Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11271990 - 2.2 �- CIA TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS s L Contra FROM: _ _`; c r , Costa Phil Batchelor, County Administrator s County DATE: cOsr �y - Novembe r 19, 1990 SUBJECT: PROPOSED 1991 LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM SPECIFIC REOUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Approve the attached listing of issues as the Board of Supervisors' '1991 Legislative Program and authorize the County Administrator and the County' s legislative representative to proceed to work for the passage of these measures. 2. Request the County Administrator to recommend additions, deletions or changes to this proposed 1991 Legislative Program as events during the 1991 half of the 1991-92 Regular Session of the Legislature may dictate. 3 . Request the County Administrator to report to the Board on at least three occasions during 1991 on the status of the Board' s 1991 Legislative Program and more frequently on specific issues as events during the year may dictate. BACKGROUND: Each year, the Board of Supervisors adopts a Legislative Program for the following calendar year. For 1991, the County Administrator' s Office has reviewed those items from previous years which were not enacted and has solicited issues from County departments as well as reviewing items which the Board of Supervisors has asked during the year to have included in its Legislative Program. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: VP SES SIGNATURE: `>�� RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE X APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): �&(,;;6 � ACTION OF BOARD ON- Nayt-mhPr 27, 1990 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER * Supervisor McPeak registered a NO vote on Item,#10 of the proposed Legislative ' Program relative to requesting additional ;fudges. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT I I I ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: * See above AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. CC: Members, Board of Supervisors ATTESTED /� +-��-� 0?-/. X990 County Administrator PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Les Spahnn, SRJ. Jackson, Barish & ASSORMERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Larry Naake, Executive Director, CSAC All County Department Heads (Via CAO) BY DEPUTY M382 (10/88) Once we have received all of the suggested items, all of them are reviewed with department staff and the County' s legislative representative and any necessary research on the background of the issues is undertaken. The result is a set of items which are high on the Board' s priority listing of issues which require legislative action and which are felt to be appropriate for the Board' s sponsorship. In other cases, the Board indicates its support or sponsorship of items, providing that other agencies provide lead sponsorship of the item. In still other cases, we are not clear at this time on whether the department staff still want to pursue legislation and we have, therefore, indicated that depending on the outcome of this research we may recommend additional items for the 1991 Legislative Program during the year. Of course, staff will continue to review all legislation which is introduced, will share this legislation with appropriate staff and, where the County' s interests seem to be involved, will recommend that the Board of Supervisors take a position on legislation and/or actually amend its Legislative Program. As is indicated in the proposed 1991 Legislative Program, we anticipate that the State' s fiscal problems and how they propose to solve those problems will occupy our legislative representative' s time more than has been the case in past years. PROPOSED 1991 LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM HIGH PRIORITY - SUBSTANTIAL LOBBYIST INVOLVEMENT REQUIRED 1. Insure that Contra Costa County is treated fairly in negotiations over the 1991-92 State Budget. The State is estimated to be facing as much as a $5 billion deficit on top of the reductions which were made in the current fiscal year' s State Budget. Determining how the State' s 1991-92 Budget will be balanced will involve many very difficult decisions and choices on the part of the Legislature and the new Administration. It is likely that a number of proposals will be surfaced for discussion addressing longer-term fiscal issues such as the entire manner in which the property tax is distributed, and the responsibilities of counties in the health, welfare and judicial arenas in relation to the ability of counties to . continue to finance these responsibilities. The cities and school districts will understandably attempt to overturn the decision made by the Legislature to allow the counties to bill cities and other local agencies for the cost of assessing, collecting and distributing the property tax and the cost of booking prisoners into the county's detention facilities. It will be essential that Contra Costa County be a regular and vital participant in these discussions in order to insure that the County's interests are protected. 2. Carefully follow and keep the County briefed on discussions regarding regional governance proposals in such areas as transportation, air quality, water quality and land. use decisions affecting an entire region. As the Speaker of the Assembly and other legislators have proposed, there are a number of responsibilities which counties and cities currently have which are, in fact, regional in the impact their decisions have on other areas of the State. Building homes in Solano County when the available jobs are in Alameda County inpacts the traffic congestion in Contra Costa County, without the County or its cities having had any part in the decisions which created the problems. The same is true of decisions which are made elsewhere in the State on water quality, air quality and similar issues which can not be contained conveniently within a single existing governmental jurisdiction. Proposals will surface in 1991 similar to the Speaker' s AB 4242 of 1990 which are designed to address these and other similar problems. It will be important in 1991 that this County is a participant in such discussions, particularly as they may affect the financing of local government and the appropriate level at which various services should be administered. -1- 3 . Marine Patrol fees. Sponsor legislation which will increase the registration fee on boats by $7, from $5 to $12, with the additional revenue being committeed to restoring the Sheriff' s Marine Patrol. 4. Special District legislation re San Ramon Valley Fire District. Sponsor legislation which would address the problems created by the case of American River Fire Protection District v.• Board of Supervisors of Sacramento County which held that a special district which was not in existence in fiscal year 1978-79, and thus did not receive state "bailout" funding in that year, need not make special district augmentation fund contributions. The parallel in Contra Costa County is the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District which did not exist in its present form in 1978-79 since it was formed in 1980 by annexing the San Ramon Fire District to the Danville Fire District, dissolving the San Ramon Fire District and renaming the Danville Fire District the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District. 5. Stagger terms of office for members of the Retirement Board. As a result of a variety of peculiar circumstances we are at the point where the terms of three of the Board' s four appointees to the Retirement Board expire in the same year. The Board of Supervisors has agreed to sponsor legislation which will adjust these terms of office so that the term of office of no more than two of the Board' s appointees will expire in the same year and hopefully -that- no more than three total seats on the Retirement Board expire in the same year. We have agreement from the Retirement Board to adjust these terms of office. 6. Co-sponsor legislation with Sacramento County to establish a pilot project in a limited number of counties in the state to determine whether an inter-departmental and in-kind approach to addressing the needs of homeless General Assistance recipients will reduce their need. for public assistance, assist in rehabilitating them from drug and. alcohol problems they may have, assist in locating them housing and making them more nearly independent. This would involve a cooperative effort between the Social Services Department, Health Services Department and Housing Authority. The General Assistance Program has been growing at a tremendous rate. The population of homeless individuals also appears to be growing rapidly. Where these two groups intersect we have a particularly troubled population - those who are homeless and eligible for General Assistance. It is our understanding that the current Secretary of Health & -2- Welfare has expressed an interest in doing something to address the growth - in the General Assistance Program. The State of Washington has an aid-in-kind program for General Assistance individuals. Sacramento County has developed a similar program. The Sacramento County program targets the GA homeless. These . individuals receive aid-in-kind, shelter, drug and alcohol rehabilitation, housing and employment counseling. Mandatory drug and alcohol screening is an integral part of the program. Sacramento County finds that 950 of their applicants are testing positive. The program therefore requires mandatory rehabilitation. We understand that the Secretary of Health & Welfare wants to support a pilot project in a few counties to see whether this type of program will work. It is proposed that Contra Costa County join with Sacramento County and perhaps two or three other counties to test these concepts on a five year pilot basis. This would involve a cooperative program between the Social Services Department, Health Services Department and Housing Authority. It is hoped that the state could furnish some federal and/or state alcohol and drug and housing funds to help support the program. 7. Require a scale copy of the floor plans and elevations for a new or remodeled building to be provided to the Building Inspection Department for the County Assessor at the time a building permit is issued. Currently, a developer or contractor has to file plans with the Building Inspection Department when he or she obtains a building permit. Currently, the Assessor has to either use the Building Inspector' s only copy of the plans in order to determine whether and to what extent the property needs to be reassessed or make a trip out to the field to see the property. While there is some minimal additional cost to the developer, there would be substantial savings to the Assessor. What is requested is simply that two additional sheets of paper be provided to the Building Inspection Department for transmission to the County Assessor - a scale copy of the floor plans and of the elevations. This will avoid the need for the Assessor' s staff to constantly bother the Building Inspection Department's staff or make as many field visits to physically measure the size and nature of the construction. 8. Authorize the Board of Supervisors to continue to be the' governing board of the Geologic Hazard Abatement Districts in the County. Under current law, when the Board of Supervisors forms a Geologic Hazard Abatement District, the Board is authorized to appoint itself to govern the District, but only for a four year period of time. It is proposed that the Board sponsor legislation which would remove this four-year time -3- limit and allow the Board of Supervisors to remain the governing body of the District indefinitely. 9. Establish a two dollar recording fee for Assessor. Sponsor legislation requested by the Assessor which would require the County Recorder to collect an addition fee of $2 for recording every document transferring any interest in real property to defray the cost of automating the County Assessor's records. Currently, the process of updating the Assessor's records from deeds filed with the County Recorder is an essentially manual operation which involves photocopying the deed, transferring it to the Assessor' s Office and reviewing and checking information manually before finally entering the data into a data processing system. Automating this system would have the advantage of saving substantial amounts of time and staff costs in the Assessor's Office and speeding up the process of updating the Assessor's records and doing so more accurately than is possible at present. 10. Requesting Additional Superior and Municipal Court Judges. Sponsor legislation to authorize three additional Superior Court Judges for Contra Costa County and an additional Municipal Court Judge for the Delta Judicial District. The Board has previously sponsored legislation authorizing an additional judge for the Delta Judicial District. This authorization needs to be reaffirmed for the new legislative session. In addition, it is clear that the County needs additional Superior Court Judges, even though in the long run there is a significant additional County cost from the creation of Superior Court positions due to the inadequacy of the funding available from the Trial Court Block Grant. 11. Allow Probation fees to be imposed to include the cost of presentence and diversion investigations where the individual is never placed on formal probation and to allow such fees as well as currently authorized fees to be imposed administratively. Under current law probation fees can be imposed by the Court only when the individual is granted probation, yet these fees may include the cost of presentence investigations. The Probation Officer is recommending that the Board of Supervisors sponsor legislation or support the efforts of others who may sponsor the introduction of legislation which would . allow probation fees to be recovered from those individuals who are not granted probation or who are approved for diversion, where there have been costs incurred for presentence investigations. In addition, under current law, only the Court may order probation fees. In some instances the Court fails or -4- • • n • a declines to do so. The Probation officer is recommending that the Board of Supervisors sponsor legislation which would allow the Probation Department to order such fees, with appropriate due process protection for the probationer and the right of an appeal to the Court if they are dissatisfied with the Probation Officer' s determination. 12. Authorize County to regulate committees supporting or opposing the qualification of local initiatives. Sponsor legislation which would authorize cities and counties to require the disclosure of the source of funds which have been contributed to a committee which is formed primarily to support or oppose the qualification of a measure for the ballot. Under current law, cities and counties can require such disclosure from a committee formed primarily to, support or oppose the passage of a local measure once it has qualified for the ballot, but not committees which are gathering funds to qualify or oppose the qualification of a local measure for the ballot. The Board of Supervisors has indicated its interest in being able to require the disclosure of the source of funds which are being used to qualify local measures for the ballot. 13 . Reintroduce AB 3783 providing criminal penalties and fines for air board violations including releasing air contaminants into the atmosphere. This legislation would be similar to legislation introduced by Assemblyman Campbell in 1990 at the request of the Board of Supervisors to increase the civil and criminal penalties for violating the law by illegally emitting an air contaminant. AB 3783 passed the Legislature in 1990, but was vetoed by the Governor. 14. Extend the number of days a retiree may work without losing retirement benefits in 1937 Act counties. Under current law, a retired county employee in a 1937 Act County can only work 90 days or 720 hours per year without losing his or her retirement benefits. Legislation was enacted in 1989 which extended this to 120 days or 960 hours a year in PERS Counties. (See AB 2363, Chapter 752, Statutes of 1989) . It is recommended that the Board of Supervisors sponsor or support the efforts of others who may sponsor - legislation to apply the same rules to 1937 Act counties. There was legislation enacted in 1990 which allows a retiree from a 1937 Act County to be reinstated from retirement, lose their retirement pay and gain additional retirement credits before again retiring. However, this still does not allow us to contract with a retired employee for more than the 90 days. (See SB 2467, Chapter 651, Statutes of 1990) . -5- 15. County Parole Supervision, Work Alternative and Electronic Home Detention program fees. The Sheriff would like to make the method of administering the probation fees which are collected for the Work Furlough, County Parole and Electronic Home Detention Programs more nearly parallel and streamlined. It is recommended, therefore, that the Board of Supervisors sponsor or support the efforts of others who may sponsor legislation designed to streamline and realign the administrative authority to impose these fees. 16. Reintroduce SB 1878 for temporary Court Commissioners, Sponsor legislation similar to SB 1878 of the 1990 Session which would include Contra Costa County's temporary court commissioners as judicial positions for purposes of determining the number of judicial positions in the , County. This figure is used to determine the size of the County' s Trial Court Block Grant. SB 1878 passed the Legislature in 1990 but was vetoed by the Governor. 17. Amend current law to clarify that holding office in the Ambrose Recreation and Park District and on the West Pittsburg Municipal Advisory Council are not incompatible offices. County Counsel has ruled that holding these two offices at the same time may be interpreted as holding incompatible offices. In order to declare that holding these two offices simultaneously does not involve incompatible offices, it is necessary for the Board of Supervisors to sponsor legislation. 18. Request Assemblyman Campbell to reintroduce Bay/Delta Protection legislation similar to AB 2210 of the 1990 Session. The Water Committee is recommending that the Board of Supervisors sponsor legislation along the lines of Assemblyman Campbell' s AB 2210, which failed passage in the Assembly Ways and Means Committee in 1990. AB 2210 would have declared it to be the policy of the State to protect and preserve all reasonable and beneficial uses of the San Francisco Bay/ San Joaquin Delta Estuary and tributaries thereto and to operate the State Water Project to mitigate the negative impacts on that estuary from the operation of the project. SECONDARY PRIORITY - SUPPORT EFFORTS OF OTHER AGENCIES 19. Sponsor legislation or support the efforts of others to sponsor legislation which would restrict or outlaw the sale -6- or fortified wines containing 20% or more of- alcohol by volume. The Board of Supervisors has indicated an interest in banning the sale of "Cisco" and any other fortified wines which contain as much or more alcohol by volume as does "Cisco" . It will be our intent to request the Health Services Director through the Association of Public Hospitals and other professional organizations to head up such a campaign. 20. Reintroduce. AB 1853 on child care planning. The Board of Supervisors has already directed that staff write to Assemblywoman Speier and CSAC indicating that Contra Costa .County would like some form of AB 1853 reintroduced and that we are prepared to co-sponsor it. We understand that Assemblywoman Speier is prepared to do so. We would support and work with CSAC staff in this regard. 21. Jurisdiction for enforcing regulations in the Delta (Quimby Island issue) . County Counsel has been asked to prepare something on this for us. Senator Boatwright has already offered to carry. The problem involves the question of' which agency has jurisdiction in the Delta to enforce rules against illegal dumping into the Delta. 22. Vocational Training/Job Placement in Probation facilities. Currently, while the Probation Officer is required to confine many young people who have been convicted of various delinquent behavior, the Probation Department is not as effective as they could be in attempting to provide vocational preparedness and employment placement following the release of these young people. The inability to obtain and hold a well paying job is believed to be associated with subsequent recitivism. In 1989-90 Santa Clara County introduced legislation (AB 2054) which would provide funding to increase such vocational counseling to determine whether these programs are effective in preventing subsequent criminal behavior. The bill did not pass because it sought to appropriate funds from the State . General Fund at a time when such funds were in very short supply. Santa Clara County has agreed to jointly sponsor a pilot project with Contra Costa County and one other county to provide more intensified vocational counseling and employment placement. We believe that it would have been possible to draft legislation which would make such programs eligible for funding from Propositions 129 or 133 if either had been approved by the voters on November 6. Since both measures failed, an alternative source of funding will have to be identified before we could have a viable proposal. We do not believe that it is worth our time and effort to pursue legislation of this type .which simply requires a State General Fund appropriation since we have no reason to believe that such funding will be available. 23. Civil fee surcharge to provide match for Courthouse bonds. In 1989, Senator Alquist carried SB 430 for which would authorize an increase in civil filing fees with the proceeds being dedicated to the Courthouse Construction Fund. This bill passed the Legislature but was vetoed by the Governor. In 1990, Senator Alquist carried SB 2588 which as finally passed by the Legislature would authorize an increase in the civil filing fees specifically to provide the necessary matching funds for bond funds which appear on the November 6 ballot as Proposition 150. This legislation also passed the Legislature and also was vetoed by the Governor. Since Proposition 150 was soundly defeated by the voters we are left with no additional source of funds to fund courthouse construction beyond what is now available. If Santa Clara County asks Senator Alquist to reintroduce something along the lines of SB 430 we would certainly support it. We do not, however, believe that we can pursue such legislation on our own with the heavy legislative program already outlined. 24. Funding for hazardous waste management plan implementation and updating. on November 6, 1990 the Board of Supervisors agreed to request the County Supervisors Association of California and the League of California Cities to sponsor legislation requiring that the State of California to fund all state-mandated costs related to the implementation and updating of the Hazardous Waste Management Plan. 25. Increase administrative fees charged to individuals who are permitted to attend Traffic School so that it is less financially profitable to attend traffic school as opposed to paying the fine for a citation. This proposal is included in the Judicial Council fee structure proposal. We would defer on this item to the Judicial Council and agree to support their comprehensive legislation on all fees, fines and forfeitures. 26. Amend GC 25007 as part of local government clean-up to correct title of CSAC. The section authorizes members of boards of supervisors to attend meetings of the "State Supervisors Association" . The section has been on the books without any change since at least 1947. We will handle with a letter to CSAC suggesting -8- that they include this provision in a local government clean-up bill. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR WILL PURSUE WITHOUT LOBBYIST INVOLVEMENT 27. 1991 Municipal Court Pay & Staffing Bill. This is a routine piece of legislation which we are required to sponsor each year in order to reconcile state law with actions which have already been taken by the Board of Supervisors in regard to the salary levels, number of employees and other conditions of employment dealing with employees of the Municipal Court. FURTHER RESEARCH IS REQUIRED BEFORE DECIDING TO PURSUE - NO LEGISLATION WILL BE INTRODUCED WITHOUT FURTHER AUTHORIZATION FROM THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS * Allow Assessor to charge for copies of assessment roll and maps, microfiche of roll and other records the Assessor is required to prepare or keep. Currently, if the Assessor makes available information or records which he is not required by law to keep or make available the county may require payment of a fee reasonable related to the actual cost of developing and providing that information, which is far in excess of the cost of simply duplicating the information. However, for records which he is required by law to maintain, the Assessor may only charge the cost of duplicating the records, not the cost of developing the information. The Assessor is asking that he be allowed to charge a fee for making copies of such records as the assessment roll available which includes the development costs and that the resulting revenue be dedicated to financing the creation, retention, automation and retrieval of assessor information. For example, the cost of duplicating the assessment roll is currently $180, which is all the Assessor can charge. The Assessor believes that he could document a cost of $1680 to develop this information and maintain it in a form which is helpful to the firms which are willing to purchase it. Because we will be giving considerable attention to other proposals from the Assessor, we believe that this proposal is of lesser importance at present, although we will keep it in mind in case there is an opportunity later in the year to include it in another piece of legislation. * School crossing guards. Under current law, school crossing guards are the responsibility of the County to pay for. We believe they should be the responsibility of the schools. In this regard, see Education Code Sections 45450, 45451, 45452 and 45452.5, as well as Vehicle Code Sections 42200 and 42201 . -9- We are continuing to do some background research on this subject. However, it is felt to be better to wait another year before pursuing this item since we are already likely to have some substantial confrontations with the schools over other higher priority items. * Allocation of sales tax on BART cars. Prior to about 1974 the use tax paid . as a result of major BART equipment acquisitions was distributed on a pro-rated basis to the three BART counties. Change occurred without the knowledge of the counties so that all of the use tax went to Union City because the exemption from imposing a sales tax on BART purchases was removed, resulting BART paying sales tax on these purchases, but precluding the counties from imposing a use tax on the same property. Therefore, the sales tax went to the jurisdiction in which the principal negotiations to purchase the property were held. While this is not a major issue now, but will be if and when BART starts expansion or replacing existing equipment. Additional research is required on this measure before we can determine whether we should pursue legislation at this time. If a decision is made to pursue legislation we will return to the Board for authorization prior to pursuing this item. * Contractor's payroll records - cost of reproducing. We are discussing with Public Works exactly what the problem is here. If we determine that legislation is appropriate we will pursue this. * Notice of intention We are checking with Public Works regarding whether they want to pursue this and if so what exactly the issue is. If we determine that legislation is appropriate we will pursue this. * Appeals transcript This item refers to legislation which was enacted in 1990 which requires a court reporter immediately upon a conviction for a felony to begin preparation of a transcript, anticipating an appeal, unless the judge orders otherwise. The County Clerk believes this is a waste of time and money since some percentage of cases do not go to an appeal and for those which do go to an appeal current law provides an adequate period of time in which to prepare the transcript. We are checking with the County Clerk regarding whether he wants to go ahead with this or do a study or just what position we should take. -10- * Reintroduce AB 3439 from 1990 dealing with including PHP and federally qualified HMO's in definition of primary care providers. We are still checking with the Health Services Department regarding whether they wish to pursue this item. * Require AFDC Medi-Cal beneficiaries to choose a health ,plan (AB 3747 ' from 1990) . We are still checking with the Health Services Department regarding whether they wish to pursue this item. -11-