general
public on a report which proposes the consolidation of several
types of special, districts .
A Task Force formed last year by Supervisor Don Perata from Alameda
County and Supervisor Powers has been studying the possibilities
for saving money from eliminating duplication of administrative
overhead and duplication of services while improving the quality of
the services which are provided by local governments . The Task
Force looked both at the opportunities for savings through
consolidating special districts and for savings which might be
achieved through moving toward more regional cooperation in
providing services which are currently duplicated by each County.
The attached 'report is the result of the Task Force' s
deliberations .
As you will note' on page 2 of the Executive Summary, the Task Force
proposes that each Board of Supervisors (Alameda and Contra Costa)
hold a public hearing on the Report to solicit public input on the
recommendations . It is then proposed that the Report be forwarded
to the Joint Legislative Audit Committee and to the Assembly and
Senate Committees on Local Government. Finally, the Task Force
Report recommends that a Commission similar to the Base Closure
Commission be established by the Legislature to determine what
changes in the'' organization of special districts and county
services should be made and to forward those recommendations to the
i
e
{
i
HEARING H.7
Legislature for a single "aye" or "no" vote in each House, similar
to what happens11in Congress with the recommendations of the Base
Closure Commission.
I
In addition to the general "process" recommendations outlined above
which are contained in the Executive Summary of the Task Force
Report, the following recommendations are found in the body of the
Task Force Reporjt:
♦ Consolidated administration and general functions [of water
districts) Within each county.
♦ Reduce [wateer district] operating and maintenance expenditure
levels .
♦ Reduce [wat1,er district] fixed asset expenditures.
Consolidate administration and general functions [of waste
disposal districts] within each county.
♦ Reduce [waste disposal district] operating and maintenance
expenditure; levels .
♦ Consolidate the two county flood control districts into a
single regional entity.
♦ Consolidatethe emergency medical services districts into a
single regional entity.
♦ Consolidate the two library systems into a single regional
entity.
♦ Assimilate city library systems currently outside the
counties ' '!systems [the Richmond City Library] into the
consolidated structure as branches with the governing
authority jointly exercised by the two boards of supervisors .
♦ Consolidate the police services of the East Bay Regional Park
District into the Sheriff 's Department within each County.
♦ Consolidate both county offices of education into a single
regional entity.
Each special district in the County and the affected County
departments have been advised of this hearing and have been
provided a copyiiof the attached report.
2
,I
HEARING H.7
We understand that the Special District Association will have an
organized presentation to make. The Chairman may want to recognize
their President `initially to make their presentation. He is :
Robert Berggren, General Manager
Pleasant Hill Recreation & Park District
Following Mr. Berggren's presentation, it would probably be
appropriate to hear from other individuals and organizations and
then determine hbw the Board wishes to address each of the general
recommendations as well as the specific, program-related
recommendations We understand that .Alameda- County.-.has:-not yet
held its hearing.
We would suggest that the Board try to focus the attention of
speakers on thei;general and specific recommendations, rather than
the specific projected savings which are mentioned in the report.
Obviously, the ability to achieve savings in any particular dollar
amount depends on a number of variables . We do not think it is
particularly helpful to either attack or attempt to defend these
particular numbers since they are, at best, only illustrative.
We believe the important points of the report are:
1 . We have too, many local governments in Contra Costa and Alameda
Counties and they might well be consolidated in order to
achieve administrative savings without hurting (and, in fact,
probably helping) the level of direct services to the public.
2 . Each County has to duplicate many of the same services to its
residents . 'I The examples explored in the report include flood
control, lemergency medical services, libraries, law
enforcement provided by special districts, and offices of
education (the County Superintendent of Schools) . However,
these are only examples. The same comparison could be made to
virtually any service which both counties provide. There may
be some unnecessary costs in duplicating these same services
in both counties and opportunities for savings by combining
these services should be explored.
CLVM:amb
van6-61-94
Attachment
3
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 Scomienchi, Alameda Co Superintendent of Schools
Peter Smith, Attorney
Steve Szaly, Alameda Co CAO
Chris Treble, Businessman
Perfecto Villarreal, Contra Costa Co Social Services Director
Clau&.'Von 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
i
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.
r
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 parkpolice 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 stu'dv'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.
I
• 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 11 in Contra
Costa 1;8.9%. These overhead rates are from 35%to 89% higher than
private'industry companies managing similar operations.
a
• Alameda County's water districts should reduce their operating expenses
11
by over,,$30 million annually. This would bring their level of operating
incomel'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 justnfy. These districts added 18% ($195.1 million) to net fixed
assets in 1990-1991.
• ,I
Contra,,Costa's 16 waste disposal districts spend 34.4% on administrative
overhead. Consolidation could reduce costs by more than$10.7 a year.
t
I
• Alameda and Contra Costa have virtually identical emergency medical
service's systems. Each operates autonomously. Potential savings of$2.4
million a year and improved response time could result from creating
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
Bay 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:
i.
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
11
onslaught of special interests likely to converge in Sacramento to protect the status quo
and defeat reforms, we make the following recommendations:
11
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:
Before submitting this report to the legislature in June,Alameda and Contra Costa
11
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 accomple ish the intended results.
The commission would function much as the federal commission used to close
and realign the nations 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. 1
r
I'
gi
,
REPORT QN IfE CONSOLIDATION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
4•
r
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
key facts. On an annual basis,approximately 6,700 agencies of local government spend over$72 Billion
throughout the state of California. Of these local agencies, only a small number account for the
traditional structure of city and county governments, with approximately 460 cities and 58 counties
formed within the state of Carlifornia. 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.
6
I
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, 3,183 of these districts,
over 62 %, have their own g9veming body, either elected or appointed. Of the remainder of special
districts in California, 1,781 them em fall under the authority of a county board of supervisors, while only
158 are governed by a city col uncil. 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 the most 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 underliwhich violations are punishable.
1! 104.
Special districts are different from most other 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 not. They may be limited to a single mission or purpose, or they may perform a
multiplicity of functions or activities.
I'
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 waste
disposal districts. Non-enterphse districts, by contrast,are those that are operated and administered as a
government unit,and are financed from taxes or other general revenues.
1,
A breakdown of the number of special districts by enterprise and non-enterprise activities for the
Counties of Alameda and Conte Costa,as well as the for the State,is as follows
li
ALAMMDA CONTRA COSTA CALIFORNIA
Enterprise
Electric 1 0 49
Hospitals 2 4 80
Transit 4 9 74
Waste Disposal 9 16 621
Water Utility 1, 5 14 885
Other 0 0
i
Subtotal-Enterpriire 43 LM
2
ALAMEEDA CONTRA COSTA CALIFORNIA
Non-Enterprise.
e
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
Subtotal-Non-Enterprise 66
Totals 5,639
It is worth noting for clarification that when categorized by separate activity performed, the number of
f
districts is approximately 10%1 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 $189
Million in non-enterprise activities. Contra Costa County's 152 special districts spent a total of$470
Million for expenditures in 1940-91,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 elementary, high
school and unified school districts. The following table reflects this breakdown for Alameda and Contra
Costa Counties as well as for the State.
3
ALAMIMA CONTRA COSTA CALIFORNIA
Elementary t 9 601
High School 0 2 109
Unified 17 7 296
Total School Districts —0 —0 1,006
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 F 6rce 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.
I
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 wanted"to focus on the service area of the Office
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
$eXiew 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-today 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 T
and maintain water treatment iid 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:
(8 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 Distracts) 8272.1 8206.7 865.4 8258.8 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 Dublin/San 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 ofFremont,Newark and Union City. The District maintains over 757 miles of
pipe, and supports an average daily consumption of 41.25 million gallons per day. The district functions
with a staff of 176 full-time employees.
5
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 fess than $4
Million (Dublin/San Ramon Services)to nearly $104 Million (East Bay Municipal Utility). A review of
the operating statements, along with a breakout of administration and general expenses, for the County
and its four water utility districts reflects the following:
($ 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 _21.90i6
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 3.631 -1.06 2.52 98.1%
Totals K 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 Water,
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,�including the cities of Martinez, PIeasant 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 network maintains
over 735 miles of pipe, 42 storage reservoirs, and 32 pump stations. The District's customers consume
water throughout the year at a rats 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 1!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%
1W
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 leve)
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.
• Contra 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 Million to achieve an average level of
operating results.
7
3) Reduce fixed asset expenditures.
Alameda County water utility districts began the year with net fixed assets of$1.I
Billion(i.e.,an original cost of$1.4 Billion with an accumulated depreciation of$.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 ,r
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$195.1 Million,or over 18%to the net fixed assets
during the 1990-91 year.
potential Annual Savings: S32.8Million
WASTE DISPOSAL SEA CFS
Review and Assessment:
There are 25 special',districts that perform waste disposal services throughout the counties of
Alameda and Contra Costa;this compares to a state-wide total of 621. In most cases, each district has its
own independent governing body, a board of directors, which is generally composed of 5-7 members,
and district operations are directed on a day-to-day basis by a general manager.
The services provided by waste disposal districts encompass the collection, treatment and
disposal of both wastewater and solid waste. Not all districts provide services in both areas. The
wastewater or sewerage operations initially involve the collection and transportation of wastewater from
residential, industrial and commercial sources, which is done through a network of sewer pipers and
pumping stations. The next step deals with the treatment of the wastewater in a plant that combines
physical and biological processes to remove the required levels of the solid and organic materials found
in the wastewater. The final+phase is to dispose of the solid waste and to discharge the treated water.
The solid waste operations are the traditional garbage collection and disposal, including the operation of
a solid waste disposal site.
A summary of revenue,expenses and net income by county,as well as fixed asset additions, for
the waste disposal service districts in the 1990-91 year is as follows:
8
($ Million's) Fixed 1990-91
Total Asset Percentage
County i 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, 10ro, Loma Sanitary, Union Sanitary, East. Bay Municipal Utility, Castro
Valley Sanitary, Livermore-I 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,alolng 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. Today,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 286 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 $-4.56 $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 25'.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:
to
I
l) Consolidate administ0tion 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 CostaCounty's 16 waste disposal districts incur over$18 Million each year for
administrative land 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.
• Contra 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
development 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 forrnatiori-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 review 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 6,785,722
Other 1,045,389
Fixed Assets 827,216
Total District Costs $35.904"
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. TheDistrict 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
,BUDS
Salary&Benefits 0
Services&Supplies 387,819
Other 0
Fixed Assets _44.444
Total District Costs , 427.$12
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: SA Million
AMM Ti NC /EY MEDICAL SERVICES
Review and Assessment:
The County of Alameda and Contra Costa County each have one special district to perform
ambulancelemergency 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
BUDGET
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-IA and EM-113 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 430.400
Total District Costs , 5.885.170
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 AnnualS,ayjnos; S2.4 Million
14
I.IB A RY• 'SERVIC S
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-L-item-3r iProgrramt 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 isupport services provide centralized system-wide management and
administration of the County ilibrary 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
B,IMGET
Salary&Benefits $6,147,618
Services& Supplies 3,256,597
Other(net of Intra Fund Transfers) 363,916
Fixed Assets 110.210
Net Appropriations , 9.8MUA1
The projected staffing needs far the Alameda County Library for the 1993-94 Budget year called for 35
management and 124 non-management employees for a total of 159.
i
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, ail 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 programs 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 with 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 Iibrary 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
Iibrary, 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 S 11 146.900
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 19160- 19180 of the State of California Education Code. As such the Bo' ard 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
bearings, monitoring the achievement of goals and; reporting on such achievements to the Board of
Supervisors and County Librarian,
�rarian, making recommendations on the library budget, assisting in the
development of policies, and deter-mining 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.
0 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$3.2 Million,or 29%of the total budget of$11.1
Million,spent on administrative and support activities.
17
• In terms of technical services,both counties currently support their own library systems
with computer hardware, software and staff. This is a costly duplication in light 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. +i►
Potential Annual Savingst $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.
PO IL CE EBOTECTION
jteview and Assessment:
The County of Alameda and Contra Costa County both maintain a Sheriff's Department. The
central mission of bothdepartments 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 Sheriffs Departments are staffed accordingly. The 1993-94 budgets reflect a personnel
commitment of 1,051 in Alameda County and 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
BUDGET
Salary&Benefits $3,543,854
Services& Supplies 311,911
Capital Outlays 110.210
Total Budget 5„1'.855M
The projected staffing to support this budget is 51 full-time equivalent employees.
18
Recommendations:
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 1services of the East Bay Regional Park District into the Sherifrs
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.
atentiall Annual Savings: S3.9 Million
COUNTY SCHOOLS
Review and Assessment:
Both the County of Alameda
ameda 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 hive 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 joffice 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:
ALAMIEDA CONTRA COSTA ICALMORNIA
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 404.132
Net Appropriations $14.493.099
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
BUDGET S1;AF�
Superintendent/Board 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 (2,194.9661 -
Totals $29,888.882 449
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 forcomputer hardware capabilities and staffing,thus eliminating the need for
duplicative resources in these functions. In the case of Contra Costa County, 80
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 functions, 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 pro'cessing,training and professional development is currently being planned
and offered by the counties and the individual school districts. This results in
duplicative effort and excessive cost. The opportunity to plan,purchase,and schedule
training and professional
tofessional development on a consolidated basis should realize substantial
savings over the current practice.
Potential Annual Savings: �0.2 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
June 6 , 1994
Separate originals to:
Jack Whitener, Chief
Bethel Island Fire Protection District
P.O. Box 623
Bethel Island, CA 94511
Dear Chief Whitener:
Allen Little; Acting Chief
Contra Costa County Fire Protection District
2010 Geary Road
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Dear Chief Little:
Jerry Littleton, Jr. , Chief
Crockett-Carquinez Fire Protection District
746 Loring Avenue
Crockett, CA 94525
Dear Chief Littleton:
Paul Hein, Chief
East Diablo Fire ' Protection District
745 First Street
Brentwood, CA 94513
Dear Chief Hein:
Donald Markert, Chief
Kensington Fire Protection District
215 Arlington Avenue
Kensington, CA 94707
Dear Chief Markert:
Pedro Jiminez, Chief
1680 Refugio Valley Road
Hercules, CA 94547
Dear Chief Jiminez :
Mel Deardorff, Chief
San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District
1500 Bollinger Canyon Road
San Ramon, CA 94583
Dear Chief Deardorff:
Barbara Cameron, Superintendent
Alamo-Lafayette Cemetery District
3285 Mt. Diablo Boulevard
Lafayette, CA 94549
Dear Ms . Cameron:'
Board of Trustees'
Byron-Brentwood-Knightsen Union
Cemetery District
P.O. Box 551
Brentwood, CA 94'513
Dear Trustees :
Richard Breitwieser, Manager
Diablo Community .Services District
P.O. Box 321
Diablo, CA 94528
Dear Mr. Breitwieser:
Robert Beebe, General Manager
Dublin-San Ramon 'Community Services District
7051 Dublin Boulevard
Dublin, CA 94566
Dear Mr. Beebe:
James Bray, General Manager
Kensington Community Services District
217 Arlington Avenue
Kensington, CA 94707
Dear Mr. Bray:
-2-
J. Michael Walford, Chief Engineer
Contra Costa County Flood Control
. and Water Conservation District
255 Glacier Drive
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Mr. Walford:'
Michael Wall, CEO
Mt. Diablo Hospital District
2540 East Street
Concord, CA 94520
Dear Mr. Wall :
Michael Lawson, CEO
West Contra Costa Hospital District
2000 Vale Road
San Pablo, CA 94806
Dear Mr. Lawson:
A. Jerry Rice, DDS, Chairman
Los Medanos Community Hospital District
2311 Loveridge Road
Pittsburg, CA 94565
Dear Dr. Rice:
Rick Gilmore, Manager
Byron-Bethany Irrigation District
P.O. Box 273
Byron, CA 94514
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Chuck Hamilton, Manager
East Contra Costa Irrigation District
P.O. Box 696
Brentwood, CA 94513
Dear Mr. Hamilton:
-3-
Charles Beesley, PhD, Manager
Contra Costa Mosquito and Vector Control District
155 Mason Circle
Concord, CA 94520
Dear Dr. Beesley:
Christine Thresh, Secretary
Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District
P.O. Box 244
Bethel Island, CA 94511
Dear Ms . Thresh:
Bob Gromm, Secretary
Reclamation District No. 799
P.O. Box 447
Bethel Island, CA 94511
Dear Mr. Gromm:
Dave Lennon
Reclamation District No. 800
P.O. Box 262
Byron, CA 94514 -
Dear
4514Dear Mr. Lennon:
Ted Halsey, Secretary
Reclamation District No. 830
Jersey Island, Star Route
Stockton, CA 95219
Dear Mr. Halsey:
Dante Nomellini, Secretary
Reclamation Districts No.
2024, 2025, 2026, 2036, 2117
P.O. Box 1461
Stockton, CA 95201
Dear Mr. Nomellini :
-4-
John Urrutia
Reclamation District No. 2065
P.O. Box 1110
Stockton, CA 95201
Dear Mr. Urrutia:
Board of Directors
Reclamation District No. 2090
311 W. Main Street, #504
Stockton, CA 95202
Dear Board Members :
Board of Directors
Reclamation District No. 2121
4955 Discovery Point
Byron, CA 94514
Dear Board Members:
.Board of Directors
Reclamation District No. 2122
5115A Clayton Road
Concord, CA 94521
Dear Board Members :
General Manager
Ambrose Recreation & Park District
3105 Willow Pass Road
Bay Point, CA 94565
Dear General Manager:
Frank Acebo, Director
Brentwood Recreation & Park District
740-B Third Street
Brentwood, CA 94513
Dear Mr. Acebo:
-5-
Carol Schmidt
Green Valley Recreation & Park District
1515 Green Valley Road
Danville, CA 94526
Dear Ms . Schmidt:
Robert Berggren, General Manager
Pleasant Hill Recreation & Park District
147 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Dear Mr. Berggren:
Opal Buck
Rollingwood-Wilart Park & Recreation District
2395 Greenwood Drive
San Pablo, CA 94806
Dear Ms . Buck:
Thomas Brumleve, President
Contra Costa Resource Conservation District
5552 Clayton Road'
Concord, CA 9452.1
Dear Mr. Brumleve:
Cynthia Bauer, Diistrict Secretary
Byron Sanitary District
P.O. Box 309
Byron, CA 94514
Dear Ms . Bauer:
Kent Peterson, Secretary/Manager-
Crockett-Valona Sanitary District
P.O. Box 578
Crockett, CA 94525
Dear Mr. Peterson:
-6-
Roger Dolan, General Manager
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Mr. Dolan:
David Bauer, Manager
Ironhouse Sanitary District
P.O. Box 1105
Oakley, CA 94561
Dear Mr. Bauer:
David Contreras, �Manager
Mt. View Sanitary, District
P.O. Box 2757
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Mr. Contreras :
Ray Guanill
Rodeo Sanitary District
P.O. Box 97
Rodeo, CA 94572
Dear Guanill :
Lawrence Rugaard, Manager
Stege Sanitary District
P.O. Box 537
E1 Cerrito, CA 94531
Dear Mr. Rugaard:
William Braga, General Manager
West County Wastewater District
2910 Hilltop Drive
Richmond, CA 94806
Dear Mr. Braga:
-7-
Robert McCleary, Executive Director
Contra Costa County Transportation Authority
1340 Treat Boulevard, Suite 150
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Dear Mr. McCleary:
Board of Directors
Castle Rock County Water District
611 Pine Creek Road
Walnut Creek, CA : 94598
Dear Board Members :
Mike Yeraka, General Manager
Diablo Water District
P.O. Box 127
Oakley, CA 94561
Dear Mr. Yeraka:
Walter Bishop, District Manager
Contra Costa Water District
P.0. Box HZO
Concord, CA 94524
Dear Mr. Bishop:
Paul Causey, General Manager
Delta Diablo Sanitation District
P.O. Box 929
Antioch, CA 94509
Dear Mr. Causey:
J. Michael Walford, Public Works Director
on behalf of Sanitation Districts
#5, #6, #7B, and' #19
255 Glacier Drive
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Mr. Walford:
-g-
James O' Sullivan, General Manager
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
1600 Franklin Street
Oakland, CA 94612
Dear Mr. O' Sullivan:
Milton Feldstein, Control Officer
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
939 Ellis Street
San Francisco, CA 94109
Dear Mr. Feldstein:
General Manager
Bay Area Rapid Transit District
800 Madison Street
Oakland, CA 94607
Dear General Manager:
Jorge Carrasco, General Manager
East Bay Municipal Utility District
P.O. Box 24055
Oakland, CA , 94623
Dear Mr. Carrasco:
Pat O'Brien, General Manager
East Bay Regional Park District
P.O. Box 5381
Oakland, CA 94605
Dear Mr. O'Brien:
Anne Marie Gold, County Librarian
Contra Costa County
1750 Oak Park Boulevard
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523-4497
Dear Ms . Gold:
-9-
Ronald L. Stewart, EdD
County Superintendent of Schools
77 Santa Barbara Street
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Dear Dr. Stewart:
Mark Finucane, Health Services Director
Contra Costa County
20 Allen Street
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Mr. Finucane:
Art Lathrop, Director
Emergency Medical Services
50 Glacier Drive
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Mr. Lathrop:
John Wolfe, Taxpayers ' Association
820 Main Street
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Mr. Wolfe:
Warren E. Rupf, Sheriff-Coroner
Contra Costa County
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street = 7th Floor
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Sheriff Rupf:
Floyd Johnson, City Manager
City of Richmond
P.O. Box 4046
Richmond, CA 94804
Dear Mr. Johnson:
-10-
Henry Clarke, General Manager
Public Employees Union, Local 1
5034 Blum Road
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Mr. Clarke:
Steve Roberti, Executive Vice President
Central Labor Council
525 Green Street
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Mr. Roberti :,
Jim Hicks, Business Manager
AFSCME, Local 27010
1000 Court Street'
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Mr. Hicks :
Russ Greenlaw, President
United Professional Firefighters, Local 1230
112 Blue Ridge Drive
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Mr. Greenlaw:
Palmer Madden, President
Contra Costa Council
2694 Bishop Drive, Suite
San Ramon, CA 94583
Dear Mr. Madden:
Scott Holder, President
Deputy Sheriffs ' Association
1780 Muir Road
Martinez, CA 94553
Dear Mr. Holder:
-11-
Bruce Peaslee, President
SEIU, Local 535
661 - 27th Street
Oakland, CA 94612
Dear Mr. Peaslee:
A Task Force formed last year by Supervisor Don Perata from Alameda
County and Supervisor Tom Powers from Contra Costa County has been
studying the possibilities for saving money from eliminating
duplication of administrative overhead and duplication of services
while improving the quality of the services which are provided by
local governments . The Task Force looked both at the opportunities
for savings through consolidating special districts and for savings
which might be achieved through moving toward more regional
cooperation in providing services which are currently duplicated by
each County. The, enclosed report is the result of the Task Force' s
deliberations .
As you will note on page 2 of the Executive Summary, the Task Force
proposes that each Board of Supervisors (Alameda and Contra Costa)
hold a public hearing on the Report to solicit public input on the
recommendations . It is then proposed that the Report be forwarded
to the Joint Legislative Audit Committee and to the Assembly and
Senate Committees on Local Government. Finally, the Task Force
Report recommends that a Commission similar to the Base Closure
Commission be established by the Legislature to determine what
changes in the organization of special districts and county
services should be made and to forward those recommendations to the
Legislature for a single "aye" or "no" vote in each House, similar
to what happens in Congress with the recommendations of the Base
Closure Commission.
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors has scheduled its
hearing on the Report from the Task Force as follows :
Tuesday, June 21, 1994
2 :00 P.M.
Board of Supervisors Chambers - Room 107
County Administration Building
651 Pine Street, Martinez
You are being notified of this hearing either because we believe
that your organization will be interested in or affected by the
recommendations of the Task Force or because we believe that you
may want to provide some input to the Board of Supervisors on the
recommendations of the Task Force. You are welcome to attend this
public hearing and are encouraged to provide whatever testimony you
wish in support of or in opposition to one or more of the Task
Force's recommendations before the Board of Supervisors determines
what actions to take in response to these recommendations . If
there are other organizations or individuals you believe should be
contacted about this hearing, please feel free to invite them or
check with the undersigned regarding whether they may already have
been notified of the hearing.
In addition to the general "process" recommendations outlined above
which are contained in the Executive Summary of the Task Force
Report, the following recommendations are found in the body of the
Task Force Report:
♦ Consolidate administration and general functions [of water
districts] within each county.
♦ Reduce [water district] operating and maintenance expenditure
levels .
♦ Reduce [water district] fixed asset expenditures .
♦ Consolidate administration and general functions [of waste
disposal districts] within each county.
♦ Reduce [waste disposal district] operating and maintenance
expenditure levels .
♦ Consolidate the two county flood control districts into a
single .regional entity.
♦ Consolidatejthe emergency medical services districts into a
single regional entity.
♦ Consolidate the two library systems into a single. regional
entity.
♦ Assimilate city library systems currently outside the
counties ' systems [the Richmond City Library] into the
consolidated structure as branches with the governing
authority jointly exercised by the two boards of supervisors .
♦ Consolidate the police services of the East Bay Regional Park
District into the Sheriff's Department within each County.
♦ Consolidate' both county offices of education into a single
regional entity.
If there are questions about the process to be followed at the
hearing, please feel free to contact the undersigned at (510) 646-
2602 . Speakers will generally be asked to limit their comments to
no more than 3 minutes and will be asked not to repeat testimony
already provided by other speakers .
Very truly yours',
Claude L. Van Marter
Assistant County Administrator
CLVM:amb
epecdiet.hrg
Attachment
-2-
cc: Supervisor Tom Powers
Supervisor Jeff Smith
Supervisor Gayle Bishop
Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier
Supervisor Tom Torlakson
Alameda County Supervisor Don Perata
Attention: Mark Friedman
Alameda County Administrator Steve Szalay
Phil Batchelor, County Administrator
Victor J Westman, County Counsel
Jeanne hsLefClekyy. Boardy{o�fSupervisors
-3-
JUN 21 '94 01:52PM CCC LIBRARY ADMIN.
P.2/3
It7
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY LIBRARY RESPONSE TO REPORT AND
RECOMWNDATIONS FOR SPECIAL DIST91CT CONSOLIDATIONS IN ALAMMA AND
CONTRA COSTA COUNTIES
Respoxm to Recommendations:
1) COns0lidate the two County library systenis into a single regional entity.
The assumption that them is a total overlap between the two counties administrative and technical
support operations and that one operation could provide all the -necessary services for both
libraries for an oee cost savings of$2.5 million is difficult to support given available data.
Technical services operations, including acquisitions, cataloging and processing, bear a direct
relationship to the arnount of money being spent to acquire library materials. To assume that the
technical services staff of one library could handle the acquisitions, cataloging and processing
requirements of two libraries is incorrect since the amount of money being spent by both librades
would exponentially increase the need for services in all these areas.
Administrative operations have two types of functions - those durctly impacted by size and
number of public' service operations and those that remain relatively stable independent Of size or
number of public service operations. The first type of function - those impacted by size or
number-are in the majority. Examples of these size dependent functions include clerical payroll
support and mterbranch delivery. Within those functions that might be viewed as skiable
independent of size there am many senior management support operations that do in fact have a
relationship to isize because there are diseconomies of scale that begin to exist after a
organization reaches a certain size. As an example,both libraries currently lim a single senior
staff member responsible for branch operations, In Contra Costa County this includes 20 branches
or outlets; in Ali6cda County this includes 11 branches or outlets, In order to retain appropriate
communi ation; coordination and control internally, it would not be possible for one individual
to oversee the combined 31 operations. Curmudy the Contra Costa County Library is one of the
largest county#brades in the state, both in terms of overall population served of approximately
750,000, or approximately 900 of the county's population, including 17 of the IS incorporated
cities.
Automation services also have some relationship to the size and complexity of the operation being
supported. While them could be relative savings in central site hardware and operations, dM
would be no savings in rcraow site pmipberals and operations- The powntial for shared access
to library cvIlections and databases is currently being explored by the Alameda and Contra Costa
County libraries in conjunction with the Bay Area Library and Information Systeiii, tbe.
cooperative network for public libraries in the Bay Area,
2) AssimDate city library systems currently outside the canatka's systems into the consolidated
structure as branches with the governing authority jointly exercised by the two boards of
supervisors.
Resolving the issues of governance.,independence of operation and financial oversight would bo
paramount in achieving this recommendation. The recent trend is for cities to investigate
independent operation of libraries, rather than consolidation.
JUN 21 '94 01:53PIl CCC LIBRARY ADMIN.
P-3/3
Technical responses:
Page 16
1. The four special districts We actually County Service,Areas that were established in the, 1960's
and 1970's to fund construction of library buildings in their respective areas- They are not special
districts in terms of providing direct library service.
2. The library no longer operates a bookmobile.
3. Library cataloging is not done on a CD-ROM based system,but rather on an online system, The
catalog data is they included in the library's database for its computerimd circulation system and
its CD-ROM public catalog.
Page 17
1. The Approved FY 1993194 budget for the library is as follows:
FY 93/94
Budget
Administration $1,510,443
Branch &Extension Sery $4,121,943
Central Library $1,631,778
Commuity Relations $123,698
Support;Services $972,329
1,
TOTAL, $8,360,191
2. The county funded permanent staff for FY 1993194 is 101 FIE.
3. There we 9 FM position involved in administrative services with a total budget of$1,510,443
1�
or 18% of the,overall new are 12 FM positions involved in support services with a
total budget of,S972,329 or 12% of the total budget.
Anne Marie Gold
County Librarian
June 21, 1994
EAST CONTRA COSTA
ECC:�D 11RmGATxoDISTRI T
Directors J1.)N 7 !�J.,
Don Christensen June 16, 1994
President L�
Frank Maggiore Claude L. Van Marter Ui I�� iif
Vice President I i ,T �ri','.t .•: ; - '
Assistant County Administrator COU�;IYADIY,�i,;�,;.:;.,
MarkPierce
ley County Building
Clift Pierce y Adiiig '- ". -- ..-.____ .w.__...........,........._.._r!
Glenn Stonebarger 651 Pine Street , I 1 th Floor
********************Martinez, California 94553-1229
Chuck Hamilton
General Manager
Dear Mr. Van' Marter ,
Thank you for your letter of June 6, 1994, and notification
of the June 21 hearing on the Consolidation report prepared
by Supervisors Don Perata and Tom Powers . I hereby submit
this letter for consideration by the Board of Supervisors .
District legal counsel has informed the East Contra Costa
Irrigation District Board of Directors that state law
provides for the consolidation of irrigation districts only
with other irrigation districts . It is therefore only
appropriate, to consider the potential for consolidation of
ECCID with the only other irrigation district nearby,
namely, the; Byron-Bethany Irrigation District.
In fact , the idea of consolidation has been considered by
various Directors and Managers of the two respective
districts in recent times . No one, however , has come up
with any compelling reasons to promote the idea. I do not
presume to speak for Byron-Bethany Irrigation District , but
neither district has what could even remotely be construed
as a bloated or inefficient bureaucracy. There is a special
closeness between the districts and their business-smart
farming customers . The districts , it could be said, are
very much under control .
Cooperation between the two districts already occurs , and
will likely increase more as the new information
superhighway era unfolds. The districts have shared the use
of equipment and transmission facilities , and the managers
confer on common interests and problems on a frequent basis .
The two Boards of Directors recently held a joint meeting to
confer on matters of common interest , and plan to continue
to meet on 'a semi-annual basis .
P.O.Box 696 626 First Street • Brentwood,California 94513-0696
Telephone(510)634-3544 FAX(510)634-0897
Letter to Claude L. Van Marter
June 16, 1994
Page Two
Moreover , defining characteristics such as the limitations
of water rights assigned to specific geographic locations,
and the nature of gravity flow water delivery systems
following the contour of irrigated lands, set us apart from
other kinds of special districts , whose services and
boundaries a+re less structurally restricted. For example,
ECCID's pre-1914 water rights are recognized and quantified
in a January, 1981 contract with the California Department
of Water Resources , which guarantees quantity and quality of
water, but !limits the use of said water to ECCID' s service
area as defined in the contract, approximately coterminous
to the south and to the west with the legally defined Delta.
In conclusion, while there appears to be little rationale or
evidence ofla need for consolidation of ECCID and BBID, the
Board remains open to new ideas and inter-agency cooperation
for the public good. A creative water sale agreement
between ECCID and the Contra Costa Water District , for
example, also provides for the shared use of land and
easements , as well as coordinated planning. The District
also recently joined with the City of Brentwood in a
groundwater :study for the Brentwood area. And the District
is participating in on-going discussions about the formation
of a joint powers authority for the purposes of planning,
coordinating and developing East County water resources for
municipal and industrial uses .
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Charles B. Hamilton
General Manager _
cc: Rick Gilmore, Byron-Bethany Irrigation District
Walter ' J. Bishop, Contra Costa Water District
Jay Corey, City of Brentwood
Supervisor Tom Torlakson
._ L.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
DATE: June 21, 1994
TO: Board of Supervisors
FROM: J. Michael Walford, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Government Reorganization: Merger of ameda and Contra Costa
County Flood Control Districts
The Special District Consolidations report, as it regards flood control districts, is
completely in error from a financial standpoint and it fails to recognize that the two
districts no longer exist as separate entities with staffs. Both districts are districts in name
only, for financial and ilegal purposes. Both districts have no staff - all staff is provided
on a charge-out basis by the respective public works departments for each county.
If the proposal is allowed to be implemented it would appear that the only change would
be that Alameda County Public Works would provide the staff time for Contra Costa's
district instead of Contra Costa County Public Works. Since the report asserts that
overhead costs are higher in Alameda County, this proposal would appear to have no
effect on Alameda County's costs and, in fact, would increase Contra Costa County's
costs.
The financial analysis in the report is bogus. What does the $95 million dollars (page 11)
in assets in Alameda 'County flood control district represent? Channel improvements?
Equipment only? Or pump stations? Contra Costa County flood control district has
facility assets (channels, dams, etc.) worth in excess of$250 million dollars. The Contra
Costa district owns assets in the form of equipment that represents approximately $1
million dollars. If we! are making an equal comparison, as suggested in the report,
Alameda County flood control district would have to have $95 million in maintenance
equipment. This is questionable.
The financial analysis in the report is also wrong in the amounts of each agency's
budgets. Our district receives approximately $13.2 million dollars in revenue each fiscal
year from taxes, benefit assessments, drainage impact fees, and stormwater utility
assessments, not $428 thousand dollars, as indicated in the report (page 13). Our
district's labor costs are represented in the county public works department budget
#0650. The district activities represent approximately 25% of the 0650 budget of
approximately $16 million dollars. The balance of the district's funding is for capital
improvements and transfer payments of 17 municipal districts for NPDES activities in their
jurisdictions.
It is regrettable .that the report is so flawed as to yield a proposal that does not make
sense and actually creates more government costs, rather than reducing government
costs.
JMW:djh
c:jmw\mk-fcd.t6
June 15,- 1994
rJ
California.'
The Hon. Pete Snyder,Chair Special as►ric,s
.•Associa[ion
Members'of Alameda LAFCO
Alameda county
County AdrnlnlgtratQr Office Chapter
1221 Oak Street, Suite 555 37632 Duatarba ryway
Oakland, CA 94612 Fremont . CA 96536
Dear Mayor Snyder,Members of LAFCO:
The Alameda Count :S eclal.Districts have been meeting with Contra Costa County. i.
Special Districts; to.dlscuss muitlple governmental bodies interest.in restructufing of
government. :..
,
Alameda and Contra Costa County Speclalbistricts believe that cooperation and
'collaborationwill be required to find Intelligent"solutions to the problems:that exist for the
State,`and its'counties, titles and s'peclal districts. We believe It Is appropriate to open e
dialogue. Furthdr,:we'are most Interested in participating in a co -effort to
maintain and/or.improve quality of our services; reduce costs where possible; and
maintain a high degree of accountability.to`our constituents:
We•support'the development of rnutually.acceptable criteria, that would permit;an. .';.
`objective ooniparlson of the effloierioy;'cost effeelveness and accountabllity of.local
-government agencies county; municipal,,dependent and Independent special districts.
We are appreclative:of the opportunity to.have Special Dlstricts represented on LAFCO,
and believe that the process for evaluation df consolidations described:by. AB .1335,
vwhiQ' h takes efferzt'Qn July 1; 1994, hQuld ke:utilized, so hat all un:rts of.gQyernment,ar@
assured of on:opportunity•to participate. Fdr this reason, we believe.that LAFCO is the.
appropriate 6.ody to undertake local government reorganization studies, and should_
:,make:decision$ in this'':regard .
`We.look.forward toworkin together on.the implementation of AB 1335 and'res ectfull
.'urge your support of.an approacfi that will provide the most informed analysis; maximize
participation and re5dit fn efflcient,'costeffective, accountable public r .genies:
,
We look forward to working with you.
Yours sincerely,'
Lindsay Robe s
Chair, Alameda County Special'Districts
(lridsay Rotieits
.•Chair •:
( O)780-0100
Uython Landis:
' VI -Chair
(M O)'367.6US
EAST CONTRA COSTA
qqCID IR GATIO DISTRICT
Directors I JJN 7 1.�
Don Christensen June 16, 1994 f
President
Frank Maggiore Claude L. Van Marter Orel -
Vice President COUNTY
Assistant County Administrator
MarkPierce
Count Administration Building ��-
a�__
Cliff Pierce Y g "`a_.-..—.�............._.... _,__�/
Glenn Stonebarger 651 Pine Street , 1 1 t h Floor
• ****4ffk ***ff...Martinez, California 94553-1229
Chuck Hamilton
General Manager
Dear Mr . Van Marter,
Thank you for your letter of June 6, 1994, and notification
of the June 21 hearing on the Consolidation report prepared
by Supervisors Don Perata and Tom Powers . I hereby submit
this letter for consideration by the Board of Supervisors .
District legal counsel has informed the East Contra Costa
Irrigation District Board of Directors that state law
provides for the consolidation of irrigation districts only
with other irrigation districts . It is therefore only
appropriateto consider the potential for consolidation of
ECCID with the only other irrigation district nearby,
namely, the Byron-Bethany Irrigation District.
In fact , the idea of consolidation has been considered by
various Directors and Managers of the two respective
districts in recent times . No one, however, has come up
with any compelling reasons to promote the idea. I do not
presume to speak for Byron-Bethany Irrigation District , but
neither district has what could even remotely be construed
as a bloated or inefficient bureaucracy. There is a special
closeness between the districts and their business-smart
farming customers . The districts , it could be said, are
very much under control .
Cooperation between the two districts already occurs , and
will likely increase more as the new information
superhighway era unfolds . The districts have shared the use
of equipment and transmission facilities , and the managers
confer on common interests and problems on a frequent basis .
The two Boards of Directors recently held a joint meeting to
confer on matters of common interest , and plan to continue
to meet on a semi-annual basis .
P.O.Box 696 • 626 First Street • Brentwood,California 94513-0696
Telephone(510)634-3544 FAX(510)634-0897
r
Letter to Claude L. Van Marter
June 16, 1994
Page Two
Moreover, defining characteristics such as the limitations
of water rights assigned to specific geographic locations,
and the nature of gravity flow water delivery systems
following the contour of irrigated lands, set us apart from
other kinds "of special districts , whose services and
boundaries are less structurally restricted. For example,
ECCID's pre ,`. 1914 water rights are recognized and quantified
in a January, 1981 contract with the California Department
of Water Resources , which guarantees quantity and quality of
water , but limits the use of said water to ECCID' s service
area as defined in the contract, approximately coterminous
to the south and to the west with the legally defined Delta.
In conclusion, while there appears to be little rationale or
evidence ofi;a need for consolidation of ECCID and BBID, the
Board remains open to new ideas and inter-agency cooperation
for the public good. A creative water sale agreement
between ECCID and the Contra Costa Water District , for
example, also provides for the shared use of land and
easements, as well as coordinated planning. The District
also recently joined with the City of Brentwood in a
groundwater study for the Brentwood area. And the District
IS participating in on-going discussions about the formation
of a joint powers authority for the purposes of planning,
coordinating and developing East County water resources for
municipal and industrial uses .
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Charles B. Hamilton
General Manager
cc: Rick Gilmore, Byron-Bethany Irrigation District
Walter . J. Bishop, Contra Costa Water District
Jay Corey, City of Brentwood
Supervisor Tom Torlakson
JON 21 '94 01:52PM CCC LIBRARY ADMIN. P.2/3
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY LIBRARY RESPONSE TO REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SPECIAL DISTRICT CONSOLIDATIONS IN ALAMEDA AND
CONTRA COSTA COUNTIES
response to Recosumemilatioris:
1) Consolidate the two county library systems into a single regional entity.
The assumption that them is a total overlap between the two counties administrative.and technical
support operihow and that one operation could provide all the necessary services for both
libraries for an overall cost savings of$2.5 million is difficult to support given available data.
Technicalservices operadons, including acquisitions, cataloging and processing, bear a direct
relationAip to the;arnount of money bring spent to acquire library materials. To assume that the
technical services, staff of one library could handle the acquisitions, cataloging and processing
requirements of two libraries is incorrect since the amount of money being spent by both libraries
would exponentially increase the need for services in all these arm.
Administrative operations have two types of functions - those directly impacted by size and
number of public'servicr.operations and those that remain relatively stable hulependent of Size or
number of public service operations. The first type of function - those impacted by size or
number-are in the,majority. Examples of these size dependent functions include clerical payroll
support and interbTanch delivery. Within those functions that might be viewed as stable
independent of size there are many senior management support operations that do in fact have a
relationship to size because there = diseconornies of scale that begin to exist after an
organization reaches a certain size. As an example,both libraries currently have a single, senior
staff member responsible for branch operations. In Contra Costa County this includes 20 branches
or outlets; iz Alameda County this includes 11 branches or outlets. In order to retain appropriate
communication,,1coordination and control internally, it would not be possible for one individual
to oversee the combined 31 operations. CNmently the Contra Com County Library is one of the
largest county libraries in the state,both in veritas of overall populadou served of approximately
750,0W, or approximately 90% of the county's population, including 17 of the 18 incorporated
cities.
Automation services some relationship to the size and complexity of the operation being
supported. be relative savings in central site hardware and operatimm, them
would be no savings in remote site peripherals and operations- The,potential for shared access
to library collections and databases is currently being explored by the ALmueda and Contra Costa
County libraries in conjunction with the Bay Area library and Information System, the
cooperative network for public libraries in the Bay Are&
2) Assiodlate efty 11-brary systems currently outside the counties's systems into the consolidated
structure as Branches with the governing authority jointly exercised by the two boards of
supervisom '
Resolving the issues of governance,independence of operation and financial oversight would be
paramount 1111 achieving this recommendatiom The recent trend is for cities to investigate
independent operation of libraries,rather than consolidation.
JUN 21 '94 01:53PM CCC LIBRARY ADMIN.
P.3/3
Technical responses:
Page 16
1. The four special districts am actually County Service Areas that were established in the 1960's
and 1970's to fund:construction of library buildings in their respective areas- They are Dot special
districts in terms of providing direct library service.
2. The library no longer operates a bookmobile.
3. Library cataloging is riot done on a CD-ROM based system,but rather on an Online system The
catalog data is their included in the library's database for its computerized circulation system and
its CD-ROM public catalog.
Page 17
1. The Approved FY 1993194 budget for the library is as follows:
FY 93/94
Budget
Administration $1,510.443
Branch &]Extension Sery $4,121,943
Central Library $1,631,778
Counrumity Relations $123,698
Support Services $972,329
TOTAL $8,360,191
2. The county .funded permanent staff for FY 1993194 is 101 FTE.
3. There are 9 FM, position involved in administrative services with a total budget of$1,51 OM3
or 18% of the overall budget. There are 12 FTE positions involved in support services with a
total budget of$972,329 or 12% of the total budget.
Anne Marie Cold
County Librarian
June 21, 1994
DATE:
REQUEST TO SPEAK IFORM
THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) �9JA
i
Complete this formand place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before
addressing the Board.
NAME: ...� j�.0 . PHONE: -"f-
ADDRESS:
f ADDRESS: `/,.J ,,eae, ue CITY:
I am speaking formyself OR organization:
Check one: NAME OF ORGAN17-V O\J
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 fo speak but leave.these comments for the Board to consider.
6�7� Cis
--� . �i• � • , C Gia �:��
h
SPEAKERS
1. Deposit the "Request to Speak" form Aon 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,lyour presentation. Please speak into the microphone.
i
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 mayi limit length of presentations so all persons may be heard.)
j!
CALIFORNIA SPECIAL DISTRICTS ASSOCIATION
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CHAPTER
ALAMEDA COUNTY
• INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS
• REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SPECIAL DISTRICT CONSOLIDATIONS
IN ALAMEDA AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTIES
• OVERVIEW CONSIDERATIONS DEALING WITH CONSOLIDATIONS
• RECOMMENDATIONS
INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS
• INTRODUCTION OF CHAIR OF CALIFORNIA SPECIAL DISTRICTS ASSOCIATION,
CONTRA COSTA CHAPTER, BOB BERGGREN.
• REPRESENTATIVES OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS FROM CONTRA COSTA AND
ALAMEDA COUNTIES HAVE MET ON TWO OCCASIONS, AS WELL AS
RECEIVING INFORMATION FROM REPRESENTATIVES THROUGH MAIL, PHONE,
AND FAX, TO DISCUSS THE PERATA/POWERS REPORT.
• IT IS AGREED THAT CALIFORNIA FACES FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS IN
PLANNING, ORGANIZING, DIRECTING, CONTROLLING, AND PAYING FOR PUBLIC
SERVICES.
• PROBLEMS EXIST FOR THE STATE, COUNTIES, CITIES, AND SPECIAL DISTRICTS
AND WILL REQUIRE COOPERATION AND COLLABORATION AMONG ALL
CONCERNED ENTITIES TO FIND INTELLIGENT SOLUTIONS. WE AGREE THAT
REORGANIZATIONS AND CONSOLIDATIONS OF VARIOUS GOVERNMENTS MAY
BE ONE OF THOSE SOLUTIONS.
• THE SPECIAL DISTRICTS OF CONTRA COSTA AND ALAMEDA COUNTIES ARE
MOST INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN COOPERATIVE EFFORTS TO IMPROVE
THE QUALITY OF OUR SERVICES AND LOWER THE COST TO OUR CUSTOMERS.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
° FOR SPECIAL DISTRICT CONSOLIDATIONS
IN ALAMEDA AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTIES
• THE AUTHORS ARE TO BE ACKNOWLEDGED FOR TACKLING A DIFFICULT
SUBJECT AND FOR OPENING A MUCH NEEDED DIALOGUE. OUR COMMENTS
ARE INTENDED AS CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM AND REFLECT THE COMPLEXITY
OF THE SUBJECT.
• MUCH OF THE FINANCIAL DATA AND INFORMATION USED IN THE REPORT IS
INCORRECT ORI MISLEADING. FOR SOME QUICK EXAMPLES:
THE REPORT STATES THAT THERE ARE 5,122 SPECIAL DISTRICTS IN
CALIFORNIA, WHEN THE SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE
COUNTS 3,440 IN THE NOVEMBER, 1993 PUBLISHED GUIDE ON
"WHAT'S SO SPECIAL ABOUT SPECIAL DISTRICTS?"
MOST OF THE FINANCIAL INFORMATION WAS EITHER INCORRECT OR
MISLEADING BY UTILIZING THE STATE CONTROLLER'S REPORT OF 1990-
91 . THERE ARE NO STANDARDS TO ENSURE THE UNIFORMITY OF THE
STATE CONTROLLER'S REPORT. THE ANNUAL AUDITED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS WOULD HAVE BEEN A BETTER METHOD TO MEASURE
OPERATING RESULTS AND A MORE ACCURATE FINANCIAL PICTURE.
THE FIGURE OF "$3.9 MILLION SAVINGS" FROM CONSOLIDATING THE
EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT POLICE WITH THE ALAMEDA AND
CONTRA COSTA SHERIFF DEPARTMENTS IS PREDOMINATELY THE COST
OF LINE 'POLICE OFFICERS. ONLY A SMALL FRACTION OF THE PARK
POLICE ANNUAL $3.9 MILLION BUDGET IS ADMINISTRATIVE, MEANING
THAT ANY SO CALLED "MILLION DOLLAR SAVINGS" FROM
CONSOLIDATION COULD ONLY RESULT FROM ELIMINATING POLICE
OFFICERS NOW PROTECTING THE PUBLIC.
• THE SPECIAL DISTRICTS WILL BE HAPPY TO SUPPLY THE CORRECT DATA IF
THERE IS ANY PLAN TO REVISE THE REPORT. SPECIAL DISTRICTS WOULD LIKE
TO HAVE REPRESENTATIVES ON THE TASK FORCE WHICH REVISES THE
REPORT, SHOULD ANY FUTURE WORK BE COMPLETED.
• THE REASONING LEADING TO THE CONCLUSIONS WAS OFTEN FLAWED:
THE REPORT CRITICIZES NOT-FOR-PROFIT ENTERPRISE SPECIAL
DISTRICTS FOR NOT MAKING A PROFIT. PUBLIC AGENCIES
OCCASIONALLY NEED AND SHOULD OPERATE IN THE RED TO
COMPENSATE FOR YEARS WHEN EXPENSES WERE HELD BELOW
REVENUES. PUBLIC AGENCY RATES RECOVER ONLY ACTUAL COSTS
' AND DO NOT INCLUDE ADDITIONAL CHARGES TO PROVIDE PROFIT FOR
INVESTORS.
THE REPORT PROPOSES REDUCTION IN FIXED ASSET INVESTMENTS.
THE REPORT DOES NOT RECOGNIZE THAT MOST SPECIAL DISTRICTS
OPERATE FACILITIES AND LANDS RATHER THAN PROVIDING SOCIAL
SERVICES. THESE INVESTMENTS ARE NEEDED TO COMPLY WITH
REGULATORY AND MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS, ADDRESS DECAYING
INFRASTRUCTURE PROBLEMS, PROTECT ENVIRONMENT, ENSURE
ADEQUATE WATER SUPPLIES, ENHANCE PUBLIC SERVICE, AND PROVIDE
FOR GROWTH, ALL THE WHILE, PROVIDING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS EACH
YEAR FOR LOCAL PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS.
THE REPORT INDICATED THAT CONSOLIDATION WOULD ELIMINATE
SUBSTANTIAL ADMINISTRATIVE AND GENERAL (G&A) EXPENSE.
EXCEPT ,FOR LIMITED SALARY AND BOARD EXPENSE SAVINGS, IT IS
NOT APPARENT HOW PROPOSED SAVINGS ARE DERIVED. LARGER
ORGANIZATIONS, GENERALLY, HAVE PROPORTIONATELY LARGER
ADMINISTRATIVE AND GENERAL EXPENSES. IN MOST
CONSOLIDATIONS WHERE SALARY DISCREPANCIES EXIST BETWEEN
EMPLOYEES PERFORMING COMPARABLE DUTIES, THEY ARE TYPICALLY
RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF THE HIGHER SALARY.
IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE ALLEGED $58 MILLION SAVINGS
THROUGH CONSOLIDATION WOULD NOT BE A TRUE SAVINGS TO THE
PUBLIC, RATHER IT WOULD BE SHIFTED TO FUND OTHER
GOVERNMENTAL PROGRAMS.
1-4 i'OVERVIEW CONSIDERATIONS DEALING
WITH CONSOLIDATION
• THE GOAL SHOULD BE IMPROVING THE SYSTEM OF DELIVERY OF PUBLIC
SERVICES. THE OBJECTIVES SHOULD BE TO REDUCE THE COST TO THE
CUSTOMER AND IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF SERVICE WITH NO LOSS OF
RESPONSIVENESS OR ACCOUNTABILITY.
• ACTIONS SHOULD BE BASED ON THOROUGH AND CRITICAL STUDY. THE
PUBLIC WILL IIHAVE LITTLE TOLERANCE FOR MOVES THAT ARE NOT
GENERALLY DEMONSTRATED AS SUCCESSFUL. TO THIS END, SMALLER SCALE
CONSOLIDATIONS AND FUNCTIONAL COOPERATION MAY BE MORE PRACTICAL
THAN THE LARGE, SWEEPING PROPOSALS OF THE REPORT.
r
• CONSOLIDATION STUDIES SHOULD INITIALLY CONSIDER MERGING SIMILAR
AGENCIES TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF SPECIALIZED MANAGEMENT EXPERTISE
AND FOCUSED 11 ELECTED LEADERSHIP.
• TO LOOK COMPREHENSIVELY AT REORGANIZATION, ONE ALSO NEEDS TO
INCLUDE COMPARABLE PUBLIC SERVICE FUNCTIONS BEING PROVIDED BY
COUNTIES AND CITIES.
• BIGGER IS NOT;NECESSARILY BETTER OR MORE EFFICIENT; ESPECIALLY WITH
PUBLIC AGENCIES. WE MUST BE CAREFUL NOT TO CREATE HUGE AGENCIES
THAT LOSE RESPONSIVENESS AND ACCOUNTABILITY. A CLASSIC EXAMPLE
IS THE LOS ANGELES SCHOOL DISTRICT THAT IS NOW BEING RECOMMENDED
TO BE DIVIDED INTO SEVEN SEPARATE SCHOOL DISTRICTS.
• BEFORE DECIDING TO REPLACE THE CONSOLIDATION PROCEDURE OF AB 1335
(GOTCH) WITH A PROCESS SIMILAR TO THE MILITARY BASE CLOSURE
COMMISSION,I�WE RECOMMEND TO ALLOW THE NEW PROCEDURES TO WORK
AND BE SUCCESSFUL. WHILE THE BASE CLOSURE APPROACH TO DECISION
MAKING MAY 'BE APPROPRIATE WHEN CONSIDERING WHAT TO DO WITH THE
LOCAL FACILITIES OF A BRANCH OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, IT MAY NOT
BE AN ACCEPTABLE WAY TO MAKE CHOICES CONCERNING THE
GOVERNMENTS WHICH SERVICE THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA.
r.
RECOMMENDATIONS
• THE SPECIAL DISTRICTS WOULD FAVOR THE APPROACH WHICH PROVIDES
FOR THE MOST INFORMED ANALYSIS AND WHICH MAXIMIZES PUBLIC INPUT
AND RESULTS IN EFFICIENT, ACCOUNTABLE, AND RESPONSIVE PUBLIC
AGENCIES.
• THE SPECIAL DISTRICTS REQUEST THAT YOU DO NOT MOVE AHEAD WITH THE
REPORT AS RECOMMENDED. OUR RECOMMENDATION IS TO REFER THE
MATTER TO LAFCO (LETTER DATED JUNE 16, 1994 ATTACHED) TO FURTHER
STUDY THE SIGNIFICANT ISSUES AND THOROUGHLY CONDUCT A PROPER
ANALYSIS OF REORGANIZATIONS, CONSOLIDATIONS, MERGERS,
DISSOLUTIONS, ETC. WE RECOMMEND THAT YOU SUPPORT THE NEW
PROCEDURES J HROUGH AN ACTIVE AND INFORMED PARTICIPATION AND
WORK TO MAKE THEM SUCCESSFUL. WE STAND READY TO JOIN YOU IN
THAT EFFORT.j THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ADS/Dolan/SpecDis2.Rpt
June 16 , 1994 California
Special Districts
As,ociatio n
Contra CG);ta
Ccuntv Ci-.aptrr
Local Agency Formation Commission
Annamaria Perrella, Executive Director 14;
n .
651 Pine Street , Eighth Floor l`n'°"' Hill.C '
Martinez , CA 94553
Re: Special Districts Recommendations on the Powers & Perata Study
Dear Annamaria and LAFCO Representatives :
A committee comprised of representatives of special districts from
Contra Costa and Alameda Counties have met concerning the
report completed by Supervisors Don Perata and Tom Powers entitled,
"Report and Recommendations for Special District Consolidations in
Alameda and Contra Costa Counties , " dated April 15 , 1994 . The Board
of Supervisors have scheduled a public hearing on this report for
June 21 , 1994 .
The special districts recommendation is to refer the issues raised
by the report to LAFCO for further study. We believe that with the
passage of AB 1335 (Gotch Bill ) that this is the correct arena to
address these issues and to thoroughly conduct proper analysis of
potential consolidations , mergers , dissolutions , etc. The
reorganization analysis must consist of the following issues as well
as other questions :
1 . Will the proposal result in more/less responsive
delivery of services to the public?
2 . Will the proposal increase/decrease citizen access to
elected/appointed respresentatives?
3 . Will the proposal result in higher/lower cost to taxpayers?
4 . Will the proposal result in higher/lower capital
expenditure costs to taxpayers?
The goal of all local governments , including special districts ,
cities , and counties , should be to improve the system of delivery of
public services . The special districts favor an approach which
provides for the most informed analysis and which maximizes public
input and results in efficient , accountable, and responsive public
agencies . The special districts are more than willing to
participate in these discussions , provide information , and continue
to work with local governments to meet the future challenges .
If you have further questions or concerns , please call me at
682-0896. Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Chairman
Boll Berl:;-en
I,lUI 682-0"896Robert B . Berggren �
Chair Vice Chairman
Donald n Frrita;
r�7U1-,S-71ti1
June 15; 1994
• r_J
Callfornia
The Hon..Peta Snyder, Chair Special oktricts
Association
Members of Alameda LAFCO
Alameda county
County AdnllnisirwQrs office chapter
1221 Oak Street, Suite'555
37632 Dustarb"Way
Oakland, CA 94612 Fremont . ca 94888
Dear Mayor,Snyder, Members of LAFCO:
The Alameda County;Specfel.Dlstricts have'been meeting with Contra Costa CountySpecial Districts; to discuss multlple governmental bodies interest.in restructuring of
government. .:
Alameda and Contra Costa County Special Districts believe that coopera't'ion and
�Collaboiration will be required to find Intelligent`solutions to the problems'that exist for the
State,'and its countfes,lcitles aril special districts. We Delleve,lt fs.Approprfate to opan.e
:,.dialogue. Further,We are most Interested in participating in a cooperative effort to
maintain and/or improve quality of ourservices; reduce costs where possible; and
maintain a high degree of.abcountability-to our constituents:
We support'the developmenf of rnutually.accaptable criteria, that would permit'an
objective comparison of the effioienoy; cost effectiveness an -acof local
goverrinjent agencies:- county; municipal;.dependent and tndepehderit special districts.
We are appreclative-of tha opportunityto have Speclal.blstdcts'represehted on LAFC `
an. . .elieve'that the process for evaluation of consolidations described:by AB-1335,
which W0effect Qn July 1, 18 4, hQul� be:utilized; so that all,units of..gQvernment,are
assured of an,opportunity'to participate. For this season,we believe that LAFCO is the
appropriate body to undertake localgovernment reorganization studies,'arid should: :.
. .make.decisions in this'regard..
-We look forward to working together on the implementation.of AB 135 and respecffully
'urge your support of an:approach that will provide the most informed analysis;maximize
participation, and result iri efficient,'cost effective, accountable public .genryie$:.
We look forv�rard to working with you.
Yours sincerely,
Lin"Robes `
Chair, Alameda County.Speclal Districts
ilridsay Roberts
. . - . •Chair
:Ceyihon.Landis'
ca-Cha ir
- ( )
610'3
67-6048
•
•
EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK
CONTRACT CONCEPT
gREN E. R UA
saw C
EUREK,4 '•. O
COSTA
APRIL 25, 1994
r
INTRODUCTION
The provision of law enforcement services for its constituents may be considered to be one
of East Bay Regional Park District's most important responsibilities. It is not unexpected,
therefore, to find that the police expenditure in the park district budget represents a large
percentage of that budget. There are those who might argue that the amount of money a
park district spends for law enforcement is an accurate indication of the degree of
commitment by the district's policy makers to dealing with the problem of crime within their
jurisdiction. In reality, much the opposite is true.
In today's economy, a new indicator of commitment by policy makers has developed. This
new indicator, applicable and recognized in many areas of business and public
administration, is creativity. Creativity has become a cornerstone of the new era of good
government. With creativity, good government leaders can work together to overcome the
problems of decreasing revenues in a time of increasing service needs, without sacrificing
excellence. In the specific area of law enforcement, the problems of liability, response time,
contiguous beat coverage and duplication of equipment, facilities and services can be
resolved while decreasing costs,through continuous restructuring of personnel resources.
• This paper proposes that the Sheriffs' Offices of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties
assume all law enforcement services for District facilities within their respective county
jurisdictions. The concept provides for improved service levels at a reduced cost through
• elimination of duplicated efforts, improved response times and adding the expertise
available from relatively large departments.
•
•
•
•
CONTRACT LAW ENFORCEMENT
There are more than one hundred cities and special districts in California that contract with
other government agencies for law enforcement services. Most are serviced by counties
and provide the full spectrum of police services. Although not the only approach, this is the
most common, owing to the fact that the Sheriff provides many county-wide services
already, generally has a contiguous service area and fills all the other requirements
established by the Government Code. This kind of contract is endorsed and encouraged
by the State Legislature. In fact, the Legislative history of the Government Code, Section
51350, states; "It is they intent of the Legislature to encourage intergovernmental contracts
which eliminate the need for duplicate facilities, equipment and personnel and which thereby
reduce the overall costs of government." Additionally, Government Code section 6581
specifically authorizes the appointment of "Park Sheriff" to oversee the law enforcement
services of regional parks.
The Contra Costa County Sheriff's Office, has over thirty years of experience in the field of
contracting law enforcement services, beginning in 1961 providing police services for the
newly incorporated city of Pleasant Hill. During the past thirty years, the Sheriff's Office has
• provided police services for the cities of Lafayette (1968), Moraga (1974), Danville
(1983), San Ramon (1984) and Orinda (1986). Additionally the Sheriff's Office maintains
police service contracts with Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District, Contra Costa County
• Housing Authority and six Special Districts. Additional agreements have been made with
nine agencies for law enforcement dispatching and with every police agency in Contra
Costa County for criminalistic laboratory services.
Law enforcement contracts provide cities and special districts with local control, providing
them with a role in the direction of police functions; i.e., plan, schedule, staff, organize
implement and manage law enforcement services for the district. Each district controls
service levels. It may contract, in addition to patrol services, for investigative services, traffic
enforcement, juvenile diversion, special narcotics officers, crime lab and additional
communications services. The level and type of services is controlled by the district needs.
• 2
Personnel related issues are a function that most public organizations would like to avoid.
• These issues are usually the most complex and costly part of any organization. The Contra
Costa County Sheriff's Office is highly recognized for its internal ability to handle all forms of
commendation and discipline. Additionally, contracting entities are not required to play any
role in the negotiation;:or bargaining process as it relates to the work force on terms of
a.
employment and the epi ployment relationship, grievances and the appeals procedure.
The District has long recognized the value of contracts. Past General Manager Richard C.
Trudeau stated, when accepting the prestigious National Recreation and Parks Association
Award of Excellence in 1983, that "...using outsiders when they can do a better job at less
cost than park staff' is an innovation that has enabled the District to achieve many of its
goals.
•
•
•
•
3
•
EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT DEPARTMENT
OF PUBLIC SAFETY
•
The East Bay Regional Park District, first established in 1934, spans two counties-Contra
Costa and Alameda. Created to provide regional, outdoor recreational opportunities for
Bay Area residents, the. District encompasses 46 parks and 5 major trails.
•
In 1963, the District was empowered to employ a separate police force. The force initially
consisted of three rangers that were responsible for the entire park system. In 1967,
concern for safety in the parks, and an increasing number of service calls, created the need
to establish a professional law enforcement agency. Fire protection, a major concern for the
District, was included;in the Department. As the District expanded, the new force also
increased, from sixteen officers and an annual budget of a half a million dollars in 1969, to
•
forty eight officers and a budget of $6.1 million in 1994. These figures include personnel
needed to fulfill current contractual obligations with the East Bay Municipal Utility District.
The Department of Public Safety is currently managed by Chief Sarna, who also
•
commands fire protection services. He is assisted by police and fire managers, sworn
police officers, firemen and non-sworn personnel. Department staffing levels are enhanced
by reserve and seasonal officers during peak summer months. The fire section employs
•
seven people in support and administrative roles and uses "industrial firemen" on a paid-
as-called-in basis.
•
4
•
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY-INHERENT PROBLEMS
• It is not the intent of this document to criticize the Department of Public Safety in any
manner. On the contrary, given its limited resources, and the type of area served, the
Department functions as well as can be expected. However, because of the very nature of
• the District, its size and isolated segments, the Department is unable to provide the kinds
and degree of services'available through Sheriffs' Department contracts.
LOST TIME
The Department generally assigns an officer to a "sector", to oversee a series of parks
within a geographical area. Consequently a large portion of the officer's time is spent
traveling from one area to another. Obviously, this officer cannot enforce park regulations or
ensure the public welfare on District land while traveling, nor can he/(she) ignore offenses
committed in his presence, even off District property. Yet while these non-District related
activities are in progress, the District is still paying for the officer. Both Sheriffs' Departments
•
offer contiguous beat structures, that would allow supplemental patrol by existing personnel
and the ability for a quicker response to emergency problems.
RESPONSE TIME
Because segments of the District are relatively isolated, officer response times to calls for
service may be extremely long. If the call involves an emergency, requiring the officer to
respond with emergency equipment activated, a long response may be dangerous to
• both the officer and the public. From a liability standpoint, this may possibly present a
significant cost to the District as well, which brings up the next issue;
LIABILITY
As is true with for all government agencies, the District is liable for the actions of its
employees. The potential for substantial law suits, where police actions are involved, is
especially critical. A single suit against the District, caused by police actions, could be
• financially devastating. Both Sheriffs' Offices completely indemnify the District against suits
resulting from the actions of their respective officers. The District's liability picture is currently
increased because of existing contracts to provide services to outside agencies.
• 5
•
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
• An initial review of the District Department of Public Safety (excluding fire services) budget
for 1994 shows, that of a total budget of $6,131,273.00, Administration costs amount to
$2,275,508.00, or, 37% of the total operating budget. Police Services utilize the small
team concept requiring a greater number of supervisors (eleven for approximately thirty
i
officers). Reorganization in these areas appears to be appropriate. The "contract city"
model has proven to be successful in reducing these costs.
I.
MAJOR INCIDENT SUPPORT
Both Sheriffs' Departments have the ability to provide a wide array of support functions for
4
major incidents on District lands. Both counties presently provide Search and Rescue
support to the District.,There is no way that the current Department can compete with the
expertise, manpower and services available at the county level.
•
•
•
6
•
CONCEPT OF CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
• The Sheriffs' of Contra Costa and Alameda Counties propose to eliminate the existing
Department of Public Safety and replace it with contractual services from both jurisdictions.
All existing law enforcement personnel would be absorbed into the two Departments. The
• model for such a merger is in place and has been used effectively in the Contra Costa
County Sheriff-Coroner merger in 1968 and the Sheriff-Marshal merger in 1988. All District
residents benefit from increased service levels and reduced costs, due to the elimination of
•
duplicated services. IlThese goals are accomplished by combining administration,
communications, records and (to some extent) physical facilities Drawing on the full
i
potential of the counties, and sharing of support services, the District pays only
I
proportionate "user"costs, not the complete costs necessary to maintain the services. This
would allow the District to more effectively use the "Public Safety Administration"costs that
currently account for one third of the total Public Safety budget.
The Contra Costa and Alameda County Sheriffs' Offices already have an excellent
cooperative working relationship. Both agencies participate in a contract for mobile law
enforcement services with the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District, that spans both
jurisdictions. Both agencies cooperate in the Regional Access Network (RAN Board) that
serves as a statewide model for the Cal ID fingerprint identification system, and in the
r
Alameda Tactical Commanders Association for the mutual resolution of S.W.A.T.
9.
problems. Additionally, both agencies participate and cooperate in the resolution of
statewide law enforcement mutual aid problems. Sheriff Plummer is the Region II Mutual
Aid Coordinator and Sheriff Rupf is the Contra Costa County Coordinator.
Under the proposed plan, the District would have the option of maintaining its current Fire
Services Bureau and;contracting for dispatching services, or pursuing a "total package"
contract with existing fire departments.
. 7
CONTRACT POLICING; PROCESS AND MODEL
• The following charts show the process followed to obtain a contract for law enforcement
services and one possible model for proposed contract services. Both Contra Costa and
Alameda Counties have proven through experience that the actual design of contract
services will only occur after lengthy discussions with the District.
• 1
The "Contract City" model is a proven money saving concept. In Contra Costa County,
the average resident served by a "contract" police department saves 51% as compared to
• traditional police services.
•
•
r 8
POLICE SERVICES BUDGET COMPARISONS
Budget 1993/94 Fiscal Year
• $7,000,000.00
s
$6.000,000.00
Average Agency
$5,000,000.004
ai;fixAverage of all non-contract
" t Police Departments in Contra
$4,000,000.00= '= Costa County.
�v
$3,000,000.00
LN,=
g
• - ON
_ 2 4t
$2,000.000.00 JITT
$1.000.000.00r
$0.00
C � y
m
u
r �
POLICE SERVICES COST PER RESIDENT
1993/94 Fiscal Year
Cost per Resident
$160.00
$150.00
h'
$140.00 .XR POPULATION
$130.00 , Danville... 34,090
San Ramon... 38,880
$120.00y=.
$110.00 , Average Agency... 38,713
$100.00
Ori nda...
17,051
$90.00 y Lafayette... 23,721
Amwi
� �
$80.0011'k N;
$60.00 y `~
$40.00
$30.00 s � ,
� � r: gf
$10.00 ' fii �
$0.00 -=- — — , �. _ _ 7
1
. ! C v fl
V >'
U :s
v
d
CONTRACTUAL
LAW ENFORCEMENT
PROCEDURES
GENERAL MANAGER
E.B.R.P.D.
CONTACT OF SHERIFFS OFFICE
LT.A.C.S.
`:
NEEDS ASSESSMENT
COST ANALYSIS
.....
ERV I
S CE LEVEL
«.....::.;: ;;. .:.
A.C.S.
PRODUCES CONTRACT
COUNTY COUNCIL PARK DISTRICT
r ATTORNEY
XX
�;:.::
FINAL DRAFT
r
COUNTY BOARD PARK DISTRICT BOARD
ORDER ORDER
r
SIGNATURES
PARK DISTRICT&COUNTY
r
IMPLEMENTATION
r
�r
SUMMARY
40 The District must now compare the concept of contractual law enforcement services against
the existing Department of Public Safety. The District is dedicated to the preservation of
existing park lands and the acquisition of new park lands. As additional lands are acquired,
the ever-increasing cost of protection for patrons of the parks will become a larger issue to
the Board of Directors. This document has highlighted some of the advantages to
contractual law enforcement services within the District. The District, as prescribed by the
Government Code, may legally contract with the county for police and fire protection. The
I
reduction in response times, and the virtual elimination of"lost time"traveling from park to
park alone would improve service to park patrons. Finally the current police services
• budget would be substantially reduced should the District contract its law enforcement
services.
It cannot be argued that "big" is necessarily efficient. However County responsiveness to
• District contractual needs would markedly improve the cost effectiveness of law
enforcement service delivery to the District. By linking responsiveness of the District to
existing county-wide lumbrella services, the best of both worlds would be delivered.
• Economy of dollars, plus superior patrol, delivers true cost effectiveness to both the
County and the District.
The goal of government leaders, working together, is to construct a plan that is agreeable
• and beneficial to all agencies involved. The ultimate benefit, however, is realized by the
taxpayers and patrons of those services, who are fortunate to live, work and play as the
beneficiaries of good government.
•
9