The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About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²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²&RQWUDFW6WDWXV5HSRUW 9HKLFOH/LFHQVH)HH9/)([WHQVLRQIRU3XEOLF6DIHW\ 7KH9/)UDWHLVFXUUHQWO\SHUFHQWEXWDEVHQWOHJLVODWLYHDFWLRQWRH[WHQGLWZLOOGURSWRSHUFHQWRQ-XO\ 7KH9HKLFOH/LFHQVH)HH9/)LQFUHDVHZDVHQDFWHGDVDFRPSRQHQWRIWKHWHPSRUDU\WD[HVXQGHU *RYHUQRU6FKZDU]HQHJJHUDQGLVGHGLFDWHGWRORFDOSXEOLFVDIHW\SURJUDPV 6SHFLILFDOO\SHUFHQWRIWKH9/)LVGHGLFDWHGWRWKH/RFDO6DIHW\DQG3URWHFWLRQ$FFRXQW/63$5HYHQXHLQ WKH/63$LVVWDWXWRULO\GHGLFDWHGWRDUDQJHRIORFDOSURJUDPVLQFOXGLQJWKH&LWL]HQV¶2SWLRQIRU3XEOLF6DIHW\ &236WKH-XYHQLOH-XVWLFH&ULPH3UHYHQWLRQ$FW--&3$WKHUXUDODQGVPDOOFRXQW\VKHULIIV¶ORFDODVVLVWDQFH SURJUDPVERRNLQJIHH³UHSODFHPHQW´UHYHQXHDQGDUDQJHRIRWKHUORFDODVVLVWDQFHSURJUDPV *RYHUQRU%URZQ¶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¶VSURSRVDOWRVXVSHQGWKH$%PDQGDWHDQGYRWHG WRFRQWLQXHWKHPDQGDWHRQFRXQW\PHQWDOKHDOWK7KLVLQFOXGHGPLOOLRQLQRXWVWDQGLQJFRXQW\PDQGDWHFODLPV DQGIXQGLQJRIPLOOLRQIRUDEHVWSUDFWLFHVVWXG\7KHFRQIHUHQFHFRPPLWWHHKRZHYHUGLGQRWDGRSWWKH/$2 DOWHUQDWLYHZKLFKZRXOGKDYHVKLIWHGWKHPDQGDWHIURPFRXQWLHVWRVFKRROV 6XEVHTXHQWO\WKH*RYHUQRUOLQHLWHPYHWRHGDOOPLOOLRQRIIXQGLQJWRUHLPEXUVHFRXQWLHVIRUWKHLU XQUHLPEXUVHGFRVWVIURPWKURXJKIRUFRPSO\LQJZLWKWKH$%PDQGDWH+DQGLFDSSHGDQG 'LVDEOH6WXGHQWV,DQG,,DQG6HULRXVO\(PRWLRQDOO\'LVWXUEHG3XSLOV2XWRI6WDWH0HQWDO+HDOWK6HUYLFHV,Q GRLQJVRKHDOVRGHFODUHGWKDWWKHPDQGDWHRQFRXQWLHVIRUWKHILVFDO\HDUZDVVXVSHQGHG 7KH*RYHUQRU¶VDFWLRQWKUHHPRQWKVLQWRWKHFXUUHQWILVFDO\HDUOHIWPDQ\XQDQVZHUHGTXHVWLRQVIRUFRXQWLHV VFKRROVFRPPXQLW\EDVHGSURYLGHUVSDUHQWVDQGVWXGHQWVUHODWHGWRWKLVVSHFLDOHGXFDWLRQSURJUDP7KHELJ TXHVWLRQLVZKHWKHUWKH*RYHUQRU¶VXQLODWHUDODFWLRQWRGHIXQGWKHSURJUDPDFWXDOO\VXVSHQGVWKHPDQGDWH 0RUHRYHUGRHVWKHPDQGDWHVXVSHQVLRQUHPRYHWKHILQDQFLDOREOLJDWLRQVRQFRXQWLHV"&6$&LVZRUNLQJZLWKWKH &RXQW\&RXQVHOV$VVRFLDWLRQDQGWKH&DOLIRUQLD0HQWDO+HDOWK'LUHFWRUV$VVRFLDWLRQ&0+'$WRH[DPLQHWKH SROLF\DQGOHJDOLVVXHVFUHDWHGE\WKLVDFWLRQDQGZLOOSURYLGHDGGLWLRQDOLQIRUPDWLRQWRFRXQWLHV $WWKLVWLPH*RYHUQRU%URZQ¶VEXGJHWSURSRVDOZRXOGIXQGWKH$%PDQGDWHRQFRXQWLHVXVLQJ3URSRVLWLRQ IXQGVIRUD*HQHUDO)XQGVDYLQJVRIPLOOLRQ 7KH/HJLVODWLRQ&RPPLWWHHVXSSRUWHGVWDII VUHFRPPHQGDWLRQWKDWWKH&RXQW\VXSSRUWWKH/$2SURSRVDOWKDWZRXOG VKLIWWKHPDQGDWHIURPFRXQWLHVWRVFKRROV$OWHUQDWLYHO\WKHUHFRXOGEHDOHJLVODWLYHUHTXLUHPHQWWKDWWKHSULYDWH LQVXUDQFHFRPSDQLHVWKDWLQVXUHWKHSDUHQWVRIWKHVHFKLOGUHQEHUHTXLUHGWRSURYLGHIXQGLQJIRUWKHQHFHVVDU\ VHUYLFHV6HHSROLF\SRVLWLRQSDJHVRQ$WWDFKPHQW$ )XQGLQJIRUWKH/RFDO3ODQQLQJ&RXQFLOIRU&KLOG&DUHDQG'HYHORSPHQW/3&DQGWKH$%&KLOG &DUH6DODU\DQG5HWHQWLRQ,QFHQWLYH3URJUDP $WWKH'HFHPEHU)DPLO\DQG+XPDQ6HUYLFHV)+6&RPPLWWHH0HHWLQJDUHFRPPHQGDWLRQZDVPDGHE\ WKH&RPPLWWHHWKDWDUHSRUWEHJLYHQWRWKH/HJLVODWLRQ&RPPLWWHHVRWKDWODQJXDJHLQVXSSRUWRIWKHUHVWRUDWLRQRI IXQGLQJIRUWKH/RFDO3ODQQLQJ&RXQFLOIRU&KLOG&DUHDQG'HYHORSPHQW/3&DQGWKH$%&KLOG&DUH6DODU\ DQG5HWHQWLRQ,QFHQWLYH3URJUDPZRXOGEHDGGHGWKH&RXQW\¶VVWDWHOHJLVODWLYHSODWIRUP$UHSRUWZDVSURYLGHGWR WKH/HJLVODWLRQ&RPPLWWHH7KH/HJLVODWLRQ&RPPLWWHHUHFRPPHQGVSROLF\SRVLWLRQRQSDJHRI$WWDFKPHQW $ 9DVFR5RDG'RXEOH)LQH=RQH')=([WHQVLRQ 6%7RUODNVRQHVWDEOLVKHGD'RXEOH)LQH=RQH')=IRU9DVFRURDG$GGLWLRQDOO\LQWKHZDNHRID QXPEHURIVLPLODUOHJLVODWLYHUHTXHVWV6%EHFDPHWKHIRFXVRIVSHFLILFOHJLVODWLYHGLUHFWLRQWRSURYLGHDVWDQGDUG VHWRIFULWHULDDQGWHUPVJRYHUQLQJ')=¶VZKLOHDSSURYLQJWKHH[WHQVLRQRIWKH9DVFR5RDG')=WKURXJK ,QWKH/HJLVODWXUHDJDLQDGGUHVVHGWKHJHQHUDOVWDQGDUGVDQGFULWHULDIRU')=¶VLQ$%:RONVHWWLQJRXW JHQHUDOSDUDPHWHUVIRUVWDWHKLJKZD\VHJPHQWVWRTXDOLI\IRU')=¶VEXWH[FOXGHGWKHLUDSSOLFDWLRQWR9DVFRURDG XQGHUSUHYLRXVO\DSSURYHG6% )ROORZLQJLQ6%DGGHGFKDQJHVWRWKH')=FULWHULDDQGFRQWLQXHGWKHIRFXVRQVWDWHKLJKZD\VDVEHLQJ HOLJLEOHIRU')=$GGLWLRQDOO\WZRVHJPHQWVLQ6DQ)UDQFLVFRZHUHDXWKRUL]HGWREH')=¶VDQGZHUHQRWUHTXLUHG WRPHHWWKHQRZVSHFLILFFULWHULDDSSOLFDEOHWRVWDWHKLJKZD\GHVLJQDWLRQVDV')=¶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ach year, the Board of Supervisors adopts a State Legislative Platform that establishes priorities and policy positions with regard to potential State legislation and regulation. The State Legislative Platform includes County-sponsored bill proposals; policy issues that provide direction and guidance for identification of bills which would affect the services, programs or finances of Contra Costa County; and issues regarding the State budget and state-local relationship. COUNTY-SPONSORED BILLS 1. Subdivision Map Act Amendment for Pedestrian, Bicycle, Transit and Traffic Calming Facilities – For some time the County has wanted to update its transportation fees for new development to fund off-site pedestrian, bicycle, transit and traffic calming facilities. However, the State statute authorizing local agencies to adopt ordinances to require the payment of fees for transportation facilities, section 66484 of the Subdivision Map Act, is limited to bridges and major thoroughfares. Rationale: The public’s concern over greenhouse gas emissions and the impact of auto-oriented development on public health has spurred the County’s efforts to secure additional funding for transportation facilities that can encourage more walking, bicycling and transit use. In addition, the County’s successful efforts to reduce sprawl through infill development has increased the need for traffic calming devices to help minimize the traffic impacts from new development on existing roads. Revising the Subdivision Map Act to allow fees for these transportation facilities would support the County’s public policy goals, consistent with its General Plan circulation element. Senator DeSaulnier introduced a bill to accomplish this in 2008. The County will request the bill be reintroduced in the 2011 session, as it would provide more flexibility for an existing transportation funding source. 2. Tier C (Safety Retirement) Legislation Amendment: In 2006, the Contra Costa County Deputy Sheriffs’ Association (DSA) and the County successfully worked together with then-Senator Torlakson on SB 524, legislation that allows the provision of different safety retirement benefits to members of the Association and permits a process whereby employees can negotiate different safety retirement benefits. SB 524 (Chapter 633, Statutes of 2006) was signed by the Governor on September 29, 2006, enacting Government Code section 31484.9 on January 1, 2007 with a sunset date of December 31, 2011. Legislation is required to remove the sunset date in order to keep the provisions of Government Code section 31484.9 in effect. Rationale: This provision of the County Employees Retirement Law of 1937 allows the County to agree, pursuant to a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Contra Costa County DSA that the provisions of section 31484.9 shall apply to safety employees represented by the Association and further requires that the terms of any agreement reached with the Association pursuant to section 31484.9 also be made Contra Costa County 2011 State Platform 2011 State Platform 2 applicable to unrepresented Sheriff’s personnel who are safety employees. In the MOU between the County and the rank and file and management units of the Association approved by the Board of Supervisors on December 5, 2006, the parties agreed that Government Code section 31484.9 would be applicable to safety employees represented by the Association. In the MOU, the DSA and the County also agreed that retirement benefits would be modified for peace officers hired after December 31, 2006. These new officers would receive the 3% at 50 retirement benefit as do previously hired safety employees. However, the Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) to their retirement benefit is a two percent COLA rather than the three percent COLA. In addition, the final average compensation used to calculate the new hires’ retirement allowances is based on a thirty-six month period instead of the twelve month period applicable to previously hired employees. By Resolution No. 2006/743, section 66.11, the Board of Supervisors made these same modifications applicable to unrepresented Sheriff’s personnel. These changes resulted in a new safety retirement tier, Tier C, for those Sheriff’s employees hired after December 31, 2006. This legislation helped the County to negotiate an MOU that lowered the County’s long- term structural costs for retirement benefits. This is good for the financial stability of the County and good for taxpayers. In addition, this legislation gave the employees flexibility to negotiate a less expensive retirement benefit that resulted in a larger amount of take-home pay for new deputies. It is in the interest of both the County and the Association to preserve flexibility to negotiate different safety retirement benefit formulas particular to the Association. LEGISLATIVE/REGULATORY ADVOCACY PRIORITIES Each year, issues emerge through the legislative process that are of importance to the County and require advocacy efforts. For 2011, it is anticipated that critical issues requiring legislative advocacy will include the following: 1. State Budget – According to the most recent estimates, the State is running a deficit of approximately $8.2 billion for FY 2010-11. In addition, the State Budget faces a projected deficit of up to $25.4 billion by FY 2011-12. The long-standing practice of state government has been to look to counties as a means of balancing its budget. While opportunities to do so are more limited with the passage of Proposition 1A, the magnitude of the deficit makes it certain the State will be creative in their efforts to include counties as part of its budget balancing solution, likely through additional program re-alignment and revenue reductions. Of particular concern to counties is the inadequate reimbursement for our increasing cost of operating several human services programs: the Human Services Funding Deficit, formerly referred to as the “Cost of Doing Business.” The annual shortfall between actual county expenses and State reimbursement has grown to over $1 billion since 2001, creating a de facto cost shift to counties. The funding gap forces counties Contra Costa County 2011 State Platform 2011 State Platform 3 to reduce services to vulnerable populations and/or divert scarce county resources from other critical local services. It also increases the risk of State and Federal penalties. 2. Health Care – Counties have a high stake in California’s health reform efforts. Counties serve as employers, payers, and providers of care to vulnerable populations. Consequently, counties stand ready to actively participate in discussions of how to best reform the health care system in California and implement the national health care reform legislation passed in 2010. 3. Water and Levees /The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta – The Legislature’s passing of the Delta Reform Act (2009), a package of bills which establish among other things, co-equal goals for reliable water supply and ecosystem restoration for the Delta, as well as the proposed Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP)--an effort to construct a massive peripheral canal/tunnel-- will require significant, large-scale change to the Delta as we know it today. The scope and content of these changes and continuing political battles between north and south over water will continue to dominate legislative and administrative agendas in the coming year. Significant future impacts upon the County in the areas of water quality and supply, levees, ecosystem, governance and flood control are anticipated. Additionally, a water bond is proposed for the November 2012 ballot. Consideration should be given to the potential for the County to sponsor Delta- related legislation through our legislative delegation. The County’s Delta Water Platform, as well as the Strategic and Action Plans, are incorporated in this Platform by reference. 4. Redevelopment– Past State budgets have shifted billions of dollars in property tax revenues from redevelopment agencies to the Supplemental Educational Revenue Augmentation Funds (SERAF). The FY 2009-10 revenue take from redevelopment agencies was intended to support schools and programs that service residents of the redevelopment areas or that live in redevelopment-financed housing. In the FY 2011 State Budget, the SERAF funds were directed to court funding. The Governor’s FY 2011-12 Budget proposes legislation to eliminate existing redevelopment agencies. Existing agencies would be required to cease creation of new obligations, and “successor agencies” would be required to retire RDA debts. Reform of the existing redevelopment process is appropriate to consider as part of a budget solution that represents compromise among all stakeholders with an interest in the State and local agency budgets. Furthermore, all stakeholders should be at the table discussing the State and local budget solutions. STATE PLATFORM POLICY POSITIONS A brief background statement accompanies policy positions that are not self-evident. Explanatory notes are included either as the preface to an issue area or following a specific policy position. Please note that new and revised policy positions are highlighted and in italics. The rationale for the policy position is italicized. Contra Costa County 2011 State Platform 2011 State Platform 4 Agricultural Issues 1. SUPPORT efforts to ensure sufficient State funding for pest and disease control and eradication efforts to protect both agriculture and the native environment, including glassy-winged sharpshooter, light brown apple moth, and Japanese dodder activities; high risk pest exclusion activities; pesticide regulatory and law enforcement activities; and noxious weed pest management. Agriculture is an important industry in Contra Costa County. Protection of this industry from pests and diseases is important for its continued viability. 2. SUPPORT continued appropriations for regulation and research on sudden oak death, a fungal disease affecting many species of trees and shrubs in native oak woodlands. The County’s natural environment is being threatened by this disease. 3. SUPPORT funding for agricultural land conservation programs and agricultural enterprise programs to protect and enhance the viability of local agriculture. The growth in East County and elsewhere has put significant pressure on agricultural lands, yet agriculture is important not only for its production of fresh fruits, vegetables and livestock, but also as a source of open space. 4. SUPPORT legislation to establish legal authority where needed to facilitate the effort by the California Department of Food and Agriculture and the Department of Boating and Waterways to survey and treat all incipient infestations of the South American spongeplant and a continued long-term effort to rid the Delta of this invasive species. This invasive aquatic species is a threat to agriculture, the environment and recreation in the Delta. Animal Services Issues 5. SUPPORT efforts to protect local revenue sources designated for use by the Animal Services Department; i.e., animal licensing, fines and fees. Fines, fees, and licensing are major sources of revenue for the Animal Services Department. The demand for animal services is increasing each year as does the demand on the General Fund. It is important to protect these revenue sources to continue to provide quality animal service and to meet local needs. 6. SUPPORT efforts to protect or increase local control and flexibility over the scope and level of animal services. Local control over the scope of animal services is necessary to efficiently address public safety and other community concerns. Local control affords jurisdictions the ability to tailor animal service programs to fit their communities. Animal related issues in dense urban areas vary from those in small, affluent communities. 7. SUPPORT efforts to protect against unfunded mandates in animal services or mandates that are not accompanied by specific revenue sources which Contra Costa County 2011 State Platform 2011 State Platform 5 completely offset the costs of the new mandates, both when adopted and in future years. Unfunded mandates drain our limited fiscal resources and, at the same time, chip away at local control over the scope and level of services. 8. SUPPORT efforts to ensure full funding of State animal services mandates, including defense of the Department of Finance’s lawsuit against the State Commission on Mandates regarding the State obligations for reimbursement of local costs for animal services incurred in compliance with SB 1785. The County invested large sums of money to comply with SB 1785, with the assurance that our cost would be offset by reimbursements from the State. Failure by the State to honor the reimbursements negatively impacts the County General Fund and Animal Services’ budget. 9. SUPPORT efforts to protect and/or increase County flexibility to provide animal services consistent with local needs and priorities. The demand for quality animal service programming continues to increase each year. The County is experiencing population growth and changing demographics. It is incumbent upon the Animal Services Department to be flexible enough to adjust to the changing needs and priorities. 10. SUPPORT efforts to preserve the integrity of existing County policy relating to Animal Services (e.g., the Animal Control Ordinance and land use requirements). Contra Costa is looked upon as one of the model Animal Services Departments in the state. Its policies, procedures, and ordinances are the yardstick against which other Animal Control organizations are measured. The local control exercised by the Board of Supervisors is key to that hallmark. Child Support Services Issues 11. SUPPORT the establishment of a statewide electronic registry for the creation and release/satisfaction of liens placed on property of a non-custodial parent as necessary to collect delinquent child support payments. California law currently provides that recording an abstract or notice of support judgment with a County Recorder creates a lien on real property. This requires recording the judgment in each of the 58 counties in order not to miss a property transaction. An electronic registry would simplify not only the creation of liens but also the release/satisfaction of liens because there would be a single statewide point of contact, and the entire process would be handled electronically through automated means. 12. SUPPORT amendment of current law that states that documents completed and recorded by a local child support agency may be recorded without acknowledgement (notarization) to clarify that the exception is for documents completed or recorded by a local child support agency. This amendment clarifies that documents that are prepared by the local child support agency and then sent for recording either by the local child support agency or by the obligor (non- Contra Costa County 2011 State Platform 2011 State Platform 6 custodial parent) or by a title insurance company are covered by the exemption, a technical point not acknowledged by all county recorder offices. 13. SUPPORT efforts to simplify the court process for modifying child support orders by the court by requiring court appearances only when one of the parties objects to the modification. Currently, establishment of parentage and support by the court is permitted without court appearance if both parties are in agreement. A similar process for modification would reduce court time, the workload of all involved agencies and parties, and streamline the process. 14. SUPPORT efforts to ensure that the reduction caused by the federal Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 to the California Department of Child Support Services is not passed down as a reduction to the local program. The Act places a restriction on the ability of states to use incentive funds as the state match to draw additional federal funds. In previous years, California used its $30 million in federal funds in child support programs. 15. SUPPORT efforts that would require the Department of Child Support Services to provide any notice form, information, or document that is required or authorized to be given, distributed, or provided to an individual, a customer, or a member of the public to be given, distributed, or provided in a digitized form, and by any means the Department determines is feasible, including, but not limited to, e-mail or by means of a web site. Climate Change Issues 16. SUPPORT the CSAC Climate Change Policy Statements and Principles which address a broad range of issues affected by climate change, including water, air quality, agriculture, forestry, land use, solid waste, energy and health. The document is largely based on existing CSAC policy and adapted to climate change. Additionally, the document contains a set of general principles which establish local government as a vital partner in the climate change issue and maintain that counties should be an active participant in the discussions in the development of greenhouse gas reduction strategies underway at the state and regional level. 17. SUPPORT efforts to ensure that the implementation of AB 32 results in harmony among the greenhouse gas reduction target created by the Air Resources Board for each regional/local agency, the housing needs numbers provided by the state Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to housing element law, the Sustainable Communities Strategy, and the Regional Transportation Plan processes. Contra Costa County 2011 State Platform 2011 State Platform 7 Elections Issues 18. SUPPORT legislation to adjust precinct sizing from 1,000 voters per precinct to 1,250 voters per precinct. With the option of being able to have up to 1,250 voters per precinct, the best polling locations in a neighborhood can be selected, and that same site is more likely to be used for several elections, thus avoiding the need to change poll sites for voters. 19. SUPPORT full state reimbursement for state mandates imposed upon local registrars by the Secretary of State, including special state elections. 20. SUPPORT legislation that would add provisions to the state Elections Code that would allow special elections to fill a vacancy in a congressional or legislative district to be conducted by all mailed ballots at the county’s discretion. Emergency Preparedness, Emergency Response 21. SUPPORT legislation that would give local agencies more authority to train volunteers and help clean-up oil spills without taking on additional legal liability. 22. SUPPORT legislation that would require the state’s Oil Spill Prevention and Response Agency to improve communication and clean-up technology, increase safety standards for ships and establish special protections for ecologically sensitive areas. 23. SUPPORT legislation that would require responses to future oil spills in a shorter timeframe, with a more regional approach. 24. SUPPORT measures that enable counties and other local agencies to better exercise their responsibilities to plan for and respond to emergencies and disasters without taking on additional legal liability and oppose those that do not recognize or support the county and local agency role in the State’s Standardized Emergency Management System. 25. SUPPORT legislation or other measures requiring the creation of emergency rock stockpiles suitable for levee repair throughout the Delta, enabling increasingly efficient and less costly prevention of levee breaks and enhancement of initial response capabilities. Eminent Domain Issues 26. SUPPORT legislation that maintains the distinction in the California Constitution between Section 19, Article I, which establishes the law for eminent domain, and Section 7, Article XI, which establishes the law for legislative and administrative action to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. Contra Costa County 2011 State Platform 2011 State Platform 8 27. SUPPORT legislation that would provide a comprehensive and exclusive basis in the California Constitution to compensate property owners when property is taken or damaged by state or local governments, without affecting legislative and administrative actions taken to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. Flood Control and Clean Water Issues 28. SUPPORT authorization for regional approaches to comply with aquatic pesticide permit issues under the purview of the State Water Resources Control Board. Contra Costa County entered into an agreement with a neighboring county and several cities to share the costs of monitoring. While it makes sense for local government to pool resources to save money, State Board regulations make regional monitoring infeasible. 29. SUPPORT efforts to provide local agencies with more flexibility and options to fund clean water programs. Stormwater requirements issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Boards are becoming more and more expensive, yet there is no funding. Stormwater should be structured like a utility with the ability to set rates similar to the other two key water services: drinking water and wastewater. 30. SUPPORT efforts to provide immunity to local public agencies for any liability for their clean-up of contaminations on private lands. This will be more critical as the Regional Water Quality Control Boards institute Total Maximum Daily Loads, which establish a maximum allowable amount of a pollutant (like mercury) in the stormwater from a watershed. General Revenues/Finance Issues As a political subdivision of the State, many of Contra Costa County’s services and programs are the result of state statute and regulation. The State also provides a substantial portion of the County’s revenues. However, the State has often used its authority to shift costs to counties and to generally put counties in the difficult position of trying to meet local service needs with inadequate resources. While Proposition 1A provided some protections for counties, vigilance is necessary to protect the fiscal integrity of the County. 31. SUPPORT the State's effort to balance its budget through actions that do not adversely affect County revenues, services or ability to carry out its governmental responsibilities. 32. OPPOSE any state-imposed redistribution, reduction or use restriction on general purpose revenue, sales taxes or property taxes unless financially beneficial to the County. (Note that a redistribution of sales and property tax may be beneficial to Contra Costa County in the event that sales tax growth continues to lag behind property tax growth.) This policy includes opposition to the shift of redevelopment property tax increment revenues to the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF). Contra Costa County 2011 State Platform 2011 State Platform 9 33. OPPOSE efforts to limit local authority over transient occupancy taxes (TOT). 34. OPPOSE any efforts to increase the County's share-of-cost, maintenance-of- effort requirements or other financing responsibility for State mandated programs absent new revenues sufficient to meet current and future program needs. 35. SUPPORT efforts to ensure that Contra Costa County receives its fair share of State allocations, including mental health funding under Proposition 63 and pass- through of federal funds for anti-terrorism and homeland security measures. The State utilizes a variety of methods to allocate funds among counties, at times detrimental to Contra Costa County. 36. SUPPORT efforts to receive reimbursement for local tax revenues lost pursuant to sales and property tax exemptions approved by the Legislature and the State Board of Equalization. 37. SUPPORT continued efforts to reform the state/local relationship in a way that makes both fiscal and programmatic sense for local government and conforms to the adopted 2010 CSAC Realignment Principles, with an emphasis on maximum flexibility for counties to manage the existing and realigned discretionary programs. 38. SUPPORT efforts to relieve California of the federal Child Support penalties without shifting the cost of the penalties to the counties. 39. SUPPORT reduction in the 2/3 vote requirement for special taxes that fund a comprehensive community plan developed by the county, cities and school districts that improve health, education and economic outcomes and reduce crime and poverty. 40. SUPPORT efforts to authorize counties to impose forfeitures for violations of ordinances, as currently authorized for cities. This would provide the County with the opportunity to require deposits to assure compliance with specific ordinance requirements as well as retain the deposit if the ordinance requirements are not met. Currently, the County is limited to imposing fines which are limited to only $100 - $200 for the first violation, which has proven to be an ineffective deterrent in some cases. 41. SUPPORT efforts to redefine the circumstances under which commercial and industrial property is reassessed to reduce the growing imbalance between the share of overall property tax paid by residential property owne rs versus commercial/industrial owners. 42. SUPPORT efforts to reduce County costs for Workers’ Compensation, including the ability to control excessive medical utilization and litigation. Workers’ Compensation costs are significant, diverting funds that could be utilized for Contra Costa County 2011 State Platform 2011 State Platform 10 County services. Workers’ Compensation should provide a safety net for injured employees, for a reasonable period of time, and not provide an incentive for employees to claim more time than medically necessary. 43. SUPPORT state actions that maximize Federal and State revenues for county- run services and programs. 44. SUPPORT legislative compliance with both the intent and language of Proposition 1A. 45. SUPPORT full State funding of all statewide special elections, including recall elections. 46. OPPOSE efforts of the State to avoid state mandate claims through the practice of repealing the statues, then re-enacting them. In 2005, the State Legislature repealed sections of the Brown Act that were subject to mandate claims, then re- enacted the same language pursuant to a voter-approval initiative, and therefore, not subject to mandate claims. 47. SUPPORT strong Public Utilities Commission (PUC) oversight of state- franchised providers of cable and telecommunications services, including rigorous review of financial reports and protection of consumer interests. AB 2987 (Núñez), Chapter 700, statutes of 2006 transferred regulatory oversight authority from local government to the PUC. 48. SUPPORT timely, full payments to counties by the State for programs operated on their behalf or by mandate. The State currently owes counties over $1 billion in State General Funds for social services program costs dating back to FY 2002-03. 49. SUPPORT full State participation in funding the County’s retiree and retiree health care unfunded liability. Counties perform most of their services on behalf of the State and Federal governments. Funding of retiree costs should be the responsibility of the State, to the same extent that the State is responsible for operational costs. Health Care Issues Counties remain concerned about any health care reform that could transfer responsibility to counties, without commensurate financing structures or in a manner not compatible with the County’s system. Counties support a concept of universal health coverage for all Californians. Toward that end, counties urge the state to enact a system of health coverage and care delivery that builds upon the strengths of the current systems in our state, including county-operated systems serving vulnerable populations. Currently, California has a complex array of existing coverage and delivery systems that serve many, but not all, Californians. Moving this array of systems into a universal coverage Contra Costa County 2011 State Platform 2011 State Platform 11 framework is a complex undertaking that requires sound analysis, thoughtful and deliberative planning, and a multi-year implementation process. As California moves forward with health care reform, counties urge the State to prevent reform efforts from exacerbating problems with existing service and funding. The State must also consider the differences across California counties and the impacts of reform efforts on the network of safety-net providers, including county providers. The end result of health reform must provide a strengthened health care delivery system for all Californians, including those served by the safety net. 50. SUPPORT State action to increase access and affordability. Access to care and affordability of care are critical components of any health reform plan. Expanding eligibility for existing programs will not provide access to care in significant areas of the state. Important improvements to our current programs, including Medi- Cal, must be made either prior to, or in concert with, a coverage expansion in order to ensure access. Coverage must be affordable for all Californians to access care. 51. SUPPORT Medi-Cal reimbursement rate increases to incentivize providers to participate in the program. 52. SUPPORT administrative streamlining of Medi-Cal, including elimination of the asset test and semi-annual reporting and changes to income verification. California should look to other states for ideas to reduce administrative costs, such as allowing all children born into Medi-Cal to remain on the program until age 21. 53. SUPPORT actions that address provider shortages (including physicians, particularly specialists, and nurses). Innovative programs, such as loan forgiveness programs, should be expanded. In an effort to recruit physicians from other states, the licensing and reciprocity requirements should be re-examined. Steps should be taken to reduce the amount of time it takes to obtain a Medi-Cal provider number (currently six to nine months). 54. SUPPORT efforts that implement comprehensive systems of care, including case management, for frequent users of emergency care and those with chronic diseases and/or dual diagnoses. Approaches could be modeled after current programs in place in safety net systems. 55. SUPPORT efforts that provide sufficient time for detailed data gathering of current safety funding in the system and the impact of any redirection of funds on remaining county responsibilities. The interconnectedness of county indigent health funding to public health, correctional health, mental health, alcohol and drug services and social services must be fully understood and accounted for in order to protect, and enhance as appropriate, funding for these related services. 56. OPPOSE safety net funding transfers until an analysis of who would remain uninsured (e.g. medically indigent adults, including citizens, who cannot Contra Costa County 2011 State Platform 2011 State Platform 12 document citizenship under current Medicaid eligibility rules) is completed in order to adequately fund services for these populations. 57. SUPPORT efforts to clearly define and adequately fund remaining county responsibilities. 58. SUPPORT State action to provide an analysis of current health care infrastructure (facilities and providers), including current safety net facilities across the state, to ensure that there are adequate providers and health care facilities, and that they can remain viable after health reform. 59. SUPPORT efforts to provide adequate financing for reforms to succeed. 60. SUPPORT measures that maximize Federal reimbursement from Medicaid and S-CHIP. 61. SUPPORT State action to complete actuarial studies on the costs of transferring indigent populations, who currently receive mostly episodic care, to a coverage model to ensure that there is adequate funding in the model. 62. SUPPORT efforts that ensure that safety net health care facilities remain viable during the transition period and be supported afterwards based on analyses of the changing health market and of the remaining safety net population. 63. SUPPORT State action to implement the 2010 Medi-Cal waiver in a manner that maximizes the drawdown of federal funds for services and facilities, provides flexibility, and ensures that counties receive their fair share of funding 64. SUPPORT efforts to increase revenues and to contain mandated costs in the County's hospital and clinics system. 65. SUPPORT efforts to increase the availability of health care to the uninsured in California, whether employed or not. 66. SUPPORT legislation that improves the quality of health care, whether through the use of technology, innovative delivery models or combining and better accessing various streams of revenue, including but not limited to acute and long term care integration. 67. SUPPORT legislation to protect safety net providers, both public and private. Legislation should focus on stabilizing Medi-Cal rates and delivery modes and should advocate that these actions are essential to the success of any effort to improve access and make health care more affordable. Currently there is no planned or organized system of care for young people and their families in need of alcohol and drug treatment services. Moreover there is a vast disparity between Contra Costa County 2011 State Platform 2011 State Platform 13 treatment need and treatment capacity for adolescents. Relative to the need and demand for this service, this is an area of the State's health care system that has been largely ignored. 68. SUPPORT State efforts to increase the scope of benefits and reimbursement rates contained in Minor Consent Medi-Cal to give youth suffering from substance abuse disorders access to a continuum of care, including residential and one-on-one outpatient treatment. 69. SUPPORT efforts to give incentives to providers to establish more youth-driven treatment facilities within the community. 70. SUPPORT efforts to extend Minor Consent Medi-Cal Coverage to incarcerated youths, many of whom are in custody due to drug related crimes. This could greatly decrease recidivism in the juvenile justice system. 71. SUPPORT county efforts in the promotion of partnerships that provide integrated responses to the needs of alcohol and drug populations, including criminal justice, perinatal and youth as well as those populations with co-occurring disorders. 72. SUPPORT and encourage the development of strategies that include alcohol and drug services in the provision of all culturally appropriate health care services. 73. SUPPORT the development and institutionalization of a tracking system for use on utilization and notification of Healthy Family substance abuse benefits for youths enrolled under California’s Health Family program. Like other youth in California, youth in Contra Costa County, are the most underserved population in the County’s Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) Services’ caseloads. The Healthy Family initiative holds great potential as a funding source to address this major deficit in our AOD treatment services. 74. SUPPORT efforts to require coverage of medically necessary alcohol and substance abuse related disorder treatment on the same levels as other medical conditions in health care service plans and disability insurance policies. Alcohol and drug treatment services are the most under-funded of all health services. Neither the state nor the federal allocations to the County covers medical treatment for AOD services, and so are a cost borne by the County . Human Services Issues 75. SUPPORT efforts to increase County flexibility in use of CalWORKs funds and in program requirements in order to better support the transition of welfare dependent families from welfare-to-work and self-sufficiency, including, but not limited to: extending supportive services beyond the current limit; enhancing supportive services; increasing diversion and early intervention to obviate the need for aid; developing a state earned income tax credit; expanding job retention services; developing an eligibility definition to 250% of the poverty level; Contra Costa County 2011 State Platform 2011 State Platform 14 and exempting the hard-to-serve from welfare-to-work activities and the 20% exemption or providing flexibility in the time limit (dependent upon terms and conditions of TANF reauthorization). Support efforts to align CalWORKs property and asset limitations with those of Food Stamps. All of these measures would make it easier for CalWORKs families to enter employment services, become employed, and continue with the support they need in order to maintain their jobs. 76. SUPPORT efforts to revise the definition of “homelessness” in the Welfare & Institutions Codes to include families who have received eviction notices due to a verified financial hardship, thus allowing early intervention assistance for CalWORKs families. Current law prevents CalWORKs from providing homeless assistance until the CalWORKs family is actually “on the street.” This rule change would enable the County to work with CalWORKs families who are being threatened with homelessness to prevent the eviction and, presumably, better maintain the parents’ employment status. 77. SUPPORT efforts to ensure funding of child care for CalWORKs and former CalWORKs families at levels sufficient to meet demand. The State of California has not fully funded the cost of child care for the “working poor.” Additional funding would allow more CalWORKs and post-CalWORKs families to become and/or stay employed. 78. SUPPORT efforts to establish an “umbrella code” for the reporting of incidents of elder abuse to the Department of Justice, thus more accurately recording the incidence of abuse. Current reporting policies within California’s law enforcement community and social services departments are uncoordinated in regards to the reporting of adult abuse. Under an “umbrella code,” law enforcement agencies and social services departments would uniformly report incidents of elder abuse and California would have much better data for policy and budget development purposes. 79. SUPPORT efforts that seek to identify and eliminate elder financial abuse and elder exposure to crime that may be committed through conservatorships. 80. SUPPORT efforts to reduce County costs for In-Home Supportive Services, including but not limited to extending the required reassessment period. There are many administrative tasks required in regulation for counties to follow in managing the In-Home Supportive Services program. Options for many of these tasks would lower administrative costs while maintaining program integrity. 81. SUPPORT efforts to eliminate the finger-imaging requirement for adult food stamp applicants, recognizing the fraud deterrent aspects of the Electronic Benefits Transfer System. Elimination of the finger-imaging requirement, which was originally implemented as a fraud control measure in the old welfare programs, is viewed by many as an unnecessary or duplicate process. The Contra Costa County 2011 State Platform 2011 State Platform 15 current electronic benefits transfer system combined with program eligibility processes provides more fraud prevention/detection than does finger-imaging. 82. SUPPORT efforts to allow phone-in Food Stamp Eligibility Redeterminations as a more cost effective benefit reassessment process. As counties such as Contra Costa change their business models to utilize centralized service centers, some of the antiquated process rules and requirements also need to be changed, to allow cost efficient practices. Changing the rules to allow phone-ins for Eligibility Redeterminations is one example. 83. SUPPORT efforts to continue expansion of Child Welfare Redesign Program Improvements including: use of Federal IV-E funding for pre-placement, prevention activities; development of caretaker recruitment and retention campaigns; extension of Independent Living Skill services to age 21; and, funding to implement Children’s Child Welfare Workload Study Results, SB 2030. Changes in these areas would enable counties to better meet their performance accountability goals, as required under Federal and State statutes. 84. SUPPORT efforts to allow Medi-Cal clients transportation access to medical care via the most efficient transportation mode possible instead of the very costly ambulance transportation that is currently prevalent. California is currently limited to the types of non-emergency medical transportation for reimbursement by Medi-Cal. However, the federal Medicaid program allows other much less costly forms of transportation to be used. Other states use this more permissive definition of approved non-emergency medical transportation to encourage Medicaid clients to receive preventative care and reduce the incidence of last- resort ambulance transportation to hospital emergency rooms for primary care. 85. OPPOSE any legislation that increases tobacco taxes but does not contain language to replace any funds lost to The California Children and Families Act/Trust Fund for local services as currently funded by tobacco taxes, Prop 10 in 1998 and Prop 99. 86. OPPOSE legislation, rules, regulations or policies that restrict or affect the amount of funds available to, or the local autonomy of, First 5 Commissions to allocate their funds in accordance with local needs. 87. SUPPORT efforts to restore funding in the amount of $80 Million for the Child Welfare Services Program that was line-item vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger in the State’s FY 2009-10 and FY 2010-11 budgets, as these reductions have a direct impact on local child protective services and the lives of children. 88. SUPPORT the LAO’s proposal to shift the mandate for AB 3632, mental health services for special education students, from counties to schools, and support a legislative requirement that the private insurance companies that ensure the Contra Costa County 2011 State Platform 2011 State Platform 16 parents of these children be required to provide funding for the necessary services. 89. SUPPORT efforts by the Contra Costa Local Planning Council for Child Care and Development and others to restore the FY 2010-11 state budget allocation to the FY 2009-10 levels for both the Local Planning Council for Child Care and Development Grant and the Child Care Retention Program (AB 212). The main mandates of the local planning councils (LPCs) include the following: providing a forum for local input into child care planning and services that includes parents, providers, and other community members; conducting assessments of child care need for all families at least every five years; and creating a county -wide child care plan. In addition, local planning councils are responsible for administering the AB 212 retention program for teachers in state -funded programs, and for facilitating the transfer of funds between contractors to maximize services to children all over the state. Indian Gaming Issues Contra Costa County is currently home to the Lytton Band of the Pomo Indians’ Casino in San Pablo, a Class II gaming facility. There are also proposals for two additional casinos in West County: one in North Richmond and the other in Point Molate. Local governments have limited authority in determining whether or not such facilities should be sited in their jurisdiction; the terms and conditions under which the facilities will operate; and what, if any, mitigation will be paid to offset the cost of increased services and lost revenues. Contra Costa County has been active in working with CSAC and others to address these issues, as well as the need for funding for participation in the Federal and State review processes and for mitigation for the existing Class II casino. 90. SUPPORT efforts to ensure that counties who have existing or proposed Class II Indian gaming facilities receive the Special Distribution Funds. 91. CONSIDER, on a case by case basis, whether or not to SUPPORT or OPPOSE Indian gaming facilities in Contra Costa County, and only SUPPORT facilities that are unique in nature and can demonstrate significant community benefits above and beyond the costs associated with mitigating community impacts. 92. OPPOSE the expansion or approval of Class III gaming machines at the existing gaming facility in Contra Costa County unless it can be demonstrated that there would be significant community benefits above and beyond the costs associated with mitigating community impacts. 93. SUPPORT State authority to tighten up the definition of a Class II machine. 94. SUPPORT State legislative and administration actions consistent with the CSAC policy documents on development on Indian Lands and Compact negotiations for Indian gaming. Contra Costa County 2011 State Platform 2011 State Platform 17 Land Use/Community Issues 95. SUPPORT efforts to promote economic incentives for "smart growth," including in-fill and transit-oriented development. Balancing the need for housing and economic growth with the urban limit line requirements of Measure J (2004) will rely on maximum utilization of “smart growth” principles. 96. SUPPORT efforts to increase the supply of affordable housing, including, but not limited to, state issuance of private activity bonds, affordable and low income housing bond measures, low-income housing tax credits and state infrastructure financing. This position supports Goals 2, 3 and 4 of the County General Plan Housing Element. 97. SUPPORT efforts to obtain a CEQA exemption for affordable housing lending undertaken by a city or county housing and community development or housing finance agency to provide financial assistance or insurance for the development and construction of affordable housing. CEQA exempts specified projects from its requirements, including an action taken by the State agencies to provide financial assistance or insurance for the development and construction of affordable housing if the project for financial assistance or insurance will be reviewed pursuant to CEQA by another public agency (Section 21080.10(b) of the California Public Resources Code). The exemption for State agencies engaged in affordable housing lending was adopted in 1980, before localities had a significant role in affordable housing lending. Today, localities are a major provider of affordable housing assistance, whereas the State role has diminished. Local agencies should not be treated differently from State agencies with respect to CEQA requirements and exemptions. Moreover, without this exemption, affordable housing projects not otherwise exempt by virtue of “by right” provisions in State law could be subject to “double jeopardy,” whereby they would be subject to CEQA during entitlements and subject to CEQA during financing. AB 2518 (Houston) in 2006 was a Contra Costa County-sponsored bill to accomplish this, but it was not successful in the Legislature. 98. SUPPORT efforts to obtain a CEQA exemption for infill development in unincorporated areas. Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines is a Categorical Exemption for infill development projects but only within cities. The exemption should also include urbanized unincorporated areas. The proposal would affect the County’s affordable housing, revitalization, and redevelopment programs in all unincorporated urbanized areas of the County. Without the exemption, housing projects in the unincorporated areas are subject to a more time- consuming and costly process in order to comply with the CEQA guidelines than that which is required of cities, despite having similar housing obligations. 99. SUPPORT efforts to amend Section 65915 of the Government Code (amended in 2004 by SB 1818 - Hollingsworth) so that State law enhances rather than Contra Costa County 2011 State Platform 2011 State Platform 18 inhibits local efforts to increase the supply of affordable housing. The provisions of law regarding density bonuses and inducements to them should be clarified and simplified in order to encourage this avenue for affordable housing production. 100. SUPPORT efforts to reform State housing element law to promote the actual production and preservation of affordable housing and to focus less on process and paper compliance. 101. OPPOSE efforts to limit the County’s ability to exercise local land use authority. 102. SUPPORT increased flexibility in the use of Redevelopment set-aside funds for low and moderate income housing. Such flexibility would encourage creative use of these funds, resulting in higher overall production of units. 103. SUPPORT efforts to reduce the fiscalization of land use decision-making by local government, which favors retail uses over other job-creating uses and housing. Reducing incentives for inappropriate land use decisions, particularly those that negatively affect neighboring jurisdictions, could result in more rational and harmonious land use. 104. SUPPORT allocations, appropriations, and policies that support and leverage the benefits of approved Natural Community Conservation Plans (NCCPs), such as the East Contra Costa County NCCP. Support the granting of approximately $20 million to the East Contra Costa County NCCP from the $90 million allocation for NCCPs in Proposition 84. Support the position that NCCPs are an effective strategy for addressing the impacts of climate change and encourage appropriate recognition of the NCCP tool in implementation of climate change legislation such as SB 375 and AB 32. Promote effective implementation of NCCPs as a top priority for the Department of Fish and Game. Law and Justice System Issues 105. SUPPORT legislation that seeks to curb metal theft by making it easier for law enforcement agencies to track stolen metals sold to scrap dealers through such means as requiring identification from customers selling commonly stolen metals, banning cash transactions over a certain amount, and requiring scrap dealers to hold materials they buy for a certain period of time before melting them down or reselling them. 106. SUPPORT full funding of the state Juvenile Probation and Camps Funding (JPCF). In FY 2004-05, the State eliminated Probation’s allocation of federal Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) funds and backfilled them with state Vehicle License Fees that are due to sunset on June 30, 2011. At risk is approximately $6 million of revenue that supports the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility, Juvenile Electronic Monitoring Program, and Juvenile Contra Costa County 2011 State Platform 2011 State Platform 19 Supervision Services. The potential loss of additional juvenile probation officers would also cause a reduction of approximately $1.75 million dollars in Federal Title IV-E revenue for a total negative impact of almost $8 million. 107. SUPPORT Adult Probation Funding that would provide State funding for adult probation services to enhance public safety and provide realistic opportunities for the rehabilitation of probationers. Implementing evidence-based practices can potentially reduce the prison-bound probation population by between 10 and 30 percent. Intervening with this population of prison-bound probationers to increase supervision and treatment services can have a significant impact on prison admissions and help to reduce prison overcrowding in California. 108. SUPPORT legislation that provides a practical and efficient solution to addressing the problem of abandoned and trespassing vessels and ground tackle in an administrative process that allows the California State Lands Commission to both remove and dispose of such vessels and unpermitted ground tackle. Boat owners in increasing numbers are abandoning both recreational and commercial vessels in areas within the Commission’s jurisdiction. Our state waterways are becoming clogged with hulks that break up, leak, sink and add pollutants to our waterways and marine habitat. 109. SUPPORT legislation that removes the sunset of Vehicle License Fees designated for law enforcement agencies that are currently set to expire on June 30, 2011. The financial impact for the Sheriff’s Office, Probation Depar tment, District Attorney, and other police departments would be well over $12 million. Levee Issues, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Issues The County’s Delta Water Platform was developed in mid-2008 to consolidate and organize the many County policies and positions into one document that could be utilized to guide actions and advocacy to promote a healthy Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The Delta Water Platform is comprised of fourteen subject areas. Each of these subject categories contains relevant policies and background explanatory language. Each subject category is summarized below; the first five are considered priorities. The policies and background information can be found in the Delta Water Platform, which is included in this document by reference: Short Term Actions to be implemented immediately: Includes a broad range of specific, relatively non-controversial actions to quickly improve the state of the Delta, such as improvements to levees, the fishery, habitat and emergency response. Conveyance: Through-Delta and Isolated Conveyance: Consideration of isolated conveyance must protect and improve the Delta and the entire Bay-Delta ecosystem, include the broadest range of non-biased scientific analysis of impacts, include levee repair and all costs of a facility must be paid by beneficiaries. Contra Costa County 2011 State Platform 2011 State Platform 20 The Delta Ecosystem: Protection and restoration of an ailing Delta ecosystem has long been a priority of the Board of Supervisors, including need for additional scientific research to address fundamental questions, fishery and habitat restoration projects. Governance: A new or improved system of oversight related to ecosystem and water management is necessary. The existing Delta Protection Commission land use governance structure has been successful, requiring no further action. Local Government representation in any governance structure is paramount. Levee Restoration: Advocacy for immediate and significant (multi-year) funding and levee repair is a priority, including upgrades to minimum (PL 84 99) standards for all levees, and a higher, 200-year level of protection for communities protected by levees. Stockpiling rock in the Delta specifically for levee repair and continuance of the Long Term Management Strategy (LTMS) are highly recommended. Water Quality, Water Quality and Delta Outflow: Protection and improvement of water quality, quantity and outflow, determination and assurance of adequate water for the delta ecosystem and examination of the State and Federal project operations (including potential for reduced exports) are recommended here. Flood Protection/Floodplain Management: Comprehensive flood management planning throughout the Delta and its watersheds, as well as funding to bring flood facilities to 200-year levels and revenue generation for flood control districts continue to be of import. Water Rights and Legislative Protections: Existing area-of-origin and other water rights protections established for the Delta should be preserved. Regional Self-Sufficiency: All export regions should be implementing all water supply options available to them to reduce stress on the Delta as a limited resource. Emergency Response: Collaborative efforts among the Delta counties to improve emergency response in the region have been productive and are continuing. Water Conservation: Landscape and household conservation, maximizing use of reclaimed wastewater, use of meters, and agricultural water conservation are recommended. Water Storage: Multi-purpose storage facilities are recommended and groundwater storage preferred to surface storage options. Detailed groundwater studies are recommended. San Luis Drain/Grasslands Bypass: Long-standing opposition to selenium discharges from this project entering the Delta and support of in-valley treatment solutions are Contra Costa County 2011 State Platform 2011 State Platform 21 ongoing. Continued reduction in drainage from the Grasslands Bypass project is also monitored. Climate Change: Impacts of climate change must be considered in planning, engineering and construction activities. 110. ADVOCATE for administrative and legislative action to provide significant funding for rehabilitation of levees in the western and central Delta. Proposition 1E, passed in November 2006, provides for over $3 billion for levees, primarily those in the Central Valley Flood Control Program. Language is included in the bond for other Delta levees but funding is not specifically directed. The County will work on a coalition basis to actively advocate for $1 billion in funding through this bond. 111. ADVOCATE for legislation dealing with the Delta, including levees and levee programs, level and type of flood protection, beneficiary-pays programs, flood insurance, liability and other levee/land use issues. 112. SUPPORT legislation/regulation requiring Reclamation Districts to develop, publish, and maintain hazard emergency plans for their districts. Emergency response plans are critical to emergency management, particularly in an area or situation like the Delta where a levee break could trigger other emergencies. This legislation/regulation should also include the requirement for plan review and annual distribution of the plan to the residents of the district, County Office of Emergency Services and other government agencies that have emergency response interests within the district. Library Issues 113. SUPPORT State financial assistance in the operation of public libraries, including full funding of the Public Library Fund (PLF) and the Direct/Interlibrary Loan (Transaction Based Reimbursement) program. 114. SUPPORT State bonds for public library construction. The 2000 library construction bond provided funding for two libraries in Contra Costa County. There is currently a need of approximately $289,000,000 for public library construction, expansion and renovation in Contra Costa County. 115. SUPPORT continued funding for the California Library Literacy and English Acquisition Services Program, which provides matching funds for public library adult literacy programs that offer free, confidential, one-on-one basic literacy instruction to English-speaking adults who want to improve their reading, writing, and spelling skills. Contra Costa County 2011 State Platform 2011 State Platform 22 Telecommunications Issues 116. SUPPORT clean-up legislation on AB 2987 that provides for local emergency notifications similar to provisions in cable franchises for the last 20 years. Currently our franchises require the cable systems to carry emergency messages in the event of local emergencies. With the occurrence of several local refinery incidents, this service is critical for Contra Costa. Under federal law, Emergency Alert System requirements leave broad discretion to broadcasters to decide when and what information to broadcast, emergency management offices to communicate with the public in times of emergencies. 117. SUPPORT preservation of local government ownership and control of the local public rights-of-way. Currently, local government has authority over the time, place, and manner in which infrastructure is placed in their rights-of-way. The California Public Utilities Commission is considering rulemaking that would give them jurisdiction to decide issues between local government and telecommunication providers. Transportation Issues 118. SUPPORT increased flexibility in the use of transportation funds. The County supports an amendment to the Subdivision Map Act to allow the use of off-site transportation impact fees to fund pedestrian, bicycle transit and traffic calming facilities necessitated by new development. The Act currently limits the use of these funds to improvements to bridges and “major thoroughfares.” Senator DeSaulnier introduced such a bill in 2008. The County’s proposal was adopted by CSAC for its legislative platform in the 2011 session. The proposal would provide more flexibility in how we can use an existing transportation funding source. 119. SUPPORT regional coordination that provides for local input in addressing transportation needs. Coordinated planning and delivery of public transit, paratransit, and rail services will help ensure the best possible service delivery to the public. Regional coordination also will be needed to effectively deal with the traffic impacts of Indian gaming casinos such as those in West County. Regional coordination also will be essential to complete planning and development of important regional transportation projects such as State Route 239, improvements to Vasco Road, completion of remaining segments of the Bay Trail, improvements to the Delta DeAnza Regional Trail, and the proposed California Delta Trail. There may be interest in seeking enhanced local input requirements for developing the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the Bay Area mandated by SB 375 for greenhouse gas reduction. It is important that the regional coordination efforts are based on input gathered from the local level, to Contra Costa County 2011 State Platform 2011 State Platform 23 ensure the regional approach does not negatively impact local communities. “Top-down” regional planning efforts would be inconsistent with this goal. 120. SUPPORT efforts to improve safety throughout the transportation system. The County supports new and expanded projects and programs to improve safety for bicyclists, pedestrians and wheelchair users, as well as projects to improve safety on high-accident transportation facilities such as Vasco Road. Data on transportation safety would be improved by including global positioning system (GPS) location data for every reported accident to assist in safety analysis and planning. The County also supports school safety improvement programs such as crossing guards, Safe Routes to Schools (SR2S) grants, efforts to improve the safety and security of freight transportation system including public and private maritime ports, airports, rail yards, railroad lines and sidings. The County also supports limits or elimination of public liability for installing traffic-calming devices on residential neighborhood streets. 121. SUPPORT funding or incentives for the use of renewable resources in transportation construction projects. The County seeks and supports grant programs, tax credits for manufacturers, state purchasing programs, and other incentives for local jurisdictions to use environmentally friendly materials such as the rubberized asphalt (made from recycled tires) that the County has used as paving material on San Pablo Dam Road and Pacheco Boulevard. 122. SUPPORT streamlining the delivery of transportation safety projects. The length of time and amount of paperwork should be reduced to bring a transportation safety project more quickly through the planning, engineering and design, environmental review, funding application, and construction phases, such as for Vasco Road. This could include streamlining the environmental review process and also streamlining all state permitting requirements that pertain to transportation projects. Realistic deadlines for use of federal transportation funds would help local jurisdictions deliver complex projects without running afoul of federal time limits which are unrealistically tight for complex projects. 123. SUPPORT efforts to coordinate development of state-funded facilities such as courts, schools, jails and state offices with local planning. The County supports coordinating planning between school districts and local jurisdictions in locating and planning new schools and funding programs that foster collaboration to help finance off-site transportation improvements for access to schools. 124. SUPPORT regional aviation transportation planning efforts for coordinated aviation network planning to improve service delivery. Regional aviation coordination could also improve the surrounding surface transportation system by providing expanded local options for people and goods movement. 125. SUPPORT efforts to increase waterborne transport of goods and obtaining funds to support this effort. The San Francisco to Stockton Ship Channel is a major Contra Costa County 2011 State Platform 2011 State Platform 24 transportation route for the region, providing water access to a large number of industries and the Ports of Sacramento and Stockton. A project is underway to deepen the channel, providing additional capacity to accommodate increasing commerce needs of the Ports and providing better operational flexibility for the other industries. Increased goods movement via waterways has clear benefits to congestion management on highways and railroads (with resultant air quality benefits). 126. SUPPORT legislative efforts to re-authorize Vasco Road as a Double-Fine Zone and to add the Double-Fine Zone designation to the State Route 4 Bypass. SB 3 (Torlakson, 2006) established a Double Fine Zone (DFZ) for Vasco Road. Additionally, in the wake of a number of similar legislative requests, SB 3 became the focus of specific legislative direction to provide a standard set of criteria and terms governing DFZ’s, while approving the extension of the Vasco Road DFZ through 2010. Waste Management 127. SUPPORT legislation that establishes producer responsibility for management of their products at the end of their useful life. 128. SUPPORT legislation that would make changes to the used tire redemption program. Instead of collecting a disposal fee from the consumer when new tires are purchased, a disposal fee would be collected at the wholesale level and redeemed by the disposal site when the used tires are brought to the site. The party bringing the tires to the disposal site would also receive a portion of the fee. 129. SUPPORT efforts to increase the development of markets for recycled materials. EXHIBIT A -- Redevelopment Agency Project/Program Status Report Commitment Driver Source Under Contract Contract/ Amendment Pending Budget Business Agreement Legal Tax Increment Bonds Contra Costa Centre Hookston Relocation $600,000 xx Placemaking - Civic Use/Bike Station $1,750,000 xx Station Enhancement $725,000 xx x Areawide Infrastructure $1,000,000 xx Hookston HazMat $500,000 xx Wayfinding $645,000 xx Hookston Landscaping $50,000 xx Iron Horse Overcrossing $75,000 xx Transit Village Technical Consultants $50,000 xx x North Richmond Specific Plan Implementation $1,900,000 xx Third Street Enhancements $311,677 xx x CHDC Office Expansion $150,000 xx Industrial Area Infrastructure $3,000,000 xx Truck Route Implementation $6,000,000 xx Heritage Point Predevelopment $210,000 xx Heritage Point Land Assemblage $833,000 xx xx Enterprise Zone Application $50,000 xx Los Deltas Reuse $40,000 xx Industrial Area General Plan Amend $150,000 xx Parkway Tot Lot $50,000 xx Abatement Revolving Loan Fund $25,000 xx Blight Removal Activities $10,000 xx Community Preservation $265,000 xx Homebuyer Resale Revolving Loan $209,000 xx Bay Point Orbisonia Heights Land Assembly $2,473,000 xx xx BART Specific Plan Infrastructure $420,000 xx Enterprise Zone Marketing $15,000 xx x Youth homes $310,000 xxx Homebuyer Resale Transaction costs $219,000 xx Community Preservation $25,000 xx Rodeo Parker Ave Capitalized Maintenance $60,000 xx x Rodeo Creek Improvements $200,000 xx x Downtown Infrastructure $4,700,000 xx Waterfront HazMat Remediation $40,000 xx x Waterfront Infrastructure $1,200,000 xx x Community Preservation $470,183 xxx Town Plaza Mixed-Use Project $1,741,000 xxx Montalvin Manor San Pablo Ave./Kay Road Ped Impvts $776,751 xx x Totals $2,040,000 $29,208,611 2010-11 AB8 Apportionment Factors FY 2009-10 Pass-Through Revenues Fund Name Gross RDA Net FY 2009-10 Contra Costa Revenue Increment Revenue Pass-Through Est County 100300 County General 187,956,276.13 (20,542,788.47) 167,413,487.66 5,040,448.00 (15,502,340.47) 120600 County Library 20,948,038.25 (2,217,284.60) 18,730,753.65 539,690.00 (1,677,594.60) 202000 CCC Fire Protection 92,741,023.52 (15,085,377.81) 77,655,645.71 3,126,813.00 (11,958,564.81) 202800 Crockett Carquinez Fire 401,960.23 0.00 401,960.23 0.00 240100 Service Area L-100 841,520.44 (104,362.89) 737,157.55 65.00 (104,297.89) 247000 Service Area M-1 29,248.60 0.00 29,248.60 0.00 247500 Service Area M-29 51,983.64 0.00 51,983.64 0.00 248800 Service Area M-16 Clyde 20,512.38 0.00 20,512.38 0.00 248900 Service Area M-17 Montalvin 137,221.15 (3,796.34) 133,424.81 (3,796.34) 249200 Service Area M-20 Rodeo 9,205.30 0.00 9,205.30 0.00 249400 Svc Area RD4Bethel Isle 6,498.44 0.00 6,498.44 0.00 249600 Svc Area M23 Blackhawk 1,711,299.94 0.00 1,711,299.94 0.00 250500 Flood Control CCC Water 2,626,132.56 (284,110.52) 2,342,022.04 93,625.00 (190,485.52) 252000 Flood Control Zone 3B 4,277,692.32 (333,924.59) 3,943,767.73 6,310.00 (327,614.59) 252100 Flood Cont Z1 Marsh Crk 1,324,660.63 (111,368.80) 1,213,291.83 (111,368.80) 252700 Flood Control Zone 7 97,722.02 (49,570.33) 48,151.69 2,843.00 (46,727.33) 253000 Flood Control Zone 8 20,931.93 (5,684.91) 15,247.02 (5,684.91) 253100 Flood Control Zone 8A 28,726.18 (9,196.19) 19,529.99 (9,196.19) 255000 Flood Cont Drainage 290 1,361.17 0.00 1,361.17 0.00 255100 Flood Cont Drainage 300 3,217.07 0.00 3,217.07 0.00 255200 Flood Cont Drainage A13 237,647.29 0.00 237,647.29 0.00 255400 Flood Cont Drainage 10 280,043.69 (36,343.84) 243,699.85 11,624.00 (24,719.84) 256300 Flood Cont Drainage 127 16,784.93 (6,729.96) 10,054.97 420.00 (6,309.96) 258300 Flood Cont Drainage 16 59,477.71 0.00 59,477.71 0.00 265200 S/A Pl 2 Danville 7,018.39 0.00 7,018.39 0.00 265300 S/A Pl-2 Zone A 114,843.08 0.00 114,843.08 0.00 265500 S/A Pl 5 Round Hill 196,609.55 0.00 196,609.55 0.00 265600 S/A Pl 6 3,297,103.17 (169,472.88) 3,127,630.29 2,012.00 (167,460.88) 265700 S/A Pl-2 Zone B 137,305.82 0.00 137,305.82 0.00 270200 S/A Lib-2 El Sobrante 81,654.50 (0.33) 81,654.17 (0.33) 271000 S/A Lib-10 Pinole 936.17 0.00 936.17 0.00 271200 S/A Lib-12 Moraga 8,794.61 0.00 8,794.61 0.00 271300 S/A Lib-13 Ygnacio 108,487.03 0.00 108,487.03 0.00 275100 Svc Area R-4 Moraga 25,684.04 0.00 25,684.04 0.00 275800 Svc Area R-7 Zone A 815,506.55 0.00 815,506.55 0.00 282500 Co Co Co Water Agency 502,481.50 (55,761.50) 446,720.00 255.00 (55,506.50) (39,015,773.96) 280,109,835.97 8,824,105.00 (30,191,668.96) 300500 San Ramon Valley Fire 49,858,569.17 (1,609,392.26) 48,249,176.91 (1,609,392.26) 300700 Kensington Fire 2,788,828.85 0.00 2,788,828.85 0.00 301100 Rodeo-Hercules Fire 3,712,602.97 (1,013,496.22) 2,699,106.75 (1,013,496.22) 306000 East Contra Costa Fire 8,765,376.29 (520,652.70) 8,244,723.59 (520,652.70) 307400 Moraga-Orinda Fire 16,682,175.77 0.00 16,682,175.77 0.00 310200 Co Co Resource Cons 206,481.68 (18,407.54) 188,074.14 (18,407.54) 324000 Crockett Community Svcs 253,074.79 0.00 253,074.79 0.00 325500 Kensingtn Community Svc 1,255,706.66 0.00 1,255,706.66 0.00 326000 Diablo Community Svc 314,197.01 0.00 314,197.01 0.00 330100 CCC Mosquito Abate Dst1 3,811,018.06 (368,287.55) 3,442,730.51 (368,287.55) 340600 Central CC Sanitary 12,559,304.84 (626,461.98) 11,932,842.86 (626,461.98) 340900 Mt View Sanitary 278,521.68 0.00 278,521.68 0.00 341100 Ironhouse Sanitary 210,146.77 (25,309.91) 184,836.86 (25,309.91) 341400 Rodeo Sanitary 304,255.82 (96,298.66) 207,957.16 (96,298.66) 341600 West Sanitary 1,117,756.40 (261,337.53) 856,418.87 (261,337.53) 341800 Stege Sanitary 361,493.58 (43,824.83) 317,668.75 (43,824.83) 342200 Byron Sanitary 23,809.43 0.00 23,809.43 0.00 343000 Twn of Discovry Bay (Comm Svc Dis 460,842.65 0.00 460,842.65 0.00 1 2/8/2011 2010-11 AB8 Apportionment Factors FY 2009-10 Pass-Through Revenues Fund Name Gross RDA Net FY 2009-10 Contra Costa Revenue Increment Revenue Pass-Through Est County 348000 Delta Diablo Z1 W Pittsburg 540,244.03 (230,875.79) 309,368.24 (230,875.79) 348100 Delta Diablo Z2 Pittsburg 1,235,438.48 (835,097.32) 400,341.16 (835,097.32) 348200 Delta Diablo Z3 Antioch 973,311.67 (159,116.61) 814,195.06 (159,116.61) 351500 Los Medanos Healthcare 1,307,440.65 (719,181.53) 588,259.12 (719,181.53) 352000 Mt Diablo Healthcare 284,742.02 (41,659.26) 243,082.76 (41,659.26) 352500 West CCC Healthcare 3,543,932.35 (764,893.26) 2,779,039.09 (764,893.26) 360100 Alamo-Lafayette Cemetery 229,772.72 (7,040.46) 222,732.26 (7,040.46) 360300 B B K Union Cemetery 394,998.22 (23,769.61) 371,228.61 (23,769.61) 370000 Ambrose Rec & Park 611,371.39 (248,095.65) 363,275.74 (248,095.65) 371500 Green Valley Rec & Park 39,580.59 0.00 39,580.59 0.00 373500 Pleasant Hill Rec & Park 3,023,259.82 (520,625.09) 2,502,634.73 (520,625.09) 374000 Rolling-Willart Rec&Park 19,469.85 0.00 19,469.85 0.00 377000 Bethel Isle Muni Imp 396,247.94 0.00 396,247.94 0.00 380300 Co Co Co Water 2,430,432.61 (385,806.52) 2,044,626.09 (385,806.52) 383000 Castle Rock Co Water 11,069.70 0.00 11,069.70 0.00 400100 East Bay Muni Utility 11,700,912.65 (1,046,758.65) 10,654,154.00 (1,046,758.65) 400200 EBMUD Special District 1 337,714.16 (40,754.09) 296,960.07 (40,754.09) 400700 A-C Transit Spec Dist 1 8,155,442.75 (1,553,465.33) 6,601,977.42 (1,553,465.33) 400900 BART 9,463,645.39 (1,022,442.70) 8,441,202.69 (1,022,442.70) 401000 Bay Area Air Poll Cont 2,758,562.28 (298,077.40) 2,460,484.88 (298,077.40) 401600 Ed Phys Handic'd Elem 4,469.61 0.00 4,469.61 0.00 401800 Livermore Jt Unified 213,983.18 0.00 213,983.18 0.00 402000 Chabot-Las Positas Comm College 232,302.74 0.00 232,302.74 0.00 402200 Dev Ctr Handi'd Minor 800.12 0.00 800.12 0.00 402500 Dublin San Ramon Svc 419,139.79 0.00 419,139.79 0.00 402600 East Bay Regional Park 41,138,286.51 (4,614,939.11) 36,523,347.40 (4,614,939.11) 402900 Trainable M.R. Alameda 2,016.16 0.00 2,016.16 0.00 411000 Reclamation Dist 800 Exp 640,787.11 0.00 640,787.11 0.00 411100 Discovery Bay Recl/Drng 35,035.06 0.00 35,035.06 0.00 418000 East Co Co Irrigation 2,255,922.93 (209,363.01) 2,046,559.92 (209,363.01) 418100 Byron-Bethany Irrigation 801,556.09 0.00 801,556.09 0.00 420100 City of Clayton 1,090,245.73 (346,266.97) 743,978.76 (346,266.97) 420200 City of Concord 12,585,844.39 (1,693,266.20) 10,892,578.19 (1,693,266.20) 420300 City of Brentwood 7,184,078.60 (776,472.61) 6,407,605.99 (776,472.61) 420400 City of San Pablo 1,241,824.98 (919,943.40) 321,881.58 (919,943.40) 420500 City of El Cerrito 6,710,562.36 (1,082,596.39) 5,627,965.97 (1,082,596.39) 420600 City of Walnut Creek 11,376,064.91 (347,946.29) 11,028,118.62 (347,946.29) 420700 City of Pleasant Hill 2,532,400.01 (243,544.10) 2,288,855.91 (243,544.10) 420800 City of Martinez 6,439,837.14 0.00 6,439,837.14 0.00 420900 City of Antioch 7,951,209.62 (862,227.82) 7,088,981.80 (862,227.82) 421000 City of Pittsburg 8,837,007.51 (6,201,527.91) 2,635,479.60 (6,201,527.91) 421100 City of Hercules 1,452,126.58 (532,707.45) 919,419.13 (532,707.45) 421200 City of Pinole 3,424,976.73 (1,683,693.13) 1,741,283.60 (1,683,693.13) 421300 Richmond Tax District 1 23,445,268.75 (4,262,129.03) 19,183,139.72 (4,262,129.03) 421400 City of Lafayette 3,660,121.91 (239,595.58) 3,420,526.33 (239,595.58) 421500 Town of Moraga 1,556,174.19 0.00 1,556,174.19 0.00 421600 Town of Danville 7,121,588.84 (196,554.00) 6,925,034.84 (196,554.00) 421700 City of San Ramon 11,963,889.01 (622,345.84) 11,341,543.17 (622,345.84) 421800 City of Orinda 3,535,147.51 0.00 3,535,147.51 0.00 421900 City of Oakley 1,777,766.85 (207,826.28) 1,569,940.57 (207,826.28) 422700 Richmond Tax District 3 7,181,586.09 (245,980.88) 6,935,605.21 (245,980.88) 423000 Richmond Sewer 1 211,310.62 (40,906.91) 170,403.71 (40,906.91) 423100 Brentwood Rec & Park 1,488,404.23 (178,881.06) 1,309,523.17 (178,881.06) 423200 San Ramon M-29 1,908,360.89 0.00 1,908,360.89 0.00 424000 Pleasant Hill Lgt Dist 1 409,168.74 (37,170.13) 371,998.61 (37,170.13) 424100 Walnut Creek/Svc Area R-8 468,057.18 (14,541.15) 453,516.03 (14,541.15) 2 2/8/2011 2010-11 AB8 Apportionment Factors FY 2009-10 Pass-Through Revenues Fund Name Gross RDA Net FY 2009-10 Contra Costa Revenue Increment Revenue Pass-Through Est County 424800 Clayton Light Mtce 1 32,739.45 (5,413.60) 27,325.85 (5,413.60) 425200 Martinez Pine Ridge Mtce 5,577.80 0.00 5,577.80 0.00 425300 Martinez Parking Dist 1 55,239.63 0.00 55,239.63 0.00 426300 Lafayette Core Area Mtc 125,384.73 (63,299.51) 62,085.22 (63,299.51) 426400 Lafayette St Lt Mtce Z1 7,777.35 (621.47) 7,155.88 (621.47) 427100 Concord Vly Terr StLtMtc 2,753.69 0.00 2,753.69 0.00 427200 Concord Kirkwood Mtce 1 40,818.50 0.00 40,818.50 0.00 427400 Concord Blhn Terr St Lt 736.10 0.00 736.10 0.00 427500 Pl Hill-Diablo Vista Wtr 139,080.04 0.00 139,080.04 0.00 428000 Antioch Parking Mtce 1A 22,541.37 (562.27) 21,979.10 (562.27) 428500 Moraga St Lt Mtce 1 115,685.48 0.00 115,685.48 0.00 429400 Oakley Police Services 307,502.90 (32,857.18) 274,645.72 (32,857.18) 470100 Antioch 0.00 4,309,336.85 4,309,336.85 4,309,336.85 470200 Antioch Project 2 0.00 1,029,319.59 1,029,319.59 1,029,319.59 470300 Antioch Project 3 0.00 43,263.46 43,263.46 43,263.46 470400 Antioch Project 4 0.00 1,187,153.49 1,187,153.49 1,187,153.49 470500 Antioch Project 4 Amd 1 0.00 625,570.57 625,570.57 625,570.57 470600 Brentwood Project 0.00 1,783,619.77 1,783,619.77 1,783,619.77 470700 Brentwood Amendment 1 0.00 693,390.55 693,390.55 693,390.55 470800 North Brentwood 0.00 2,984,476.79 2,984,476.79 2,984,476.79 470900 North Brentwood Amd 2 0.00 306,503.64 306,503.64 306,503.64 471000 Central Concord 0.00 14,765,102.04 14,765,102.04 14,765,102.04 471100 Concord Commerce 0.00 540,637.87 540,637.87 540,637.87 471200 Cent Concord RDA Amnd 0.00 494,048.94 494,048.94 494,048.94 471400 Clayton 0.00 5,063,460.42 5,063,460.42 5,063,460.42 471600 Hercules Dynamite 0.00 5,750,131.36 5,750,131.36 5,750,131.36 471700 Hercules Project 2 0.00 3,854,302.92 3,854,302.92 3,854,302.92 471800 Hercules Merged Dyn & Proj2 0.00 144,785.89 144,785.89 144,785.89 472000 El Cerrito 0.00 4,868,049.28 4,868,049.28 4,868,049.28 472100 El Cerrito Area II 0.00 1,599.25 1,599.25 1,599.25 472500 Pinole Vista 0.00 5,496,674.97 5,496,674.97 5,496,674.97 472600 Pinole Vista 81 0.00 3,493,540.59 3,493,540.59 3,493,540.59 472800 Oakley Project 2 0.00 100,996.72 100,996.72 100,996.72 473000 Pittsburg Marina 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 473100 Pittsburg Riverside 0.00 262,387.79 262,387.79 262,387.79 473200 Pittsburg Neighborhood I 0.00 948,091.27 948,091.27 948,091.27 473300 Pittsbrg Neighborhood II 0.00 418,753.84 418,753.84 418,753.84 473400 Pittsburg/Los Medanos I 0.00 22,167,860.36 22,167,860.36 22,167,860.36 473500 Pittsburg/Los Medanos II 0.00 3,175,079.83 3,175,079.83 3,175,079.83 473600 Pittsburg/Los Medanos III 0.00 9,890,619.88 9,890,619.88 9,890,619.88 473700 Richmond 8A - 2000 Amd 0.00 784,759.31 784,759.31 784,759.31 473800 Richmond 10A - 2000 Amd 0.00 668,256.09 668,256.09 668,256.09 473900 Richmond 1A - 2000 Amd 0.00 114,826.82 114,826.82 114,826.82 474000 Richmond 1A 0.00 333,147.58 333,147.58 333,147.58 474100 Richmond 8A 0.00 699,220.88 699,220.88 699,220.88 474200 Richmond 10A 0.00 690,815.41 690,815.41 690,815.41 474300 Richmond 10B 0.00 53,312.99 53,312.99 53,312.99 474400 Richmond 11A 0.00 9,723,055.38 9,723,055.38 9,723,055.38 474500 Richmond 12A 0.00 56,801.33 56,801.33 56,801.33 474600 Richmond 8A Henley 0.00 50,913.64 50,913.64 50,913.64 474700 Richmond 1B 0.00 89,683.45 89,683.45 89,683.45 474800 Richmond 1C 0.00 870,821.56 870,821.56 870,821.56 474900 Richmond 3A 0.00 806,898.26 806,898.26 806,898.26 475000 Walnut Creek-So Broadway 0.00 912,161.55 912,161.55 912,161.55 475100 Walnut Creek-Mt Diablo 0.00 2,713,830.23 2,713,830.23 2,713,830.23 3 2/8/2011 2010-11 AB8 Apportionment Factors FY 2009-10 Pass-Through Revenues Fund Name Gross RDA Net FY 2009-10 Contra Costa Revenue Increment Revenue Pass-Through Est County 475200 Richmond 6A - 2000 Amd 0.00 21,145.81 21,145.81 21,145.81 475300 Richmond 10B - 2000 Amd 0.00 12,804.34 12,804.34 12,804.34 475400 Richmond 6A AMND 1 0.00 387,573.68 387,573.68 387,573.68 475500 Richmond 6A 0.00 542,096.67 542,096.67 542,096.67 475600 Danville Downtown 0.00 2,514,218.64 2,514,218.64 2,514,218.64 475700 Richmond 11A - 2000 Amd 0.00 9,734.97 9,734.97 9,734.97 475800 Richmond 10B - 2006 Amd 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 476000 San Pablo-So Entrance 0.00 346,911.75 346,911.75 346,911.75 476100 San Pablo-El Portal 0.00 1,994,578.61 1,994,578.61 1,994,578.61 476200 San Pablo-El Portal 79 0.00 2,390,816.16 2,390,816.16 2,390,816.16 476300 San Pablo-Oak Park 0.00 795,978.23 795,978.23 795,978.23 476400 San Pablo-Sheffield 0.00 281,938.39 281,938.39 281,938.39 476500 San Pablo-Bayview 0.00 1,405,636.34 1,405,636.34 1,405,636.34 476600 San Pablo-El Portal 80 0.00 1,152,695.99 1,152,695.99 1,152,695.99 476700 San Pablo-Oak Park 79 0.00 51,235.08 51,235.08 51,235.08 476800 San Pablo-Bayview 80 0.00 122,049.67 122,049.67 122,049.67 476900 San Pablo-Legacy 0.00 826,975.84 826,975.84 826,975.84 477000 Pleasant Hill Commons 0.00 2,767,749.59 2,767,749.59 2,767,749.59 477100 Pleasant Hill Commons 1A 0.00 90,972.81 90,972.81 90,972.81 477200 Plsnt Hill Schoolyrd Anx 0.00 882,659.23 882,659.23 882,659.23 477300 Pleasant Hill Commons 2001 0.00 743,866.85 743,866.85 743,866.85 477400 Pleasant Hill Commons 2009 Amd 0.00 18,970.67 18,970.67 18,970.67 477500 Lafayette 0.00 3,895,955.34 3,895,955.34 3,895,955.34 477700 San Ramon 0.00 8,682,977.01 8,682,977.01 8,682,977.01 478000 CoCoCo Pleasnt Hill BART 0.00 7,253,120.62 7,253,120.62 7,253,120.62 478100 CoCoCo West Pittsburg 0.00 2,191,507.25 2,191,507.25 2,191,507.25 478200 CoCoCo North Richmond 0.00 1,940,528.18 1,940,528.18 1,940,528.18 478300 CoCoCo Pl H/BART Amnd 1 0.00 874,402.60 874,402.60 874,402.60 478400 Oakley RDA 0.00 2,624,095.60 2,624,095.60 2,624,095.60 478500 CoCoCo Rodeo 0.00 1,711,301.19 1,711,301.19 1,711,301.19 478600 CoCoCo Montalvin 0.00 126,833.66 126,833.66 126,833.66 500100 Acalanes Union Hi Gen 32,442,414.05 (1,535,258.17) 30,907,155.88 (1,535,258.17) 510100 Canyon Elementary Gen 64,878.35 (1,438.32) 63,440.03 (1,438.32) 520100 Lafayette Elementary Gen 12,642,411.96 (723,557.05) 11,918,854.91 (723,557.05) 530100 Moraga Elementary Gen 6,013,533.20 (110,697.65) 5,902,835.55 (110,697.65) 540100 Orinda Elementary Gen 7,743,467.78 (134,161.76) 7,609,306.02 (134,161.76) 550100 Walnut Creek Elem Gen 15,838,853.99 (976,217.15) 14,862,636.84 (976,217.15) 600100 Liberty Union Hi Gen 18,859,655.46 (1,176,359.74) 17,683,295.72 (1,176,359.74) 610100 Brentwood Elem Gen 10,267,888.20 (745,568.47) 9,522,319.73 (745,568.47) 620100 Byron Elementary Gen 3,083,430.71 (56,469.00) 3,026,961.71 (56,469.00) 630100 Knightsen Elementary Gen 1,098,587.15 (120,894.59) 977,692.56 (120,894.59) 640100 Oakley Elementary Gen 7,879,422.14 (542,427.69) 7,336,994.45 (542,427.69) 690100 County Schools Gen 23,544,134.56 (2,382,018.06) 21,162,116.50 (2,382,018.06) 699900 K-12 ERAF 192,714,171.39 (21,296,846.17) 171,417,325.22 (21,296,846.17) 710100 Antioch Unified Gen 23,407,796.07 (2,956,330.84) 20,451,465.23 (2,956,330.84) 720100 John Swett Unified Gen 6,281,453.05 (346,366.00) 5,935,087.05 (346,366.00) 740100 Martinez Unified Gen 14,500,852.56 0.00 14,500,852.56 0.00 750100 Mt Diablo Unified Gen 96,261,107.16 (11,516,523.13) 84,744,584.03 (11,516,523.13) 760100 Pittsburg Unified Gen 12,065,923.95 (7,924,039.30) 4,141,884.65 (7,924,039.30) 770100 West Contra Costa Unified Gen 66,940,495.80 (15,659,215.43) 51,281,280.37 (15,659,215.43) 780100 San Ramon Valley Unified Gen 111,243,808.32 (3,620,167.66) 107,623,640.66 (3,620,167.66) 790100 Co Co Comm College Gen 69,318,572.71 (7,472,588.49) 61,845,984.22 (7,472,588.49) 799900 Community College ERAF 28,693,544.50 (3,171,366.82)25,522,177.68 (3,171,366.82) 1,412,606,924.39 0.00 1,412,606,924.39 8,824,105.00 8,824,105.00 4 2/8/2011