The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 10201987 - 2.3 TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FRCM:• Phil Batchelor C ltra County Administrator CJVJlC1 DATE: October 15, 1987 '. SUBJECT: Fiscal Impact on Contra Costa County of Opting to Participate in Senate Bill 709 (Lockyer). SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: . 1 . Recognize that by the end of 15 years after, the implementation of SB 709, the cumulative loss of revenue to the County will be $36. 8 million. This loss of revenue will have to be taken from criminal justice programs and from health and welfare programs for the needy since there are no other large blocks of County General Fund monies available. 2. Authorize the County Administrator to organize a meeting with the cities which would benefit from implementation of SB 709 to develop a solution which is -mutually beneficial to the County and the Cities. 3 . Authorize the County Administrator and the County' s lobbyist to meet with members of the State Legislature to describe the negative impact of SB 709 on Contra Costa - County and seek support for amendments - which will improve SB 709 in terms of - the transfer of property taxes to. the no- and low-property tax cities in this County. 4 . Authorize the County Administrator to draft amendments to SB 709 based on his . discussions with the cities, the Legislature, and the County Supervisors Association of California which . will improve SB 709.. in terms of the transfer of property tax revenue to the no- and low-property tax cities in this County. 5 . Request the County Administrator to make periodicreports to the Board of Supervisors on the progress being made with the above recommendations. BACKGROUND: We last reported to the Board on the impact of SB 709 on September 22. .. Since that date we have obtained more information on how SB 709 will be implemented and have refined our estimates of the revenue to the County' and the amount of property tax revenue which will have to be transferred to the cities. This CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YESSIGNATURE: (i3 X RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE X APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S1: ACTION OF BOARD ON _O_c_t,Ober 2O, 1987'___ APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED -_ OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS''' HEREBY.CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE ' X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT __ — — 1 AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN, CC: County Administrator ATTESTED October 20,. 1987 Presiding Judge, Superior Courts PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Presiding Judge, Municipal Courts SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR District Attorney Sheriff-Coroner Auditor-Controller BY ,DEPUTY M382/7-83 — Page 2 . report. is intended to share those refined figures with the Board _ and seek the Board' s approval for the next steps we believe are needed in order to amend and improve SB 709. There is, apparently, a general perception on the part of many legislators and city officials that SB 709 has provided counties with a vast windfall of State funds and has substantially solved local government' s financial problems. Nothing could be further from the truth! Those counties who are not involved with the no- and low-property tax cities have undoubtedly been benefited by the passage of the Trial. Court Block Grant bill. However, for the 18 counties that have low-property tax cities, and particularly for the six counties with. no-property tax cities, the. picture is. far less rosy than has been depicted in the media. Attached are two charts which display graphically what will happen to Contra Costa County with full implementation of SB 709 . In the first year ( 1988-89) , -the County will net $6 .8 million. By the fifth year; the net increase will have been eroded to $4 .8 million.. By the time the transfers to the cities are fully implemented in the tenth year; the. County will 'sustain a LOSS of $6 . 9 million and by the fifteenth year the loss will have grown to $16. 6 million--in. that year alone. This is not a cumulative figure, but represents the. net loss. to the County in that year. The loss . continues to, grow each additional year at an increasing pace. The second chart shows the cumulative impact of ' SB 709 over the same 15-year period. .. By the end of the . 15 years, the County' s cumulative net loss from the full implementation of SB 709 is estimated to be $36.8 million. The Trial Court Funding Bill 'was intended to provide vitally needed funds from the criminal justice system in the County. By providing a, block ` grant to counties for the Superior and Municipal Courts, the Legislature recognized and attempted to resolve .the pressing needs on the courts and related departments to handle criminal and civil matters more expeditiously. SB 709 also has the overall, benefit of freeing up County General Funds now going to the courts to meet critical needs in the other related departments, such as the District Attorney and the Sheriff ' s Office. By adding• . the transfer of property tax revenue to the. no= and low-property tax cities to SB .709, the Legislature has effectively made it impossible for the Board'- of Supervisors to add critically needed staff i.n the District Attorney' s Office and the. Sheriff ' s Office as well as the other court-related departments. In addition, over the course of 15 years, the Board of Supervisors will have no choice but to further reduce County funding to already hard-hit. health and welfare programs, such as child abuse prevention, drug.. and alcohol treatment, and mental health programs. There is no other feasible way to cover a loss of . $16. 6 million in the fifteenth year as is shown on the attached chart.' From recent conversations with the League of California Cities, we believe there may be room to negotiate a solution to this dilemma which will be .-beneficial to both the County and the cities. A direct confrontation with the cities will benefit no one and . will damage city-county relations unnecessarily. We believe that if the League of California Cities and . CSAC can jointly go to the Legislature with an agreed-upon solution, the Legislature will be much more receptive than '-if--they are, required to choose between the cities and counties and, in effect, , declare a "winner" and a "loser" on this issue. 'age The County Administrator' s Association has already agreed to have a Contra CostCounty take the lead -in . drafting a proposed solution, an assignment which we are actively pursuing.. In looking at the attached charts, some may say, "why not opt in now and opt, out again in the seventh year when the County has . gotten the maximum gain from the Trial Court Block Grantand before the transfers .to the cities have been fully implemented. " While this appears. to be theoretically possible under SB 709; we do not believe it to be a practical solution to the long-term impacts of SB 709. If .the Board of Supervisors were to _ suggest opting out of SB -709 after several years, we are concerned than the cities would go . to the Legislature., and obtain legislation prohibiting counties from opting out. After all; '.by the seventh year, most of the no and low-property tax cities' in this County will be heavily . dependent on the property tax funds being transferred to them by SB 709. Expecting them to, guietly give up these funds without a major fight is unrealistic. A more appropriate. solution needs to be put in place now; before SB 709 goes into effect next July. As a . result, we believe the Board of Supervisors should strongly support the above recommendation. Cumulative loss of �36.8 million r t �h\ I i r r�` DOLLARS t 'rIILLi�� 1 •+ nF r�OLLA�S 1 i i I i � I i r•i i�� i iD 4,8 8 � � I i i `' f %,jc I i i ,i 7 I 0 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA DATE: October 201, 1987 MATTER OF RECORD SUBJECT: Impact of SB 709 (Lockyer) on Local Jurisdictions In its discussion on the impact of recently enacted legislation SB 709 in reference to the County ' s ab-ility to fund services , Supervisor Fanden expressed the opinion that the cities should be made aware of the number of residents within each incorporated area utilizing county facilities , i. e. , hospital, jail, juvenile hall , etc. She expressed a need to have this data and requested the County Administrator to compile statistics pertinent to the number of residents within each city being served by county facilities. Supervisor Schroder commented on the role of the Board of Supervisors as the County ' s policy makers . He suggested that each Board member meet with the city policy makers within each Supervisorial District to discuss the impact of this legislation on their respective jurisdictions. THIS IS A MATTER FOR RECORD PURPOSES ONLY cc : County Administrator