Lha(no'rr

BOAR.D OF SIIPE IIVISOR.S
OF SANTA CLARA
COIfNTY
EAST WING
COUNTY GOVERNMENT
70 WEST HEDDING ST.

/

=ENTER'
SAN JOSE,CALIFORNIA 95IIO

FOR PRESENTATI

DOMINIC L. CORTESE

I 299-"3?3

SUPERVISOR SECOXD OTSTRICT

TIIFSDAY, JANUARY 2, 7979

DURING THESE PAST WEEKS SEVERAL INOUIRIES HAVE BEEN

TVIADE

AS TO

IVIY

FEEI-IllGS REGARDING CHAIRlvlA'I'iSHIP, THE NEl,{ B0ARD, AND THE NEI^I YEAR'

Tiii:

ASSUIV1PTION

OF THE CHAIRI'IANSHIP TS

A

CERETIO|\IAL EVENT, AND l,{HILE

I ACCTPT IT AS AN HOI'IOR, I MUST BE I'IINDFUL OF THE FACT THAT THIS
POSITIOI{ ON THE BOARD RESULTS FROIVI BEING THE PERSOI'I HAVING FALLEN
INTO THE PROPER ROTATIONAL

PATTERN.

Il{ NO lilAY DOES IT SIGNIFY

ADDITIONAL SPECIAL AUTHORITY OR INFRINGE UPON THE INDIVIDUAL
OF

II{TEGRITIESii\NY OF THE OTHER BOARD IVIE|VIBERS,

THIS IS A

NEl^l BOARD.

DUE TO WHATEVER DYNAMICS OR FATE INVOLVED, NONE OF IVIY PRESENT
COLLEAGUES WERE ON THE BOARD I'IHEI'I

SO THIS BOARD
PERSPECTIVE

IS

I

BEGAI{ tvlY FIRST TERlVl

IN 1969,

NEhl BUT NEl,| ONLY FROIvl THAT PERSPECTIVE AND THAT

ALONE. ]HIS

BOARD HAS

ALL THE EXPERTISE, TALENT,

l!1ORE

PAGE 2

AND

ABILITY TO CREATE THE

NEEDED BALANCE AND

WIIATEVER THE IVIAGNITUDE, AND

TO RISE TO ANY OCCASiON,

Ill THE SATIE DEGREE AS ANY BOARD IN THE PAST,

t^lE HAVE THE BENEFIT OF OUR Ol'{i{ PAST EFFORTS, COIVIBII{ED WITH VOTER
RESPONSE

1.

TO GIVE US

:

TREIVIENDOUS PARKS PROGRAlVl.

2, THE F0RMATI0I'I 0F t,lHAT IS l'lOl.l A VIABLE TRANSPORTATI0N
3, A ITABLE CAPITAL II1PROVEI4ENT
4. THE BENEFITS OF CITIZEN PARTICIPATION FROIq VARIOUS BOARDS

SYSTEIVI'

PROGRAIVI.

SU

AND

COI\1I'IISSIOi\S SUCH AS HUI,IAN RELATIONS, STATUS OF I.IOIVIEN, AFFIRIV]ATIVE
ACTION, DRUG ABUSE, ALCOHOLISIT, I{ENTAL HEALTH, AND THE

JUSTICE

SYSTEIV] ADVISORY BOARD.

|'lE HAVE ORGANIZED A SET OF GOALS E|VIPHASIZING HUIIAI{ SERVICE

NEEDS

AND IIVIPLEI'IEIITED i{El-I TECHNICAL SYSTEI{S,

IF

I

!^IERE

TO PREDICT BENCH

IYIARK

DECISIONS FOR THE FUTURE

OF CONCERI'| FACII'IG THE BOARD NOl,l, AND

IN

AREAS

IN THE YEAR TO COIVIE-.-SORTED

OUT FROlvl THE OTHER 10,OOO DECISIONS, CORRESPOIIDENCE AND PHONE CALLS
EACH OF US

i,{ILL BE DEALII'IG }^IITH COLLECTIVELY AI'ID INDIVIDUALLY,

ADDRESS THE FOLLOttlIi''IG

;

lv]ORE

I

I^IOULD

PAGE 3

VALLEY I'IEDICAL CENTER, GENERALLY J

THt

IVIASTER PLAN AND

THESE ARE AREAS l^lHICH HAVE SPLIT THE BOARD

IN VOTII{G,

HAI SPECIFICALLY.

AREAS l^lI]ICH

HAVE CAUSED AN EXTENSIVE AI'IOUNT OF SOUL.SEARCHII{G BY EACH BOARD

AND STAFF; AREAS l.lHERE YET
IVIORE RESEARCH IVIUST

TH

SHFRIFF'S

IvlORE

SCRUTINY,

Ir]N

IS

ASSESSTIENT CENTER

IS

OBJECTIVITY,

IN THE

IT

t^lOULD SEEI{

CONTROVERSY OF

SITUATI0I'1,

ON Ol.lE SIDE COULD BE THE AIITI.BRICK AND IVIORTAR PEOPLE ASKING

IS

AND

AI{OTHER SENSITIVE ISSUE.

PROPER AND OUR INTENTIONS GOOD,

THAT THE BOARD COULD VERY !^IELL GET CAUGHT UP

A NO-l,lIi\I

IVIORE

BE CARRIED ON,

RECEPT

AND l.lHILE THE GOAL

STILL

I4EI'1BER

NOT JUST ANTOHER

JAIL, I,IHILE,

ON THE OTHER

SIDE,

IF

THIS

THERE COULD BE

THOSE l^lHO PERCEIVE THE RECEPTIOII CENTER IVIERELY AS ANOTHER SOCIAL

SERVICE PROGRAI'I,
LOOKED UPON
COULD

IN A

I SUPPOSE THE ADDITIOI'{ OF NEl'l BEDS COULD BE

SKEPTICAL l,{AY I.{HILE THE I'IERE TERI1 "RECEPTION CENTER"

BE LOOKED UPON l,lITI{

THE RECEPTION CENTER

IN

ff{

EOUAL OUESTION.

IS A I{E}'l COI{CEPT BEING

USED ON

A PILOT

OTHER PARTS OF THE COUNTRY.

tvl0RE

BASIS

PAGE 4

THE CHALLENGE THE BOARD I4UST FACE

IS

tvlERGING THESE TI^IO OPPOSING

VIEl,lPOINTS INTO Ol.lE VIABLE SOLUTION TAKIltc

A

CONCEPT AND RESTRUCTURING IT

TO COlvlPLY l^lITH OU3 COUIITY'S NEEDS AND DEI'IANDS'

I ANN IIqF

7NN T NC

ANN INR,/HNIISING IMRAI

BOARD MUST COI{E TO

ANCF

-..--ARE

AREAS hlHICH THIS

GRIPS. THERE I4UST BE EVEN GREATER COOPERATION

BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND THE

CITIES THAN THAT l^lHICH HAS EXISTED IN

THE

PAST.

LAST YEAR

I PROPOSED TO RECONVENE THE JOINT CITY-COUNTY PLANNING

COlvltvlITTEE, l^lHICH DAN AND

OF COURSE,

IS

I SERVE ON, THE PURPOSE OF THE COI4I{ITTEE,

TO DEAL l^lITH THE INCOIVIPATIBILITY OF PLANNING

BETWEEN

AREAS'
THE COUNTY AND THE CITY OF SAN JOSE CONCERNING THE UNINCORPORATED

hlE ARE ALL DEEPLY CONCERNED WITII THE HOUSING SITUATION

THE NATIONAL AVERAGE COST OF

IN

SANTA CLARA COUNTY

A

HOUSE

IS

APPROXIMATELY

IN TI{S COUNTY'

$63,900 l'lHILL

IT IS $8O,OOO, THE BOARD CAN COTVIIVIII{D ITSELF

ON THE ESTABLISHITENT OF

A

HOUSING ADVISOR AS I^IELL AS THE CREATION

OF THE INDUSTRY AND HOUSING IVIANAGEIVIENT TASK FORCE AND THE
PLAN cOIVII4ITTEE.

gur

GENERAL

FUnTHTR RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS OF THE HOUSING

IvlORE

PAGE 5

PROBLElvl IVIUST TAKE PLACE

IN

IN

ORDER

TO OBTAIN A HANDLE ON THE RAPID II'ICREASE

llOUSING COST, POSSIBLE CONFLICTS BETI,'IEEN OUR ZONING POLICY

THE NEED FOR ADDITIOI,IAL HOUSII{G lvlUST
RECONC I LED

SO|VIEHOI^I

AND

BE FURTHER DEFINED

AND

.

THE II{PLEMENTATION OF MULTI-SERVICE CENTERS APPROVED BY THI

BOARD

IIVIPORTANT AND

AS FAR BACK AS IvlAY OF 1974 COULD BE ONE OF OUR MOST/PROGRESSIVE
ACTIOI\|S OF THIS YEAR.

l^lITH RISING COSTS OF RENTS, AND MATERIALS, COUPLED l,lITH PROPOSITION

13, EVERY EFFORT tvlUST BE I'IADE TO CUT COSTS l^lHILE ATTEIIIPTING
IVIAINTAIN

TO

AT LEAST THE SAI'IE LEVEL OF SERVICE PRESENTLY PROVIDED

THE CITIZENS OF OUR COUNTY AND I1ULTI-SERVICE CENTERS COULD BE

TO

A

PART

OF THAT EFFORT.

I HAVE BEEN IN COIVIIVIUNICATION l^lITH ALCOHOLISIVI STAFF AND BECAUSE OF
THE HIGH
CREATE

A

VISIBILITY OF THE PUBLIC INEBRIATE THERE IS A
NEl^l SELECT COI'II'IITTEE FOR THE URBAN

NEEDY.

NEED TO

THE

COIVII''IITTEE

ll,lILL CARRY OUT AI! INVESTIGATION OF THE PROBLEMS Ai{D INCORPORATE THE

lvlORE

&

PAGE 6

FINDINGS AND RECOlvllvlE[lDATIOi'lS
BOARD AND SAN JOSE

Ii{ A REPORT FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE

CITY OFFICIALS.

COUNTY E|VIPLOYEES DESERVE

NO LOI{GER ATTRACTTVE AS

A SPECIAL IVIENTION, PUBLIC SERVICE IS

IT

}^lAS

IN THE

PAST I,IITH PAY FREEZES

AND

SHRINKING OPPORTUNITIES FOR ADVANCEIV1ENT. THE COUNTY ElvlPLOYEE
SHOULD NOT

IHERE
AND

I

IS

BE PEI'IALIZED AS THE SOLE SOLUTION TO PROPOSITION 13,

NO OUESTIOI'I BUT THAT l.lE I^IILL CONTINUE OUR NO-LAYOFF POLICY,

AIvl SURE l^lE

WILL CONTII{UE TO USE ATTRITION TO ACHIEVE

I,'IORK-FORCE

REDUCTIONS. lvlANY OF THE PROGRA|\IS l.lE ADIV]INISTER SERVE PARTICULAR
OF THE

COIVIIVIUNITY, AND

SEGMENTS

}^lHILE l,lE IVIUST GUARD AGAINST ADVERSELY AFFECTING

ANY PARTICULAR ONE TOO SEVERELY, NONE CAN BE REGARDED AS ABSOLUTELY SACRED,

THIS BRINGS

lvlE TO lVlY

FINAL ISSUE.

THE lvlOST SIGNIFICANT ISSUE FACING THE BOARD
OF THE BUDGET FOR YEAR
UI,IDER PROPOSITIOI{

13,

2 OF PROPOSITION

IN 1979 I'IILL BE THE ADOPTION

13,

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DETERIVIINES THE LEVEL

OF SUPPORT FOR COUI,ITY PROGRA|VIS.
DETERMINE THE LEVEL OF

THIS

IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT THE LEGISLATURE

SUPPORT NO LATER THAN IIAY

{fl o RI

1.

l,lE

lVlUST

PAGE 7

HAVE

AT LEAS T

2

|VIONTHS TII1E BEFORE THE BEGINNING OF THE NEI^I FISCAL

YEAR TO IvlAKE THE DIFFICULT CHOICES OF ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES TO

THE

PROGRAIVIS OPERATED

IT IS

IIV|PORTANT

TO

BY COUNTY GOVERN|VIEIIT.

RElvlElvlBER

THAT THE COUNTY HAS NO AUTHORITY

LEVY NEI^I TAXES. OUR REVEI"IUES

o

COIVIE FROIVI

THE FOLLOI.|ING

TO

SOURCES:

FEDERAL ASSISTANCE'

0

THE SHARE OF THE $4 PROPERTY TAX RATE DETERMINED BY THE
LEGISLATURE TO BE AVAILABLE TO THE COUNTY.

0

STATE ASSISTANCE
OR BLOCK GRANTS.

o
o
o

IN THE

THE COUNTY SHARE OF THE

FORTI OF SPECIAL PROGRAIVI SUPPORT

1+

SALES TAX'

FEES FOR SERVICES.
REVENUES FROlVl FINES LEVIED

Ui{TIL l^lE KNOl^l HO!^l MUCH----THESE
ARE ATTACHED

TO

BY

COURTS'

REVENUES

THESE REVENUES,

DECISIONS NECESSARY TO TAILOR

l,llLL

PRODUCE AND hIHAT STRINGS

IT IS IlvlPOSSIBLE

PROGRAF1S

TO

IVIAKE

TO REVENUES.

lvlORE-

l

PAGE B

IT IS UNREALISTIC

TO EXPECT THAT THE TOTAL REVENUES AVAILABLE

FISCAL 79.30 WILL EXCEED THE REVENUES AVAILABLE THIS YEAR.
IVIUCH IVIORE PROBABLE

REIVIEIVIBER

THAT THEY I,JILL BE CONSIDERABLY

LESS.

FOR

IT

IS

I^IE I'IUST

$13 lvlILLION OF ONE

THAT THE CURRENT BUDGET II{CLUDES

TIIVIE REVENUE THAT l^lAS APPROPRIATED THIS YEAR TO EASE THE TRANSITION

TO PROPOSITION

13, THESE WERE LOCAL REVENUES THAT ARE NOT CAPABLE

OF BEING REPLACED FOR YEAR 2.

PROPOSITION

13 IN CALIFORNIA AND THE PRESIDENT'S FIGHT AGAINST

INFLATION ARE BOTH DESIGNED TO REDUCE TOTAL

GOVERNIV|ENT EXPENDITURES.

l^lE ARE GOING TO BE IVIAKING DIFFICULT CHOICES OF
PROGRAIVIS lvlAY

NEED TO BE EXPANDED AND

IF OTHER PROGRAtvlS ARE REDUCED,

THIS

PRIORITIES.

IVIAY HAVE

SOlVlE

TO BE DONE

ONLY

ALTHOUGH THESE ISSUES OF PRIORITY

OF PROGRAI'IS ARE REFLECTED IN THE BUDGET THAT WILL BE ADOPTED BY THIS
BOARD, THE BOARD

TVIUST

lvlAKE THESE JUDGTIENTS OF PRIORITY l^lITHIN THE

CONSTRAINTS PLACED UPON THEIVI BY LEGISLATIVE TIAI{DATE'

tvlORE

PAGE 9

SOlvlE POINTS FOR CONSIDERATIOi,I FOR

FUNDING AFTER PROPOSITIOI'I

*
,lt

A

BOARD POSITION FOR SECOND PHASE

13 COULD BE:

STATE BUYOUT OF MEDI-CAL,AFDC,

PERIVIANENT

SSI AND SSP,

THE ISSUE OF lltHETHER THE STATE SHOULD ADlVlINISTER

WELFARE

COULD BE ADDRESSED SEPARATELY.

IF BLOCK GRANTS TO COUI'ITIES ARE TO CONTINUE,
FORrIULA IVIUST
SUCH

BI REVISED SO AS NOT TO PENALIZE JURISDICTIONS

AS SANTA CLARA COUNTY WIT|.I HISTORICALLY

RATES. DESPITE A
VALUE OF

6,27",

A

SANTA CLARA COUI{TY RECEIVED ONLY 3,47" OF THE FUNDING

COlvlBINED

IS TALK IN

FORIVIULA WERE BASED

SACRAMENTO THAT

STATE COULD BUYOUT THE COURT
SUCH

A

ANGELES AND SAN FRANCISCO COUNTIES,

FUI{DING. THE SHARES TO 47

THE DISTRIBUTION

THERE

FORlvlULA. LOS

35.97" OF STATEWIDE POPULATION, RECEIVED 71.,67"

OF THE BLOCK GRANT

IF

LO}^IER PROPERTY TAX

STATEI,'IIDE POPULATION OF 5,57" AND STATEWIDE ASSESSED

DUE TO THE EXISTING

l^lITH

THE DISTRIBUTION

COUNTIES I{OULD INCREASE

ON POPULATION.

AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO BLOCK GRANTS, THE

SYSTEIVI.

THOUGH COIVIPLEX

IN ITS

ENTIRETY,

PLAN COULD INCLUDE FIRST YEAR REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS TO COUNTITS

tvlORE

PAGE 10

l^lITH

COIVIPLETE TAKEOVER FOLLOI^IING

COIVI|V]ISS

IN

LATER

YEARS.

THE

ION FIGURES----- INDI CATE THE STATE COULD BUYOUT

POST

COUNTY

COURT COSTS PLUS COSTS OF GENERAL ASSISTANCE l^lITHIN THE SAI1E
lvlONEY AIVIOUNTS

I

AS A CURRENT BLOCK GRAI{T ALLOCATION.

WILL LOOK FOR|IIARD TO THE

CHALLENGE OF THE NEl^l YEAR WITH

ANTICIPATIO!{ AND HOPE THAT l^lE CAN WORK TOGETHER TO SOLVE THE
PROBLEMS FACING
ATTElvlPT

US. lllI HAVE TAKEN I/IANY INNOVATIVE STEPS TO

IO ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF THE COIV.IYIUI'IITY

I'IANDATE OF THE PEOPLE

hlE HAVE TO I'IAKE
AVAILABLE TO
GOVERNIVIENT

COUNTY.

GOVERI.IIVIET'IT IVIORE

US.

EFFICIENT l.lITH THE LIIVIITED

THE GEI'IERAL FEELING OF THE PUBLIC,

IS BUREAUCRATIC

RESOURCES

IS THAT

AND OVER EXPENDS hIITHOUT REGARD FOR THE

I INTEND TO IV]AKE IT A PRIORITY---AND ASK THIS BOARD

TAXPAYER.
SUPPORT lvlE

IN THIS

AND ALSO THE

IN

TO

SEARCHING OUT AVEilUES }^IHICH WILL ASSURE OUR CITIZENS

EACH AND
THAT hlE ABE RESPONSIVE, THAT l'lE WILL CAREFULLY SCRUTINIZE

EVERY ISSUE

IN AN EFFORT TO

I|VIPOSE APPROPRIATE RESTRAINTS ON SPENDING.

f'lORE

t

PAGE 11

ONE OF

THI FIRST ACTIONS I I{ISH TO ASK THE BOARD TO TAKE

LIGHT OF

IVIY

PREVIOUS STATEIIENTS

IS

IN

THAT l{E ACT SUICKLY IN

URGING THE LEGISLATURE TO DETERMINE THE LEVEL OF SUPPORT FOR
COUNTY

PROGRArIS, THIS IS A CRUCIAL ACTION FOR SANTA CLARA

*.lf******,*****lf

COUNTY,