Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11051985 - X.1 X. 1 TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Phil Batchelor, County .Administrator , FROM: C tra November 4 , 1985 Costa DATE: Cort/ SUBJECT: Reauthorization of General Revenue Sharing SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) .& BACKGROUND Alm JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION• Determine whether the Board wishes to adopt a position in favor of the National Association of Counties (NACO) proposed program to create a fund to allow NACO to lobby for reauthorization of General Revenue Sharing for the period beginning October 1, 1986. BACKGROUND: As the Board is aware, current indications are that Congress will allow General Revenue Sharing to expire when the current authorization expires on September 30, 1986 as has been recommended by the President. At issue is some $4. 6 billion annually, $5, 000, 000 of which has been coming to Contra Costa County. As the attached correspondence indicates, NACO is interested in putting together a "war chest" of $1. 6 million to lobby for reauthorization of General Revenue Sharing. At the CSAC Annual Meeting next week, members of boards of supervisors will be asked to vote to support such a program. The cost to this County would probably be about 3% of the $75,000 which is proposed for California counties, or about $2250. The letter from CSAC does not request an actual financial commitment now, although if CSAC votes to support the NACO program, there will undoubtedly be an expectation that at least the major counties will contribute. The Board should consider adopting a position on this issue so members of the Board will be in a position to express the Board' s views at the Annual Meeting. X CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: X RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE X APPROVE OTHER S I GNATURE(S): dwxhl - ACTION OF BOARD ON November 5, 1985 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED _ OTHER The Board ADOPTED a position in favor of the National Association of Counties proposed program to create a fund to allow NACO to lobby for reauthorization of General Revenue Sharing for the period beginning October 1, 1986 . VOTE OF SUPERVISORS , 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES; NOES. AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. cc: County Administrator ATTESTED November 5, 1985 Board Members ----- C.SAC Executive Director PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR O BY ,DEPUTY M382/7-83 CounfMA'Superrisors 0 MEMORANDUM.. Centra ta REQCounty VC October 29, 1985 �� 1985 TO: Members CSAC Board of Directors COt"in''�Ad1©f nistr County Administrative Officers atrJ`- FROM: Larry E. Naake, Executive Director SUBJECT: SUPPORT OF NACO CAMPAIGN FOR REAUTHORIZATION OF GENERAL REVENUE SHARING At its October 25, 1985 meeting, the CSAC Executive Committee voted to recommend to the CSAC Board of Directors that they support the NACo program to establish a war chest for the reauthorization of general revenue sharing. As explained in the attached letter from NACo board member Fred Cooper, Alameda County, and in the memorandum from Matt Coffey, NACo Executive Director, the NACo proposal would: 1. Establish a "war chest" of approximately $1.6 million, of which counties would contribute $780,000. 2. Establish an organization and strategy to lead the national campaign. 3. Use the "war chest" funds to.conduct a nationwide survey on the public's perception of general revenue sharing, to hire a public relations - political strategy firm, and to purchase TV or radio time in targeted areas for key members of Congress. The details of this program are outlined in the NACo memorandum. We have asked both NACo and the CSAC Washington Office to develop information that will demonstrate that counties, cities, and states have made significant contributions to the reduction of the federal deficit over the last four or,five years through major reductions in domestic programs, and to provide us with information which demonstrates that there have been increases in other federal budget areas during that same period. We will .send that information to you when it becomes available. In the meantime, we are asking that you discuss this issue with your board of suvervisors prior to the November 15, 1985 CSAC Board of Directors meeting so that you are prepared to take action on the CSAC Executive Committee recommendation that we approve the NACo program and recommend that California counties participate. CSAC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE.,President,STEPHEN C.SWENDIMAN,Shasta County o First Vice President,LESLIE K.BROWN,Kings County o Second Vice President, CAL McELWAIN,San Bernardino County o Immediate Past President,SUNNE WRIGHT McPEAK, Contra Costa County a MICHAEL D.ANTONOVICH, Los Angeles County o KAY CENICEROS, Riverside County o ILLA COLLIN, Sacramento County o. FRED F. COOPER, Alameda County o ROBERT E. DORR, EI Dorado County o TRICE HARVEY,Kern County o QUENTIN L.KOPP,City&County of San Francisco o ROLLAND C.STARN,Stanislaus County o HILDA WHEELER,Butte County o JOE WILLIAMS, Glenn County o SUSANNE WILSON, Santa Clara County o ADVISORS: County Administrative Officer, STEVEN C. SZALAY, Tuolumne County o County Counsel,JAMES P.BOTZ,Sonoma County o Executive Director,LARRY E.NAAKE Sacramento Office / 1100 K Street, #1.01 / Sacramento, CA 95814-3941 / 916/441.4011 ATSS 473-3727 Washington Office / 440'First St., N.W., Suite 503 / Washington, D.C. 20001 / 202-783-7575 October 29, 1985 Page two Within the next two weeks, you will be receiving a detailed letter from NALo President Bob Aldemeyer requesting your participation in this program and providing additional information. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. LEN:sgm cc: Matt.Coffey, NACo Executive Director ' BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 1 FRED F.COOPER SUPEAV130R,TMIRD DISTRICT .. October 15, - 1985 . Larry Naake, Exec. Director County Supervisors Assn. of CA 1100 K Street Sacramento CA 95814 Steve Swendiman, President County Supervisors Assn. of CA P. 0. Box 880 Redding CA 96099 re: Revenue Sharing Dear Larry and Steve: The NACo Board, by close to a unanimous vote, agreed to continue having revenue sharing as its top priority and to proceed with an effort to raise money for a national campaign per the enclosed memorandum and attachment dated October 7, 1985. I . believe California counties should set a goal of' $75,000 or so as part of that program and believe we should discuss this either at a Board of Directors meeting in Oakland or at an Executive Committee meeting in Oakland. I would urge the following reasons for our .continuing with the effort on revenue sharing: 1. In my experience the media and the editorial writers understand revenue sharing about ten times better than any alternate program we might push to meet our fiscal problems. This does not mean they all support us, but it will be a lot easier to get editorials in support of revenue sharing than for some new program. 2. It will be difficult to get the media and the voters to understand how, if we drop revenue sha'rin'g, we can expect sympathy for our fiscal problems when we do not vie hard for the most important thing. 1821 OAK STREET SUITE 536 OAKLAND.CALIFORNIA 94812• .(415)874.5647 Page 2 October '15, 1985 3. We have a reasonable chance of persuading the state legislature to seriously consider giving us money if we actually lose revenue sharing, but will have difficulty with such a program if we do not fight for revenue sharing. 4. The fact that we fight for revenue sharing does not necessarily mean that we cannot compromise and accept something lesser, but obviously the bigger the battle we put up and the stronger our case the more we will get out . of any compromise. Conversely, if we ask for very little at the start we will get very little at the end. 5. A nmumber of Congressmen are ready to push the revenue sharing effort, and while some Congressmen tell us the issue is dead, they are the ones that do not want to support us and hope that we will go quietly away and not embarrass them. Let me know if I need to do anything to get the matter on the agenda. Yours truly, Fred F. Cooper PPC.g enclosure cc: Supervisor Ann Klinger Supervisor Sandra Smoley NATIONAL ASSOCIATION Of COUNTIES -"0 First St.NW. Washington.IX:2(XVI dI12/jl i•G11G , M E M O R A N D U M TO: Board.of, Directors i FROM: Matthew B. Coffey, Executive Director DATE: October 7, 1985 RE: Proposal to Establish a War Chest for Reauthorization of General Revenue Sharing The current authorization for General Revenue Sharing (GRS) expires on September 30, 1986, the end of this federal fiscal year. 'At present, NACo policy supports reauthorization of current law funded at $4.6 billion annually. Over the past year, the debate about whether or not to reauthorize general revenue sharing has escalated. Pressure to reduce the federal deficit and the President's recommendation to eliminate the program in his 1986 budget proposal increased the pressure. Only after intense lobbying was funding for the program included in the 1986 congressional budget resolution. Although the budget resolution calls for full funding of GRS in 1986, the program is zeroed out for the following 'years, assuming its elimination. The lack of projected funding in the budget resolution and the President's stated opposition to reauthorization of GRS represent serious problems for renewal of the program. Even if Congress passes legislation, the prospects .of a White House veto are high. In order to override a veto a two-thirds majority vote in both the House and Senate are required. Furthermore, the program is poorly understood by the general public. We can only win such a vote with an all-out lobbying and public relations campaign. Although these threats to the program are real,- there"'are significant indications from important members of Congress that they are interested in the reauthorization of GRS. Representative Ted Weiss (D-NY), Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations, has introduced a 5-year straight extension. Representatives Robert Walker (R-PA), ranking minority on. the Subcommittee. and Frank Horton (R-NY) have introduced a 3-year reauthorization of the current program with no changes in the formula or funding amount. Senator.David Durenberger (R M). Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations and a member of the Senate Finance Committee, is working on a lower-funded and more targeted reauthorization bill which he plans to introduce early in the next session. Other -2- prominent members of the Senate Finance Committee have indicate" their interest in the program's survival, including Senators Lloyd Bentsen (D-TX) and Spark Matsunaga (D-HI) both senior members of the Senate Finance Committee. Several other reauthori- zation bills have also been introduced ranging from straight extensions to targeted approaches similar to Senator Durenberger's proposal. We have had many preliminary discussions with congressional staff as well as the public interest groups on the subject. The assessment is that only with an intense lobbying and public relations effort, spearheaded jointly by NACo, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the National League of Cities, will we have a chance to reauthorize the program. Given NACo's current policy which calls for reauthorization of GRS as A top priority for the organization, I recommend that the Board of Directors consider the establishment of a "war chest" for this effort. The U.S. Conference of Mayors has announced their commitment to a major educational campaign as well. Strategic planning must dominate this national campaign. Therefore, I recommend the following components which would make up the overall campaign for reauthorization of GRS: 1. Management (NACo, in conjunction with USCM. NLC) 2. Strategy Committee (NACo, USCM, NLC leadership would provide ongoing policy direction) 3. Citizens Committee (Rey prominent past officials, i.e. ex Members of Congress, whose names would add influence and credibility to the campaign) 4. Survey Research 5. Advertising 6. Communications (NACo Public Relatigns, NLC, USCM Federal Affairs Divisions) 7. Field Organization (NACo, NLC, USCM membership) 8. Fund Raising (Special assessments of NACo, NLC, USCM membership) 9. Financial Management (NACo. NLC, USCM) Use of War Chest Funds: All' components of the reauthorization campaign will be conducted in- house except for survey research and advertising. Therefore, campaign financing would be .needed for the following activities: o, Public Relations/Political Strategy Firm This consultant would conduct a nationwide survey and .develop television and radio advertising. We estimate an average retainer fee of $10,000 to $15,000 per month (for six months). -3- -- Nationwide Survey - A public relations campaign is dependent upon a clear understanding of the public's-perception of GRS. One of the problems will be lack of knowledge about the program. A survey would assist us in designing a public relations effort. The survey would assist us in designing an education- and advertising program for GRS. For a national survey to be valid, at.least .1,000 households must be interviewed. The average cost of designing and conducting a national' telephone survey is $30,000. -- Television and Radio Advertising - We would look at purchasing ' TV or radio time first in districts and states for members of Congress who sit on the relevant authorizing committees, gradually expanding to a national advertising campaign. The estimated cost of a high impact national campaign is approximately $1.5 million. The total campaign cost will be approximately $1.6 million. Financing the War Chest: Counties receive 48 percent of currant appropriations for general revenue sharing. Cities receive the remaining 52 percent. We propose a campaign financed by national organizations according to the proportionate share by which they benefit under GRS. This means NACo would fund 48 percent of .the campaign. NACo's share of the cost would total about. $780,000. Assuming a 50 to 70 percent participation rate from our membership in a voluntary assessment program, the average cost per county would be $780. Time Table: To mount the campaign we should begin the assessments by mid-November, allowing enough time for response so that we can begin to design the survey. before the end of the year. This would allow implementation of the surveyto be done and the media campaign to begin early enough to influence budget recommenda- tions of the authorizing committees. That decision is made by March 15, 1986. Beyond this date we would target the campaign to the ongoing budget debate, authorizing committee hearings and subsequent appropriations schedules. The questions for debate are: o Do we want to continue our policy supporting reauthorization? o Will we be satisfied with a targeted program? with less funds? o Are we prepared to build a war cheat in .cooperation with USCM and NLC? o Should we have a special assessment of $700 to $1000 per member county targeted to reauthorizing GRS? . Attachments �� _ c ' 7114E OCTOBER 101995 VOL 52, NcL 19 t f Mcial Publication of the United States Conference of Mayors. Published Twice a Month Since 1933. EXECUTIVE' COMMITTEE SAYS GENERAL REVENUE SHARING, FEDERAL TAX CHANGE ARE TOP CONFERENCE ISSUES Meetinc September 13 ' and 14 in Boston, the Executive Committee and Advisory Board of the U.S. Conference of Mayors directed that support for the General Revenue Sharing program and resistance to the Admini- stration's proposed tax code changes would be the Conference's top priorities in the months ahead. Speaking to a group of reporters at the conclusion of the annual leadership meeting , Conference Vice President Joseph Riley of Charleston (SC) said the nation's mayors would be forming ,h special task force and mounting a major national campaign to retain the. revenue sharing partnership of federal and local governments. 'We are going to make our national leaders understand what is at stake if we can no longer use revenue sharing funds to meet some very basic focal needs," Riley said. On the tax initiative, Mayor Riley explained how proposed changes in .state and local tax deductability, the status of municipal bonds and other provisions of the code 'would do serious damage to the cities of .this nation,' and released a Conference booklet which summarizes the impact of the tax proposals on municipal government. Other items on the leadership agenda in Boston included the continuing federal cutbacks in key urban programs, the costs to local governments if the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act are implemen- ted as currently panned, the need for changes in the selection criteria for Urban Development Action Grants, and the skyrocketing costs of liability insurance protection for cities. The mayors also reiterated .heir concerns that current national policies were not effectively : addressing the serious federal deficit problem. Constitution Revised R Juneau Mayor Fran Ulmer, who chaired the special committee on 'procedural reform created early this year by Conference President Ernest Morial of New Orleans, submitted the committee's recommendations for constiCu- tional changes to assure balanced participation and leadership opportun- ities for all member mayors . Ulmer explained that many of the changes were technical in nature , intended to clarify existing procedures, make , language more consistent, and make the constitution more . useful as a document. New language was recommended for Section So the powers and duties of the. Presidents Section 68 the Executive Director = and Section 7, the Nominating Committee. s s t Y N. l"' ip tot ,,. a� i O Eta li V VOW ui 6• � r 7 O� o-y+ o ^ r tp WA So �u r Z D Board of Supervisors County Administrator Contra TOM Powers 1st District County Administration Building Costa Nowy C.Fehden Martinez, Calitomia 94553 / — - _ 2nd District (415) 372.4080 ( Ill I / Robert 1.Schroder Coo ra 1 3rd District Phil Batchelor County Administrator SWM Wright Yr1` 4th District Tom Torldam 5th District November 6 , 1985 Larry E. Naake Executive Director County Supervisors Association of California 1100 "K" Street, Suite 101 Sacramento, California 95814 Dear Larry: In response to your October 29, 1985 letter regarding the reauthorization of General Revenue Sharing, we presented the attached .Order to the Board of Supervisors on November 5, 1985. Mr. Batchelor recommended that the Board support the NACO program and the Board voted to do so by a 5: 0 vote. You can count on our support at the annual meeting. Very truly yours, CLAUDE L. VAN MARTER Assistant County Administrator CLVM:clg Enclosure cc: Board Members Clerk of the Board