HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02031987 - S.4 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS S
FROM: Supervisor Sunne Wright McPeak Contra
Costa
DATE: Introduced January 27, 1987 for Action on County
March 3 , 1987
SUBJECT: CSAC -County Fiscal Relief Campaign
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION
Review and endorse the attached CSAC County Fiscal Relief
Campaign, designate appropriate liaison to CSAC effort, and
request County Administrator' s Office to develop an outline
for a local public awareness effort to include a major event
on May Day.
BACKGROUND
See attached materials.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S)
ACTION OF BOARD ON February 3, 1957 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER X
DESIGNATED Supervisor Sunne W. McPeak and County Administrator Phil Batchelor as the
Contra Costa County liaison to the CSAC County Fiscal Relief effort.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AYES: NOES: AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
CC: CSAC ATTESTED .:? 1991
County Administrator Phil Batctchelo4�, Clerk .of the
Supervisor McPeak Board of. Supervisors _&.;,County
Administrator
M382/7-83 BY 8 DEPUTY
vCounty SWrrlisors /
E. C E I V E 0
--lAssoeiation of Cafffotw ,4A 91`317
...............
December 30, 1986
TO: Members, CSAC Board of Directors
FROM: Larry E. Naake, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Grassroots Campaign For The CSAC's 1987 Fiscal Relief Strategy
Background
Following the Board's November 21, 1986 endorsement of CSAC's 1987 County Fiscal
Relief Strategy, CSAC staff has been developing a proposal for a grassroots
campaign to stabilize county costs related to caseload driven programs and other
state mandated programs.
The proposal is attached for your review. Also enclosed is a summary of the
County Fiscal Relief Strategy.
As you know, counties' traditional services are being slashed because the money
that normally would pay for them is now being used to pay for unfunded state
mandated programs.
The grassroots strategy is designed to involve County Supervisors and County
Administrative Officers who will be called upon to help CSAC pressure state
lawmakers for legislative reforms. For example, several counties will be asked to
provide statistical information on how unfunded state mandates have affected their
services. Boards of Supervisors will be asked to hold public hearings and to pass
resolutions in connection with the problem. CSAC will also ask Supervisors and
County Administrative Officers to form local coalitions including business people,
service organizations, labor, etc. to campaign in favor of legislative reform. CSAC
will have a follow-up program in which weekly calls will be made to determine
whether everyone is doing what he/she is supposed to do. Only through an
organized effort can we accomplish our goals.
Last year, CSAC was successful in getting favorable publicity for the county
problem of unfunded state mandates. Howevcr, there was no fiscal relief.
CSAC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE:President, KAY CENICEROS,Riverside County a First Vice President, BARBARA SHIPNUCK,Monterey County a Second
Vice President,BILL COATES,Plumas County a Immediate Past President,LES BROWN,Kings County a JUDY ANDREEN,Fresno County a MICHAEL D.
1 ANTONOVICH,Los Angeles County a CRAWFORD BOST,Nevada County a ILLA COLLIN,Sacramento County a JERRY DIEFENDERFER.San Luis Obispo
County a AL GINSBURG,Madera County a WILLIE KENNEDY,City&County of San Francisco a SUNNE WRIGHT McPEAK,Contra Costa County a PETE
PETERS,Shasta County o HARRIETT M.'WIEDER,Orange County a LEON WILLIAMS,San Diego County a ADVISORS:Administrative Officer,RICHARD
g g WITTENBERG,Ventura County a County Counsel,CHARLES MACK,Yoto County
9 U Sacramento Office 1 1100 K Street, Suite 101 J Sacramento, CA 95814-3941 / 916-441-4011
Washington Office / 440 First St., N.W., Suite 503 / Washington, D.C. 20001 / 202-783-7575
f i r
In 1987, the goal is to secure that financial help so that counties can get back to
providing the level of services they are supposed to, in such areas as law
,J enforcement, fire protection, road maintenance, mental health and other community
services. The way to accomplish that goal is to get strong support on the local
level and combine it with CSAC's lobbying effort in Sacramento. Our legislative
goals are to:
1. Get State Funding for the Courts
2. Get a Shift of Revenue From the State to Counties
3. Get State Assistance to Stabilize Caseload Driven Programs
Reauest For County Coordinator
You can help now by filling out the attached form and by bringing it to the
January 15th Board of Directors meeting. Please surmly us with the name and
number of someone whom you could designate as a county coordinator. We will call
him/her for both statistical data and follow-up information.
Recommendations
It is my recommendation that your Board of Directors:
1. Approve the theme and components of a grassroots
campaign as outlined in the enclosure.
2. Designate a County Coordinator in each of your counties to
work on the campaign.
3. Authorize the use of $35,000 in CSAC reserves to fund the
grassroots campaign. The budget for the campaign is
outlined under #5 of the "Components of Campaign."
Over the course of this six month project, we will update you on our progress.
COUNTY SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA
BOARD OF DIRECTORS'
FISCAL RELIEF CONTACT
Supervisor's Name:
County:
DESIGNATED FISCAL RELIEF COORDINATOR
Title:
Address:
Phone:
;is�y
!QQUNTIES UNDER SIEGE
-� A Grassroots Camoaipn For CSA 's 1987
Fiscal Relief Strategy
I. THEME
The following theme will act as the foundation for the entire grassroots
campaign.
1. Fiscal Crisis/Loss of Local Control/Citizens Are not Receiving The
Services They Are Paving For - The State Legislature is "calling
more shots" in counties because of its continual increase of
mandated programs, Another problem is the state's refusal to provide
the funds for those mandates. Traditional services provided by
counties, such as law enforcement, fire protection, road maintenance,
libraries, etc., are being reduced and some are being eliminated
because their funding is being diverted to state-mandated programs.
Thus citizens are not receiving the services for which they arc
having
Counties continue to bear the burden for program costs that are the
legitimate responsibility of the state. We must target those counties
which we believe are suffering the most from the state mandate burden.
We will call on them to provide us with some examples and statistics
concerning the fiscal crisis those counties are experiencing. Some
examples: Deputy sheriffs take longer to respond to calls because
cutbacks have reduced the size of the workforce. Libraries are being
closed. Park hours are being cutback. Some targeted county possibilities
are:
Butte Contra Costa Del Norte
a
Fresno Humboldt Inyo
Los Angeles Mono Monterey
Santa Clara Santa Cruz Sierra
Siskiyou Stanislaus Tehama
Tulare Yolo
° (Humboldt County predicts that local funds to meet mandated programs
& l :cal matching requirements will run out by May 1, 1987. On that date
the county plans to transfer local services back to the state.)
We will ask County Supervisors and/or County Administrative Officers for
a local contact person and phone number. We will use that contact to
gather data and to make follow-up calls on CSAC's grassroots plan which
includes active involvement on the local and state levels. It is essential
for us to know who is doing what.
11. COMPONENTS OF CAMPAIGN
1. Information Packet
A. Fact sheet outlining the problem and proposals to solve it - In
addition, question and answer format to emphasize the key
points.
B. Pros and cons of proposals - Arguments for and against so that
Supervisors/County Administrative Officers will know what to
expect. from reporters or other questioners
C. A sample resolution for the Board to pass - A public hearing to
be held prior to a resolution's adoption
D. Sample press releases and letters to the Editor
E. A sample speech
F. A glossary of terms (e.g. caseload driven)
G. If available, newspaper articles on the problem
H. A brochure outlining what counties do (Ken Smith to develop)
2. Grass Roots Organizing
A. Hire a grassroots consultant
B. Identify a coordinator in each county (name provided by
Supervisors/CAO's)
C. Form local coalitions - Supervisors/CAOs - provide names of
local businessmen, labor leaders and service organization
representatives.
D. Coalition to meet with legislators from their county on a regular
basis.
E. Meet with the media (Ken Smith to arrange)
F. Line up everyday citizens to "testify" to the effects of the
county's cutbacks (because of unfunded state mandates) on their
everyday life. For example: library branches being closed
response time by deputy sheriffs, etc.
l
3. Media Relations (Ken Smith to Arrange)
A. Kick-off Day: Statewide Press conference in all 58 counties.
B. Supervisors/County Administrative Officers asked ahead of time
to open up access to press, for example, to county hospitals,
parks and have contacts available to give tours and to answer
questions. For example: If a county cites a local example of
funding shortage adversely affecting county hospital care, a
County Administrative Officer or a Supervisor should have a
hospital official available to help media get photos etc.
C. CSAC Media tour in April - events in counties - all 58 counties
involved - visit editorial boards, etc.
4. Coalition Building to Include:
A. Local (as outlined in grassroots organizing)
B. Sheriffs, judges, toxics officials, hospital administrators etc.
J C. Statewide organizations (Victor Pottorff to organize)
D. Direct lobbying in Capitol by CSAC staff
5. Budget
1. Grassroots Consultant (5 months) $18,000
2. Travel 3,000
3. Office and Expenses 1,200
4. Printing 2,000
5. Postage 2,000
6. Part-time Support Staff 3,000
7. Miscellaneous 5,000
Total $34,200
_.i
6. Time Schedule
January - Letter to CAOs/Supervisors - What is
expected of them
- Initial Legislative Contacts Made By Lobbyists
- Priorities And Plans Adopted on January 15th
By End of
January - Complete Information Packet
- County People Designated
- Packet Material Mailed
February - Bill(s) Introduced
- Coalition Building
Mid February - Statewide Press Conference
- Line up the speakers, letter writing to pass
resolutions, media, the editor, contact
legislators.
Mid April - Press Conference - Media Tour
February - June - Continuous Grassroots Activities
MEMORANDUM
November 5, 1986
TO: Members, CSAC Board of Directors
FROM: Larry E. Naake, Executive Director
SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING CSAC FISCAL RELIEF
STRATEGY FOR 1987
Background
During the last four months, CSAC staff has been working with the County
Administrative Officers Association of. California to develop a proposal to stabilize
the county costs for some of our caseload driven, state mandated programs and
provide revenues to fund our traditional county responsibilities.
This process began with a meeting in early July of the county administrative
�J officers and has continued to the point that our CSAC Executive Committee has, on
two occasions, endorsed the concepts of a proposal and a strategy for its
implementation. Subcommittees of county administrative officers, CSAC staff, and
county lobbyists are continuing to work on the details.
We are now asking the CSAC Board of Directors to review and endorse the proposal
for county fiscal relief outlined later in this memorandum.
Updated Fiscal Crisis Reoort
Last year, CSAC issued a report which documented a growing fiscal crisis in
California county government. The study found that one-half of the state's 58
counties were in serious financial trouble and faced drastic program cuts and
employee lay-offs. The report received statewide media coverage over an extended
period of time and was intended to educate responsible state officials, as well as
the public, on the difficulties counties are experiencing in providing minimum levels
of service with limited revenues. The message was heard and we believe we
convinced top officials in both the State Administration and the Legislature of our
fiscal plight. However. the results in terms of fiscal relief have not been
satisfactory at all.
In an effort to continue this educational process, we have again surveyed counties
throughout California concerning their fiscal situation for 1986-87.
A-5
The results of this survey are explained fully in the enclosed report. However, it is
clear that the results of this survey are the same as they were last year-
counties are still facing major fiscal problems. The results showed that:
-- smaller rural counties remain those hardest hit by increased state-
mandated program costs, but all counties, rural, suburban and urban, are
experiencing increased pressures on their ability to fund state required
programs.
-- caseload driven, state-mandated programs such as welfare, jails, and
courts, remain the prime reason for the fiscal crisis. Increases in the
county costs of these programs during the last five years has far
outstretched the ability of local discretionary revenues to fund them.
-- "real" discretionary programs continue to represent a small part of the
county budget--a mere 4.5% of an average county's total budget.
-- County reserves for emergencies and contingencies are still less than 1%
of their budgets, well below the 3.7% that the Governor and the
Legislature have deemed prudent for economic uncertainties.
It is clear that this trend cannot continue! The wildfire growth in state-mandated,
caseload driven programs is forcing county government away from providing its r
traditional services in such areas as law enforcement, fire protection, road
maintenance, libraries, parks and recreation, probation, mental health, and other
community services.
We must reverse this trend!
1987 County Fiscal Relief Proposal
As stated above, we have been working with the county administrative officers and
the CSAC Executive Committee on a proposal to halt this erosion of bread and
butter services.
These proposals, we believe, recognize that the state is expected to exceed its Gann
expenditure limit next year. County government can assist the state in dealing with
this problem and gain..assistance for counties in the process. Proposals for county
fiscal relief must recognize this state problem if they are to have any chance of
enactment.
The proposal has three basic components:
1. Funding the Courts. The first component is the implementation of AB 19
(Rob'rfson) of 1984, which calls for major state assistance in financing
supe:ior, municipal, and justice courts. The proposal would call for large
grant blocks to counties based on the number, of judges within their
jurisdiction and would propose certain streamlining and cost cutting
savings in the court system. The total assistance to counties would be in
the range of $275 to $325 million and would free up county general funds
for use in other important county program areas.
A-6
The state indicated its support for this concept when both the Assembly
and Senate passed AB 19 and the Governor signed the bill in 1984. We
intend to press the Administration to make this one of its major
proposals for 1987 and to seek legislative implementation.
2. Revenue Shift. The second component would provide for a shift of
revenue" from the state to the counties, along with the "unshackling" of
certain state mandates. One option being discussed is the shift of 1/4
cent of the existing state sales tax to the counties. Both the CAOs and
the CSAC Executive Committee have tentatively agreed that a formula
that would distribute these funds on the basis of both situs and
population would be most equitable. However, other revenues could be
transferred.
This shift would produce approximately $550 to $600 million in new
revenues to California counties, but would be partially offset by increased
local costs resulting from the unshackling of certain existing state
mandates. We believe this proposal is possible because the State of
California may be exceeding its Gann appropriation limit by about $850
million to $1 billion in 1987. It will, therefore, be forced to reduce its
appropriations by that amount. This is one viable alternative since the
counties as a whole are $850 million under their Gann limit.
Since counties are carrying out many state programs and, for certain
purposes are subdivisions of the state, we believe that county
appropriation limits should be considered as part of the overall state
limit. The Gann problem by and large has appeared, first at the state
--/ level. But program partnerships argue for the premise that the revenue
in excess of the state's limit needs to be directed to program deficiencies
at the county level. Thus, our proposal to readjust current statewide
revenues to counties and unshackle mandates is a viable solution to the
current debate over the state's appropriation limit.
3. Stabilizing Caseload Driven Programs. The third component of the
proposal would provide state assistance to those counties whose caseload
driven, state mandated functions grow at a faster rate than general
purpose county revenues.
As our fiscal survey demonstrated, the underlying cause of the county
fiscal crisis is the inability of county revenues to keep pace with
caseload driven, state mandated expenditures. A potential solution to this
long standing and pervasive problem is the development of a trigger
mechanism for the state funding of a comprehensive list of programs
which counties are mandated to perform.
Such a stabilization mechanism could take the form of a ratio of
mandated expenditures in a variety of programs to county general purpose
revenues for a base year. In succeeding years, the same ratio would be
calculated and compared to the base year ratio. If the current year ratio
exceeds the base year ratio, the state would be required to provide the
county with additional funding to equalize the current year ratio with the
base year ratio.
A-7
i
Recommendations
Based on the above and the endorsements of the CAOs and CSAC Executive
Committee, it is my recommendation that Your Board:
1. Endorse the components and concepts of the 1987 County Fiscal Relief
Proposal as outlined above.
2. Direct the staff to continue working with the CAOs, individual county
lobbyists, administration representatives, and legislative staff members on
the details of the proposal.
3. Direct staff to initiate a statewide campaign to gain support for the
proposal, including media coverage, media tours, direct contacts with
legislators, local meetings between county officials and their legislators,
and on-going discussions with legislators and the Governor's staff with
respect to our proposal.
4. Request counties that have lobbyists .in Sacramento to direct those
lobbyists to work with CSAC in the development of this proposal and its
implementation. It will take a united• strong, and sustained effort if we
are to have any chance of success.
LEhl:sgm
A-8