Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MINUTES - 10181988 - 2.2
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: Phil Batchelor Contra County Administrator Costa DATE: October 13 , 1988 CjO^ SUBJECT: Analysis of CSAC Initiative on a Stable Source of Funding for Counties SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: Consider whether to endorse the current CSAC Initiative on County Fiscal Stability as drafted on October 12, 1988 for purposes of the CSAC Board of Directors ' meeting on this subject October 20, 1988, or to endorse the Initiative effort subject to changes requested by the Board of Supervisors. BACKGROUND: On October 11, 1988, the Board of Supervisors requested the County Administrator to prepare an analysis of the proposed CSAC initiative on a stable source of funding for counties and to compare this proposed initiative with similar efforts which were undertaken by CSAC, with substantial input from Contra Costa County, in 1983-84 . What follows is a summary of two separate efforts which have been undertaken by counties: 1. The effort to provide a sales tax transfer for counties to fund county law and justice programs, prohibit the State from changing any existing sharing ratios, establish a maintenance of effort for State funding of programs that are administered by counties with an inflation factor, and makes optional with the county any State-mandated program which is not fully funded. 2 . A County Counsel Association' s effort along the same lines, but without the concept of a transfer of sales tax. CSAC has taken these two efforts and is attempting to meld them into a single initiative that addresses all of these aspects of stabilizing funding for counties. In addition to the county input to this effort, CSAC has been joined by Paul Gann, who has apparently indicated that he is in favor of giving counties a discretionary source of revenue to CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _ YES SIGNATURE; ff " X_ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE X APPROVE OTHER S I GNATURE(S 1: ACTION OF BOARD ON October 18, 1988 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER X ENDORSED the CSAC Initiative on County Fiscal Stability, subject to a review of the provision for back payments for unfunded mandates and further review of the Trial Court Funding Act and Property Tax Transfer to no- and low-property tax cities. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 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: Board Members ATTESTED _ ,�/ /S'_ �ggy County Administrator Auditor-Controller PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF County Counsel SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR M38217-83 BY_ DEPUTY � s Page 2 partially replace the losses suffered by counties as a result of the passage of Proposition 13 . The concern which has been expressed is that if a sales tax transfer initiative effort is undertaken by CSAC, it must also contain sufficient protections to insure that the Legislature cannot change other program subventions in order to offset ;the value of the sales tax transfer. It would, for instance, be fairly simple for the Legislature to reduce the State sharing in the AFDC or mental health programs in order to recover the funds which would be transferred to the counties through a sales tax transfer, thus leaving counties no better off than they were before. In addition, concern has been expressed about the need to tie down more rigidly the requirement that the Legislature pay for the total cost of any and all State-mandated local programs which the Legislature chooses to enact. As it stands in the current draft, the proposed CSAC Initiative would include the following features: 1 . One-half cent of the current State sales tax would be transferred to the counties with no requirement as to how the counties would have to spend the funds. 2 . The sales tax transfer would be allocated to counties quarterly, 500 on the basis of population and 500 on the basis of the source of the funds ( situs) . However, each County would be guaranteed a minimum allocation of $200,000 per year with the balance to be allocated according to population and situs. Based on 1986-87 figures, Contra Costa County would receive $30. 27 million from this formula. 3 . The Legislature would be free to repeal the Brown-Presley Trial Court Funding Act of 1988 (SB 612, Chapter 945, Statutes of 1988) and the Property Tax Transfer to no- and low-property tax cities (AB 1197, Chapter 944, Statutes of 1988) , with the sales tax transfer substituting for any and all value gained by counties from the Trial Court Funding Act. 4 . The sales tax transfer would reduce the State' s "Gann Limit" on appropriations by the amount of the sales tax transfer, but the sales tax transfer would not be charged to the county' s "Gann Limit" . In other words, even if a county were at or near its "Gann Limit" , the sales tax revenue could be spent without affecting the county' s "Gann Limit" . 5 . The Initiative would repeal the existing provisions requiring reimbursement for State mandates and would replace it with a comprehensive new section. This new section would include the following provisions: A. Requires the State to fund all increased costs of post-1975 State mandates, not just those costs associated with State actions that mandate a new program or increased level of service. Presumably, this would include court-ordered increases and federally-ordered increases which are currently exempt from the requirement that the Legislature reimburse counties for State-mandated costs. B. If the State does not provide funds to fully cover all State-mandated costs for a program, the State would become solely responsible to provide the mandated service or program. Page 3 C. Prohibits the State from enacting any statutory provisions which disclaim or otherwise waive their obligation to fund mandates. D. Requires the courts to liberally construe or give preference to local government in resolving legal disputes regarding State mandates. E. Requires the State, beginning in 1989, to pay for cost increases in pre-1975 programs which exceed normal inflation or cost-of-living adjustments, whereas currently all program increases for programs which have existed . since before 1975 are exempt from the requirement that the State pay for State-mandated local programs. The AFDC Program is a prime example of this exclusion, as is the General Assistance Program. F. Provides Boards of Supervisors the option to provide a State-mandated local program that is not fully funded or to refuse to do so by prohibiting a local agency from performing a mandate that is not fully funded unless the governing board votes to provide some or all of the program. The county would still be entitled to reimbursement, even if under these circumstances they agreed to go ahead and provide a program that was ,not fully funded. G. A local government could, at any time, advise the State that a State-mandated program is not fully funded. The State would then have four options: 1. Fully fund the program. 2 . Repeal the mandate. 3 . Assume full responsibility for the mandate. 4. Take the county to court. H. The State would be precluded from having any administrative agency, such as the Commission on State Mandates. All disputes would be settled by the courts. I . Any reduction in State revenue becomes a State-mandated cost. J. Prohibits the State from mandating increased local fees, charges, or other local revenue to fund State mandates. In contrast to this Initiative, which deals only with counties, the CSAC effort in 1983-84, termed "Project Independence" , was a cooperative effort involving not only counties, but also cities, schools, and community colleges. The "Project Independence" Initiative included increased authority for charter counties to govern their affairs and extended to general law cities the same powers and authority enjoyed by charter cities. This Initiative also made changes in the manner in which the "Gann" appropriation limit is calculated, and changed the manner in which the ad valorem property tax is allocated. As is the case with the current CSAC Initiative, the 1983-84 Initiative included court-ordered mandates among those that ' the Legislature must reimburse. The 1983-84 Initiative said that any unfunded mandate became optional with the counties, whereas , the current CSAC Initiative takes a much stronger position by making Page 4 the State responsible for the program, prohibiting a local agency from implementing a State-mandated program that is not fully funded unless the governing board votes to implement the program and by allowing a county to notify the State at any time that a program is not fully funded and then requiring that the State choose one of the four options listed above. The 1983-84 Initiative included 100 of the personal income tax in addition to the 1/2 cent sales tax among the funds which had to be transferred to counties. The current Initiative provides only for the sales tax transfer. The 1983-84 Initiative provided for a more complex method of allocating these funds which was designed to return each county to the level of State funding the county received in 1983-84 for certain specified health, welfare and criminal justice programs. Any funds remaining after this allocation were to be allocated to counties on the basis of situs. The current CSAC Initiative allocates the sales tax 50% on the basis of population and 500 on the basis of situs, after the minimum allocation of $200,000 to each county. This formula may or may not return all counties to the 1983-84 level for these programs. The 1983-84 Initiative also authorized counties to eliminate unnecessary administrative procedures in order to administer these programs more efficiently. The current CSAC Initiative does not include this provision. The 1983-84 Initiative required the State Controller to add additional amounts of sales tax revenue and income tax revenue to the amounts allocated to counties to cover the cost of additional State mandates, apparently removing the need for the Legislature to appropriate these funds. The current CSAC Initiative appears to still require that funds be appropriated by the Legislature, but provides substantial protection for counties against the possibility that the Legislature would refuse or fail to appropriate such funds. Whereas the 1983-84 Initiative included language prohibiting the Legislature from limiting the ability of local government to impose or increase any fee, tax, or charge which the local government was entitled to impose or increase prior to the passage of the Initiative, the current CSAC Initiative prohibits the Legislature from requiring that any fee or charge be increased to pay for any State-mandated program. In many ways, the current CSAC Initiative is simpler than was the 1983-84 effort, primarily because the current effort does not attempt to deal with inadequate levels of funding for current programs. It simply says that the State is absolutely responsible for all State mandates enacted after 1975, and is also responsible for any future increased costs for pre-1975 programs. This may leave some inequity among counties because of variations in the level of pre-1975 programs which currently exist. Attached for the Board' s information is the material which has been sent to the CSAC Board of Directors for discussion at the Board of Directors ' meeting on October 20, 1988 . OCT-12-1986 14:53 FROM COUNTY SUPERVISORS ASSOC. TO 14156464098 P.01 l�o�rtt��/►aS�� %�o A #Afflion orCaffkrnia FAX COVER PAGE DIRECT LINE FOR FAX MACHINE: (916) 441-5507 Date:-------------/0//C ------------- Time:----------------- Number of Pages Including Carer: —, Transmission To:-- A_"_10------------------ FAX No. -------------------- From: Special.Instructions:------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- PLEASE CONTACT —`—_-- AT (916) 441-4011 IF TELECOPY IS ILLEGIBLE OR INCOMP ETE CSAC EXECun'VE COMMInME:Prtsidtnt BARBARA SHIPNUCK,Monterey County ■ first Vice President HILL COATES,Plumas County a Second Vice Presi- dent,WILLIE KENNEDY,San Francisco • Irnmedlete past President.KAY CENICERM RivgrSift County f JVDY ANDRE£N,Fresno Couwky ■ MICHAEL D. ANTONOVICH.Los Angeles County • CRAWPORD 90$T,Ntvpda County 6 ALFRED G4NWUR0.Madera County • ORANTLAND JOHNSON,Saoram nr0 Coun- ty ■ ZOE LOPGPIEN,$ante C1pra County ■ DON PERATA.Marrieds County ■ PETE PETERS,Snasta County ■ MEL VARRELMAN.Naps County ■ LARRY WALKER,San Bernardino County ■ HARFAM M.W EVER.Oros"County ■ OMAN RICHTER•SacrlM+Qnto County AdmMisvativt Officer.Advisor • JAMES ■ e` LINbHOLM•San Lyi%C4ioo CoumY.Advisor R LARRY E.NAAKE.Executive Director t t■ Sacr8~0 Office / 1100 K Street, Suite 101 / Sacramento. CA 95814-3941 / 916.441.4011 Washingloo Office / 440 First St., N.W., Suite 503 / Washington, D.C. 20001 / 202-783-7575 OC.T-12-198e 14:54 FROM COUNTY SUPERVISORS ASSOC. TO 14156464098 P.02 MEMORANDUM October 12, 1988 TO: Members, CSAC Board of Directors y� FROM Larry E. Naakc, Executive Director � 1 SUBJECT: COMPONENTS AND LANGUAGE OF POTENTIAL INITIATIVE FOR COUNTY FISCAL STABILITY As promised in .our initial Board of Directors meeting notice, the components and language of the potential initiative for county fiscal stability is part of the enclosed Board of Directors packet. I apologize for the lateness of mailing this packet, but the potential initiative language was dependent upon meetings with Paul Gann and the necessity to redraft the language after those meetings. I hope you will have time to review this language with your colleagues, your CAO, and your County Counsel prior to the October 20 Board of Directors meeting. As a remimdcr, the Board of Directors meeting will be held as follows: DATE: Thursday, October 20, 1988 TIME: 10:00 a.m. - 3:00 P.M. (includes lunch) PLACE: Holiday Inn Crowne Plaza 600 Airport Boulevard Burlingame, CA (San Francisco Airport) (415) 340-8500 Please call me if you have any questions or comments. See you on October 20. LEN:sgm cc: County Administrative Officers County Counsels OCT-12-19,ae 14:54 FROM COUNTY SUPERVISORS ASSOC. TO 14156464098 P.03 COMPOlyENTSQF INITIATIVE FOR COUNTY FISCAL STABIL11Y I. SALES TAX TRANSFER. Transfer 1/2 cent of the existing state sales tax proceeds to the counties. This is not a tax increase, but rather a revenue transfer. A. Allocation Eormula.. Transferred 1/2 cent sales tax will be distributed to counties quarterly, 50% on the basis of proportionate population and 50% on the basis of proportionate amount collected in each county. Each county will receive a base amount of $200,000, with the remaining amount of the 1/2 cent sales tax allocated as described above. B. Us_e__of Funds, The funds will = be earmarked. However, there is intent language indicating that this initiative will help to secure the fiscal stability of counties, especially in the areas of public safety and libraries. IL BEFEAL OF TRIAL COURT FUNDING AND ND,AND-LPW PROPERTY TAX CITIES BILL. Upon passage of this initiative, the State Legislature would have the option of repealing both the "Brown-Presley Trial Court Funding Act of 1988" (Chapter 945, Statutes of 1988; SB 612 of 1988) and the No and Low Property Tax Cities Act (Chapter 944, Statutes of 1988; AB 1197 of 1988). The Counties' share of the 1/2 cent sales tax revenue would be in-lieu of any block grant allocation for trial courts. III. OANN APPROPRIATION LIMIT. Receipt of this sales tax revenue would not be applied against a counties current Cann Appropriations Limit, but would be outside of a county's limit. The State's Gann Appropriation Limit would decrease as a result of this revenue transfer. IV. PROTECTION AGAINST REDUCTION OF STATE FUNDING TO COUNTIES A. Mandate,„protection. Repeals existing provisions requiring reimbursement for state mandates and adds a comprehensive new section. L Iteauires $tate to Fund AlI increased octs. Requires the state to fund all increased costs of post-1975 state mandates, not just costs associated with state actions that mandate a new program or increased level of service. 2. State Reswnsible for Unfunded or Partially Funded Mandates. If the state does not provide funds to fully cover all state-mandated costs, the state would become solely responsible to provide the mandated service or program. 3. Prohibits State Disclaimers and Waivprj. Prohibits the state from enacting any statutory provisions which disclaim or otherwise waive their obligation to fund mandates. OCT-12-1988 14:55 FROM COUNTY SUPERVISORS ASSOC. TO 14156464098 P.04 4. Liberal ConStjRction to Erplect Logal GovernMent, Requires the courts to liberally construe or give preference to local government in resolving legal disputes regarding state mandates. S. $e&Wres the State to Fund Increased Cost of Prc-1275 Mandates. The current constitutional provisions cover mandates enacted after 1975. This proposal would require the state to fully fund any increased cost associated with pre-1975 mandates beginning in 1989. The increased costs covered in this provision of the initiative are only those costs in excess of normal inflationary or cost of living adjustments. " 6. Gives G__oyernintt Boards the Oration to Perform Unfunde Mandates. Local agencies would be expressly prohibited from performing a mandate that is not fully funded unless the governing board acts to provide the service in whole or in part. Nevertheless, the county is still entitled to reimbursement. 7. Local Agga_U Rcsnoncible for Qe ermininA Sufficiencyof Funding. A local government may, at any time, notify the state a mandate is not fully funded. The state then has four options: (1) provide additional funds; (2) repeal the mandate; (3) assume full responsibility for the mandate; or (4) take the county to court. 8. hio Statc Administrative Remedy. This approach precludes the state from having an administrative agency, such as the Commission on State Mandate& All disputes would be settled by the courts. 9. Reductions_izt_.Mate Revenues Become iyiandatcs. Any reductions in state revenues become a state-mandated cost. 10. Prohibits Use of Local Fees _to_ Fund Mandates. It expressly prohibits the state from mandating increased local fees, charges or other local revenues to fund state mandates. October 1988 LEN:sgm -2- OCT-12-1985 14:55 FROM COUNTY SUPERVISORS ASSOC. TO 14156464095 P.05 z 0 N gK •; 52+ mO1� A N a" piY.. •Q W W � f`�n h N N N � M yA� S M � N Mr O` d Y� � � .n M1 O` •" •1 O � N 'Z .pW.p N ,� .p .� 1�. N h7 �pf, •Nh �Ap O• N 1f� EO Nv.� N ^ p Yl N O H P ♦ •b P M $ � •On Ir b Yf � 1� � vWi N vSQ• � f� ►` v I� P•n M h M M p ♦.ri . r. �t r ^ �C 4- r N r A O •f 1� m M r �y t"' •'" of v O• � M •+ .p ' r � � N r O r V N N • i � • r O • w ' S ^ vMNM A r ti pH., N W .♦ �Nf r pP, �tlp •�O N n o S w �r •p h 0 N A Iti r N d �O a O• O h N N S S v~t NN a � „2••' h W � d R r' � N M tl'` •O r 0 'Vti M d V1 N N N Mf r N M r •O N W •+ . r W r O e e O � Sp¢ p¢OvoOp OO O O0 .e,O oO O Ow O Sw 88 , 48 c SOOO ooqO OpO OOO OS OS O p 3. 3Ss8 a888S •SO SO pOO Oepp h N W N N N rif N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ? N • r r • 0 0 r _ V C C CC CC Sc C Sc C C .", Y M z c W '• w S 4 O A 8 o 4 4 t d •p 5 fl 1� 7 . O 1+ (,� • OC N N N M N w V! N N N N so N N N N N N h W t.. F } f+ Y• h W S O • p, N�y en p N M O N N M O +C N2 a N � �' e N M R6 � 8• r, .. . .r •� Nss � ^a' .oMf�'• .s � .� .� a ., d. d12t° N .� a w • gOg 1l�. pft a M •O .app .� •o vq, .n' ~ ^ : • p1 O q N Q O d O P O w W aN �o •O O OD N v O 99 N MM7 S P.. ev Aull r� � 'f N. � •C Wb i N 0. • S S ^ �• W p• OO y N� �,,ppp O p O N •D W M N M N P 9D ti 0O .Np t A •l N a P O•O, 1. !r P + N r 1O/1• %WPB V A1.�.17 Cl, (� A N. /ti •O V1 V CO M M •Wn a N `Q O ~ O O M N S '� r N V s � d A r` b � O � W N W IY � hr A P •D W M •� V• �I W •O M V � N O r «O w N • N •O ,O h d M N w A N0: N'M d ht •b J � A Z ~ : w • 42 Q r • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 O O � W $ $ a og � � � � 8g � sgsgo � sgS � g � g � ooggg � p : oo $ oog $ s � gsgggg � gsggssgggoggsg s N r • N N N N N N n/ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Ncm !lift • N � r N N u W N tl al fn ma V �- • ` ��§pj « + 0 4 70 C O C b �p�p, p} Y & h tWW ti E 4 70 o O cr. y G C .Y b e y L L O ?b r •K d W w w w O W k ty x X iL J J i z i i X i % i X X ` OCT-12-1458 14:56 FROM COUNTY SUPERVISORS ASSOC. TO 14156464098 P.06 OFFICE OF COUNTY COUNSEL COVNTY OF SHASTA COUNTY COUNSCL DAVID R.FRANK 1558 West Street ASSISTANT COUNTY COUNSEL Redding,California 961 KAREN KEATING JAHR (916)225=5711 0CPUTY COUNTY COUNSEL MICHAEL A.RALSTON BRUCE R.JOHNSTONE October 11 , 1988 Larry Naake Executive Director County Supervisors Association of California - 1100 "K" Street , Suite 101 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re : Proposed Local Government Fiscal Stability Amendment - Or t 3 Dear Larry: Enclosed is the above . I have addressed the matters we discussed, including : 1 . Changes in proposed Section 34 of Article XIII to delete the dedication for public protection and safety of part of the shifted sales tax revenue and addition of a $50,000 floor as the Minimum revenue to be received by any county in any quarter. 2 . Amendment of proposed Section 6(a) (5) of Article XIII8 to include a Clarification that ' the intent of the amendment is to secure fiscal stability for library, public safety and other services provided by counties . 3 . Amendment of subdivision (a) of Section 8 of Article XIIIB to reduce the state' s spending limit by the amount of. sales tax revenue shifted to counties by the addition of Section 34 to Article XIII . Finally, I close with the same disclaimers included in the numbers paragraphs of my letter of October 5, 1988. OCT-12-1988 14:56 FROM COUNTY SUPERVISORS ASSOC. TO 14156464098 P.07 If I may be of further assistance, please advise. Yery rely ars vid R. ank County Counsel DRF : ne Enclosures cc: County Counsel Mandate Study Committee Supervisor Barbara Shipnuck, Monterey County Supervisor Don Perata, Alameda County Supervisor Zoe Lofgren, Santa Clara County Donald Clark, County Counsel , Santa Clara County Richard Moore, County Counsel , Alameda County Michael D. Johnson, County Administrative Officer, Shasta County Information copy: Shasta County Board of Supervisors OCT-12-1988 14:56 FROM COUNTY SUPERVISORS ASSOC. TO 14156464098 P.08 LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL AMENDMENT CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE 1988-89 REGULAR SESSION (SenateI Assembly) Constitutional Amendment No Introduced by (Senator) (Assembly Member) [Date] (Senate) (Assembly) Constitutional Amendment No . -- A resolution to propose to the people of the State of California an amendment to the Constitution of the State, by Iaddog Section 3-4 of rticle XIII thereof, l repealing and adding Section 5 of Article XIII8 thereof and amending Section 8 of Article XIII8 thereof, relating to local government Ifina ce?_. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST (Insert text of Legislative Counsel ' s Digest. ] I LtesQ1vsd__b_v the (Senate) (Ass emblftg (Assembly) (Senate) 2 concurring, That the Legislature of the State of California at 3 its 1988-89 Regular Session commencing on the fifth day of 4 December, 1988, two-thirds of the members elected to each of the 5 two houses of the Legislature voting therefor, hereby proposes to b the people of the State of California that the Constitution of 7 the State be amended as follows : g FIRST A-_-7 THAT SECTYOH 34 IS ADDED TO ARTICLE XIII TO 9 ��► I DRAFT 3 10/11/88 OCT-12-1988 14:57 FROM COUNTY SUPERVISORS ASSOC. TO 14156464098 P.09 10 SEC. 34 . (a--)--Of the state revenues collected pursuant to 11 the Sales and Use Tax Lax the revenues attrib-ittable to a tax 12 rate of o-a-e-hal L percent shall be apportioned quarterly by the 13 Stat ar of ualiz an -disbursed to all sties 14 quarterly b the Controller pursua t to subdiviAon ibib) 15 fb) Of__the revenues to be disbursed pursuant to subdivis on 16 (a) . the sum of 550.000 shall be disbursed to each county 17 quarterly. Half of the remaining revenues to be disbursed 18 pursuant to subdivision (a) shall be apportioned and disbursed 19 sed upon each county's proportionate share of the state's 20 DOPu1ati0n in the precedinct___ 'fiscal rear and half shall be 21 ortioned and -disburse-d- based upon the Dropartioa of those 22 revenues received for each county in the Dreceding fiscal vearr. 23 Interest earned on the revenues to be disbursed pursuant to this 24 s_e_ction shall be apportioned and disbursed to the counties in the 25 same manner. 26 SECOND) -- THAT SECTION'.6 OF ARTICLE XIIIB IS REPEALED. 27 SEC.--6.- --idfieee-rem-the--6egi&Iature-�r--*n-y--state--ageney 28 mandates-e- new -program -or- h4gfi-e-r-1-e-v-e-1- -o€ - serv4 Ee- *-n--a�3F--1oeal 29 government;--fie- -state--s4+1-1-- prov4 de--a-sj,fi-V4fA4-"--of--'At-n4-s- -te 30 remburse -s eEh-a ossa- gove�^flmeflt-# -#fie_fio�t�-o-f� -a�ctt -�rc�gram -©r 31 fnereased -level -ef- -se-r-v4ce,- * c-ejA-44iat 44he• -6egi-9-1-etwhe -mays;-but 32 Meed -Prot-,- -prev4de- -sire-t� -sdbvention--o€ -#�n�3--€or - fie--€oFl•swnQ 33 mandates= 34 Fa) �eg4sl atrMe --mandates --pequ}ped--by -the --�oeal•--ageney 35 a€feeted# 36 Eb) Eegrslatton - -de iuing-- a- -nenv- --c-rim - -o-r- -e?raagi-pg --ae 37 e4st}ng -de€ir�r }oto-a€-a -crme�-or 2 DRAFT 3 10/11/88 OCT-12-1988 14:57 FROM COUNTY SUPERVISORS ASSOC. TO 14156464098 P.10 38, -- fe) 6egislat:isve-mand ate s- enacted--p-~4-"- -t-o- 4;19757 39 or--e.Xec-U-t i-we--Orders- - -o-r- - eg►s-int i - -i-rri•�'ral-l-y� - -rmpTemer�i;i•Rg 40 legi slatrOR -eRac-ted -pri ep -to -January-1 r-1975 41 ESmNB THYRD THAT SECT10N 6 IS ADDED To ARTICLE 42 XIIIB. To READ: 43 SEC. 6 . (a) Purpose and Intent . The people of the State 44 of California find and declare that : 45 (1) Local governments provide the public services, 46 programs and activities most needed and used by the people and 47 are the units of government most accessible and responsive to the 48 people. 49 (2) The addition by the people of Article XIIIA to 50 this Constitution has resulted in . a transfer of control of local 51 financial resources from local governments to state government. 52 This transfer has shifted governmental power away from the people 53 and the, governmental units closest to the people and has eroded 54 the ability of local governments to provide the governmental 55 programs , services and activities desired by the people . The 56 people did not intend any of these results to occur. 57 (3) The addition by the people of Article X111B to S8 this Constitution was intended , in .part, to Eretura -to-the-people 59 loeal--eentrol} r rve the financial resourcesl of local 60 governments by requiring an appropriation of state funds for 61 every new program, higher level of service or other cost or 62 reduction in revenue imposed upon local governments by the 63 Legislature, the Governor or a state officer or agency. 3 DRAFT 3 10/11/88 OCT-12-1988 14:58 FROM COUNTY SUPERVISORS ASSOC. TO 14156464098 P.11 64 (4) To ensure the viability and stability of local 65 governments , consistent with the intent of the people in adopting 66 Section 6 of Article XIIIB, it is necessary to [repeal•3,: 67 (i ) Add Section 34 to Article XIII in order to 68 D novide counties with a stable source of funding, and 69 (1 1 ) Repeal ? -and add Section 6 to f-thisl Article 70 FX177B3 and to amend Section 8 of (this Artticie.., in order] 71 EArtinele -X444.8--&f--th4s--C-anti-testi-on----These-amendments--.4).+1-1- -be 72 eoll•eet$vel•y- -kaon--and--Da-y--be--ci-tred--a-s--the -Z,a44-k -M-a--Ftseal 73 RespoRsrbll`tty -AmeRdmeRt: 74 (5}-By-apprev 4 ng- #0�e--Ca-1-i-f-oi nt i-a`-Fi-s-oarl_-fte�,,por�s,04-V i-ty-Ame,ndmeRt; 75 the -people-i4RteRdl to clarify the intent, purpose and application 76 of Proposition 4, as approved by the people on November 6, 1979, 77 that the state either be solely responsible for executing 78 state-mandated requirements or provide to local governments funds 79 sufficient to fully cover all costs to local governments of 80 performing or -complying with such mandates . 81 E T e -t h 4 s-mrd-,--I t-4 s--a4-s-o--t-he--f R t.e R t-e€-.t4it- -ireo•p-1-e-3 The s 82 amendments shall be collectively known and may be cited as the 83 Local Government fiscal Stability Ame dment 84 (5) By ataoroving the local 6avernment Fiscal Stability 85 Amendment, the peooie intend) to repudiate, abolish and prohibit 86 completely, in all acts of government, the practice of the state 87 disclaiming the existence of, or the state' s liability for, 88 fiscal impacts on local governments from mandates . It is 89 further the intent of the people to repudiate, abolish and 90 prohibit completely, in all acts of government , the imposition by 91 the state of any and all requirements that a local government 4 DRAFT 3 10/11/88 OCT-12-1988 14:58 FROM COUNTY SUPERVISORS ASSOC. TO 14156464098 P.12 92 waive all or part of its right —to .Fall funding of all mandates , 93 or its right to decline to perform any mandate because of 94 reductions in revenues , or its right to reimbursement for the 95 costs of mandates when such reimbursement is required by law. 96 lit is further the intent of the people to secure fiscal 97 stability for local governments particularly counties, and 98 library, public safety and other services provided by countigs ) 99 (6) This . Amendment shall be liberally construed to 100 implement the intent and effectuate the purposes set forth in 101 this Section . To this end, it is further the intent of the 102 people that in addition to the remedies available to a local 103 government under this Section, each local government retains all 104 rights against the state available to the local government at any 145 time prior to the effective date of this Amendment, including but 106 not limited to the right to reimbursement for all of the costs of 107 any mandate for which such reimbursement was required either 108 under Section 6 of Article XIII8, as it read prior t=o the 109 effective date of this Amendment, or under any statute or final 110 judgment requiring or authorizing such reimbursement. Nothing in III this Amendment, or in the Constitution as it read prior to this 112 Amendment , shall be deemed or construed to create, recognize or 113 confirm any general or specific power in any branch of state 114 government to compel any local government to perform or in any 115 manner comply with any mandate that is not fully funded by the 116 state, as required by this Section . 117 (7) If any provision of the F6a1.4€orni-a3oc l 118 Government) Fiscal Stability? Amendment or the 119 application of any such provision to any person or circumstance 5 DRAFT 3 10/11/88 OCT-12-1966 14:59 FROM COUNTY SUPERVISORS ASSOC. TO 14156464095 P.13 120 is held invalid, the remainde-r of this Amendment shall not be 121 affected thereby, to the extent the remainder can be given effect 122 or applied to persons or circumstances other than those as to 123 which it is held invalid. 124 (8) Each provision of this Amendment is self--executing 125 and takes effect immediately upon passage of this Amendment by 126 the people of California. Each provision of this Amendment is 127 retroactively operative as to and is deemed to apply to every 128 mandate, as defined in Section 8 . (However. Section 34 of 129 Article XIII shall_ _ become operative on the first day of the 130 first calendar quarter occurring after the passageof this 131 Amendment,)_ 132 (b) Mand-atory State Funding The Legislature shall fully 133 fund, for each fiscal year and solely from state or federal 134 revenues, every mandate imposed directly or indirectly on any 135 local government by any act of government . Any unfunded mandate 136 shall not become operative for any purpose and shall not be 137 enforceable against any local government by any person, the State 138 of California, any court, or any other entity of government, 139 except as otherwise specifically provided in this Section. 140 Funding required by this Section may be made by an appropriation 141 contained in any bill . 142 (c) tional State Notwithstanding subdivision 143 (b; . the state may, but is not required to, fully or partially 144 funs the costs to a local government of: 145 ( 1 ) Any mandate expressly requested by the governing 146 bocy of t.ihat local government; or 6 DRAFT 3 10/11/88 OCT-12-1988 14:59 FROM COUNTY SUPERVISORS ASSOC. TO 14156464098 P.14 147 (2} .• po.li:oe� services provided by that local government 148 to enforce that part of any mandate that creates a new crime or 149 redefines an existing crime. 150 (d) Limit—s— of State AutboritX. No officer, agency or 151 branch of state government, including but not limited to the 152 Legislature, shall : 153 (1 ) Compel any local government to perform or in any 154 manner comply with any mandate that is not fully funded by the 155 state, as required by this section . 156 (2) Require any local government to impose, increase 157 or use the proceeds of any tax, assessment, fee, rate, charge or 158 other source of local revenue in order to pay the costs of 159 performing or complying with any mandate. 160 (3) Require any local government to waive any right 161 conferred by any provision of law to full funding of any mandate , 162 or any right to decline to perform any mandate for lack of 163 sufficient funding, or any right to full :"reimbursement for the 164 costs to the local government of performing or complying with any 165 mandate. 166 (4) Disclaim the existence of a mandate or the 167 state' s responsibility to fully fund the cost of a mandate . 168 (e) P—e_r_form•an_ce of Unfunded Mandates Prohibited.., A local 169 government shall not perform or in any manner comply with any 170 unfunded randate unless and until : 171 (1) Funds to fully and specifically cover all costs 172 or dons in revenue resulting from the mandate are first 73 disburse, by the state to the local government before or as such ? costs or reductions in revenue are incurred; 7 DRAFT 3 10/11/88 OCT-12-1 988 15:00 FROM COUNTY SUPERVISORS RSSOC. TO 14156464098 P.15 175 A court order or final judgment, consistent with 176 subdivisions (d) , (g) and (h) , determines that such a duty 177 exists ; or 178 (3) A majority of. the governing board of the local 179 government determines, in its sole discretion, to fully or 180 partially perform or comply with the mandate. 181 A local government shall not be deemed to have waived any 182. protection or entitlement conferred by this section if the local 183 government voluntarily performs or complies with one or more 184 unfunded mandates . Neither a local government nor any of its 185 officers , agents or employees shall incur any liability for its 186 or their failure to perform or comply with any unfunded mandate, 187 regardless of past performance or compliance with all or part of 188 any mandate. All claims, demands or actions against a local 189 government, or any of its officers , agents or employees , relating 190 to an unfunded mandate shall be deemed for all purposes to be 191 claims, demands or actions solely agaibst the state and not 192 against the local government. 193 (f) Notice of Insufficient Funding:.--- Right of State to 194 Relief. A local government may at any time notify the Governor 195 that an identified mandate is not fully funded. Upon such 196 notification, the state may: 197 ( 1 ) Disburse to the local government federal or state 198 funds sufficient to fully and specifically cover the deficit; 199 (2) Repeal , resci-»d or otherwise vacate the act of 200 gover-,,,..:. . t creating or imposing the mandate; 01 (3) Assume sole financial , administrative and legal responsii- ' lity for performing the mandate; or $ DRAFT 3 10/11/88 OCT-12-1` ee 15:00 FROM COUNTY SUPERVISORS ASSOC. TO 14156464098 P.16 203 (4) File} vas its exclusive remedy, an action in 204 superior court to seek a declaratory judgment that the local 205 government must perform or otherwise comply with the mandate at 206 issue. The action shall be filed within sixty (60) days of the 207 transmittal of the notification and shall . be tried only in a 208 county in which the - local government is wholly or partly 209 situated. 210 (g) Rights of Local Governments to Relief. 211 (1 ) A local government may file an action in superior 212 court to seek a declaratory judgment that the state is obligated 213 to fully fund a specified mandate or to reimburse the local 214 government for the costs of complying with a mandate. The action 215 shall be tried only in a county in which the local government is 216 wholly or partly situated. 217 (2) If a local government performs or complies with an 218 unfunded mandate and incurs any costs or suffers any reduction in 219 revenue not covered by any state funds disbursed to specifically 220 fund the mandate, the local government may apply directly to the 221 Legislature for reimbursement . The Legislature shall appropriate 222 and cause to be disbursed to the local government funds suffi - 223 tient to fully reimburse the local government for all such costs 224 or reductions in revenues . 225 (3) A local government may at any time pursue either 226 or both of the remedies provided by paragraphs ( 1 ) and (2) . 227 (h) LiAtts of Relief. in any action brought pursuant to 228 subdivi � � on_ (f) or (g) : ?29 ( 1 ) No interim or final legal or equitable relief of . 1 any kind shall be granted against a local government or any of 9 DRAFT 3 10/11/88 OCT-12-1988 15:01 FROM COUNTY SUPERVISORS ASSOC.- TO 14156464098 P.17 231 its officers, agents .&r employees, unless the court, exercising 232 its independent judgment, finds that the state has established by 233 clear and convincing evidence that one or more of the following 234 circumstances exist: 235 ( i ) For mandates enacted prior to January 1 , 236 1975, the mandate results in no expanded or additional costs to 237 the local government on or after July 1 , 1988; 238 (ii ) For mandates enacted on or after January 1 , 239 1975, the mandate does not require the local government to incur 240 any [new] cost [;} or [any-expaAded-or-additional-,costs,-o,r-.a-nyj 241 reduction in revenue ; 242 ( iii ) The only costs the local government has 243 incurred or will incur are costs described in su-b-division (c) ; or 244 (iv) The state has disbursed to the local 245 government funds sufficient to cover all of the costs or 246 reductions in revenue incurred and anticipated to be incurred by 247 the local government in performing or 1complying with , the 248 mandate. 249 (2) Neither the state nor any local government shall 250 exercise any right of offset as to state funding r.e.quired..by this 251 section until entry of a final judgment determining that a right 252 of offset exists in favor of either or both parties . 253 (3) No costs, atto-roey' s fees or sanctions may be 254 awarded against any local government or any of its officers, 255 agents or employees. 256 ( ij Interest on Delayed Payments when"wr the state is 257 required to reimburse a local government for the cost of any 1 mandate, the payment shall include interest on the amount of the 10 DRAFT 3 10/11/88 OCT-12-1888 15:01 FROM COUNTY SUPERVISORS ASSOC. TO 14156464098 P.18 259 cost from the date the . cost iJ s incurred until the reimbursement 260 is disbursed to the local government. The rate of interest shall 261 be the maximum daily rate of interest applicable to unpaid 262 judgments in -civil cases . 263 ETHIRD OU TH --- THAT {_SuBDIVISION (A) QF1 SECTION 8 OF 264 ARTICLE XIII8 IS AMENDED TO READ: 265 ESEE:-8.- -/is--used--ii►- -this --l-r-U-0-a--&ad-except-yrs--otherwise 266 expressly -provided -herein:-] (a) "Appropriations subject to 267 limitation" of the state shall mean any authorization to expend 268 during a fiscal year the proceeds of taxes levied by or for the 269 state, exclusive of state subventions for the use and operation 270 of local government (other than subventions made pursuant to 271 Section [34 of Article XIII8 or Section) 6 of this Article) and 272 further exclusive of refunds of taxes, benefit payments from 273 retirement, unemployment insurance and disability insurance funds 274 275 FIFTH -L THAT SUBDIVISION (B) OF SECTION 8 OF' ARTIgLE XIII8 276 IS AM LADED TO READ: 277 (b) "Appropr_iations subject to limitation" of an entity of 278' local government shall mean any authorization to expend during a 279 fiscal year the proceeds of taxes levied by or for that entity 280 and the proceeds of state subventions to that entity (other than 281 subventions made pursuant to Sectian 034 of Article XIII ,or 282 S ctio 6 of this Article) exclusive of refunds of taxes ;. 283 FW --"-Rion-e`eds- --of--taxes°--sham--4*c4*de-,-- --aatr--be 284 restrset<:d -te; -01 - tax-revenges-,and- -t*e- Vio*e� t-o- -a* -eRti-ty-of 785 gov a pa m e r••t r -from- J4 4--reg-u l ato-ny-1-i-c _es ,- 49-e r-Ov&rge-s r -&Rd-a s e r €ees -to -the -extent-that -suet -ppoeeeds -exceed-the-Eosts-peasonably 11 DRAFT 3 10/11/88 OCT-12-1988 1502 FROM COUNTY SUPERVISORS RSSOC. TO 14156464098 P.19 287 borne - by--sueh- en#i-ter- -tme�,prev4d4ng- -t-ire- -reqs}at;ee; --p-rodi-c#;- -or 288 serv}ee;-and -(*�) -the -fnvestmeRt -o€ -tax -revenues:-Mirth -Pespeet-to 289 aRy -Ieeal - gove-remefi ;- taxes"-si -al4- 9vbveR- 290 tons--recei ved- frem- tie--s-ta4;.e,-a-Oe� t-ira- -ptr-s*ae-t-tcr-Seetr}ort-6 291 o€--043--Artrele;--an4,- -wirth - -`e5j)ec4<--iro-Ue--st•a>=e;-jp.roceeds--o€ 292 t-axes -shatl-exelude -sueh -subveRtions; 293 (d}-t- oeal• -goverRmeRtS-Shall-mean -any -erty;-eounty; -eity-and 294 oownty;--sc4mo4- dist»€e ; -speeiaa- -sari-ct;-authority. --0-1--other 295 pol fti eat -subd€vi stop -o€-or -wrhrn-the-states 296 Ee} -"-Gos1 -©€-1 €vrRg"- -steal -r�eaR -i he -CaRsemep-Pri.ee -�Rdex -dor 297 the-8n i ted-States-as- regoige4- 4y-t-he- kl +t-ed--Start-es -QeFapt-men-t- -o€ 298 6aber;--o-r--rsueees-sem-agepey--o€--t-he- - JJna-ted- -States--GevernmeRi;; 299 provided;-however;-that-#'vr--pe-rq."es- *f -1-;-tire-ehaage-in 300 eest-o#-44-v+ng-f-r-o* -the-ppeeed€Rg -year- sW4- 4e--ria -everat-exeeed 301 the-,change--*R --Cal-4-ft-retie--per- capita- -p-e-rLs-ooa-1- - income--f'reap -sa}d 302 preeed�ng -year; 303 f€}- "PepulatieR"- e#--a*r -entity -e€- gave-rea"#,- �t4e4--t-N&M -a 304 sehool -d4str^4 ict;--94,01- -be- determ4 ned- may- -a - method- 14%ei-c�i-hod--by 305 the --�eg}slaupe;--provided --that--secF� - -determinatiOR - shal•i --be 306 revised;-as-*etes3ari;--t-o- -ref Teet-the- "-r+od4c-.-errs-o-s- -eondueted 307 by-#-h-e--gR ti:ed- 3-tabes--Goverstrrnertt::- The--p�l-a-t iKHI--s€-elry- -sehool 308 dts6rtet-shall• -be -such -sebeGI-d tstpiet-=s -average -da�l•y -att:eRdaRee 309 as-determined -by-a -metked -preserrbed -by -the -beg}suture t 310 fg}-tDebt-servicet -shall-mean-apprepriatlons-regarped -to-pay 311 the- -e o et -- f- --i-rrt-e-remit- -a*d---re d earp#4."- - e h a r g e s;-- i n e l a d i R g•-the 312 €unding - *f-any - re4t-rv,e--or-s4%k3fig- 444- _ -required- 4qi- -eeRReet4en 313 therew}tip;-on-4-nde4Atdfies3- -ext-s-tiqmk-or - Iegaaiy- ae4h.0.r4aed--&$--of ?` 4 January - ;- -1979 --o-r--on - ceded--indebtedness - 4r-he-rea-f-er--approved 12 DRAFT 3 10/11/88 OCr-12-1988 15:03 FROM COUNTY SUPERVISORS ASSOC. TO 14156464098 P.20 315 ac-cord tag -to -1 aw-by vote-of #Ore--e ftt-ors-o-f- -tire -entity 316 vot4ng -in-aR -eleetion -€or -sueh-purpose: 317 E h y-The-"-a-p-p-ro�4-a-ta cn- 4-i-*i-t"--o€ -each-e-n t4 ty- -o-f--government 318 for - 44 scat- y4-a - -shall - be-44+t- -amouRb-wh4 ch-t�t-a-l--anRual 319 approprtatons-sabeei:-to -1 trnitatoR -may-not -exceed -uRdeP-SectoR JSect4-"- -31--provided; -4KK#e-v�r-, - tfiat- -the--sappropr4atten 321 l i m t"--o€-eaeh -entity -o€-governmeRt-€or-f:seal-year -197-8-X9 -shal•1 322 be-the-total-of- Vie-�a�p-rop�ia-titers-�,iecyt-t-a-1-5�rtatro-rr-ai:-sueh 323 eRtrty - fir--that--€4seal-year . -for--€fseal•-y�r--1978-79;--state 324 subvent�oRs -to--1 ac al-- go�rernmeRts;- i{r�i-ve•-ef-�ed�ral--grants; 325 shall-be- deemed- t-o--hr&ve--been,-derived-from-tfie-jw- c -0-f--state 326 taxesr] 327 Efty-Except-as- -ii*-Sooti•o*-Sr-'approprfa- 328 tfeRs-sebleet- -lean 329 funds --o4,--indebtedAess--f-U"S- -4nvestment--CGP-a-u#4KW-iee-t4*i s--to 330 invest) -funds- of-the- s#ate;-or--f-,any--e*ti-ty'•-of -Toeal -government 331 in -banns -vi- -savings-a*.d--lean--ars&at yeti-air&-or--In 332 liquid-seeur}tiesr] 333 {SIXTH ---- TNAT SUBDIVISIONS (J) . (K) . (L), iN) AND (N) ARE 334 ADDED TO SECTION 8 OF ARTICLE XIIIB, TO READ•} 335 (j) "Mandate" shall mean : 336 ( 1 ) Any act of government on or after January 1 , 337 1975, that directly or indirectly requires or will require a 338 local government to provide any new program, service or activity, 339 or increase the level of any program, service or activity; or 340 that imposes upon or results in any costs (including any 341 cost-of-living adjustments) or any reductions in revenue for any 342 local government . 13 DRAFT 3 10/11/88 OCT-12-1-988 15:03 FROM COUNTY SUPERVISORS ASSOC. TO 14156464098 P.21 343 (2) ..Any act- . of government prior to January 1 , 1975, 344 that directly or indirectly imposes upon or results in any 345 expanded or additional costs for any local government on or after 346 July 1 , 1988. 347 Notwithstanding any other provision of this constitution, 348 "mandate" includes any -act of government, regardless of whether 349 the act applies to governmental or non-governmental functions and 350 regardless of whether the act applies uniquely to local govern- 351 meats or also applies to private persons or other entities in the 352 state. 353 (k) "Act of government" shall mean: 354 (1) The enactment, re-enactment or amendment of any 355 statute by the Legislature or the electorate ; or 356 (2) The promulgation, adoption or making by the 357 Governor or any officer, agency or department of the executive 358 branch of any order, rule, regulation or decision implementing or 359 interpreting any statute. 7. 360 (1 ) "Expanded or additional costs" shall mean: 361 (1) Any increase in the benefit levels of a mandated 362 service, program or activity for a fiscal year in excess of the 363 percentage change in the cost-of-living adjustment computed 364 pursuant to subdivision (e) for the prior fiscal year; or 365 (2) Any percentage increase in the total expenditures 356 of a local government for a mandated program for a fiscal year in 367 excess of the cost-of-living and population adjustments computed 368 for the local government pursuant to subdivisions (e) and (f) for 359 that fiscal year. 14 DRAFT 3 10/12188 OCT-12-1986 15:04 FROM COUNTY SUPERVISORS ASSOC. TO 14156464098 P.22 370 (m) "Reduction in revenue" shall mean any act of gover- 371 nment: 372 (1 ) Providing exemptions from fees, assessments, 373 charges or taxes levied by a local government; 374 (2 ) Prohibiting or limiting fees , assessments, 375 charges or taxes levied by a local government ; 376 (3) Reducing state subventions to, or reducing local , 377 state or federal revenues to a local government when the 378 reduction is not offset by an equivalent reduction in the costs 379 for that local government to perform or comply with mandates ; or 380 (4) Redistributing state subventions or redistributing 381 other state or federal revenues among local governments when any 382 resulting loss of revenue for an affected local government is not 383 offset by an equivalent reduction in the costs for that local 384 government to perform or comply with mandates . 385 ("Reduction in revenue" shall not include any—loss of 386 revenue to a local government reslultino from JORL repeal of 387 Cbaater 944 or Sections 1 2, 3. 4 9, 10, 11 , IL,-a5-- 16 and 17 388 of Chanter 945 of the Statutes of 1988 , 389 (n) "Unfunded mandate" shall mean any mandate for which the 390 state has not disbursed to each affected local government the 391 total cost to the local government of performing or complying 392 with the mandate during any fiscal year. 15 DRAFT 3 10/11/88 FECEI V - a CountySvspemLwrs SEP 2 9 ZA As~iaflon of Caftbrnia Ans'd ... � .o September 28, 1988 TO: Members, CSAC and of Directors FROM: Larry E. Naak ecutive Director SUBJECT: SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS At its September 22-23 meeting, the Board of Directors determined that another meeting is necessary to finalize details on a proposed funding proposal being discussed. Therefore, the following arrangements have been made: DATE: Thursday, October 20, 1988 TIME: 10:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. PLACE: Holiday Inn Crown Plaza San Francisco Airport 600 Airport Blvd. Burlingame, CA Anza I (415) 340-8500 At your last meeting, you endorsed the county funding proposal in concept and authorized Supervisor Perata to negotiate with Paul Gann on percentages of dedication of the pubic protection issue or the base year to be used; requested the County Counsels Association Task Force to do a quick marriage of that proposal with one that was developed by them on a mandate issue; and have constitutional law review by disinterested counsel. Another item that will be considered at this meeting is the revised California Water Policy Guidelines. Background materials on these two items will be mailed to you as soon as possible. Please return the enclosed postcard to ensure that we will meet our quorum requirements for this very important meeting. LN:jh Enclosure CSAC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE President,BARBARA SHIPNUCK,Monterey County ■ First Vice President.BILL COATES.Plumas County ■ Second Vice Presi- dent,WILLIE KENNEDY,San Francisco ■ Immediate Past President, KAY CENICEROS, Riverside County ■ JUDY ANDREEN, Fresno County ■ MICHAEL D. ANTONOVICH,Los Angeles County v CRAWFORD BOST,Nevada County ■ ALFRED GINSBURG,Madera County ■ GRANTLAND JOHNSON,Sacramento Coun- ty ■ ZOE LOFGREN,Santa Clara County ■ DON PERATA,Alameda County ■ PETE PETERS,Shasta County ■ MEL VARRELMAN,Napa County ■ LARRY WALKER,San Bernardino County ■ HARRIETT M.WIEDER,Orange County ■ BRIAN RICHTER,Sacramento County Administrative Officer,Advisor ■ JAMES LINDHOLM,San Luis Obispo County,Advisor ■ LARRY E.NAAKE,Executive Director Sacramento Office / 1100 K Street, Suite 101 / Sacramento, CA 95814-3941 / 916-441-4011 Washington Office / 440 First St., N.W., Suite 503 / Washington, D.C. 20001 / 202-783-7575