HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 02052015 - Legislation Cte Agenda Pkt
LEGISLATION COMMITTEE
February 5, 2015
10:30 A.M.
651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez
Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, Chair
Supervisor Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair
Agenda
Items:
Items may be taken out of order based on the business of the day and preference
of the Committee
1.Introductions
2.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this
agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes).
3. CONSIDER the current advocacy efforts undertaken by Contra Costa County at the state
and federal levels and discuss additional advocacy mechanisms and policy revisions, as
needed. (Page 3 of 47)
4. CONSIDER accepting the report on the status of the State Budget and legislation of
interest to Contra Costa County, and provide direction to staff. (Page 31 of 47)
5. CONSIDER recommending to the Board of Supervisors a position of "Support" on a
letter from local government leaders regarding the consolidation of Comcast, Time
Warner Cable and Charter Communications with recommendations to extend high-speed
Internet access to close the "digital divide," as requested by California Emerging
Technologies Fund. (Page 38 of 47)
6. CONSIDER recommending to the Board of Supervisors a position of "Support" on the
efforts of the coalition of statewide agencies, including California State Association of
Counties (CSAC) and County Engineers Association of California (CEAC), to provide
the County with the authority to establish funding for stormwater services, as
recommended by Public Works Department. (Page 43 of 47)
7. DIRECT staff and the County's federal advocate, Paul Schlesinger, to set meetings with
the County's congressional delegation and key administration staff and prepare any
needed material, in order for the Supervisors to advocate on behalf of the County's
policies, programs, and projects. (Page 47 of 47)
8.The next meeting is currently scheduled for March 5, 2015.
9.Adjourn
Page 1 of 47
The Legislation Committee will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities
planning to attend Legislation Committee meetings. Contact the staff person listed below at least
72 hours before the meeting.
Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and
distributed by the County to a majority of members of the Legislation Committee less than 96
hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at 651 Pine Street, 10th floor,
during normal business hours.
Public comment may be submitted via electronic mail on agenda items at least one full work day
prior to the published meeting time.
For Additional Information Contact:
Lara DeLaney, Committee Staff
Phone (925) 335-1097, Fax (925) 646-1353
lara.delaney@cao.cccounty.us
Page 2 of 47
LEGISLATION COMMITTEE 3.
Meeting Date:02/05/2015
Subject:Review of County Advocacy Efforts and Advocacy Policies
Submitted For: LEGISLATION COMMITTEE,
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: 2015-01
Referral Name: Review of County Advocacy Efforts
Presenter: L. DeLaney, Cathy Christian Contact:
Referral History:
Since its inception as a committee of the Board of Supervisors in 2007, the Legislation
Committee has been charged with reviewing the County’s Federal and State legislative programs;
identifying strategies to improve awareness, understanding and advocacy on issues of importance
to Contra Costa County; and making recommendations to the Board of Supervisors on policies
and bills of interest to the County. Staff of the Legislation Committee, County Department staff,
and our contracted advocates support these efforts of the Committee and the Board of
Supervisors. Staff is proposing that the Legislation Committee review the County's current
advocacy policies and practices and recommend changes, as needed.
Referral Update:
Legislative and budgetary actions on both the federal and state levels have enormous fiscal and
policy impacts on Contra Costa County. For example, in the past couple of years, major reforms
in corrections and health care have been enacted and implemented which have profoundly
affected the County's delivery of services. Contra Costa County continues to play a significant
leadership role on a statewide basis through active participation at the National Association of
Counties (NACo), the California State Association of Counties (CSAC), the Urban Counties
Caucus (UCC), the County Administrative Officers Association, and other professional
associations. It may be an appropriate time to strategize on ways to increase the effectiveness of
the County’s Federal and State Legislative Programs.
Consideration should be given to issues such as:
the role of Board of Supervisors’ policy advisory committees and individual Board members
in determining and advocating Contra Costa County’s position on issues and bills;
mechanisms to increase the County’s ability to respond quickly to issues and to advocate
positions;
ways to increase communication with the County’s congressional and legislative delegation;
establishment of better linkages between the professional associations, department staff
participating in professional associations and the development and articulation of County
Page 3 of 47
policy positions;
creation of a communication infrastructure to ensure message consistency and to
brief/debrief Board members and departments on activities of interest (such as the annual
Washington D.C. visits, committee testimony, UCC/CSAC meetings, legislative
conferences and other events);
participation on CSAC and NACo Policy Committees; and
development and periodic review of the County’s legislative platforms.
In addition to the development and review of the County's adopted State and Federal Platforms,
the County has developed policies that guide the advocacy efforts by our contracted lobbyists,
Department staff (including CAO), and the Board's advisory bodies. (See Attachments A and B .)
2015 Advocacy Priorities
The adopted 2015 Federal Platform does not identify specific advocacy priorities. For the past
several years, owing to the elimination of appropriation earmarks in the Federal Budget, the
County's federal advocacy efforts have centered on securing federal funding for various
navigation related projects, influencing federal water/drought (and specifically Delta) related
policy, and seeking grant support for various projects and programs.
The Board of Supervisors' adopted State advocacy priorities for 2015 include:
Priority 1: State Budget – The state’s continuing economic recovery, prior budget cuts, and the
additional, temporary taxes provided by Proposition 30 have combined to bring the State Budget
to a much improved financial condition. California’s budget outlook for 2015-16 continues to
show the promise begun in 2014-15. Our economy is expected to see continued improvement
over the next several years and revenue growth is exceeding last year’s projections. General Fund
revenues are projected to be $109.7 billion in 2014-15 and $114.6 billion in 2015-16, a 4.5
percent increase over the updated 2014-15 revenues. Compared to revenues adopted for the
budget last June, revenues are forecast to be $4.1 billion higher over 2013-14, 2014-15, and
2015-16. About half of these additional revenues are required to satisfy Proposition 98, the K-14
funding guarantee. The other half would be placed in the Rainy Day Fund and used to pay down
debt per the terms of Proposition 2, the ballot measure passed in November 2014 that strengthens
the reserve requirements and pays down debt in years of strong capital gains tax revenue growth.
The Governor’s Budget proposes total GF expenditures of $113.2 billion and a regular reserve for
liquidation and economic uncertainties of $1.5 billion. The Prop. 2 Rainy Day Fund is proposed
to contain $2.8 billion, of which $1.6 billion was placed in the account in 2014-15 and $1.2 billion
is added in 2015-16.
While the Governor's Budget identifies cost pressures and budget risks in health and human
services programs, of particular concern to counties is the inadequate reimbursement for our
ever-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.
Priority 2: Health Care – Counties play a critical role in California’s health reform efforts.
Counties serve as employers, payers, and providers of care to vulnerable populations.
Page 4 of 47
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, The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA).
The optional Medi-Cal Expansion, in effect on Jan. 1, 2014, was a significant part of the State
Budget process in 2013. (The mandatory expansion includes changes to eligibility and enrollment
for populations currently eligible for Medicaid and is estimated to cost the state General Fund
$350 million.) The ACA had required states to expand Medicaid programs to allow childless
adults at or below 138 percent of poverty to be eligible for Medicaid (known as Medi-Cal in
California). The Supreme Court struck down that mandate but allowed it to be an option for states,
which California has exercised.
The Governor’s proposed Budget provided two options for that optional expansion: a “state
option” and a “county option.” Governor Brown announced in his proposed budget that he
intended to either realign the county responsibility to provide medical care to indigent adults to
include providing care to Medicaid eligible adults or recoup as much of the 1991 health
realignment funding from counties as possible. CSAC successfully redirected the realignment
effort and instead negotiated a fiscal transaction that reflects the shift of indigent adults to the
state’s Medi-Cal program.
However, significant unknowns remain including questions about the actual impact of the ACA
coverage expansions on counties and the number of uninsured individuals to whom counties will
still need to provide services. Counties will retain the Section 17000 responsibility, and there will
be significant variations in the impacts of both the ACA and AB 85 for the different types of
counties: county hospital (12 counties including Contra Costa County), payor/clinic and County
Medical Services Program (CMSP) counties.
In the coming year, the County will continue to work on the implementation of required health
care reform measures to maximize federal revenue. The County will support efforts to provide
counties with the necessary tools to implement health care reform which may include performing
eligibility and enrollment, preserving existing county resources from 1991 Realignment,
providing for a smooth transition in 2014 for the various operational systems, and supporting
legislation to ensure that low-income families are covered under the Affordable Care Act while
opposing legislation which would reduce Medi-Cal eligibility. In addition, the County will
continue to work to reduce uncompensated health care costs and on the adequacy of rates under
the new health care system.
Priority 3: Water and Levees /The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta – The enactment of the Delta
Reform Act (2009), a bill that established the co-equal goals for reliable water supply and
ecosystem restoration for the Delta, created the Delta Stewardship Council as the state entity
overseeing the Delta through the proposed Delta Plan, and supported the proposed Bay Delta
Conservation Plan (BDCP)--an effort to construct a pair of massive tunnels under the Delta--will
bring significant, large-scale change to the Delta as we know it. The scope and content of these
changes, as well as enduring political battles between northern and southern California over
water, will continue to guide legislative and administrative agendas in the coming year. Enabling
legislation was also passed in 2009 for a state water bond, which was delayed from the 2010 and
2012 ballots but successfully passed on the 2014 state ballot, as Proposition 1.
Significant future impacts upon the County in the areas of water quality and supply, levee
stability, ecosystem health, local land use authority and flood control are anticipated.
Page 5 of 47
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 2015 include, but are not limited to: (1) the ongoing development
of the BDCP project and whether the state water bond appropriates funds specific to the BDCP;
(2) the impacts of the Delta Plan on local land use authority, efforts to expedite state bond funding
for levee improvement projects, and the development of flow standards that will impact water
quality and ecosystem health in the Delta. The County’s adopted Delta Water Platform, as well as
the Strategic and Action Plans, are incorporated in this Platform by reference.
Priority 4: Realignment Implementation – The battle for constitutional protections for 2011
Realignment concluded successfully on November 6, 2012 when Proposition 30 was passed by
the voters. Proposition 30 provides constitutional guarantees to the funding that supports
Realignment and safeguards against future program expansion without accompanying funding.
With these provisions in place, Contra Costa County can continue to implement the array of
programs transferred under 2011 Realignment, confident that funding is secure and programmatic
responsibilities are defined. However, the County remains concerned that the funding is not
sufficient and is also concerned about liability issues arising from the new responsibilities.
Any future proposals to realign programs to counties must have constitutionally guaranteed
ongoing funding and protections. The County will oppose any proposals that will transfer
additional program responsibility to counties without funding, constitutional protections, county
participation and approval. The County will also oppose efforts that limit county flexibility in
implementing programs and services realigned in 2011 or infringe upon our ability to innovate
locally.
The County resolves to remain accountable to our local constituents in delivering high-quality
programs that efficiently and effectively respond to local needs. Further, we support counties’
development of appropriate measures of local outcomes and dissemination of best practices.
With regard to Public Safety realignment, counties have received 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 crimes. Under the current
legislation, the person’s latest offense/crime determines if they meet the N3 criteria. Specifically,
a change would be requested to prevent those whose total 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 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.
The County will also continue to support efforts to ensure that the receipt of Local Community
Corrections Funds matches the amounts anticipated from the state, without undue delay. Finally,
the County also supports more funding for mental health and behavioral health programs and
facilities in order to meet the requirements of Realignment and the goal of reducing recidivism.
The proposed 2015 advocacy priorities for CSAC are included in Attachment C.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
1. CONSIDER the County's current range of advocacy efforts by staff, advocates, andPage 6 of 47
1. CONSIDER the County's current range of advocacy efforts by staff, advocates, and
Supervisors and determine whether to add various other advocacy efforts or mechanisms to
increase Contra Costa County's engagement and leadership position.These efforts could include
such things as:
a. Establishing a regular (weekly, monthly, or quarterly) check-in call with our legislative
delegation;
b. Increasing Supervisors and/or Department Head engagement at the Capitol in various
Committee hearings;
c. Increasing the Supervisors and/or Department Head engagement with policies committees for
NACo and/or CSAC;
d. The development and distribution of a "Hot Bill" list that would focus the County's advocacy
efforts on particular bills of interest;
2. CONSIDER the County's current policies and practices on advocacy efforts (Attachments A
and B) and direct staff to update and revise the policies as needed.
Attachments
Attachment A: Position on Bills
Attachment B: Advocacy by Advisory Bodies
Attachment C: CSAC Advocacy Priorities
Page 7 of 47
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: Legislation Committee,
Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, Chair
Supervisor Susan A. Bonilla
DATE: April 22, 2008
Contra
Costa
County
SUBJECT: Position on Bills
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION
ACCEPT the report regarding the development of Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
positions on bills, and AUTHORIZE the Chair of the Board to communicate his/her position on a bill
when there is no adopted Board policy on the matter, provided it is clearly indicated the position is
that of the Chair and the full Board takes action on the bill on the next available agenda.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
BACKGROUND:
At its February 25, 2008 meeting, the Legislation Committee reviewed and accepted the following
report that sets forth the protocol for bill position development, recommendation, adoption, and
advocacy by the Board of Supervisors.
1. Relationship to Platform
The Contra Costa County Legislative Platforms are intended to guide the County on federal and state
legislative and budgetary issues of interest or concern to the County. More specifically, the Legislative
Platforms detail the legislative proposals the County wishes to sponsor and communicates the priority
issues and policy positions of the County. Contra Costa County’s state and federal Legislative Platforms
were adopted by the Board on January 22, 2008. The platforms, however, are dynamic documents that
may be updated or amended during the year as the need arises.
Based on the priorities and policies in the County’s adopted federal and state Legislative Platforms, staff
assesses issues, bills, and budget items that arise during the legislative sessions for conformity with the
Legislative Platform. Note that Contra Costa County’s Legislative program is coordinated by the
CAO’s office, with the exception of state transportation-related issues and bills, which are handled by
the transportation planning division of Community Development (Steve Goetz and John Greitzer).
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: x YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON
APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED
OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT )
AYES: NOES:
ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
Contact:
L. DeLaney 5-1097
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY
OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON MINUTES OF THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Cc: ATTESTED
JOHN CULLEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OFSUPERVISORS
Supervisor Mary N. Piepho
Supervisor Susan A. Bonilla
BY:
, DEPUTY
Page 8 of 47
Leg Committee Report—p. 2
April 22, 2008
2. Protocol for Recommendations to Board of Supervisors
a. Content Experts (Department staff, CSAC staff)
County departments are often in the best position to provide detailed impact analyses of proposed
bills and issues affecting the County. Impact analyses include both programmatic as well as fiscal
impacts. With the responsibility of providing services to Contra Costa County residents, County
departments have the greatest interest in ensuring that legislative matters impact their service
delivery in the most positive way. However, County departments, each with their own interests, can
have differing and possibly conflicting positions. As a result, policy positions should be coordinated
through the CAO’s office.
To protect their and the County’s interests, County departments should do the following:
Identify, monitor, and analyze legislative issues of concern to the department. The department
should provide the analysis to the CAO’s office (or Transportation Planning staff) at the earliest
practical time.These analyses should briefly describe the issue and consider both
programmatic and fiscal impacts to service delivery as well as impacts on those served.
Should the CAO’s office (or Transportation Planning staff) determine the issue conforms with a
pre-existing policy position in the adopted Platform, the CAO’s office and the department will
work collaboratively to draft a Board Order with a position recommendation and a letter for
signature by the Chair of the Board. Should the CAO’s office (or Transportation Planning staff)
determine the issue does not conform to a pre-existing policy, the issue will be placed on the
following Legislative Committee, TWIC, or Board of Supervisors agenda.
If a bill potentially affects more than one department, the CAO’s staff (or Transportation
Planning staff) will work to achieve a consensus position among those impacted before
presenting the item for Board consideration.
Once the Board of Supervisors has adopted a relevant policy and/or bill position, the CAO’s
office (or Transportation Planning staff) will collaborate to develop a position letter and
coordinate advocacy efforts.
While elected heads of County departments are not required to comply with the above
guidelines, they are encouraged to do so with the common goal of best serving our County
community.
The California State Association of Counties (CSAC) also provides a wealth of information and
analyses about issues and bills that affect County operations and services. CSAC adopts and
publishes annual Legislative Priorities and Platforms; a Legislative Bulletin is circulated generally
twice a month; Budget Action Bulletins are developed as needed; a legislative tracking service is
provided on their website; and CSAC staff are available for further discussion and insights on
important issues and bills. County department staff are encouraged to review the analyses
prepared by CSAC staff, respond to data and information inquiries, and consult with CSAC staff
as appropriate.
b. Political Reality Checks (Lobbyists, Associations)
The County’s Legislative Advocates (lobbyists) identify issues of possible concern to the County,
assess the likelihood of satisfying the County’s interests, advise the County on legislative affairs and
represent the County’s interests on the state and federal levels to legislators, the Governor’s office
and executive agencies. The federal and state advocates will coordinate advocacy activities with the
CAO’s staff and Transportation Planning staff.
For federal matters, the County currently retains the firms of Alcade & Fay, represented by Paul
Schlesinger and Charlotte Hrncir; for state matters, Nielsen, Merksamer, Parrinello, Mueller & Naylor,
LLP, represented by Cathy Christian, Alan Fernandes, and Jim Gross; and for transportation matters,
California Strategies and Advocacy, represented by Mark Watts.
Page 9 of 47
The roles and responsibilities of the County Legislative Advocates include:
Communicating the County’s general and specific concerns to legislators, the Governor,
agencies, and other interested parties and relevant staff through meetings, hearing testimony
and conversations where appropriate.
Suggesting strategies and approaches to best satisfy the County’s interests.
Regularly reporting, through in-person meetings, conference calls and memoranda, on actions
taken on behalf of the County, as well as other information of interest to the County. This
includes the Year-End Reports.
The Board of Supervisors and Department Staff involvement and engagement in associations is
another means for assessing the impacts of legislation and budget proposals on Contra Costa County
finances, operations and services. The Board of Supervisors regularly participates on the boards and
committees of the California State Association of Counties (CSAC), Urban Counties Caucus (UCC),
the Bay Area Caucus, and the National Association of Counties (NACo). The publications and
communications from these associations are regularly provided to County departments.
Many County departments also participate in professional organizations and associations. Examples
include the California Welfare Directors Association (CWDA) and the California Association of Public
Hospitals (CAPH). County departments are encouraged to participate in such organizations to affect
pending legislation and other relevant issues when such advocacy is consistent with the Board’s
policies and positions. County departments are encouraged to communicate the positions of the
professional organization or association to the CAO’s office. When the position of the professional
organization or association differs from that of the Board of Supervisors, the department should notify
the CAO’s office.
If the organization or association requests a letter of support/opposition for the organization’s position,
the department shall:
contact the CAO’s staff to discuss the requested action;
determine whether there is existing County policy on the issue;
verify that it does not adversely impact other County operations; and
submit the item for the Board’s consideration and action.
3. Board Order Format and Content
When a department, Board committee or advisory board/commission wishes to recommend a
position on a bill to the Board of Supervisors, the submittal of the Board Order is handled by the
legislative coordinator in the CAO’s office. The CAO’s staff works collaboratively with department
staff on the analysis of the bill’s impact on County operations and prepares the Board Order and
position letter.
The Board Order follows the standard County format which includes a recommendation, a fiscal
impact statement, background material, and attachments. In general, the attachments should include
the actual bill text and any relevant analyses.
Position recommendations can include:
Support
Support and amend
Support if amended
Watch
Oppose
Oppose unless amended
No position
4. Urgency Action Protocol
In cases of extreme urgency, when the Board of Supervisors has an adopted policy position on an
issue or bill, there is an established policy whereby the Chair of the Board of Supervisors may
communicate a position on the matter prior to the Board taking action.
In such cases, department staff must alert the CAO’s office who will advise the Board Chair on a
position recommendation prior to Board action. Board policy allows the Board Chair to send a letter
under his/her personal letterhead (or County letterhead, indicating the position is that of the Chair)
Page 10 of 47
provided that all Board members are immediately alerted of the action and that an official Board
position is considered at the next Board meeting.
In cases of extreme urgency when the Board of Supervisors does not have an adopted policy position
that relates directly to an issue or bill, the Legislative Committee recommends the following:
The Chair of the Board is authorized to communicate a position prior to the Board action under
his/her own personal letterhead (or County letterhead), indicating the position is that of the
Chair of the Board, provided that the Board take action at its next meeting.
5. Role of Board Committees, Advisory Boards and Commissions, and Community Based
Organizations
a. Board Committees
The Board has established the following standing committees: Internal Operations (IO), Family and
Human Services (FHS), Finance, Public Protection, Transportation, Water, and Infrastructure (TW&I),
and Legislation. Capital Facilities meets as needed. The purpose of the standing committees is
three-fold: (1) to study issues in more depth than is usually practical at a regular meeting of the
Board; (2) to study issues in the context of a functional system of programs and services; and (3) to
provide more opportunity for the public and other interested parties to have insight and input into the
analytical and deliberative process that leads to formal recommendations.
The current standing committees cover the functional areas of County services. As such, the issues,
policies, and bills relevant to the functional areas addressed by the standing committees should be
directed to those committees for recommendation on action by the Board of Supervisors.
b. County Advisory Boards and Commissions
Like County departments, County Advisory Board and Commission members possess a high level of
knowledge and expertise and can provide detailed impact analyses of issues affecting the County.
As advisors, board and commission members are encouraged to alert the Board of Supervisors of
relevant issues and bills. To that end, County Advisory Board and Commission members are
encouraged to:
Identify and analyze legislative issues of concern to board/commission subject areas. For
issues of importance, the staff person to the board/commission should alert any relevant
County department and the CAO’s staff (or Transportation Planning staff) about the issue and
provide an analysis. Public opinion and/or advocacy about the issue should not proceed
without Board of Supervisors action on the issue.
The analyses should briefly describe the issue and consider both programmatic and fiscal
impacts to service delivery as well as impacts on those served. Should the CAO’s office (or
Transportation Planning staff) determine that the issue conforms with a pre-existing Board
policy position, the CAO’s staff and the board/commission staff will work collaboratively to draft
a Board Order and position letter for signature by the Chair of the Board. Should the CAO’s
staff determine that the issue does not align with a pre-existing policy, the issue will be placed
on the next Legislative Committee, standing committee, or Board agenda, as needed.
c. Community Based Organizations
Community based organizations (CBOs) can be effective partners in advocating for issues of
mutual interest and should be engaged in position development and advocacy efforts as
needed and as appropriate. CBOs are encouraged to alert the CAO legislative staff to bills
and issues of mutual interest and communicate their positions on those matters. In addition,
CAO staff will seek input from CBOs for the preparation of analyses and position formation, as
appropriate.
6. Communication of Positions
It is the primary responsibility of the CAO’s legislative staff and Transportation Planning staff, in
coordination with the federal and state advocates, to advance the official County position on bills
as they progress through the legislative process. However, this advocacy may require and
include the participation of Board members, the CAO, Department heads, and other designated
County staff as appropriate.
Page 11 of 47
Advocacy activities and communication of official County positions may include direct interaction
with members of the Legislature and their staff; Legislative Committees and their staff; State and
federal agencies and administrations; statewide organizations; local or regional governmental
bodies; and community organizations.
A Department or Advisory Board/Commission may not take any action that would imply the
County’s support or opposition to any pending legislation in the absence of, or inconsistent with,
adopted Board positions.
Any time a County employee appears before a state, federal or local body to express a personal
opinion or make a public comment, that individual must state for the record that they are speaking
as a private citizen and not as an employee of the County or a representative of the Department
for which they work. Further, written personal opinions shall not appear on County or department
stationery/letterhead.
These procedures do not apply to elected officials who have been independently elected to
represent the County and its residents. However, elected Department heads are encouraged to
continue the past practice of open communication with the CAO and CAO’s staff on important
state and federal issues. In addition, the support of our elected officials on behalf of County policy
positions can be a persuasive factor when dealing with state and federal representatives, and
efforts to maintain this cooperative spirit will be given high priority by the CAO and CAO’s staff.
With regard to written correspondence:
Following action by the Board of Supervisors on legislative matters, the CAO’s staff (or
Transportation Planning staff) shall coordinate with the Board Chair and federal/state
advocates to forward copies of such action to appropriate state and federal representatives,
committees, and agencies.
Letters of support or opposition to legislation will be prepared and coordinated with
departments by the CAO’s staff in accordance with Board-adopted positions.
Written correspondence on behalf of the County to elected officials at the federal, state, or
local level shall be transmitted over the signature of the Board Chair.
Only the Board of Supervisors can send position letters on a particular piece of legislation.
Of course individual Board members and other elected officials have the right to express
their positions on bills on behalf of themselves (but not the County).
Page 12 of 47
Page 13 of 47
Page 14 of 47
Page 15 of 47
Page 16 of 47
Page 17 of 47
Page 18 of 47
Page 19 of 47
Page 20 of 47
Page 21 of 47
Page 22 of 47
Page 23 of 47
Page 24 of 47
Page 25 of 47
Page 26 of 47
Page 27 of 47
Page 28 of 47
Page 29 of 47
Page 30 of 47
LEGISLATION COMMITTEE 4.
Meeting Date:02/05/2015
Subject:Update on State Budget and Legislative Priority Issues
Submitted For: LEGISLATION COMMITTEE,
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: 2015-02
Referral Name: Update on State Budget and Legislative Priority Issues
Presenter: L. DeLaney, Cathy Christian Contact:
Referral History:
The Legislation Committee regularly receives reports from Committee staff on the status of the
State Budget and legislation of interest to Contra Costa County.
Referral Update:
Governor's 2015-16 State Budget Proposal
Governor Jerry Brown unveiled his budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2015-16 on January 9, once
again striking a balance between maintaining fiscal discipline and investing in critical programs
important to all Californians. As he has in past years, he proposed using the state's improved
revenues to pay down debt and increase spending on education and healthcare. His warning
against spending too much for ongoing programs is based on his desire to avoid, in his words,
"stop and start" budgeting in favor of "steady as you go."
Chief among counties’ interests has been repayment for mandates owed to local governments for
more than a decade. The Governor’s budget proposes an additional $533 million to accelerate that
debt repayment. Of that, 73 percent or $390 million would go to counties to help enhance public
safety and provide health care and other vital services.
To account for an increase in caseload and continued system functionality problems, the
Governor has proposed an increase of $150 million for county Medi-Cal administration. He has
also made a number of proposals and outlined factors that together could affect counties' MOE
requirement for In-Home Support Services.
The Governor proposes using $1 billion in cap and trade funding for programs that will reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, including $200 million to fund the Affordable Housing and Sustainable
Communities program.
Proposition 1 funds make their first appearance in this year's budget, as the Governor's proposes
using $532.5 million of the water bond, including $22 million for groundwater and $135 million
Page 31 of 47
for safe drinking water.
For county probationefforts, SB 678 has been calculated at $125 million for 2015-16. These funds
will continue to provide an incentive for keeping those on probation from reoffending.
The Governor is proposing a number of changes to the laws governing the dissolution of
redevelopment agencies . The changes, under the general heading of “streamlining” aim at
minimizing the erosion of the return of property taxes, clarifying various ambiguities in the
dissolution statutes, and maintaining the expeditious wind-down of RDA activities while adding
new incentives for substantial compliance with the law.
As he did last year for CalSTRS—the teachers' retirement system—the Governor has introduced
a plan to deal with the state's enormous retiree healthcare liability. The plan would begin
prefunding those costs in the budget year with a goal of funding them completely within thirty
years.
Although it doesn’t directly affect counties, the largest part of the state’s budget is K-14
education . The Governor is proposing a total increase of $2.5 billion in the Proposition 98
guarantee. Compared to 2011-12, this represents an increase of about $2,600 per student.
The budget proposal also includes $478 million for deferred maintenance at universities, parks,
prisons, hospitals, and other state facilities. However, there is no specific plan to fund the huge
maintenance needs of the state and local road systems.
LAO Analysis of the Governor's Budget
The Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) released its Overview of the Governor's Budget on
January 13, 2015 (click here). The LAO provided the following comments on the Governor's
Budget:
Governor's Priorities Generally Prudent Ones. The LAO notes that the Governor's budgeting
philosophy continues to be prudent for the most part. The Governor's reluctance to propose
significant new program commitments outside of Proposition 98 could help avoid a return to
the boom and bust budgeting of the past.
Budget Vulnerability Remains. The LAO notes that the state's finances remain vulnerable to
sudden tax revenue declines and that the complex budget formulas could complicate budget
planning.
Higher Revenue Projections . The LAO states that the Governor's plan reflects higher
revenue projections compared to the estimates in June 2014. However, the LAO notes that
there is a strong possibility that revenues for 2014-15 will be significantly above the
administration's new projections - as much as $1 to $2 billion above the Governor's
projections.
Other comments on specific proposals:
HHS Budget Uncertainty. The LAO points out that the Governor's budget proposal for
health and human services reflects uncertainty related to federal actions in a number of areas
including immigration, CalFresh, Foster Care, and IHSS overtime.
Proposition 47 Implementation. The LAO notes that the Governor's proposal raises several
issues for consideration including that the Governor's budget likely underestimates the
Page 32 of 47
reduction in the prison population that will occur due to Proposition 47, the Legislature
needs to work with the administration to develop a plan for reducing prison capacity, and the
Legislature could consider providing guidance on how state savings from Prop 47 will be
spend on various services.
IHSS Overtime Ruling
On January 14, 2015, the U.S. District Court invalidated the U.S. Department of Labor's changes
to its rules regarding home care workers. With this ruling, the Department of Social Services
(DSS) announced on January 15, 2015 that it would halt the implementation of overtime, travel
and wait time pay for IHSS workers that was supposed to begin on January 1, 2015. According to
DSS this means that recipients of services will continue to receive all of the monthly hours they
have been authorized.
CEQA Bill Introduced
SB 122 (Jackson, Hill and Roth) was introduced on January 15, 2015. This bill is a vehicle for
consensus issues on CEQA that the Senators are interested in pursuing. While the bill currently
only addresses changes to the concurrent preparation of the record, the authors of the bill intend to
add provisions relating to Internet resources and late data dumps.
Cap and Trade Update
Last week, the Strategic Growth Council approved the final guidelines for the Affordable Housing
and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) program. This program will provide grants and loans for
affordable housing, infill and transit-oriented development, and infrastructure that connect these
projects to transit. There is approximately $130 million for these programs. It is also important to
note that several projects are precluded from applying.
Concept proposals are due February 19 and full applications are expected to be approved in June.
The Strategic Growth Council will be hosting a number of technical assistance workshops across
the state in February.
Budget Proposal Restores Property Tax Postponement Program
One item that the Governor included in his January Budget is the Senior Citizens’ Property Tax
Postponement Program. As the budget itself describes the program:
“The Senior Citizens' Property Tax Postponement Program allows eligible homeowners to defer
payment of residential property tax. The state pays the deferred taxes to local governments on
behalf of the participants, and places a lien on their property to assure repayment when the
property is sold or transferred. The Senior Citizens' Property Tax Postponement Loan
Repayments Program captures repayments from individuals that participated in the Senior
Citizens' Property Tax Postponement Program and transfers to the General Fund the amount in
excess of what is required to fund the Postponement Program claims. The Program was suspended
in 2009 and was reestablished via legislation in 2014 (Chapter 703, Statutes of 2014).” The
program first began in 1977 and over the following twenty-two years allowed thousands of
low-income seniors and people who were blind or disabled stay in their homes by deferring their
property taxes. In most years the program resulted in a net benefit to the state. However, in the
wake of the housing crash it resulted in a slight cost and the Legislature indefinitely suspended it.
Assembly Member and former CSAC President Rich Gordon carried AB 2231 last year, which
Page 33 of 47
reinstated the program with some changes to assure its solvency. The bill specifically allows
counties to postpone the tax sale of eligible homes that were affected when the Legislature
suspended the program, and even waives some of the penalties, fees, and interest associated with
these properties. Assuming the program remains in the final version of the budget, the State
Controller’s Office will be ready to accept applications in September 2016. The program will be
open to residents who are 62 or older, blind, or disabled, who have an annual income of less than
$35,500, and who have at least 40 percent equity in their home. Mobile and floating homes are
not included in the program.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
CONSIDER accepting the report on the status of the State Budget and legislation of interest to
Contra Costa County, and provide direction to staff.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
The fiscal impact from the proposed State Budget on Contra Costa County has not been
specifically identified as yet.
Attachments
State Legislative Bills status report
Page 34 of 47
Master File 2015
1
CA AB 11 AUTHOR: Gonzalez [D]
TITLE: Employment: Paid Sick Days: In-Home Supportive Services
INTRODUCED:12/01/2014
DISPOSITION: Pending
LOCATION: Assembly Labor and Employment Committee
SUMMARY:
Revises the definition of an employee under the Healthy workplaces, Healthy
Families Act of 2014 to include providers of in-home support services.
STATUS:
01/16/2015 To ASSEMBLY Committee on LABOR AND
EMPLOYMENT.
Commentary:
Entitles IHSS workers to accrue one hour of sick leave for every 30 hours worked
CA AB 45 AUTHOR: Mullin [D]
TITLE: Household Hazardous Waste
INTRODUCED:12/01/2014
DISPOSITION: Pending
LOCATION: ASSEMBLY
SUMMARY:
Expresses the Legislature's intent to enact legislation that would establish curbside
household hazardous waste collection programs, door-to-door household hazardous
waste collection programs and household hazardous waste residential pickup
services as the principal means of collecting household hazardous waste and
diverting it from landfills and waterways.
STATUS:
12/01/2014 INTRODUCED.
Commentary:
Watch
CA AB 86 AUTHOR: McCarty [D]
TITLE: Peace Officers: Independent Review Panel
INTRODUCED:01/06/2015
DISPOSITION: Pending
LOCATION: ASSEMBLY
SUMMARY:
Declares the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would establish, within
the Department of Justice, an independent review panel to investigate and provide
an independent review of peace officer involved shootings and other uses of force
resulting in death.
STATUS:
01/06/2015 INTRODUCED.
Commentary:
Watch
Page 35 of 47
Master File 2015
2
CA AB 190 AUTHOR: Harper [R]
TITLE: Solid Waste: Single-Use Carryout Bags
INTRODUCED:01/27/2015
DISPOSITION: Pending
LOCATION: ASSEMBLY
SUMMARY:
Prohibits stores that have a specified amount of sales in dollars or retail floor space
from providing a single-use carry-out bag to a customer and prohibits those stores
from selling or distributing a recycled paper bag at the point of sale unless the store
makes that bag available for purchase.
STATUS:
01/27/2015 INTRODUCED.
Commentary:
Watch
CA AB 191 AUTHOR: Harper [R]
TITLE: Solid Waste: Single-Use Carryout Bags
INTRODUCED:01/27/2015
DISPOSITION: Pending
LOCATION: ASSEMBLY
SUMMARY:
Repeals the requirement that a store that distributes recycled paper bags make those
bags available for purchase for not less than $0.10.
STATUS:
01/27/2015 INTRODUCED.
Commentary:
Watch
CA SB 11 AUTHOR: Beall [D]
TITLE: Peace officer Training: Mental Health
INTRODUCED:12/01/2014
DISPOSITION: Pending
LOCATION: Senate Rules Committee
SUMMARY:
Declares the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to increase the minimum
mental health training standard for peace officers in the state.
STATUS:
01/15/2015 To SENATE Committee on RULES.
Commentary:
Doug Sibley requested Leg Comm review
Page 36 of 47
Master File 2015
3
CA SB 36 AUTHOR: Hernandez [D]
TITLE: Medi-Cal: Demonstration Project
INTRODUCED:12/01/2014
DISPOSITION: Pending
LOCATION: Senate Health Committee
SUMMARY:
Requires the State Department of Health Care Services to submit an application to
the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for a waiver to implement a
demonstration project that continues the state's momentum and successes in
innovation achieved under the demonstration project described in existing law.
STATUS:
01/15/2015 To SENATE Committee on HEALTH.
Commentary:
Waiver to implement a successor 1115 Medicaid Waiver demonstration program
Page 37 of 47
LEGISLATION COMMITTEE 5.
Meeting Date:02/05/2015
Subject:Recommendations to FCC for corporate consolidation of Comcast, Time
Warner Cable, Charter Communications
Submitted For: John Gioia, District I Supervisor
Department:Board of Supervisors District I
Referral No.: 2015-01
Referral Name: FCC Recommendations for corporate consolidation of Comcast, Time Warner
Cable, Charter Communications
Presenter: Lara DeLaney Contact: Lara DeLaney, (925) 335-1097
Referral History:
California Emerging Technologies Fund has provided a draft letter to the Federal
Communications Commission regarding the proposed Comcast acquisition of Time Warner Cable
and exchange of service territory with Charter Communications and its impact on the "Digital
Divide," for discussion and possible action by the Legislation Committee.
Referral Update:
Today, 25% of all California and U.S. households do not have high-speed Internet access at
home. This impacts the quality of life and economic vitality in all of our communities. It means
that we are unable to reach 25% of our residents with public information and government services
online that could save us operating costs. And, it excludes 25% of our constituents from
participating in today’s democracy.
Federal law says there must be a finding of public benefit to approve the proposed Comcast
acquisition of Time Warner Cable and exchange of service territory with Charter
Communications. This review process provides an opportunity for the FCC to hold Comcast
accountable to improve its Internet Essentials program and achieve acceptable performance.
Comcast launched Internet Essentials, a $9.95-a-month broadband plan for families of students
eligible to receive free or reduced school lunch, to secure federal government approval to purchase
NBC Universal in 2010. While this is a very good price point for affordability, the program
currently is failing to reach millions of Americans who could benefit most from an affordable
connection to the Internet.
In 3 years, Comcast has signed up only 14% of currently-eligible households because of several
problems with the subscription process and the lack of sincere partnerships with trusted
organizations that know how to reach and engage the key populations. Conservative analysis
shows that an estimated 1.375 million California households would be eligible for Internet
Essentials in the new combined service territory of approximately 3.7 million households. That
Page 38 of 47
Essentials in the new combined service territory of approximately 3.7 million households. That
will include more than 3 million K-12 students—87% of all California students qualifying for
free-or-reduced lunch. A significant portion of the remaining 13% of California students will live
in areas served by other companies planning or considering merges.
The draft letter to the FCC proposes five recommendations for the Comcast-TWC-Charter
consolidation:
1. Include All Low-Income Households : Extend Comcast Internet Essentials to all low-income
households, not just those with school children. Require Charter and all companies resulting from
corporate mergers or acquisitions to offer a similar affordable offer to all low-income households.
Low-income seniors, people with disabilities and returning veterans are not covered today.
2. Set Performance Goals: Set a goal for Comcast to increase Internet Essentials subscribership
for expanded eligible households to reach 45% in 2 years, and to continue the program until 80%
adoption is achieved in all low-income neighborhoods in each major market within the combined
service territories. Set a similar goal for Charter and all other companies.
3. Capitalize an Independent Fund and Coordinate with States: Work through and collaborate
with states that have an adopted plan to close the Digital Divide. In states, such as California, that
are major Comcast-TWC markets and have a strategic plan to close the Digital Divide, require
Comcast to dedicate a sufficient amount to an independently-managed fund to engage
experienced community-based organizations, libraries and schools to assist in achieving the 45%
subscription sign-ups and overall 80% adoption rate. Apply this same approach to states that
become dominant Charter markets. The management of such a fund should be selected by a state
agency through an open competitive process.
4. Establish an Advisory Oversight Committee: Establish a national advisory oversight
committee to provide feedback and input to the FCC in monitoring performance and progress.
The program has been riddled with problems and there is a lack of transparency on data regarding
eligibility and progress. There must be a reliable process and mechanism for public
accountability.
5. Offer Stand-Alone Internet Service: Require Comcast, Charter and other merged companies
to offer all consumers the opportunity to purchase stand-alone Internet access at a reasonable rate
instead of being forced to pay for bundled services.
The draft letter is attached for discussion and consideration by the Legislation Committee.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
RECOMMEND to the Board of Supervisors a position of "Support" on the local government
officials letter to the Federal Communications Commission regarding the corporate consolidation
of Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Charter Communications with recommendations to extend
high-speed Internet access to all low-income households, set performance goals, collaborate with
states to close the Digital Divide, establish a national advisory oversight committee and offer
stand-alone Internet service.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
No fiscal impact to the County from this advocacy effort.
Page 39 of 47
No fiscal impact to the County from this advocacy effort.
Attachments
Draft letter to FCC
Page 40 of 47
Draft Letter to FCC from Local Government Leaders
January 2015
Chairman Tom Wheeler
Commissioner Mignon Clyburn
Commissioner Ajit Pai
Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel
Commissioner Michael O’Rielly
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20554
Re: Comcast-Time Warner Cable: Docket #14-57
Dear Chairman Wheeler, Commissioner Clyburn, Commissioner Pai,
Commissioner Rosenworcel, and Commissioner O’Rielly:
As Local Elected Officials we are deeply concerned about the increasing disparities
across our country with a full quarter of the population being stuck on the other side of
the Digital Divide and being left behind at an accelerating pace. The United States
cannot be competitive globally with so many of its people unable to participate fully in
the economy nor reach their highest potential for creativity and productivity.
Today, 25% of all California and U.S. households do not have high-speed Internet
access at home. This impacts the quality of life and economic vitality in all of our
communities. It means that we are unable to reach 25% of our residents with public
information and government services online that could save us operating costs. And, it
excludes 25% of our constituents from participating in today’s democracy. Yet, we
were elected to represent 100% of the people, not just 75%.
Federal law says there must be a finding of public benefit to approve the proposed Comcast
acquisition of Time Warner Cable and exchange of service territory with Charter
Communications. This review process provides an opportunity for the FCC to hold
Comcast accountable to improve its Internet Essentials program and achieve acceptable
performance. Comcast launched Internet Essentials, a $9.95-a-month broadband plan for
families of students eligible to receive free or reduced school lunch, to secure federal
government approval to purchase NBC Universal in 2010. While this is a very good price
point for affordability, the program currently is failing to reach millions of Americans who
could benefit most from an affordable connection to the Internet.
In 3 years, Comcast has signed up only 14% of currently-eligible households because
of several problems with the subscription process and the lack of sincere partnerships
with trusted organizations that know how to reach and engage the key populations.
Conservative analysis shows that an estimated 1.375 million California households
would be eligible for Internet Essentials in the new combined service territory of
approximately 3.7 million households. That will include more than 3 million K-12
students—87% of all California students qualifying for free-or-reduced lunch. A
significant portion of the remaining 13% of California students will live in areas
served by other companies planning or considering merges. Thus, for California, this
corporate consolidation is the “ballgame” and we need your support to secure a
widely-available affordable broadband program. We urge your action to ensure
Internet For All Now.
Page 41 of 47
Page 2: Local Government Officials Letter to the FCC, January 2015
We strongly urge you to require the following 5 Recommendations if you approve the
Comcast-TWC-Charter and/or other corporate consolidation:
1. Include All Low-Income Households: Extend Comcast Internet Essentials to
all low-income households, not just those with school children. Require Charter
and all companies resulting from corporate mergers or acquisitions to offer a
similar affordable offer to all low-income households. Low-income seniors,
people with disabilities and returning veterans are not covered today.
2. Set Performance Goals: Set a goal for Comcast to increase Internet Essentials
subscribership for expanded eligible households to reach 45% in 2 years, and to
continue the program until 80% adoption is achieved in all low-income
neighborhoods in each major market within the combined service territories. Set
a similar goal for Charter and all other companies.
3. Capitalize an Independent Fund and Coordinate with States: Work through
and collaborate with states that have an adopted plan to close the Digital Divide.
In states, such as California, that are major Comcast-TWC markets and have a
strategic plan to close the Digital Divide, require Comcast to dedicate a sufficient
amount to an independently-managed fund to engage experienced community-
based organizations, libraries and schools to assist in achieving the 45%
subscription sign-ups and overall 80% adoption rate. Apply this same approach
to states that become dominant Charter markets. The management of such a fund
should be selected by a state agency through an open competitive process.
4. Establish an Advisory Oversight Committee: Establish a national advisory
oversight committee to provide feedback and input to the FCC in monitoring
performance and progress. The program has been riddled with problems and
there is a lack of transparency on data regarding eligibility and progress. There
must be a reliable process and mechanism for public accountability.
5. Offer Stand-Alone Internet Service: Require Comcast, Charter and other
merged companies to offer all consumers the opportunity to purchase stand-alone
Internet access at a reasonable rate instead of being forced to pay for bundled
services.
Now is the time to hold Comcast accountable for delivering a real, measurable public
benefit. In fact, the same requirements should be a condition of all pending corporate
mergers or acquisitions. Our nation’s economic well-being and ability to compete
globally are at risk unless we get all residents connected to high-speed Internet access
at home. You have all the power and authority to ensure Internet For All Now.
Sincerely,
Signed
Local Elected Leaders
Page 42 of 47
LEGISLATION COMMITTEE 6.
Meeting Date:02/05/2015
Subject:Support efforts to provide the County with the authority to establish funding for
stormwater services.
Department:Public Works
Referral No.: 2015-02
Referral Name: Support efforts to provide the County with the authority to establish funding for
stormwater services.
Presenter: Mitch Avalon, Public Works Contact: Mitch Avalon, 925-313-2203
Referral History:
The Public Works Department has provided an update on stormwater services and funding for
discussion and possible action by the Legislation Committee.
Referral Update:
In California, water is divided into 3 separate sectors: drinking water, wastewater, and
stormwater. Drinking water and wastewater services are provided by utility districts. Water
districts and wastewater districts (or sanitary districts) have the legal authority to establish a rate
structure to pay for the construction, operation, maintenance and replacement of their utility
system. While drinking water and wastewater are managed by a utility with the resources
necessary to provide an efficient and effective service to society, the same is not true for
stormwater. A coalition in Sacramento is working on legislation to give stormwater agencies the
same authority to raise funding as water districts and wastewater districts.
The County provides stormwater services in three different program areas, which are described
below.
Stormwater Quality Services
Like drinking water and wastewater, the State regulates the quality of stormwater. Stormwater
must be treated before it is discharged into a River, Bay, or the Ocean. For stormwater, treatment
to reduce pollutants is usually achieved by infiltration through soil or a vegetated area, such as a
wetlands or marsh. Stormwater treatment often starts at drainage inlets that have screens and
devices to collect litter. The county has over 8000 drainage inlets in 17 unincorporated
communities. Also like drinking water and wastewater, stormwater has an elaborate and complex
infrastructure system of pipes that collect stormwater in neighborhoods and take it to a larger
river or other body of water to protect homes and businesses from flooding. This same
infrastructure system is becoming part of the stormwater treatment process to remove harmful
pollutants through “green streets” or “urban greening” projects. All of these treatment facilities
Page 43 of 47
dispersed throughout our communities must be maintained. Some stormwater is piped to larger
stormwater treatment facilities, such as a bio-retention basin or wetland. Localized treatment of
stormwater is now required during the construction of new development and new County
projects, however, transporting stormwater to regional facilities for treatment will also be
necessary.
Community Drainage
The County owns and operates the miles of storm drain pipes that lie below County streets and
maintain the ditches and pipes that crisscross and protect our unincorporated neighborhoods. In
low-lying areas the stormwater drainage system includes pumps to protect homes and properties
from flooding, such as the North Richmond Pump Station. Community drainage infrastructure is
at a community scale and often drains into a regional flood protection facility. Many
unincorporated communities have old drainage pipes that are reaching the end of their service life
and failing. This will require more extensive maintenance and replacement costs than experienced
in the past.
Flood Protection Services
Watersheds are often bigger than a city and the planning necessary to protect communities from
watershed-scale flooding requires a regional effort performed by the County Flood Control
District. The Flood Control District provides large, regional facilities that local drainage systems
from cities and unincorporated communities drain into. These regional facilities include flood
protection channels, detention basins, and other structures. Many of these large facilities provide
significant environmental value in addition to protecting communities from serious flooding, and
have a recreational component. For example, detention basins often have trees and a trail around
their perimeter, and many creek channels are earthen and support riparian vegetation important to
bird and aquatic species, and have a trail along the channel access road or levee. The riparian
vegetation also cleanses the stormwater and gives it an opportunity to percolate into the soil.
Funding Stormwater Services
All three of the program areas the County provides stormwater services are inadequately funded.
Stormwater quality requirements and the resultant budget to meet those requirements are dictated
by Regional Water Quality Control Board permits (clean water permits) issued approximately
every five years. In 1992, the County modified the Flood Control District Act to allow the
collection of an annual assessment on each parcel in the County to fund stormwater quality
services and formed the Clean Water Program. Those clean water assessments, which are $30 per
year for a residential parcel, cannot be raised without a vote of the electorate or property owners.
Since the first clean water permit was issued in 1993 the program requirements and budget have
increased dramatically with each subsequent permit. The next clean water permit from the
Regional Board is anticipated to be issued later this year and is expected to increase costs over the
current permit. Our stormwater quality program has been funding operations using reserve funds
for the last couple of years and is expected to reach deficit funding next year.
Community drainage services is a general County service. Historically this program was funded
with general fund revenue as there are no restricted or dedicated funds for this service. In 1992
when the County established the clean water assessments, funding community drainage services
was shifted from the general fund to the clean water assessments. This funding shift was also
triggered by the State’s new Education Revenue Augmentation Fund requirements. Initially, the
Page 44 of 47
stormwater quality program could absorb the additional responsibility, however, today it can’t.
The next clean water permit will push the stormwater quality program into deficit spending and
deferred maintenance of community drainage infrastructure coupled with aging facilities results in
an underfunded program.
The Flood Control District owns and operates a flood protection system of 79 miles of channels
and 29 detention basins throughout the County. The asset value of these facilities is $1 billion (in
2010 dollars) and the replacement cost is estimated at $2.4 billion. These facilities were
constructed beginning in the 1950s and designed for a 50 year design life. We have already
exceeded the design life for our earliest constructed facilities. Even though we anticipate a service
life of 75 years, we must begin planning how to fund their replacement. The District receives a
dedicated percentage of property tax that varies with each major watershed. The Marsh Creek and
Walnut Creek watersheds have the highest tax rate while all the West County watersheds have the
lowest, and in one case zero, tax rate. Despite its best efforts, the District can only manage to
invest .4% asset value into system maintenance. The industry standard is to invest 2% of asset
value each year towards maintenance. The Flood Control program is considered underfunded
because of its inability to meet industry standards for maintenance investment and has no ability
to establish a replacement fund for long-term capital needs.
Stormwater Funding Proposal
A coalition of statewide organizations is working in Sacramento on legislation to provide
authority to stormwater agencies, such as the County, to establish or raise rates similar to the
authority water and wastewater districts currently have. The California State Association of
Counties (CSAC) and the County Engineers Association of California (CEAC) are members of
the coalition. The coalition is developing a Constitutional Amendment that would place a ballot
measure before the California voters. The voters would decide whether stormwater should have
the same voting requirements for establishing or raising fees and charges as water and wastewater.
Companion legislation is also being developed that would define the term “Stormwater”. The
coalition is working towards the 2016 election for the ballot measure. If the voters approve the
ballot measure, then each city, county or other logical service area will have to go through a
political process to establish a rate structure and rate for funding stormwater services. Some
communities may decide not to establish a rate for stormwater services.
The legislative effort by CSAC and CEAC to develop the authority for local government to raise
revenue for stormwater services is consistent with the County legislative platform.
Each of the three programs the County operates to provide stormwater services is underfunded
and new sources of revenue are necessary to provide for public health and safety and
environmental protection with regards to our stormwater resources. CSAC and CEAC are
working with a coalition of other organizations to provide the County the authority to establish
funding for stormwater services similar to water and wastewater districts. It will be up to the
County to decide what rate, if any, would be appropriate to fund stormwater services.
Alternatively, the County would join/form a Joint Powers Authority or other entity to provide
stormwater services, if it’s determined that service delivery would be more effective. The
Committee recommends the board support the efforts of CSAC and CEAC and the coalition
they’re working with.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
RECOMMEND to the Board of Supervisors a position of "Support" on the efforts of CaliforniaPage 45 of 47
RECOMMEND to the Board of Supervisors a position of "Support" on the efforts of California
State Association of Counties (CSAC) and the coalition of statewide agencies working to provide
Contra Costa County with the authority to establish funding for stormwater services.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
There is no fiscal impact of supporting the effort to place a ballot measure before the California
voters. There will be some staff time involved in working with associations and lobbyists in
Sacramento as there is with any legislative effort.
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Page 46 of 47
LEGISLATION COMMITTEE 7.
Meeting Date:02/05/2015
Subject:Federal Advocacy Trips for 2015
Submitted For: LEGISLATION COMMITTEE,
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: 2015-03
Referral Name: Federal Advocacy Trips for 2015
Presenter: L. DeLaney Contact:
Referral History:
Each January, the Legislation Committee discusses possible advocacy trips to Washington, D.C.
and directs staff to set meetings with the County's congressional delegation and key
administration staff.
Referral Update:
The Legislation Committee may wish to discuss their travel plans for advocacy trips to
Washington, D.C. so that they may coordinate on key messaging and direct staff to set meetings
and prepare any needed material for successful advocacy.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
DIRECT staff and the County's federal advocate, Paul Schlesinger, to set meetings with the
County's congressional delegation and key administration staff and prepare any needed material,
in order for the Supervisors to advocate on behalf of the County's policies, programs, and
projects.
Attachments
No file(s) attached.
Page 47 of 47