Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06061995 - D.6 I�, b rl TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON Costa DIRECTOR OF-COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Co)�''� ��1/ DATE: June 6, 1995 SUBJECT: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ON A PROPOSED NUCLEAR WEAPONS NONPROLIFERATION POLICY CONCERNING FOREIGN RESEARCH REACTOR SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL (DOE EIS) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Concur with County staff's recommendation that the Final DOE EIS should include a comprehensive and realistic project description element covering the potential use of the Concord Naval Weapons Station as a port of entry for the spent nuclear fuel. Such an all-in- one-place element should include: The origins/destinations characteristics, amounts and numbers of loads of spent fuel, the characteristics of containers anticipated to be used, and the means of transportation for both incoming and outgoing shipments. A description and impact analysis of the use of the transportation route proposed to be used for incoming shipments (presumably by ship via the San Franc, co Bay - Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta Estuary). CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: , X YES SIGNAM RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION O COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON 6, }�� APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHER x See Addendum for Board action. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS UNANIMOUS (ABSENT I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND AYES: NOES: CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Attachment: Communication from.Dr. William Walker, County Health Officer ATTESTED June 6, 1995 PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE Contact: 'Charles A. Zahn (510) 646-2096 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND cc: Community Development Department(CDD) COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR County Administrator County Counsel County Health Services Department County Office of Emergency Services a County Growth Management&Economic Development BY: , DEPUTY Agency County Public Works Department Bay Point Municipal Advisory Council City of Concord City of Martinez City of Pittsburg HEB/CAZ:rw RCZ4/D0E-E!S.b*d Board Order Department of Energy's EIS June 6, 1995 - Page 2 - RECOMMENDATIONS (CONT'D): A description and impact analysis of the use of the local and Bay Area transportation routes (presumably, mainly local arterial road and freeways) anticipated to be used to convey the spent fuel to processing and storage facilities. A description and analysis of the local and Bay Area health and safety impacts that would result from the use of the Concord Naval Weapons Station. A description and analysis of how the proposed use of the Concord Naval Weapons Station would relate to the County's Emergency Response Plan and Hazardous Materials Response Program. 2. Recommend to the U.S. Department of Energy that the Final DOE EIS address a security program for safeguarding the spent nuclear fuel while it is being transported and transferred (as well as being processed and stored at its ultimate destination). 3. Recommend that the U.S. Department of Energy including a cumulative impact analysis addressing the added effects of using the Concord Naval Weapons Station as a port-of-entry for spent nuclear fuels to the military and industrial environmental impacts already present in the Bay Area in the Final DOE EIS (See attached communication from Dr. William Walker, County Health Officer). 4. Recommend that the U.S..Department of Energy include in the Final DOE EIS a comparative analysis of using the alternative West Coast ports of entry identified in the Draft DOE EIS: the Concord Naval Weapons Station; Oakland, California; Portland, Oregon; and Tacoma, Washington. 5. Authorize the Director of Community Development in cooperation with the Office of Emergency Services and Health Services Department, to prepare and transmit a comments letter on the DOE EIS to the U.S. Department of Energy by June 22, 1995, reflecting the Board of Supervisors' direction following the public hearing. 6. Direct that when the Final DOE EIS is available, the Director of Community Development shall, in cooperation with the Office of Emergency Services and Health Services Department, prepare a report on the proposed project and arrange for the Board of Supervisors to consider a recommendation on the project to the U.S. Department of Energy. FISCAL IMPACT No local economic impacts are identified in the Draft DOE EIS. A local accident involving spent nuclear fuel probably would require the services of County and other local emergency response services. BACKGROUND The U.S. Department of Energy has distributed its Draft Environmental Impact Statement on a Proposed Nuclear Weapons ,Non-proliferation Policy Concerning Foreign Research Reactor Spent i Nuclear Fuel for public review and comment. The DOE EIS was prepared to enable the DOE to decide whether to resume the importation of spent nuclear fuel that the U.S. originally provided to foreign countries for use in their research reactors. (Those research reactors are now mainly used for medical, agricultural and industrial purposes.) Board Order Department of Energy's EIS June 6, 1995 - Page 3 - BACKGROUND ICont'd) The U.S. has supplied nuclear fuel to participating nations since the 1950's to enable them to engage in research and economic programs requiring nuclear capabilities without the need to make their own fuel (and possibly produce weapons-grade materials) or deal with other nations averse to our interests. Because the spent fuel offered short-cut opportunities for the production of weapons material, the U.S. program provided for its return. Back in the U.S., the spent fuel was stored or processed to produce new fuel and to separate out nuclear waste for disposal. The program was suspended in 1988 when it was determined that changes warranted an environmental review. Since then, with an exception, the nuclear waste has been accumulating overseas. The subject DOE EIS is intended to provide an environmental context (in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act -- NEPA) to enable the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Department of State jointly to make a decision on a "Foreign Research Reactor Spent Nuclear Fuel" policy. In this respect, the DOE EIS is similar to a Program Environmental Impact Report prepared under the California Environmental Quality Act. Typical of a NEPA environmental review, it focuses on alternatives. The alternatives of U.S. ports-of-entry and U.S. processing disposal site locations are of primary concern to Contra Costa County; the other alternatives generally would lower the amounts of spent fuel that could be imported but their coverage is beyond the scope of this staff report. Although alternative U.S. processing/disposal site locations are discussed in the subject DOE EIS, they are the focus of a separate EIS. There is no comparable separate EIS providing project-level analyses on alternative ports- of-entry. The federal decision-making process has provided for local public participation, including local hearings, on the Draft DOE EIS, but there is no identified local public participation program for reviewing the proposed decision on the policy by the two federal departments. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION Local government is not responsible for decisions on foreign policy but is has a legitimate concern for the impacts of federal policies on local jurisdictions and their people. In the case at hand, the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Department of State have proposed to use a locally-situated federal installation, the Concord Naval Weapons Station, as a port-of-entry for spent nuclear fuel. There are past histories of handling spent fuel imports into the U.S. and the movement of domestic spent nuclear fuels, evidently without significant mishaps. Nonetheless, the information provided in the DOE EIS on the proposal to use the Concord Naval Weapons Station as a port-of-entry inadequate for local review purposes. It is scattered, partially buried in tables and analyses, and for some subjects simply not there. It appears that producing an environmental analysis of a breadth and complexity suitable for evaluating a national policy on an international program has resulted in a ponderous, disjointed, and incomplete document for local use. It is likely that the 1994 scoping process for the DOE EIS did not call attention to the possible use of the Concord Naval Weapons Station and thereby failed to elicit comments from Contra Costa County and the cities of Concord, Martinez and Pittsburg, and other local governments, that would have asked for locally relevant detail. The first recommendation is that the Board of Supervisors request the U.S. Department of Energy to include in the Final EIS an all-in-one-place project description and analysis pertaining to the Concord Naval Weapons Station. The description and analysis should be similar to the comparable parts of a project-level Environmental Impact Report. Board Order " Department of Energy's EIS June 6, 1995 - Page 4 - REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION (Cont'd) A "realistic" project description is requested because there may be less spent fuel and fewer loads if, for example,there will be both East Coast (receiving most of the shipments) and West Coast ports of entry. Information orally presented at the May 22, 1995, hearing in Concord indicated that the West Coast might receive only 180 loads over the program period, averaging about 12 loads per year. This is a different expectation than an absolute worst case projection of almost 800 loads. The designation of separate storage facilities (destinations) for different kinds of spent fuel would affect traffic flow expectations. The description and impact analysis of the incoming traffic waterway is requested because there are concerns for conflicts and accidents that are not addressed in the Draft DOE EIS. The "water highway" is over 40 miles long between the Pacific Ocean and the Concord Naval Weapons Station. It traverses an urbanized area with five major bridges. Ship traffic includes petroleum supplies and products associated with several local refineries. The description and impact analysis of the outgoing traffic transportation system is requested because local arterials between the Concord Naval Weapons Station and the freeway system are not identified, nor is the usage of the road network described. The requested description and analysis of health and safety aspects of using the Concord Naval Weapons Station should bring together a number of health, safety, and risk matters discussed in various parts of the DOE EIS, reflect the latest thinking on the project, and address the specific concerns voiced at the Concord hearing. For example, the DOE representatives stated that spent fuel "casks" (shielded containers) are expected to be trans-shipped in 4 to 24 hours. There are indications that certain kinds of spent fuels might be sent to the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, and other kinds might be sent across country to the Savannah River Site, for processing. The choice of destinations affects not only traffic but the particular populations which could be exposed to the effects of emissions and upsets. The requested description and analysis on the relationship between the proposed use of the Concord Naval Weapons Station and the County's Emergency Response Plan, and programs, is a typical call for an environmental document to address how a proposed project relates to applicable plans, policies, and regulations. The County Emergency Response Plan is one such plan, and the emergency response program of the County Health Services Department is the prime line program. Both are coordinated city and special district programs. The second recommendation addresses the concern, frequently articulated at the May 22, 1995, hearing in Concord, that spent nuclear fuel shipments needed to be secure while in transit and in storage. The concerns were that fuel casks could be stolen to obtain material for weapons and more simply that stolen spent fuel itself could be spread by conventional explosion or other means to endanger (or threaten) the public. The third recommendation is for the Final DOE EIS to address the cumulative effects of adding the spent nuclear fuel project to an area already experiencing impacts from military uses and industrial development. See the attached communication from Dr. William Walker. The fourth recommendation is for the Final DOE EIS to provide a comparison of the effects of using alternative West Coast ports(identified in the Draft DOE EIS)as the selected port-of-entry for the spent research reactor nuclear fuel. The analysis performed for this recommendation should include cumulative effects similar to those called for above. Board Order Department of Energy's EIS June 6, 1995 - Page 5 - REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION (Cont'd) The fifth recommendation is simply direction to staff to communicate the Board of Supervisors' conclusions on the DOE EIS to the U.S. Department of Energy by the cut-off date for the review period. The sixth recommendation is a proposal to use the Final DOE EIS to craft a recommendation from the Board of Supervisors to the U.S. Department of Energy on the final action the DOE proposes to take on the importation issue. The recommendation pre-supposes that the use of the Concord Naval Weapons Station is still contemplated and that there will be a "window" of time between the publication of the decision and the time it is to go into effect. NEB/CAZ:rw . RCMDOE-EIS.bod t ADDENDUM TO ITEM D. 6 JUNE 6 , 1995 On this date the Board held a hearing on the Department of Energy Spent Nuclear Fuels at the Concord Naval Weapons Station. Charles Zahn, Community Development Department, presented the staff report . Dr. William Walker, Health Services Department, commented on the staff report . The following persons presented testimony: Sharon Rumrey, representing the Department of Energy; Julian Frazer, 2415 Alhambra Avenue, Martinez, representing the Martinez City Council ; Jerome Podell, 64 Exter Land, Pleasant Hill; Kathy Lafferty, 1344 Sherwood Drive, Concord; Andy Baltzo, 2092 Ahneita Drive, Pleasant Hill, representing the Mt . Diablo Peace Center; Natalie Russell, 1626 Barnett Circle, Pittsburg, representing the Interfaith Alliance; Bob Mannabert, 2520 Ryan Road, #74 , Concord, representing the Mt . Diablo Peace Center; Dr. Kathryn Smick, 1115 Oak Hill Road, Lafayette, represeneting Physicians for Social Responsibility; Marc Tavernier, 172 Norman Avenue, Clyde; Ellen Schwartz, 11 Moraga Via, Orinda; Michael Veilova, 524 Shelly Drive; Janet Yanko, 1519 Center Avenue, Martinez; Bob Russell, 1626 Barnett Circule, Pleasant Hill, representing People For a New Nuclear Policy; Russell S . Greenlaw, 112 Blueridge Drive, Martinez, representing Contra Costa Firefighters Local 1230 ; Henry Clark, 1019 Macdonald Avenue, Richmond, representing West County Toxics Coalition; Jackie Cabasso, 1440 Broadway, Ste. 500, Oakland, representing Western States Legal Foundation; Mark Mulcay, 2055 Olympic Boulevard, Walnut Creek; Greg Getty, P.O. Box 1637, Pittsburg; Sabiha Gokcen, 2047 Olympic Drive, Martinez; Wesley Nicholson, 1410 Myrtle Drive, Concord; Mark Shaffer, 557 Miner Road, Orinda; Edita Harrott, 1441 Creekside Drive #3078, Walnut Creek, representing Green Party, Contra Costa County; Mercedes Toro, 4672 North Larwin Avenue, Concord; Anmarie Erickson, 329 Rosemarie, Bay Point . The public hearing was closed. The Board took the following action: APPROVED the staff recommendations; ADOPTED a position in strong opposition to the Department of Energy proposal relative to spent nuclear fuesl at the Concord Naval Weapons Station; DESIGNATED Dr. William Walker, Health Services Department, as the public contact person for information on future activities relative to this matter; AUTHORIZED letters relative to the Board of Supervisors ' action on this matter and requesting support be sent to legislative leaders, the Secretary of Energy, President Clinton, Alameda and Solano County Boards of Supervisors and their various cities . MAY-31-1995 14:42 HEALTH SEPUICES ADMIN. 510 370 5096 P.01/02 Contra Costa County Health Services Department William B. Walker, M.D. Medica!Director and -r County Health Officer co`- TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: William B.Walker, M.D. �c 1.• ,�G ,�'I Health Officer/Medical Director DATE: May 31, 1995 SUBJECT: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ON A PROPOSED NUCLEAR WEAPON'S NONPROLIFERATION POLICY CONCERNING FOREIGN RESEARCH REACTOR SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL (DOE EIS) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I attended the public hearing held in Concord, Calif. on May 22, 1995, and listened carefully to the presentation by the Department of Energy staff, as well as the community response. I reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement with regard to the potential use of the Concord Naval Weapons Station as a port of entry for spent nuclear fuel. Concord was not one of the sites considered last fall when a number of other public meetings were held. Therefore, there has not been substantial input from the County or cities affected by this proposal. The Risk Assessment that was done is void of detail with regard to the actual transportation routes through the San Francisco Bay, the particulars of handling the materials at the Concord Naval Weapons Station, and the details of which highway and rail arterials would be used. Sections of the report dealing with Marine Transport Impacts, Port Activities Impaacts and Ground Transport Impacts indicate that "for the general population, the potential impacts are very small.". The report nonetheless documents the possibility of accidents in transport or handling of radioactive materials. The potential for an accident is small and the potential for a release of radioactive materials is even smaller. However, these risks must be viewed with regard to the background of risks faced by the citizens of Contra Costa County. The Health Services Department, and the Board of Supervisors have been actively involved in a program to reduce the potential exposure of our citizens to acutely hazardous materials (AHM's). Although we have put in place a number of important safety measures, including effective emergency response plans, highly trained hazardous materials emergency response teams and the soon to be inaugurated Community Warning System, our primary emphasis has been on encouraging industry to reduce the storage and use of AHM's. That �••• .�.a,.,w..n c"wn rtv 10 MAY-31-1995 14:43 HEALTH SERVICES ADMIN. 510 3?0 509e P-02/02 _2_ effort has been quite successful over the last eight years. The citizens of Contra Costa County face a much higher potential risk of exposure to acutely hazardous materials than citizens elsewhere in California, or for that matter elsewhere in the country. Our citizens must live everyday amongst five oil refineries and many chemical plants. Contra Costa County citizens are doing more than their share do bearing the risk of exposure to the risks inherent in housing important sources of energy for the rest of the country. It is my viewpoint that the risk of exposure to a spent nuclear fuel accident must therefore be viewed as incremental to the background risk that is already present. I therefore recommend that the Board of Supervisors actively oppose the use of the Concord Naval Weapons facility for the importation and transport of spent nuclear fuel. I base this recommendation on: 1) The lack of detail in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement about the specific risks associated with transport through the San Francisco Bay, use of the Concord Naval Weapons Station facilities specifically, and the use of rail and highway arterials for transport out of the Bay Area. 2) These risks may be quantifiable, if an appropriate analysis is done, and they may appear to be of little impact. Nonetheless, they are real and are incremental to the risks faced on a daily basis by citizens of our county living in such close proximity to Acutely Hazardous Materials. I do not feel that the incremental risk is warranted and would recommend that the Federal Government find another port of entry. WW:cbc cc: Mark Finucane c-BOS.nws OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 651 PINE STREET MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94553 Phone: (510) 646-2371; FAX (510) 646-1059 DATE: June 5, 1995 NEWS RELEASE TO: News Media FROM: Jeanne Maglio , Chief Clerk TOTAL PAGES INCLUDING THIS COVER: 1 Attention! We understand some missinformation may have been given concerning the spent nuclear fuels hearing before the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors . The hearing on the Department of Energy Spent Nuclear Fuels at the Concord Naval Weapons Station is scheduled before the Board of Supervisors at 3 p.m. on June 6, 1995, in the Board Chambers , 651 Pine Street, Martinez , California. This news release reaffirms the time of that hearing. I would appreciate if you would announce the correct time of this hearing to be 3 p .m. on June 6 , 1995, PLEASE ADVISE IF FOR ANY REASON YOU DO NOT RECEIVE. THIS ITEM COMPLETE: _RECEIVED City0 f Concord JUN 6 1995 City Council N.embers 1950 Parkside Drive VISORS CLERK BOARD OF SUPER Concord, CA 94519 June 4, 1995 "e attended the public hearing conducted by the Department of Energy concerning the storage and handling of nuclear fuel rods transported from foreign countries. I couldn't believe the federal government would further endanger an already dangerous area in and around Concord, the surrounding cities and navigable bay and rivers. The DOE's contention that no accident could happen is a joke without humor. As we cannot attend your meeting on 'Tuesday, June 6, 1995, we are writing to you to demand that our public officials do everything in their power to prevent the DOE from going forward with its plan for using Concord as an entry port. ,-sincerely, James Fiit+zs ' ons Colleen A. Fitzsimmons 2090 Smith Lane 2090 Smith Lane Concord, CA 94518 Concord, CA 94518 Copy to: Contra Costa Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street -Martinez, CA 94553 05/30/1995 15:31 5102324111 WCTG PAGE 02 y WEST COUNTY TO _ XICS COALITION 1019 MACDONALD AVE., RICHMOND, CA 94801 vacs (510) 232.3427 a fax (510) 2324111 Ceharles Head, Program Manager Office of Spent Nuclear Fuel Management(EM-37) U. S. Department of Energy 180 Independence Avenue, SW Washinton, DC 2085 May 30, .l !395 wear Mr Head, I am responaino to the Draft Environmental impact Statement, On a Proposed Nuclear Weapons Nonproliferation Policy Concerning l=oreiyY 11� r-arch Reactor Spent Nuclear Fuel. We are disturtied that Executive Carder 12898, signed by President Clinton on February 11, 1994, that directs Federal agencies to develop a strategy to adaress emrironmental justice concerns in its programs, policies and regulations is not being adhered to in this case. The Department of Ener} plans to transport Nuclear Spent Fuel by ships thro+lgt: the San Francisco Bay , San Pablo Bay to the Concord Natal Weapons Station, Concord, CA. r The Communities near the Satz Francisco and San Pablo bay are multi-ethnic communities, with a large Afro-American, Latino, Southeast Asian population in the Richmond, San Pablo area, particula.rk ;kdlacent to the waterways. These community people and ethnic populations hate not been contacted !..:> aoer, them of potential risk and possible impact from this proposed f:oliq and project. There should be a series of community meetings in the San Francisco, Richmond, CA, area to take the resident,,) aware of the proposed policy, and to comply with Executive Order 12898. 9 e5/3e/i995 15.31 5102324111 WCTC PAGE 02 _ W'E'ST COUNTY TOXICS COALITION 1019 MACDONALD AVE„ RICHMOND, CA 94801 voice (510) 232.3427 0 fax (510) 232-4111 Charles lead, Program Manager Office of Spent Nuclear Fuel Management (EM-37) U. S. Department of Energy 100 independence Avenue, SW Washinton, nC 2085 May Cc, Dear Mr Head, I am responding to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, On a Prop-,:;ed Nuclear Weapons Nonproliferation Policy Concerning Fvreif7r. Tiscarc#i reactor Spent Nuclear Fuel. *'e are {listurbed that Executive Order 12898; signed by President Clinton on February 11, 1994, that directs Federal agencies to develop a strategy to address environmental justice concerns in its programs, policies and regulations is not being adhered to in this case. The Department of Ener} pians to transport Nuclear Spent Fuel by ships through the San Francisco Bay , San Pablo ray to the Concord Nava! Weapons Station, Concord, CA. The Communities near the San Francisco and San Pablo bay are multi-ethnic communities, with a large Afro-American, Latino, Southeast Asian population in the Richmond, San Pablo area, particularly adjacent to the waterways. These community people and ethnic populations have not been contacted l:D alert them of potential risk and possible impact from this proposed 1:olk:y and project. There should be a series of community meetings, in the San Francisco, Richmond, CA, area to make the resident.: aware of the proposed policy, and to comply with Executiye Order 12898. 0513011995 15:31 5102324111 PAGE 03 WGTC - ' IM # ' WEST COUNTY TOXICS COALITION 1019 MACDONALD AVE.. RICHMOND. CA 94801 voice (510) 2323427 a fax (510) 232-4111 Unfortunately, we cann't confide in the Department of Energy nor the Navy in telling communities of color that there is no risk to our commun:t►es and people from the Nuclear Spent Fuel. This douV goes back to the disaster.at the Concord Naval Weapons atation , July 17, 1944, that kilted (377) mostly black sailors while unloading weapons. This national example of institutional racism have not been acknowledged by the Navy and United States government nor completely addressed to the satisfaction of the families of the sailors nor the Afro-American community locally, nationally, hor internationally. The West County Toxics Coalition recommends community meetings in the Richmond, CA area and other areas so that all communities that are impacted can attend and voice their concerns. This step would be the beginnina of addressing the Environmental Justice issues. We are oppossed to the development of nuclear weapons by any country that viii kill and destroy the environment_ we also encourage the development of safe solar and wind energy, rather than nuclear energy. Nuclear energy production have not proven to be safe nor have the issues of disposing of the spent fuel been addressed to the safety of people and the environment. S incerely, ..Rif Ahmadia Thomas Henry Clark �ucrlie Allen Board chairperson Executive Director Organizer 05/30/1995 1995 15:31 5102324111 WCTf F�'96Ef 02 y WEST" COUNTY TOXICS COALITION 1019 MACDONALD AVE,. RICHMOND, CA 94801 voice (510) 232-3427 a fax (510) 232-4111 x'haries Head, Program Manager Office of Spent Nuclear Fuel Management (EM- U. S. Department of Energy jU independence Avenue, Sof ''.Vashintoll, Of; {�$ Dear lair, i-iead, I am re ponaing to the Draft Enyironmental Impact Statement, On a. Prcp(-;:ped Nuclear Weapons Nonproliferation Policy Concerning F; reig ter search Reactor Spent Nuclear Fuel, We are disturt>ed that Executive Order 12898, signed by President Clinton on February 11, 1994, that directs Federal agencies to develop a strategy to address -nyironmental justice concerns in its programs, policies and regulations is not being adhered to in this caie. The Department of Enery plans to transport Nuclear Spent Fuel by ships througi the San Francisco Say , San Pablo Ray to the Concord Nxial `Neapons Station, Concord, CA. The Communities near the San Francisco and San Pablo bay are multi-ethnic communities, with a large Afro-American, Latino, Southeast Asian population in the Richmond, San Pablo area, particula.rl'- .,idia.cent to the waterways. These community people and ethnic populations have not been ronrac.tc,d i-D aleft them of potential risk and passible impact from this �xopos,,<d poli<.:y and project. There should be a series 4t community meeting, in tree `pan Francisco, Richmond, CA, area to make the residents ;,a.ware of the proposed policy, and to comply with Fxecutiye Order 12898_ 05/30/19-95 15:31 510232411.1 4 irTC PAGE 03 - ` LST COUNTY TOXICS COALITION 1019 MACDONALD AVE- RICHMOND, CA 94801 voice (510) ,232-3427 c fax (510) 232.4111 Unfortunately, we cann't confide in the Department of Energy nor the Na YY i n to l l i ng comm un ities of co for that there is no risk to o ur comrnunit,,es and people from the Nuclear Spent Fuel. This doubt goes back to the disaster at the Concord Natal Weapons Station , Ju!y 1 ?, 1944, that killed (377) mostly black sailors while unloading weapons. This national example of institutional racism have not been acknowledged by the Nary and united States government nor completely addressed to the satisfaction of the families of the sailers nor the Afro-American community locally, nationally, icor internationally. The West County Toxics Coalition recommends community meetings in the Richmond, CA area and other areas so that all communities that are impacted can attend and voice their concerns. This step would be the beginning of addressing the Environmental Justice issues. We are oppk)ssed to the development of nuclear weapons by any country that will k0i and destroy the environment. We also encourage the deyelopment of safe solar and wind energy, rather than nuclear energy. Nuclear energy production have not proven to be safe nor Kaye the issues of disposing of the spent fuel been addre;3sed to the safety of people and the envlronrnent_ S incerety, Henryrk u�:itle Alen �.hmad sa Thomas r'�' Board Chairperson ExecutiYe Director Organizer GEORGE MILLER DISTRICT OFFICES: 7TH DISTRICT,CALIFORNIA 367 Civic DRIVE,#14 PLEASANT HILL,CA 94523 2205 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING (510)602-1680 WasN1NGTON,DC(202)25� MARY LANSING 095-0507 �tCongrea of the �niteb Otateo DISTRICT DIRECTOR DANIEL WEISS ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 30ouge of Rpreantatibeg 3220 BLUME DR. - CHAIRMAN G G ^G �1 SUITE 281 OND,CA COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES ' Wa0bingtun, ;DC 20:71:7--0:70/ RICH 6 COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR 1407 TENNESSEE ST. E C E I V E® N(707) , 94590 (707)84545-1888 TTY(202)225-1904 June 2, 1995 JUN 516 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA CO. Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 i Dear Supervisors : As you consider the Department of Energy' s proposal to ship spent nuclear fuel rods through Concord Naval Weapons Station (.CNWS) , I hope you will review the attached comments I have prepared for release today. As my statement notes, I believe we share many of the same concerns on this most important issue in Contra Costa County. I look forward to continuing working with you to ensure that the best interests of our county are protected. Sinc ely, e �f Member of Con rens 7th District, California Attachment PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER GEORGE MILLER DISTRICT OFFICES: ' 7TH DISTRICT,CALIFORNIA 367 CIVIC DRIVE,#14 PLEASANT HILL,CA 94523 2205 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING (510)602-1 880 WASHINGTON, MARY LANING (202)225-2095DC -0507 Con grea of Me. niteb Otateo DISTRICT DIRECTOR DANIEL WEISS ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 3220 BLUME DR. 3bouge of Repreantatibeg 281 CHAIRMAN SUITE RI A COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES Waobinffton, 30C 205 -050? (510)262 6500 6 15 COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR :7 :7 1407 TENNESSEE ST. VALLEJO,CA 94590 UNITED STATES CONGRESSMAN GEORGE MILLER (707)645-1888 Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement TTY(202)225-1904 "Proposed Nuclear Weapons Nonproliferation Policy Concerning Foreign Research Reactor Spent Fuel" June 2, 1995 Over the past four decades, the United States has entered into bilateral agreements with a large number of foreign nations concerning the long-term disposal of radioactive wastes. For most of this period, global geo-political instabilities made the storage of nuclear wastes a delicate issue because of the vulnerability of storage areas to potential saboteurs and those who might divert the waste to the illegal production of nuclear weapons. Since the mid-1960s, our government has provided technological aid to foreign governments concerning their nuclear programs, agreeing to accept spent fuels for long-term storage in the United States as an incentive to persuade these nations not to develop nuclear programs that could promote proliferation of weapons and .weapons-grade materials. As a consequence of the pledges made by our government in pursuit of non-proliferation goals, these nations have not developed domestic capabilities for storing nuclear wastes on site. Indeed, several of these nations have enacted laws specifically preventing long-term nuclear waste storage on their own territory. At the same time, it must be noted that there has been, and remains, substantial controversy over the siting of long-term nuclear storage right here in the United States. Indeed, the Department of Energy is unable to identify, within this Draft Environmental Impact Statement, the siting and conditions for the permanent storage of spent nuclear fuel once it is returned to the United States under the terms of the non-proliferation program. Thus, in many respects, domestic U.S. storage is as controversial and fraught with uncertainties as overseas storage would be. Since this program began, there have been dramatic and unforeseen changes in the geo- political alignment affecting international alliances, security agreements, and the role of the United Nations. The underlying rationale for transporting this highly radioactive material over long distances on its way to the United States, and then to uncertain storage sites inside the United States, warrants a full scale review in light of the alteration of the international scene. Some nations that were thought vulnerable or incapable of retaining some of all of the waste generated within their region may have greater storage capabilities today. Some nations are showing greater interest in developing their own storage facilities which, supplemented by U.N. or other international enforcement teams, might be a rational and less costly method for assuring the stability and security of the materials. In addition, were the storage proposal outlined in the DEIS to proceed, greater efforts should be made to secure the financial participation of other nations in assisting with the cost of the transportation and disposal plan. PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Statement of Congressman George Miller June 2, 1995 Page Two The draft EIS anticipates bringing 186 casks to the West Coast (as compared to 651 to the East Coast) via ships for transportation to and storage at several temporary waste sites. One of the proposed ports of entry would be the Concord Naval Weapons Station (CNWS) located in Concord, California. Such a proposal to bring highly radioactive materials into a community, if even for a brief time and under highly controlled circumstances, causes Statement of understandable concern. That concern ripens into anxiety when affected communities and elected, officials are not informed in advance that their region is being considered as a recipient of the materials, as occurred in this case with respect to the city of Concord, the County of Contra Costa, other jurisdictions and local officials. I strongly encourage representatives of the Department of Energy to participate in public meetings with local elected officials and other residents of these affected communities to address their concerns and respond'to their questions about the proposal. In addition, I request an extension of the formal comment period beyond June 22, 1995, in order to assure that all local views on this proposal can be expressed. Notification of Local Emergency Service Office. My concern is mitigated by the assurance that the spent nuclear materials would remain in CNWS for a very brief time -- on the order of 24 hours. Clearly, there is no facility at CNWS that would be appropriate to serve as a storage facility on either a long or short term basis. Local officials, including the emergency response team, be alerted prior to any shipment of radioactive materials through CNWS and that county personnel be fully briefed on the proposed movement of the materials so as to maximize coordinated planning with the base in order to assure public safety. Local officials should be assured that any emergency costs associated with the trans-shipment of the casks, including any costs stemming from any accidents, will be fully assumed by the Department of Energy. Review of Seismic Safety Concerns. The DEIS notes (at 3-28) that CNWS "is located on the edge of a very high seismic zone," but little discussion of the seismic safety issue is discussed. While the likelihood of an earthquake during an unloading procedure may be minimal, potential damage to transportation connections could result in the materials remaining longer at CNWS than initially planned. Impacts on San Francisco BaX. The DEIS is virtually silent on the issue of potential risks to shipping and the ecology of San Francisco Bay. Given the uncertain tides, changing weather, frequent obstructions and heavy traffic, the Department should give far greater consideration to implications of bringing highly radioactive materials into a virtually closed Bay in proximity to millions of people. At a minimum, any ships containing casks must be accompanied from the Golden Gate to CNWS by tugs piloted by those with detailed knowledge of the Bay and the Sacramento River. Congressman George Miller June 2, 1995 Page Three Likelihood of Political Controversy at CNWS. The DEIS contains no discussion of the history of demonstrations at CNWS and whether the likelihood of anti-nuclear protests raises any security concerns with respect to the ability to meet the unloading and transportation timetable. Both Contra Costa County and local municipalities should be given assurances that the Department of Energy will pay for the costs of all security related to the Statement of program, including the provision of police during demonstrations in conjunction with the unloading and transportation of the casks. . I expect that the Department of Energy will be fully responsive to these concerns, and those raised by local governments and residents, about the wisdom of using CNWS as an unloading facility for these materials. In addition, the changed political climate in the world today and the enhanced security facilities available world-wide suggests that alternatives to trans-oceanic shipment of nuclear wastes should be explored as an alternative to bringing the material to the United States which also lacks a finalized long term storage program for high level waste. /1/,TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE Costa DATE: June 5, 1995 oui "7 SUBJECT: REPORT ON PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD ON THE COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN BY THE CCTA AND THE CONTRA COSTA COUNCIL SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS Accept report . FISCAL IMPACT Draft Plan would establish additional requirements for the County to satisfy in order to receive it' s share of the Measure C-1988 return-to-source revenues, which amount to approximately $1 . 4 million annually. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS Presentations by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority and the Contra Costa Council on the Draft Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan are scheduled for the June 13 meeting of the Board of Supervisors . Exhibit A include the May 25 transmittal of the Plan to the Board of Supervisors . This attachment includes the Board' s May 16 letter on the Plan as well as an alternative proposal from the Contra Costa Council . Exhibit B includes some questions prepared at the direction of the Transportation Committee and submitted to the Authority for their response at the June 13th presentation. The Committee requests that the Board consider these questions and how the Authority responds to them at the June 13 meeting. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: %X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : Jeff Smith Tom Torlakson ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF -AN AYES: NOES ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Oriq: Community Development Department Contact: Steve Goetz, (510-646-2134) ATTESTED cc: Community Development Director . Contra Costa Council PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD -OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY DEPUTY SG:drb CCTA\bo\ i t t • i EXHIBIT A CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY COMMISSIONERS: Julie Pierce ChaMEMORANDUM Chair Don Tatzin Vice Chair Gayle Bishop TO: All Interested Parties Taylor Davis FROM: Robert K. McCleary Millie Greenberg Executive Director Cathie Kose! W.D. •Bill'Landis DATE: May 25, 1995 John E.Marquez SUBJECT: Transmittal of the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan - Alien Payton Second Draft Dated May 17, 1995. Tom Torlakson Hermann. Welm„ At its May 17, 1995 meeting, the Authority approved circulation of the second sober;K.McCleary Draft of the Contra Costa Countywide Transportation Plan. This version of the Executive Director Plan responds to and incorporates comments received since the first draft was issued in November 1994. The Second Draft consists of this cover letter and attachments, and the separately issued Draft Proposal For Adoption Count)'wide Comprehensive Transportation Plan issued April 27, 1995 with the PGA Committee and Authority agenda packets. The Second Draft also includes separately bound draft responses to comments, and excerpts from the Action Plans (Exhibits A through E). With the release of the second Draft Countywide Plan, the Authority has provided draft responses to over 30 comment letters that have been received -since November 1994. We will continue to accept comments through June 28, 1995. Final adoption of the Countywide Plan is scheduled for July 1995. We welcome your input and submittal of additional written comments you may have. During the comment period, the Countywide Plan will be presented to each city council and to the Board of Supervisors. Once the final Plan is adopted, the Authority is required to update it every two years. A Countywide Forum was held on May 17 to discuss key issues. Some of the key issues that were discussed at that Forum were as follows: s� 1340o soar Blvd, Revised Traffic Service Objectives (TSOs) for TRANSPLAN: TRANSPLAN' has Walnut Creek revised some of its TSOs from hours of congestion to delay index factors. CA 91596 PHONE: 310/938.3970 FAX: 510/938.3993 ' 1 i t Countywide Plan May 25, 1995 Page 2 Lack of Consensus for the Tri-Valley Action Plan: It was originally intended that the Countywide Plan be the compilation of each regional committee's Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance. However, there is currently a lack of consensus on an Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance in the Tri- Valley area. The Tri-Valley Action Plan is being prepared by the Tri-Valley Transportation Council, which includes the jurisdictions of Danville, San Ramon and Contra Costa County, and the Alameda jurisdictions of Livermore, Dublin, Pleasanton, and Alameda County. The TVTC Plan has been approved by all jurisdictions except Contra Costa County. The Authority will need to decide what portions, if any, of the 'Tri-Valley Plan to incorporate into the Countywide Plan. To promote further discussions, attached to this letter are the Draft Traffic Service Objectives and Actions that were considered in the "Proposal for Adoption" Tri-Valley Plan approved for circulation in January, 1995. Countywide Vision "2010": Per the comments received from many parties, the Authority will consider a more positive vision statement for Contra Costa. The Authority noted at the workshop that it wished to continue to highlight, along with the vision, that significant challenges are forecast with regard to traffic growth, congestion, and funding shortfalls. A revised draft vision statement will be discussed at the June PGA and Authority meetings. General Plan Amendment (GPA) Review Procedure: Another issue concerns how the GPA review process specified in Measure C will work. The GPA review process appears to be a core issue. The Contra Costa Council has submitted the attached proposal for GPA review that would mirror the CEQA review process including approval of a GPA with findings of overriding significance. The Authority has expressed an interest to at least conform the GPA review process with CEQA time lines. The main question is: What will a jurisdiction be required to actually do relative to a GPA to receive its Growth Management Program return-to-source funds? Contra Costa County has also submitted a letter commenting on the GPA review procedure and other aspects of the Growth Management Program (also attached). Conflict Resolution Process: Revisions to the draft Conflict Resolution process were approved by the Authority on May 17. The compliance requirements arising from the Conflict Resolution process, and how that process should work will continue to be discussed. The revised draft Conflict Resolution Procedure is attached for review. Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations: Finally, Growth Management and Congestion Management Programs have introduced us to a whole new language. "Has PGA met to review the RTPC's proposed TSOsT If you don't know Countywide Plan May 25, 1995 Page 3 If you have not already received a copy of the April 26, 1995 Countywide Plan and attachments to it that were distributed along with the May PGA and Authority agenda packets, and would like to obtain them, please contact Ms. Feliz Hill of our office at (510) 256-4720, or send a fax to (510) 938-3993, attention Ms. Hill. Attachments: 1) Revised Traffic Service Objectives Submitted by TRANSPLAN 2) Proposed Tri-Valley Traffic Service Objectives and Actions Draft Action Plan Objectives and Actions from the January 1995 Proposal for Adoption Tri-Valley Transportation Plan. 3) Proposed Growth Management Principles for Consideration, submitted by the Contra Costa Council 4) Contra Costa County's letter dated May 16, 1995 5) Conflict Resolution Process 6) Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations mre:wpfiles:cctp:tl.595 1. REVISED TRAFFIC SERVICE OBJECTIVES Submitted by TRANSPLAN RESOLUTION 95-1 RE: RESCIND TRAFFIC SERVICE OBJECTIVES ORIGINALLY DEFINED IN THE EAST COUNTY ACTION PLAN PROPOSAL FOR ADOPTION (DEC. 1994) AND REPLACE WITH REVISED TRAFFIC SERVICE OBJECTIVES AND FORWARD REVISIONS TO THE CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY FOR INCLUSION INTO THE COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN WHEREAS, the Measure C-1988 Growth Management Program requires all Contra Costa County jurisdictions to participate in the preparation of Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance (Action Plans) to determine the appropriate measures and programs for mitigation of regional traffic impacts; WHEREAS. the Growth Management Implementation Documents adopted by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority ("Authority") in December 1990 further require that each regional transportation planning committee develop and adopt an Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance which includes the following components: 4) A designated network of routes of regional significance; 2) Adopted Traffic Service Objectives (TSOs) using quantifiable measures of effectiveness that include target dates of attainment; 3) Specific actions, programs, and measures to be implemented by each participating jurisdiction; 4) Requirements for consultation on environmental documents; 5) Procedures for review of impacts of General Plan Amendments; and 6) A schedule for Regional Committee and Authority review of progress to attain adopted TSOs. WHEREAS, TRANSPLAN, the regional transportation planning committee for eastern Contra Costa County comprised of the cities of Antioch, Brentwood, and Pittsburg, and Contra Costa County, submitted an Action Plan for Regional Routes in East County Proposal For Adoption on December 8, 1994, which it believes met the requirements set forth in the Authority's Growth Management Implementation Documents, based upon input provided by the Technical Advisory Committee, Action Plan consultant, Authority staff, members of the public, and each jurisdiction's elected officials and management staff; WHEREAS, subsequent to submittal of the East County Action Plan Proposal For Adoption on December 9, 1994 to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, Authority staff has interpreted said Measure C guidelines as mandates for compliance jurisdiction compliance and is now recommending exclusion of the Proposal For Adoption's procedures for General Plan Amendment Review, to be replaced with potentially burdensome analysis requirements and procedures; y 1 I t WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment Review analysis requirements and procedures, which the Authority staff believes are mandated under Measure C Implementation Guidelines, require that a jurisdiction considering approval of a General Plan Amendment, of a certain size, demonstrate that the amendment will not violate Action Plan policies or the ability to meet Traffic Service Objectives, or require jurisdiction to propose modifications to the Action Plan that will prevent amendment from adversely affecting regional transportation network; WHEREAS, approving a General Plan Amendment without demonstrating ability to meet Traffic Service Objectives or amending Action Plan may lead to a finding of non- compliance with Measure C's Growth Management Program and, thus, possibly result in the Authority withholding a jurisdiction's Measure C 18% Return-to-Source Funds; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that TRANSPLAN, acting as the regional transportation planning committee for eastern Contra Costa County comprised of the cities of Antioch, Brentwood, and Pittsburg, and Contra Costa County, does hereby rescind and replace the Traffic Service Objectives contained in the East County Action Plan Proposal For Adoption (Dec. 1994),- RESOLVED, 994);RESOLVED, that the TRANSPLAN Committee and its member jurisdictions acknowledge their willingness to use good faith efforts to implement the actions listed in the East County Action Plan Proposal For Adoption (Dec. 1994) as one of the conditions for its member jurisdictions to receive 'Measure C-1988 Return-to-Source Funds based on new. revised Traffic Service Obiectives, which are attached as Exhibit "A", Table 4, Action Plan Traffic Service Objectives (May 11, 1995); RESOLVED, that the TRANSPLAN Committee Chair is authorized to submit the attached Traffic Service Objectives revisions (Exhibit "A") to the Authority for inclusion in the East County Action Plan Proposal For Adoption and Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and its accompanying environmental impact repos; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the TRANSPLAN Technical Advisory Committee is directed to make the necessary editorial changes to the East County Action Plan Proposal For Adoption, so that the document may reflect the revisions to the Traffic Service Objectives approved by this resolution. Barbar Guise, Chair attest: � p� S�iS�9s The above resolution was entered into by the TRANSPLAN Committee at its regular meeting held in Antioch, CA.on May 11, 1995. , Recorded vote on Resolution 95-1 ayes: T. Davis, J. Garcia, B. Guise, L. Lawrence, A. Payton, E. Sobalvarro, and T. Torlakson noes: none absent: M. Durkin, and C. Gaddis abstain: none s Exhibit "A" ' Table 4 Action Plan Traffic Service Objectives Proposed Revisions: Ptav 11 1995 Peal; Hour' Schedule Demand Regional Route Tra(ric Service Objective to Achieve Threshold SR 4 Freeway(including SR 4 Bypass . Morning Peak Hour Vehicle 2010 n/a Expressway) Occupancy 1.25 or higher Delay Index less than 3.0 SR 4 Non-Freeway . LOS D or letter at signalized 2010 varies' SR 160 to Balfour Road intersections . LOS E or better at unsignalized intersections Delay Index less than 3.0 SR 4 Non-Freewa\ LOS E or better calculated for 2010 2,100 Balfour Road to San Joaquin rural highways County Line . Delav Index less than 2.0 Vasco Road= Pk. Hr. Vehicle Occupancy 1.3 or 2010 nfa higher . Delay Index less than 3.0 Byron Highway LOS mid E or better (rural 2010 1,570 highway) Delay Index less than 3.0 Marsh Creek Road (east of Deer Valley Road) LOS mid E or bener 2010 1,200 Camino Diablo Road . Delay Index less than 2.0 1,200 Deer Valley Road aural portion) l 3 lir Parker Pass Road . LOS mid E or better 12010 2,520 � 1 Delav Index less than 2.0 Suburban Anerial Routes' Intersection LOS mid D or better 2010 varies' Delay index less than 2.0 11 ' The notation 'varies" indicates that the threshold will depend on specific conditions at particular intersections. =Threshold assumes the Vasco Road relocation project is completed. 3Includes the following roads: Lone Tree Way, Railroad Avenue, Leland Road, Delta Fair Boulevard, Buchanan Road, Somersville Road, Hillcrest Avenue. Deer Valley Road(northern portion), Walnut Boulevard, Willow Pass Road, Bailey Road(north of Leland), Evora Road, and the Buchanan Road Bypass(future route). ' Volumes are the total of both directions. DRS Associates F:\P\9 I\91 173\DOCS\N E WTSOTB r a 2. PROPOSED TRI-VALLEY TRAFFIC SERVICE OBJECTIVES AND ACTIONS FROM THE JANUARY 1995 PROPOSAL FOR ADOPTION TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION/ACTION PLAN NOTE; There is no consensus at either SWAT or TVTC on proposed TSOs or actions. v c r�,c: sGv aG+► rGi r'b+ a" V4:. rG(AM a : r��► Y'�++' res. 'it> t�+t : CMS C }G C ?C C Xv TE « -o .. �; c. ra •a. ash -vat' ' N �'.'N :•r R:: 'fl }'19 G{r K: A' i «: •w �'10 S•1' }t6 Y/0. as. a (Jkxi v lie cc CC LO ✓r-- tz :.b C v G =>� C G v ebo _ O v. �= � _' v •c '- ,. _ � r L 'O `C d L jl LL r. _ .. Lo 60 L « Z S L 4-0 w cc IE V > a Lf. ro C w M w• .}'<'':V < F•' .Y Lit w C C S y C « •V a �'fi7 Cd p IK 4 a ` L c u f. fl 'G ... C 17 r, L' = 'v 1� s` .- .• v L V It G. tOCG 'y C •ir. .+ ` w •, •u Y 3 3 rn ti c i vi x ; • •y L V t > .0 s 'o sr y v R C ro I I V L w E- c '►H`. .rte 4 � q: F = '^ � � � ...y •'� �' �; ""+ m': M •V 9 o jAl � 0 0 It V C n C v = _ c = � � � � � � c g •3 , y � L — > F o C o o v: ccco tz cc ZL 'M O _ V ; O .t EL cd v) = cr O. - e>e c z W. > L _ C = 4 p SiVl3 V P V C-� n O O p a a+ V 0 O 1e e1 V H 00 > L L R p H 19 •� cc 0 �c 3 3 H _ H h c 3 ^ u c > A A t a y G E ' Y: Y 0 i U r J � w Is, r :i v :o 40 Y• >�' 4S •• �L• 1 i i V .i •L G r U > Sl! Sr3 •u o . .0 •.y`. y ;bier:�.r st My N v O 3. PROPOSED GROWTH MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES for consideration Submitted by the Contra Costa Council May 17. 199 PROPOSED PRINCIPLES for consideration MEASURE C GROWTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM The Contra Costa Council, in cooperation with the Building Industry Association (BIA), the Coalition of Labor and Business (COLAB), Central Labor Council, the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association and the Association of Realtors is pleased to submit the following set of"principles" that we would encourage the Contra Costa Transportation Authority to consider in the development of the Countywide Transportation Plan and Measure C Growth Management Program: 1. Return-to-source funds must be an incentive to implement the Measure C Growth Management Program. A unique provision of Measure C is that it seeks to encourage responsible growth nianagement at the local level by providing an incentive to participate through the return-to-source program. This concept is working well in that all 19 jurisdictions have adopted. and are complying with, Growth Management Elements in their respective General Plans. The concept that the return-to-source funds are to be an incentive to comply must be maintained. 2. The Grov.-th Management Program should not be implemented in such a manner that %could alloNN an individual jurisdiction, a Regional Committee or the Authority to "veto" another jurisdiction's general plan amendment or project. Measure C provided funds to improve our transportation system and included an incentive to participate in a Growth Management Program designed to encourage cooperation in the review of projects impacting our regional transportation system while maintaining local control over local land use decisions. Jurisdictions who agree to participate in the program, manage growth through their General Plans and comply with clearly defined disclosure and review requirements should not be denied an allocation of return-to-source funds. Local agencies must retain the ability to approve a project when, after consideration of all factors, including transportation impacts, and participation in a cooperative review of issues, they can show(make findings)that the benefits of the project outweigh impacts. The role of the Authority and the Regional Committees should be to insure full public disclosure of potential impacts, cooperate and assist in identifying and developing appropriate project mitigations (transportation related!) and provide a forum to discuss and, hopefully, resolve issues. l 3. The Authority should accept the Action Plans as adopted (or amended) by the Regional Committees and, if nceessan-, utili c a cooperative process with the Regional Committees to eliminate inconsistencies bet-,%een the various plans. The Growth Management Implementation documents adopted by the Authority in 1990 appropriately focus responsibility for development of the Action Plans on the Regional Committees. The documents indicate that"in cases where consensus has been reached among members of the Regional Committee ..., the Authority will accept the objectives and action policies as proposed." When consensus exists, the Authority is to include the Action Plans into the Countywide Plan. Only when "other committees) oppose some portion of the Action Plan..." does the Authority have a role with development of the Action Plans. The Authority's role should be to identify conflicts (if any) between Action Plans and work to eliminate the conflicts through a cooperative process with the affected Regional Committees. If no agreement can be reached, then the Authority should delete the conflicting provisions in such a manner that does not impose new requirements or alter current authority of any jurisdiction. In the case where jurisdictions cannot agree upon TSO's or action policies within their Action Plan, then the Countywide Plan would identifi- no TSO's or action policies for that regional route because there is no consensus. 4. The Authority should require use of the Countywide traffic model to evaluate major development projects and proposed general plan amendments. Measure C indicates that a "countywide transportation computer model provides an opportunity to test General Plan(s) transportation and land use alternatives, and to assist the cities and.the county in determining the impact of major development proposals proposed for General Plan amendments." The intent of the Measure in this regard is clear, the Authority should require local jurisdictions to use it's model to test major development projects and proposals and "advise" all concerned as to their findings. Consideration should be given to use of a standardized disclosure process, as suggested by TRANSPLAN. As indicated in the Measure, this procedure"...would provide a quantitative basis for inter-jurisdictional negotiation to mitigate cumulative regional traffic impacts." It seems clear that the Authority is to act as a neutral source of information for all jurisdictions, as well as the public, to use in assessing the impact of new development on our regional transportation system. The Authority's role is to insure that potential project impacts are disclosed and appropriate mitigations identified and considered. �. The role of the Regional Committees should be to rcvic"-, not approve, project proposals and general plan amendment requests. Sponsoring jurisdictions are required to concurrently notify the Authority of development proposals and. for projects that impact our regional transportation system, submit the project and/or proposed general plan amendment (along with proposed mitigations) to their Regional Committee for review. The adopted Action Plan and the Countywide traffic model should be the basis for the Regional Committee's review. The sponsoring jurisdiction must participate in"good faith"and"cooperate"with the Regional Committee,and other concerned parties. Jurisdictions must cooperate in identifying appropriate mitigations and/or modifications to the adopted Action Plan. If a determination is made that a modification to the adopted Action Plan is required, the jurisdiction proposing the project should be required to either 1) modifi, the project to reduce its impact or 2) propose a modification to the Action Plan. After all of the above, if consensus cannot be reached at the Regional Committee level %vith respect to project mitigations and/or amendments to the adopted Action Plan, the sponsoring jurisdiction may still approve a project (and not loose their return-to-source funds), provided that they take the following steps: a. Provide a Notice of Intent to the public, all jurisdictions, regional committees, anc the Authority: b. The Notice shall include a statement of reasons for intending to approve the project without consensus at the regional committee; C. The Notice shall alio\,.• for a 20-day %%Titten comment period ending at least 10 days before a noticed public hearing; d. Circulate all I.NTitten comments to Council members or Board members; e. Hold a public hearing and accept testimony; f. If approval is still desired, adopt a finding of special circumstance, detailing the reasons for the approval which may include impacts of traffic generated outside the jurisdiction, unique local conditions, health, safety, public welfare, and other reasons; and g. Immediately provide a Notice of Finding of Special Circumstance to the public, all jurisdictions, regional committees,and the Authority. The requirement should be to participate in good faith in negotiations - not to mandate specific results. Approval of this Finding of Special Circumstances would be considered consistent with the Action Plan(which would be amended as necessary to reflect the change at the next update). 6. The Compliance Checklist should be used to determine a jurisdictions eligibility for return-to-source funds. The current Checklist should be updated to reflect the principles discussed herein, including notice requirements, use of the County-,vide traffic model to evaluate project impacts, participation in the Regional Committee review process, and compliance with proper procedures before any consideration of Findings of Special Circumstance that might be considered as a result of a lack of consensus at the Regional Committee level. The Compliance Checklist process is currently used by the Authority to determine if a jurisdiction is participating in the Growth Management program. The procedure is a self- certification process and used gauge compliance with the intent of the Measure C Growth Management requirements. The completed Checklists should be widely distributed (published) and used to notify all jurisdictions, the Authority and the public as to all jurisdiction's actions with respect to complying with the Growth Management requirements of Measure C. Return-to-source funds should be withheld when a jurisdiction fails to participate in the development review process or otherwise fails to comply with the requirements of the Measure C Growth Management Program. The Checklist needs to be updated to reflect the concepts proposed herein. It must be clear and concise. The Authority should not require additional actions to receive retum- to-source funds unless the Authority makes a finding, after a public hearing, that a jurisdiction has failed to participate in General Plan review process or otherwise failed to comply with other requirements the Measure C Growth Management Program. 7. The Conflict Resolution Process should be used to resolve issues with respect to the Compliance Checklist and available for use, on a voluntary basis, to resolve issues identified through the project and General Plan review process. The process should be a mediation Nvith no arbitrated decisions. W'ith respect to issues identified during the processes discussed in item 6 above, jurisdictions should be able to utilize the Conflict Resolution Process on a voluntary basis to resolve issues. Failure to participate in the Conflict Resolution Process at this level would not be a basis for loss of return-to-source funds. The process would be in the style of a mediation and not an arbitrated decision and designed to encourage participation and ensure no preemption of local decision making authority. The primary use of the Conflict Resolution Process would be to resolve issues with respect to the Compliance Checklist. 4 � u ' o y O � Q G � \ L n ' G G m < GO hp r d G� � c G T 0 t, tit G h U ✓ , t V� �u R=0 N . D Y J. L' T 1 l .ar v a c N m a o m t Tod emn •c O � o b G N r b a~ o ON G G �j 4 NEWS-, M.,............... Ki L ......M .. In ............ ............=Z"s ........... WOR ilk SL . . ...... ...... t .............. ;,==- — ------– – –-- g .............. ..... ........ – ............. ............. ............ ........... .. ..:.t.:,.. MIM _FS, ----mss- ---- ----—----–--- =Z;f7z_ -g-g—g- ftt.............. . . ...... ........ . .... ........ -— - --­ F-J;- o-z' zf,-= ssi .sty ................ ---------------------- iFM'Mx�—==zMZF 'E'Ef ---–-–---------- ................... . ....... ........... . .:qtr 'Sttftrf" I, O. . . ....... ............ ........... -—-----........ s' testi M-1;1.12:111.11_-—­—--------- R- ----------- .... .......... ........... £fstOf -0 w"ftN' ZZ A3., ,M-NM NO Z-- ............ ........... ....... –------- . ........ x's ...... sisFit... ...... vqw, /..... g Ni"T tet i . ...... . .. ............... =FFe-ME"', ZZ7;1"— .... ..... "7g— f" FRP ............... ....................M57..... ... tuft ,zits 3–Im—, Mozr r,-7,,' �­=,M .11,59H "+2,; MM .. MA gli Kill NIP, -M M........ ---------- y a� C G � Ci3 v o lot e. *00 00 �../ 4 o v � a3 ,...a , L 14" Lot En t3 0 o b4 G :5 Cd U �- U v ° Cd v _ o Oma„ t a ' r o •fin o ' tr: ismv r� o � 4''` O •'�� � C4; � � N 0 3`. y • f f � V/ V CJS it V cra 1�1.. 00 st 5— CIA ...� Ito Ta ..a 4 00 •� � U � O O � � � O y jj G .� c3 v, is c� O ob o3 qw 00 00 � $t s d 00 00 .0 ar p c3 � V l f j IMF- y/ as as .q � 3 l •G v: r G -:5 ct wo Qat v� -- r + U c L> 12 1 r • i O c b�1 tn tn 1 W r- otn IIS 'o pt" lip O G v .i.� •.tIj O o 6DrPA v U tt� cit s� OWO W-4 .�! VtD > v' V p3 low ✓ — -a > c O' U tCRI ctJ C4 Cd o •� � O U U � «.• O -W v •,�; GA U ct C� A, von �, a3 pD cd � p Q r 06 *10 too col ell 00 tf) *00 C11 '` ,.o CG O O cd � 7 i O• ?, O r . U � v � o J a i tr, - d •off , � Gr C tn a ro d o ° s� . , v) M„ir '� •��' Nom, � a ,�r,3 ` ►' v Q U tn tri cd C• � � v ` ''" � � c� � Gy, v, Cdtn Q O cd p • O j 'jpoA O A ed it .♦ ..-� ..•� • '' �_' '��j TP IL tri tn. c� 1� t*.A •� `1+C , O d 1 r ooQ, ` aG c N O t5 o rn o 0 0 a� c y d u � G tlt �N 1 7 U b O W d o a U ` CO G G d G R O O O e O _ tU d i 1 r. 1 ;1 r s � U i C Y G � T •7 U N eo c o. w V �, Q•N d C L 0 _ Q O pO d a v 0 'Z c � d U .0 c 0 0 0 N O ¢ •� n d v D J � o \ � DI o v � 1 cl% (il 14 ..p � r r� v a � c� r © v W ow cei aA a a 4. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY'S LETTER Dated May 16, 1995 The Board of Supervisors Costa County'AdnlilliSL'3ii� v $ui;d.y ( osta ' 651 Pine Street, Roor-. 13:17 Martinez, Catnointa 9455:.-129 County 1 Jim Rogers,Ist D.stncs ; : May 16. 199 Jeff Smith.2nd District Wyk Bishop.3rd District �.� Wyk DeSaulnisr,41A District Tom Totlakson,5th Distrz yT�w iy��,•�%' Ms. Julie Pierce, Chair Contra Costa Transportation Authority 1340 Treat Boulevard, Suite 150 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Dear Chair.Pierce: The Board of Supervisors requests the Contra Costa Transportation Authority to consider our concerns with the Draft County wide Comprehensive Transportation Plan at your May 17th forum. The Authority should not mandate a specific General Plan amendment review process. There is considerable concern with the Authority's apparent insistence to mandate a general plan amendment review process without addressing the concerns of the Regional Committees. The process proposed by the Authority was adopted in 1990, before work on the Action Plans began. Since that tim:. the TRANSPLAN Committee took particular care in developing their general plan amendment review process to reflect the concerns of the participating, jurisdictions, all which have the potential for significant changes to their General Plans in the future. Yet, Resolution 95-03-G overrides the TRANSPLAN Committee by mandating a specific process to be applied countywide, without any variation that acknowledges the concerns of the Regional Committees. The Authority's proposed action does not seem consistent with the cooperative transportation planning process envisioned in Measure C. Rather than mandating a process, the Authority is advised to resolve their differences with the TRANSPLAN Committee and others through negotiation. These concerns include: - incurring additional bureaucratic costs and delays in the review of general plan amendments beyond that already required for local review and CEQA compliance; - evaluating land use proposals using 20-year forecasts rather than five-year forecasts as specified in the Measure C text; - evaluating land use proposals using 20-year forecasts developed by computer models that can, at best, only provide estimates of current traffic within 20 percent of actual counts for no more than half the intersections being measured; and - requiring Authority approval of any Action Plan amendment agreed to by a Regional Committee. a " i s Chair Pierce May 16, 1995 Page Two Demonstration of "Good Faith" should be based on participation in the process, not the outcome. The Board remains concerned that Resolution 95-03-G imposes a new standard for local jurisdictions to meet when demonstrating "good faith" in the conflict resolution process. The Resolution defines "good faith" as "exhibiting a spirit of participation and compromise that could ultimately result in resolution of the conflict." This definition goes beyond requiring full participation in settlement discussions or the consideration of alternative proposals as suggested in the Implementation Guide. The expectation of compromise conflicts with the Implementation Guide's assurance that compliance with the Growth Management Program "cannot preempt local land.use decisions or require cities or accept unwanted construction projects. Compliance will not require any city, town or the county to accept programs that create a fundamental conflict with the communitv's socioeconomic or environmental character." The Board believes that "good faith" should be determined by participation in the conflict resolution process, not by its outcome. A jurisdiction's full participation in the settlement meetings and its consideration,of alternative proposals are indicators of good faith that can be readily determined. Relyinc on a "spirit of participation and compromise" indirectly allows the Authority to determine compliance based on the outcome of the process. such as the appropriateness of a land use decision, which is clearly not permitted by the Measure C text. Quality of Life should be determined by general purpose governments, not the Transportation Authority. The intent of the Authority, as stated in the Measure C text, is to create a growth management process that results in the maintenance of the quality of life in Contra Costa. It is the process that defines maintenance of the quality of life, not the Authority. Quality of life issues are best determined by general purpose local government such as city councils and the Board of Supervisors, who are directly elected and accountable to their constituents on these issues. Quality of life should not be determined by single issues, such as transportation, or by a single purpose agency such as the Authority. The Board hopes the Authority will ultimately respond to the concerns raised by the Board and by others at the May 17th Forum. ?. I y, tl*t,�ice Chair Contra Costa Board of Supervisors TC To: soARD of svPERVIsol�s _ , Contra FROM: TRANSPORTATION COMKITTEE Costas DATE: May 16, 1995 coir"y SUBJECT: REPORT ON TEE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CCTA'S PLANNING AND GOVERN)MMAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE ON THE COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN SPECIFIC REQUESTS) OR RECOHKMMATION(S) i BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOIQT DATIONS Authorize the Chair to sign a letter transmitting the comments of the Board of Supervisors on the Draft Proposal for Adoption, Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan. FISCAL IKPACT The Draft Plan would establish additional requirements for the County to satisfy in order to receive it's share of the Measure C- 1988 return-to-source revenues, which amount to approximately $1.4 million annually. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECQMYENDATIONS The Board of Supervisors has been monitoring the Contra Costa Transportation Authority's preparation of the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan for several years. Exhibit A contains the Board's most recent comments on the Plan along with the responses prepared by Authority staff. 1 The Planning and Governmental Affairs Committee forwarded these comments and responses to the Authority for their consideration, but did not recommend any changes to the Draft Plan or the implementing resolution. CONTIN'SD ON ATTACHl'.F.?:T: XX YES SIGNATURE _ RECOM.XIN'DATION OF COUi.'TY ADMINISTRATOR_j_RECOHMENDATION OF BOARD COd—._T=r_ APPROVE THER SIM;ATURE(S) : of with Tom Torlakson ACTION OF BOARD ON may 16, 1995 APPROVED AS RECOFMEMED OTHER ACCEPTED the Report on the recommendations of the CCTA's Planning and Governmental Affairs Co=ittee on the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan and AMORIZED the Vice Chair, Board of Supervisors, to sign a letter transmitting the comments of the Board on the Draft Proposal for Adoption, Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Supervisor Smith agreed to attend the May 17, 1995, Transportation Authority Forur- as the alternate to Supervisor Bishop. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HERESY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A 1'NANn OUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: 2 4 ACTION TXMM; AND ENTERED ON THE ABS RBST MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHORN. Orig: Community Development Department Contact: Steve Goetz, (510/646-2134) ATTESTED may 16, 1995 cc: Community Development Director CCTA (via CDD) PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF RTPC'S (via CDD) THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS LINTY ADMIN TOR E .Y SG:drb tor6:,tcc:• 5: REVISED CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS Comments and Responses Proposed CCTA Conflict Resolution Process Comments on the Conflict Resolution process have been received from the following individuals and organizations: 1 Gayle Bishop, Chair, Contra Costa Board of Supervisors undated 2 TRANSPLAN Committee April 5, 1995 3 Kevin Roberts, Community Development Director, City of Walnut Creek April 5, 1995 4 Gagen, McCoy, McMahon & Armstrong April 5, 1995 Representing Tassajara Property Owners Association 5 Gwen Regalia, TRANSPAC Chair April 13, 1995 6 Barbara Guise, Chair TRANSPLAN Committee April 14, 1995 7 Marilyn Leuck, City Manager City of Hercules April 17, 1995 8 Gagen, McCoy, McMahon & Armstrong April 17, 1995 Representing Tassajara Property Owners Association Copies of these letters are included as a separate attachment, along with other comment letters received on the Draft Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan. i CA013`13-CRCL.0 4/25/95 April 26, 1995 Proposed CCTA Conflict Resolution Process Comments and Responses 1. COMMENT: The description of Category 2 disputes is too broad. There should be a strong basis for bringing such a dispute to the CCTA, and for insuring that it is appropriate for the CCTA conflict resolution process. DISCUSSION: The description of Category 2 disputes is intentionally broad. This reflects the facts that use of the conflict resolution process for Category 2 disputes is voluntary, and that the CCTA will not make final determinations relating to compliance with the Growth Management or the Congestion Management Program in connection with Category 2 disputes. This type of dispute is included in the program in order to provide a constructive option for jurisdictions or RTPCs that wish to work together to successfully implement CCTA programs, but who have reached an impasse that imperils the success of their efforts. PROPOSED REVISION: The description of Category 2 disputes in the "Introduction to CCTA Conflict Resolution Process" has been modified to clarify that participation in conflict resolution for Category 2 disputes is voluntary on the parts of both parties. 2. COMMENT: The conflict resolution process should be initiated either only through an RTPC or the CCTA, or with their approval. A super-majority should be required for process initiation. DISCUSSION: Local jurisdictions will often be the parties most directly involved in a conflict, so approval by their councils or board will be an essential part of making a commitment to the conflict resolution process. Subsequent approval of either the RTPC or the CCTA would provide some oversight and minimize the likelihood of inappropriate or frivolous use of the process. Because this process will always take place in a situation where there is disagreement, the suggestion that a super-majority be required to approve initiation is not incorporated into the proposed revisions. A party at odds with its neighbors should be given a reasonable opportunity to use the process in order to resolve a conflict in a productive fashion. PROPOSED REVISION: The proposed Process Outline has been revised to indicate that a local jurisdiction must initiate the process through a majority vote of its Council or Board, and then seek the approval of the RTPC by obtaining a majority vote of the RTPC prior to the initiation letter. if an RTPC does not approve a local jurisdiction's proposal to initiate the process, the jurisdiction may appeal that decision directly to the Authority. AA13-RTC2.0 Page l April 26, 1995 Proposed CCTA Conflict Resolution Process Comments and Responses 3. COMMENT: The party requesting initiation of the process should be required to clearly justify bringing the dispute to the Authority, including, as appropriate, citation of Measure C, and the Growth/Congestion Management Program documents. DISCUSSION: This comment applies to Category 1 disputes which relate to compliance with the Congestion Management and Growth Management Programs. PROPOSED REVISION: The proposed Process Outline has been modified to reflect the requirement that the initiation letter should identify the relevant regulatory or procedural requirement that has resulted in proposed use of the conflict resolution process. 4. CONENIIEN T: Any party to the dispute should be able to request a meeting with the Authority or other parties to determine if less formal resolution is possible or to clarify any questions about the process. PROPOSED REVISION: The Proposed Outline has been revised to indicate that any party to a dispute may request a meeting with the Authority or other parties to determine if less formal resolution is possible or to clarify any questions about the conflict resolution process. 5. CONUMENT: The Authority should make a determination that the dispute is eligible for its conflict resolution process. DISCUSSION: A requirement for a formal determination is not proposed. However, the Situation Assessment process provides an opportunity to identify disputes that are not suitable for the process, and, as appropriate, to explore other options for resolution. The Authority may take a position that a dispute is not eligible, but it will not make a formal determination. NO REVISIONS ARE PROPOSED 6. CONJIN EN'T: The process should be open to the public and consistent with all Brown Act requirements. DISCUSSION: Authority legal counsel is reviewing the process Outline in order to clarify how Brown Act requirements would apply to the process. When Brown Act requirements are not applicable, the parties to each process may determine how best to inform the public about the process. PROPOSED REVISIONS: Revisions will be proposed following review of the issue by A:\13-RTC2.0 Page 2 April 26, 1995 Proposed CCTA Conflict Resolution Process Comments and Responses CCTA legal counsel. 7. CONUqEN7: The outline should state clearly that Category 2 disputes will not result in determinations of compliance with the Growth Management Program or the Congestion Management Program by the Authority. DISCUSSION: Settlement of Category 2 disputes will be made by the parties direct]), involved. Though the CCTA has an interest in these disputes, it will not make final determinations of compliance in relation to them. PROPOSED REVISIONS: The following language is added to the "Introduction to the Conflict Resolution Process:" "Use of the Conflict Resolution process for Category 2 disputes will not affect determination of the local jurisdiction's compliance with the Growth Management or the Congestion Management Program." 8. CQNfNIENT: The description of the Category 2 settlement process should acknowledge that, in come cases, the only agreement that may be reached is to terminate the process. DISCUSSION: The voluntary nature of the conflict resolution process for Category 2 disputes means that parties may withdraw from the process at any time. NO REVISIONS ARE PROPOSED 9. COMAfEN'T: The Conflict Resolution process might be "abused by certain parties as a leverage or bargaining chip" on matters only peripherally related to CCTA business. DISCUSSION: In the case of Category I disputes, all disputes must be directly related to determinations of compliance with the Growth Management and/or the Congestion Management Program. The voluntary nature of the Category 2 process should prevent parties from "abusing" it. PROPOSED REVISION: The description of Category 2 disputes in the "Introduction to CCTA Conflict Resolution Process" has been modified to clarify that participation in conflict resolution for Category 2 disputes is voluntary on the parts of both parties. AA13-RTC2.0 Page 3 April 26, 1995 Proposed CCTA Conflict Resolution Process Comments and Responses 10. COMMENT: The proposed process should be reviewed by a subcommittee of City Attorneys prior to adoption by the CCTA. DISCUSSION: Review by City Attorneys or others is welcome. There will be time for such a review following the May PGA meeting at which proposed changes to the Introduction and Outline are discussed. NO REVISIONS ARE PROPOSED 11. CON. BIEEN'T: Section III.C.1. of the Process Outline should be revised to read, "After a few initial sessions, the parties or the CCTA may request that a third parte professional assist at subsequent meetings." PROPOSED REVISION: The suggested revision is incorporated into the Process Outline. 12. CUNBIENT: The language in section N.C., CCTA Assessment of Good Faith Participation, should conform to the language in CCTA Resolution 95-03-G. PROPOSED REVISION: The change suggested has been made. The outline now indicates that "The primary basis for assessing good faith participation will be whether the parties have demonstrated "good faith" in the process by "exhibiting a spirit of participation and compromise that could ultimately result in resolution of the conflict." 13. CONfME.N'T: If one party does not operate in good faith during conflict resolution, is that party at risk for a finding of non-compliance? If so, this should be made clear in the conflict resolution process. DISCUSSION: Non-cooperation in the process may lead to a finding of non-compliance in the case of Category 1 disputes. The voluntary nature of participation in the process in the case of Category 2 disputes means that a finding of non-compliance. will not be a result of the process in any circumstance. NO REVISIONS ARE PROPOSED AA13-RTC2.0 Page 4 April 26, 1995 Proposed CCTA Conflict Resolution Process Comments and Responses 14. COMMENT: Measure C Return-to-Source funds should be "frozen" during the Conflict Resolution Process, with Contra Costa County funds withheld according to the proportionate share of the County's funds for the'region in which the dispute is occurring. DISCUSSION: A freeze on retum-to-source funds during the conflict resolution process would be inconsistent with the spirit of the process. Jurisdictions participating in the conflict resolution will be presumed to be doing so in good faith and should not be disadvantaged in any way for participating. Furthermore, creating a disincentive to participation in conflict resolution would be counter-productive. Regarding the County's proportionate share of funds, the Authority has the flexibility to allocate a portion of a jurisdiction's retum-to-source funds based upon the incremental steps a jurisdiction has taken towards compliance. NO REVISIONS ARE PROPOSED 15. CONI BEEN r: A preamble should be added to the conflict resolution process which incorporates the six statements of principles contained in Measure C. DISCUSSION: Settlement negotiations and agreements may address any issues that are included in the Growth Management or Congestion Management Program. In fact. settlement of conflicts is often made easier when the areas of possible negotiation are made more broad. With the intent of broadening opportunities for negotiation and compromise, the issues of fees, affordable housing, and land use decisions, along with all other aspects of the Growth Management Program and Congestion Management Program can be included in the Settlement Agreement process. PROPOSED REVISION: The proposed Process Outline (Section III.G.) has been modified to indicate that the Settlement Agreement may address any of the issues identified in either the Measure C Growth Management Program or the CMP. 16. CONENEEN"T: CCTA should adopt the Conflict Resolution Process prior to approval of the Comprehensive Countywide Transportation Plan. DISCUSSION: The CCTP is scheduled to be adopted July 19, 1995. Hopefully, the Conflict Resolution process will be more fully defined and potentially adopted, at least in outline form, by,then. NO REVISIONS ARE PROPOSED A:\13-RTC2.0 Page 5 April 26, 1995 Proposed CCTA Conflict Resolution Process Comments and Responses 17. COMMENT: It has been explained by Authority staff that a City may choose to relinquish its Return to Source money if its General Plan Amendment appears to be more important. Measure C never proffered this quid pro quo relationship. DISCUSSION: Measure C clearly states that the eight components of the Growth Management Program are required to be fulfilled by each jurisdiction "to receive its local street maintenance and improvement funds." (p. 10 of the Expenditure Plan). Implicit in that requirement has been the option for local jurisdictions to choose not to participate in one or more elements of the program, which would mean giving up the opportunity to receive local 18% street maintenance and improvement funds. However, the Authority's intent since passage of Measure C has been to implement the program cooperatively in a way that would encourage constructive participation by all of the County's jurisdictions. It is clearly not in the public interest to have some jurisdictions not participating or found to be not in compliance. The conflict resolution process is intended to resolve conflicts in a positive way, and is based on "good faith" participation, as noted earlier. We envision that if a jurisdiction is engaged in conflict resolution, and participates in "good faith," it will create a high likelihood of resolving the conflict. Such participation, including with regard to consideration of General Plan Amendments. would lead to determinations of compliance, and should not jeopardize receipt of local funds. NO REVISIONS ARE PROPOSED AA13-RTC2.0 Page 6 INTRODUCTION TO CCTA CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS page 1 1. OVERVIEW CCTA's Growth Management Program envisions a high level of cooperation and coordination among local jurisdictions and between localities and the Authority. Similarly, the State's Congestion Management Program requirements, especially the amendments added in 1994, assume successful cooperation among local agencies. Both the CCTA and the State recognize the potential for conflicts to arise in implementation of these programs. These materials outline the CCTA's conflict resolution process. Their intent is be helpful, by creating a useable, flexible process without being overly rigid. The four-step process is summarized on the following page, and described in greater detail in the accompanying outline. 2. TYPES OF DISPUTES The conflict resolution process will be used in two types of disputes, as follows: Category 1: Compliance Disputes: These disputes relate directly to compliance with the requirements of either the CCTA Growth Management Program or the Contra Costa Congestion Management Program. The most significant characteristic of Category 1 disputes is that the CCTA will be the final arbiter, since the Authority has an obligation under the rules of both programs to determine compliance. Category 1 disputes may arise if one jurisdiction calls into guestion another jurisdiction's compliance with the Growth Management Program. Category 1 disputes may also arise if, after a jurisdiction has been found to be out of compliance, it wishes to have further discussions with the Authority, and possibly involve other jurisdictions or RTPCs. Category 2: Other Program Disputes: Disputes that are not directly related to compliance, but are impediments to effective implementation of GMP or CMP programs, including disputes arising during preparation of Deficiency Plans, are Category 2 disputes. Use of the conflict resolution process for such may be initiated voluntarily by the parties involved, or in response to initiation by the CCTA. Participation in the conflict resolution process for Category 2 disputes is voluntary on the part of all parties. Settlements will be made by the parties directly involved. Though the CCTA has an interest in these disputes, it will not make final determinations. Use of the Conflict Resolution process for Category 2 disputes will not affect determination of the local jurisdiction's compliance with the Growth Management or the Congestion Management Programs. Occasionally, Category 2 disputes may eventually lead to a dilute which relates directly to compliance (Category 1). b:imvo3 Revised April 25, 1995 INTRODUCTION TO CCTA CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS page 2 3. TYPES OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION SERVICES In some cases, conflict resolution professionals will be retained to assist in the conflict resolution process. Several different techniques may be used in the process. The three most common types of conflict resolution assistance are facilitation, mediation and arbitration. These are defined below. Facilitation and mediation are likely to be the types of services used in the CCTA conflict resolution process. Facilitation Facilitation offers groups assistance in holding productive meetings. A conflict is not usually the focus of the meeting, and facilitation does not ordinarily focus on resolving disputes. However, facilitation can be particularly useful in helping a group stay focused and productive when difficult and controversial issues are being discussed. A facilitator is "an impartial process guide who is responsible for managing the discussion so that parties can focus their attention on substantive issues and achieving their goals." (Carpenter and Kennedy, Managing Public Disputes, p. 107). Mediation Mediation is negotiation in which the parties to a conflict are aided by an impartial third party brought in by mutual agreement. The mediator has no stake in the outcome of the mediation. He or she may work only with parties together, or may also meet with parties individually in caucuses. A mediator assists parties in reaching agreement without imposing a settlement -- the settlement is derived from and agreed to by all parties. "A mediator performs functions and carries out tasks that move people into negotiation, in circumstances that make it difficult for them to do so for themselves. However, third parties introduce another element that is less tangible yet can be a major asset to people needing help in solving their problems. When a third party enters a dispute, people expect things to change. They expect the character of their negotiations to be different after a mediator arrives. Because change and a new direction are essential to interrupt the spiral of conflict, this expectation can be a powerful aid to moving ahead and seeking new options." (ibid., p. 193) b:inLro3 Revised April 25, 1995 Proposed CCTA Conflict Resolution Process Process Initiation • Identify Parties • Recognize Issues • Initiate Situation Assessment Situation Assessment • Establish Facts of Conflict • Make Recomendations for Process • Prepare Situation Assessment Memo Settlement Sessions • Present Concerns • Agree on Facts • Propose Resolutions • Negotiate Solutions • Draft Settlement Agreement or Make Compliance Determination Implementation and Monitoring • Use Settlement Agreement or Compliance Determination 1995 Contra Costa . Y INTRODUCTION TO OCTA CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS page 4 .Arbitration Arbitration is the submission of a dispute to 'a disinterested person for final and binding resolution. The arbitrator makes the final decision for the parties involved. Arbitration is more formal than facilitation and mediation. While arbitration is well-established and procedures well- developed, experience with arbitration has centered on the areas of labor-management relations and commercial disputes. Inter jurisdictional disputes have unique qualities and there is not an arbitration process established for dealing with them.. Accordingly, arbitration is not envisioned to be used by CCTA as a type of conflict resolution process. 4. PRINCIPLES OF THE CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS The Implementation Documents include the following three principles which pertain to Category 1 disputes relating to the Growth Management Program: a. Resolution of conflicts, and decision-making on a consensus basis at the regional level is encouraged b. Where Regional Committees are unable to resolve disputes, the CCTA will make a determination based on statements by the parties involved. When determining compliance with the requirements of the Growth Management Program, the CCTA will look for evidence of good faith effort by localities, including evaluation of alternative proposals, to address the problems at issue. C( CTA Resolution 95-03-G states that good faith" will be demonstrated by jurisdictions' "exhibitine a spirit of participation and compromise that could ultimately result in resolution of the conflict.") C. The conflict resolution process may be used at any point during implementation of the Growth'Management Program. The CCTA will make determinations of compliance for the purpose of allocating Local Street Maintenance and Improvement Funds. It cannot preempt local land use decisions or require cities to accept unwanted construction projects. Compliance will not require any city, town or the county to accept programs that create a fundamental conflict with the community's socioeconomic or environmental character. bAn[ro3 Revised April 25, 1995 OUTLINE OF OCTA CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS page 5 I. PROCESS INITIATION A. ORGANIZATIONS THAT CAN INITIATE THE PROCESS 1. Local Jurisdictions This can be a City or Town Council or Board of Supervisors.- Initiation of the Conflict Resolution Process requires a vote of the majority of the body. Followin the vote of the Council or Board, the local jurisdiction must either (1) obtain approval Of process initiation through a majority vote of its RTPC. or (2), if the RTPC does not approve of process initiation, obtain approval through_a majority vote of the CCTA. 2. RTPC A majority vote of the RTPC is necessary to initiate the conflict resolution process, or to approve local initiation of the process. 3. CCTA A majority vote of the Authority is necessary to initiate the conflict resolution process, or to approve local initiation of the process, in cases where a jurisdiction has appealed to CCTA to reverse an RTPC's decision not to initiate. B. RESPONSIBILITIES OF INITIATING PARTY DURING PROCESS INITIATION 1. Send an "initiation letter"'to the CCTA (or, if the CCTA is initiating the conflict resolution process, prepare a staff report) with a. description of the dispute b. for Category 1 disputes (relating to compliance with the Growth Management Or Congestion Management Program), reference to applicable language in Measure C. the CCTA Implementation Documents, the CCTA Con eg stion Management Program or state Congestion Management Program Requirements. that provides a basis for process initiation. c. list of issues needing resolution d. names of parties to the dispute that should be involved in resolution e. names of individual(s) representing the initiating party as contact person and participant(s) in situation assessment (Note: Staff members and/or elected officials may be named as designated representatives) f. (optionally) preferences for approach to settlement sessions and use of outside professionals g. confirmation that the initiating party had a majority vote approving initiation of the process 2. Initiating party may request pre-initiation meeting with CCTA and/or other parties to determine if less formal resolution is possible or to clarify any questions about the conflict resolution process roudIM3 Revised April 25, 1995 OUTLINE OF CCTA CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS page 6 C. RESPONSIBILITIES OF CCTA DURING PROCESS INITIATION 1. Distribute copies of initiation letter with relevant background information to all other parties 2. Assign task of situation assessment to CCTA staff or appropriate consultant 3. Follow-up with all parties to insure,that responses to the initiation letter are being prepared 4. Schedule discussion of process initiation on PGA agenda D. RESPONSIBILITIES OF OTHER PARTIES DURING PROCESS INITIATION I Officially respond to initiation letter with a letter to CCTA indica ting a. understanding of dispute b. issues needing resolution (if any) c. individuals representing the organization as contact persons and participant(s) in situation. assessment (Note: Staff members and/or elected officials may be named as designated representatives) d. (optionally) preferences for approach to settlement sessions and use of outside professionals e. confirmation that the response letter has been reviewed and approved by a . majority vote of the policy council or board 2. Other parties may request a pre-initiation meeting with CCTA and/or the initiating pam, to determine if less formal resolution is possible or to clarify any questions about the conflict resolution process. E. WITIATION PARTICIPATION BY PRIVATE PARTIES OR OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES 1. Private parties or other public agencies cannot initiate the conflict resolution process directly, but they can request that a local jurisdiction, RTPC or the CCTA initiate the process. 2. (section on public participation in the process to be added following revie,,A, of the issue by CCTA legal counsel.) Il. SITUATION ASSESSMENT A. SITUATION ASSESSMENT PROCESS An individual appointed by the CCTA (may be a staff member or appropriate consultant) will review initiation letter and response(s), then meet separately with the parties involved. After any necessary follow-up to collect additional information, he or she will write a brief Situation Assessment Memo for distribution to all parties and the CCTA. The Situation Assessment Memo will be presented to the CCTA at a noticed Public Meeting. roudinO Revised April 25, 1995 OUTLINE OF CCTA CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS page 7 B. TAMING Situation Assessment should generally be completed within a month of CCTA receipt of parties' response(s) to the initiation letter C. CONTENTS OF SITUATION ASSESSMENT MEMO 1. List of issues to be resolved 2. Recommendation regarding whether the dispute is aRnropriate for the CCTA conflict resolution process. whether or not to use conflict resolution professionals in initial settlement meetings and, if outside professionals are recommended, indication of whether facilitation or mediation appears most appropriate, taking parties' preferences into account 3. Estimated time frame for completion of each stage of the conflict resolution process, reflecting the facts of the dispute 4. Recommendation regarding who will participate in the settlement sessions, based on parties' preferences III. SETTLENJENT SESSIONS AND AGREEMENTS A. ALL PARTIES TO THE CONFLICT PARTICIPATE IN SETTLEMENT SESSIONS 1. B. GENERAL AGENDA FOR SETTLEMENT SESSIONS 1. Present the parties' concerns and constraints 2. Gain agreement about the facts of a dispute 3. Draft Principles of Agreement as basis for proposals 4. Devise proposals for resolving conflicts 5. Test potential proposals for likelihood of success 6. Negotiate commitments to be made by each party in a settlement agreement 7. Public Comment C. SESSIONS MAY BE CONDUCTED WITH OR WITHOUT THE ASSISTANCE OF A THIRD PARTY (FACILITATOR OR MEDIATOR) 1. If initial session(s) held without a facilitator or mediator are unsuccessful, the CCTA shall direct that a third party professional shall assist at subsequent sessions. D. PROCEDURAL RECOMMENDATIONS 1. "Steps for Consensus Building" included in the Implementation Documents (pp. DM 2 to DM4) may be useful in structuring settlement sessions woudi=3 Revised April 25, 1995 OUTLINT OF OCTA CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS page 8 E. COMPLIANCE DETERMINATIONS 1. Category 1 disputes relating to the Growth Management Program The language of Measure C and the Implementation Documents published by the CCTA will be the primary references for defining local obligations. The Implementation Documents define requirements for local participation in the Growth Management Program and they should be used in the conflict resolution process. 2. Category 1 disputes relating to the Congestion Management Program Reference should be made to the Congestion Management Program document itself, the Guide to Local Compliance with the Growth Management Program, the forthcoming Deficiency Plan Guidelines, and the State Congestion Management Program requirements. 3. Category 2 disputes shall not be a basis for a determination of compliance with the Growth Management Program or the Congestion Management Program. F. PARTICIPATION 1. All parties to the dispute will participate. Other parties representing private or public organizations may participate if all parties to the dispute agree to their participation. 2. The parties' participants in the settlement sessions shall be limited to consultants, attorneys, staff or officials of parties to the dispute. Participants will be responsible for continual communication with other representatives of their organization who are not directly participating, and for helping to ratify settlement agreements. 3. The CCTA will be a participant in all Category I settlement sessions. G. PRODUCT: SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 1. The parties can determine the form of the settlement agreement, which may be a Memorandum of Understanding, resolution or formal agreement. Whatever the form, all settlement agreements must be signed by all directly involved parties. 2. For Category 1 disputes, the Settlement Agreement will indicate what actions are necessary in order for the locality to be determined to be in compliance with the Growth Management and/or Congestion Management Program. The CCTA's corresponding responsibility will be to make a finding of conformance if the Agreement is implemented. The Settlement Agreement will specify an implementation schedule if relevant. 3. For Category 2 disputes, if the CCTA is not a participant in the Settlement Meetings, the Settlement Agreement will establish responsibility for submittal of a copy of the Settlement Report to CCTA. a. CCTA will recognize receipt of the Settlement Agreement by agendizing it for discussion at a public meeting woufhnO Revised April 25, 1995 OUTLINE OF CCTA CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS page 9 b. If CCTA has comments regarding the outcome of the conflict resolution process, CCTA may transmit a comment letter as follow up to its review of the Settlement Agreement 4. Settlement Agreements may address any or all of the issues identified in Measure C as part of the Growth Management Program, or. if the dispute relates to the Congestion Management Progr_any or all of the issues addressed in the CMP. H. DESIRED TIME FRAME 1. An estimated time frame for settlement sessions will be established during situation assessment. Settlement sessions will desirably occur over a period of not more than two months, though some disputes may require a longer time period. 2. Category 1 disputes CCTA will establish deadlines for compliance determinations for each Category 1 dispute. 3. Category 2 disputes A draft Settlement Agreement would be submitted to jurisdictions/RTPCs for approval at the end of the period IV. IMPLEhIENTATION AND MONITORING A. USE OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS 1. Settlement Agreements will establish implementation requirements and monitoring procedures B. MONITORING BY PARTIES AND CCTA 1. Category 1 disputes Parties shall report regularly as part of their GMP or CMP checklist submittals what actions have been taken to implement the Settlement Agreement 2. Category 2 disputes Parties may choose to establish a monitoring mechanism as part of the Settlement Agreement C. CCTA ASSESSMENT OF GOOD FAITH PARTICIPATION The primary basis for assessing good faith participation will be whether the jurisdiction has demonstrated "good faith" in the process by exhibiting a spirit of participation and compromise that could ultimately result in resolution of the conflict. ' .d vie m fneefinesT roud=3 Revised April 25, 1995 OUTLINE OF CCTA CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCESS page 10 V. SELECTING AND PAYING FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES A. SELECTING OUTSIDE PROFESSIONALS, 1. CCTA responsibilities and participation a. CCTA will issue an RFQ for Conflict Resolution solution Services and use the responses to create a list of facilitators and mediators qualified to provide assistance to parties in the dispute resolution process. b. CCTA will participate in determining the kind of assistance required and in selecting a third party professional from the list at the eonclusion,of Situation Assessment. 2. Parties' responsibilities and participation a. One representative from each party will participate on a panel which includes a CCTA representative in order to determine the kind of assistance required and to select a professional to assist in conflict resolution. If the panel cannot reach a decision, the Authority will decide, taking the panel's comments into account B. PAYING FOR PROFESSIONAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION SERVICES 1. Where the CCTA is party to the conflict, the cost of professional services will be shared equally by the CCTA and each of the parties. 2. Where the CCTA is not party to the conflict, the cost of professional services will be shared equally by each of the involved parties. 3. Jurisdictions may use 18% funds to pay for conflict resolution services. VI. OTHER TYPES OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION A. Participation in the CCTA conflict resolution process does not preclude the possibility of seeking judicial remedies or using other conflict resolution techniques Revised April 25, 1995 6. LIST OF ACRONYMS GLOSSARY OF MWS AND ABBREVIATIONS ADCC - Action Plan Coordinating Committee. Refers to the technical staff person from each RTPC and CCTA staff and consultants. Group meets once a month to go over issues affecting Action Plan development. BAAQMD - Bay Asea Air Quality Management District. BAAQMD refers to the agency charged with implementation of the Clean Air Act including the establishment and implementation of TRO (Trip Reduction Ordinances). Basic Routes. All local roads not designated as Routes of Regional.Significance. Level of Service standards apply to all signalized intersections on Basic Routes. CBD. Central business district, as defined in Appendix A. CCTA. Contra Costa Transportation Authority, also "Authority." CEQA. California Environmental Quality Act. CIP. Capital Improvement Program. CMA - Congestion llsanagement Agency. The agency designated for a given geographic area, usually a county, to develop and manage the Congestion Management Program (see below). DE1R. Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Gita. Growth Management Element. Goal. Statement describing in general terms a condition or quality desired by the jurisdiction. Goals may be used as the policy basis for standards and objectives. HOV Lane. High occupancy vehicle lane, reserved for business, vanpools and carpools. LSTEA (pronounced ICETA) - INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION' EFFICIENCY ACT OF 1991. Also known as 'federal reauthorization", a seminal piece of legislation passed by Congress in December 1991 that provides for major restructuring of the highway program. Key components of.this Act include greatly increased flexibility in the programming of projects, a level playing field between highway and transit projects with a consistent 80/20 matching ratio, ties to the Federal Clean Air Act and Americans with Disabilities Act, major earmarks for the Bay Area's New Rail Starts program, with an emphasis on maintenance of the existing system and operation improvements (MTC 1/23/92 Handouts from ISTEA Conference). 1 .i art• - LOS. Traffic Level of Service. Level of Service standards, comparing traffic volumes with intersection capacity, and the primary measure of effectiveness used for Basic Routes. Objective. Statement representing a level or quality of performance that the jurisdiction seeks to attain through its programs and policies. PGA - Planning and Governmental Affairs Committee. A subcommittee of the Authority dealing with growth management and other planning issues. The PGA has established a growth Management Task Force (GMTF) comprised of Advisory Committee members, city managers, city and county planners and technical staff from the Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC). Planning Area. Land area identified within a jurisdiction's General Plan for which the jurisdiction has designated land uses. Route of Regional Significance. Road designated by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, consistent with procedures described in the Implementarion Guide: Traffic Level of Service Standards and Programs for Routes of Regional Significance. These roads are subject to objectives and programs in adopted Action Plans. Also referred to as "Regional Routes.* RTPC. Regional Transportation Planning Committee. The four Regional Transportation Planning Committees in Contra Costa County are: TRANSPAC (Central County), TRANSPLAN (East County), WCCTAC (West County) and SWAT (Southwest County). Also referred to as "Regional Committees.* Special District. An agency of the State, formed pursuant to general law or special act, for the local performance of government or proprietary functions within limited boundaries. Does not include State, City, County government or school districts. Sphere of Influence. The probable ultimate physical boundaries and service area of a local agency or government as determined by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). Standar%L Statement representing a commitment by the jurisdiction to attain a specified level or quality of performance through its programs and policies. STIP. State Transportation Improvement Program. 2 TCC. Technical Coordination Committee. The TCC is comprised of members of the City and County Engineers, city and transportation planners, Caltrans and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. TRANSPAC designates members of its TAC (1 city planner, 1 city engineer and 1 transportation planner) to attend TCC meetings. WAC. Transportation Partnership Advisory Committee. TPAC is a citizens' advisory committee comprised of 25 organizations representing oountywide and specialized geographic groups including one citizen representatives from each of the four Regional Transportation Planning Committees. TSO - TrWrIc Service Objective. A flexible, quantifiable measure of transportation facility performance, such as vehicle occupancy or delay. Used in the action plans to establish objectives for achievement. Traffic Analysis Zone. Geographic area delineated for the purpose of organizing land use or travel data to be used in computer modelling of traffic patterns. Also referred to as "TAZs." Trip assignment. Predicting of travel routes. Traffic between specified origins and destinations is assigned to a specific travel route. Trip distribution. Projection of destinations for trips originating in a TAZ. Trip generation. The number of trips associated with a specific type and density of land use, usually estimated based on number of dwelling units, gross square feet of commercial space, or other appropriate independent variable. TSNI/TDAi. Transportation Systems Management, Transportation Demand Management. Programs to increase the efficiency of the transportation system, reduce demand for road capacity during the peak hour and otherwise affect travel behavior to minimize the need for capacity-increasing capital projects. .:lmredii I\glowry.mm 3 EXHIBIT B Compliance Checklist Issues The Measure C growth management program requires each local jurisdiction, in order to receive the local street maintenance and improvement Rands, must act on all eight elements of the plan. Most of the elements are very explicit requiring the adoption or implementation of certain programs. Only one requires participation in regional transportation planning process, The Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan(CCTP)represents the product of the cooperative, multi jurisdictional planning effort,it is only one of the eight elements of the Growth Management Program. A. Since the Compliance Checkist is intended to be a self certifying document, will the checklist,especially the cooperation in regional transportation planning and general plan amendment review processes,be modified so that each local jurisdiction can easily gage its compliance with the program and staffofthe Authority can review and approve the checklist without having to interpret the feeling of the majorrty of the Authority Board of Commissioners?A case in point is how will the Authority consider compliance when a proposed cross jurisdictional mitigation measure is not accepted by the host jurisdiction?Will one jurisdiction be able to hold another `s return to source finds hostage as a result of a dispute? B. Since the issue at hand is the CCTP, the discussion seems to be centered around regional routes and general plan amendments. Should the Authority reaffirm its position that compliance with the Growth Management Program requires complying equally with all eight elements of Measure C Ordinance and identify the standards that will be used to measure compliance? Counywide Comprehensive transportation Plan Issues The CCTP includes a set of Visions, Goals and Objectives and also ties the Plan to the Growth Management Program of Measure C. A. How would this plan promote or address the opportunity for job and housing balance especially in the job centers at the Interstate 580/680 cross roads and the starter housing area of East Contra Costa County? B. How would the plan address the difference between the Transplan Action Plan and the proposed TVTC action plan regarding the Vasco Road corridor?The Transplan Action Plan calls for widening of Vasco Road while the proposed TVTC action plan calls for no improvement except for transit services on this corridor. C. How does the Plan affect the economic vitality of Contra Costa County?Will it restrict new industries?Will it lengthen or retard the effort to streamline permit application process? Will it be responsive to other goals developed by the County and its cities for sustained economic viability? TRI-VALLEY TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL Traffic Entineenng P. O. Box 520-200 Old Bernal Avm= Pleasanton,CA 94566 (510)484.8D41 Gayle Risbop June 6, 1995 F RECEIVED Supenisor JUN 71995 CQ09M Cam ca my M 32D-M CLERK BOARD OF PERVI ORS CONTRA COSTA CO. Ed Compba supwvis"- A Isawd-Ccunrf M M-WI Ms. Gayle Bishop, Chair M 65&7"0 Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors fiat 18 Crow Canyon Court, #120 M2yor San Ramon, CA 94583 baviDe.CA 837-3231 Dear Chair Bishop: Guy Houston Mayor At the May 24, 1995 meeting of the Tri-Valley Transportation Council (TVTC), Dubda.CA Daniel Pulon of the County's Community Development Department indicated that M us-nr 00 mvm he had been authorized to transmit a revised Board position with regard to the Draft Proposal for Adoption of the Tri-Valley Transportation Plan/Action Plans TOM Pico, for Routes of Regional Significance (TVTP/AP). On behalf of the TVTC, I am Vice hUy planamm CAor writing to clarify the Council's understanding of the County's revised position,and M 4&--0919 to forward some of the discussion which occurred at TVTC with regard to this topic. Tom Reintr, Councilnnwber As you know, at its April 11 meeting the County Board reviewed the TVTP/AP, Livc==.CA and offered extensive and substantive revisions to the Proposal for Adoption. Many M 4n-14" (K)44-%-3n6 of these revisions were (and remain) inconsistent with the provisions of the TVTP/AP as adopted unanimously by the other six Tri-Valley jurisdictions. Of Hernman Webu, particular concern was the County's effective deletion of Transportation Service COUDCUMeUdW Objectives (TSOs) on many Routes of Regional Significance. In the view of the w Rxwa,CA M 262-W6 other TVTC members, this revision essentially gutted the growth management (H)M4261 provisions of the TVTP/AP, and negated our consensus on the appropriate TSOs for Regional Routes. However, in subsequent discussions, Supervisor Smith reiterated that the County did not object to the TSO of level-of-service "D" as a standard for Tri-Valley Regional Routes. In a meeting at the Contra Costa Transportation Authority offices, Supervisor Smith clarified the County's position as being unable to support the adoption of a TVTP/AP which included TSO violations at locations where no consensus exists on possible solutions. Ms. Gayle Bishop, Chair Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors June 6, 1995 Page Three In conclusion, the TVTC encourages your Board to formalize and ratify the position stated verbally by Mr. Pulon by acting to adopt the TV'IT/AP with the very specific exceptions noted. The TVTC will next meet on June 28, 1995, and will agendize this issue if requested. Please contact either myself, or Mr. Bill van Gelder if you have any questions or wish to schedule this item for the TVTC's consideration. Sincerely, Millie Greenberg, Chair Tri-Valley Transportation Council MG:rf cc: Tri-Valley Transportation Council Members Mr. Robert McCleary, Executive Director, CCTA Southwest Area Transportation Committee Members Bill van Gelder Admsec\LBisbop.TVC Children & Family Services 1995-96 Budget r . .. ..... t s s ��- � County of Contra Costa 444444 444444 44 44 County of Contra Costa 44 44 44 44 Children & Family Services 199.E-96 Budget 01 ,�. r I I I r - coU Presented to the Board of Supervisors GAYLE BISHOP Chair Supervisor District 3 4 Jim Rogers Jeff Smith 4 Supervisor, District 1 Supervisor, District 2 [� Mark DeSaulnier Tom Torlakson 4 Supervisor, District 4 Supervisor, District 5wiLififi4 4 4 444444 FORWARD The Children & Family Services Budget was prepared under the direction of the Family & Human Services Committee (FHS) of the Board of Supervisors. It is part of the FHS Committee's effort to identify the array of services provided to children and families and to identify gaps and overlaps in the continuum of care. The Children and Family Services budget identifies $320 million of programs, categorized by subject area. The FHS Committee is committed to examining children and family programs, with the goal of increasing their efficiency and effectiveness. Definition of Programs The Children & Family Services Budget includes programs which provide direct services, including prevention and early intervention programs, for children and families. Programs include those for which program eligibility is under age 21 or parent/guardian/care giver of children or youth. The budget is not designed to include adult programs where eligibility has no relationship to the status of the adult as a parent or care giver. Budget Categories The Children & Family Services Budget is divided into eight categories: Family SupportlPa renting Skills - includes programs designed to increase the stability and integrity of families. • Economic Support/Self Sufficiency- includes programs designed to help parents become and/or stay economically self sufficient so that they are able to financially support their children, • Food and Shelter- includes programs that provide food and shelter to families.who otherwise would be without. • Alternative Homes for Children - includes programs that provide care giving to children whose parents are unwilling or unable to care for them. • Medical Care- includes direct medical services for children, pregnant women and women with infants. • Other Health Services - includes other health programs such as substance abuse prevention and early intervention programs. • Safety/Justice - includes programs to ensure the safety of children and to respond to children who are acting outside the confines of the law. • Other Children and Family Services- includes programs which do not neatly fit into other categories, including collaborative efforts such as the Service Integration Family Service Centers. Budget Disclaimer As with any new effort, the budget undoubtedly contains errors and omissions. The readers are encouraged to contact the County Administrator's Office at 646-1352 with additions and corrections. Feedback would be very much appreciated to ensure that the next year's budget more accurately reflects the full range of children and family programs. The fiscal data for programs reflect the most current available information. However, it should be noted that some programs reflect estimated actual 1994-95 program costs, while others are based on the 1995-96 program budget. In some cases, financial data is "actual," in others, it is estimated based upon the approximate allocation of the program costs between children and family services and other services. Much appreciation is due to the departmental staff personnel who spent their time helping create this document. Thanks to all of you. Using the Budget In developing the Children & Family Services Budget, the FHS Committee hoped that it would be a useful tool for the many advisory commissions and committees dedicated to improving services to children and families. For departments, it is hoped that the budget is a guide to understanding the range of programs operated by other departments available to help their clients. For the public, and for the children and families of Contra Costa County, we hope that this budget is a testament to our commitment to supporting children and families. Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier 4SippeW41"s Jeff Smith Family & Human Services Committee Family & Human Services Committee Board of Supervisors Board of Supervisors OVERVIEW The tables and figures contained in this section provide a brief overview of the children and family services programs. Table 1 summarizes the programs included in the children and family services budget. Table 2 presents the top 20 children and family service programs by gross expenditures. Table 3 presents the top 20 children and family service programs by net county costs. Table 4 disaggregates gross expenditures and net county costs for children and family service programs by department. Figure 1 disaggregates children and family service programs by program category shares. Figure 2 breaks down children and family services by financing and net county cost percentages. Figure 3 shows the net county cost for children and family services by service category. Table 1. Summary of Children and Family Service Programs Service Program Name Department Gross Financing Net County Category Expenditures Cost 1 Child Development Community Services $3,968,442 $3,968,442 $0 2 Head Start Community Services $6,080,902 $6,080,902 $0 • 3 Family Preservation Social Service $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 4 Child Care Social Service $1,117,419 $1,061,238 $56,181 5 Family Maintenance Social Service $2,118,777 $1,695,974 $422,803 6 Family Reunification Social Service $3,145,750 $2,518,014 $627,736 7 Refugee Social Adjustment Social Service $1,371,811 $1,371,811 $0 1 Nutrition&Resource Cooperative Extension $37,924 $0 $37,924 Management 2 Child Support Enforcement District Attorney $9,859,322 $9,859,322 $0 3 Families for Literacy Library $37,000 $37,000 $0 4 JTPA Employment& Private Industry Council $6,796,590 $6,796,590 $0 • Training • 5 Summer Youth Jobs Private Industry Council $28,260 $28,260 $0 Program 6 Greater Avenues for Private Industry Council $225,000. $225,000 $0 Independence GAIN • 7 Cal-Learn Social Service $1,100,000 $1,013,000 $87,000 • 8 Independent Living Skills Social Service $159,034 $159,034 $0 9 Job Training/Education Social Service $6,169,913 $5,662,980 $506,933 10 Income Maintenance Social Service $127,788,875 $122,654,849 $5,134,026 1 Neighborhood Preservation Building Inspection $700,900 $700,900 $0 Program 2 Redevelopment Community Unknown Unknown $0 Development 3 Child Nutrition for Child Community Services $878,284 $878,284 $0 Development/Head Start 4 Section 8 Housing Housing Authority $42,640,000 $42,640,000 $0 Assistance 5 Public Housing Program Housing Authority $2,560,000 $2,560,000 $0 6 Summer Food Service Health Services $13,334 $13,334 $0 Program 7 Women,Infants&Children Health Services $25,747 $25,747 $0 • (WIC)Program-Brentwood • 8 WIC-Concord Health Services $308,962 $308,962 $0 9 WIC-PittsburgHealth Services $411,949 $411,949 $0 10 WIC-Richmond Health Services $540,682 $540,682 $0 11 Food Wise ' Health Services $143,406 $121,431 $21,975 12 Food Stamps/Food Social Service $7,610,892 $6,469,258 $1,141,634 Distribution �TdTAt=... : 1 Permanent Placement Social Service $4,021,372 $3,218,905 $802,467 2 Adoptions Social Service $3,152,535 $2,313,008 $839,527 • 3 AFDC/Foster Care Social Service $21,048,486 $13,431,795 $7,616,691 Foster Care/Seriously 4 Emotionally Disturbed Social Service $2,166,667 $866,667 $1,300,000 • Children 5 Foster Home Licensing Social Service $618,690 $444,183 $174,507 10`+�*, �2 Service Program Name Department Gross Financing Net County Category Expenditures Cost 1 California Children's Health Services $4,181,244 $3,146,616 $1,034,628 Services 2 Child Health Screening Health Services $59,530 $56,695 $2,835 Clinic CHSC -Concord 3 CHSC-Pittsburg Health Services $40,968 $39,017 $1,951 4 CHSC-Richmond Health Services $26,270 $25,019 $1,251 5 Healthy Start-Pittsburg Health Services $146,512 $105,487 $41,025 6 Healthy Start-Richmond Health Services $153,249 $153,249 $0 7 High Risk Infant Follow-Up Health Services $401,886 $251,886 $150,000 Program 8 Teen Health Clinic- Health Services $21,510 $20,486 $1,024 Concord 9 Teen Health Clinic- Health Services $6,347 $6,045 $302 Richmond 10 Contra Costa Health Health Services $13,237,215 $13,312,523 Plan/AFDC ($75,308) V.x4 ..MIU Q 1, E •E. €&�" p{;.E3 E.a.nEnE +3y � ��, $97.�'l1,T.,023 v., VvE!}. 1 AB3632 Program Health Services $1,140,000 $722,000 . $418,000 2 Born Free Health Services $585,000 $415,000 $170,000 Center-based Infant 3 Program,George Miller Health Services $288,263 $283,326 $4,937 Center East Center-based Infant 4 Program,George Miller Health Services $199,831 $196,956 $2,875 Center West 5 Central County Child& Health Services $610,000 $175,000 $435,000 Youth Services 6 Child Health and Disability Health Services $1,753,249 $1,254,776 $498,473 Prevention Program 7 Childhood Injury Prevention Health Services $55,000 $55,000 $0 Program 8 Developmental Disabilities Health Services $45,000 $0 $45,000 Council 9 East County Children's Health Services $570,000 $240,000 $330,000 Mental Health ' Home-based Infant 10 Program,George Miller Health Services $101,088 $99,691 $1,397 • Center East Home-based Infant 11 Program,George Miller Health Services $27,693 $19,812 $7,881 Center West 12 Lead Poisoning Prevention Health Services $244,945 $244,945 $0 Project 13 West Contra Costa County Health Services $970,000 $300,000 $670,000 Children's Services 14 YIACT Health Services $720,000 $350,000 $370,000 15 Bicycle Head Injury Health Services $125,938 $113,540 $12,398 Prevention Project 21985JBl Service Gross Net County Category Program Name Department Expenditures Financing Cost 1 Juvenile and Dependent Children Matters County Counsel $558,378 $390,865 $167,513 2 Physical Evidence Analysis Criminalistics $50,000 $0 $50,000 Laboratory 3 PACT Violence Prevention Project Health Services $439,350 $377,492. $61,858 4 Juvenile Community Probation $236,356 $103,320 $133,036 Services Program Juvenile 5 Probation/Placement, Probation $11,157,281 $4,573,598 $6,583,683 Board&Care 6 Juvenile Hall Probation $7,072,959 $3,200,123 $3,872,836 7 Orin Allen Youth Probation $1,759,758 $817,430 $942,328 Rehabilitation Facility Public Defender&Alternate Public Defender& 8 Defender Office-Juvenile Alternate Defender $1,302,624 $42,125 $1,260,499 Division Juvenile/Sexual Assault 9 Team and Special Sheriff $3,039,718 $0 $3,039,718 Enforcement Unit(Narcotics &Vice 10 Emergency Response Social Service $6,453,633 $5,165,808 $1,287,825 11 Child Abuse Prevention Social Service $212,408 $212,408 $0 1 Keller Mitigation Programs Community Unknown Unknown $0 Development 2 Community Development Community Unknown Unknown $0 , Block Grant Development 3 4H Program Cooperative Extension $37,924 $0 $37,924 4 Bay Point Family Service Health,Probation& $1,050,974 $787,494 $263,480 Center Social Service ' S North Richmond Family Health,Probation& $686,310 $448,924 $237,386 Service Center Social Service • 6 County Library Library $2,247,000 $2,247,000 $0 . � ; Xg ,�,.,_ z ' '_ �cw z , •- t i.4 , .. �J.,x - W 10 >LSt�N AN Y Ei�G kiN $319, 913fX7 '$4©831. ,.. # •:. g Table 2. Top 20 Children and Family Service Programs by Gross Expenditures I Rank I Program Department Gross Expenditure. . . . . I I , I . I � � #1 Income Maintenance Social Service $127,788,875 :-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.*.,.,..*.,.,.,.........-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-........ .. .. .................. ................................................................... ;�.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.::.:.-.,..".—"......""I-I-.'.'.'.'."..... .......................... . : ..........%... ::::::: """' """""""""........'..""""""""'*...%"""""""""""', . ............ ................................. .... -: . ......... .......... .....................................%...............%%................................. .::::..i ....... .......�........ ............. .....a. ...............................................................................................'-'-'-'-'-'-,::.:.:....-.-........................ . - .......... .. " n :.............. ... ............................ : ............%................. ... :..... ...... . :............................ ... ....... ....................... . ........%............*::::::::::::::::.:,*,.:.. . 1:.........:.:.:. ..................................". , '' ..... $42:040" 00:" .....%. ...........................:::.: .: .. ..... ....... .-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-................................ U , "., ....... * * - ........ - �� . .......................... :' .. ........ ............. .. CUO :440 S� 0:: singm-fth ,...e........%. ....... ............. H.....U....I'M'........:-001st.-Onc. ':....* ........................ ... ::. ...................................:-.�..,:::::::::::::::::,::.:.:.:.:.:.,- .,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,..""."........-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.............................-.-.-.-...... .;..;......:.......0... ...................... : .: i .:.:..:... 0, �...... ....................... : ........ ....... ........ """"........:.......... ...*'***'*........... . ....:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.*...,..,..,..'-.'-.'-."", ....... ....... . ..... ....................................................-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.%-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-........',',',",::::...... ',-'..---..-'.....'.:.......................................................................................................... .... .-.., :., ...........:.:::: ........ ....... ........::::::. ........... ...... .. .... ,, ; ................................. --'-- -` ....... ..%. ... ....................%...-'-'-'-,.::::::: - .::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::,.,.'-'-'-*-*-*--.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-........................ .....................................%........................ �l.l..,.,-,-.-.-.-.-.-....................: . . ...... .............. .................................... . ................................ ::::.:.:.:.......1: X . ........................................................................% #3 AFDC/Foster Care Social Service $21,048,486 .. ::,:,:,:*:*::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:......'.'.".�................................................ ����:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:-.*....�---........�.�...............'.'.'-'................*....��" ...................X...... .......................................-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.........................................................- .:.:.:... X .-..:.:.:.:.:.:.:."".:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.::.:...:.:.:.: ...................................... ..... ..... :;:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:....-'.'.'-,....................................... ............................. . .................. .......................... .*,-........,.......;..N .::..;:..::..:�:.....:..........,......C....'........:...:'.....:a:.....::.....:.....:..n...:......,.....1.,......,..-..".'..-...'..-.....'.-.....'.-...''..-...""....."......-......"............"..............'........'.......'.....9.'...........'..t.......'....,.......,.......,.......,*...:.,'..H.:.,...:.,...:.,...:.,..6.:.,...:.....:.....: .....:.....:.....:t.....:t.....:....".:.....:.....:....:::....".::X....:":.:P....::..�.:..:.-..::..:a.-..:....:..-....:...:....".*I...................".....:.."...:....".:.......".........**........*..........*.......�.'......�.-*.....**...I.*:....::....:...:...:...".:......"�:....".:...:.:."....:"....:...".::....".::......::..:.".:,...-.�....�...*.:.:*.:.:...:.:...::...::..:.:....:.:...:., ..;.:..:<.:...:.:.::.....::....:....:i......:......:.....":-...X.:......:....."",....*..-...'.'...-H'.'�..-.'.'...-.'.'...-.'.'..-.'.'§..-.'.'..-.'.'..-.a'.'..-. .*.ft.'.'...`...''......''......'"......'..'...'......''.....'..."...'.......'.......'......'r......'......'......'.......'......'k......'.:......':.......':......':......':.......':......':......':.......'...:...: :......'..:..'..........'.:....'..,..:..'..,...:..*'.........'....:..%'....,.%%''...,'.....-..,'...,-..:..., ...,::.:"..:.:v..::*..:.:...:-:...::...:-:...::.....::...:.::...:.::....:.::.....:.:.....:.::...:,..:.-...:%.:...-'.:`..-..--.-"-..*.$ .*.-....,;..: .:: !: .:: 5: '.:.:.'....'.:...'.:...3...-:...::...:.. .*.,.7...."'....*......*.*..*...*..*....".'.....*..*....*...'...*-...--.*.' . :.:...4......:.-.........*.....I....*. .............................. . .:..:......:................. �.... ... -.,-.-.-..:.:.....:.:.:.:.:.:...........................................................................................,,. ......:. ..:.:.:.:....:.:.:.,.-.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:... ........... .......................................-...-... .. .....-....:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.::.:........:............................%... #5 Juvenile Probation/Placement , Board & Care Probation $11,157,281 :..-%---]-]'-------:::i:::::i�:::::.:,::.:::..::.............I.............."......*.*......*.*.". ........ ....................................................:...,.......... .......... ..... ....�. .................................................-.- .-..-.-.............................. ........... ......................-...........,.....%.- .%-.---,-. -------, --- --------�--%--------'.-..-- ............................:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:..........................-..-...:..:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:..::.:.:..:..:....:..:..:..:..............,....,..............................................................................�..........................................%... .......................................... .......i...i............. . ............ . ...,...........................%....................................................................................................................................................�:jjii:::::::i:�:::i���::iii�............. .............. ..........................................................................................................................................................%.....::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::-%,,,,,,.:::::::::::...............................**,,::::::,,,*::::*,,:i:::,::,,::i:j................*,,,,,,,,,,,***jj�����:���:i::::::i�:::::::::::::::::::,:,:::::::.:::::::.............................. j �-::---''-:::::::::::..................................::::::;;::::::.:::::::::�:::::::..............................:::::'',:::::::::*,::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;;::::::::::���;��������������;��;����� : .......... ..............%..-------.......- ::::::::::- ---:------------- : ..;;������������������������� � .......... .................................... :.......... .,............. : � �i . .. $""" .. ...'**f'*"" *..... ...... .... . .... . . .$. : ...... h11d. . ppo E.PI0. e. .e::A...:.............................. ................... . 6- ...............::::::::::::::.::..:I 660!:::i2 .*..' .:::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::: .:::::::::: ::::::::::::..... ........:............. ...............::::::.. .......::.....:. ..........................%.%.....................................................:::::::::::::::::::::::......................::::..........----....:::. ............ ''''''''''..............................----- ::::i:i.::::,:...... .......................................................................................... . .-, ................................................................................................................ ................................................................................................. ............................................... .......................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... . #7 Food Stamps/Food Distribution Social Service $7,610,892 ::::::::::::::::::::::;:::::;:;:;.....:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.;--........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................�.� ........ .........................................:::. ...:;::::::::::...............o.. .................................... ................................................ .:::::::::::::::::: ... . ..................... ......... ........%................................................. ::::::::.::::..:::::::;::::::::.:::..........: ....... ......................................................................................................................................... . .... X .. .. .-::::::....................-.-.-.-. ........................................................................................................................................... , ,.,: ...%.......... , ..... :.1.. ........... ......... . ............................. ..........�-.-.-...::: , ...-:-:-::i*i*:*-', ::::i�i::�'..,.-`*i:j:i:iii:::::::::::,:,:...",:,:,:,:,:,:':':*":,:,:,:':':':':':':':':':':':,:",""","","","",*"""....-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-..-.-.%. ...........",:i:::i:�:i:i::,:;,:::::::i:��.::*:':'-�,::::::�:::::i::.,:::::::::::::::-'-*-'-'-' ....................................:, ..:....: ...:.:.:.:.:...................... ................ ... :::::::::,:.,.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. ......:..::::.:.:.:.:.:.:,:,:.:.:.:. ........."."%%................... ..-............"...':................................ .. .....: ' .... . .. ......:w:..:..:.:.:. ............................................... . . ..... ...... :� ...................................................................................................... ......:....:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:,::������:�i�]�]�1]]�]�������� 7----'�­77-2-----'�: .5. ................................................................ ........................................ ...:::: -,::-,:::::X . - .....%................... .................... .. .... 9 9 * ..... .. .::::::: .:.:.:::::::::::::::.:,.,.,.*. :....: :*.- ...................................... ............. . . #8. .'.-,..-..-.-..,-.'.,.-'. uVen ::� x .... . %:�, ":,:,:*- ...... -..-...................................%.....:...:::::P tw'....... ................ :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:"**,* .. :: :: .....:.:.:.:.:..:.:..:.:..:...:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.*.'..'..*..'..*.**'..'.'.'...'. t.o. ......... ::::: � : ..... . .:::i:. .!�:..-'., J I' . � I :::::::::::: ::: - .....t. n.. " $70 . . .':" ... .H. *, ­ ....::...T.............::::: ......... ...................... ...�..:R:..:�i:ii:::::::::::�:�:�:i:::::::::i:i:i:::i::: ..:::::::.. '."., -x*`-... P........................................... .............................:.,:.;::::::: , .. ................................:.:.:.:..:..-.-.-.-.-...-..-.-.-.-.-.-.......... :.:.:*:*:':':':...........::..:.:.::.:...,...-...::::::::: :.�..-..-..,.......:.::::::.,.,.,.,.,..,- ....... ................................. .......... ..... .............. - ................ ...:....--- -'�- .............. ; : : : ::::;,*:::.::::::;:;:::::;::::. ....................................-*.................... .. -,.,.,:.:.:::.:.:.:.:.:.:."....,..,.:.......... .'.'....:.:.:.:.:..... " . :,:,:, , -,,,-,,-,,,:::. . :::: ............................... .............%%......%................. ..:.............. - .,:::........"""."..........................'.'.'..............................::::: . .%.......................%..%.............. ......:::::::,,::" -* ....... . ........ .. . ....... : - .............................. : ................................:....................................................... : ::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::,.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:,:.:.:.;.:.:.:.:..'- .'..-. ,.-:: :::..,..........................%.......................................................................,::::::::::::.:.:. .,.."..-"...,*.*.:::: . ....... .......... - . ........ . . . ........Private i.v.a.t.e...I.n.d.u.s.t I ry........�........... ,%:.:.". '. #9 JTPA Employment &Training Council $6,796,590 ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................%..........................%........%.... .. . .................................................................................................................... .......::%...::::%..::::::: ......... ......*'**-*-*........*........*'*"'-'-'-'-'-'-'- ...%-.-.-.-.%-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.%........ .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................:::::",,*""��������������;�����;�����;�����������������l�����;�������������:""*,**"*,*,*,""","","*",""""","","","",""",,%*,*"*",***'*%"'*,***'**"*",*"",*""",,'*'***,*"*,*,%""",", ....................................................................................................................%......... ........ ........ ................................ ............ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::, ................................................................................................ . . ..................................... ... . ..,.:........................... .:.:.:.:.:.::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:............................................. .%..%......... ..... ............................... , , ' "j" .,..,# loxxx1o: .r :::.!. P 0 ....................................... - . .........:: ": , � � . :j:�: "' ............................ ........ ......, X.. .........%............ ..................... ­j.:a: V................... "AW:�:: ....- .. e.:::.:; .......... :.:.:. ::: .. - - - .. :�:�:�:�:. *.M...0 '" ;0 se:::::::::::::::::::::: :...*...*.......::,:""-............. -::-.. ... - ... .. ..... .. - . i ....w. ...:.e"*..:..::.,..:.::: : : - . ::.. ..X. .8 .0 0 ,:::..:::..::%::: ::::::::::::::::.::::%.::.,.*.-..'-...-....I: .* .. . - - - . .$ . ............... .........%.................................. ..0'.0 ..... .$ ... : "'R *"""" " """""" """ " """. :::: *,*,*** IS* """"""""""',:...............................................4-*5**'3**'**.......** , . , ...:: . .. .: ..0 . ........ ................... ....... .. . ................................................ ..r.,............�� ������������................ - .1 ... ..... ...�.................................................:: ..... .:.:::.:.:::....- ... 0" W ': . . ............... ... ..6 .. ... . .. .. .......................%..... ....... ........%%... ........................... ...........................................................- . . .... %�........... .. ............................. ............................................................... ::::::::::::::::::::,*..................................................... .............................%-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.%................................................................%. ............................... % ...... ............. . ....................................... - , , :::::::::: - ..............%................................... .............:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.,............................................................... ........ ........ `.. . ...:............................................................................. ........ ...........%....................................%............................%..........::::::::::..........*..*....................*,.**�,*"".:.::.:.:.:.:.:.::.:.:.......................................................... ............. ..................................... . . ... ......................... . ........................................................... ..........................................%I.............................................................................. .......................................%........................ #11 Job Training/Education Social Service $6,169,913 ...... .... , ......................�...............'..'.'.'.'.'.........'...�.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.:.:.:.:�...�...................................�...............................%- .......................... - .::::::::::::::: .:: -%................ ...:..,:.:.::':':':':':.:.:.:.:.-.:.:.:.:.:.:.:..-..:-.-,-.::,* .::::::.....-.....:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.;.:.....�---------.-.-.-.-.-.-'-............................:.:.;.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:,.,.,-.:: ..:. .... .....%...............::::: ..*..: .'-.'-.'-.'-.'-.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'..'..'..'..'........................... .-!..:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:-.-......:.::,.:::.:::::::::::::::::::.....:......::::::::::>:::::::::::::::::>::::......::::::*, " : , " " " " ,"","", , .,.*.*.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,..,:::,..,..,........ .: ****** I . . ........... .... . ... ...............: ".......,.......................................................... . . ....Gm Uni ::...............*-........................*****.....................""""', . .:. ....... : : . ............-*.....::::::::: .C., . .m - ..t ....................................... .................... :::: ".:. :::::::::::::::::::::::":."'*:.,:,:,:,.:",,* ..,..,..,..,..,..,..,..,.., ....Y... ............................. ........:.:.:.:.:.:.:.::::.:::::::...:.:....."",*::::::::.:: .::.::..":,:::::::::::::::::::::::::::.���;��;�����;.'*.�,...,.�.,...,�.::::::::::::::::::::::..':.,...'-..'-..,.:............. .............................%........... ..................................... ... ............................. .%-.%-.%-.-.-.-.................................------------ ...... .. .......... ....................... ......................����4 --,..*..*,-'." .................................. .. .......................... ......................................... ..... - ................................ *....... ,::::: .:.::i#'l i.,.--.-,--.-.,----.,-.:Hea :�:S a,i...t." ..,.., .,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,..."""'.%.......... ......... .. .. . : 2 ' d .-.-----'.t-"` .....:::::: ... � ��] 6.'Z'.80�-O.........* : . . . .................*.*.,., ,::::: ::.......*.... -:::: :-.X,:::::::" .. .02.'.'. ............................. ,............�'...........................................%...........................-------.........................................-.- ...... - - ;.: : :::::::::::::::....;..%. ... - ...................................................................... - .. ................................. ...... :, - -- ............... ........... , .................................. ................................................................ .................. . . ........................... .................... .:.........:........ -", �.:.:.:.:.:.:.:..:..::: ................................ ....................... ................... : - ...........................�..%.::::::::::::::::: ,.:.. ............................................................... V! ,....... ..................... . . .:.:.:.,.,..,.:.*. ........ ..................... : ... ; .................................................::: ............................... ,, ..............�.................�.........::::::::::::.::::.:.:::::;:::.....:... .:.:.!.:.!.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:...................................."."...........""""""".'............................................. .... -.-.-.-.-..-................ ...........:.:.:.:.:.:....*.'..w ��..... .....��...... _ ..:Ie:., . �..........................................�.......................�'... �.......... � .......--.". #13 California Children's Services Health Services $4,181,244 .-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................- ,**,:::::::.............................................................................%............%-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- ......................................................................................................................... ...................... ...................................... ........... ......................................................................%....................................................:�]]�]��]�����;�;�;��������;�;�:i;������;�;�;�;;�;:;i;���;�����;�.-',---', .......................%%.....................%......................................... i,i:i:i.i:::::,:":,i:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::............................................................................-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-................................................... ...............................-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-..-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.................................................. ..................................................................................%.........................................................................�.................... ... .. ................*..................**...*******"*"""""".'.'.,.,.,.,.,................ . .. ... ....... ... ........ .... . ...o ...... ........................................................ .............. .......... X.: - P .............. .. .. ...............::... $:,4.0.2�1..,. :.....:�i;i.3..-7-21����� " .... ......... ... ........ ................................. -- ......... i - ,'--.....****..................... . . -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-..................................... . :. .........:..%" ....................................... ..................... .. ..*. ..................... . - - ........................., ..... ....... 0 - .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.",*...... .............. - . - : .. ................ .. #14 :,:....-, ... -a.....on .P adem .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.%. . .. ........... ........... ...-*...*...-'..........r.m..n C 1 ...'eft-........*.....*.*..*........,..,.,.,.,.,.,.:.... .:.:.:.:..............z 0 . : . .................................... ..................................................... .....:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.,. :::...::::::,k ... :::: W.: -..... . .........%.....%............ .... -.-.-,-.-.-..-...............................:.:.:.:..................................................................................................................%............................:.:...% ........ ...... .............-.%-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-. .........:.:::.:.:.: ......... . ............................. ........ ................. ........ ....... .................. : .......................... ...:.. ............................ ..... .. .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.*.*.*..,..,..,..,..'-.'-.,,,,...........-......... ............... - .: '-. , ..................... :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.,.,.,. ..... ...................................................................:................,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.............................. .....%......'.'.'.'.%'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.........:.-'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'........................................... ......... �----- .......:..... ................................................. :..-.'-.'-'.-.,...:..,.;.;.:.:.:.:...:...:.:.. .:.;.:.:.:...::::::::;:::;:: .................... Mmi.......................:.:.:.:.:.,..,..,..*-.'-.*-.*-.*-.*-.'-.*-.*-.'-.'-.'-.'-.'-.'-.*-.*-.'-.*-.*-.*-.'%*-.-.*-.*....................................***.... .......................................................... -- -.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.:...................... . ....%............................... #15 Child Development Community $3,968,442 w..............I........... . ........����.�.�...................���....... Services ...::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:,..:.:.:..:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:...:.:.:...:..::.. .. ......... .......................:;;:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.,....:.:,.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.".,.%*.,..........'..'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'..................................................: ........ . ..........................:.:.:.:"::.."..:.,:.:.:.:.:...,:...... . . , -........ ....... ,*..*..*.,*."*.*.*.*,..:.:.:.:.:.,...:::::::::,....*.,....,..,.:,..*......,*,..*.*...,..,..*.::* . . .,.:.:....... � ......W.- .::.....:..:::::::::...... - .. ....... ............................ ....... -...*:...':' ............:.. :.:.:.:,.,.,. .........!i:........ ........ .............%-X"............. .. :,*,*......*... .1 ................ -----------............................-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-....................... .. ....... �i�i� . .: .. ..... ....... - I....1--.- . -- ......................................................... ............. ....... . .................................... .-.-.-. -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.............................. im.................."....:.:.:.:............................... . ......... .... ;:;NN.......... ::.,...:,.,.,..�.-�*.�,.,.::::::::::::::::::: . .............. " '6-6 ................................................................................................. . . .:......... .:: :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.....*"****"' -* ..... ............................... . : ........ .%%%%. ­ �. ..... `3% ...: ::::.:.*.:*..:..,.*.*.*.*.,.,.*.............-...............- i6m. *. ' ' . 5� :::::::::::.:.:.:.:.:. ..... ............ . ... ..*-....V�i ..'..".'-""`---**'***** ............ i�;�����i�;i! *-�::#4:i S.***,"`**A: ,:,1 d":-'0'"'6`416.n ss:............ S-"a'*"*a-,,,"a',,,,"86:.........*.... . $.."-�-���.."-I..�6..2.���....-... �� ................................- ....................: :.:.:.:.:.:.%.-.'-.'-.'-.**-.'-.'-.*-.**.....*,..*..,..*..,..,..*..*..*..,..,..,%,..,..,..,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,..................::. . .::::::::::::..:.... .. : ................ ........ :::.%�, ,.,.,.,.,..%..............-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- ................".1"I". , -'-'-'-'%':...:'-:r..,.,**...:.-..........%:....:.....:.....:::::.., .................................... .............. .-.%-.-.. ::::::::::::::::.* , . ,�................................................................................................................................................. ............................. ...%..................................:....................... , , . ............. .............. ............................ ..................... *..... . ........................ ...... .. ................ .:.:..:.... ..............................::::::::::: .......................:..: ..."..---.............:..: ..*..........:.:.::::::.....:: . ....- ............................ .... : .: .......................................... , .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.,:.:...........:.:.:.:...:.....:.:.:.:.:.*..............................%. . .::...."......,.,."..,..,......:................... .... ..:....,.:.:::.:.:.:.:.:..�,:..,.:.-,;.;- .........,....,..�........................ .:.1 .. � ..............:.....................-.-.-.-.-.-.-.......;..,::.'....,"'**,*'*'*"'-.'.:,.:,.:,.:,.:,.:,.:,.".:,.:,.:,.:,.:,.:... .....I....:.:...... - -.. .:.....:.:...:.:.............'.'.'.'............... .:.: .. . -.'.' . . . . .. . . -:......... .�'...�...............................:.:...."I.-."..".., ....:. .:.:.:.:.:.:.:. #17 Family Reunification Social Service $3,145,750 ............................:.:.:.:.:.,.,.il.:.:.:t ... ..... X.............. .. . . ..................XXx::.: ............................................................. ............. .................. .......... .. ......**..* .n. , 0.al......... . ...................%............ - .$:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.,.:.:.:.............................................*'*'* .. : , ..... ��.... . ..... , � ... ..�3�, � - .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:- - ............................... . .. .: 00: :: a a. I Ve... : :�i�iju.v,.O.ni..e.:.:i5ex.wat.....A.- A's.,1If...-T..,..OM**,**'*" """"d.""$""""', , . ... .......:;:"::.:.:.::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. .............................:.:..:.,...:..:.,..,..:.......,..:........,,� $..3 :0....:. .. . .. .... ....... ... f ..::.:v... . . . ...... ............. . .. - ......:-:-:-:-:-:.:-:.:-:-------:-:�:-:�--�-.--.,.:-:-:--- 0079.'��-.--7`-1 :':-' .......... - .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.................. .i�i .. . .... . .......................................................... - .wg ...........-.-.-.-.,........000 .. . ��� ......................... .. . . . . ............... -.- S .......:.:...:....,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,. '.... ..." ....::::::: ::: *.P ..... * ... ... . .....:::%-:.............- -::::.............................% -.... , .:.:.....:::...:::.....:.....:!.,.:::.:.. ::::., . . .... ::::: - : : : ::::: :::::::......:::.:.::: ..........'................ ............. ..::.......:. ..6 ... ..:.:. .::..................'.'.'.'.'.'.'.. '.'.'**, , , - . i ........ ........... ... .... ...::: .. ::.. : : ::: ::;:::;:::...................... .. ..... .......,..,..:,..::,::: -'-.....,:,:::::::,.*.,.,.,.::: ::::::::::::: ...-...-..-....::Ii-..-."...-..,..,."..'.-"..'*..-".-..-'--.-i.'.'i:j:j:j:i:i:i::::::::::::. .:.::.::.:.::. ...:::..... - . . ::. .... . .................: .. .: . '. ::::::: .:.:.:.:.;*.:.:.:.:::;:;::::::::;::::::::::::::,.,**'*', ..- .. . . M 0.08 . ...............:... ..... ..::.:: , *.... th i'.' ' .3 """""""'&"V ........ . ::": : ......Ef"*"'. """ *".*"*e ::.W. 11''141.N lar--,'1�dw il i.t.A�i�i ) . .:::::::::i: . .::: i TO .... . ....n .... ...... ... .................,:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: . .. ..,...,........-.1.... I ... ..... .:.::;:;:::::::::::.......:...:..::..... ...................................... ... #19 Public Housing Program Housing Authority $2,560,000 ::;::::::::::::::::.:.:.;.:....-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-...................................................��.�..............:..........�..,...�...�...,...'.�'........,.,.,.... : ::::: .... ...%............................................... ..:.:.'::..i.:::.:.i...:.:."::....:.:.....::,:...:::::...I.: ". ".".;*.:".:.:...':...:....:....:....:.......t.:......:.......".:......"...:........:........:........:L...:....:...:....:.......:......:......,......:.:.........:....."....:...:....".:......:a...:.......:.......:......r:........":..........*"V...."..........".,............"."............,...%"%...,...".-,.'.......%..."...-*..*-......,..-......-"..,-.--...'.....*' ...-..- .,..-,..-.*:.-%...:::.-*..::... ,-...."..:.-......i.:-....::.....i:.-.....X...".......-.....-........-....:...".:..-....".:.:.....:....".:,.:......":.....".":.....":....:...".":.....".:.:....:..-.".:..:....-.":.:..".:....:..".".:.......:.:......:....".:.......:........:...:...-.--...............'"..:X...,.:...:.*-:..:.:.....::...:.:X.:.:.:.:.."...:,.­,-...'-. .-...'.-�.'..-.-."."::.::....:".:.:...:....:.:."...:".:.-:...:.....:".".:.."..�..:..�.....:;..":.".�..."..:.;....�....:.�.."..,.�...'.:.�.-..,.�...'..:�".-,.....�:.�.�'.....-,:.'.-...�'.-....,�'...�-,�...-.."�...'..,�"..�.,�.*.*.-.�....".-�..-..:.�.....�...-..�....'-�.-...�....*�.*..-.��.-*..�....*"�.%"..�...,.:.�:.�- . .,...� ;.-�..:.-. � �r...-.:��.:�:..'...�'....�.':�.....�.-.',�.*-...�.*...�.'....�..*...�.*....�..:�...�.1.,.%.],..,...�.1�..:�,]-.:�.1�.:�,�.:�.1�.:],�.:�.1:.: - - -�::�: -�::�: .:.:.:..:..�...-i:..:....:.:..�.....i:...:..� ...;.-*.�.;..*.;-..�..*.�-...;.i�-'....�.. *.��-.;...*.��-...�;..�-"..��..-.�� ...;.*.��-..�.,�.-*.��..��..-.�'..��..*.��-.��....��....;�...;�..��...%��..�...�;....�..��...�..�..��..�.'�....;�.�..�....��....�..�:.;.....��...�..�..��:.�..�:.��:.�..�:.��:.�..�:.��... �.*�.:.�.:. '�:.�: �� ;:.��:: ;-�"..-; *�'�.: *. �.:� . ........ ::j:::: -. :h:. .. ........... .-. .. ,.....,.:::::::: :::;....:. :....**.:::::....::..........,, .� ...'!hr�a' ,..,.., ...... :::::::.:::::::::.::: :...........::.. I 2 -`:M0 *.�. .6i.,.�..".*�.-i....'�.*-i...*:... .:-.-y............ ...' . -* .,,-%::::::: ::::...... ... . ..............:::::' ::::::::, .."::::::::: ::::::::::::,,,............. ....:.:::::..::::.....::...1..:.......... *- �.� .......... ITOTAL GROSS EXPENDITURES OF TOP 20 $292,232,129 1 � Table 3. Top 20 Children and Family Service Programs by Net County Cost Rank Program Department Net County Cost #1 AFDC/Foster Care Social Service $7,616,691 .......... .......... ............... ............. ..... .. .. .... q.. ............X.. ......X .. . .... .............................. . . .. .. .-C'. ......... ..... ....... ... . . ..................... .............. ............. #3 Income Maintenance Social Service $5,134,026 .......................­ '' ..................... .................................. ...................... ............................... ...... .................................... . ................................. .................. ....................................................... ............................... ........... ................. .............................. ............................... ............................... ................................................ V, X.: ............. ............ ...... . ........ ... ... .................................. U­". " i'e""HI'd d e ........ ......... # X.. .............................................. ........... .. .................................................. . .............. . ...... ......... ..... . ....... . .. .... ...................................... ......................... .............................. ......... ................... .......... ............. .. :...................... .............. ............. .......................... .................. .......... .....................e............... ................ #5 Juvenile/Sexual Assault Team and Special Sheriff $3,039,718 Enforcement Unit XXXXX................... d .......:.. ....................................... ..N.....1__'......a.............r........c............o . tics &Vice ......... ... .'.. ....................... ......................... .......................................................................... .............................................. ..... ................tv ......... ....R . ......: ............. ... ...... #7 Emergency Response Social Service X ..................... .... : - ... . .....:..:........................................................... .... . ... . ...X ... $1,2.....8.....7...,...8....2...5 .. q.beh a ..h er9 . on . . .. .. ........... .. .: ... ... .... #9 Food Stamps/Food Distribution, Social Service $1,141,634 ............ ............. ................ ........... ... ........ . . ... ............... ..... ........................... .......... :,G`b .............................. ........................... ............. ............ xii : """" `:::::::: Z..3 ......... .,`.&��...:........................... ........ $111 d .............................. .............. ............................ .0 . ........................... ........................... ......... .. ............................. X .... ............................. .......... .......................... #11 Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility Probation $942,328 .............. .. ...... .. . .............. IsadjaZe .... ............. ............ .... ............. .. . ............. .................. .................. ....... .......... ........ ... #13 Permanent Placement Social Service $802,467 ......... ................................. ..... ............... ........... X.: ..W. .'I "-0.b." 5". i-91 Get . .................... ............ .............. S ..0. ... . ........... .............. . ................ . ...... . ..... . .... ... ..... . ............ .................. ....................... .. #15 Family Reunification Social Service $627,736 .......... .......... ......*........... ....... . ... .. X. . ........ . ......... .................... ..................................X. . ...... . . ......... ........................... .:.. .. .... ........".1..0....... ..b.r.V.V.. IC.... ....... ....... s.....m... ... ................. .. ::.......................... ............................ ............ ...................:::::;: . ... ............... ........ .. Child Health a y Health Services $498,473 Id ...................... ..... . ........ ............. .O.0 . ......................................... ........ ....... .. U h A... ................................... ... ............... ........ .. ......................... .. .......... •:::::.:.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::::::.......... ......... . ..... ............... ........... .... #19 Family Maintenance Social Service $422,803 .. ........ .............................................. .................... ........ ...... ............................ .......X......X.......X.......X........X.......X... ..:........... . 6 ...: . ............... ....... ...�.*..`..e.*.*.*...*.`...,.... ...: ..:.:.:.:.:.:... ...:.X.:.. ...................... ... .......... .................. ..... ........ ... ::::...041tsbkc. ... . ......... . 332: . . .. . ... . .. . ......... ......:................... W.. .... ....... .....: [TOTAL NET COUNTY COST OF TOP 20 $38,434,807 Table 4. Gross Expenditures and Net County Costs for Children and Family Services by Department Department Gross Expenditures Net County Costs Building Inspection $700,900 0.2% $0 0.0% .... .......... rii ..... ........... .... ........... Ab .... ........... ............ .. ......... .......... nind n: ow. ......... me1 U."RM", 6 .. ............. .... ..... ........ .... ........... Community Services $10,927,628 3.4% $0 0.0% .......... ................ ..................w....... ....E....A ...a. n ... ...rasidh ........ .... ........... ......... ................................ ..M . ... .. ....... County Counsel $558,378 0.2% $167,513 0.4% .................................. .................... ................. .............., .. ..Q16I tid ......... ................. ...... vz... ...... .....M............................................................. .... 0 . .................. ...1.. !w . . .. ...... . ..... .. ........... .. . . . ... ........................... District Attorney $9,859,322 3.1% $0 0.0% .................. .......... . ........ . . .................. .. ............... . .'..H.................I..t.. .::::::::.:..:...8.6..°x.:::::::::::::::.."Se.* y'""t. ........................................... .... . .............................. .. 4 .............................. . 'A. ......... ... .................... Housing Authority $45,200,000 14.1% $0 0.0% ... ..... ... ................ ............. .......... ...... .. .. . . W. ....... ............ .............. -X. X... ............ . ........ Private Industry Council $7,049,850 2.2% $0 0.0% ................ ............ ............ .............. ................ .2 ... .2 -.2 :.j ............ ............. ...... $ .6 .337 .......... ....:... -'. ..... . . .. .... ... ....... ...... .. .......... .................. .... .. ........ Public Defender $1,302,624 0.4% $1,260,499 3.1% ...... ........ ..... ...... . ...... ........ . ..... .................... .......... .. . ........ . . .................... 33 . ....................'� -.3 . . ................... ... .......... . .. ...... ............ _w...................... ................. Social Service $189,256,262 59.2% $19,997,330 49.0% .. . ...... . ..... ........ ...... ......................... .............. .. I ... . ................. . .. ............. ....................- :.... ....... .................... .. . .. .................... ..................... . ........... 00 'h ... ......... . ................................ ....... .... rTOTAL $319,862,336 100.0% $40,831,159 Other is Service integration a multi-department effort involving Health, Probation and Social Service. Figure 1. Children and Family Budget by Service Category Other Children& Family Services Family Support/ Safety/Justice 1% Parenting Skills 10% 6% Other Health Services 2% Medical Care 6% Alternative Homes for Children 10% Economic Support/Self- Sufficency 48% Food&Shelter 17% TOTAL=$319,862,336 Figure 2. Breakdown of Children and Family Services by Financing and Net County Cost $350,000,000 100% $300,000,000 87% $250,000,000 $200,000,000 $150,000,000 $100,000,000 13% $50,000,000 $0 Gross Expenditures Financing Net County Cost Figure 3. Share of Net County Cost for Children and Family Services by Service Category Family Support/Parenting Other Children and Family Services Skills Economic 1% 3% Support/Self- Sufficency 14% AM Food&Shelter 3% Safety/Justice 43% Alternative Homes for Children 26% Other Health Medical Care 3% Services 7% TOTAL NET COUNTY COST= $40,831,169 Table of Contents Family Support/Parenting Skills 1. Child Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2. Head Start . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3. Family Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4. Child Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5. Family Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. Family Reunification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7. Refugee Social Adjustment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Economic SupporVSelf Sufficiency 1. Nutrition & Resource Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 z Child Support Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3. Families for Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4. DTPA Employment & Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5. Summer Youth Jobs Program 9 6. Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 7. Cal-Learn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 8. Independent Living Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9. Job Training/Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 10. Income Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Food & Shelter 1. Neighborhood Preservation Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 z Redevelopment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3. Child Nutrition Services for Child Development/Head Start . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4. Section 8 Housing Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 5. Public Housing Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6. Summer Food Service Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 7. Women, Infants & Children Program - Brentwood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 8. Women, Infants & Children Program - Concord . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 9. Women, Infants & Children Program - Pittsburg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 10. Women, Infants & Children Program -Richmond. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 11. Food Wise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 12. Food Stamps/Food Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Alternative Homes for Children 1. Permanent Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 2. Adoptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3. AFDC/Foster Care : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 4. Foster Care/Seriously Emotionally Disturbed Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 S. Foster Home Licensing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Medical Care 1. California Children's Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 2. Child Health Screening Clinic - Concord. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 3. Child Health Screening Clinic - Pittsburg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 4. Child Health Screening Clinic - Richmond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 5. Healthy Start- Pittsburg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 6. Healthy Start- Richmond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 7. High Risk Infant Follow-Up Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 8. Teen Health Clinic - Concord . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 9. Teen Health Clinic -Richmond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 10. Contra Costa Health Plan/Aid to Families with Dependent Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Other Health Services 1. AB 3632 Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 2. Born Free . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 3. Center-based Infant Program, George Miller Center East . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 4. Center-based Infant Program, George Miller Center West. . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 5. Central County Child& Youth Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 6. Child Health & Disability Prevention Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 7. Childhood Injury Prevention Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 8. Developmental Disabilities Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 9. East County Children's Mental Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 10. Home-based Infant Program, George Miller Center East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 11. Home-based Infant Program, George Miller Center West . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 12. Lead Poisoning Prevention Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 13. West Contra Costa County Children's Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 14. YIACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 15. Bicycle Head Injury Prevention Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Safety/Justice 1. Juvenile & Dependent Children Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 2. Physical Evidence Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Safety/Justice (cont'd) 3. PACT Violence Prevention Project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 4. Juvenile Community Services Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 5. Juvenile Probation/Placement Board& Care. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 6. Juvenile Hall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 7. Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 8. Public Defender&Alternate Defender Office -Juvenile Division . . . . . . . 49 9 Juvenile/Sexual Assault Team & Special Enforcement Unit (Narcotics & Vice) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 10. Emergency Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 11. Child Abuse Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Other Children/Family Services 1. Keller Mitigation Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 2. Community Development Block Grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 3. 4H Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 4. Bay Point Family Service Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 5. North Richmond Family Service Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 6. County Library . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 444444 - 444444 44 44 44 44 44 44 SUortpp aren1"9 ,Skl*.Il ' s 4" 4 4 4 4 :44 4444 Family Support/Parenting Skills 1. Child Development Department: Community Services Description: Child Development provides a wide array of human services for families to assist them to either maintain or achieve self sufficiency. The three largest programs are the General Child Care/Title IV-A, State Preschool & the Martinez State Preschool where we provide 151,150 days of subsidized general child care & 54,900 days of State Preschool child care respectively. Outcome Indicators: Measured by ability of parents to complete training & their ability to increase family income. Number of Clients: Approximately 1,050 clients per year. Level of Discretion: Optional Program Budget Reference: Community Services Department- Child Development Division Gross Expenditures: $3,968,442 Financing: $3,968,442* Net County Cost: $ 0 Funding Sources: State Department of Education, Contra Costa College District. Budget Basis: Actual - 100% of Program Budget * Includes intra-department transfers. 2. Head Start Department: Community Services Description: Head Start provides child & family development services to 1,203 program eligible families & children ages three to four. Services are provided through six County operated children's centers, four community based Delegate Agency contractors & nine home based child care homes. Outcome Indicators: Measured by ability of children in completing two years of He id Start. Number of Clients: Approximately 1,203 children & their families per year. Level of Discretion: Very Limited Program Budget Reference: Community Services Department-Head Start Division Gross Expenditures: $6,080,902 Financing: $6,007,886'` Net County Cost: $ 73,016 Funding Sources: Administration for Children & Families, State Department of Education, County General Fund Budget Basis: Actual - 100% of Program Budget * Includes intra-department transfers. ' 3. Family Preservation Department: Social Service Description: The Family Preservation Program of Contra Costa County provides intensive social work services to children &their families when the child is at risk of out-of-home placement. This program has had an excellent success rate in preventing children's entry into the labor intensive & expensive out-of- home placement system. Overall, the program reduces County costs for foster care. Outcome Indicators: Increase in the number of children who can be maintained in their own home; decrease in the number of children who must be removed. 2 No. of Clients: 206 families in calendar year 1994 Level of Discretion: Optional Program Budget Reference: Social Services, Administration & Services, Family Preservation Gross Expenditures: $1,000,000 Financing: $1,000,000 Net County Cost: $ 0 Funding Sources: State funds (savings from state share of AFDC/Foster Care aid payments) Budget Basis: Actual - 100% of Program Budget 4. Child Care Department: Social Service Description: The child care program consists of 3 sub-programs: 1) State Department of Education Alternative Payment Child Care - Child care payments for children in the Child Welfare Services system. Funded by state Department of Education funds with a required county maintenance of effort. 2) Title IV-A Child Care -This is the "working poor" child care program for those parents who are employed but at risk of going on AFDC without child care help. Funded by state &federal funds with a required County maintenance of effort. 3) Block Grant Child Care -This is the child care program for Teen Parents, special needs children & former Child Welfare Services clients. Funded by state & federal funds with a required County maintenance of effort. Outcome Indicators: Not available Level of Discretion: Very Limited 3 Program Budget Reference: Social Services, Administration & Services, Child Care Gross Expenditures: $1,117,419 Financing: $1,061,238 Net County Cost: $ 56,181 Funding Sources: State & County General Funds Budget Basis: Actual - 100% of Program Budget 5o Family Maintenance Department: Social Service Description: Social work services under Juvenile Court supervision to prevent out-of-home placement. Outcome Indicators: Increase in the number of children who can be maintained in their own home; decrease in the number of children who must be removed No. of Clients: 570 Level of Discretion: Some Discretion Program Budget Reference: Social Services, Administration & Services, Family Maintenance Gross Expenditures: $2,118,777 Financing: $1,695,974 Net County Cost: $ 422,803 Funding Sources: Federal, State & County General Funds Budget Basis: Actual - 100% of Program Budget 4 6. Family Reunification Department: Social Service Description: Social services ordered by Juvenile Court for children in out-of- home placement with the goal of reunifying the family. Outcome Indicators: Increase in the number of children who are returned to the home of a parent No. of Clients: . 620 Level of Discretion: Some Discretion Program Budget Reference: Social Service, Administration & Services, Family Reunification Gross Expenditures: $3,145,750 Financing: $2,518,014 Net County Cost: $ 627,736 Funding Sources: Federal, State & County Budget Basis: Actual - 100% of Program Budget , 7. Refugee Social Adjustment Department: Social Service Description: Provides cash assistance for eligible refugees, routine social services, employment services plus a youth employment training program, home health training & vocational "english as a second language" for eligible refugees. Outcome Indicators: 38 assessments per month 10 job placements per month 35 component completions per month No. of Clients: 300 average caseload 5 Level of Discretion: Mandated & some discretion Program Budget Reference: Social Services, Administration & Services, Aid Gross Expenditures: $1,371,811 Financing: $1,371,811 Net County Cost: $ 0 Funding Sources: Federal Budget Basis: Actual - 100% of Program Budget 6 444444 - 444444• 44 _ 44 _ - 44 - 44 44 : Economic uppo rt e u lcten c y - h 4 , 4 � Jj Li Li Li 4 • _ 444444 Economic Support/Self-Sufficiency 1. Nutrition & Resource Management Department: Cooperative Extension Description: Nutrition education, resource management, gardening information Outcome Indicators: Evaluation studies No. of Clients: 1000/yr Level of Discretion: Discretionary Program Budget Reference: Cooperative Extension, Family Education Gross Expenditures: $37,924 Financing: $ 0 Net County Cost: $37,924 Funding Sources: General Fund Budget Basis: Actual - 100% of Program Budget 2. Child Support Enforcement Department: District Attorney - Family Support Description: Provide free legal services to establish paternity, establish a fair monthly child support & medical services & enforcement of that support. Outcome Indicators: Amount collected &AB 1033 audit compliances No. of Clients: 60,000 average monthly FY 94-95 Level of Discretion: Non-discretionary Program Budget Reference: District Attorney - Family Support 7 Gross Expenditures: $9,859,322 Financing: $9,859,322 Net County Cost: $ 0 Funding Sources: Expenditure Transfers $ 33,279 State $3,340,855 Federal $6,485,188 Budget Basis: Actual - 100% of Program Budget 3. Families for Literacy Department: Library Description: Countywide programs that work with Project Second Chance, an adult literacy program. Program emphasizes parent as teacher. Clients receive instruction & materials to help break cycle of illiteracy. Story time & books are also presented to Head Start Programs & teen moms. Outcome Indicators: Measured by response on monthly calendars, FFL Survey, Head Start Survey & feedback from tutors. No. of Clients: 350+ per year Level of Discretion: Discretionary Program Budget Reference: County Library - Central Library/Literacy Gross Expenditures: $37,000 Financing: $37,000 Net County Cost: $ 0 Funding Sources: State of California, Other grants & gifts Budget Basis: Estimated - 2% of Program Budget 8 4. JTPA Employment & Training Department: Private Industry Council Description: Employment & Training Program Services to Economically Disadvantaged and/or Unemployed. Outcome Indicators: Quality Work Experience, 50% Placement Rate into Unsubsidized Employment, 50%Academic Enrichment/Competency Attainment. No. of Clients: - 1,300/year Level of Discretion: No discretion Program Budget Reference: PIC Gross Expenditures: $6,796,590 Financing: $6,796,590 Net County Cost: $ 0 Funding Sources: Federal Job Training Partnership Act Budget Basis: Estimated - 34% of Program Budget 5. Summer Youth Jobs Program Department: Private Industry Council Description: Outstation temporary employees (Youth) at EDD offices to stimulate & assist in annual "Hire a Youth" campaign, acting as a catalyst for a traditional labor exchange focused at summer youth employment. Outcome Indicators: Number of summer job placements No. of Clients: + 2,500 during summer Level of Discretion: Very Limited Program Budget Reference: PIC 9 Gross Expenditures: $28,260 Financing: $28,260 Net County Cost: $ 0 Funding Sources: Private Donations 6. Greater Avenues For Independence (GAIN) Department: Private Industry Council Description: Labor Market Analysis & Job Development For GAIN Participants. Outcome Indicators: 48 employments/month No. of Clients: 75/month Level of Discretion: Optional Program Budget Reference: PIC Gross Expenditures: $225,000 Financing: Social Service Department Net County Cost: N/A Funding Sources: Inter-Departmental Transfer Budget Basis: Actual - 100% of Program Budget 7. Cal-Learn Department: Social Service Description: Provides services to pregnant/parenting teens who are under the age of 19 & on AFDC while they attend school to acquire their high.school diplomas. The program pays for childcare & counseling. 10 Outcome Indicators: Number of participants who receive their high school diplomas. No. of Clients: 320 Level of Discretion: Non-discretionary Program Budget Reference: N/A Gross Expenditures: $ 1,100,000 Financing: $ 1,013,000 Net County Cost: $ 87,000 Funding Sources: Federal & State Budget Basis: Estimated - Not included in program budget since allocation not yet final. 8. Independent Living Skills Department: Social Service Description: This program provides support & practical skill building for juveniles eligible for federal foster care funds who will soon be too old to participate in the foster care system. The program is focused on assisting children to function as adults in the world. Outcome Indicators: Increase in the number of children leaving the foster care system who possess self-sufficiency skills & are knowledgeable in the areas of continuing education, employment & housing. No. of Clients: Approximately 500 youth for FY 1994/95 Level of Discretion: Optional Program Budget Reference: Social Service, Administration & Services, Independent Living Skills Gross Expenditures: $159,034 11 Financing: $159,034 Net County Cost: $ 0 Funding Sources: Federal, State & County Budget Basis: Actual - 100% of Program Budget 9. Job Training/Education Department: Social Service Description: GAIN is a statewide comprehensive mandatory program which enrolls able-bodied AFDC recipients in local education, training &job services programs which support self sufficiency. The goal of the GAIN program is to promote independence & strengthen the employability potential of participants. GAIN components include: orientation & appraisal; training programs; job club/search; pre-employment preparation; on the job training; & supportive services (child care, transportation & ancillary expenses). Outcome Indicators: Job Placements -403 in most recent 6 months (671month) No. of Clients: 6 month average = 3110 Level of Discretion: Very Limited Program Budget Reference: Social Services, Administration & Services, GAIN Gross Expenditures: $6,169,913 Financing: $5,662,980 Net County Cost: $ 506,933 Funding Sources: Federal, State & County Budget Basis: Actual - 100% of Program Budget. Note: Budget includes GAIN program operated by PIC. 12 10. Income Maintenance Department: Social Service Description: AFDC grants --AFDC & Medi-Cal Administration. Provides cash assistance for families with children who are needy because of the absence, incapacity, unemployment or death of one or more parents. Provides eligibility determination for AFDC & Medi-Cal programs. Outcome Indicators: Needy children will have the necessities of life & get adequate medical care when needed. No. of Clients: 17,500 Level of Discretion: Mandated Program Budget Reference: Social Services, Administration & Services, Aid, AFDC & Medi-Cal (Administration) Gross Expenditures: $127,788,875 Financing: $122,654,849 Net County Cost: $ 5,134,026 Funding Sources: Federal, State & County Budget Basis: Actual - 100% of Program Budget 13 444444 . 444444 - , 44 44 - 44 44 44 44 F00 - S e' ' d b it r . l . s _ fMRFS x 4 { F � 4 4 4 444444 Food & Shelter 1. Neighborhood Preservation Program Department: Building Inspection Department Description: No interest or low interest loans for low & moderate income families to do repair's to bring their homes up to code. Outcome Indicators: Loans funded per program year, average 35-40 loans per year Level of Discretion: No discretion - specific HUD requirements Program Budget Reference: Community Development Block Grant Fund Gross Expenditures: $700,000 Financing: $700,000 Net County Cost: $ 0 Funding Sources: Community Development Block Grant fund ($200,000) & program income ($500,000) Budget Basis: Estimated - 20% of Program Budget 2. Redevelopment Department: Community Development Description: Designs and implements plans for rehabilitating blighted areas within the County with the goal of improving the physical, environmental and economic viability of those areas. Outcome Indicators: Unknown Level of Discretion: Discretionary Program Budget Reference: Community Development, Redevelopment 14 Gross Expenditures: Unknown Financing: Unknown Net County Cost: $ 0 Funding Sources: Other Budget Basis: Program budget totals $668,822. Percentage allocated to serving children and families is unknown. Note: Due to lack of the necessary information, this program is not included in the totals shown on accompanying tables/charts. 3. Child Nutrition Services for Child DevelopmentlHead Start Department: Community Services Description: Child Nutrition Services provide well-balanced & varied breakfasts, lunches & snacks to children enrolled in the Community Services Department's Child Development & Head Start programs in West County. Provides nutrition education to children, staff& families of enrolled children. Provides support in the form of nutrition training & technical assistance to Head Start Delegate Agencies countywide. Outcome Indicators: -Department of Education audits, evaluations from children, comments from parents & staff Level of Discretion: Optional Program Budget Reference: Community Services Department-Child Nutrition Division Gross Expenditures: $878,284 Financing: $878,284* Net County Cost: $ 0 Funding Sources: Administration for Children & Families, State Department of Education 15 Budget Basis: Actual - 100% of Program Budget * Includes intra-department transfers. 4. Section 8 Housing Assistance Department: Housing Authority Description: Rental assistance payments for very low-income families in CCC. Outcome Indicators: Rate of families served off waiting list. No. of Clients: 4,500 families Level of Discretion: No Discretion Program Budget Reference: N/A Gross Expenditures: $42,640,000 Financing: $42,640,000 Net County Cost: $ 0 Funding Sources: U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development Budget Basis: Estimated - 82% of Budget 5. Public Housing Program Department: Housing Authority Description: Subsidized rental housing for low- & very low-income families in CCC. Outcome Indicators: 100% occupancy rate. No. of Clients: 730 families 16 Level of Discretion: No Discretion Program Budget Reference: N/A Gross Expenditures: $2,560,000 Financing: $2,560,000 Net County Cost: $ 0 Funding Sources: U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development Budget Basis: Estimated - 64% of Budget 6. Summer Food Service Program Department: Health Services - Public Health Description: Improve the nutrition of low-income children. Outcome Indicators: Increase USDA Summer Feeding Program participants. No. of Clients: 23,000 (outreach using mailers/ads) Level of Discretion: Very Limited Program Budget Reference: Public Health Grants Gross Expenditures: $13,334 Financing: $13,334 Net County Cost: $ 0 Funding Sources: State Budget Basis: Estimated - 1% of Program Budget 17 7. Women, Infants & Children Program - Brentwood Department: Health Services - Public Health Description: Provides supplemental food & nutrition education to women, infants & children. Provides vouchers for food & infant formulas to women who are pregnant, breast-feeding or within 6 months of delivery, as well as to infants & kids aged 1-5. Outcome Indicators: Measured by the improved growth in children, prolonged breast-feeding, reduction of overweight children. No. of Clients: 250/month Level of Discretion: Very Limited Program Budget Reference: Public Health Grants Gross Expenditures: $25,747 Financing: $25,747 Net County Cost: $ 0 Funding Sources: Federal Funds Budget Basis: Estimated 1994-95 - 0.3% of Program Budget 8. Women, Infants & Children Program - Concord Department: Health Services - Public Health Description: Provides supplemental food & nutrition education to women, infants & children. Provides vouchers for food & infant formulas to women who are pregnant, breast-feeding or within 6 months of delivery, as well as to infants & kids aged 1-5. Outcome Indicators: Measured by the improved growth in children, prolonged breast-feeding, reduction of overweight children. No. of Clients: 3,180/month 18 Level of Discretion: Very Limited Program Budget Reference: Public Health Grants Gross Expenditures: $308,962 Financing: $308,962 Net County Cost: $ 0 Funding Sources: Federal Funds Budget Basis: Estimated 1994-95 - 3% of Program Budget 9. Women, Infants & Children Program - Pittsburg Department: Health Services - Public Health Description: Provides supplemental food & nutritional education to women, infants & children. Provides vouchers for food & infant formulas to women who are pregnant, breast-feeding or within 6 months of delivery, as well as to infants & kids aged 1-5. Outcome Indicators: Measured by the improved growth in children, prolonged breast-feeding, reduction of overweight children. No. of Clients: 4,273/month Level of Discretion: Very Limited Program Budget Reference: Public Health Grants Gross Expenditures: $411,949 Financing: $411,949 Net County Cost: $ 0 Funding Sources: Federal Funds Budget Basis: Estimated 1994-95 -4% of Program Budget 19 1 D. Women, Infants & Children Program - Richmond Department: Health Services - Public Health Description: Provides supplemental food & nutrition education to women, infants & children. Provides vouchers for food & infant formulas to women who are pregnant, breast-feeding or within 6 months of delivery, as well as to infants & kids aged 1-5. Outcome Indicators: Measured by the improved growth in children, prolonged breast-feeding, reduction of overweight children. No. of Clients: 5,663/month Level of Discretion: Very Limited Program Budget Reference: Public Health Grants Gross Expenditures: $540,682 Financing: $540,682 Net County Cost: $ 0 Funding Sources: Federal Budget Basis: Estimated 1994-95 - 6% of Program Budget 11. Food Wise Department: Health Services - Public Health Description: Project establishes a cooperative nutrition education service to improve nutritional well-being & reduce risk for chronic disease among food stamp household members, school meal recipients & children participating in the Child Care Council's Child Care Food Program. Outcome Indicators: Evaluation Studies No. of Clients: 57,000 through direct mailings, 3 times/year; 200 direct education through other channels. 20 Level of Discretion: 10% among budget areas Program Budget Reference: Cooperative Nutrition Education Project Gross Expenditures: $143,406 Financing: $121,431 Net County Cost: $21,975 Funding Sources: Federal & local agencies' match Budget Basis: Estimated - 75% of Cooperative Education Project Budget. 12. Food StampslFood Distribution Department: Social Service Description: This program is designed to raise the level of nutrition among low- income households by increasing their food purchasing power. Outcome Indicators: By receiving Food Stamps & receiving other food commodities, the recipients would become healthier, thus having less chronic health problems. No. of Clients: 15,000 Level of Discretion: Mandated Program Budget Reference: Social Services, Administration & Services, Food Stamps Gross Expenditures: $7,610,892 Financing: $6,469,258 Net County Cost: $1,141,634 Funding Sources: Federal, State & County 21 Budget Basis: Actual - 100% (Budget is for program administration only; food stamps are given directly to recipients so that the cost of food stamp aid does not flow through the County's budget system). 22 . , % w V. e r. ��e.' . . . - :.. - J - , , , I I "! I..'� -1, . t ® . - ��m :"/,�� --,� H , �-* �,�,, . ,--, -�--' ,�, � A:;l I:...�i:1I-,I�.�.,1�I�-,��-..1-1�I 7,- - � �: -A- �, ern - � ,.-�, ,'-",ff,- - � I - .1-ve., - , -1- �' I .: . �.� . .1 - , � I . - �: I ,�� I �� 1- I - , - -, - 11 - , .11, -: -11 - - � 1- -�, �--::-",� -- -��. - q. -1, 1 , f -',- I . 'T-:1. -.. .. 1 - _11 -- ;,-,� , .-,��: .- , I �i.� : ,9-�. � ,-:, I , . -, - ,� ' ' : I - , . �, - -11" - , -- -­ ,�. I- , - -1 ll� - ­ lt-'- -. ". 1 . I - , - I 1- � 11, -: -.--: ._ � N �, -1.1-1 . I.,. I 1, � ;-.'-- - �- �� . _ � �l -�- ,� �,,L�, -- - ­, - 1 . �� , . --,'�'- . - - .: 1 2 'i. � �l ­ , , 1 -1 - h.-I '' ", -- ,f I..- ''"' , �, - - , , ,�_ ---�, ,�, - - I �-,�.,�,,: ,:-, :,:-,:- : --'�: .- : , - , _,--,�l , I --' ' - - - :- I ---. I I - . - - , - .1 � -;- I �-� -�- � � , .-- ,. I I -'- , - ,--�- , � - I � - - �, 11 I I -- - ,� , -', .- - . , - I 'I 'l, - I - ' . I - - -� ,.!. , -, -� -- , - I I I .. . � 1. I � - I -� - --�- --,--, � j b, ll� , 1 . .1, - �' - -:,- , - � � - - - , -, , '­ �-' - - - . .. � � . 11 - � - � -, 7 - k�- I � �� -�. i.,. -: -� �'. --`,�', - -, � I , _-, I -� --,���7-� ,! :�� �- � � � . ,:��-�,��-�I..-I-.�--IL�_,.I�.-�:-,,.I��,,.:..,l1,,�" ,���_��;-—�-,,-,�,-,�.�,--I,--�,�,.;1,.:-;--:"�-,rI rI,:l-��,,,r,�o�,'-l,,---�-,"..�-�.�-,-i1,".1"�I--,I,��,�I 1;-,�..1I.,,�,'.F,c��--i�.�,,,,-.-I":�.,.��r�I:,1�"w'-1,I—�.�'----��.�::I I-„_.-:�—.�:�:.'1oi,�.-,,I,,;,--�:�,-.-�-.1,,,:�,I—,�:::�I":---�"I-1 I1.�"-:.,,:��.,"-�---I'I`-,l-1:l1,'�-.��,��--�-�,--,-..:�.-�-::-:���"'”.,,-1-�.,�.,�.--.-i� ':.,�lI�'�'�-,-�I"'-"- -.�'-.�,1 �I�I 1 1 1.., 1,- :..,:� 1` 1 . —�--,:1"�I�I-�,-I C-,-'�11 7:--:,1*�-YFh�1'.--10-.�-I-,.1-�I�-�W-"-11-I--S--a, .'II"�-,-","'lff-1,-1r 1:.,-;"I,,�--��i�,,e,,:I--.�:,i'r."�--�1�I,-'- .1 I,,'-n:--.,---I.--I,�:-,',-�-.'I��-'�"I:-.,,1m,�1,,I�:1�'1I1-�I,�'�-.-.,.�,-�.,��1.�I%�'I,,,,-:II:.�.���--�,t:-��.:-:-­I-�-I t-,�-'��-z-I:,-"�.I l--_�—.'"-l-I---"!-��,--,:,�,-,1,-����' -�,.,,.,,..—�,I--.--� i.'i�.-,�--,,z-�::�,�:I�-.,1-�,'--.,.-l�1,1��,.IW---l,.,--.,0 1I,-'V-�,.�-"-'1'.1�I;1�,.'�:.l-�,_-.,�1-I„:���'�,�;I i� l,�I,���I. -I,—I,'� -�-l .l, 1� - � - I ,� , , - 11 111-1 - � I � ' ', - �, �-�-- -�� - -1 -11- -��. I..i,:� ,�,: , I'- . . I I , I 11�1-” ,I ,-- ,I-�, -: "' , � - ,-- -��:�-�� , ,,-- - 1-1 -,��, "I", _,�. 11 ,.- I � , 4 . ,. �:'I- -- . -; ,�- � ,'"' A 7, I -:, -7- , �, � � � � ;Il � . �-": "l- --,--, �'.I-t., ,��l - - , , I I 1. � L., -. 1, , � ,,'- -- -%-,-_:-: -- -1 .��,�,,,:.��,'-,� ��:�, �111: 1�'�I A-F:� �,-",, ---�' , - �.-- . , , .1 �� �: , ,, ,�- ,'_!- . �. -,., :: .' ', ,-;--�-- -" �_ - -� ,: -- -� -- --, " - -, �, -1- C-1 TI I , . . --'- - �l� I , - � -�!��,l I, I - .1 ,� �, - : , -1 - ,:,�-: �;,.. ,--1 ,--:,;, --- . , . -1 -�- " '-- , I � . - 1 ; ", � �- ' '. - ,:��! ,­,�,y--. - - -- . - -- - , � 1:�, -- 3,, �-- - , ,1, - - �-:,-�, .� :: , ��, Cr �'-%-� _ ��, � .-. �, .: ,�.,�� ,,� ,i ,�:,.� l .-.�-- �,,, ��":� '-'.l.-1,,�-_-_-,:,l ,-, I -'� :�� , -',� . - 1� 1 , �...!", --�., 'l-l ' I- - , � -11 - 1. � ., --. �l 11 11 ,.�, �, � ,, - ," -.1 , .� - �,: -'-�� , -, ::" - -. . I - . , - . . . ., ', - �,:�--,�.,�-rl--. . I I - I %:l'I-r- ;�� --'�: - - I � I �,�_ . �.:,-�-v, --- ;,-:::!- I -- �- _ - - I� . - --,-----:�-,--1 `I,.-,-,-'-' A- - �. ��:,: . � , , 1�, :,, I � .: � I - I- - , --- � 11 , -� - j , I - I 11 11- I I , - I - -�� ", , ":�r j, I ,�Pl ,. - . . , , - '. I I - - � � , I I I I -- -­ . -- - - - '" . . . - I 'I", . . I � ,.,- - % , , , ,J: �,�,� �. , I -;- -. , - , , ,�,�, I I - '-,�---.-:, :�, I I � . .- � - - --l' ,: ' :-:-�,,r :' '� ­ - , I �i �- : - I , I I:-7� -C,� -".� �-, -� I .I I - - --�:;, �, ,":�� -; ,��,; - �� ,:..,. , 11 I I% I - : 7. ,'�-� I ., � I, �I . I'P . ,I I I. I I I �, -, m, ,�-, �, -- - -�:-' -,-", I'll 1�' � _ ,_ T .. '' -] :. 1 I C ; ,G 3'y moi,�c +.-1i-SAY 1 �. x ,(a. _ +avis, s _ 3�' Fg a �:< vim. i . - r, 11 .. d 1 s �� `� : , - I_ _ .. ;- .. .. - ....- I fi .. 1 ,.., - - ,-. , ,,, I,J Alternative Homes for Children 7. Permanent Placement Department:' Social Service Description: Social services to children who cannot be returned home from placement with the goal of adoption or guardianship. Outcome Indicators: Increase in the number of children for whom adoptive placement can be made; increase in the number of children placed with legal guardians. No. of Clients: 1600 Level of Discretion: Some Discretion Program Budget Reference: Social Services, Administration & Services, Permanent Placement Gross Expenditures: $4,021,372 Financing: $3,218,905 Net County Cost: $ 802,466 Funding Sources: Federal, State & County Budget Basis: Actual - 100% of Program Budget 2. Adoptions Department: Social Service Description: This program provides adoption services to children who are free for adoption under the Civil Code & Welfare & Institutions Code & processes step-parent adoptions on a fee-for-service basis. County adoption agencies operate under license from the state. Adoption services help reduce foster care costs. 23 Outcome Indicators: Increase the number of children for whom adoptive placements can be made No. of Clients: 560 Level of Discretion: Optional (Admin.), Mandated (Aid) Program Budget Reference: Social Services, Administration & Services, Adoptions Gross Expenditures: $3,152,535 Financing: $2,313,008 Net County Cost: $ 839,527 Funding Sources Federal, State & County Budget Basis: Actual - 100% of Program Budget 3. AFDC/Foster Care Department: Social Service Description: Provides cash assistance to provide for the needs of children in foster care. Outcome Indicators: Ensure that payments to foster caregivers are done in a timely & accurate manner No. of Clients: 2020 Level of Discretion: Mandated Program Budget Reference: Social Services, Administration & Services, AFDC/FC Gross Expenditures: $21,048,486 Financing: $13,431,795 Net County Cost: $ 7,616,691 24 Funding Sources: Federal, State & County Budget Basis: Actual - 100% of Program Budget 4. Foster Care/Seriously Emotionally Disturbed Children Department: Social Service Description: Provides cash assistance to provide for the needs of children who are placed into foster care through the Severely Emotionally Disturbed program. This is a multi-disciplinary program to identify and provide services to children who are not able to benefit from their education due to their severe emotional disturbance. Outcome Indicators: Ensure that payments are issued correctly for children with emotional problems who are in foster care as an alternative to hospitalization. No. of Clients: 45 Level of Discretion: Mandated Program Budget Reference: Social Services, Administration & Services, FUSED Gross Expenditures: $2,166,667 Financing: $ 866,667 Net County Cost: $1,300,000 Funding Sources: State & County Budget Basis: Actual - 100% of Program Budget 5. Foster Home Licensing Department: Social Service Description: Processes applications for foster home licenses and provides 25 support services to licensed foster care parents. Outcome Indicators: Not available Level of Discretion: Mandated Program Budget Reference: Social Services, Administration & Services, Foster Home Licensing Gross Expenditures: $618,690 Financing: $444,183 Net County Cost: $174,507 Funding Sources: Federal, State & County Budget Basis: Actual - 100% of Program Budget 26 '444 3 , g4444a ` 44 qa 44 44 44 44 lCare- 10�ledl ca q 4 4 4 4 q 4 g444q4 Medical Care 7. Califoinia Children's Services Department: Health Services - Public Health Description: Provides medical case management, diagnostic evaluations, treatment services, physical & occupational therapy, & HIV testing & counseling. Outcome Indicators: Measured by the ability to close a child's case after treatment has resolved medical condition. No. of Clients: 2,500/year Level of Discretion: Very Limited Program Budget Reference: California Children's Services Gross Expenditures: $4,181,244 Financing: $3,146,616 Net County Cost: $1,034,628 Funding Sources: Federal Funds, State Funds, Client Fees, County General Funds Budget Basis: Estimated 1994-95 - 100% of Program Budget 2. Child Health Screening Clinic - Concord Department: Health Services - Public Health Description: Provides screening for growth & development, hearing/vision, hemoglobin, dental & nutritional, immunization, lead, child safety &TB. Identification of health problems & referrals made. Outcome Indicators: Measured by number of attendees, identified problems & school entry physicals. 27 No. of Clients: 60-80/month Level of Discretion: Very Limited Program Budget Reference: Public Health Clinical Services Gross Expenditures: $59,530 Financing: $56,695 Net County Cost: $ 2,835 Funding Sources: State Funds, Client Fees & County General Funds Budget Basis: Estimated 1994-95 - 1.5% of Program Budget 3. Child Hegilth Screening Clinic - Pittsburg Department: Health Services - Public Health Description: Provides screening for growth & development, hearing/vision, hemoglobin, dental & nutritional, immunization, lead, child safety & TB. Identification of health problems & referrals made. Outcome Indicators: Measured by number of attendees, identified problems, school entry physicals. No. of Clients: 50-60/month Level of Discretion: Very Limited Program Budget Reference: Public Health Clinical Services Gross Expenditures: $40,968 Financing: $39,017 Net County Cost: $ 1,951 Funding Sources: State Funds, Client Fees &'County General Funds 28 Budget Basis: Estimated 1994-95 - 1% of Program Budget 4. Child Health Screening Clinic - Richmond Department: Health Services - Public Health Description: Provides screening for growth & development, hearing/vision, hemoglobin, dental & nutritional, immunization, lead, child safety & TB. Identification of health problems & referrals made. Outcome Indicators: Measured by number of attendees, identified problems, school entry physicals. No. of Clients: 50-60/month Level of Discretion: Very Limited Program Budget Reference: Public Health Clinical Services Gross Expenditures: $26,270 Financing: $25,019 Net County Cost: $ 1,251 Funding Sources: State Funds, Client Fees & County General Funds Budget Basis: Estimated 1994-95 - 0.6% of Program Budget 5. Healthy Start - Pittsburg Department: Health Services - Hospital & Clinics Description: Provides health education, prenatal care, dietary counseling & psychosocial evaluation to pregnant women. No. of Clients: 45/month Level of Discretion: Very Limited 29 Program Budget Reference: Hospital & Outpatient Clinics Gross Expenditures: $146,512 Financing: $105,487 Net County Cost: $ 41,025 Funding Sources: Federal Funds, State Funds, Client Fees & County General Funds Budget Basis: Estimated 1994-95 - 0.1% of Program Budget 6. Healthy Start- Richmond Department: Health Services - Hospital & Clinics Description: Provides health education, prenatal care, dietary counseling & psychosocial evaluation to pregnant women. No. of Clients: 122/month Level of Discretion: Very Limited Program Budget Reference: Hospital & Outpatient Clinics Gross Expenditures: $153,249 Financing: $153,249 Net County Cost: $ 0 Funding Sources: Federal Funds, State Funds & Client Fees Budget Basis: Estimated 1994-95 - 0.1% of Program Budget 7. High Risk Infant Follow-Up Program Department: Health Services - Public Health Description: Provides home visits to parents/care givers of fragile infants to 30 promote optimal health/development outcomes for high-risk infants. Services include in-home family support, parent teaching/training, health monitoring, referrals. Outcome Indicators: Data kept by MCAH Branch at state level No. of Clients: 229/year Level of Discretion: Very Limited Program Budget Reference: Public Health Grants Gross Expenditures: $401,886 Financing: $251,886 Net County Cost: $150,000 Funding Sources: State Funds & County General Funds Budget Basis: Estimated 1994-95 - 4% of Program Budget 8. Teen Health Clinic - Concord Department: Health Services - Public Health Description: Teen health services are offered at the Concord Public Health clinics. Services are provided to youth between 12 & 21 years of age & include sports physicals & wellness examinations, immunizations, hearing & vision screening, family planning/STD's, & anticipatory guidance/health information. Outcome Indicators: Case management yielding increase in overall health of client population. No. of Clients: 53/month Level of Discretion: Very Limited Program Budget Reference: Clinical Services Gross Expenditures: $21,510 31 Financing: $20,486 Net County Cost: $ 1,024 Funding Sources: State Funds & County General Funds Budget Basis: Estimated 1994-95 - 0.5% of Program Budget 9. Teen Health Clinic - Richmond Department: Health Services - Public Health Description: Teen health services are offered at the Richmond Public Health clinics. Services are provided to youth between 12 & 21 years of age & include sports physicals & wellness examinations, immunizations, hearing & vision screening, family planning/STD's & anticipatory guidance/health information. Outcome Indicators: Case management yielding increase in overall health of client population. No. of Clients: 17/month Level of Discretion: Very Limited Program Budget Reference: Clinical Services Gross Expenditures: $6,347 Financing: $6,045 Net County Cost: $ 302 Funding Sources: State Funds & County General Funds Budget Basis: Estimated 1994-95 - 0.1% of Program Budget 32 10. Contra Costa Health Plan/Aid to Families with Dependent Children Department: Health Services Description: Serves Contra Costa residents who qualify for Medi-Cal through the Public Assistance and Medically Needy Only categories of the AFDC program. Outcome Indicators: Not available No. of Clients: Not available Level of Discretion: Some discretion Program Budget Reference: Health Services, Contra Costa Health Plan (Enterprise Fund II) Gross Expenditures: $13,237,215 Financing: $13,312,523 Net County Cost: ($ 75,308) Funding Sources: State Medi-Cal, County General Fund Budget Basis: Actual - 100% of Program Budget 33 444444 444444 44 ❑4 44 44 44 44 Other Health` SeruIces. 4 4 _ 4 ; 4 4 4 LJLJLJLJ 4 444444 Other Health Services 1. AB3632 Program Department: Health Services - Mental Health Description: Provides individual, group & family therapy, teacher consultation, case management, day treatment, residential treatment to students determined to need mental health services in order to benefit from their education. Outcome Indicators: Measured by School IEP Team which sets & evaluates goals & objectives annually. No. of Clients: 400/year Level of Discretion: Some Discretion Program Budget Reference: Children &Adolescent Services Gross Expenditures: $1,140,000 Financing: $ 722,000 Net County Cost: $ 418,000 Funding Sources: Federal Funds, State Funds, Client Fees & County General Funds Budget Basis: Estimated 1994-95 - 15% of Program Budget 2. Born Free Department: Health Services - Drug Abuse Description: Provides individual, group, partner & family counseling for pregnant or parenting women. Referrals are made through Healthy Start, Delivery at MMH, Parent Education groups & child care providers. Outcome Indicators: Reduction in Substance Abuse addicted newborns 34 No. of Clients: 225/year Level of Discretion: Some Discretion Program Budget Reference: Special Programs Gross Expenditures: $585,000 Financing: $415,000 Net County Cost: $170,000 Funding Sources: Federal Funds, State Funds & County General Funds Budget Basis: Estimated 1994-95 - 14% of Program Budget 3. Center-based Infant Program, George Miller Center East Department: Health Services - Public Health Description: Provides developmental & therapeutic services to infants with developmental disabilities, or at risk of developing handicapping conditions, & their families using multi-disciplinary team approach. Outcome Indicators: Measured by minimized regression, increased developmental levels & staying with families (preventing institutionalization). No. of Clients: 40/year Level of Discretion: Optional Program Budget Reference: George Miller Centers Gross Expenditures: $288,263 Financing: $283,326 Net County Cost: $ 4,937 Funding Sources: State Funds & County General Funds 35 Budget Basis: Estimated 1994-95 - 13% of Program Budget 4. Center-based Infant Program, George Miller Center West Department: Health Services - Public Health Description: Provides developmental & therapeutic services to infants with developmental disabilities, or at risk of developing handicapping conditions, & their families using multi-disciplinary team approach. Outcome Indicators: Measured by minimized regression, increased developmental levels & staying with families preventing institutionalization. No. of Clients: 40/year Level of Discretion: Optional Program Budget Reference: George Miller Centers Gross Expenditures: $199,831 Financing: $196,956 Net County Cost: $ 2,875 Funding Sources: State Funds & County General Funds Budget Basis: Estimated 1994-95 - 9% of Program Budget 5. Central County Child & Youth Services Department: Health Services - Mental Health Description: Provides outpatient mental health services to children, adolescents & families, parenting groups, psychological testing, consultation & mental health education to community groups in Central County. Outcome Indicators: Measured by diminished intensity in parenting problems & symptoms, actual behavior changes, client reports. No. of Clients: 120/month 36 Level of Discretion: Some Discretion Program Budget Reference: Children &Adolescent Services Gross Expenditures: $610,000 Financing: $175,000 Net County Cost: $435,000 Funding Sources: Federal Funds, Client Fees & County General Funds Budget Basis: Estimated 1994-95 - 8% of Program Budget 6. Child Health & Disability Prevention Program Department: Health Services - Public Health Description: Provides regular preventive health assessments to infants & youths to identify any health problems. Refer those with suspected problems for necessary diagnosis & treatment. Outcome Indicators: Measured by number of clients served/week. No. of Clients: 2,800/month Level of Discretion: Very Limited Program Budget Reference: Public Health Grants Gross Expenditures: $1,753,249 Financing: $1,254,776 Net County Cost: $ 498,473 Funding Sources: Federal Funds, State Funds & County General Funds Budget Basis: Estimated 1994-95 - 18% of Program Budget 37 7. Childhood Injury Prevention Program Department: Health Services - Public Health Description: Coalition of organizations county-wide aimed at preventing injuries of at-risk children 19 years old & younger. Outcome Indicators: No specific outcomes. No. of Clients: N/A Level of Discretion: Very Limited Program Budget Reference: Public Health Grants Gross Expenditures: $55,000 Financing: $55,000 Net County Cost: $ 0 Funding Sources: State Budget Basis: . Estimated 1994-95 - 0.06% of Program Budget 8. Developmental Disabilities Council Department: Health Services - Public Health Description: Works to improve services to people with developmental disabilities. Provides information about community resources, offers consultation to agencies & organizations. Maintains governmental liaison. Publishes bulletins, newsletters, etc. Advocates. Trains parents & others. Outcome Indicators: None No. of Clients: None Level of Discretion: Optional Program Budget Reference: Public Health Grants 38 Gross Expenditures: $45,000 Financing: $ 0 Net County Cost: $45,000 Funding Sources: County General Funds Budget Basis: Estimated 1994-95 - 0.05% of Program Budget 9. East County Children's Mental Health Department: Health Services - Mental Health Description: Provides individual, group & family psychotherapy, crisis intervention, diagnosis & assessment, case management, medication & consultation. Outcome Indicators: Measured by diminished intensity in parenting problems & symptoms, actual behavior changes, client reports. No. of Clients: 200/month Level of Discretion: Some Discretion Program Budget Reference: Children &Adolescent Services Gross Expenditures: $570,000 Financing: $240,000 Net County Cost: $330,000 Funding Sources: Federal Funds, Client Fees & County General Funds Budget Basis: Estimated 1994-95 - 7% of Program Budget 39 10. Home-based Infant Program, George Miller Center East Department: Health Services - Public Health Description: Provides in-home developmental & therapeutic services to infants with developmental disabilities, or at risk of developing handicapping conditions. Outcome Indicators: Measured by minimized regression, increased developmental levels & staying with families preventing institutionalization. No. of Clients: 30/year Level of Discretion: Optional Program Budget Reference: George Miller Centers Gross Expenditures: $101,088 Financing: $ 99,691 Net County Cost: $ 1,397 Funding Sources: State Funds & County.General Funds Budget Basis: Estimated 1994-95 - 4% of Program Budget 11. Home-based Infant Program, George Miller Center West Department: Health Services - Public Health Description: Provides in-home developmental &therapeutic services to infants with developmental disabilities, or at risk of developing handicapping conditions. Outcome Indicators: Measured by minimized regression, increased developmental levels & staying with families preventing institutionalization. No. of Clients: 30/year Level of Discretion: Optional Program Budget Reference: George Miller Centers Gross Expenditures: $27,693 Financing: $19,812 40 Net County Cost: $ 7,881 Funding Sources: State Funds & County General Funds Budget Basis: Estimated 1994-95 - 1% of Program Budget 12. Lead Poisoning Prevention Project Department: Health Services - Public Health Description: Provides case management for children under 18 with elevated blood lead levels, consultation to health care providers, & information & educational materials to the general public. Outcome Indicators: Measured by data analysis & chart review. Participant evaluation of training. No. of Clients: 20-30/month Level of Discretion: Very Limited Program Budget Reference: Public Health Grants Gross Expenditures: $244,945 Financing: $244,945 Net County Cost: $ 0 Funding Sources: State Funds Budget Basis: Estimated 1994-95 - 2% of Program Budget 13. West Contra Costa County Children's Services Department: Health Services - Mental Health Description: Provides outpatient psychotherapy, child-play therapy, family therapy, couples therapy, medication evaluation, parent & child support groups. Outcome Indicators: Measured by diminished intensity in parenting problems 41 & symptoms, actual behavior changes, client reports. No. of Clients: 200/month Level of Discretion: Some discretion Program Budget Reference: Children &Adolescent Services Gross Expenditures: $970,000 Financing: $300,000 Net County Cost: $670,000 Funding Sources: Federal Funds, Client Fees & County General Funds Budget Basis: Estimated 1994-95 - 10% of Program Budget 14. YIACT Department: Health Services - Mental Health Description: County-wide program provides crisis intervention in juvenile institutions & case management at local & state hospitals & intensive residential centers. Conduct psychological testing of juvenile court dependents. Outcome Indicators: Measured by the number of youngsters not being referred to higher levels of care. No. of Clients: 55/month Level of Discretion: Some Discretion Program Budget Reference: Children &Adolescent Services Gross Expenditures: $720,000 Financing: $350,000 Net County Cost: $370,000 42 Funding Sources: Federal Funds, Client Fees & County General Funds Budget Basis: Estimated 1994-95 - 4% of Program Budget 15. Bicycle Head Injury Prevention Project Department: Health Services - Public Health Description: Educational & other services are provided to primary school students in Pittsburg to achieve compliance with bicycle helmet law. Outcome Indicators: Evaluation Studies No. of Clients: 400 Level of Discretion: 10% among budget areas. Program Budget Reference: Public health grants Gross Expenditures: $125,938 Financing: $113,540 Net County Cost: $12,398 Funding Sources: Federal through state Budget Basis: Actual - 1.3% of Program Budget 43 111. 111 111111 1 1- 11 11 11 11 11 1 min� = I1 `I1 .wn"wr 1. 11111 Safety/Justice 7. Juvenile & Dependent Children Matters Department-Department: County Counsel - Juvenile Unit Description: Legal services provided for juvenile dependency areas (300's, termination & abandonment of parental rights proceedings, juvenile guardianships, etc.) Outcome Indicators: A monthly average of 57 contested juvenile hearings & trials are handled & a monthly average of 674 hours of legal services provided. No. of Clients: One, representing the Social Service Department &, to the extent legally allowed, involved children. Level of Discretion: Very limited discretion Program Budget Reference: County Counsel Program B "Social Service- Probate (Public Administrator)," sub-program 3 "Dependent Children (Juvenile matters)." Gross Expenditures: $558,378 Financing: $390,865 Net County Cost: . $167,513 Funding Sources: "A-87" financing plan & County General Fund. Budget Basis: Estimated - 81% of Program Budget 2. Physical Evidence Analysis Department: Criminalistics Laboratory Description: Analysis of physical evidence for the purpose of establishing physical abuse of children. Analysis of blood, urine & street samples to establish the abuse of alcohol &/or illicit drugs by parents or exposure to children. 44 Services are provided county wide, primarily at the request of law enforcement agencies, but occasionally at the request of Social Service, Probation or the Courts. Outcome Indicators: N/A - determined by requesting agency No. of Clients: Approximately 2 per month Level of Discretion: Limited discretion Program Budget Reference: General Criminalistics, Alcohol Testing, Drug Analysis & Toxicology programs Gross Expenditures: $50,000 Financing: $20,000 Net County Cost: $30,000 Funding Sources: Fee for Services - approx. $20,000 County General Fund - approx. $30,000 Budget Basis: Estimated - 1.5% of Program Budget 3. PACT Violence Prevention Project Department: Health Services - Public Health Description: The PACT Coalition works to devise comprehensive adolescent violence prevention strategies in West County. Outcome Indicators: Evaluation Studies No. of Clients: 32 Primary enrollees, 200-400 secondary audience Level of Discretion: 10% among budget areas Program Budget Reference: Public health grants Gross Expenditures: $439,350 45 Financing: $377,492 Net County Cost: $ 61,858 Funding Sources: Federal grants, General fund Budget Basis: Actual -4.5% of Program Budget 4. Juvenile Community Services Program Department: Probation Description: County-wide program. Juveniles are to accept personal responsibility & "repay" society through uncompensated community service work. Program provides small group counseling to accept authority & to learn positive work habits. A second program allows select minors for volunteer work for community agencies. Outcome Indicators: 80% success rate (finish/success ratio) No. of Clients: 75 supervised; 70 for orientation & tracking only Level of Discretion: Discretionary Program Budget Reference: Probation (C.3.g.) - Community Service Program (Org. 3085). Gross Expenditures: $236,356 Financing: $103,320 Net County Cost: $133,036 Funding Sources: Contract Fees: 43.7% - $103,320 General Fund: 56.3% - $133,036 Budget Basis: Actual - 4% of Program Budget 46 5. Juvenile Probation/Placement Board &.Care Department: Probation Description: Provides juvenile delinquency investigations & reports to the Juvenile court on approximately 9,900 matters/year. Supervises 1,600 juveniles on probation, providing individualized controls, counseling & referral services to minors & their parents. Regular deputy caseloads average 65 juveniles per officer. To maintain manageable caseloads it is necessary to place many cases on limited service caseloads. Outcome Indicators: Various No. of Clients: 1,600 Level of Discretion: Investigation - No discretion Supervision - Some discretion Program Budget Reference: Probation (C.3.g./C.4.) Field Services (part of Org. 3060). Gross Expenditures: $11,157,281 Financing: $4,573,598 Net County Cost: $6,583,683 Funding Sources: Federal: 22.6% - $2,524,153 State: 17.1% - $1,911,188 Other: 1.3% - $ 138,257 Gen. Fund: 59.0% - $6,583,683 Budget Basis: Actual - 96% of Program Budget 6. Juvenile Hall Department: Probation Description: County-wide program to secure detention for minors described in Section 602 of the Welfare & Institutions Code. 47 Outcome Indicators: None No. of Clients: 2,200/month Level of Discretion: Very limited Program Budget Reference: Probation (A) - Juvenile Hall (Org. 3120). Gross Expenditures: $7,072,959 Financing: 1 $3,200,123 Net County Cost: $3,872,836 Funding Sources: Federal: 41.7% - $2,946,453 State: 3.5% - $ 250,000 Other: 0.1% -$ 3,670 General Fund: 54.7%- $3,872,836 Budget Basis: Actual 1994-95 - 100% of Program Budget 7. Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility Department: Probation Description: Correctional facility providing 74 beds for seriously delinquent boys committed by the Court. Outcome Indicators: Various No. of Clients: Approximately 375 boys are committed annually for an average stay of four months. During any given month, average daily population is approximately 70 boys. Level of Discretion: Discretionary Program Budget Reference: Probation (2) - Boys' Ranch (Org. 3160) Gross Expenditures: $1,759,758 48 Financing: $817,430 Net County Cost: $942, 328 Funding Sources: Federal: 22.5% - $395,200 (Title IV-A) State: 24.0% - $422,060 (Realignment) Other: 0% - $ 170 Gen. Fund: 53.5% - $942,328 Budget Basis: Actual 1994-95 - 100% of Program Budget 8. Public Defender & Alternate Defender Office - Juvenile Division Department: Public Defender &ADO Description: Defense of juveniles charged with criminal offenses under W&I Code section 602. Representation of parents accused of child abuse or neglect, or minors who have accused parents/guardians of neglect under W&I Code section 300. All branches combined provide county-wide service. Outcome Indicators: Prcvide competent representation No. of clients: FY 94-95 est. juvenile clients — Public Defender- 3,696; ADO - 1,110 Level of Discretion: Mandated Program Budget Reference: Juvenile org. no. 2917; part of ADO org. no. 2920 Gross Expenditures: $1,302,624 Financing: $42,125 Net County Cost: $1,260,499 Funding Sources: County General Fund & State AB 90 Funds Budget Basis: Estimated - 14% of Program Budget 49 9. Juvenile/Sexual Assault Team & Special Enforcement Unit (Narcotics & Vice) Department: Sheriff- Investigation Division Description:' Assault Team Investigates crimes where juvenile is the victim; i.e., child abuse, neglect & sexual abuse; Special Unit provides follow-up & initial investigation in crimes involving illegal drugs or vice activities. Outcome Indicators: Measured by successful elimination of danger to the juvenile & successful prosecution of the responsible person(s). No. of Clients: Varies Level of Discretion: Limited Program Budget Reference: Investigation Division Gross Expenditures: $3,039,718 Financing: $ 0 Net County Cost: $3,039,718 Funding Sources: General Fund Budget Basis: Estimated - 7% of Program Budget 10. Emergency Response Department: Social Service Description: Receive & assess child abuse reports & take immediate action to protect children. Outcome Indicators: Ensure that referrals are responded to within time limits; increase in the number of voluntary services No. of Clients: 900 Level of Discretion: Some discretion 50 Program Budget Reference: Social Service, Administration & Services, Emergency Response Gross Expenditures: $6,453,633 Financing: $5,165,808 Net County Cost: $1,287,826 Funding Sources: Federal, State & County General Funds Budget Basis: Estimated -41% of Program Budget 77. Child Abuse Prevention Department: Social Service Description: Various contracts to provide child abuse prevention services authorized under AB 1733. Outcome Indicators: Provide prevention, information & direct services (e.g., counseling, child care, homemakers) by funding community-based organizations No. of Clients: 4,106 Adults & 532 Children Level of Discretion: Optional Program Budget Reference: Social Services, Administration Services, State Office of Child Abuse Prevention, Contracts Gross Expenditures: $212,408 Financing: $212,408 Net County Cost: $ 0 Funding Sources: State Budget Basis: Actual - 100% of Program Budget 51 gaqqqq 44444p q4 44 44 44 44 _ q4 �en/ child Other elry i�es • S F a��ly 4 ' q q q 4' q q 44444 Other Children/Family Services 1. Keller Mitigation Programs Department: Community Development Description: Administration of Community Assistance Mitigation funds for youth recreation, family counseling and related projects in Bay Point and other communities negatively impacted by the Keller Canyon landfill. Administration of Open Space Mitigation funds for wetlands preservation. Outcome Indicators: Unknown Level of Discretion: Some discretion Program Budget Reference: Community Development, Keller Mitigation Programs Gross Expenditures: Unknown Financing: Unknown Net County Cost: $ 0 Funding Sources: Community Assistance Mitigation Fees, Open Space Mitigation Fees Budget Basis: Program budget totals $210,000. Percentage allocated to serving children and families is unknown. Note: Due to lack of the necessary information, this program is not included in the totals shown on accompanying tables/charts. 2. Community Development Block Grant Department: Community Development Description: Administration of federal funds for new housing, preservation of existing housing, economic development, infrastructure improvements and neighborhood facilities. 52 Outcome Indicators: Unknown Level of Discretion: Discretionary Program Budget Reference: Community Development, Community Development Block Grant Gross Expenditures: Unknown Financing: Unknown Net County Cost: $ 0 Funding Sources: Federal Budget Basis: Program budget totals $4,924,598. Percentage allocated to serving children and families is unknown. Note: Due to lack of the necessary information, this program is not included in the totals shown on accompanying tables/charts. 3. 4H Program Department: Cooperative Extension Description: Administer 4 H clubs & EFNEP to youth aged 4 - 16. Programs include clubs, day camps, after school programs, etc. Outcome Indicators: Training for teachers, staff of agencies who work with children/youth No. of Clients: 6,000/year Level of Discretion: Discretionary Program Budget Reference: Youth Development Gross Expenditures: $37,924 Financing: $ 0 53 Net County Cost: $37,924 Funding Sources: General Fund Budget Basis: Actual - 100% of Program Budget 4. Bay Point Family Service Center Department: Health, Probation & Social Service Description: Provides integrated delivery of mental health, substance abuse, public health, probation, child welfare, GAIN & eligibility determination services to children & families in the Bay Point community. Outcome Indicators: The Family Service Center tracks a wide range of outcomes, each of which reflect the success/impact of various center efforts. No. of Clients: 800 Level of Discretion: Varies from non-discretionary to discretionary. Program Budget Reference: N/A Gross Expenditures: $1,050,974 Financing: $ 787,494 Net County Cost: $ 263,480 Funding Sources: Federal, State & County Budget Basis: Actual - 100% of Program Budget 5. North Richmond Family Service Center Department: Health, Probation & Social Service Description: Provides integrated delivery of mental health, substance abuse, public health, probation, child welfare, GAIN & eligibility determination services to children & families in the North Richmond community. 54 Outcome Indicators: The Family Service Center tracks a wide range of outcomes, each of which reflect the success/impact of various center efforts. No. of Clients: 300 Level of Discretion: Varies from non-discretionary to discretionary. Program Budget Reference: N/A Gross Expenditures: $686,310 Financing: $448,924 Net County Cost: $237,386 Funding Sources: Federal, State & County Budget Basis: Actual- 100% of Program Budget 6. County Library Department: Library Description: To provide library services in the various communities of the county & in the detention facilities. The Central Library services as a reference center for the general public of Contra Costa County & as a reference resource for the branch libraries. Outcome Indicators: Measured by the number of patrons registered, items checked out, reference questions & people attending programs. No. of Clients: 147,000 (number of children's library cards) Level of Discretion: The County Library is operated under a non- general fund budget unit using restricted revenues. As such, the services are non- discretionary; however, the specific breakdown of services provided by the library are discretionary. Program Budget Reference: County Library - Central Library 55 County Library - Branches & Extension Services Gross Expenditures: $1,700,000 est. - Central Library $ 547.000 est. - Branches & Extension Serv. $2,247,000 TOTAL Financing: $1,700,000 est. - Central Library $ 547.000 est. - Branches & Extension Serv. $2,247,000 TOTAL Net County Cost: $ 0 Funding Sources: Library taxes, fees, Federal & State grants & gifts Budget Basis: Estimated - 30% of Program Budget 56