Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02072012 - C.24C.24 To: Board of Supervisors From: David Twa, County Administrator Date: February 7, 2012 Contra Costa County Subject:2012 State Legislative Platform APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 02/07/2012 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYES 4 NOES ABSENT 1 ABSTAIN RECUSE Contact: L. DeLaney, 925-335-1097 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: February 7, 2012 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: June McHuen, Deputy cc: RECOMMENDATION(S): ACCEPT the 2012 State Legislative Platform as amended, as recommended by the County Administrator. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact to the County from this action. BACKGROUND: At its January 24, 2012 meeting, the Board of Supervisors received the Proposed 2012 State and Federal Legislative Platforms. The Board adopted the Proposed 2012 Federal Legislative Platform with no changes. However, the Board members discussed specific aspects of the Proposed 2012 State Platform that they wished to amend prior to adoption. These amendments related to: General Revenues/Finance Issues BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) (Proposed) #44. SUPPORT legislative compliance with both the intent and language of Proposition 1A and Proposition 22 (on an issue-by-issue basis). This proposed policy has been amended to reflect the direction of the Board at its January 24, 2012 meeting as follows: #44. SUPPORT legislative compliance with both the intent and language of Proposition 1A. #45. SUPPORT the provisions of Proposition 22 that would protect County revenues, particularly as related to transportation revenues and excluding those provisions related to redevelopment funds Land Use/Community Development Issues (Proposed) #103. If the Supreme Court invalidates the Redevelopment Restructuring Acts of 2011, SUPPORT reform of the existing redevelopment process, as appropriate to consider as part of a budget solution. Specifically, SUPPORT legislation that would give local agencies specific tools for economic development purposes in order to enhance job opportunities, with emphasis on attracting and retaining businesses, and promote smart growth and affordable housing development. This proposed policy has been amended to reflect the direction of the Board at its January 24, 2012 meeting as follows: #104. In light of the Supreme Court decision upholding ABx1 26, dissolving redevelopment agencies, SUPPORT reform of the redevelopment process, as appropriate. Specifically, SUPPORT legislation that would give local agencies specific tools for economic development purposes in order to enhance job opportunities, with emphasis on attracting and retaining businesses, and promote smart growth and affordable housing development, while balancing the impacts on revenues for health and safety programs. Additional Amendments Proposed by Staff In addition to these amendments, subsequent to the Board of Supervisors meeting, staff of the CAO, EHSD, and Health Services met to further discuss the legislative proposal related to the management of the IHSS program, "Retain In Home Supportive Services Savings Through Targeted Program Management." This proposal was still in development during the development of the Draft and Proposed 2012 Legislative Platforms. However, it is now clear that the Governor’s proposal in his FY 12-13 State Budget to transition IHSS to a managed care model, and the apparent political support for this proposal, would supersede a pilot program intended to accomplish many of the same things intended by the legislative proposal. EHSD believes they have demonstrated the ability to effectively manage the IHSS program in a way that combines costs savings with quality care. They are in the process of developing new strategies to further enhance their management of the program that they believe can be implemented very effectively in a managed care environment. Part of the strength they bring to any Home and Community Based Services program is their ability to leverage the wider Aging Services Network with its diverse state and federal funding base and its comprehensive network of supportive services, including both community based service providers and a strong and growing network of volunteers. Consequently, this legislative proposal has been removed from the Platform and a policy has been added to the Health Policies section to support advocacy for a fair-share of state funding for the allocation of state funds directed to this purpose (integration of IHSS and managed care). 67. SUPPORT efforts to obtain a fair-share of any state funds in a distribution of funding for the integration of IHSS and managed care. With these changes, staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors accept the 2012 State Legislative Program, as amended. (Attachment A) 1/31/2012 1 2012 STATE LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Each 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; legislative or regulatory advocacy priorities for the year; and policies that provide direction and guidance for identification of bills which would affect the services, programs or finances of Contra Costa County. COUNTY-SPONSORED BILLS 1. New Pension Tiers Legislation: The County is currently in negotiation with many of its bargaining units regarding the development of new pension tiers, Tier IV and Tier D (for Safety employees). The current Memorandum of Understanding for Local 21 and the Management Resolution both include provisions to close Tier III, Tier A, and Tier C to all hired after December 31, 2012 and create Tier IV and Tier D, which will be applicable to all hired after that date. The County is seeking enabling legislation to amend the County Employees Retirement Act of 1937 to enact this change and to allow Tier IV to apply to each bargaining unit that agrees to implement the Tier. In addition, the County is also presently negotiating with its safety-related bargaining units with the intention of reaching agreement on the creation and adoption of Tier D1. As with Tier IV, Tier D will apply to each bargaining unit that agrees to implement the Tier , and enabling legislation is required to effectuate the new tier. The County may also seek in legislation, as appropriate, additional general authority for the County and its Unions to agree to different retirement benefits for future employees for different bargaining units or subgroups, if approved in a Memorandum of Understanding. In addition, the County may also seek, as appropriate, additional general authority for the County and its Unions to agree that employees hired after December 31, 2012 may pay part of the Employer’s retirement contri butions, if approved in a Memorandum of Understanding. Rationale: By negotiating these retirement plan changes at the bargaining table, Contra Costa County achieves local pension reform that saves money for County taxpayers and helps the pension system, the Contra Costa County Employees Retirement Association (CCCERA), stay sustainable for retirees. Legislation is required to amend the County Employees Retirement Law of 1937 to enact these changes. 1 On December 6, 2011, the Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 2011/48 6 approving the MOU with the Deputy Sheriffs' Association Management Unit and the MOU with the DSA, Rank and File Unit, implementing an agreement for the period of July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2013. Contra Costa County 2012 State Platform 2012 State Platform 2 LEGISLATIVE/REGULATORY ADVOCACY PRIORITIES Each year, issues emerge through the legislative process that are of importance to the County and require advocacy efforts. For 2012, it is anticipated that critical issues requiring legislative advocacy will include the following: 1. State Budget – A slow economic recovery continues to plague the state and hamper the ability to fund core services. Baseline General Fund revenues for FY 2012 -13 are projected to total $89 billion and are not expected to return to their 2007 ‐08 levels until 2014‐15. Further, there remain significant risks and uncertainty to the state’s fiscal health, including ongoing debt obligations, pension liabilities, and uncertainties associated with the continuing debate on addressing the federal budge t deficit. The budget deficit for 2012‐13 is estimated to be $9.2 billion, including a current year deficit of $4.1 billion. To address the deficit, the Governor is proposing a combination of spending reductions and temporary taxes (via ballot initiative) totaling $10.3 billion to both balance the budget and establish a $1.1 billion reserve. The Governor also proposes a new round of trigger cuts slated to take effect if his ballot initiative fails. 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 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 ed 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. S ignificant future impacts Contra Costa County 2012 State Platform 2012 State Platform 3 upon the County in the areas of water quality and supply, levees, ecosystem, governance and flood control are anticipated. Additionally, a water bond has been 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 may also work with the Delta Counties Coalition (DCC) to sponsor Delta - related legislation. Particular areas of concern for 2012 include, but are not limited to, impacts of Delta plans on local land use authority and expediting state bond funding for levee improvement projects. The County’s adopted Delta Water Platform, as well as the Strategic and Action Plans, are incorporated in this Platform by reference. 4. Constitutional Protections and Realignment Implementation–Since the 2011 Public Safety Realignment package passed in June 2011 without the constitutional protections requested by counties, one of the central goals of counties is to support efforts to achieve the constitutional protection s that guarantee a dedicated on-going revenue stream and include provisions protecting counties against future actions by the Legislature, the courts, regulations or executive orders that increase county costs for Realignment. Counties will also support efforts to ensure that the receipt of Local Community Corrections Funds matches the amounts anticipated from the State, without undue delay. In addition, there are major realignment implementation issues that need to be addressed and passed in the Legislature including the “super structure,” how to allocate growth of revenue, and the transferability of funds between programs. With regard to Public Safety realignment, the County will support efforts that facilitate the smooth transition of prisoners and p arolees at the county level. Counties are currently receiving parolees whose latest crime fits the specified “non -violent, non- serious, non-sex offender” (N3) definition, but who have a criminal background that includes violent, serious and/or sexual crim es. Under the current legislation, the person’s latest offense/crime determines if they meet the N3 criteria. However, counties are receiving people who have a very violent background. Specifically, a change would be requested to prevent those whose tot al criminal background does not meet the N3 criteria. These individuals should stay under the responsibility of the State. The County will also support efforts to alter the present formula for the allocation of funds to counties, which favors those counties that incarcerate a greater percentage of the local population due to local sentencing practices, fewer crimes outside the non - violent, non-serious, non-sexual criteria, and a lesser commitment to alternative sentencing and diversion programs. The County will also support efforts to provide additional funding/grants to those counties that have a commitment to lowering the crime rate and reducing recidivism through the provision of innovative, comprehensive, evidence-based programs for offender populations and their families. Any future proposals to realign programs to counties must have constitutionally guaranteed ongoing funding and protections. The County will oppose any proposals Contra Costa County 2012 State Platform 2012 State Platform 4 that will transfer additional program responsibility to counties without funding and protections. 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. 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 agricultura l 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 efforts 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 and other invasive species. Invasive aquatic species are 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. Contra Costa County 2012 State Platform 2012 State Platform 5 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 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 o f 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 regi stry 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 Contra Costa County 2012 State Platform 2012 State Platform 6 contact, and the entire process would be handled electron ically 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 su pport agency and then sent for recording either by the local child support agency or by the obligor (non- 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. Contra Costa County 2012 State Platform 2012 State Platform 7 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. Elections Issues 18. SUPPORT legislation to adjust precinct sizing from 1,000 voters per precin ct 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. The state has committed to reimburse Counties for the cost of certain state mandates. That reimbursement process, SB 90, can be lengthy and contentious. The SB 90 process is also subject to uncertainties including partial payments, delayed payments, and now, suspended or no payments. In lieu of the SB 90 process for Elections, there is merit in the examination of having the state pay its pro-rata share of costs when state candidates/measures are on the ballot. 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. Contra Costa County 2012 State Platform 2012 State Platform 8 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. 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 a nd 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 Reso urces 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 th ere 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 fo r 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. Contra Costa County 2012 State Platform 2012 State Platform 9 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.) 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 wa y 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 a 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 li mited to only Contra Costa County 2012 State Platform 2012 State Platform 10 $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 be tween the share of overall property tax paid by residential property owners versus commercial/industrial owners. 42. SUPPORT efforts to reduce County costs for Workers’ Compensation, including the ability to control excessive medical utilization and litigatio n. Workers’ Compensation costs are significant, diverting funds that could be utilized for 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 the provisions of Proposition 22 that would protect County revenues, particularly as related to transportation revenues and excluding those provisions related to redevelopment funds. 46. SUPPORT full State funding of all statewide special elections, including recall elections. 47. 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. 48. 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 interest s. AB 2987 (Núñez), Chapter 700, statutes of 2006 transferred regulatory oversight authority from local government to the PUC. 49. 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. Contra Costa County 2012 State Platform 2012 State Platform 11 50. 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. 51. SUPPORT legislation that provides constitutional protections and guaranteed funding to counties under Realignment. 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 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. 52. 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, inclu ding 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. 53. SUPPORT Medi-Cal reimbursement rate increases to incentivize providers to participate in the program. 54. 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. 55. 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 Contra Costa County 2012 State Platform 2012 State Platform 12 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). 56. 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. 57. 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. 58. OPPOSE safety net funding transfers until an analysis of who would remain uninsured (e.g. medically indigent adults, including citizens, who cannot document citizenship under current Medicaid eligibility rules) is completed in order to adequately fund services for these populations. 59. SUPPORT efforts to clearly define and adequately fund remaining county responsibilities. 60. SUPPORT State action to provide an analysis of current health care infrastructure (facilities and providers), including current safety net f acilities across the state, to ensure that there are adequate providers and health care facilities, and that they can remain viable after health reform. 61. SUPPORT efforts to provide adequate financing for reforms to succeed. 62. SUPPORT measures that maximize Federal reimbursement from Medicaid and S-CHIP. 63. 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. 64. 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. 65. 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. Contra Costa County 2012 State Platform 2012 State Platform 13 66. SUPPORT efforts to increase revenues and to contain mandated costs in the County's hospital and clinics system. 67. SUPPORT efforts to obtain a fair-share of any state funds in a distribution of funding for the integration of IHSS and managed care. 68. SUPPORT efforts to increase the availability of health care to the uninsured in California, whether employed or not. 69. 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. 70. 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 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. 71. 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. 72. SUPPORT efforts to give incentives to providers to establish more youth-driven treatment facilities within the community. 73. 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. 74. 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 a s those populations with co-occurring disorders. 75. SUPPORT and encourage the development of strategies that include alcohol and drug services in the provision of all culturally appropriate health care services. 76. 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 Contra Costa County 2012 State Platform 2012 State Platform 14 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. 77. 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 78. 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; 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. 79. 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. 80. 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. 81. 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 Contra Costa County 2012 State Platform 2012 State Platform 15 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. 82. SUPPORT efforts that seek to identify and eliminate elder financial abuse and elder exposure to crime that may be committed through c onservatorships, powers of attorney, notaries and others who have the right to control elder assets. 83. SUPPORT efforts to effectively manage the In Home Supportive Services (IHSS) to establish and maintain cost control mechanisms while delivering quality, targeted services and maintaining program integrity. Efforts include, but are not limited to, establishing an IHSS Volunteer Coordination component coupled with the rebalancing of available hours. Retired volunteer social workers and registered nurses could act as local Care Coordinators, enabling IHSS Social Workers to increase their capacity to perform more timely reassessments that would enable the management of available hours and target services to those clients most in need and at risk of institutionalization. 84. 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 current electronic benefits transfer system combined with program eligibility processes provides more fraud prevention/detection than does finger-imaging. 85. 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 se rvice 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. 86. 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. Contra Costa County 2012 State Platform 2012 State Platform 16 87. 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. 88. 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. 89. 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. 90. 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. 91. SUPPORT efforts by the Contra Costa County’s executive directors and program administrators of all Child Care and Development Programs to restore state budget allocations to the FY 2009-10 levels for the California State Preschool Program (CSPP), California Center-Based General Child Care Program (CCTR), CalWORKs Stage 2 (C2AP), CalWORKs Stage 3 (C3AP), Alternate Payment Program (CAPP), Child Care and Development Grant and the Child Care Retention Program (AB 212). 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 is also a proposal for an additional casino in North Richmond. Local governments have limited authority in determining whether or not such facilities should be sited in their jurisdiction; the terms and conditions under which t he 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. 92. SUPPORT efforts to ensure that counties who have existing or proposed Class II Indian gaming facilities receive the Special Distribution Funds. Contra Costa County 2012 State Platform 2012 State Platform 17 93. 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. 94. 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 be yond the costs associated with mitigating community impacts. 95. SUPPORT State authority to tighten up the definition of a Class II machine. 96. SUPPORT State legislative and administration actions consistent with the CSAC policy documents on development on Indian Lands and Compact negotiations for Indian gaming. Land Use/Community Development Issues 97. 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. 98. 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. 99. SUPPORT establishment of a CEQA exemption for affordable housing financing. Current law provides a statutory exemption from CEQA to state agencies for financing of affordable housing (Section 21080.10(b) of the California Public Resources Code and Section 15267 of the CEQA Guidelines)—but not to local agencies. The current exemption for state agencies is only operational if a CEQA review process has been completed by another agency (e.g., by the land use permitting agency). Since the act of financing does not change the environmental setting, the net effect of the exemption is streamlining the process for providing financial assistance for already approved projects. AB 2518 (Houston) in 2006 was a Contra Costa County-sponsored bill to accomplish this, but it was not successful in the Legislature. 100. SUPPORT efforts to obtain a CEQA exemption or to utilize CEQA streamlining provisions 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, Contra Costa County 2012 State Platform 2012 State Platform 18 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. Regarding CEQA streamlining, SB 226 (Simitian) limits the provisions to cities and unincorporated islands. There may be good infill projects that should qualify for the SB 226 streamlining but do not simply because they are in a county but not an incorporated island. 101. 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. 102. OPPOSE efforts to limit the County’s ability to exercise local land use authority. 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. 105. In light of the Supreme Court decision upholding ABx1 26, dissolving redevelopment agencies, SUPPORT reform of the redevelopment process, as appropriate. Specifically, SUPPORT legislation that would give local agencies specific tools for economic development purposes in order to enha nce job opportunities, with emphasis on attracting and retaining businesses, and promote smart growth and affordable housing development, while balancing the impacts on revenues for health and safety programs. 106. OPPOSE legislation that would create substantial uncertainty over the tax allocation bonds issued by redevelopment agencies and possible negative credit impact. Contra Costa County 2012 State Platform 2012 State Platform 19 Law and Justice System Issues 107. 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. 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. OPPOSE legislative proposals to realign additional program responsibility to counties without adequate funding and protections. 110. OPPOSE legislation that would shift the responsibility of parolees from the state to the counties without adequate notification, documentation and funding . 111. SUPPORT legislation that will help counties implement the 2011 Public Safety Realignment as long as the proposal would: provide for county flexibility, eliminate redundant or unnecessary reporting, and would not transfer more responsibility without funding. 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. Contra Costa County 2012 State Platform 2012 State Platform 20 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. 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 Protect ion 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 fund ing 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. Contra Costa County 2012 State Platform 2012 State Platform 21 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 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. 112. 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. 113. SUPPORT legislation that requires the levee repair funds generated by Proposition 1E be spent within one year. Many public agencies, including reclamation districts charged with maintaining levees, have complained about the state’s inaction in allocating and distributing the levee funds that were raised by the bond sales authorized by Proposition 1E in 2008. Legislation could require the immediate distribution of these funds to local levee projects. The Delta Reform Act of 2009 authorized over $202 million for levee repairs. It has been difficult to obtain explanations from the state as to why these funds are not being distributed. 114. SUPPORT legislation to amend California Water Code Section 12986, to maintain the state/local funding ratio of 75/25 for the state’s Delta Levees Subventions Program, which provides funds for local levee repair and maintenance projects. The code provisions that have the state paying 75 percent of project costs will expire on July 1, 2013. At that t ime the matching ratio will change to 50/50. This means local reclamation districts will have to pay a larger portion of project costs (50%, compared to their current 25% requirement). Many districts do not have the funding to do so. This legislative request could also include direction that the Delta Levees Subventions Program should continue to use funds from bonds or other dedicated sources, rather than the state’s General Fund. For the past several years the program has been funded from bonds. When these bond funds run out, the program will have to be funded from the General Fund, unless some other new dedicated funding source is established. This is something that should be included in the next Water Bond, if and when there is one. 115. 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. Contra Costa County 2012 State Platform 2012 State Platform 22 116. 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. 117. SUPPORT legislation to amend California Water Code Section 85057.5 to bring the Delta Stewardship Council’s “covered actions” land -use review process into consistency with CEQA. This section of state code defines a “covered action,” which refers to local permit decisions that are subject to potential revocation by the Delta Stewardship Council, as proposed in the Council’s Delta Plan. The proposed process works as follows: (1) if a local permit application meets the definition of a “covered action,” the jurisdiction must evaluate it for consistency with all of the policies in the Stewardship Council’s Delta Plan. (2) If the jurisdiction finds the project is consistent with the Delta Plan, they notify the Stewardship Council of this finding. (3) Anyone who objects to the project may appeal the consistency finding, and it will be up to the Stewardship Council to make the final decision. Should the Stewardship Council decide against the local jurisdiction, there is no appeal process available to the jurisdiction or project applicant other than legal action. “Covered actions” are defined in Section 85057.5 of the California Water Code. It defines them as plans, projects or programs as defined by CEQA, and then goes on to grant several exemptions to certain types of projects. It does not, however, provide exemptions for all the project types that CEQA itself exempts. CEQA provides a lengthy list of categorical exemptions for plans, projects and programs that generally do not have significant environmental impacts, and projects that have compelling reasons to move forward quickly (such as public safety projects). The entire list of categorical exemptions from CEQA also should be exempt from the Delta Stewardship Council’s “covered actions” proc ess. Library Issues 118. 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. 119. 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. Contra Costa County 2012 State Platform 2012 State Platform 23 120. 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. Telecommunications Issues 121. 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, Emergen cy 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. 122. SUPPORT preservation of local government ownership a nd 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 123. SUPPORT increased flexibility in the use of transportation funds. The County supports an amendment to the Subdivision Map Act to a llow 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.” S enator 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. 124. 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 that benefit the state and local road system 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 Contra Costa County 2012 State Platform 2012 State Platform 24 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 ensure the regional approach does not negatively impact local communities. “Top-down” regional planning efforts would be inconsistent with this goal. 125. 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 i nstalling traffic-calming devices on residential neighborhood streets. 126. 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. 127. 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. 128. SUPPORT efforts to coordinate development of state-funded or regulated facilities such as courts, schools, jails, roads 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 and joint use of facilities to help finance off-site transportation improvements for access to schools. 129. SUPPORT regional aviation transportation planning efforts for coordinated aviation network planning to improve service delivery. Regi onal aviation Contra Costa County 2012 State Platform 2012 State Platform 25 coordination could also improve the surrounding surface transportation system by providing expanded local options for people and goods movement. 130. 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 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). Waste Management 131. SUPPORT legislation that establishes producer responsibility for management of their products at the end of their useful life. 132. SUPPORT efforts to increase the development of markets for recycled materials. 133. SUPPORT legislative and regulatory efforts to allow third parties, under specific circumstances and conditions, to collect and transport household hazardous waste to collection facilities. 134. SUPPORT legislation that seeks to remedy the environmental d egradation and solid waste management problems on a State-wide basis of single-use plastic bags typically given away for free at grocer, retail and other establishments. 135. SUPPORT legislation that does not require increased diversion from landfills without out an adequate funding mechanism. 136. 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 le vel 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.