Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12061988 - 2.2 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS lJl lnn,,�,,,,..,, FROM: Phil Batchelor �.� tra County Administrator DATE: November 28, 1988 Gam^ SUBJECT: 1989 COUNTY LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1 . Approve the attached proposed 1989 Legislative Program for the County. 2 . Authorize the County Administrator to work with this County' s legislative delegation, County staff, and the County' s lobbyist to achieve passage of as many of the Board' s legislative priorities as possible during 1989 . 3 . Request the County Administrator to keep the Board of Supervisors advised during the legislative session of the progress in achieving passage of the Board' s legislative program. BACKGROUND: Each year the Board of Supervisors is asked to adopt a Legislative program for the upcoming session of the California Legislature. This Legislative Program serves to provide direction to County staff and the County' s lobbyist on those issues which are of priority to the Board of Supervisors for the legislative session. While the Board of Supervisors is asked to take a position on a number of other measures during the Session, the Board' s legislative program remains the primary direction on measures the Board of Supervisors wishes to see enacted during the Session. In preparing the attached proposed Legislative Program for 1989, the County Administrator ' s Office has solicited suggestions from all county departments. The County Administrator ' s staff and the County' s lobbyist interviewed all department heads who indicated an interest in meeting with the County' s lobbyist to explain their proposals for legislative action. The County Administrator' s staff has also reviewed actions of the Board. of Supervisors during the past year for issues the Board indicated it wanted to have included in the 1989 Legislative Program. Each of these proposals has been discussed in detail with the County' s lobbyist. In some cases, staff has suggested alternatives where CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE: Mamh Z X RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE X APPROVE OTHER S I GNATURE(S): //1 h d 6 ACTION OF BOARD ON December 6, 1988 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. CC: County Administrator ATTESTED DEC..2.0_1988 ;a gg Legislative Delegation (via CAO) PHIL BATCHELOR. CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Department Heads (via CAO) SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Jackson/Barish & Associates (via CAO) BY •. ,DEPUTY M382/7-83 Page 2 the original proposal does not appear to be feasible. Some proposals have been dropped where there does not appear to be a need for the proposal any longer. In other cases, staff has suggested that another organization should take the lead in pursuing the legislative measure. Finally, each of the measures has been prioritized based on staff ' s sense of what is of utmost importance to the Board of Supervisors and what is most feasible. All proposals have been circulated previously to all Department Heads and the Board Members for their comments. The resulting attached proposed Legislative Program is, therefore, a combination of what is desired, what is necessary, what is feasible, and what can reasonably be achieved by this County operating with or without any outside support from other counties. The Board is obviously free to adjust priorities, add additional issues they wish to have pursued, drop proposals they do not think are important and eventually adopt a program which will serve as direction to staff during 1989. Legislative Program for the fCounty 2 .2 APPROVED proposed 19$9 g of the as amended to request the ssisterm oareelegislation; and ,To lobbyist in pursuing long DIRECTED the County Administrator and County Counsel to DEC G 198 language for the proposed CSAC oflunfundedrmandates d draft lang g funding anfunding to stable county � s position; the referenced to represent Contra Uosta County p 1st to deter- with th staff was deter- instructed to c mine if these Issueanwbekresolved elegislatively. LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS FOR 1989 COUNTY LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM H- I G H P R 1 0 R I T Y - SUBSTANTIAL LOBBYIST INVOLVEMENT o 1 . Authorize counties to levy an "override" on property taxes to fund the County contribution to the retirement fund as a voter-approved' indebtedness. CURRENT LAW ALLOWED COUNTIES TO LEVY AN "OVERRIDE" ON PROPERTY TAXES ONLY DURING THE 1982-1983 and 1983-1984 FISCAL YEARS. 0 IN ORDER TO GIVE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AN OPPORTUNITY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY WISH TO IMPOSE ALL OR A PART OF THE COUNTY' S VOTER-APPROVED RETIREMENT COSTS AS AN OVERRIDE ON THE PROPERTY TAX, IT IS NECESSARY TO EITHER REPEAL THE SU.NSET DATE OR MOVE IT AHEAD INTO THE FUTURE A YEAR OR SO TO PROVIDE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WITH A "WINDOW" WITHIN WHICH TO MAKE SUCH A DECISION. (See R & T 97 .65) 2. Repeal Oakland Zoo Funding in Trial Court Funding Act. THIS PROVISION, WHICH WAS ADDED TO THE TRIAL COURT FUNDING BILL THE LASTf EVENING OF THE 1988 SESSION, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TRIAL COURT PROGRAM AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN , IT. THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PROVIDE $50,000 A YEAR TO THE OAKLAND ZOO PREEMPTS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO DECIDE PRIORITIES FOR USE OF THE GENERAL FUND MONEY FREED UP BY THE TRIAL. COURT FUNDING ACT. WHEN COMBINED WITH THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE COUNTY TRANSFER A PORTION OF ITS PROPERTY TAX, REVENUE TO CERTAIN CITIES, THE TRIAL COURT FUNDING ACT -AS IT AFFECTS THIS COUNTY MAKES THE WHOLE PROGRAM LESS ATTRACTIVE. 3 . Add one Munic'.ipal court Judge to the Delta Municipal Court. THIS PROPOSAL IS CURRENTLY UNDER DISCUSSION WITH THE MUNICIPAL AND SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES AS A PART OF THE NEGOTIATIONS UNDER WHICH THE JUDGES WILL AGREE TO OPT IN TO THE TRIAL COURT FUNDING ACT. IT IS PLACED HERE AS A HIGH PRIORITY ITEM ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THESE NEGOTIATIONS WILL EVENTUALLY PROVE SUCCESSFUL AND THE COUNTY WILL OPT IN TO THE TRIAL COURT FUNDING PROGRAM. OTHERWISE, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SHOULD RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REMOVE THIS AS A PRIORITY ITEM IF THESE NEGOTIATIONS . ARE NOT SUCCESSFUL, OR IF TRIAL COURT FUNDING IS WITHDRAWN BY THE LEGISLATURE. (See GC 73341) 4 . Increase Tipping Fee to Pay for Solid Waste Public Education Programs.. THE BOARD. OF SUPERVISORS HAS MADE IT CLEAR THAT THIS IS A PRIORITY ITEM IN ORDER TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR A SOLID WASTE PUBLIC EDUCATION PROGRAM. THE INTENT HERE IS SIMPLY TO OBTAIN STATE APPROVAL , TO INCLUDE PUBLIC EDUCATION PROGRAMS WITHIN THOSE: PROGRAMS WHICH ARE A LEGITIMATE EXPENDITURE FROM THE CURRENT TIPPING FEE. AT PRESENT, THIS FEE CAN BE USED ONLY FOR THE PLANNING AND PREPARATION OF THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN. A SEPARATE TIPPING FEE IS AVAILABLE FOR THE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS NECESSARY TO . INSURE THAT SANITARY DISPOSAL SITE OPERATORS ARE PROPERLY COMPLYING WITH CURRENT STATE AND COUNTY REGULATIONS. (See GC 66784.3) Page 2 5. Include Contra! Costa County in AB 558 pilots to test the value of usingrfoster care funds to prevent placements. CURRENT LAW ENACTED IN 1988 ALLOWS THREE COUNTIES, INCLUDING SOLANO COUNTY, TO USE A PORTION OF THEIR FOSTER CARE FUNDS TO PROVIDE AN , INTENSIFIED SOCIAL WORK PROGRAM DESIGNED TO PREVENT THE NEED TO PLACE A CHILD IN OUT-OF-HOME CARE. IF THESE EFFORTS ; ARE SUCCESSFUL, THERE SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT SAVINGS IN FOSTER CARE FUNDS TO OFFSET THE COST OF THE ADDITIONAL STAFF. THE SOCIAL SERVICE AND PROBATION DEPARTMENTS HOPE TO DESIGN A MULTI-AGENCY, INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM WHICH CAN PROVIDE THE SAME TYPE OF' INTENSIFIED SUPPORT SERVICES FOR A FAMILY, BUT USING A VARIETY OF PROFESSIONAL STAFF FROM THESOCIAL SERVICE, PROBATION, SCHOOLS AND MENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENTS. THE INTENT HERE IS TO HAVE CONTRA COSTA DESIGNATED AS 'A PILOT COUNTY TO TEST THIS CONCEPT, SIMILAR TO THAT PROVIDED FOR IN AB 558, BUT BROADENED TO INCLUDE STAFF FROM OTHER DISCIPLINES. 6. Reintroduce "Buy-America" Legislation Similar to SB 2185 of 1988. IN 1988, LEGISLATION WAS INTRODUCED AT THE .REQUEST OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO ALLOW LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND THE STATE TO REQUIRE THE USE OF DOMESTIC PRODUCTS IN MAJOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS LIKE HIGHWAYS, BRIDGES, AND THE WEST . COUNTY JUSTICE CENTER. THE BILL RAN INTO TROUBLE WITH OPPOSITION FROM A NUMBER OF DOMESTIC FIRMS THAT PURCHASE SEMI-FINISHEDi� PRODUCTS FROM FOREIGN SUPPLIERS AND THEN FINISH IT LOCALLY. SB 2185 WAS NOT DRAFTED CAREFULLY ENOUGH TO PERMIT SUCH SITUATIONS TO BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE C "DOMESTIC" PRODUCTS. IF THE LANGUAGE IS MORE DEFINITION OF CAREFULLY DRAWN TO PERMIT THIS TYPE OF SITUATION, WE BELIEVE WE HAVE A REASONABLE CHANCE OF GETTING IT PASSED. M E D I U M P R I , O R I T Y - SOME LOBBYIST WORK INVOLVED 7. Provide Funding for an Abandoned Vehicle Program THE COUNTY, AND MOST OTHER CITIES AND COUNTIES IN THE STATE, ARE CAUGHT IN, A BIND IN TERMS OF OBTAINING STATE FUNDING FOR AN ABANDONED VEHICLE PROGRAM. THE LEGISLATURE IS APPARENTLY WILLING TO PASS A STATEWIDE, MANDATED $1. 00 SURCHARGE ON VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS TO PAY FOR AN ABANDONED VEHICLE PROGRAM. HOWEVER, IT APPEARS LIKELY THAT THE GOVERNOR WILL VETO SUCH LEGISLATION ON, THE BASIS THAT IT IS A TAX INCREASE. THE GOVERNOR IS MORE LIKELY TO SIGN LEGISLATION WHICH AUTHORIZES EACH COUNTY TO IMPOSE SUCH A' SURCHARGE. HOWEVER, SUCH AN OPTIONAL "TAX" REQUIRES APPROVAL OF THE VOTERS. SINCE IT SEEMS UNLIKELY THAT THE GOVERNOR WILL SIGN ANY SURCHARGE ON VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE COUNTY PRESS, FOR LEGISLATION WHICH PROVIDES FOR SUCH AN OPTION, EITHER SPONSORING SUCH LEGISLATION OR PROVIDING SUBSTANTIAL SUPPORT TO CSAC OR OTHER COUNTIES AND CITIES WHO MAY SPONSOR SUCH LEGISLATION. 8 . Increase Excise Tax on Alcoholic Beverages. THE BOARD OF ,SUPERVISORS HAS CLEARLY INDICATED ITS INTENT TO TRY FOR LEGISLATION IN 1989 THAT WILL 'PROVIDE FOR AT LEAST A MODEST INCREASE IN THE EXCISE TAX ON ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES. IT IS BELIEVED THAT SUCH LEGISLATION HAS A REASONABLE CHANCE OF PASSAGE ONLY WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE INDUSTRY. THEIR OPPOSITION WILL MORE THAN LIKELY DOOM THE COUNTY' S EFFORTS. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HAS, THEREFORE, DIRECTED THE' .COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO SEEK A MEETING WITH Page 3 8 . (continued) REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE INDUSTRY IN AN EFFORT TO REACH A COMPROMISE ON LEGISLATION., IF SUCH A COMPROMISE PROVES NOT TO BE POSSIBLE, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MAY WISH TO CONSIDER PURSUING AN INITIATIVE CAMPAIGN IN 1§90. THIS ITEM IS LISTED HERE PRIMARILY FOR THE PURPOSE q,T ATTEMPTING TO REACH SUCH A COMPROMISE. A MAJOR EFFORT PROBABLY CANNOT BE SUCCESSFULLY MOUNTED IN THE LEGISLATURE WITHOUT SUCH A COMPROMISE. 9. Increase Amount of Liability_ for Causing _ Unnecessary Emergency Response. UNDER CURRENT LAW, AN INDIVIDUAL WHO CAUSES AN EMERGENCY RESPONSE BY FIRE, MEDICAL, OR LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL BECAUSE OF THE ABUSE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES WHILE OPERATING AN AUTOMOBILE' OR BOAT CAN BE BILLED FOR THE ACTUAL COST OF THE RESPONSE , UP TO $1000 PER INCIDENT. IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED THAT $1000 MAY NOT BE AN ADEQUATE FIGURE. IT IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SEEK AN INCREASE TO $1000 PER EMERGENCY RESPONSE AGENCY, UP TO A TOTAL NOT TO EXCEED $5000 PER INCIDENT.. (See GC 53155) 10. Increase Small Claims Certified Mailing Fee to Reflect Actual. Cost of Mailing. UNDER CURRENT LAW, A COURT OFTEN MAILS DOCUMENTS FOR THE PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT USING CERTIFIED MAIL. THE FEE WHICH CAN BE CHARGED FOR THIS PURPOSE IS CURRENTLY $3 . 00. THIS DOES NOT COVER THE ACTUAL MAILING COST AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS OF THE COURT STAFF. THEREFORE, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THIS FEE BE INCREASED TO A FIGURE WHICH WILL REIMBURSE THE COURT FOR ACTUAL MAILING COSTS, ROUNDED TO THE NEXT HIGHER DOLLAR FIGURE AND THEN INDEXED FOR FUTURE INCREASES IN MAILING COSTS:. (See CCP 117.14) 11. Allow Administrative Fee on Dismissal of Financial Responsibility to See if it Reduces Caseload. UNDER CURRENT i LAW, A DRIVER IS REQUIRED TO CARRY PROOF OF INSURANCE INIHIS OR HER VEHICLE AT ALL TIMES. IF A DRIVER IS FOUND BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER TO NOT HAVE APPROPRIATE PROOF OF INSURANCE IN THE VEHICLE 'WHEN THE DRIVER IS STOPPED FOR ANY OTHER REASON, THE DRIVER CAN BE CITED. HOWEVER, IF THE DRIVER HAS INSURANCE, BUT SIMPLY DID NOT HAVE IT AVAILABLE IN THE VEHICLE, THE DRIVER NEED ONLY PRODUCE PROOF OF THE FACT THAT HE OR SHE HAS INSURANCE AND THE CITATION; IS NORMALLY DISMISSED. - THIS CAUSES A GREAT DEAL OF WORK FOR THE COURT PERSONNEL AND THE ENTIRE PROCEDURE PRODUCES NO REVENUE FOR THE COURT. IT IS, THEREFORE, SUGGESTED THAT A $10. 00 ADMINISTRATIVE FEE BE AUTHORIZED FOR CASES WHERE THE CITATION IS DISMISSED TO SEE WHETHER THE KNOWLEDGE THAT A DRIVER WILL AT LEAST HAVE TO PAY A $10. 00 :' FEE EVEN IF THE CITATION IS DISMISSED WOULD BE A DETERRENT TO FAILURE TO CARRY PROPER PROOF OF INSURANCE COVERAGE AND -.THEREBY REDUCE THE BURDEN ON THE COURTS. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THIS MIGHT EVEN BE A PILOT PROJECT WITH CONTRA COSTA' COUNTY SERVING AS THE PILOT TO SEE WHETHER THE ADMINISTRATIVE FEE REDUCES THE NUMBER OF CITATIONS THAT ARE ISSUED. Page 4 12 . Allow County to recover costs of successfully_ prosecuting a civil or criminal violation of nuisances. UNDER CURRENT' LAW, IF AN INDIVIDUAL REPEATEDLY VIOLATES NUISANCE ORDINANCES, COUNTY COUNSEL CAN TAKE THE INDIVIDUAL TO . COURT ON 'CIVIL OR CRIMINAL CHARGES. HOWEVER, IF THE COUNTY IS SUCCESSFUL, THERE IS NO WAY FOR THE COUNTY TO RECOVER FROM `:THESE DELIBERATE, REPEAT VIOLATORS THE OFTEN EXTENSIVE ADMINISTRATIVE AND LEGAL COSTS WHICH ARE SUSTAINED BY THE COUNTY.. THESE COSTS CAN DISCOURAGE THE COUNTY FROM PROSECUTING SUCH CASES. IT IS, THEREFORE, SUGGESTED THAT COUNTIES (AND. CITIES, IF THEY WISH) BE AUTHORIZED TO RECOVER THEIR REASONABLE ADMINISTRATIVE AND LEGAL COSTS WHEN THEY SUCCESSFULLY PROSECUTE SUCH A CASE. (Add GC 25845 . 5) 13 . Waive 2-Year Time Limit on Complex Assessment Appeals DURING THE 1988 LEGISLATIVE SESSION, . THE COUNTY HAD LEGISLATION INTRODUCED WHICH WOULD HAVE ALLOWED .A WAIVER OF THE TWO-YEAR .:'LIMIT WITHIN WHICH ASSESSMENT APPEALS MUST BE PROCESSED WHERE THE AMOUNT OF THE ASSESSMENT WHICH IS IN DISPUTE EXCEEDS $10 MILLION. THIS LEGISLATION GREW OUT OF A CONCERN THAT. THE COUNTY WOULD BE UNABLE TO COMPLETE PROCESSING OF THE ASSESSMENT APPEALS FILED BY TOSCO OIL COMPANY WITHIN THE CURRENT TWO-YEAR TIME LIMIT. THIS TIME LIMIT HELPS TO PROTECT RESIDENTIAL HOMEOWNERS FROM THE SOMETIMES SLOW PROCESS OF GOVERNMENT. EVENTUALLY, THE ASSESSMENT ,APPEALS WERE SETTLED TO THE COUNTY' S SATISFACTION." THE ISSUE STILL REMAINS UNRESOLVED, HOWEVER. WHILE A TWO-.YEAR LIMIT IS APPROPRIATE FOR RESIDENTIAL AND MOST COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, THERE ARE DIFFICULT AND HIGHLY TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT ISSUES FACING SUCH PROPERTY AS OIL REFINERIES AND OTHER LARGE INDUSTRIAL FIRMS WHICH OFTEN CANNOT BE RESOLVED WITHIN THE TWO-YEAR STATUTORY PERIOD. IT IS, THEREFORE, SUGGESTED THAT THE COUNTY SEEK AUTHORITY TO WAIVE THE TWO-YEAR LIMIT WHERE THE AMOUNT OF THE ASSESSMENT IN DISPUTE EXCEEDS $10 MILLION. THIS WILL EXCLUDE ALL BUT THE LARGEST AND MOST COMPLEX OF SUCH APPEALS. 14 . Allow Public 'Member on Parole Board to Have an Alternate. UNDER CURRENT LAW, THE MEMBERSHIP OF A . COUNTY BOARD OF PAROLE COMMISSIONERS CONSISTS OF THE SHERIFF, THE COUNTY PROBATION OFFICER, AND A PUBLIC MEMBER SELECTED BY THE PRESIDING JUDGE. THE SHERIFF AND THE COUNTY PROBATION OFFICER HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY UNDER THE LAW TO APPOINT ALTERNATES FROM THEIR OFFICES TO REPRESENT THEM AT MEETINGS OF THE COUNTY PAROLE BOARD. NO SUCH AUTHORITY EXISTS FOR THE PUBLIC MEMBER. WHILE THIS HAS NOT BEEN A PROBLEM IN THE PAST, THE INCEPTION OF THE MAXIMUM SUPERVISION PAROLE PROGRAM IN 1987 HAS INCREASED THE NUMBER. OF PAROLE APPLICATIONS' AND THEREBY THE NUMBER AND LENGTH OF MEETINGS WHICH HAVE TO. BE HELD. IT IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED THAT THE PRESIDING JUDGE BE AUTHORIZED TO SELECT NOT ONLY THE PUBLIC MEMBER, BUT AN ALTERNATE FOR HIM OR HER AS WELL. THIS WOULD RELIEVE THE BURDEN ON PUBLIC MEMBERS WHOt HAVE OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES AND CANNOT NECESSARILY DEDICATE SEVERAL HALF DAYS A MONTH TO THIS TASK. (See PC 3085) 15. Partial Block Grant for Temporary Court Commissioners UNDER CURRENT LAW, ONLY TWO COUNTIES HAVE AUTHORITY TO APPOINT TEMPORARY COURT COMMISSIONERS UNDER A TIGHTLY SUPERVISED AND STRUCTURED PROGRAM. THESE COUNTIES ARE CONTRA COSTA AND NAPA. UNDER THE TRIAL COURT FUNDING ACT, Page 5 15. (continued) COUNTIES ARE .ENTITLED TO A BLOCK GRANT OF $212,000 FOR EACH JUDICIAL POSITION WHICH IS AUTHORIZED BY THE LEGISLATURE. HOWEVER, CONTRA COSTA AND NAPA COUNTIES ARE NOT ENTITLED TO ANY REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE TEMPORARY COURT COMMISSIONER POSITIONS INS THOSE COUNTIES WHICH ARE AUTHORIZED BY THE LEGISLATURE. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THESE TWO COUNTIES BE AUTHORIZED A PARTIAL BLOCK GRANT PAYMENT BASED ON THE PROPORTION OF A FULL-TIME POSITION WHICH IS REPRESENTED BY THE ACTUAL NUMBER OF HOURS WHICH THE TEMPORARY COURT COMMISSIONERS WORK IN A YEAR. ( See GC 73362 . 1) 16 . Extend Courthouse Construction Fee of $2 per $20 of Filing Fee to Small .'Claims and Civil Cases. UNDER CURRENT LAW, PERSONS FOUND GUILTY OF VEHICLE CODE VIOLATIONS PAY MOST OF THE PENALTY ASSESSMENTS FOR THE COURTHOUSE CONSTRUCTION FUND. AND YET, THESE INDIVIDUALS OFTEN USE THE COURTHOUSE THE LEAST OF ALL VIOLATORS, PARTICULARLY,, IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT. MANY SUCH VIOLATORS NEVER APPEAR IN COURT, BUT NEVERTHELESS PAY A PENALTY ASSESSMENT TO ASSIST WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE COURTHOUSE FACILITIES FOR THE COUNTY. CURRENT LAW PLACES NO SUCH ASSESSMENT ON CIVIL CLAIMANTS AND SMALL CLAIMS CLAIMANTS, ALL OF WHOM,' BY DEFINITION, USE THE COURTHOUSE FACILITIES REGULARLY. ,IT IS, THEREFORE, SUGGESTED THAT THE CURRENT COURTHOUSE CONSTRUCTION PENALTY ASSESSMENT OF $2 . 00 FOR EACH $10. 00 OF FINE BE IMPOSED ON CIVIL AND SMALL CLAIMS CLAIMANTS BY CHARGING THEM $2 .00 FOR EACH $10. 00 OF FILING FEES THEY PAY. 17. Reintroduce .;SB 458 to Allow Administrative Fee on Certain Vehicle Code; Actions in Contra Costa County. IN 1986 LEGISLATION WAS INTRODUCED TO ALLOW ALAMEDA COUNTY TO IMPOSE A MUNICIPAL COURT ADMINISTRATIVE ASSESSMENT OF NOT TO EXCEED $30. 00 TO COVER THE COST OF RECORDING AND MAINTAINING A RECORD OF CONVICTIONS FOR VEHICLE CODE VIOLATIONS AND THE COST OF NOTIFYING THE DMV. IN ADDITION, THIS LEGISLATION AUTHORIZED ALAMEDA COUNTY TO ESTABLISH A FEE IN BOTH" THE MUNICIPAL COURT AND SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE PROCESSING OF ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE FOR FINES OWED IN CRIMINAL CASES, NOT TO EXCEED $30. 00 . CONTRA COSTA ASKED TO BE ADDED TO THIS LEGISLATION. THE AUTHOR AGREED. HOWEVER, SO MANY COUNTIES ASKED TO BE ADDED THAT THE AUTHOR EVENTUALLY ALLOWED THE BILL TO BE MADE APPLICABLE STATEWIDE. IT, THEREBY, LOST SOME CRITICAL SUPPORT IN THE LEGISLATURE, AND IN ORDER TO. GET IT PASSED, THE AUTHOR AMENDED THE BILL BACK TO INCLUDE ,ONLY ALAMEDA COUNTY. ALTHOUGH THE AUTHOR HAD AGREED TO LEAVE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY IN THE BILL, THE LEGISLATION WAS EVENTUALLY ENACTED WITH ONLY ALAMEDA COUNTY INCLUDED. IN AN EFFORT TO CORRECT THIS OVERSIGHT, THE AUTHOR INTRODUCED SB 458 IN 1987. THIS LEGISLATION NEVER WENT ANYWHERE AND THE COUNTY STILL NEEDS TO HAVE THE AUTHORITY, CURRENTLY GRANTED ONLY TO SAN DIEGO AND ALAMEDA COUNTIES, TO IMPOSE THESE ASSESSMENTS. (See GC 72062) 18. Amend 1463 PC Dealing with Kensington to Allow for a Local Agreement 'to Alter Percentage of Split in Fines and Forfeitures. UNDER CURRENT LAW, THE PERCENTAGE OF FEES, FINES AND FORFEITURES' THAT GO TO CITIES AND COUNTIES ARE SPECIFIED. LOCAL JURISDICTIONS ARE ABLE TO ALTER THESE PERCENTAGES BY Page 6 18. (continued) MUTUAL AGREEMENT. NO SUCH AUTHORITY EXISTS TO ALTER THE PERCENTAGE SPLIT THAT GOES TO A SPECIAL DISTRICT LIKE THE KENSINGTON COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT THAT PROVIDES LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES. AUTHORITY EXISTS TO ADJUST THESE PERCENTAGES WITH BARTD, AND THE MUNICIPAL COURT ADMINISTRATOR -REQUESTS AUTHORITY TO ADJUST THESE PERCENTAGES WITH THE KENSINGTON COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT. STAFF ARE STILL REVIEWING THE IMPLICATIONS OF SUCH AN ADJUSTMENT, BUT IF NO PROBLEMS ARE IDENTIFIED, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO SEEK SUCH AUTHORITY. (See PC 1463 ( 1) (c) ) 19. Require DMV to Accept Holds on. All Traffic Offenses for Failure to Pay Fine. UNDER CURRENT �LAW, DMV ACCEPTS DRIVER' S LICENSE HOLDS ON THE MORE SERIOUS VEHICLE CODE OFFENSES FOR FAILURE TO PAY A FINE OR OTHERWISE i, TO COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER. THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE A, JUDGE HAS UNDER CURRENT LAW FOR LESS SERIOUS OFFENSES IS TO ISSUE A BENCH WARRANT, A MUCH MORE SERIOUS ACTION THAN SIMPLY REFUSING TO RENEW A DRIVER'S LICENSE UNTIL ALL FINES ARE CLEARED. THIS LEAVES US WITH A SITUATION WHERE A JUDGE MAY. HAVE TO ISSUE A BENCH WARRANT FOR A MUFFLER„ VIOLATION WHEREAS A SPEEDING TICKET WHICH IS NOT PAID RESULTS ONLY IN A HOLD ON THE DRIVER' S LICENSE. WE WOULD LIKE TO DETERMINE THE WILLINGNESS OF DMV TO ACCEPT HOLDS ON ALL VEHICLE CODE VIOLATIONS, THEREBY ELIMINATING THE NEED FOR - MANY BENCH WARRANTS AND ESTABLISHING A MORE CONSISTENT PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO PAY A FINE. IF DMV IS WILLING, WE WOULD LIKE THEM TO JOIN US IN SPONSORING LEGISLATION TO REQUIRE DMV TO ACCEPT HOLDS ON ALL VEHICLE CODE VIOLATIONS. 20. Increase Civil Automation and Micrograp hics Fee from $1. 00 to an Amount Acceptable to the Legislature. UNDER LAW IN EFFECT UNTIL AUGUST OF 1988, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WAS ABLE TO INCREASE THE FEE WHICH IS CHARGED ON CIVIL FILINGS TO PAY FOR MICROGRAPHICS CONVERSION AND AUTOMATION OF COURT RECORDS. SOME COUNTIES APPARENTLY ABUSED THIS RIGHT AND PUSHED UP THE FEE TO UNACCEPTABLE LEVELS. AS A RESULT, AT THE END OF THE LAST SESSION OF THE LEGISLATURE, ;;A BILL WAS PASSED WHICH REMOVED THIS AUTHORITY FROM THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, THIS FEE WAS AT $:8. 00 . THE CHANGE IN LAW RETURNED THIS FEE TO THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OF $1 . 00. THIS FEE IS INADEQUATE TO FINANCE THE MICROGRAPHICS AND AUTOMATION WHICH IS REQUIRED IN THE COURTS. IT IS, THEREFORE, SUGGESTED THAT THE COUNTY SPONSOR LEGISLATION WHICH WILL INCREASE THIS FEE UNDER LEGISLATIVE CONTROL TO WHATEVER LEVEL THE LEGISLATURE IS WILLING TO ACCEPT, HOPEFULLY TO ABOUT $8. 00. 21. Request a Study of the Whole Problem of How to Properly Dispose of Recycled Motor Oil and Request that Recommendations be made to the Legislature for Future Action. THE BOARD HAD ORIGINALLY REQUESTED THAT LEGISLATION BE SPONSORED TO IMPOSE A SURCHARGE ON THE SALE OF MOTOR OIL TO PAY FOR RECYCLING PROGRAMS DESIGNED TO PROPERLY DISPOSE OF USED MOTOR OIL. THE COUNTY' S LOBBYIST HAS INDICATED THAT THIS PROPOSAL WILL GENERATE SUBSTANTIAL OPPOSITION FROM THE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY AND IS, THEREFORE, UNLIKELY TO BE PASSED BY THE LEGISLATURE. AN ALTERNATIVE WHICH HAS BEEN SUGGESTED Page 7 21. (continued) IS TO HAVE THE LEGISLATURE REQUEST A STUDY BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE BODY, TO DETERMINE THE EXTENT OF, THE PROBLEM AND DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE LEGISLATIVE ACTION. THIS APPEARS TO BE THE ACTION WHICH IS MOST LIKELY TO RECEIVE LEGISLATIVE SUPPORT AND IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED AS AN INTERIM MEASURE, LEADING TO FURTHER LEGISLATION IN A YEAR OR SO AFTER ADEQUATE DOCUMENTATION OF THE EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM IS GATHERED. PROPOSALS REQUIRING MORE STAFF WORK BEFORE ESTABLISHING PRIORITY: 22. Reintroduce the package of long-term legislation which was supported by the Board of Supervisors in 1988 . The Health Services Director will prepare specific proposals in this regard and will advise the County Administrator so that the County' s lobbyist can become involved in pursuing those which appear most achievable. 23 . Restrict Parking of Hazardous Waste Vehicles in Shopping Centers and Residential Areas. The Board has. indicated an interest in restricting areas in which trucks :.which haul hazardous waste can park, in order to insure . that such vehicles do not endanger the general public. Staff is still working with the Sheriff and Public Works departments to determine the extent of the problem, evaluate what law is currently in force to address this problem, and 'determine the most workable solution. As soon as staff has completed this study and has some specific solutions to suggest to the Board, a further report will be made on this subject. 24. Augment Funding for PHP Medi-Cal Rates. The Health Services Director will be developing proposals in the area of allowing disproportionate-share providers to receive increased PHP rates. Recently, rates were increased for fee-for-service providers. This increase did not extend to publicly=sponsored prepaid health plans, which are operated both by Contra Costa and Los Angeles counties. The Health Services Director will discuss the need for increased rates with Los Angeles County and will call on the County' s lobbyist, as , needed, to assist in this area once a proposal is developed. 25. Allow Psychiatric Health Facilities to be Secured. The Probation Officer has suggested that out-of-home residential group homes that are licensed as "psychiatric model" . facilities be allowed to be fenced and have other precautions taken to make them more secure. More and more young people are coming in contact with the Juvenile Justice System who are severely emotionally disabled and require psychiatric care. Making such facilities more secure will allow staff to try to work with these young people in a setting where it is more difficult for them to run away before they can be helped. The Probation Officer has agreed to try to work out a specific proposal with Mental Health staff and return it to the Board of Supervisors for further consideration, at which time the Board can consider whether to sponsor such legislation. Page 8 26. Interagency Drug Abuse Prevention in West County. The Social Services Director is working on a pilot proposal with the Mental Health staff and other affected County departments. Once such a proposal has been developed, the Social Services Director will forward it to the Board of Supervisors for further consideration, at which time the Board can consider whether to sponsor such legislation. 27. Allow Consolidated Funding for AIDS Programs. The idea here, as proposed by the Health Services Director, would be for the State to consolidate its funding for AIDS programs and allow a County to propose a countywide plan similar to the County' s Short/Doyle plan for mental health services which provides for a coordinated system for the allocation of ' funds to support AIDS programs. The Health Services Director has- agreed to prepare a more detailed outline of how this might work. It might then be possible for the County. to sponsor such legislation on a pilot basis to test the value of such a proposal. However, the County .should not try to sponsor such legislation on a statewide basis by itself. Once further proposals have been received from the Health Services Director on this item, the Board of Supervisors will be in a position to decide exactly which way to go. 28. Relieve Small -School Districts of Cost of Special Education Students. Placed by Another District, particularly transportation! costs. The County Administrator' s Office is working with the Superintendent of Schools, the school districts in East County, and the Social Services Department in an effort to define the precise nature of this problem which is placing an enormous strain on the small East County school districts. Once staff is able to determine what solutions the Superintendent is willing to support, it will be possible to return recommendations to the Internal Operations Committee, to whom this item is currently on referral. Depending on their subsequent report to the Board, the Board may wish to consider whether to sponsor legislation in this area. PROPOSALS THE COUN'T'Y ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE WILL PURSUE WITHOUT THE NEED FOR ASSISTANCE FROM .OUR LOBBYIST: 29. Clean-Up to SB 1974 of 1988 ( 1988 Municipal Court Pay and Staffing Bill) to Remove References to the Marshal. WHEN THE MARSHAL/SHERIFF CONSOLIDATION LEGISLATION WAS ENACTED EARLIER THIS YEAR, IT LEFT IN STATUTE THE DETERMINATION OF THE PAY AND STAFFING FOR CLASSIFICATIONS IN THE MARSHAL'S. OFFICE. NOW THAT THE CONSOLIDATION HAS BEEN COMPLETED UNDER THE SHERIFF THERE IS NO NEED FOR THE STATE LAW TO FIX THE PAY AND STAFFING FOR THOSE POSITIONS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY IN THE MARSHAL' S OFFICE. A FAIRLY SIMPLE CHANGE IN LEGISLATION WILL BE PURSUED THAT WILL CLEAN UP THIS ISSUE. Page 9 30. Municipal Court Pay and Staffing Bill. EACH YEAR THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MUST SPONSOR A MUNICIPAL COURT PAY AND STAFFING BILL THAT ALLOWS THE LEGISLATURE TO FIX THE STAFFING AND PAY FOR EMPLOYEES IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT. THIS LEGISLATION IS GENERALLY NOT CONTROVERSIAL AND THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR WILL AGAIN PREPARE SUCH LEGISLATION FOR INTRODUCTION BY A MEMBER OF THIS COUNTY' S DELEGATION. THIS LEGISLATION WILL PROBABLY BE COMBINED WITH THE CLEAN-UP TO THE MARSHAL/SHERIFF CONSOLIDATION DISCUSSED ABOVE SO THAT ALL OF THE CHANGES TO THE STAFFING AND PAY FOR THE MUNICIPAL COURTS CAN BE HANDLED IN A SINGLE PIECE OF LEGISLATION. 31. Allow Sheriff the Option to Give Credit on Length of Sentence for a Prisoner Who Participates in Educational, Vocational Education, or Rehabilitation Program. UNDER CURRENT LAW, THE SHERIFF IS AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE FOR THE VOCATIONAL TRAINING OF PRISONERS WHO ARE IN HIS CUSTODY. NO ADDITIONAL CREDIT IS GIVEN FOR SUCH TRAINING THAT IS UNDERTAKEN VOLUNTARILY BY A PRISONER. IT IS SUGGESTED BY THE SHERIFF THAT ONE DAY OF CREDIT ON A PRISONER' S SENTENCE BE GRANTED FOR EACH WEEK OF PARTICIPATION IN SUCH EDUCATIONAL, VOCATIONAL, OR REHABILITATION PROGRAMS. THIS MAY ASSIST IN REDUCING THE. JAIL OVERCROWDING AND WILL PROVIDE AN INCENTIVE FOR PRISONERS TO PARTICIPATE IN SUCH PROGRAMS. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AND SHERIFF SEEK TO HAVE A MEMBER OF THIS COUNTY' S DELEGATION AUTHOR SUCH LEGISLATION. IF THIS EFFORT IS UNSUCCESSFUL, THEN IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION SPONSOR SUCH LEGISLATION WITH SUPPORT FROM THIS COUNTY. PROPOSALS WHICH ARE MORE APPROPRIATELY HANDLED BY ANOTHER GROUP WITH SUPPORT FROM THIS COUNTY: 32. Undertake legislation in cooperation with CSAC which will provide counties relief from unfunded mandates and separate legislation which will provide counties a stable source of funding. Contra Costa will work closely with CSAC to insure that the County' s interests are protected and that language is included in any proposed legislation that will protect the County from unfunded mandates. Additional legislation will probably be required to insure counties with a stable source of revenue. The County' s objective here will be to insure that this County' s interests are reflected in any legislation which is introduced. 33 . Include Contra Costa County in 66484 . 3 GC to Allow Area of Benefit Fees to be Used to Construct State Highways Orange County was successful in 1985 in getting legislation specifically for themselves which clarified State law to make it clear that area of benefit fees can be used for construction of State highways, something that is unclear in current law. The Public Works Director has recommended that this legislation be amended to add Contra Costa County to this authorization. It is felt that this proposal is more properly within the province of the Transportation Authority created by the passage of Measure "C" . If the Authority is unable to undertake this legislative proposal early in the 1989 session, the County should consider doing so providing that - such legislation is found to be routine and will not create any controversy. (See GC 66484 . 3 ) Page 10 34 . Allow Counties to Retain up to 50 of Penalty Assessments Collected to Cover the Administrative Cost of Collecting_ the Funds. This proposal, which was made by the Municipal Court Administrator, . may have some problems because it appears to reduce fine and forfeiture revenue that goes to a wide variety of specialized programs. Unless funds going to the State are exempted, it is likely that the Department of Finance will oppose it. We do not believe that with all of the other measures being recommended for County sponsorship that we can undertake what we believe will be a long and involved series of negotiations in order to work out a detailed proposal in this area that will not reduce any existing revenue sources. For this reason, we would prefer to see the Municipal Court Administrators ' Association undertake this proposal, which this County can probably support, depending on how final language is worded. 35 . Allocate PVEA Funds for Transportation Purposes This is a highly technical proposal being made by the Public Works Director which we believe is more properly the ,responsibility of the Transportation Authority created by the passage of Measure "C" . 36 . Allow for 50 Cent Penalty Assessment in Contra Costa County for Development and Maintenance of Automated Criminal Justice System. The Municipal .Court Administrator has suggested this measure primarily to bring the current penalty assessments up to an even dollar amount. We believe the Legislature has clearly indicated their frustration with further increases in the penalty assessments and that this measure, if it is to be pursued, should more properly be sponsored by the Municipal Court Administrators ' Association. 37. Establish Fee for Continuance of Criminal/Traffic Cases for Fine Payment. Here, again, is a proposal which has statewide implications. While the County could certainly support such an effort, we believe that the Municipal Court Administrator ' s Association should consider sponsoring this particular measure. 38. Authorize the Release of AIDS Test Results to the Probation Department and Superior Court when a Minor is a Ward of the Court and the Probation Officer is Responsible for Authorizing Medical Care. Under current law, neither the Juvenile Court nor the Probation Officer is entitled to receive the results of an AIDS test on an individual who is a ward of the court and whose . medical care is being ordered by the court and probation officer. This makes it very difficult to properly .evaluate the -care a ward requires. While we are sympathetic to this need for information, this again is likely to be a controversial . measure which has statewide implications. If the Probation Officers ' Association is successful in getting such legislation introduced, this County may wish to consider supporting it. However,. it does not appear to be an appropriate measure for this County to sponsor on its own, given the number of other measures the County will already be sponsoring. Page 11 39. Provide Additional Funding for Public Defender. This County should certainly support any such efforts which are undertaken by the Public Defenders ' Association. However, it is not appropriate for this County to attempt to solve this problem by itself, given the number of other measures which are already being sponsored and the likely opposition from the Department of Finance which such a proposal will generate. 40. Increase Funding for Veterans Service Officer. Here, again, the County should support actively any efforts which are undertaken by the Veterans Service Officers on a statewide basis. The County' s lobbyist has already indicated a willingness to support such efforts. However, the County cannot solve this problem by itself, particularly when the Governor has made it clear that he considers this a local, non-mandated program which the State should not fully finance. 41 . Provide Incentive for OB Inpatient Services. The Health Services Director will work through his statewide associations on this issue and this County should certainly support such -efforts. . This is not, however, an issue which this County can solve by itself, particularly in view of the other measures the County will already be sponsoring. 42. Allow Conservatorship Costs to be Charged Against Personal and Incidental Needs for Patients in Long-Term Care Facilities. This, again, is an important and valuable proposal, but one which the Health Services Director should work on through his statewide associations, with support from this County. .PROPOSALS WHICH ARE NO LONGER NECESSARY OR WILL NOT BE PURSUED FURTHER IN 1989- 43 . Authorize County to Place a Measure on the Ballot to Increase Sales Tax to Pay for Operating New Jail. The successful passage of Measure "C" has brought Contra Costa County up to the statutory maximum sales tax of 70. The County' s lobbyist has made it clear that there would be enormous opposition in the Legislature and the Administration to any proposal to increase the statutory sales tax maximum about 70. Such an effort would be seen as a new tax increase and would open the floodgates for a wide range of new proposals from every county to increase its sales tax. It is, therefore, suggested that the County no longer pursue this proposal. 44. Increase Traffic School Fee by $1. 00 for CAL-ID Program Given the existing resistance in the Legislature to further increases in fees, fines and forfeitures, we do not believe that our efforts are best spent on this proposal, given that a 50-cent fee for CAL-ID was just enacted a year ago. Page 12 45 . Increase Tipping Fee to Pay for Litter Programs. The Community. Development Director recognizes how difficult this proposal would be to sell the Legislature and would prefer to put staff ' s efforts into the proposal to be able to use the tipping fee for public education programs. A new dump site will include a requirement for a surcharge on the tipping fee for litter programs and the Community Development Director is, therefore, agreeable to dropping this proposal for the time being. 46. Defendant Who Fails to Pay Fine on a Non-Traffic Case is Guilty of a Misdemeanor and Court can Issue a Bench Warrant. This item, which was suggested by the Municipal Court Administrator-, has been withdrawn by him on the basis that a clarifying opinion from County Counsel makes this proposal unnecessary. . 47. Allow Contra Costa County. to Transfer 1000 of Road Fund Deposits in 1463 PC to General Fund for 10 Years. This proposal, which was suggested by the Municipal Court Administrator., is being dropped because of opposition from the Public Works Director. 48 . Consider the Need to Exempt Court Personnel from Jury Duty This proposal, which was suggested by the Municipal 'Court Administrator, is being dropped at the suggestion of the County Administrator because it is unlikely to be supported by the Judges and because it will undoubtedly lead to requests to exempt other court personnel from jury duty. 49. Allow CHFC Loans for Non-Hospital Projects. The Health Services Director, who originally suggested this item, has withdrawn it on the basis that the passage of SB 1732 makes this proposal unnecessary. 50. Authorize Capital Funding for Hospital Nurseries. The Health Services Director, who originally suggested this item, has withdrawn it on the basis that the passage of SB 1732 makes this proposal unnecessary. 51. Include Probation as an Eligible Service under SB 612 (Trial Court Funding) . We are suggesting that this proposal not be pursued because of opposition from the Judges and because it would reopen the whole question of what services should be eligible for trial court funding from the new State Block Grant. Such a proposal would bring similar requests from the District Attorney and Public Defender. Since the County already spends more on eligible trial court funding programs than it will receive in the block grant, including more services as eligible programs would not increase the amount of money the County receives and would simply dilute the available funding. 52 . Require Railroads and Utilities to Respond to Counties ' Requests More Quickly. While we recognize that Public Works faces some project delays because of its inability to get timely agreements from railroads and public utilities for easements, the County' s lobbyist notes that this proposal is not going to receive any favorable consideration in the Legislature. This problem will have to be solved in another way. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS n,,�,+ FROM Phil Batchelor Vl��,tra County Administrator Cost DATE: November 28, 1988 m SUBJECT: 1989 COUNTY LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1 . Approve, jor amend and approve, the attached proposed 1989 Legislative Program for the County. 2 . Authorize the County Administrator to work with this County' s; legislative delegation, County staff, and the County' s( lobbyist to achieve passage of as many of the Board' s legislative priorities as possible during 1989 . 3 . Request �Ithe County Administrator to keep the Board of Supervisors advised during the legislative session of the progressin achieving passage of the Board' s legislative program. BACKGROUND: Each year the` Board of Supervisors is asked to adopt a Legislative program for the upcoming session of the California Legislature. his Legislative Program serves to provide direction to (�o1-nty staff and the County' s lobbyist on those issues which are\of priority to the Board of Supervisors for the legislative sessi'oh. While the Board of Supervisors is asked to take a position on 'a number of other measures during the Session, the Board' s legislative program remains the primary direction on measures the Board of Supervisors wishes to see enacted during the Session. In preparing the a-tt'ached proposed Legislative Program for 1989, the County Administrator s Office has solicited suggestions from all county departments`. The County Administrator ' s staff and the County' s lobbyist interviewed all department heads who indicated an interest in meeting with the County' s lobbyist to explain their proposals for\ legislative action. The County Administrator' s staff has also reviewed actions of the Board of Supervisors during the past year for issues the Board indicated it wanted to have included\in the 1989 Legislative Program. Each of these proposals has been discussed in detail with the County' s lobbyist. In some cases, staff has suggested alternatives where CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE: X RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE X APPROVE OTHER S 1 GNATURE I S ACTION OF BOARD ON December 6, 1988 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERV190RS 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS (ABSENT AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. cc: County Administrator ATTESTED Legislative Delegation (via CAO) Department Heads (Vld CAO) PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Jackson/Barish & Associates (via CAO) M382/7-83 BY .DEPUTY Page 2 the original proposal does not appear to be feasible. Some proposals have been dropped where there does not appear to be a need for the proposal any longer. In other rases, staff has suggested that another organization should take the lead in pursuing the legislative measure. Finally, each of the measures .has been prioritized based on staff ' s sense of what is of utmost importance to the Board of Supervisors and what is most feasible. All proposals have. been circulated previously to all Department Heads and the Board Members for their comments. The resulting attached proposed Legislative Program is, therefore, a combination of what is desired, what is necessary, what is feasible, and what can reasonably be achieved by this County operating with or without any outside support from other counties. The Board is obviously free to adjust priorities, add additional issues they wish -to have pursued, drop proposals they do not think are important and eventually adopt a program which will serve as direction. to staff during 1989. LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS FOR 1989 COUNTY LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM H I G H P R I O R I T Y - SUBSTANTIAL LOBBYIST INVOLVIIMENT 1 . Authorize counties to levy an "override" on property taxes to fund the County contribution to the retirement fund as a voter-approved indebtedness. CURRENT LAW ALLOWED COUNTIES TO LEVY AN "OVERRIDE" ON PROPERTY TAXES ONLY DURING THE 1982-1983 and 1983-1984 FISCAL YEARS. IN ORDER TO GIVE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AN OPPORTUNITY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY WISH TO IMPOSE ALL OR A PART OF THE COUNTY'S VOTER-APPROVED RETIREMENT COSTS AS AN OVERRIDE ON THE PROPERTY TAX, IT IS NECESSARY TO EITHER REPEAL THE SUNSET DATE OR MOVE IT AHEAD INTO THE FUTURE A YEAR OR SO TO PROVIDE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WITH A "WINDOW" WITHIN WHICH TO MAKE SUCH A DECISION. (See R & T 97 . 65) 2 . Repeal Oakland Zoo Funding in Trial Court Funding Act THIS PROVISION, WHICH WAS ADDED TO THE TRIAL COURT FUNDING BILL THE LAST EVENING OF THE 1988 SESSION, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TRIAL COURT PROGRAM AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN IT. THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PROVIDE $50,000 A YEAR TO THE OAKLAND ZOO PREEMPTS THE` RESPONSIBILITY OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO DECIDE PRIORITIES FOR USE OF THE GENERAL FUND MONEY FREED UP BY THE TRIAL COURT FUNDING ACT. WHEN COMBINED WITH THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE COUNTY TRANSFER A PORTION OF ITS PROPERTY TAX REVENUE TO CERTAIN CITIES, THE TRIAL COURT FUNDING ACT: AS IT AFFECTS THIS COUNTY MAKES THE WHOLE PROGRAM LESS" ATTRACTIVE. 3 . Add One Municipal Court Judge to the Delta Municipal Court THIS PROPOSAL IS CURRENTLY UNDER DISCUSSION WITH THE MUNICIPAL AND SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES AS A PART OF THE NEGOTIATIONS UNDER WHICH THE JUDGES WILL AGREE TO OPT IN TO THE TRIAL COURT FUNDING ACT. IT IS PLACED HERE AS A HIGH PRIORITY ITEM ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THESE NEGOTIATIONS WILL EVENTUALLY PROVE SUCCESSFUL AND THE COUNTY WILL OPT IN TO THE TRIAL COURT FUNDING PROGRAM. OTHERWISE, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS . SHOULD RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REMOVE THIS AS A PRIORITY ITEM IF THESE NEGOTIATIONS ARE NOT SUCCESSFUL, OR IF TRIAL COURT FUNDING IS WITHDRAWN BY THE LEGISLATURE. (See GC 73341) 4 . Increase Tipping Fee to Pay for Solid Waste Public Education Programs. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HAS MADE IT CLEAR THAT THIS IS A PRIORITY ITEM IN ORDER TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR A SOLID WASTE PUBLIC EDUCATION PROGRAM. THE INTENT HERE IS SIMPLY TO OBTAIN STATE APPROVAL TO INCLUDE PUBLIC EDUCATION PROGRAMS WITHIN THOSE PROGRAMS WHICH ARE A LEGITIMATE EXPENDITURE FROM THE CURRENT TIPPING FEE. AT PRESENT, THIS FEE CAN BE USED ONLY FOR THE PLANNING AND PREPARATION OF THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN. A SEPARATE TIPPING FEE IS AVAILABLE FOR THE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS NECESSARY TO INSURE THAT SANITARY DISPOSAL SITE OPERATORS ARE PROPERLY COMPLYING WITH CURRENT STATE AND COUNTY REGULATIONS. (See GC 66784 . 3 ) Page 2 5. Include Contra Costa County in AB 558 pilots to test the value of using foster care funds to prevent placements. CURRENT LAW ENACTED IN 1988 ALLOWS THREE COUNTIES, INCLUDING SOLANO COUNTY; TO USE A PORTION OF THEIR FOSTER CARE FUNDS TO PROVIDE AN INTENSIFIED SOCIAL WORK PROGRAM DESIGNED TO PREVENT THE NEED TO PLACE A CHILD IN OUT-OF-HOME CARE. IF THESE EFFORTS ARE SUCCESSFUL, THERE SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT SAVINGS IN FOSTER CARE FUNDS TO OFFSET THE COST OF THE ADDITIONAL STAFF. THE SOCIAL SERVICE AND PROBATION DEPARTMENTS HOPE TO DESIGN A MULTI-AGENCY, INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM WHICH CAN PROVIDE THE SAME TYPE OF INTENSIFIED SUPPORT SERVICES FOR 'A FAMILY, BUT USING A VARIETY OF PROFESSIONAL STAFF FROM THE SOCIAL SERVICE, PROBATION, SCHOOLS AND MENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENTS. THE INTENT HERE IS TO HAVE CONTRA COSTA DESIGNATED AS A PILOT COUNTY TO TEST THIS CONCEPT, SIMILAR TO THAT PROVIDED FOR IN AB 558, BUT BROADENED TO INCLUDE STAFF FROM OTHER DISCIPLINES. 6 . Reintroduce ",Buy-America" Legislation Similar to SB 2185 of 1988 . IN 1988, LEGISLATION WAS INTRODUCED AT THE REQUEST OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO ALLOW LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND THE STATE TO RE6UIRE THE USE OF DOMESTIC PRODUCTS IN MAJOR CONSTRUCTION !,PROJECTS LIKE HIGHWAYS, BRIDGES, AND THE WEST COUNTY JUSTICE CENTER. THE BILL RAN INTO TROUBLE WITH OPPOSITION FROM A NUMBER OF DOMESTIC FIRMS THAT PURCHASE SEMI-FINISHED PRODUCTS FROM FOREIGN SUPPLIERS AND THEN FINISH IT LOCALLY. SB 2185 WAS NOT DRAFTED CAREFULLY ENOUGH TO PERMIT SUCH SITUATIONS TO BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF "DOMESTIC" PRODUCTS. IF THE LANGUAGE IS MORE CAREFULLY DRAWN TO PERMIT THIS TYPE OF SITUATION, WE BELIEVE WE HAVE A REASONABLE CHANCE OF GETTING IT PASSED. M E D I U M P R I O R I T Y - SOME LOBBYIST WORK INVOLVED 7 . Provide Funding for an Abandoned Vehicle Program THE COUNTY, AND MOST OTHER CITIES AND COUNTIES IN THE STATE, ARE CAUGHT IN A BIND IN TERMS OF OBTAINING STATE FUNDING FOR AN ABANDONED; VEHICLE PROGRAM. THE LEGISLATURE IS APPARENTLY WILLING TO PASS A STATEWIDE, MANDATED $1. 00 SURCHARGE ON VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS TO PAY FOR AN ABANDONED VEHICLE PROGRAM. HOWEVER, IT APPEARS LIKELY THAT THE GOVERNOR WILL VETO SUCH LEGISLATION ON THE BASIS THAT IT IS A TAX INCREASE. THE GOVERNOR IS MORE LIKELY TO SIGN LEGISLATION WHICH AUTHORIZES EACH COUNTY TO IMPOSE SUCH A SURCHARGE. HOWEVER, SUCH AN OPTIONAL "TAX" REQUIRES APPROVAL OF THE VOTERS. SINCE IT SEEMS UNLIKELY THAT THE GOVERNOR WILL SIGN ANY SURCHARGE ON VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE COUNTY PRESS FOR LEGISLATION WHICH PROVIDES FOR SUCH AN OPTION, EITHER SPONSORING SUCH LEGISLATION OR PROVIDING SUBSTANTIAL 'SUPPORT TO CSAC OR OTHER COUNTIES AND CITIES WHO MAY SPONSOR SUCH LEGISLATION. 8 . Increase Excise Tax on Alcoholic Beverages. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HAS CLEARLY INDICATED ITS INTENT TO TRY FOR LEGISLATION IN 1989 THAT WILL PROVIDE FOR AT LEAST A MODEST INCREASE IN THE EXCISE TAX ON ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES. IT IS BELIEVED THAT SUCH LEGISLATION HAS A REASONABLE CHANCE OF PASSAGE ONLY WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE INDUSTRY. THEIR OPPOSITION WILL MORE THAN LIKELY DOOM THE COUNTY' S EFFORTS. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HAS, THEREFORE, DIRECTED THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO SEEK A MEETING WITH Page 3 8 . (continued) REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE INDUSTRY IN AN EFFORT TO REACH A COMPROMISE ON LEGISLATION. IF SUCH A COMPROMISE PROVES NOT TO BE POSSIBLE, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MAY WISH TO CONSIDER PURSUING AN INITIATIVE CAMPAIGN IN 1990. THIS ITEM IS LISTED HERE PRIMARILY FOR THE PURPOSE 'OF ATTEMPTING TO REACH SUCH A COMPROMISE. A MAJOR EFFORT'iPROBABLY CANNOT BE SUCCESSFULLY MOUNTED IN THE LEGISLATURE WITHOUT SUCH A COMPROMISE. .j. 9. Increase Amount of Liability for Causing Unnecessary Emergency Response. i; UNDER CURRENT LAW, AN INDIVIDUAL WHO CAUSES AN EMERGENCY RESPONSE BY -J' FIRE, MEDICAL, OR LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL BECAUSE OF THE ABUSE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES WHILE OPERATING AN AUTOMOBILE OR BOAT CAN BE BILLED FOR THE ACTUAL COST OF THE RESPONSE UP TO $1000 PER INCIDENT. IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED THAT $1000 MAY NOT BE AN ADEQUATE FIGURE. IT IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SEEK AN INCREASE TO ,li$1000 PER EMERGENCY RESPONSE AGENCY, UP TO A TOTAL NOT TOjEXCEED $5000 PER INCIDENT. (See GC 53155) i 10. Increase Small Claims Certified Mailing Fee to Reflect Actual Cost bf Mailing. UNDER CURRENT LAW, A COURT OFTEN MAILS DOCUMENTS FOR THE PLAINTIFF OR!; DEFENDANT USING CERTIFIED MAIL. THE FEE WHICH CAN BE CHARGED FOR THIS PURPOSE IS CURRENTLY $3 . 00. THIS DOES NOT COVER THE ACTUAL MAILING COST AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS OF THE:; COURT STAFF. THEREFORE, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THIS FEE BEI! INCREASED TO A FIGURE WHICH. WILL REIMBURSE THE COURT FOR ACTUAL MAILING COSTS, ROUNDED TO THE NEXT HIGHER DOLLAR FIGURE AND THEN INDEXED FOR FUTURE INCREASES IN MAILING COSTS. (See CCP 117. 14) 11. Allow Administrative Fee on Dismissal of Financial Responsibility to See if it Reduces Caseload. UNDER CURRENT LAW, A DRIVER IS REQUIRED TO CARRY PROOF OF INSURANCE IN HIS OR HER VEHICLE AT ALL TIMES. IF A DRIVER IS FOUND BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER TO NOT HAVE APPROPRIATE :i PROOF OF INSURANCE IN THE VEHICLE WHEN THE DRIVER IS STOPPED FOR ANY OTHER REASON, THE DRIVER CAN BE CITED. HOWEVER, IF THE DRIVER HAS INSURANCE, BUT SIMPLY DID NOT HAVE IT AVAILABLE IN THE VEHICLE, THE DRIVER NEED ONLY PRODUCE PROOF OF THE FACT THAT HE OR SHE HAS INSURANCE AND THE CITATION IS NORMALLY DISMISSED. THIS CAUSES A GREAT DEAL OF WORK FOR THE COURT PERSONNEL AND THE ENTIRE PROCEDURE PRODUCES NO REVENUE FOR THE COURT. IT IS, THEREFORE, SUGGESTED THAT A $10. 00 ADMINISTRATIVE FEE BE AUTHORIZED FOR CASES WHERE THE CITATION IS DISMISSED TO SEE WHETHER THE KNOWLEDGE THAT A DRIVER WILL AT LEAST HAVE TO PAY A $10. 00 FEE EVEN IF THE CITATION IS DISMISSED WOULD BE A DETERRENT TO FAILURE TO CARRY PROPER PROOF OF INSURANCE COVERAGE AND THEREBY REDUCE THE BURDEN ON THE COURTS. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THIS MIGHT EVEN BE A PILOT PROJECT WITH CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SERVING AS THE PILOT TO SEE WHETHER THE ADMINISTRATIVE FEE REDUCES THE NUMBER OF CITATIONS THAT ARE ISSUED. Page 4 12 . Allow County to recover costs of successfully prosecuting a civil or criminal violation of nuisances. UNDER CURRENT' LAW, IF AN INDIVIDUAL REPEATEDLY VIOLATES NUISANCE ORDINANCES, COUNTY COUNSEL CAN TAKE THE INDIVIDUAL TO COURT ON CIVIL OR CRIMINAL CHARGES. HOWEVER, IF THE COUNTY IS SUCCESSFUL, THERE IS NO WAY FOR THE COUNTY TO RECOVER FROM .,THESE DELIBERATE, REPEAT VIOLATORS THE OFTEN EXTENSIVE ADMINISTRATIVE AND LEGAL COSTS WHICH ARE SUSTAINED BY THE COUNTY!: THESE COSTS CAN DISCOURAGE THE COUNTY FROM PROSECUTING SUCH CASES. IT IS, THEREFORE, SUGGESTED THAT COUNTIES (AND �tITIES, IF THEY WISH) BE AUTHORIZED TO RECOVER THEIR REASONABLE ADMINISTRATIVE AND LEGAL COSTS WHEN THEY SUCCESSFULLY PROSECUTE SUCH A CASE. (Add GC 25845. 5 ) 13 . Waive 2-Year Time Limit on Complex Assessment Appeals. DURING THE 11988 LEGISLATIVE SESSION, THE COUNTY HAD LEGISLATION INTRODUCED WHICH WOULD HAVE ALLOWED A WAIVER OF THE TWO-YEAR LIMIT WITHIN WHICH ASSESSMENT APPEALS MUST BE PROCESSED WHERE THE AMOUNT OF THE ASSESSMENT WHICH IS IN DISPUTE EXCEEDS $10 MILLION. THIS LEGISLATION GREW OUT OF A CONCERN THAT: THE COUNTY WOULD BE UNABLE TO COMPLETE PROCESSING OF THE ASSESSMENT APPEALS FILED BY TOSCO OIL COMPANY WITHIN THE CURRENT TWO-YEAR TIME LIMIT. THIS TIME LIMIT HELPS ',TO PROTECT RESIDENTIAL HOMEOWNERS FROM THE SOMETIMES SLOW PROCESS OF GOVERNMENT. EVENTUALLY, THE ASSESSMENT APPEALS WERE SETTLED TO THE COUNTY' S SATISFACTION. �i THE ISSUE STILL REMAINS UNRESOLVED, HOWEVER. WHILE A TWO-YEAR LIMIT IS APPROPRIATE FOR RESIDENTIAL AND MOST COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, THERE ARE DIFFICULT AND HIGHLY TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT ISSUES FACING SUCH PROPERTY AS OIL REFINERIES AND OTHER LARGE INDUSTRIAL FIRMS WHICH OFTEN CANNOT BE RESOLVED WITHIN THE TWO-YEAR STATUTORY PERIOD. IT IS, THEREFORE!, SUGGESTED THAT THE COUNTY SEEK AUTHORITY TO WAIVE THE TWO-YEAR LIMIT WHERE THE AMOUNT OF THE ASSESSMENT IN DISPUTE EXCEEDS $10 MILLION. THIS WILL EXCLUDE ALL BUT THE LARGEST AND MOST COMPLEX OF SUCH APPEALS. 14. Allow Public Member on Parole Board to Have an Alternate. UNDER CURRENT LAW, THE MEMBERSHIP OF A COUNTY BOARD OF PAROLE COMMISSIONERS CONSISTS OF THE SHERIFF, THE COUNTY PROBATION OFFICER, AND A PUBLIC MEMBER SELECTED BY THE PRESIDING JUDGE. THE SHERIFF AND THE COUNTY PROBATION .OFFICER HAVE- THE OPPORTUNITY UNDER THE LAW TO APPOINT ALTERNATES FROM THEIR OFFICES TO REPRESENT THEM AT MEETINGS OF THE COUNTY PAROLE BOARD. NO SUCH AUTHORITY EXISTS FOR THE PUBLIC MEMBER. WHILE THIS HAS NOT BEEN A PROBLEM IN THE PAST, THE INCEPTION OF THE MAXIMUM SUPERVISION PAROLE PROGRAM IN 1987 HAS INCREASED THE NUMBER OF PAROLE APPLICATIONS ,AND THEREBY THE NUMBER AND LENGTH OF MEETINGS WHICH HAVE TO BE HELD. IT IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED THAT THE PRESIDING JUDGE BE AUTHORIZED TO SELECT NOT ONLY THE PUBLIC MEMBER, BUT AN ALTERNATE FOR HIM OR HER AS WELL. THIS WOULD RELIEVE THE BURDEN ON PUBLIC MEMBERS WHO HAVE OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES AND CANNOT NECESSARILY DEDICATE SEVERAL HALF DAYS A MONTH TO THIS TASK. (See PC 3085) 15. Partial Block Grant for Temporary Court Commissioners. UNDER CURRENT LAW, ONLY TWO COUNTIES HAVE AUTHORITY TO APPOINT TEMPORARY COURT COMMISSIONERS UNDER A TIGHTLY SUPERVISED AND STRUCTURED PROGRAM. THESE COUNTIES ARE CONTRA COSTA 'AND NAPA. UNDER THE TRIAL COURT FUNDING ACT, I. Page 5 15. (continued) COUNTIES ARE ENTITLED TO A BLOCK GRANT OF $212,000 FOR EACH JUDICIAL POSITION WHICH IS AUTHORIZED BY THE LEGISLATURE. HOWEVER, CONTRA kA COSTA AND NAPA COUNTIES ARE NOT ENTITLED TO ANY REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE TEMPORARY COURT COMMISSIONER POSITIONS IN " THOSE COUNTIES WHICH ARE AUTHORIZED BY THE LEGISLATURE. I IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THESE TWO COUNTIES BE AUTHORIZED A PARTIAL BLOCK GRANT PAYMENT BASED ON THE PROPORTION OF. A FULL-TIME POSITION WHICH IS REPRESENTED BY THE ACTUAL NUMBER OF HOURS WHICH THE TEMPORARY COURT COMMISSIONERS11WORK IN A YEAR. (See GC 73362. 1) 16. Extend Courthouse construction Fee of $_2 per $20 of Filing Fee to Small !,Claims and Civil Cases. UNDER CURRENT LAW, PERSONS FOUND GUILTY OF VEHICLE CODE VIOLATIONS PAY MOST OF THE PENALTY ASSESSMENTS FOR THE COURTHOUSE CONSTRUCTION FUND. AND YET, THESE INDIVIDUALS OFTEN USE THE COURTHOUSE THE LEAST OF ALL VIOLATORS, PARTICULARLY IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT. MANY SUCH VIOLATORS NEVER APPEAR' IN COURT, BUT NEVERTHELESS PAY A PENALTY ASSESSMENT TO ASSIST WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE COURTHOUSE FACILITIES FOR THE COUNTY. CURRENT LAW PLACES NO SUCH ASSESSMENT ON CIVIL CLAIMANTS AND SMALL CLAIMS CLAIMANTS, ALL OF WHOM,!' BY DEFINITION, USE THE COURTHOUSE FACILITIES REGULARLY. IT IS, THEREFORE, SUGGESTED THAT THE CURRENT COURTHOUSE CONSTRUCTION PENALTY ASSESSMENT OF $2.00 FOR EACH $10. 00 OF FINE BE IMPOSED ON CIVIL AND SMALL CLAIMS CLAIMANTS BYCHARGING THEM $2. 00 FOR EACH $10. 00 OF FILING FEES THEY PAY. 17. Reintroduce SB 458 to Allow Administrative Fee on Certain Vehicle Code 'Actions in Contra Costa County. IN 1986 LEGISLATION WAS INTRODUCED TO ALLOW ALAMEDA COUNTY TO IMPOSE A MUNICIPAL COURT ADMINISTRATIVE ASSESSMENT OF NOT TO EXCEED $30. 00 TO COVER THE COST OF RECORDING AND -MAINTAINING ., A RECORD OF CONVICTIONS FOR VEHICLE CODE VIOLATIONS AND THE COST OF NOTIFYING THE DMV. IN ADDITION, THIS LEGISLATION AUTHORIZED ALAMEDA COUNTY TO ESTABLISH A FEE IN BOTH THE MUNICIPAL COURT AND SUPERIOR COURT FOR , THE PROCESSING OF ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE FOR FINES OWED IN CRIMINAL CASES, NOT TO EXCEED $30.00. CONTRA COSTA ASKED TO BE ADDED TO THIS LEGISLATION. THE AUTHOR AGREED. HOWEVER, SO MANY COUNTIES ASKED TO BE ADDED THAT THE AUTHOR EVENTUALLY ALLOWED THE . BILL TO BE MADE APPLICABLE STATEWIDE. IT, THEREBY, LOST SOME CRITICAL SUPPORT IN THE LEGISLATURE, AND IN ORDER TO 'GET IT PASSED, THE AUTHOR AMENDED THE BILL BACK TO INCLUDE ONLY ALAMEDA COUNTY. ALTHOUGH THE AUTHOR HAD AGREED TO LEAVE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY IN THE BILL, THE LEGISLATION WAS EVENTUALLY ENACTED WITH ONLY ALAMEDA COUNTY INCLUDED. IN AN EFFORT TO CORRECT THIS OVERSIGHT, THE AUTHOR INTRODUCED SB 458 IN 1987. THIS LEGISLATION NEVER WENT ANYWHERE AND THE COUNTY STILL NEEDS TO HAVE THE AUTHORITY, CURRENTLY GRANTED ONLY TO SAN DIEGO AND ALAMEDA COUNTIES, TO IMPOSE THESE ASSESSMENTS. (See GC 72062) 18. Amend 1463 PC Dealing with Kensington to Allow for a Local Agreement to Alter Percentage of Split in Fines and Forfeitures. UNDER CURRENT LAW, THE PERCENTAGE OF FEES, FINES AND FORFEITURES 'THAT 'GO TO CITIES AND COUNTIES ARE SPECIFIED. LOCAL JURISDICTIONS ARE ABLE TO ALTER THESE PERCENTAGES BY Page 6 18. (continued) MUTUAL AGREEMENT. NO SUCH AUTHORITY EXISTS TO ALTER THE PERCENTAGE SPLIT THAT GOES TO A SPECIAL DISTRICT LIKE THE KENSINGTON COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT THAT PROVIDES LAW ENFORCEMENT 'SERVICES. AUTHORITY EXISTS TO ADJUST THESE PERCENTAGES WITH BARTD, AND THE MUNICIPAL COURT ADMINISTRATOR REQUESTS AUTHORITY TO ADJUST THESE PERCENTAGES WITH THE KENSINGTON COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT. STAFF ARE STILL REVIEWING THE IMPLICATIONS OF SUCH AN ADJUSTMENT, BUT IF NO PROBLEMS ARE IDENTIFIED, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO SEEK SUCH AUTHORITY. (See PC 1463 ( 1). (c) ) 19. Require DMV . to Acce t Holds on All Traffic Offenses for Failure to Pay Fine. u UNDER CURRENT LAW, DMV ACCEPTS DRIVER' S LICENSE HOLDS ON THE MORE SERIOUS�,VEHICLE CODE OFFENSES FOR FAILURE TO PAY A FINE OR OTHERWISE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER. THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE A JUDGE HAS UNDER CURRENT LAW FOR LESS SERIOUS OFFENSES IS TO ISSUE A BENCH WARRANT, A MUCH MORE SERIOUS ACTION THANi. SIMPLY REFUSING TO RENEW A DRIVER' S LICENSE UNTIL ALL FINES ARE CLEARED. THIS LEAVES US WITH A SITUATION WHERE A JUDGE MAY HAVE TO ISSUE A BENCH WARRANT FOR A MUFFLER VIOLATION WHEREAS A SPEEDING TICKET WHICH IS NOT PAID RESULTS ONLY IN A HOLD ON THE DRIVER' S LICENSE. WE WOULD LIKE TO DETERMINE THE WILLINGNESS OF DMV TO ACCEPT HOLDS ON ALL VEHICLE CODE VIOLATIONS, THEREBY ELIMINATING THE NEED FOR MANY BENCH WARRANTS AND ESTABLISHING A MORE CONSISTENT PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO PAY A FINE. IF DMV IS WILLING, WE!- WOULD LIKE THEM TO JOIN US IN SPONSORING LEGISLATION 11TO REQUIRE DMV TO ACCEPT HOLDS . ON ALL VEHICLE CODE VIOLATIONS. 20 . Increase Civil Automation and Micrographics Fee from $1.00 to an Amount; Acceptable to the Legislature. UNDER LAW IN EFFECT UNTIL AUGUST OF 1988, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WAS ABLE TO INCREASE THE FEE WHICH IS CHARGED ON CIVIL FILINGS TO PAY FOR MICROGRAPHICS CONVERSION AND AUTOMATION :OF COURT RECORDS. SOME COUNTIES APPARENTLY ABUSED THIS- RIGHT AND PUSHED UP THE FEE TO UNACCEPTABLE LEVELS. AS A RESULT, AT THE END OF THE LAST SESSION OF THE LEGISLATURE,' A BILL WAS PASSED WHICH REMOVED THIS AUTHORITY FROM THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, THIS FEE WAS AT .$8. 00. THE CHANGE IN LAW RETURNED THIS FEE TO THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OF $1 .00 . THIS FEE IS INADEQUATE TO FINANCE THE MICROGRAPHICS AND AUTOMATION WHICH IS REQUIRED IN THE COURTS. IT IS, THEREFORE, SUGGESTED THAT THE COUNTY SPONSOR LEGISLATION WHICH WILL INCREASE THIS FEE UNDER LEGISLATIVE CONTROL TO WHATEVER LEVEL THE LEGISLATURE IS WILLING TO ACCEPT, HOPEFULLY TO ABOUT $8 .00. 21 . Request a Study of the Whole Problem of How to Properly _ Dispose of Recycled Motor Oil and Request that Recommendations be made to the Legislature for Future Action. THE BOARD HAD ORIGINALLY REQUESTED THAT LEGISLATION BE SPONSORED TO IMPOSE A SURCHARGE ON THE SALE OF MOTOR OIL TO PAY FOR RECYCLING PROGRAMS DESIGNED TO PROPERLY DISPOSE OF USED MOTOR OIL. THE COUNTY' S LOBBYIST HAS INDICATED THAT THIS PROPOSAL WILL GENERATE SUBSTANTIAL OPPOSITION FROM THE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY AND IS, THEREFORE, UNLIKELY TO BE PASSED BY THE LEGISLATURE. AN ALTERNATIVE WHICH HAS BEEN SUGGESTED r Page 7 21 . (continued) IS TO HAVE. THE LEGISLATURE REQUEST A STUDY BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE BODY, TO DETERMINE THE EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM AND DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE LEGISLATIVE ACTION. THIS APPEARS TO BE THE ACTION WHICH IS MOST LIKELY TO RECEIVE LEGISLATIVE SUPPORT AND IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED AS AN INTERIM MEASURE, LEADING TO FURTHER LEGISLATION IN A YEAR OR SO AFTER ADEQUATE DOCUMENTATION', OF THE EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM IS GATHERED. PROPOSALS REQUIRING MORE STAFF WORK BEFORE ESTABLISHING PRIORITY: 1 22. Restrict Parking of Hazardous Waste Vehicles in Shopping Centers and .R'esidential Areas. I The Board has'. indicated an interest in restricting areas in which trucks ;; which haul hazardous waste can park, in order to insure thfat such vehicles do not endanger the general public. Staff is still working with the Sheriff and Public Works departments to determine the extent of the problem, evaluate what law is currently in force to address this problem, andi,determine the most workable solution. As soon as staff has completed this study and has some specific solutions to !-suggest to the Board, a further report will be made on this 'subject. 23 . Augment Funding for PHP Medi-Cal Rates. The Health Services Director will be developing proposals in the area oft allowing disproportionate-share providers to receive increased PHP rates. Recently, rates were increased for fee=for-service providers. This increase did not extend to publicly'-sponsored prepaid health plans, which are operated both by Contra Costa and Los Angeles counties. The Health Services Director will discuss the need for increased rates with Los Angeles County and will call on the County' s lobbyist, as' needed, to assist in this area once a proposal is developed. 24. Allow Psychiatric Health Facilities to be Secured. The Probation Officer has suggested that out-of-home residential ;group homes that are licensed as "psychiatric model" facilities be allowed to be fenced and have other precautions taken to make them more secure. More and more young people!' are coming in contact with the Juvenile Justice System who "are severely emotionally disabled and require psychiatric ;care. Making such facilities more secure will allow staff ' to try to work with these young people in a setting where it is more difficult for them to run away before they ,can be helped. The Probation Officer has agreed to try to work out a specific proposal with Mental Health staff and return it to the Board of Supervisors for further consideration, at which time the Board can consider whether to sponsor such legislation. 25. Interagency Drug Abuse Prevention in West County. The Social Services Director is working on a pilot proposal with the Mental Health staff and other affected County departments: Once such a proposal has been developed, the Social Services Director will forward it to the Board of Supervisors , for further consideration, at which time the Board can consider whether to sponsor such legislation. Page 8 26 . Allow Consolidated Funding for AIDS Programs. The idea here, as proposed by the Health Services Director, would be for the State to consolidate its funding for AIDS programs and allow a County to propose a countywide plan similar to the County' s Short/Doyle plan for mental health services which provides for a coordinated system for the allocation of funds to support AIDS programs. The Health Services Director has agreed to prepare a more detailed outline of how this might work. It might then be possible for the County to sponsor such legislation on a pilot basis to test the value of such a proposal. However, the County should not try to sponsor such legislation on a statewide basis by itself. Once further proposals have been received from the Health Services Director on this item, the Board of Supervisors will be in a position to decide exactly which way to go. 27 . Relieve Small School Districts of Cost of Special Education Students Placed by Another District, particularly transportation costs. The County Administrator' s Office is working with the Superintendent of . Schools, the school districts in East County, and the Social Services Department in an effort to define the precise nature of this problem which is placing an enormous strain on the small East County school districts. Once staff is able to determine what solutions the Superintendent is willing to support, it will be possible -to return recommendations to the Internal Operations Committee, to whom this item is currently on referral.. Depending on their subsequent report to the Board, the Board may wish to consider whether to sponsor legislation in this area. PROPOSALS THE COUN'T'Y ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE WILL PURSUE WITHOUT THE NEED FOR ASSISTANCE FROM OUR LOBBYIST: 28. Clean-Up to SB 1974 of 1988 ( 1988 Municipal Court Pay and Staffing Bill) to Remove References to the Marshal. WHEN THE MARSHAL/SHERIFF CONSOLIDATION LEGISLATION WAS ENACTED EARLIER THIS YEAR, IT LEFT IN STATUTE THE DETERMINATION OF THE PAY AND STAFFING FOR CLASSIFICATIONS IN THE MARSHAL' S OFFICE. NOW THAT THE CONSOLIDATION HAS BEEN COMPLETED UNDER THE SHERIFF THERE IS NO NEED FOR THE STATE LAW TO FIX THE PAY AND STAFFING FOR THOSE POSITIONS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY IN THE MARSHAL' S OFFICE. A FAIRLY SIMPLE CHANGE IN LEGISLATION WILL BE PURSUED THAT WILL CLEAN UP THIS ISSUE. 29. Municipal Court Pay and Staffing Bill. EACH YEAR THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MUST SPONSOR A MUNICIPAL COURT PAY AND STAFFING BILL THAT ALLOWS THE LEGISLATURE TO FIX THE STAFFING AND PAY FOR EMPLOYEES IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT. THIS LEGISLATION IS GENERALLY NOT CONTROVERSIAL AND THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR WILL AGAIN PREPARE SUCH LEGISLATION FOR INTRODUCTION BY A MEMBER OF THIS COUNTY' S DELEGATION. THIS LEGISLATION WILL PROBABLY BE COMBINED WITH THE CLEAN-UP TO THE MARSHAL/SHERIFF CONSOLIDATION DISCUSSED ABOVE SO THAT ALL OF THE CHANGES TO THE STAFFING AND PAY FOR THE MUNICIPAL COURTS CAN BE HANDLED IN A SINGLE PIECE OF LEGISLATION. Page 9 30 . Allow Sheriff the Option to Give Credit on Length of Sentence for a Prisoner Who Participates in Educational, Vocational Education, or Rehabilitation Program. UNDER .CURRENT LAW, THE SHERIFF IS AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE FOR THE VOCATIONAL TRAINING OF PRISONERS WHO ARE IN HIS CUSTODY. NO ADDITIONAL CREDIT IS GIVEN FOR SUCH TRAINING THAT IS UNDERTAKEN VOLUNTARILY BY A PRISONER. IT IS SUGGESTED BY THE SHERIFF THAT ONE DAY OF CREDIT ON A PRISONER' S SENTENCE BE GRANTED FOR EACH WEEK OF PARTICIPATION IN SUCH EDUCATIONAL, VOCATIONAL, OR REHABILITATION PROGRAMS. THIS MAY ASSIST IN REDUCING THE JAIL OVERCROWDING AND WILL PROVIDE AN INCENTIVE FOR PRISONERS TO PARTICIPATE IN SUCH PROGRAMS. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AND SHERIFF SEEK TO HAVE A MEMBER OF THIS COUNTY' S DELEGATION AUTHOR SUCH LEGISLATION. IF THIS EFFORT IS UNSUCCESSFUL, THEN IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION SPONSOR SUCH LEGISLATION WITH SUPPORT FROM THIS COUNTY. PROPOSALS WHICH ARE MORE APPROPRIATELY HANDLED BY ANOTHER GROUP WITH SUPPORT FROM THIS COUNTY: 31. Include Contra Costa County in 66484. 3 GC to Allow Area of Benefit Fees to be Used to Construct State Highways. Orange County was successful in 1985 in getting legislation specifically ' for themselves which clarified State law to make it clear that area of benefit fees can be used for construction of State highways, something that is unclear in current law. The Public Works Director has recommended that this legislation be amended to add Contra Costa County to this authorization. It is felt that this proposal is more properly within the province of the Transportation Authority created by the passage of Measure "C" . If the Authority is unable to undertake this legislative proposal early in the 1989 session, the County should consider doing so providing that such legislation is found to be routine and will not create any controversy. (See GC 66484. 3 ) 32 . Allow Counties to Retain up to 50 of Penalty Assessments Collected to Cover the Administrative Cost of Collecting the Funds. This proposal, which was made by the Municipal Court Administrator, may have some problems because it appears to reduce fine and forfeiture revenue that goes to a wide variety of specialized programs. Unless funds going to the State are exempted, it is likely that the Department of Finance will oppose it. We do not believe that with all of the other measures being recommended for County sponsorship that we can undertake what we believe will be a long and involved series of negotiations in order to work out a detailed proposal in this area that will not reduce any existing revenue sources. For this reason, we would prefer to see the Municipal Court Administrators ' Association undertake this proposal, which this County can probably support, depending on how final language is worded. 33 . Allocate PVEA Funds for Transportation Purposes. This is a highly technical proposal being made by the Public Works Director which we believe is more properly the responsibility of the Transportation Authority created by the passage of Measure "C" . Page 10 34. Allow for 50 Cent Penalty Assessment in Contra Costa County for Development and Maintenance of Automated Criminal Justice System. The Municipal Court Administrator has suggested this measure primarily to bring the current penalty assessments up to an even dollar amount. We believe the Legislature has clearly indicated their frustration with further increases in the penalty assessments and that this measure, if it is to be pursued, should more properly be sponsored by the Municipal Court Administrators ' Association. 35 . Establish Fee for Continuance of Criminal/Traffic Cases for Fine Payment. Here, again, is a proposal which has statewide implications. While the County could certainly support such an effort, we believe that the Municipal Court Administrator ' s Association should consider sponsoring this particular measure. 36 . Authorize the Release of AIDS Test Results to the Probation Department and Superior Court when a Minor is a Ward of -the Court and the Probation Officer is Responsible for Authorizing Medical Care. Under current law, neither the Juvenile Court nor the Probation Officer is entitled to receive the results of an AIDS test on; an individual who is a ward of the court and whose medical care is being ordered by the court and probation officer. This makes it very difficult to properly evaluate the care a ward requires. While we are sympathetic to this need for information, this again is likely to be a controversial measure which has statewide implications. If the Probation Officers ' Association is successful in getting such legislation introduced, this County may wish to consider supporting it. However, it does not appear to be an appropriate measure for this County to sponsor on its own, given the number of other measures the County will already be sponsoring. 37. Provide Additional Funding for Public Defender. This County should certainly support any such efforts which are undertaken by the Public Defenders ' Association. However, it is not appropriate for this County to attempt to solve this problem by itself, given the number of other measures which are already being sponsored and the likely opposition from the Department of Finance which such a proposal will generate. 38 . Increase Funding for Veterans Service Officer. Here, again, the County should support actively any efforts which are undertaken by the Veterans Service Officers on a statewide basis. The County' s lobbyist has already indicated a willingness to support such efforts. However, the County cannot solve this problem by itself, particularly when the Governor has made it clear that he considers this a local, non-mandated program which the State should not fully finance. 39. Reintroduce -the Package of Long-Term Legislation which was Supported by the Board of Supervisors in 1988. The Health Services Director has indicated that he will pursue this package of long-term care legislation with his statewide associations and will advise the County Administrator' s Office if he requires any assistance on particular pieces of legislation. Page 11 40. Provide Incentive for OB Inpatient Services. The Health Services Director will work through his statewide associations on this issue and this County should certainly support such efforts. This is not, however, an issue which this County can solve by itself, particularly in view of the other measures the County will already be sponsoring. 41. Allow Conservatorship Costs to be Charged Against Personal and Incidental Needs for Patients in Long-Term Care Facilities. This, again, is an important and valuable proposal, but one which the Health Services Director should work on through his statewide associations, with support from this County. PROPOSALS WHICH ARE NO LONGER NECESSARY OR WILL NOT BE PURSUED FURTHER IN 1989- 42. Authorize County to Place a Measure on the Ballot to Increase Sales Tax to Pay for Operating New Jail. The successful passage of Measure "C" has brought Contra Costa County up to the statutory maximum sales tax of 70. The County' s lobbyist has made it clear that there would be enormous opposition in the Legislature and the Administration to any proposal to increase the statutory sales tax maximum about 7%. Such an effort would be seen as a new tax increase and would open the floodgates for a wide range of new proposals from every county to increase its sales tax. It is, therefore, suggested that the County no longer pursue this proposal. 43 . Increase Traffic School Fee by $1. 00 for CAL-ID Program Given the existing resistance in the Legislature to further increases in fees, fines and forfeitures, we do not believe that our efforts are best spent on this proposal, given that a 50-cent fee for CAL-ID was just enacted a year ago. 44. Increase Tipping Fee to Pay for Litter Programs. The Community Development Director recognizes how difficult this proposal would be to sell the Legislature and would prefer to put staff ' s efforts into the proposal to be able to use the tipping fee for public education programs. A new dump site will include a requirement for a surcharge on the tipping fee for litter programs and the Community Development Director is, therefore, agreeable to dropping this proposal for the time being. 45 . Defendant Who Fails to Pay Fine on a Non-Traffic Case is Guilty of a Misdemeanor and Court can Issue a Bench Warrant This item, which was suggested by the Municipal Court Administrator, has been withdrawn by him on the basis that a clarifying opinion from County Counsel makes this proposal unnecessary. 46. Allow Contra Costa County to Transfer 1000 of Road Fund Deposits in 1463 PC to General Fund for 10 Years. This proposal, which was suggested by the Municipal Court Administrator, is being dropped because of opposition from the Public Works Director. Page 12 47. Consider the Need to Exempt Court Personnel from Jury Duty. This proposal, which was suggested by the Municipal Court Administrator, is being dropped at the suggestion of the County Administrator because it is unlikely .to be supported by the Judges and because it will undoubtedly lead to requests to exempt other court personnel from jury duty. 48 . Allow CHFC Loans for Non-Hospital Projects. The Health Services Director, who originally suggested this item, has withdrawn it on the basis that the passage of SB 1732 makes this proposal unnecessary. 49. Authorize Capital Funding for Hospital Nurseries. The Health Services Director, who originally suggested this item, has withdrawn it on the basis that the passage of SB 1732 makes this proposal unnecessary. 50. Include Probation as an Eligible Service under SB 612 (Trial Court Funding) . We are suggesting that this proposal not be pursued because of opposition from the Judges and because it would reopen the whole question of what services should be eligible for trial court funding from the new State Block Grant. Such a proposal would bring similar requests from the District Attorney and Public Defender. Since the County already spends more on eligible trial court funding programs than it will receive in the block grant, including more services as eligible programs would not increase the amount of money the County receives and would simply dilute the available funding. 51. Require Railroads and Utilities to Respond to Counties ' Requests More Quickly. While we recognize that Public Works faces some project delays because of its inability to get timely agreements from railroads and public utilities for easements, the County' s lobbyist notes that this proposal is not going to receive any favorable consideration in the Legislature. This problem will have to be solved in another way.