HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/05/1990 B A K E R S F I E L D
Kevin McDermott, Chair
Patrici a DeMond
Ken Peterson
Staff: John Stinson
AGENDA
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE
Wednesday, September 5, lggo
12:00 Noon
City Manager's Conference Room
1. Additional Personnel for the Planning Department
2. Community Development Block Grant Budget Amendment
3. Impact of County Imposed Booking Fees and
Property Tax Collection Fees
] Jack Ihrdi-.t y
I Po~.ilic, n ~'~:.. 915 I
~T ~I~ DI~CT~
P~ T~e~ I~l ~illi~ '-f-] Laurie ~a~n ~ Rim ~ri~t [
I
Jim ~,viu~ [ [
~lilic, r, ~. 989 ]
p'] Patty ~y~ry [
~t ~avis ~i~e L~ ]~i~lle Suver~rub~]
PAGE
Display 1989-1990 Bill Text - INFORMATION
BILL NUMBER: SB 2557
BILL TEXT
CHAPTER 466
APPROVED BY GOVERNOR JULY 31, 1990
FILED WITH SECRETARY OF STATE JULY 31, 1990
PASSED THE SENATE JULY 28, 1990
PASSED THE ASSEMBLY JULY 28, 1990.
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JULY 28, 1990
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JULY 27, 1990
INTRODUCED BY Senator Maddy
MARCH 1, 1990
An act to amend Sections 77200 and 77201 of, and to add Article 12
(commencing with Section 29950) to Chapter 2 of Division 3 of Title 3 of, the
Government Code, and to amend Section 97 of, to add Section 97.43 to, and to
add Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 7284) to Part 1.7 of Division 2 of,
the Revenue and Taxation Code, relating to local government financing.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 2557, Maddy. Local government: financing.
(1) Existing law provides for authorizations, procedures, and guidelines
for the conduct of county financial affairs, including the imposition by
counties of specified fees. Existing law does not currently authorize
counties to impose fees upon other local agencies or colleges or universities
for county costs incurred in processing or booking persons arrested by
employees of other local agencies or colleges or universities and brought to
county facilities for booking or detention.
This bill would impose a state-mandated local program by authorizing a
county to impose a fee upon other local agencies or colleges or universities
for county costs incurred in processing or booking persons arrested by
employees of other local agencies or colleges or universities and brought to
county facilities for booking or detention.
(2) Under the Brown-Presley Trial Court Funding Act, block grants of
$53,000 per judicial officer per fiscal quarter are available to option
counties for trial court funding. These sums .are adjusted each fiscal year by
a percentage equal to the average percentage Salary increase for the previous
fiscal year for state employees.
This bill would reduce the base trial court funding block grant to $44,944
per judicial officer per fiscal quarter for the 1990-91 fiscal year, would
revise that amount for the 1991-92 fiscal year and fiscal years thereafter,
and would eliminate any adjustment for the 1990-91 fiscal year. The bill
would authorize a county to reduce total expenditures by a specified amount
for court operations in any year that the block grants are reduced.
(3) Existing law provides for the allocation in each fiscal year of
property tax revenues to local jurisdictions, and generally provides that each
jurisdiction shall be allocated .an amount equal to the amount of property tax
revenue allocated to that jurisdiction in the prior fiscal year, as modified.
This bill would provide, for purposes of property tax revenue allocations
PAGE 2
Display 1989-1990 Bill Text - INFORMATION
BILL NUMBER= SB 2557
BILL TEXT
for the 1990-91 fiscal year, that the amount of property tax revenue deemed
received by a county in the prior fiscal year shall be increased by property
tax administrative costs attributable to incorporated cities within that
county, as determined by the county auditor according to specified procedures.
It would also authorize, as specified, the county auditor to determine
property tax administrative costs proportionately attributable to local
jurisdictions other than the county or city and county, and cities, and submit
invoices to the relevant jurisdictions for those costs. By imposing
additional duties upon county auditors in connection with the allocation of
property tax revenues, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
(4) Under existing property tax law, the auditor in each county with
qualifying cities, as defined, is required to make property tax revenue
allocations to those/cities in accordance with a specified tax equity
allocation formula and to make corresponding reductions in the county's
property tax revenue allocation. Qualifying cities include generally those
· cities which existed but did not levy a property tax in the 1977-78 fiscal
year and those cities which incorporated prior to June 5, 1987, and had a
property tax allocation for the 1987-88 fiscal year which is less than an
amount which would have been received by applying a specified tax rate to its
1987-88 assessed value.
This bill would provide, notwithstanding existing property tax revenue
allocation provisions, that no qualifying city shall receive in the 1990-91
fiscal year a property tax revenue allocation which is greater than 90%'of the
allocation received by that city in the 1989-90 fiscal year.
(5) Existing law currently provides that counties may impose sales and use,
transactions and use, and certain other taxes, according to specified
procedures and conditions.
This bill would authorize the board of supervisors of any county to impose,
subject to applicable voter approval requirements, taxes on business, and
utility user taxes on specified services.
(6) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.
Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement,
including the creation of a State Mandates Claims Fund to pay the costs of
mandates which do not exceed $1,000,000 statewide and other procedures for
claims whose statewide costs exceed $1,000,000.
This bill would provide that, if the Conunise.ion on State Mandates
determines that this bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement
for those costs shall be made pursuant to those statutory procedures and, if
the statewide cost does not exceed $1,000,000, shall be made from the State
Mandates Claims Fund.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS=
SECTION'1. Article 12 (commencing with Section 29550) is added to Chapter
2 of Division 3 of·Title 3 of the Government Code, to read=
PAGE 3
Display 1989-1990 Bill Text - INFORMATION
BILL NUMBER= SB 2557
BILL TEXT
Article 12. Criminal Justice Administrative Fee
29550. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a county may impose a
fee upon a city, special district, school district, community college
district, college, or university for reimbursement of county expenses incurred
with respect to the booking or other processing of persons arrested by an
employee of that city, special district,, school district, community college
district, college, or university, where the arrested persons are brought to
the county jail for booking or detention. The fee imposed by a county
pursuant to this section shall not exceed the actual administrative costs,
including applicable overhead costs as permitted by federal Circular A-87
standards, incurred ~n booking or otherwise processing arrested persons. A
county may submit an invoice to a city, special district, school district,
community college district, college, or university for these expenses incurred
by the county on and after July 1, 1990.
SEC. 2. Section 77200 of the Government Code is amended to read=
77200. (a) Except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c) with respect to
newly created judgeships, the Controller shall transmit to each option county
quarterly payments on the block grant owing to that county based upon the
number of judges, court commissioners, and referees in the county, as
determined pursuant to Section 77202, multiplied each quarter by the following
amounts~
(1) For the 1990-91 fiscal year, the sum of forty-four thousand nine
hundred forty-four dollars ($44,944).
(2) For the 1991-92 fiscal year and each fiscal year thereafter, the sum of
fifty thousand five hundred sixty-two dollars ($50,562), as adjusted pursuant
to Section 77201.
(b) With respect to judgeships authorized by Chapter 1211 of the Statutes
of 1987, for any new judgeship in excess of 10 new judgeships for a particular
option county, if the county's average quarterly appropriation for court
operations for the 1987-88 fiscal year, as determined by the Controller,
divided by the number of judges, referees, and court commissioners determined
pursuant to Section 77202 for that year (the base year quarterly cost per
judge), exceeds the applicable sum specified in subdivision (a) as adjusted
pursuant to Section 77201 (the base year quarterly block grant), instead of
the quarterly multlplier determined pursuant to. subdivision (a), the quarterly
multiplier for each such new judgeship shall be~
(1) For the first four quarters following the creation of that judgeship,
the base year quarterly cost per judge.
(2) For the second four quarters thereafter, the applicable sum specified
in subdivision (a) as adjusted pursuant to Section 77201 (the standard current
quarterly block grant), plus 75 percent of the difference between the base
year quarterly cost per judge and the base year quarterly block grant.
(3) For the third four quarters thereafter, the standard current quarterly
block grant, plus 50 percent of the difference between the base.year quarterly
cost per judge and the base year quarterly block grant.
(4) For the fourth four quarters thereafter, the standard current quarterly
block grant, plus 25 percent of the difference between the base year quarterly
cost per judge and the base year quarterly block grant.
PAGE 4
Display 1989-1990 Bill Text - INFORMATION
BILL NUHBER~ SM 2557
BILL TEXT
For purposes of this subdivision, a Judgeship created upon the adoption of
a resolution by the board of su~erv£sors shall be deemed to be created in the
quarter in which the resolution is adopted.
(c) With respect tojudgeships authorized by statutes which take effect on
or after January 1, 1990, if the county's average quarterly appropriation for
court operations for the fiscal year preceding the effective date of that
statute, as determined by the Controller, reduced by the average quarterly
amount of funds, if any, received during that fiscal year pursuant to Section
77207, divided by the number of'judges, referees, and court commissioners
determined pursuant to Section 77202 for that year (the base year quarterly
cost per Judge), exceeds the quarterly multiplier for the fiscal year in which
the statute takes effect (the comparison year quarterly block grant), instead
of the quarterly multiplier determined pursuant to subdivision (a), the
quarterly multiplier for each such new judgeship shall
(1) For the first fiscal year following the effective date of the statute
authorizing that judgeship, the base year quarterly cost per judge.
(2) For the second fiscal year thereafter, the applicable sum specified in
subdivision (a) for each quarter of the current fiscal year as adjusted
pursuant to Section 77201 (the standard current quarterly block grant), plus
75 percent of the difference between the base year quarterly cost per judge
and the comparison year quarterly block grant.
(3) For the third fiscal year thereafter, the standard current quarterly
block grant, plus 50 percent of the difference between the base year quarterly
cost per judge and the comparison year quarterly block grant.
(4) For the fourth fiscal year thereafter, the standard current quarterly
block grant, plus 25 percent of the difference between between the base year
quarterly cost per judge and the comparison year quarterly block grant.
(d) In any year in which the block grants provided pdrsuant to subdivision
(a) are reduced, a county may reduce total expenditures for court operations
by an amount up to but not exceeding the total dollar amount of the reduction
to the county in state block grant funding.
(e) Quarterly payments shall be transmitted by the Controller on or before
the 15th day of that quarter, except that payments for the quarter beginning
January 1, 1989, shall be made no later than February 15, 1989.
SEC. 3. Section 77201 of the Government Code is amended to read=
77201. (a) Except as provided in subdivisiOn (b), the sum set forth in
subdivision (a) of Section 77200 shall be adjusted each fiscal year by a
percentage equal to the average percentage salary increase for the previous
fiscal year for California state employees, as determined pursuant to Section
68203, beginning with an adjustment for the 1989-90 fiscal year based on the
1988-89 state employees' average percentage salary increase.
(b) There shall be no such adjustment for the 1990-91 fiscal year.
SEC. 4. Section 97 of the Revenue and Taxation Code is amended to read=
97. .ExcePt as otherwise provided in Sections 97.3, 97.32, 97.35, 97.37,
and 97.38 for the 1980-81 fiscal year and each fiscal year thereafter,
property tax revenues shall be apportioned to each jurisdiction pursuant to
this section and Section 97.5 by the county auditor, subject to allocation and
payment of funds as provided for in subdivision (b) of Section 33670 of the
Health and Safety Code, to each jurisdiction in the following manner=
(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), for each tax rate area, each
I PAGE 5
Display 1989-1990 ,Bill Text - INFORMATION
BILL NUMBERs SB 25571
: BILL TEXT
jurisdiction shall b~ allocated an amount of property tax revenue equal to the
amount of proper~y t~ax revenue allocated pursuant to this chapter to each
jurisdiction in the prior fiscal year, modified by any adjustments required by
Section 99 or 99.4.
(b) For each tax kate area, each special district shall be allocated an
amount of property t'ax revenue equal to the amount of property tax revenue
which would have beeh allocated pursuant to this chapter to such district in
the prior fiscal yea~ if no adjustment had been made pursuant to Section 98.6.
This amount shall ~hen be adjusted for the current year pursuant to Section
98.6.
(c) The difference between the total amount of property tax revenue and the
amounts allocated pursuant to subdivision (a) shall be allocated pursuant to
Section 98, and shall be known as the 'annual tax increment.'
(d) For purposes Of this section, the amount of property tax revenue
referred to in subdivision (a) shall not include amounts generated by the
increased assessment~ under Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 75).
(e) (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for the 1990-91 fiscal
year, for the purposes of the computations required by this section, the
amount of property tax presumed to have been received by the county in the
prior year shall be increased by the amount of 1989-90 property tax
administrative costsiproportionately attributable to incorporated cities as
determined pursuant ~o paragraph (2).
(2) The auditor shall determine the 1989-90 fiscal year property tax
administrative costslproportionately attributable to incorporated cities by
adding the 1989-90 fiscal year property tax-related costs of the assessor, tax
collector, and auditor, including applicable administrative overhead costs as
permitted by federal.Circular A-87 standards, and multiplying the sum of those
amounts by the ratiolof property tax revenue received by all incorporated
cities divided by the total property tax revenue for all local jurisdictions
in the county for that. fiscal year.
(3) The county sh&ll use the additional revenue received pursuant to this
subdivision only to fund the actual costs of.assessing, collecting, and
allocating property taxes. At least once each fiscal year, the county auditor
shall report the amount of these actual costs and allowable overhead costs to
the legislative body,and any other jurisdiction or person that request the
information. To theiextent that actual costs .for assessing, collecting, and
allocating property taxes plus allowable over.he, ad costs are less than the
amount determined pursuant to paragraph (2), the county auditor shall
apportion the difference to each incorporated city as otherwise required by
this section.
(4) The county ma~ retain up to one-half of any increased property tax
allocation to which g jurisdiction may be otherwise entitled, until the county
receives its additional revenues pursuant to this section.
(5) It is the int6nt of the Legislature in enacting this subdivision to
recognize that since ,the adoption of Article XIII A of the California
Constitution by the Voters, county governments have borne an unfair and
disproportionate parti of the financial burden of assessing, collecting, and
allocating property t'ax revenues for cities. It is further the intent of the
Legislature that the adjustments provided for by this subdivision shall
constitute charges byl a county for the assessment, collection, and allocation
PAGE 6
Display 1989-1990 Bill Text - INFORMATION
BILL NUMBER: SB 2557
BILL TEXT
of property taxes and shall not exceed the actual costs reasonably borne by a
county for those activities.
(f) The auditor may determine the 1989-90 fiscal year property tax
administrative costs proportionately attributable to local jurisdictions other
than the county or city and county, and cities, by adding the property
tax-related costs of the assessor, tax collector, and auditor, including
applicable administrative overhead costs as permitted by federal Circular A-87
standards, and multiplying the sum of those amounts by the ratio of property
tax revenue received by jurisdictions other than the county, city and county,
and cities divided by the total property tax received by all local
jurisdictions in the county for that fiscal year. Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, this amount may be 'calculated for each fiscal year
commencing with the 1989-90 fiscal year, and the auditor may, commencing in
fiscal year 1990-91,'submit an invoice to these jurisdictions for services
rendered in the prior fiscal year.
SEC. 5. Section 97.43 is added to the Revenue and Taxation Code, to read:
97.43. Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, a qualifying
city shall not receive a property tax revenue allocation in the 1990-91 fiscal
year which is greater than 90 percent of the allocation received by that
qualifying city in the 1989-90 fiscal year.
SEC. 6. Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 7284) is added to Part 1.7 of
Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, to read:
CHAPTER 1.5. COUNTY TAX LEVY POWERS AND LIMITATIONS
7284. (a) The board of supervisors of any county may license, for revenue
and regulation, and fix the license tax upon, every kind of lawful business
transacted' in the unincorporated area of the county, including shows,
exhibitions, and games. The board may provide for collection of the license
tax by suit or otherwise.
(b) Any board which imposes a license tax pursuant to subdivision (a) upon
a business operating both within and outside the board's taxing jurisdiction
shall levy the tax so that the measure of tax fairly reflects that proportion
of the taxed activity actually carried on within the taxing jurisdiction.
7285. The board of supervisors of any county may levy a utility user tax
on the consumption of electricity, gas, water, sewer, telephone, telegraph,
and cable television services in the unincorporated area of the county.
7286. Any tax levied pursuant to this chapter shall be subject to any
applicable voter'approval requirement imposed by any other provision of law.
Revenues collected pursuant to any tax imposed pursuant to this section may be
reserved for local purposes as determined by the board of supervisors of the
county imposing the tax.
SEC. 7. Notwithstanding Section 17610 of the Government Code, if the
Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated
by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those
costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of
Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code. If the statewide cost of the
claim for reimbursement does not exceed one million dollars ($1,000,000),
7
Display 1989-1990 Bill Text - INFORMATION
BILL NUMBER~ SB 2557
BILL TEXT
reimbursement shall be made from the State Mandates Claims Fund.
Notwithstanding Section 17580 of the Government Code, unless otherwise
specified in this act, the provisions of this act shall become operative on
the same date that the act takes effect pursuant to the California
Constitution.
1990-91 CDBG Budget Amendments (Reprogrammed Funds) o8/2=~o
02:03 PM
Budgeted Proposed Amended
Fund Accounl Description Subprog Amount Amendments Budget Comment (new projects me ,hewn in shaded area)
CDBG Fund - 1988/89 ~'~/~c~ ~ //.~/~,~ /~ ~
1 ! 9 79994 Pfio~ Yr. No~ SUuc. Impr. 767 $209,000 ($209,000) $3 Westminister Silo Work/Incenlive Sea Inhastfuclure (delele both - reprogram luflds)~
t I g 7999! F~i(x Yr. Land and Land Impr. 765 $3,300 ($3,300) $43 Community House (project savings - repmg~am lunds) ~'~.-~,-~-
I t g 79992 Prio~ Yr. Buildings 765 $80.000 ($60,000) $0 Neigbo;hood Revilalizatlon (mprogram lunds)
t ~ g 78945 P, io, Y,. other Out~do Set. S73 $30.000 ($30.000) ~0 Uelro a~kers,e;d Emp. & ,,co,,Uve P,o~ram (de~o~o - ,ep,oaram ~unds)-
Subt(Xal $3O2.3OO $0 $3O2.3OO
CDBG Fund - 198g/gO
! !5 7~957 F~io~ Yr. Loan Prog. ~53 $100.808 ($100.808) $0 Neighborhood Revitalization Loans (reprogram lunds) ·
t t 5 7~048 I~io~ Yr. ConU. Other Agen. 1353 $73.000 ($73.000) $0 Haven Counseling Cenler P~oject {reprogram funds)
Subtolal $233.808 $0 $233.808
CDBG Fund - 19~0/91
116 74800 Contributions to Other Agen. 653 $40,000 ($40,000) $O G[alliti Removal Project
~lbtolal $40,000 $0 $40.000
Tc~al $570.1 08 $0 $570.10a
GEARY TAYLOR scott JONES
COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
JOEL HEINRICHS
~ MARY WEDDE~ D'rec~or o~ Po,c~ Ana~vs~s
ROBERT SEVERS
COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE September4, 1990
Board of Supervisors
Kern County Civic Center
1415 Truxr~ Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
FISCAL IMPACT OF FY 1990-91 STATE BUDGET; CONSIDERATION
OF NEW COUNTY FEE AUTHORITY
This report is provided to advise your Board of the fiscal impact of Kern County's losses in State ftmding resulting
from enactment of the FY 1990-91 State Budget, and to present for Board consideration the new County fee
authority set forth in companion legislation (SB 2557, Maddy) enacted concurrent with the State Budget bill A
comprehensive sum.mazy of all of the State Budget reductions affecting county-operated programs was filed with
your Board on August 14, 1990, describing the affected program areas and showing the aggregate Statewide
funding losses' for all California counties. We have now had an oppommity to evaluate the specific impact on
prog,'ram~ operated by the County of Kern, working in dose coordination with all affected depaxuuents.
Fommately, much of he adverse effect of State funding cuts will be offset by unexpected revenue .increases
idertt~ed for both Kern Medical Center and the Mental Health DepmtuLent subsequent to he close of Budget
Hearings. However, even after considering offsetting revenue gains and after makiug program-specific reductions
in welfare direct aid appropriations, the FY 1990-91 County Budget is still faced with a net budget shortfall of
$1.545.425. This net funding deficiency must be addressed thxough either (1) partial use of the new fee authority
gzaz~xed to counties as a means of replacing State' subventions, or (2) direct expenditure cuts in county-operated
programs.
SUMMARY O:F FUNDING LOSSES TO KERN COUNTY
Kern County's ftmding losses resul~ng from the recently enacted State Budget axe summarized as follows:
FUNDING AFFE~
~rr_ALTSVHOSPrrA~ 5ERWC:r.S
· Reduction in Medically Indigent Service Program: $ 2,600,000 KMC
· ~llminal~on of County Healfn Service Program (AB 8) COLA: 434,000 KMC; HeaJr~; Env. Health
· Reduction in Sram ~ for Local Mental Heal~ Services: 332,774 Ms.nml Houlrh
COLrRTS AND CRIMINAL ,JUSTICE
· Reduction in Trial Court Funding Program Block Grant: $1,146,072 Courm; County Clerk
· Reduction in County Justice System Subvemion Program (AB 90): 572,572 Probation; D.A.; Private
non-profit agencies
· Reduction in Sram Assistance for Indigent Defense
Expenses m Capital Cases: 180,000 Superior Court
· Suspension of Statutory COLA for Aid m Famih'es with Dependent
Chii~tre~ (AFDC) Program S S,49S,113 H,m~n Services
· Reduction m Gongregam Numlion Program: 16,278 Office on Aging
1415 Truxtun Avenue. Room :~704 BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301 (805) 86! .2371
· ~ ~ September 4, 1990
J ' page 2
Board of Supervisors
o-rH]~a. SLrBVENTION PROGRAM5 $ 520,000 Gene. raj Purpose Revenue
~ Elimination of Augme~ta0on for WiLIiamson Act Open Space Subvention:
· E. limmation or Delay of State Reimbursemen~ for Selected State ~ Various
Mandated Programs:
Sl 1,698,700
TOTAL lOSSES IN STATE FUNDING
LESS AMOUNTS NOT ORIGINALLY BLrDGETED FOR FY 1990-91
. S 520,000
Wil|iamson Act Augmenbalion: - $ 434,000
County Health Services Program (AB 8) COLA: . $180,000
Indigent Defen.se Reimbursement: ~
State Reimbm'sement for Selected Mandates:
-$1,39~,987
TOTAL NON.BLIDGETED lOSSES:
NET FUNDING LOSS FOR FY 1990-9t BUDGEt: ~
OFFS~G UNAN~CIPATEL)~ ~NU~ GAIAI_S
Since the conclusion Of FY 1990-91 Budget Hearings conducted in July, it has been determined that unexpected
and unbudgeted revenues will be realized by both Kern Medical Center and the Kern County Mental Health
Department. As explained in the atxached report from the KMC Chief F. xecutive Officer (Attachment "A"), a
sustained increase in hospital admissions, average daily census, births, and outpatient visits has resulted in
unanticipated operating revenue (acmai revenues for the first two months of the fiscal year have exceeded the
ori~al estimate by about $450,000). In addition to these increased operating revenues, KMC has just recently
received a rebate of medical malpractice illsuranee premiums paid several years ago in excess of $400,000. As a
resuk of these developmenis, a ~ estimated increase in Kern Medical Center revenues for FY 1990-91
will fully offset the esfiaxmred loss of $2.6 million from Share reductions in the Medically Indigent Services Program.
The Mental Health Deparl:ment will also realize unanticipated and unbudgeted revenues which wi]]. more than
os, Csee
Health Director, Atxa~ent . This increase in current year estimated revenues is a resttk of recent notification
and from the Tobacco
that Kern County's allocation of 1989-90 rollovef funds for both the Short-Doyle Program
Tax Program (AB 75) will exceed the original estianate by more than the amount of Kern County's share of current-
year funding reductions. '
NEW FEE AUTHORITY FOR cOUNTIES
The massive and grossly disproportionate cuts in State funding for California counties have been rationnlized at
the State level largely on the basis of the new authority given to eounties to generate local revenues. Senate Bill
2557 (Muddy), one of sever, al co. mpanion bills enacted as an integral part of the FY' 1990-91 State Buciget
"package", provides all coup, ~ wi~__.n,e~ authority to: (1) recover property tax admixtiswation costs from other
local agendes, (2) recover me c. ounty o,~ costs related to booking and processing prisoners arrested by dries and
other non-County agendes, excluding the California Highway Patrol, (3) levy new utility user taxes, and (4) levy
new business license taxes.
· Prop~ri-¢ Tax Administration Char~
SB 2557 requires the recovery of property tax adminiswative Costs from incorporated dries, and also
provides local option authority to charge school districts and special districts for their proportionate share
of County property tax administration costs. There is no explidt authority contained in the enabling
· Board of Superiors Page 3 September 4, 1990
legislation providing for charges to redevelopment agencies for property tax administration costs. Property
tax adminis~tion costs include all costs incurred by the Assessor and Tax Collector, certain costs incurred
by the Auditor-Controller, and related overhead costs. The new law becomes effective January 1, 1991,
but provides authority to charge other agencies for a ~ of property tax administration costs for FY
1990-91, based on actual costs incurred by the County in FY 1989-90. The mandated cost recovery from
cities must be handled by the Auditor-ControLler as an offset (reduction) against annual city property tax
apportionments, whereas optional cost recovery from school districts and special cListriets would be effected
through dixeer b~lllr~gs (service ckarges) to each agency. These two ciifferent cost recovery mechanisms
were devised to avoid the requirement for the State to replace any direct losses of property tax revenue by
school districts.
Kern County's total cost for property tax aetmirtistrarion for FY i989-90 has been preliminarily calculated
by the Auditor-ControLler at approxima£ely $7.7 naillloru The County's proportionate share of this total cost
is approximately $3.1 n~illlon, with the remaining $4.6 roillion allocable to other local agencies. The share
of costs applicable to each type of taxing agency for FY 1990-9i is estimated as follows:
County: $ 3,144,955 (charge not applicable)
Cdr/es: 437,329 (mandar, ed charge)
Redevelopment Agendes: 78,056 (charge not authorized)
Kern County Water Agency: 309,135 (opr/onai charge)
Other spec~ Districts: 434,491 (optional charge)
School District: B,335,BS~9 (opr/onai charge)
TOTAL PROPERTY TAX ADIVflNISTRATION COST: S 7,739,355
A complete 1/sting of each r;ar/r~g agency's esrinmred share of property tax admin/srration costs is provided as
Anachment 'F"o
· ,Jail Booking Charge
SE 2557 permits counties to charge cities and other non-county agencies, excluding the C~llforl-Lia Highway
Patrol for the County Jarl costs related to booking and processing prisoners arrested by those agencies.
This jarl booking charge may be imposed at the discretion of the Board of Supervisors. Even though the -
authorizing statute does not become effective until January 1, 1990, the new law explicitly allows for
counties to charge the jarl booking fee for all bookings and Costs oecun'ing afl:er July 1, 1990.
The actual cost of booking mad processing prisoners ~ the Kern County Jarl System has been estimated by
the Sheriffs Depazua~ent at approximately $80 per booking. The n~,mber of jarl bookings chargeable to
cities and other non-county agencies (excluding CHP) is projected at 15,000 for FY 1990-91 (40% of total).
Therefore, the establishment of the newly authorized jarl booking fee would result in additional Coun~
revenue es~m~red at ~ for FY 1990-91. Nearly all of this amount would be derived from charges
to the City of Bakersfield, since most other cities do not directly book prL~oners into County Jail.
· Utilit~ User's Tax ~nd Business License Tax
SB 2557 also granted new authority to counties to levy a utility user tax and business license tax under the
same authority wkich already exists for general law cities. The new ul:ility user tax authority would permit
counties to levy a new tax on the consumption of electricity, gas, water, sewer, telephone, telegraph and
television services in the tmineorporated area of the County. The new business license tax aur_hority
permits counties to license and to fix a license tax upon every kind of lawful business transacted in the
unincorporated area of the County. Both taxes would be subject to voter approval, and could be expected
"Board of Supervisors Page 4 September 4, 1990
to encounter strong public opposition. Therefore, we are proposing that the utility user tax and the
business license tax not be pursued by Kern County at this time.
DISCUSSION OF NEW COUNTY FEE AUTHORITY
The major reductions in State financial assistance to counties have been made under the presumption by the
Legislature and Governor that these funding losses will be replaced by the additional county revenues resul~ng
from the new fee authority provided by SB 2557. Furthermore, we believe that most of these reductions are likely
to be permanent, because of this same presumption and rationale. The new fee authority seems to be viewed at
the State level as a basic restructuring of the State's fiscal relationship with local government, and is perceived by
many as permanent fiscal rebel and a permanent solution to the finan, i~ problems of California counties.
Unfortunately, this "solution" places local boards of supervisors in a very difficult position with respect to making
the unpopular decision to impose county option fees on other local jurisdictions. Establishment of the new jail
booking fee and the new property tax administration charge will undoubtedly impose unexpected ~cal and
operational hardships on dries, school cListricts and special districts-since these agencies have not planned on, or
provided for, these costs in their FY 1990-91 budgets. It is dear that Kern County, along with all other California
counties, have been forced into the position of proceeding with the imposition of SB 2557 fees in order to preserve
both the immediate and long-term financial survival of County government programs.
The following factors have been carefully considered by the County Administrative Office in proposing the
implementation of the jail booking fee and the property tax admirdstration charge:
· Pro _w3sed___ charges are nen-t~ary to avoid immediate CUtS of more ~ $1.1 m~lion in County programs, including major reductions which would
be recommended in court services and prot~ation/juvenile justice services.
· Pro_posed___ charg~ are necessary for Kern County to benefit from the permanent re-structuring of the fiscal relationship between the State of
CalLfomia and local goverranent agencies and tn repiac-- losses in Sram funck$ which are likely to be permanent.
· Counrie~ that don't take advantage of the new fee authority couJd be pew!!Ted in the future in the development of State funding allocation
formulas for various local subvenUOn or grant program~.
· The FY 1990-91 State Budget "package" was suppo~a~dly developed under the concept of equal sharing of the burden of State funding requCnons
among all levels of government, and the new county fee authority was devised as the principal mechanism for achieving this "equity".
· C. SAC sta/f is not aware of any e'-~liteorma county chat is not piarmmg to implement this jarl booking fe~ and property ~x adminiswation charge,
and numerous counties mroughout the Sram have already acted to implement them.
· In relative ten~, the current ~ condition of numerous other major local gov~'nment agencies is equal to or better than that of the County (e.g.
Kern County Water ,*q~_uc'y, City of ~el~ North Bake~field Reermtion md:Park Dismct), while the County's future fi.seal strength will
continue [o be eroded by the tax incr,.ma.qt financing of redevelopment agencies and by city annexations.
· School Districts have a guaxanteed mlnimql~l level of funding under the provision of Propmirion 98, while the County has no such assurance of
· Sm,'- 1986, the Board of Superviso~ has consistlmdysuppormd CSAI2 I?' lative efforts to provide for mco~n~3r of property tax admini.~mnnn cnsax
from other taxing agencies.
~ IMPLF_~ATION PROPOSAL
The new propervy' tax a~trarive charge by counl:ies is ma_vtdatorv for incorporated cities under the provisions
of SB 2557. Therefore, this charge to c_i~ies will automatically take effect without Board of Supervisors acuom
This charge to dries will generate revenue estimated at .5437.329 for the County for FY 1990-91.
We axe proposing rahat Kern County take the followixtg action with respect to r. he optional fees a~athorized by SB
2557:
-Board of Supemrisors Page 5 Sept,,tuber 4, 1990
1. Implement jarl bookin~ charge to non-county agencies (except CHP) for jail bookino=s occurrlnE
since July 1, 1990.
2. Implement property tax administration charge for special districts and school districts beginning
with Fiscal Year 1991-92 (next fiscal year).
3. Take no action with respect to the imposition of new utility user taxes and business license taxes
(voter approval required).
This proposal would result in additional revenue to the County for FY 1990-91 as follows:
Property Tax Administrative Charge to Cities: $ 437,329
Jarl Booking Fee: : 1.200.000
TOTAL ADDITIONAL COUNTY REVENUE: ~;1.637.329
If your Board were to begin charging the property tax administration charge to sehool districts and special districts
effective irnmedia£ely (FY 1990-91) as allowed by law, this would add another $3,335,389 to the additional County
revenue amount shown above.
NET BUDGET IMPACT OF STATE FUNDING LOSSES AND PROPOSED NEW COUNTY FEES
The net effect of (1) the funding losses resulting from State Budget cuts, (2) unanticipated IOdC and Mental Health reeenues, and (3) the proposed new jail
booking fee and property tax adminiswarion charge is summarized a.s follows:
NET STATE FUNDING LOSS TO COUNTY BUDGET $10,305,71B
Less unanrlcipated KMC revenue from other source: $ - 2,600,000
Less unanricipaied rollover fun/ks for Mental Health: - 332,774
lzss savings from reduced County match for eliminated welfare AFDC COLA: - 316,131
Less program-specific reductions in welfare programs: - S,S11,383
NET COUNTY BUDGET SHORTFALL BEFORE NEW FEES S 1 ~545.425
LESS REVF2qUE FROM NEW (2-tARGES TO OTI-I]iR AGENCrr~:
Jail Booking Fee: S - 1~100.000
Property Tax ,~tmlni-~rralion Charge u:) Cities -
TOTAL NEW FEE REVENUE $ - 1,637,329
N'EI'COUNTY BUDGET SIIORTFALL(GA[N) AFTER FEF_,S .......
REQUIRED AD,]'USTMENTS TO FY 1990-91 COUNTY BUDGET
With the approval of the new jail booking fee for FY 1990-91 as proposed, the number of required adjustments
to the County Budget as apProved dm'ing FY 1990-91 Budget Heazings are very few. The only adjustments to
expenditure appropriations, with enactment of the booking fee, are as follows:
Decrease Human Services Direct Aid Budget (#5210): $ 5,811,244
Decrease Office on Aging Budget (#5810): 16,278
Increase Appropriations for Contingencies (#1970): (91.904)
NET DECREASE IN TOTAL COUNTY BUDGET $ 5,735,618
Without approval of the new jail booking fee, an additional $1,108,524 in program cuts will be necessary to
b~l~nee the FY 1990-91 County Budget. This amount essentially represents the State funding losses related to the
reduction in the Trial Court Funding Program ($1,146,072 loss) and the County Justice System Subvention
Board of Supe~isors Page 6 September 4, 1990
Program/AB 90 Program ($572,572), partially offset by the revenue from the property tax administration charge
to cities. Although the necessary budget cuts could be made in virtually any County program at the discretion of
the Board, the County ^etmlnistrative Office would recommend that the reductions be made in the specific prograr~.
for which the State hmdin~ was cut. Therefore, without imposition of the new jail booking fee, expenditure
reductions totaling approximately $740,000 would be recommended in the Courts/County Clerk budgets, and cuts
of approximately $369,000 in'prograrn~ funded through the County Justice System Subvention Program (AB 90).
The County Administrative Office has requested each of Kern County's five courts to identifi/budget reduction
options in case the new booking fee is not imposed. Our request met with resistance from all of the courts.
Superior Court and all four municipal courts have indicated that any reductions in their FY 1990-91 operating
budgets as approved during Budget Hearings would have a detrimental impact on court services which would not
be acceptable to the Judges. Howeyer, in the absence of the courts identi/ying budget reduction options, the
County Administrative Office has independently developed a list of possible court budget reductions which would
not require elimination of any existing positions (Attachment "D"). These potential reductions total slightly more
than $750,000 and would entail the deferral of all of the new positions and fixed assets approved for the Courts
and County Clerk during budget hearings, as well as several reductions in Services and Supplies accounts.
The Chief Probation Officer has identified the reductions which would be required in programs financed through
the County Justice System Subvention Program (AB 90) if the proposed new jarl booking fee is not established.
These progravn cuts entail complete elimination of funding for all private ageney'programs, as well .as-partial
closure of the Kern Youth FaciLity. The reduced funding for the Kern Youth Facility would reduce bed capacity
by 2S%, and would necessitate the deletion of 5 Group Counselor positions and I Probation Division Director
position (involving 6 employee lay-offs). These reductions are described in greater detail at Attachment 'E'.
RECO~ATION
IT IS RECOMMENDED that your Board, take the following action:
1. Re/er to the Auditor-Controller the implorn~,nration of the property, tax administration charge to
cities beginning FY 1990-91 as required by State law;
2. Direct the County ,~e~mlni~trative Office, County Counsel and Auditor-Controller to implement the
property tax administration charge to school districts and speeq~l districts berating FY 1991-92;
3. Direct the County ,~dmini~trative Office, Cotmty Cou_q.sel, and Sheriff to implement the jail booking
charge for costs incurred after July 1, 1990; and
4. Refer the matter to County A~trative Office to recommend necessary adjustments to the FY
1990-91 Coumy Budget.
Sincerely,
ou.~ty Al~llmi~trative Officer
GT:$J:dm:scot-~bos
Ar-achments
cc: All County Depmuuent Heads
All cities and special districts in Kern County
A].I $chool d±str±cts in Kern County
KERN MEDICAL CENTER
ADMINISTRATION
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Scott Jones DATE: August 21, 1990
Director of Budget & Finance
Chief Executive Officer
SUBJECT: Reduction in Medically Indigent Services/Program
As requested, Kern Medical Center has reviewed our operational and financial situation
with regard to the reduction in funding of the Medically Indigent Services Program.
Based upon.a review of our most recent months of operation, including July and the first
half of August, it is the Medical Center's position that no change in County contribution
is required for the following reasons:
1. The Medical Center is seeing greater numbers of inpatients than anticipated. Nursing
recruitment and retention efforts have been extremely successful, and have resulted
in additional medical-surgical beds being available for physicians to admit their
patients. The Medical Center's medical-surgical inpatient revenues will exceed the
budgeted levels, offsetting the MISP funding reduction.
2. Not only has there been a higher medical-surgical census, but obstetrical and
newborn care is rising significantly. The number of newborn deliveries is exceeding
last years levels by 10-15%. This has significant financial importance, given our
Medi-Cal contract which emphasizes obstetrical and newborn care. Thus, increased
revenues from obstetrical and newborn care will offset the MISP funding reductions.
3. Even with our facility and space limitations, our ox/emIl clinic activity continues to
climb. We are comfortable that, at a minimum, budgeted revenues will be achieved.
4. Additional funds will also occur through recent changes to our disproportionate share
payments, which exceed earlier projections. Also funds have been recently received
by Kern Medical Center as a rebate on professional liability premiums paid several
years ago. The rebates of over $400,000 are a remit of favorable risk management
activities at the Medical Center.
Attachment "A"
August 21, 1990
Page 2
.The maior impact of MISP funding reductions is that we will not be able to proceed with
certain planned expenditures since expenditures are being utilized toward activities related
to increased patient care levels. To remain within budgeted levels, the Medical Center will
forego/delay selected expenses as necessary_.
Thus Kern Medical Center will not proceed with all of the planned personnel in order to
remain within the budgeted expense levels. A second impact of the MISP reduction is thai
it limits the Medical Center from funding other future expenditures, including capital
projects.
MISP
The Medical Center, as outlined above, can absorb the MISP funding, reductions.
However, it still is inappropriate that the State has so underfunded the Program in which
the Medical Center lost over two million dollars in 1989-1990. We will lose over five
mill~on dollars in 1990-1991 in providing care and services to MISP beneficiaries.
Program changes were reviewed by KMC staff to lira/t/reduce our losses under the MISP
Program. In reviewing options it was felt that any limiting of clinic visits or co-payment
changes would probably result in more demands on our Emergency Deparnuent. Further,
we were concerned that maintenance of effort obligations under AB 75/Prop. 99 could be
jeopardized.
At this point, the only significant effort that could be undertaken would be to limit
acceptance of patient transfers from other hospitals. The Medical Center accepts significant
numbers of transfers from area hospitals of inpatienrs and emergency room patients even
though MISP eligibility is not yet been finalized. However, given that the Medical Center
presently has the resources to receive such transfers, it is probably not appropriate to raise
such a change. '"
We must strongly recommend that the County pursue legal action against the State for
..abiding by the '~old harmless" clause in AB 75 which stated that the same level of MISP
funding continue as in 1988-1989.
OTHER 1MPROVEMEN'T.q
There are other activities which should be considered to further improve the Medical
Center's financial situation.
1. We should srraregize on how to give incentive for County employees to come to the
Medical Center for care. Increased activity ar Kern Medical Center would result in
August 21, 1990
Page 3
a more favorable financial situation which would assist in holding the line on
required County contribution.
2. There is also an opportunity for a "second round" on SB 1255. As you are aware, our
$1.0 million transfer of funds to the State resulted in $1.5 million added revenue.
I will be contacting the State next week when they have more information on the
second round.
SUMMARY :
The Medical Center operates in a low cost manner utilizing our limited resources to meet
a very heavy patient care demand. Our opportunities are therefore limited whereby we can
reduce expenses without impact on revenues. Thus it takes very significant operating
reductions to effect "bottom line" improvements. Our overall philosophy will be to
continue our efforts to expand our capacities recognizing that, in general, the additional
revenues will exceed the new costs occurred in providing the services.
We recognize that our County Board of Supervisors is having to face major financial
decisions. While we could appropriately utilize additional funds for planned personnel
expenditures to further patient care at the Medical Center, funds are not required this year
in order to conform with the proposed budget. We must point out that the declining
funding of various State mandated or administered programs erodes the potential growth
and development of new or expanded services at Kern Medical Center and will mean in
1990-1991 that certain improvements may not occur and future capital projects cannot
necessarily be funded. Further, in future years, the maintaining of current levels of services
may not occur without increases in the County contribUtion to Kern Medical Center.
FEF:kag
cc: Administrative Staff : .:
OFFI CE MEMORANDUM MENTAl, HEALTH DEPARTMENT
% [).'f z~eCto;r· ' s Of~.~ c ~- 861-2261
TO : Geary Taylor, County Administrative Officer DATE: August 15, 1990
Attn: Scott .Tones, Director
Budget/Finance Division
FROM: Edward Ro~
Birector ~.
RE : 1990-91 Mental Health Services Bi)dget
Notification from the State Mental Health Department regarding Kern's share of
the Governor's $61 million .naIlocated reduction in local mental health funding
has been received.
Distribution of the redaction Js based on application of the poverty/popn]ation
formula on a 50/50 basis, i.e., 50 percent is applied to counties which are
"over equity" and 50 percent is applied to all counties utilizing the
traditional poverty/population formula, Because Kern is an ".oder equity"
county in Mental Health funding, our share of the statwide reduction is
minimized. The amount of our reduction is $332,774 and all co.nties have been
given flexibility in distributing the reduction to various categories
identified in State.Budget Item 4440-101-001.
The preliminary allocation letter on which our 90-91 budget is based did nnt
include an allocation for the AB 3632 Program (Special Education Pupils) as the
Governor had proposed transference to Education. (We did, however, retain
progrnmming in our proposed budget in anticipation of cooperative agreements
with the schools.) The Edncation comm.nity vigorously opposed the transferral
nnd, in the end, the funding was restored to Mental Health at the same {eve[ as
in prior years. Kern's allocation is $249,204.
[n reviewing the amount of mil-over f.nding estimated at budget submittal and
included as part of program financing compared to year end, we corel.de that,
ample fnnds to cover the difference between the above two amo.nts will be
available: therefore, we recommend nn change-'.be made in our budget as
tentatively approved by the Board on July 23, 1990.
We shall be working with the State Department of Mental Health to identify
necessary changes in State program allocations for Kern but this will not
affect the County budget. Also, at this time, we ptan nn changes in various
contract amounts which have been approved for this fiscal year.
Many unmet needs continne in the overall Mental Health Program. We are
disappointed, and even angered, that additional State f.nding for needed
improvements was not made available; however, the good news is that we should
be able to complete 90-91 with existing programs intact.
Please ca]] if you wish f.rther discussion.
~R:cw
cc: Skip Phelps-Dixon Attachment "B"
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 16, 1990
TO : Scott Jones, Director of Budget and Finance
County AdministrattYe Office
o
Depart~u~'an Services '
RE : Impact of State Budget Cuts
This correspondence is a Pesponse to your request for an evaluation of the impact
of the recently enacted State budget on various programs operated by the Human
Services Department. Analysis of several programs is greatly hampered without
allocations from the State. Allocations have not been received on AFDC.
Nonassistance Food Stamps, Medi-Cal, GAIN, CWS and State Adult Programs. Calls
to various State agencies have met with vague guesses the figures will be
available in the next couple of weeks. However, we do estimate that the general
tenor of the reductions in Human Services programs contained in the State budget
will have a minimum negative impact here at the local level.
Our perspective that there will be a limited impact on our local Human Services
Administration budget is supported by the type of reductions contained in the
State budget and our historical expenditure patterns. State budget reductions
included reduced money based on historical underclaiming by counties; reduction
in the GAIN Program, a program in which we spent $1.82 million less than last
year's allocation; and a deletion of program growth monies from the Child Welfare
Services caseload, a caseload in which we spent only 92% of last year's
allocation due to limited county-match dollars. The other State budget
reductions are in relatively small programs and should have a minimum impact on
the county. '
COUN~ AFDC AND FOOD STAMP ADMINISTRATION
Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) is a cash payment that includes a
Medi-Cal card and food stamp eligibility for :children and their caretaker
relatives when the child is deprived of parental support and care due to the
absence, death, incapacity or unemployment of a parent. Nonassistance Food
Stamps (NAFS) is a program designed to promote the general welfare and to
safeguard the health and well-being of the population. NAFS permits eligible and
certified low-income households to obtain a more nutritious diet through normal
channels of trade by.increasing food purchasing power.
Federal and State funding for the AFDC Program in the budget approved by the
Board of Supervisors last month was $12.03 million. The required county match
was $3.85 million. The State/Federal funding level for the NAFS in the budget
approved by the Board of Supervisors last month was $3.17 million and the county
match was $.96 million. We do not currently know the revised State and Federal
funding level and do not expect to hear for a couple of weeks. However, the
'reductions in these two programs, based on the governor's message, was primarily
for historical underclaimlng plus cost-of-living increases. Kern County has
historically spent under its State allocation. It is our current opinion that we
Attachment "C"
will not face significant reductions at the local level, since we have
traditionally spent less than the available State and Federal monies.
GAIN PROGRAMS
The GAIN Act of 1985 requires counties to provide able-bodied AFDC applicants and
recipients the opportunity to obtain private sector employment by offering a full
range of employment training and supportive services. This program is wholly
supported by State and Federal funding.
State and Federal funding, which was included in the budget approved by the Board
of Supervisors last month for this program, was $2.9 milllon. There are no
county match requirements.
According to the information from the County Supervisors' Association, GAIN
Programs have been reduced by 8.25~. Last year our GAIN allocation was $4.88
million. If it is reduced by 8.25~, the revised figure will be $4.48 million,
which is $1.41 million in excess of our prior year's expenditure. It .is our
expectation that our revised GAIN allocation will not have a negative impact on
Kern County's GAIN Program, since we have traditionally underspent the available
State allocation.
HOMELESS ASSISTANCE PRO~RAM
Homeless assistance is available to those individuals eligible for AFDC if they
are without sleeping quarters the day they apply for assistance. This program
pays for temporary shelter up to 28 days, The program will also pay for certain
permanent housing costs, up to 80% of the AFDC maximum payment.
Funding for the Homeless Assistance Program is included in the AFDC grant (Budget
Unit 5210). The state.wide reduction is a relatively small amount and is not
expected to have a significant, negative impact upon programs here in Kern
County.
CHILD WELFARE SERVICES
The three major components which received reduced State funding for program
growth include the following:
1. Family Maintenance - Direct counseling and c~se management to children
and their families aimed at maintaining the integrity of the family
unit. Some of these are voluntary services while others are Court-
ordered.
2. Family Reunification - Services to families whose children have been
removed by 'the Juvenile Court and placed in either foster care or
relative care. The services are primarily aimed at remedying the
problems which, originally warranted the family being brought to the
Court's attention.
3. Permanent Placement - If Family Reunification is unsuccessful, the law
requires Human Services to propose a permanent plan for the child to
live in out-of-home care. Services are lntended to ensure the stability
of these long-term placements, to meet the child's needs, and to prepare
the child for independent living.
State and Federal funding, which was included in the budget approved by the Board
of Supervisors, was $8.22 million, with a ,county-match requirement of $2.74
million. While we have not received any allocation information from the State,
we are anticipating that the proposed reduction in growth for this program will
result in no impact on Kern County. Last year's allocation was underspent by
$750,000, and it is our expectation that the reduction in the 1990-91 State
allocation will be less than last year's underexpenditure.
STATE ADULT PROGRANS
These services are intended to prevent or correct conditions which cause adults
(those 18 years of age or older) to be exploited, neglected, abused or who are in
danger of losing life, health or property. The State and Federal funding level
approved by the Board of Supervisors was about $20,000. The revised funding
allocation may be less than this, and it may be necessary for the county to
reduce these servtces. However, the dollar amount involved £s quite small and
should not produce serious problems for the county.
IN-HONE SUPPORTIVE SERVICES
These services enable aged, blind or disabled individuals to remain in or return
to their own homes by providing a reasonable amount of help with essential
housekeeping tasks and/or nonmedica] personal care.
The reductions in the State budget apply to costs associated with paying
providers who perform the housekeeping and/or nonmedical care activities. The
State's methodology for distributing the IHSS funds to counties includes
components for last year's estimated expenditure, caseload growth, hours per case
growth and a weighting factor of cost per hour.
Kern County's allocation for IHSS in fiscal year 1990-91 is $10,794,885
($10,615,904 Federal/State and $178,981 county). The budget approved by the
Board of Supervisors last month included $178,981 for the required county match.
The IHSS allocation requires no additional county money and, therefore, will not
negatively impact our administration of this program.
FI~UD EAKLY DETECTION (FRED)
According to the information from the County Supervi'sors' Association, this is a
100~ state.funded program which is ,a new requirement on county human services
departments. The budget reviewed by the Board of Supervisors did not include
funding for this new program.
Implementation of the Fraud Early Detection Program will require additional
study; however, it appears, at this juncture, it will be necessary for us
consider the addition of investigative staff in order to handle the requirements
of early fraud detection.
C~'~T (AD
Funding from this source is used to pay for a Foster Care Recruiter/Trainer here
in Kern County.
Since the funding level for this program will remain the same as Jt was for
year, our budget, as reviewed by the Board of Supervisors, will not be impacted.
The budget included continuation of this funding at the same level as last year.
3
SB ?0 - FOSTER CARE - PATE ADJUSTMENTS
This funding is for rate increases to group homes and foster family homes
effective July 1, 1990. The State budget includes funding for these rate
increases, and the budget reviewed by the Board of Supervisors appropriately
iacluded a 16.2~ cost of living for foster care.
CAPTA (AB 2443)
Kern County receives no funding from this source; therefore, there ~ill be no
impact on our local budget.
AFDC DIRECT AID COLA
Our revie~ of the State .budget includes the following analysis for AFDC direct
aid payments:
1. The total budget approved by the Board of Supervisors during budget
hearings included $146,950,000 for AFDC expenditures. This amount ~as
composed of allowances for the Family Group, Unemployed, and Foster Care
categories. The COLA for foster care was not removed from the State
budget, Therefore, the COLA need only be eliminated from the Family
Group and Unemployed categories in the county budget. These categories
represent expenditures of $134,950,000 in the budget approved at the
hearings.
2. Calculation of the 4.5~ COLA included in the county budget for these
categories can be accomplished by dividing the expenditures of
$134,950,000 by 1.045, then subtracting that result ($129,138,756) from
$134,950,000. The answer ($5,811,244) is the COLA.
Therefore, it appears to us it ~ould be reasonable to reduce Budget Unit 5210 by
$5,811,244 ($2,885,283 Federal; $2,609,830 State; $316,131 County).
TRIAL COURT FUNDING REDUCTIONS
Delete recommended additional pozi6ons:
Department Net Expenditure Reduction
Bakersfield Municipal Court $155,050
East V, em Municipal Court 34,412
North Kern Municipal Court 40,175
South Kern Municipal Court 101,156
Jury Services 6,133
County Clerk 77,356
To~l $ 414,282
Delete recommended fixed amet:
Superior Court $ 27,a00
Bakersfield Municipal Court 141,144
East Kern Municipal Court : 15,997
North Kern Municipal Court 9,100
South Kern Municipal Court 16,550
County Clerk 6,300
ToUd $ 216,391
Delete Inactive Records Center for
County clerk: $ 50,000
Delete Reimbursement of professional dues
determined not applicable for judges:
Ba~,mn~,~ Munici~ Court $ a,a00
East Kern Municipal Court 600
North ~ Municipal Court 600
South I(em Municipal Court 600
Total 5 5,100
Delete recommended expansion of juror
field for Jury Services $ 30,000
Delete recommended Data Processing $ 15,000
enhancements for East Rem Municipal Court
Delete recommended auxiliary, power supply $ 20,000
for Bakersfield Municipal Court
Grand Total $ 750,773
IMPACT OF TRIAL COURT FUNDING RI~DUCTIONS
Department Net Expenditure Reduction
Superior Court $ 27,a00
Bakersfield Municipal Court 319,494
East Kern Municipal Court 66,009
North Kern Municipal Court 49,875
South l(em Mumcipal Court 118,306
.}ury Services a6,1aa
County cleric 133~656
Grand Total $
Attachment "D"
PROBATION DEPARTMENT
Bill G. Williamson
Chief Probation Officer
August 20, 1990
Geary 'Tayl or
ADMINISTRATION County Administrative-Officer
2008 mdg, Roa~ 1415 Truxtun Avenue
P.O. Bo' 3309
Bakersfield, CA 93385-3309 Bakersfield, CA 93301
(eoB) e61-3102
FAX Dear Geary:
(805) 326-3280 '
ADULT SERVICES The Kern County Criminal Justice Planning Committee met on August
1415 Truxtun Ave.
4thF~oor. C~v~¢Center 15, 1990 to consider the reduced allocation of funds from the
aa.er, fleld, CA 93301-5222 Criminal Justice System Subvention Program (AB-90).
(805) e61.2461
JUVENILE SERVICES The revised recommended allocations were' approved unanimously and
2005 Ridge Road
P.o. eox3309 a copy is attached for your information. The recommended action
eakerafleld. CA 93385-3309 deletes the private agencies first and then prorates the remaining
(605) 861-2241
reduction between the District Attorney and the Probation
BRANCH OFFICES Department. This recommendation was based on the historical purpose
DELANO fOr these funds.
1122 Jafl®r~on st.
Oeleno, CA 93215-2295
(605) 861-2743 AS there is legislation at the state level that could reinstate part
KERN RIVER VALLEY or all of these lost funds, the committee also developed an
7046 Lake lsat)ella Blvd. additional recommendation to cover this contingency. Should funds
Lake IlaDella. CA 93240-9335
(619) 379-4604 be increased for this pro,ram, the recommended allocation would be
LAMONT to reinstate the District Attorney and the Probation Department
12022Main Street proportionally first and the private agencies last.
L~nmont. CA 93241-1705
(805) 854-4318
As Chief Probation Officer, ! feel the Probation Department is being
MOJAVE
177SNIgflway58 unfairly impacted as the result of a reduction in revenue that could
Molave. CA 93501-1901 just as easily have been credited to other criminal justice
(805) 861-2685 agencies. Because of this, I notified the committee that I believe
RIDGECREST if the proposed impact falls on the county agencies, that this
400 N. China Lake Blvd.
Rldgercrelt. CA93555-3630 program be handled by your department.
(805) 861-2676
SHA~r£R Very truly yours,
313 Central Valley Highway
Shelter. CA 93263-2057
315 Lincoln St.
Taft, CA 93268-1732
(8G5) 661-2700 Bill G. Willlamson, Chairman
Kern County Criminal Justice
INSTITUTIONS Planning Committee
CAMP ERWIN OWEN
14401 Sierra Way
Route 1. Box 43
Kemvllle. CA 93239-9701 BGW: dv
(619) 376-2844
JUVENILE HALL
1~31 Ridge Road Attachment
Slkerlfletd. CA 93305-4119
(8OS) 861-2255
cc: CJPC Members
KERN YOUTH FACILITY
160~m~geRoa. AB-90 Private Agencies Attachment "£"
Bakersfield. CA 93305-4119 'Probation Management Team
(805) 861-3236
KERN COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
SUBVENTIdN PROGRA~
FISCAL YEAR 1990-91
ALLOCATION SCHEDULE
PRE *POST
PROGRAM STATE BUDGET STATE BUDGET
1. AB-90 Administrative Services
A. Staff Salaries, Committee Expenses $ 13,000 $ 7,500
B. Private Agency Evaluations . 12,000 -0-
2. Alliance Against Family Violence 19 170 -0-
3. Aware, Inc. 29,310 -0-
4. Palmer Drug Abuse Program 14,000 -0-
5. Camp Erwin owen 300 000 199,830
6. Court Referral 26 746 -0-
7. Probation Prevention Division 225,000 190,000
8. District Attorney 173,605 97,764
9. Home Supervision 150 123 100,000
10. Kern Youth Facility 195,012 -0-
11. Women's Center-High Desert, Inc. 9~700 -0-
TOTAL $1,167,666 $595,094
*NOTE: Approved State Allocation for Fiscal Year 1990-91
I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M KERN COUN~
TO: Geary Taylor DATE: August 9, 1990
County Administrative Officer
Attention: Scott Jones
FROM: Bill G. Williamsgt~/
Chi. el Probation~J~Flcer
SUBJECT: Continued Dismantling of the Probation Department
As I expressed in our meeting on August 7, 1990, I do not feel the Probation
Department, which has been the subject of severe budget reduction over the past
three years, should t)~ punished for reaching out and securing revenue for the
County. I do not know who made the initial decision to apply this revenue to
the Probation Department but I assume this 1978 action included the prior Chief
Probation Officer, the County Administrative Officer, and the Board of
Supervisors. This revenue was applied to programs that already existed in the
Probation Department (i.e. Kern Youth Facility, Camp Erwin Owen, Prevention, Home
Supervision). This money was not used to hire new staff nor to enlarge programs.
It is ironic that consideration is now being given to institute further
reductions to the Probation Department's budget based on a decision made over
twelve (12) years ago.
I feel the shortfall to the Probation Department of $385,805 assuming pr.ivat~
contracts are defunded and the District Attorney takes a reduction of $75,841.
should be absorbed by the County. If legislative and Board action is not
successful in replacing the lost funds, the Probation Department should not be
forced to reduce staff and programs.
If we must reduce our budget $385,805, the following will occur:
1. Delete four (4y requested mobile radios $ 8,000
2. Delete three (3) requested sedans $33,825
These reductions will curtail the effectiveness of our Field
Service staff. Safety of field probation officers is of
utmost importance, and without this equipment, field sur-
veillance must remain at a minimum because of insufficient
number of properly equipped vehicles. At the present time
our adult officers, who average 2?0 cases per officer,
must go to the field in shifts due to the lack of avail-
bility of properly equipped vehicles.
3. Delete Requested GC-I - 10 months $23,376
This position would be' utilized to transport wards to
medical appointments, court, out of county detention
facilities and assist with transporting supplies to Camp
Erwin Owen. Without this position juvenile supervision
Scott Jones
Page Two
August 10, 1990
probation officers must provide the ward transportation
which reduces their ability to manage caseloads which
are in excess of 125 cases per officer. Institution
staff would be required to transport Supplies and this
would require utilization of extra help funds. Maintain-
ing legally required staff ward ratio would not allow for
regularly assigned staff'to handle these additional
functions which would require their absence from their
duty post.
:
4. Reduce Kern Youth Facility Population to 54 $164,265
5. Reduce Kern Youth Facility Population to 36 $211,644
Reducing the population of Kern Youth Facility (KYF) by
50% would necessitate the layoff of ten (10) group
counselors and one (1) Probation Division Director. KYF
is a treatment alternative available to the Juvenile Court.
Approximately 250 boys and girls go through the program
each year. It is the only treatment program for girls in
Kern County. The facility operates at maximum capacity and
an average of eighteen (18) minors committed to KYF are
always waiting in the Juvenile Hall to be delivered to KYF.
In addition to staff layoffs, consideration must be given
to the 125 boys and'gir]s who will not have the opportunity
to experience the program.
These wards would be placed in an already overcrowded
.Juvenile Hall, committed to California Youth Authority
(CYA), or released to the community. Juvenile Hall is
presently in a corrective action plan because of over-
crowding, This additional burden could cause CYA to
declare the Juvenile Hall unsuitable for the detention
of minors. Many minors committed to KY~ are first
offenders. These minors would not be eligible for
commitment to CYA. A large percentage of the wards who
could not be committed to KYF would be released to
parents on probation. This presents a danger to the
community. These wards have the propensity to be
recidivist. The overwhelming caseload size of existing
Field Service staff wouid prevent active supervision of
these'minors. In essence, we would be allowing these
wards, not committed to KYF, to victimize the community
until additional sustained charges allowed the court to
commit them to CYA, this is the net result of closing
one-half (1/2) of the Kern Youth Facility.
Scott ,]ones
Page Three
August 10, 1990
The Probation Division Director deletion is in question
with our Probation Management Team. We fee] that if we
must reduce line staff, management personnel must also
b~? affectmi. The final decision regarding that issue
will be made during final budget reduction deliberations.
These actions will ]eave us at '$$$,~05 above the target. If AB-gO. private
contracts are funded by the Board of Supervisors, the following additional action
mllst OCCUr:
1. Eliminate th~ Family Outreach Program $50,000
This program was suggested by the County Administrative
Officer and was implemented uith the blessings of the
Board of Supervisors. Elimination of this program would
cause the layoff of two Deputy Probation Officer I's.
It would mean that approximately 215 families in Kern
County would not receive counseling and that their
children who are in elementary school and are exhibiting
delinquent tendencies would go untreated. The basis of
prevention is to deal with them now or pay for them later.
It would be a shame to tell these children and their
parents that we cannot provide help until they violate
the law.
I certainly do not enjoy putting this on paper because it looks grim. We
encourage your efforts to avoid the possibility of Probation's 'budget reductions
and staff layoff and will, as always, remain available to assist you in any way
possible.
BGW:dv
ALLOCATION OF PROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRATION COSTS ALLOCATION OF F'ROF'EF:Ty TAX ADMINISTRATION COSTS
FY IqBO-9l ESTIMATED FY 199,)-~al ESTIHATED
_NI[.[ ALL OT~R SPECI~ DISTRICTS (C~T.)
CITY OF ARVIN I bt~.B& ~cF~R*L~ND AEC ~, F'F
CITY OF BRFERSFIELO ~6,~q~.C8 N F~ERSFIELD AEC ~, F't. '
CIIY OF CALIFO~NIR CITV lS,a~t.O4 SHhFTER REC ~ F*~
CITY OF DELRNO Z'*,IT<~. tB rEHRCttRF'I AEC ~. F'I
city OF MARICOF~ t.<.Bq.~6 ~SCO AEC ~ F~F
CITY OF McFARLAND ~,4~5.97 WEST SI['E F. EC ~. F~
CITY OF RIDGECREgT t~,bOT. 71 ~H VhL 50IL CONS ~J'~;"~;
CITY OF SHIFTER 5,545.O5 CUf~MR SOIL CONS
CITY 0F TAFT 7,BBI.b8 ERSr lEEr4 EEC CON
CITY OF TEHRCHRF'I 8,948.75 TEIZHACH~F'I RES ~'ON I
CITY 0F WASCO ~s~ BI SFLD SEF* GF. ADE ~.b39.56
TOT~ - CITIES 437~329.2b F,-AZ F'~ UFIL DISr
FR~Z FI F'UD ~ONDS
~ ERN COUNTY ~RTER ~GENCY 44, 'L~. 7 t ~1 ~t~E ~T [ L D I S T 4. 794.4 I
tCWA ZN~5 DEBT 2,115.~I r'r~.IA,.'E PUD AS~T 1
I CWA IN87 DEBt 82,82,'.2b PI_AINVIEW UTIL BD .hq. 18
~CWR ZN~I8 DEBT 18~5~7.~ 50 5AN JOAO UT[L 4,~5t...'
tCWA ZN~Iq DEBT 60,910.7~ I.EF, N F:IVER LEVEE 474. '
~ERN CO HTR IMF~t ~88.80 EAST lEAN AIRPORT ~, ,'"8. 't
~ERN CO WTR IMF#~ 85.~*~ TULARE LA~E DRN
vCWA IMF#4 BD ~,*~ 78~ tA VENTURA CO FD ZN A *
TOT~ - ~ERN COUNTY WATER AGENCY ~9~135.58 VENTURA CO FLD AD
BEAR VALLEY C0M SERV 12,4~4.88
BEAR VALLEY CSD SF TX
OT~ ~CI~ DISTRICTS BORON COMM SERV 7~5.<~2
NOR SANI t 2,307. b7 BORON CSD [MP~ t Bb. 47
ARVIN PUBLIC CEM 811.b~ BORON CSD SWR BD 45~.57
YERN RIVER VALLEY CEM I ~267.52 CAL CITY CBD PARK BD
E~BT kE~ CEN 2,C, 47.85 DESERT L~E CSD 17~.59
NO KE~ CE~TERY 4,491.~7 E NIL~ eom SERV 5,03T. :4
CE~TOY ~ t 3,7~'~.45 8~O ~LL CS0 2,431.5:
TEMPI CEM '' . Z~Se7.q9 GOLD ~LL MT I1
~BT II~ CEM '' b,358.~2 GOLD HILL MT 12 23.OI
FAIR~N FI~ DT 778.59 MTN MEDOWB COM SER 376.51
ER8~ KERN Jt HOBP 1,4~1.58 ROSAMOND COM SER 2,427.85
KERN VALLEY ~ 2,308.57 ROSAMOND CSD BOND t ,045. b7
MURDC HOSPI [AL ! ,a44.72 STAL SP~ COM SERV 5,708.4~
~ KERN SO T~ HOE 4t449.79 SH-WASCO IRR DEBT
SO ~EBT HOSP 57~. 12 BERREND MESA WTR I ,983.07
TEHACHAPI HOEP 4,53q.82 DEVIL'S DEN WTR 53.8~
WEST 9tOE HOSP tb,O4b.67 HENERY MILLER WTR
DELANO MOSQ ABATE 4~2T8. ~0 KERN DELTA HTR
F. ERN MOS0 ABATE 41,~b5.~9 LOST HILLS WTR '
WEST ~[DE HOBO 19,983. t I SAND CANYON NATER
BEAR MT AEC & PK 5,407.42
Page 3 Page 4
ALLOCATION OF PROFERTY TAX ADMINISTRATION COSTS ALLOCATION OF F'ROF'ERTY TAX ADMINISTRATION COSTS
FY lc~c?~'-SI ESTIMAIED FY 1990-91 ESTIMATED
OT~ER 8~C1~ OIBTRICTB (C~T.) ~ DISTRICT~ (C~T.
~LJITONW CO WATER =OU.~I SIE~A SANDS DEPr ~.71
BUTIOHE WTR ~t PD 275.81 ARVIN SCH 15,5S,.~.~O
GRNFLD CO WATER 4~5.78 BAKERSFIELD SCH 2~'
LEBEC CO WATER 4~7.0~ BEARDSLEY SCH 4~,~ll. '~
MRTTLER CO WTR :~.~5 BELRIDGE SCH 19,28:.
RAND COM CO WTR =82.77 BLA~E SCH
RAND CO WTR ~1 8D 50~.~,:, BUTTONWILLOW SCH
IEII CUH WTR IHF'~2 3:.~.,2 DELANO SCH
TEN CUM WTR [MFN~ 53.85 OI GIORGIO SCH
TEH CUHM NTR ~OND 2,1~L'.~1 EDISON SCH 8,~08.~1
TEH CUMM WTR DEBT 2,361.20 'ELk HILLS SCH 4,B43.47
T-~ WTR STATE PMT 5,680.~6 EL TE~ON SCH 1~,878.41
ANT VALE ~RN WT6 3~28~.50 FAI~FAX SCH
AV EF WIR-CL CITY 116.85 FRUITVALE SCH 19.297. TI
AV-E~ WTR BOND 27,~21.24 'GEN SHAFTER SCH 2,~78.75
AV-Ek. WTR CAL BD 4,118.~2 G~EENFIELD SCH
AV-EV WI8 OE~T 17,812. '~1 ~E~;NVILLE SCH
NO~ MUNICF'AL WTR 4,94(,.~1 LAKESIDE SCH
NOR HUN! WTR BOND 3~21=.57 :LAMONT SCH 7,595.72
NOR MUNI WI-IMP A ~?=~*~ LINNS VL POSO SCH
TOT~ - OTHE~ SPECIAL DISTRICTS 434,491.20 'LOST HILLS SCH 18,207.~2
MAPLE SCH .%~067.78
Mc~ ITT~ICF: SCH
RE~L~NT ~[E~ MIDWAY SCH .
~A~E6S~IELD 27,~.21.64 NORSI5 SCH 8,
CALI~ORN[A C][Y 7~885. 17 PANAMA SCH . ~6,477.55
RIDGECREST 56,714.48 POND SCH 3,~O5.48
TAFT Z,865.~5 RICHLAND SCH 16,862.58
WASCO ~! RIO 8RAV-GRLY SCH I I,~35.5~
TOT~ - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES 78,O55.53 . ROSELDALE SCH 13~644.45
SEMITR~IC
~T V~ JR C~ ~,725. 75 5TAND~D ~H 140,
A V~ ~U C~L BD~2 45.65 TAFT ~
~VIN ~ BD 8~ A ,. 6,471.2g VI~L~ SCH 3,05~.8~
~FLD ~ BD B9 A .~ 26,443.3~ WASCD ~H 14,
~EE~I~D 8CH BD 4.83 DELANO HIBH SCH
NORRIS 8~H BD 87A 4,254.~8 kERN NIGH SCH 886.275.80
PANAMA BCH BD 7,37~'.8-~ TAFT HIGH SCH 33q,299.88
PANANMA 8CH BD 87A 10,212.67 WASCO Hi~ SCH 51,6~7.29
PANDA 6CH BD 87-B 16,825.77 MARICOPA UNIF SCH 17~309.81
ROBEDALE SCH BOND 765.94 McFARLAND UNIF SCH 52,'~67.1~
R08EDALE CH8 BO 88-A 7,740.~8 MOJAVE UNIF SCH
SIERRA ~ANDB BOND 48.24 MUROC UN[~ SCH ~B,805.22
SIERRA 9ANDB BD ~2 I,lnR.SC .SO ~ERN UNIF SCH 26,587.g5
FRUITVALE BCH DBT 19~501.58 SIERRA SANDS UNIF 76,081.4~
GREENFIELD DBT e2 9,585.20 TEH UNIF SCH 69,549.39
MO~AVE SCH DEBT 2 4,325.2&
Pagm 5
ALLOCATION OF pROPERTY TAX ADMINIST'RATION COSTS - FY 19~O-qt ESTIMATED
CHILD DEV FUND 405,~t0.~5 ~
~ERN COMH COLLEGE 98 , b(":'. 88
W iRN CO~ COLLEGE l~x~b
EDUCA I ! ON 5,555,588. g5 -
IOT~ - SCHOOL DISTRICTS
TOT~ ~T ~L~ATED C~T ~4,594,400.52