Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM072981.July 29, 1981 sl- a RECONVENE: The Board of Supervisors reconvened at 10:•00-a.~. pursuant to recess. Present: Supervisors Dolan, Saraceni, Wheeler and Chairman Moseley. Clif Nickelson, administrative officer; by Mike Pyeatt, assistant administrative officer; Jim Johansen, auditor; and Clark A. Nelson, county clerk, by Cathy Pitts, assistant clerk to the Board. Absent: Supervisor Lemke Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America invocation by Supervisor Saraceni PUBLIC HEARING: 1981-82 PROPOSED BUDGET AND REVENUE SHARING FINAL USE HEARING The public hearing on the 1981-82 proposed budget and revenue sharing final use hearing was held as continued. Chairman Moseley advised that the Board would not be discussing the Memorial Halls today. The Veterans Service Office will be considered. Discussion of the Memorial Halls to be held August 3, 1981 at 9:00 a.m. as the first item on the agenda. 2161 BUDGET REVIEW Consideration of departmental budgets regarding cost reductions of discretionary funds held at this time. 2162 Judge Gridley Judicial Court budget, page 80 Mike Pyeatt, assis`ant administrative officer, stated that Judge McNelis would not be able to attend the meeting. Prior to preparation of the proposed budget, there was one staff member who reviewed the workload situation of the court. They, were proposing .the addition of a one-half time deputy court clerk to be recommended to remain un5unded until more study had been done. they reduced the extra help considerably. It was reduced to $250. Judge McNelis had indicated he needed the one-half time position~or will need the extra help revenue. There are some areas of reduction that can be made which are memberships and out-of-county travel. Judge McNelis would pay for the out-of-county conferences out of his own expenses. He is the Justice Court Representative on the Executive Board of California Judges Association. He is also a member of the California Center Judicial Reserach Committee. There is $1,800 in the fixed asset account and they will try to get by another year. On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Saraceni and carried, the following action was taken with regard to the Gridley Judicial Court budget: Account 63, fixed assets. Reduce $1,800 Account 43, transportation and travel. Reduce $1,150 out-of- county travel Account 33, memberships. Reduce $200. Account 14, overtime. Add $1,150 PUBLIC HEARING DATE SET A public hearing date of August 18, 1981. at 1:30 p.m. was set for consideration of the consolidation of the Biggs'. and Gridley Judicial Courts. 2163 P~cv 89. o- July 29, 1981 81'2164 3 July 29 r 1981 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ T _ _ _ _ _ _ BUDGET REyIEW Consideration of departmental budgets-regarding cost reductions of discretionary f.unds.held as continued: Public Guardian budget; pa~e'194 John Allen, public guaxdian, set out the workload of the Public Guardian's office. The office generated $41,235 in fees which went into the general fund as a source of revenue. They requested a deputy Public Guardian be placed in the budget this year. Without that position the county would lose about $20,000. The cost of the position would be $18,822 for salaries and benefits. Mike Pyeatt, assistant administrative officer, stated..that based on last Tuesday`s meeting, they are in the final stages of preparing a report to the Board relative to the consolidation of the Public Guardian with .the Public Administrator. The report will be ready in another week. Personnel has made some preliminary findings relative to the position being requested. One person handling 250 cases is considerable. Those findings will be included in the report. ' The budget to be held over until the report has been prepared. Veterans Service Office a e 274 Hap Penn, veterans service officer, stated that the Board is considering the budget without knowing what the employee salary ,package is. He knew the Board would be looking at more money. He suggested that the Board have the salaries considered by the end of January and then the figures could be placed in the preliminary budget. He felt the Board could then wait for the green sheet from the federal government for the department heads to make presentations. He felt the Board should also put a freeze on capital expenditures and hiring between March 1 and July 1 every year. Mr. Pyeatt stated that anything the employees receive this year will be retroactive. Anything for future years will be by agreement between the employees association and the county. The Board will have to balance the budget before they can consider salary increases. He would not suggest- that the Board put a hiring freeze into operation. There are positions under administrative review that are being looked at very .closely in view of the budget hearings. As far as capital investments it would be very easy to stop all capital equipment in every rounty~budget, but some would have ramifications. Mr. Penn stated that as far as his office was concerned the Board had a memo relative to the operations. He had two positions in the budget and he has a need for those two positions. If the Board cuts 20 percent of his budget that will eliminate one person in the office and would only leave one person for the office. He worked the office by himself for over one month before the other employee was hired. With the workload in the office, one person cannot handle it. He has drogped the hospital travel for the veterans. They will have to find another way to accomplish this service. If he could find filing cabinets in surplus the Board could cut $840 from the budget. I£ the office is cut, there will be a loss of benefits to the veterans. Supervisor Wheeler felt that Mr. Penn had placed the responsibility of the reductions on the Board and felt that he should share part of the responsibility for the reductions. The Board will have to look at the budget and will have to cut X number of dollars. Page 90. July 29, 1981 81- July 29, 1981 Kr. Penn should have come to-the Board and advised the Board that he could cut but it would have whatever kind o£ effect. Mr. Penn stated he reviewed the budget and came up with a cut in personnel. This is what was stated in the memo. The cuts that he had suggested are the only ones that will not adversely effect the benefits to veterans. Mr. Pyeatt felt that one of the things the Board might want to consider is the elimination of the Veterans Service Office altogether. The Grand Jury, in their report, questioned why the Butte County Veterans Service Office was serving veterans from Glenn County and other counties. Three years ago, Glenn County decided to close-down their Veterans Service Office and those veterans have been coming to Butte County. It is a small percentage of the entire operation that is funded by the state. There was even some talk during the state budget hearings of removing the financial funds to the counties. The veterans activity is a federal activity and not a county function. Supervisor Wheeler felt that the Board should give serious consideration to this matter. She wondered if there had been a time and motion study done on the office. Mr. Penn advised that a study had not been done. They did generate $6.5 million in benefits to the veterans of the county. Mr. Pyeatt felt that much of those benefits would continue to come to the veterans of the county even if there was no Veterans Service Office. Supervisor Wheeler wondered if anyone had given consideration to running the office with volunteers and having part-time clerical staff or a full-time clerical person to be their with the veterans running the office. Air. Pyeatt did not know whether the veterans organizations would have the time to devote to that. Many of the organizations do a great deal of volunteer work. He knew the prior Veterans Service Officer depended on others. Mr. Penn stated that he did use students and also used volunteers. He used people wherever he could getahem. Gerald Lively, deputy administrative officer, felt that if there were a vacancy in the Chico offices because of not having the Veterans Service Office located in Chico that would be a benefit to the county. Office space in Chico is at a premium. At one time, it was suggested that the Veterans Service Office be moved to the Chico Memorial Hall. The space in Oroville is not quite as critical. The space in Oroville could be used. The office space would not be a burden on the county. Supervisor Wheeler asked Mr. Penn to furnish the Board with statistics on the office. She wanted him to support the caseloads. She has received calls from veterans who are telling her Chey are not getting the service and have to wait many months before claims are filed. She felt it was vital to provide services to people. She wanted to know how much service was being provided and if it is worth that much. The matter was continued to a later date for Mr. Penn to furnish information as requested. Page 91. July ~29, 1981 July 29, 1981 SI'- Court Work Referral "Program; page _88_ ~' - Judge Rutherford spoke regarding the Court Work Referral Program. It is in its fifth year of existence. It was started through a CCCJ grant and in 1980-81 the county was required to pick up the entire program. k'ive years ago when the program was presented, she asked for one 80 percent position. It is still an 80 percent position. The size of the program has almost doubled. There are 1,200 to 1,300 people per year assisted with this program, who are sent to work off fines. Those 1,300 people reflect 41,000 hours of assistance to the county and community. Converted to fines using a rate of $3.00 per hour this is $123,000 worth of fines. They would-not be able to collect these fines. Without the program there are two things that could be done: suspended sentence where only those that could afford to pay would pay; or to collect $10 per month for three years during profiation with the cost accounting system being astronomical. If the 41,000 hours was converted to jaa.l time, this would be 4,000 days in the jail, which is ten a'lls full time. The sail is currently full. The jail will be fuller with the mandatory jail sentence for DUI cases. The cost would be $72,000 per the ten cells. She felt this was a worthwhile program. She would be willing to do without the extra help in the amount of $1,875. [Then the 80 percent position is not in the office, she will do without the program for that period of time. She will continue to use the interns of CSUC to assist them. Some of the people on the program are assisting the program by working with the program. The worksites are also for rehabilitation. The work coordinator attends state conferences and pays for these without county funding. Mr. Pyeatt stated there is a three month appropriation for the program. This is a special activity. He could understand the value of the program and the alternative to the court and the impact on the jail, In reviewing the budget they tried to keep in mind the activities that are completely special. This would be an addition to the budget and not a reduction. Kay Stevens, work coordinator, felt that they have always been fiscally responsible and cut the budget by 33 percent last year. She felt the program was cost effective. A CPA did an analysis of the program and the cost to the county is actually $. 50 per hour to run the program. She did not see how the county could afford to do away with the program. The CPA did the work for free. Mr. Lively stated that the Corrections Needs Assessment Committee would be meeting soon. The are required to address the entire diversion program in the jail uses and the Court Work Referral Program. This could be included in the evaluations by the consultant and the utlization of AB 90 funds could be addressed which are to be for diversion programs. The study hopefully will be available the second or third~:week in August. On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler and carried,. the Court Work Referral Program-was added to the budget for the entire year and the transfer of $19,909 was authorized. Chico Muni Judge Rutherford stated that if the District Attorney cuts their filings by 20 percent, they would be able to reduce 20 percent. from their budget. The information from the District Attorney's Office was that they were considering not filing non-victim cases. She did not know what wasRappening. If the budget were reduced by 20 percent, she would not process traffic tickets. She would not process warrants. Page 92, July 29, 1981 81- a July 29, 1981 or notices as to fines. These would be processed, on a voluntary pay basis. Tbat area of activity•is 14,000 moving violations and fix-it tickets, with the amount coming in this year at 9,00.0 to 14;000.. The average fine for the 14,OOA tickets is about $20 to $30-. The ievenue,wo.uld be reduced if these items were not processed. She is able to stay current with the employees she has. The criminal portion has been increased from 11 to I3 employees. Z+lith this change,- the last three months the income has been up $10,000 per month. The traffic is almost current. She felt they could bring the revenue up from $500,0.00 to $b00,000 to $700,000 to $800;000. They cut the data processing costs by going back to a manual system, which cut the turnaround time. She d2d also have to put in a telepone answering device forfive hours per day.' They would only be open from 8 a.m. to 11 a.m. By saving some $18,000, it will cost the county and cities $250,000. If they axe able to keep up without the extra help it will be great because the county would be able to save $19,000 by cutting extra help and the CETA positions. She had p roposed adding $10 in fees to the civil filings which would have given revenue for the court reporters fees. They are $5,000 short this year in that account. She will. try to make it. The court reporters expenses are mandatory and if she cannot make it with these amounts she will have to come back to the county for the funds. Judge Rutherford advised the Board that her court has never charged memberships and have only had the professional and specialized services for visiting judges. She and her staff have never charged for memberships, travel or conferences. She did not know what could be deducted from the budget. She requested five typewriters and was given two; she asked for three people to replace the CETA people and was given two; she asked for 1/2 extra help and Administration is cutting that out. Mr. Pyeatt stated that there would be cleanup action on the budget to reflect an increase of one position in 3, 4 and 5. This was part of late action taken in the year. This will be an adjustment brought back at a later date. RECESS: 11:12~a.m. RECON~NE:.lli27 a. m. SUPERVISOR DOLAN ABSENT AT THIS TIME 3ud e Bi s Judicial Court a e 74 The budget for the Biggs Judicial Court was considered at this time. No action taken. Constables for Oroville Paradise, Biggs and Gridley, pages 130, 132, 134, ~n~ i~~ Consideration of the budgets for the constables for Paradise, Oroville, Biggs and Gridley held at this time. SUPERVISOR DOLAN PRESENT AT THIS TIME Mr. Pyeatt asked that the Board appoint a committee of the Personnel Director, Administrative Office, Counsel and Sheriff to consider the proposal from the report by the Personnel Director to transfer the constabulary to deputies within the Sheriff's Department. Under the code the Sheriff is the chief of the constabulary. They would no longer be elected officials. Jim Raekerby, personnel director, stated that procedurally when they discussed this with the constables and the justice court judges there was general agreement that the constables if transferred Page 93. July 29, 1981 81- 3 July 29, 1981 to the Sheriff's-Department would be bailif~;~ civil deputies and would be willing to perform services at that level. This would take an ordinance by the Board. They could-be assigned by the Sheriff to serve papers and would receive a higher-pay. The only problem is in the Gridley Constable who cannot become a county safety member. The county would have to work around this problem. The rest of the constables-are available and interested in the change. If there is a need for a second court constable, the Sheriff sends a deputy over. This would allow for flexibility. There is no opposition by the people that are elected. On motion of Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor Wheeler and carried, a committee of the Personnel Director, Administrative Office, Counsel and Sheriff were organized and implemented to consider the proposal for elimination of the constable districts to be brought back to the Board for combining with the Sheriff's Department. Special grant requirements, page 50 Jim Johansen, auditor, stated that the biggest portion, which has to do with Community Action Agency is exchange allocation costs received. This is for departments that provide services to EOC program. There is local match required. This is county staff time to provide the services. No action taken. Animal Control budget, .page 192 Mr. Johansen stated that this amount is for the contract with Animal Control and Health Services. There is about $50,000 in revenue and $141,000 in general fund revenue. The Board is considering a leash law which is raise the contract about $30,000. No action taken. Plant acquisition budget, llOW002 It was moved by Supervisor Dolan, seconded by Supervisor t+lheeler that the inspector contract for the Library in the amount of $49,400 be added to plant acquisition department budget, 170-002, account 3b. Supervisor Saraceni was not happy with adding any costs if he was not sure this could not be performed through the building department. Mr. Pyeatt stated that this was discussed with the Public Works Director and he concurs that this would be tasks that were over and above the work of the building department. Mr. Lively advised there were services required by the contracts through both architect agreements and through the .plans and specifications. The county has made assurances to the corporation. On that basis they proceeded. The amount of money goes with the budget the Board authorized to be sent to the corporation. Supervisor Saraceni stated that the Board was told that there would be no money taken out of this year`s budget, it would be coming out of next year's budget. This is now taking money out of the budget this year. Page g4, July 29, 1981 81'= $''' ** .July 29_, 1981 - Supervisor.Wheeler stated that this was discussed last year and ;gas put in last year's budget:- It was not encumbered and.-.is not.a matter of taking the gooney out for new expenses. Mr. Johansen stated that the Board-had the appropriations last gear for bond counsel and Bartle Wells. When the bonds were sold those costs were not included in the proceeds of the bonds. Vote on motiou:,~ AYES: Supervisors Dolan, Wheeler and Chairman Moseley NOES: Supervisor Saraceni ABSENT: Supervisor Lemke Motion carried. Data Processing budget, page 288 Bi11 Hazelwood stated the Board had the narrative and the possible proposed cuts. About 85 percent of the cost of the contract is either people or hardware. Anything they do would effect one or more of the other departments. They have submitted three proposals. The first proposal would effect service and would be maintaining the same type of service. The second proposal would change the type of service being provided. They would not be developing new items. Satpervisor Dolan stated there was difficulty in figuring out how this coincides with the fact that the Board contracts for facilities management with SCT. How does this fit with the evaluation of the evaluation. The Board received the presentation by Gillinger and Associates and the report which talks about program development changing this and new equipment. Supervisor Wheeler stated that the Administrative Office had not included this department as one the Board would consider. She had asked that the department present their proposals. She felt that considering the elimination of the personnel in the Sheriff's Office it was necessary. fo the Board to consider this department also. She did not want the Bo~rd accused of sacred departments. Mr. Hazelwood felt that with the studies and what would come out of the studies would effect the budget. They recommended changing hardware last year to save money. It would have very little effect on this budget. He had no idea of where the long range plan was going. If there is deletion of many of the items, the county is taking a gamble. If they delete maintenance and there is an emergency, they have a problem. The contract is for operation of the facility 24 hours per day. Mr. Pyeatt stated that the budget flowed through their office and was forwarded to the Executive Committee for any questions to bring back to their office. It is a budget based on the present utilization. Supervisor Wheeler would like to see the Board implement the proposal in item 1 until the county has some direction. Mr. Hazelwood advised the Board that proposal 1 calls for deletion of cerCain pieces of equipment from the computer and would have to be negotiated with Univac. County Counsel has advised-that this could be done. If the items are defunded, the county could get out of the contract. They could survive without the .disc drive. It would stop the tape to disc, would stop future on-line storage space an~s important if the county wants to add more systems. Page 95. July 29, 1981 8T- ~' .July 29, 1981 Supervisor Wheeler suggested that the.Board hold this item until such time as the county knows exactly what direction they will be proceeding in. Jim Mattingly stated they were currently planning to put the Auditor's work on the disc. By putting the-Clerk on-line there would be a turnaround of 15 minutes instead of three to four hours. They would have to spend more money than would be saved in order to eliminate. In the case of the disc the cost to the users will b.e iuore. To be held until later. Scheduling of revenue sharing funding requests, late county department budget requests, miscellaneous_..ad"ustments to the proposed budget Mr. Pyeatt stated that this was a reminder to the Board that there are other considerations than the departmental budgets that should be considered. The final revenue sharing use hearing was advertised as part of the normal operations. They have a number of revenue sharing requests that have been on file since the proposed use hearing. The people who have submitted requests would like to know when to expect to discuss this matter with. the Board. He would like to plan for the future in order to advise the agencies when this would be considered. The only outside agencies they are proposing funding for is Paradise and Chico Meals-on-'W'heels. He would recommend that the Board consider the requests at the meeting after the next meeting. Supervisor Wheeler stated that the Board would be considering special district augmentation funding next week and she would like to look at the budgets for the special districts before the hearing. PUBLIC HEARING: 1981-82 PROPOSED BUDGET AND REVENUE SHARING FINAL USE HEARING The public hearing was opened to the public at this time. Appearing: No one. 2165 ~I i Mike Pyeatt, administrative officer, stated that he had presented the Board with a chart relative to the manpower costs. The first column shows there were 32 positions approved by the Board after the last fiscal year budget was adopted. There were 21 positions for law enforcement. That was just in the Sheriff. The District Attorney and Probation Department also had some. Supervisor Wheeler stated that there were many county people at the hearing. She was certain a lot of the people were on county time. She hoped that didn't happen. She did not feel that was appropriate. If the county people want to lobby the Board they should do so on their own time and not the county time. She did not feel all the people on Monday was necessary. RECESS: The Board recessed at 12:12 p.m. to reconvene on Monday, August 3, 1981 at 9:00 a.m. Page 96. July 29, 1981