HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12081992 - 2.1 2 . 1
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ,F Contra
FROM: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator ��`',/, � Costa
County
DATE: December 3, 1992 rT =ou4y�
t
SUBJECT: RECOMMENDED 1993 LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1 . Adopt the attached Legislative Program for 1993, consisting of
measures which the Board agrees to sponsor or where the Board
agrees to actively support the efforts of others who may be
sponsoring measures with which the Board agrees .
2 . Authorize the County Administrator and any other designated
staff to solicit authors for these measures and actively
support their passage through testifying at hearings, writing
letters of support or opposition, and seeking support from
others who agree with the Board' s position.
BACKGROUND:
Each year the County Administrator solicits suggestions from County
Department Heads on measures they would like to see the Board
sponsor in the coming year. Staff also review items the Board has
directed be placed on the Board's Legislative Program during the
year. A review is also made of previous years ' Legislative
Programs to determine whether there are measures which did not pass
which are still relevant.
Each of these measures is reviewed with the County' s lobbyist to
determine its suitability, clarify the exact intent of the measure
and raise any other questions which need to be answered. The
result is the attached proposed 1993 Legislative Program which is
submitted to the Board of Supervisors for its comment, revision,
changes, additions and approval .
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: x YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE S
ACTION OF BOARD ON - DPS'2mhAY'.-2� 1999 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
APPROVED as recommended and that the County's Legislative Program again
include .asking Assemblyman Campbell to sponsor the Bay-Delta Estuary Protection
Act.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT I 1 ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
ATTESTED December December 8 , 1992
Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
M. County Administrator SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
All County Department Heads (Via CAO)
Les Spahnn, SRJ. Jackson, Barish & Associates 2%r>
BY DEPUTY
PROPOSED 1993 LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
CATEGORY 1 - High Priority - Statewide Impact - Requires extensive
coordination with others :
1 . Negotiations over the State Budget for the 1993-94 Fiscal Year
- Insure that Contra Costa County is treated fairly in
negotiations over the 1993-94 State Budget.
The State is estimated to be facing a deficit of about $9
billion between now and June 30, 1994 . This is true even
after the Legislature and Administration struggled all summer
to offset a $10 billion deficit in the 1992-93 State Budget,
following elimination of a $14 billion deficit in the 1991-92
State Budget. Many programs operated by counties will
necessarily be targeted again for further reductions . The
remaining AB-8 property tax shift, Special District
Augmentation Fund (SDAF) , health and welfare programs, and
trial court funding are all likely targets .
Through the efforts of the California State Association of
Counties, Supervisor McPeak, and many other individuals and
groups, counties in general, and Contra Costa County in
particular, were not hit nearly as hard as had been
anticipated earlier in the year. As further cuts are planned
for over the coming months; it is essential that staff and
Board members from this County be in the forefront of the
discussions in order to insure that local government in
general and Contra Costa County in particular, are treated
fairly.
2 . Preserve the integrity of the "Teeter Plan" for distributing
property taxes to other local taxing jurisdictions - Oppose
any efforts to take delinquent tax penalties from those
counties which choose to be governed by the "Teeter Plan" for
distributing property taxes .
Proposals surfaced during 1992 which would have transferred
delinquent property tax penalties from local taxing
jurisdictions to the State. While this results in a revenue
loss for all local taxing jurisdictions, this proposal affects
so-called "Teeter Plan" counties much differently and much
more severely.
Each year, a tax roll is prepared in every county. This tax
roll includes levies for each jurisdiction within the county
boundaries . These "jurisdictions" include cities, schools,
special districts and the county itself. Once the tax roll is
prepared and the tax bills are mailed out, individual
taxpayers begin making payments. In non-"Teeter Plan"
counties, the County Auditor periodically determines the
actual cash collected on behalf of each jurisdiction and
remits that amount to them. Generally, within every
jurisdiction, there is some percentage of taxpayers who do not
pay their taxes on time and, as a result, the jurisdictions
receive less than their levy amount.
By contrast, in "Teeter Plan" counties, the County Auditor
allocates (pays out) to all jurisdictions 100% of the amount
levied on their behalf. Responsibility for the delinquencies
of all jurisdictions is assumed by the County.
In order to facilitate the operation of the "Teeter Plan" , all
"Teeter Plan" counties have, by law, established a Tax Losses
Reserve Fund (TLRF) . The TLRF can be viewed as an insurance
fund which ultimately guarantees that taxes advanced from the
county treasury to all jurisdictions will be recovered, either
by collecting the taxes due from taxpayers or by making up any
shortfalls from the TLRF. Furthermore, it is the cash in the
TLRF which makes it possible for "Teeter Plan" counties to
advance 100% of taxes levied prior to their actual collection.
There are three sources of income for the TLRF:
1 . Penalties collected from delinquent taxpayers .
2 . Interest assessed against delinquent tax bills.
3 . Gains on the sale of tax defaulted property.
In the 1991-92 fiscal year, 1/3 ($1,378,000) of the TLRF
income came from penalties and 2/3 ($2, 627,000) came from
interest. None came from the sale of property. Clearly, the
penalty portion is a significant portion of the total TLRF
income. Without this income, the TLRF would not be able to
operate, since otherwise the County General Fund would have to
advance the funds to other jurisdictions .
The advantages of the "Teeter Plan" would seem to be obvious .
First, each jurisdiction has a predictable property tax
revenue stream. Second is the cash flow advantage for all
jurisdictions . Jurisdictions which maintain their funds in
the county treasury (schools, the county and many special
districts) are given "credit" for the full amount of their tax
levy. Thus, beginning each July 1, these jurisdictions can
begin paying their vendors even though property tax cash
collections have not been received in the county treasury.
Finally, the administration of the tax roll in "Teeter Plan"
counties is somewhat easier in that the accounting systems
that are required are less complex.
The advantage for the County with the "Teeter Plan" is that if
delinquencies are held down below a predetermined level, any
funds not required for maintaining a specified reserve in the
TLRF can be transferred to the County General Fund.
3 . Support efforts to continue the 1/2 cent sales tax increase
which is due to expire June 30, 1993 . - Endorse the
continuation of the 1/2 cent sales tax, either to provide
State revenue or to be imposed for the benefit of local
agencies .
SB 179 (Chapter 88, Statutes of 1991) imposed a 1/2 cent sales
and use tax for a two year period (Revenue & Taxation Code
Sections 6051 .5 and 6201 . 5) . The authority for this tax
expires June 30, 1993 without further legislative
authorization. The Governor has apparently indicated that he
opposes continuing the tax beyond June 30, 1992 . However, the
deficit the State will be facing appears likely to be at least
as large as that which was faced a year ago. It is difficult
to see how the Legislature and the Administration can balance
the 1993-94 State Budget without looking seriously at every
option available to them. Some are of the opinion that local
governments now have the ability to impose an additional sales
tax. County Counsel makes a persuasive case that this is not
entirely clear in State law. If the Administration will not
support continuing this 1/2 cent sales and use tax on a
statewide basis, legislation should be enacted which will
clearly and unequivocally provide local governments the right
to impose this 1/2 cent tax effective July 1, 1993, and to
continue it for some fixed period of time or until certain
defined economic events make its continued imposition
unnecessary.
4 . Protect County Program Realignment Revenues by a
Constitutional Amendment - Reaffirm support for legislation
similar to ACA 35 (Bronzan) of 1992 which would lock into the
State Constitution the guarantee of revenue provided for
Program Realignment.
As a part of Program Realignment in 1991, the Legislature
provided an additional 1/2 cent in sales tax revenue and
increases in the vehicle registration fees to pay for the
health, mental health and social service programs which were
realigned. The responsibility for these programs was shifted
to the counties. However, the Legislature could still remove
or modify these revenue sources to meet the State' s needs
2
without relieving the counties of the program responsibilities
which were included in Program Realignment. Assemblyman Bruce
Bronzan introduced ACA 35 in 1992 to provide voters the
opportunity to place in the State Constitution the protection
of these revenue sources so the Legislature could not divert
this revenue to another purpose in the future. In order to
make Program Realignment work over the long haul, it is
essential that the revenue source to pay for these programs be
protected from an annual raid by the Legislature.
0
5 . Expand Program Realignment to include juvenile justice,
alcohol and drug programs - Support realignment of juvenile
justice funding and program responsibility for CYA funds as
well as alcohol and drug programs .
Program Realignment enacted in 1991 has worked well in keeping
the realigned programs out of the annual fight over dollars
which has characterized the State Budget over the past several
years . Program Realignment has had problems because the
funding for these programs is now substantially tied to the
State's economy, which has not been performing as well as
anyone anticipated when Program Realignment was enacted.
Hopefully, this is a relatively temporary problem which will
disappear when the economy improves.
It has been suggested that in additional to specified health,
social service and mental health programs, other programs
should be included in Program Realignment. Most often
suggested are alcohol and drug programs . In addition, it is
recommended that California Youth Authority (CYA) programs be
included in Program Realignment. The model for this type of
Program Realignment was the transfer of responsibility for
State Hospital cases to the counties . Effective July 1, 1992,
counties can determine how many State Hospital beds the county
needs and can afford and can contract with the State for those
beds . This provides the county with the flexibility to
identify, contract for or construct local facilities which
appropriately meet the needs of some patients so that the
population in the State Hospital can be reduced or at least
additional patients need not be added in the same numbers seen
in the past.
The parallel here would be the county' s commitments to the
CYA. A replacement source of revenue would be identified for
the counties . Each county could then use that money to
purchase beds in CYA facilities if it wished to do so or if a
particular minor required that type of care. Other
alternative types of facilities could be identified,
contracted for or constructed at the local level to care for
the other minors not committed to the CYA.
6 . Expand ability of the Board of Supervisors to increase fees to
cover actual costs - Sponsor legislation or support the
efforts of others to remove exceptions to the current law
which allows the Board of Supervisors to increase a variety of
fees to cover the actual cost of delivering the service.
Government Code Section 54985 provides counties with broad
authority to increase fees to cover the actual cost of the
program for which the fees are collected. However, Section
54985 also exempts a great many fees from being increased to
cover actual cost. This includes court fees, County Recorder
fees, fees charged by the Sheriff, fees charged by the
Agricultural Commissioner, fees for marriage licenses and
others . Given the critical fiscal crisis facing the State and
therefore the counties, each of these exceptions should be
reexamined and eliminated wherever possible.
3
7 . Managed Care for Medi-Cal Program Beneficiaries - Follow
development of "managed care" program closely and support any
required legislation which will provide Contra Costa County
with the ability to manage Medi-Cal Program expenditures in
this County. In this regard, maintain contact with the State
Health & Welfare Agency.
Plans are being developed to allow at least some counties to
assume the responsibility to manage the expenditures for the
Medi-Cal Program within the County. Our Health Services
Department is not only interested in serving in this capacity,
but the County' s experience in managed care with the Contra
Costa Health Plan makes Contra Costa County a perfect pilot
project for such a concept. This has the potential to be one
of the most significant moves for the Health Services
Department and for the County is some time. Obviously, with
the amount of money and risk at stake, any number of other
providers and insurance brokers are interested in assuming
this same responsibility. The County will need to follow
every step of this program closely at the administrative
level. If it proves to be necessary, the County should not
hesitate to sponsor legislation which will provide this County
with the opportunity to show the State that quality medical
services can be provided to all eligible Medi-Cal
beneficiaries at less cost that the State is incurring under
the present system.
8 . Oppose efforts to dilute commitment to appropriate SB 1732
funds - Oppose any efforts which may be made to reopen SB 1732
provisions which would remove or weaken the Legislature's
commitment to appropriate funds for all health care capital
projects now in the pipeline.
The Legislature, in enacting SB 1732 several years ago, make
a longterm commitment to publicly operated health care
facilities which care for large numbers of Medi-Cal and
indigent residents of the County. Contra Costa County plans
to make use of these funds in constructing the replacement
county hospital . Some jurisdictions have indicated a possible
interest in reopening the provisions of SB 1732 to either add
new projects or reduce the commitment to projects which are
now in the "pipeline" . Every effort must be made to oppose
any such efforts if the result would be to weaken the
commitment the State has to fund SB 1732 projects which are
submitted within the original deadline and in compliance with
the original SB 1732 criteria and requirements .
9 . Increase the "Cap" on use of federal SB 855 funds - Support
efforts to increase the "cap" on use of federal funds
resulting from the passage of SB 855, based on the fact that
additional jurisdictions have indicated a willingness to
provide State matching funds . Failure to increase the cap
dilutes the money this County will receive.
Recent legislation, SB 855, allows for intergovernmental
transfers between local government and the State for the
purpose of providing health care facilities . The local
government provides funds for what would otherwise be the
State share in order to obtain additional federal funds . This
process is entirely consistent with existing federal law. It
costs the State nothing to increase the amount of federal
funds coming into the State since local government is
providing all of the matching funds . There certainly can be
no argument advanced seriously that the funding for health
care facilities is not needed.
And yet, the State apparently has agreed to a somewhat
arbitrary "cap" on the amount of additional federal funds
which will be brought into California as a result of SB 855.
If additional local agencies agree to provide more State
matching funds, but no additional federal money is
forthcoming, all of the agencies which originally provided
funding suffer by having their additional federal funding
4
diluted. Contra Costa County is already counting on a set
amount of federal money as a part of the package which
provides the funding necessary for the replacement county
hospital. Every effort should be made to eliminate any
arbitrary "cap" or to otherwise insure that the money Contra
Costa County is counting on is not diluted in this way.
10 . Modify Traffic Amnesty Program - Sponsor or support the
efforts of others to amend Vehicle Code Section 42008 to
permit all appropriate delinquent traffic cases to be eligible
for amnesty versus only those which were delinquent as of
April 1, 1991 and exempt the amnesty revenue which is
collected from the total revenue counties are obligated to
transfer to the State, thereby providing counties with an
incentive to operate an amnesty program.
Legislation was enacted in 1990 to authorize courts in
individual counties to implement amnesty programs for
delinquent traffic tickets . Under such a program, an
individual is given a window of time, typically 30 days,
within which to pay all delinquent traffic tickets either for
a fixed fine amount or at a percentage discount from what the
fine would otherwise have been. This program was left in
place so courts could implement amnesty programs in the
future. However, the effective date for an amnesty program
was not changed. Therefore, while tickets which became
delinquent April 1, 1991 or earlier can be included, tickets
which became delinquent after April 1, 1991 cannot be
included. This substantially reduces the number of tickets
which are eligible for inclusion in an amnesty program and
makes it difficult to explain to an individual why some of his
or her tickets are included and other are not included. In
addition, counties are now required to transfer to the State
each year a fixed amount of fine and forfeiture revenue, based
on what was collected the previous year. Unless revenue
collected from an amnesty program is exempted from this
requirement, there is little or no incentive for a court to
operate an amnesty program since all of the revenue will go to
the State.
Eliminating the April 1, 1991 date and exempting amnesty
revenue from inclusion in that revenue which must be sent to
the State would make it feasible to again offer a realistic
amnesty program.
CATEGORY 2 - Secondary Priority - Statewide Impact - Requires
substantial coordination with others:
11. Increase Device Registration Inspection Fee - Support
legislation which would increase device registration
inspection fees .
Business & Professions Code Section 12240 fixes the maximum
fee which can be charged for inspecting and registering
weighing devices, such as those used in grocery stores and
gasoline service stations. The current fee is limited to $60
per year for a location with 9 or more devices . The current
cost to inspect these devices in Contra Costa County is
approximately $300,000. The current fee raises approximately
$50,000. It would be necessary to double the fee to cover
even 1/3 of actual costs . The current agreement with the
industry is that the costs will be shared 1/3 by industry, 1/3
by the State, and 1/3 by counties .
With the severe fiscal crisis being faced by the State and
counties, it is essential that this fee be increased in order
to maintain the current level of program services to protect
the public.
5
12 . Impose an additional Recording Fee to Automate the Assessor' s
Records - Sponsor legislation to provide a Board of
Supervisors the option of imposing an additional fee on
recording documents to pay for automating the Assessor's
records .
In 1991, the Board of Supervisors sponsored legislation to
provide the Board with the option of imposing an additional
fee of $2 . 00 on the recording of documents transferring
ownership of real property. This fee would be used solely to
automate the Assessor's records in order to provide better,
faster and more accurate service to the public.
Unfortunately, in order to satisfy several interest groups,
the bill was made mandatory in order to try to keep -recording
fees at a uniform level through the State. On the basis of
the bill ' s being mandatory, the Governor vetoed the bill . It
is felt that going back to an optional bill will have a better
chance of being signed into law.
13 . Fee to recover costs of repeat site visits to insure
compliance with County Ordinance Code - Sponsor legislation to
allow a fee to be charged for repeat site visits to insure
that County Ordinance Code violations are corrected.
Currently, the law provides for fees for inspecting building
sites and to reinspect building sites under various
circumstances . Health agencies can likewise charge a fee for
certain of their inspection services . No such authority
exists for reinspections required for County ordinance code
violations, such as zoning violations . And yet these zoning
violations often are very difficult cases and require multiple
reinspections to insure that the zoning violation has been
corrected. Providing authority for the Board of Supervisors
to impose such a fee will make it possible to better manage
our code compliance program and insure more prompt response to
complaints of zoning violations .
14 . Allow County Service Area Law to be Used for Library Services
- Support the efforts of the American Library Association or
other counties to enact legislation allowing a board of
supervisors to impose a benefit assessment pursuant to the
County Service Area law for library services . Require a
majority approval by the voters if that appears to be the only
way to get such legislation signed by the Governor.
Library services have sustained substantial reductions over
the past few years, particular in 1992-93 with the reductions
in the Special District Augmentation Fund (SDAF) . One
possible mechanism which has been explored is the use of the
County Service Area law to allow the imposition of a benefit
assessment against each parcel of property in the County to
assist in providing library services . Several efforts have
been made in recent years to expand the County Service Area
law to provide for additional services to be funded in this
manner. Each has been vetoed by the incumbent Governor at the
time (Governor Deukmejian and Governor Wilson) . The objection
has generally been that such an additional assessment should
have voter approval since it constitutes an additional tax.
Los Angeles County is planning to sponsor legislation in 1993
to include library services within the County Service Area
law. It is hoped that the California Library Association will
co-sponsor this legislation. Los Angeles County is seeking
the additional support of several counties which are in
particular need of funds for additional library services.
15. Statewide Bond Measures for Library Construction - Support any
statewide bond measure which provides funds for library
construction.
It is anticipated that a bond measure will be introduced in
1993 to allow the voters in California to decide whether to
sell bonds to assist in the construction of library
6
facilities, much as is done for schools, prisons and jails .
In the past, such bond measures have not ranked high enough in
the priorities of the Governor and legislative leadership, who
decide which bond measures will be placed on the ballot each
year. It is hoped that in 1993 a library bond measure will
have sufficient support and priority to be allowed to reach
the ballot.
16 . Reduce Match Requirement for Public Library Fund - Support
and/or Sponsor control language in the 1993-94 State Budget to
reduce the match requirement for Public Library Fund monies
from 95% as per the 1992-93 budget to 90% in order to insure
that we do not lose these State funds .
The State Budget includes an appropriation for the Public
Library Foundation Program, which is allocated to libraries
throughout the State (Budget item # 6120-221-001) . These
funds have traditionally required that the library receive the
same level of funding as in the previous year in order to be
eligible for these State funds . In the 1992-93 State Budgets,
this 100% funding requirement was dropped to 95% of the 1991-
92 fiscal year's budget. In the 1992-93 County Budget, the
library received almost exactly the required 95% funding. As
a result, the library received $250,000 in funding from the
Public Library Foundation Program. Given the tight fiscal
picture we expect as we approach the 1993-94 County budget, it
seems prudent to try to reduce this required funding level to
no more than 90% of the 1991-92 fiscal year' s funding so as to
protect the funding from the State, in case the County has to
further reduce its support to the library.
17 . Centralize records of arrest and bench warrant information -
Seek a legislative or administrative resolution to the fact
that the State Department of Justice is presently unable to
accept required criminal history information (Form JUS 8715)
directly via computer without the need to produce a hard copy.
A police agency which arrests and books an individual is
required to initiate a criminal record with the State
Department of Justice. This record is then added to by each
court and other agency which handles the individual on that
charge. Currently, even though the information may be
maintained by the court on a computer, the Department of
Justice cannot receive the information without having a hard
paper copy produced, even though the technology exists to
maintain, transmit and update these records totally by
computer, resulting in an entirely paperless file.
Substantial savings could be achieved if the Department of
Justice were to acquire software which would allow its
computers to interface with most if not all existing computer
systems in the State, thereby allowing the transmission of
criminal record information and bench warrant information
totally via computer. It is not clear whether the Department
of Justice is able and willing to make this conversion without
additional legislative authorization or direction. Resolution
of this issue will be pursued administratively initially.
Only if this proves to be unsuccessful will a legislative
solution be sought.
18 . Victim/Witness Address Information -
Require the District Attorney to mask the name, address and
telephone number of victims and witnesses before filing a
criminal complaint with the court to the same extent law
enforcement agencies were required to do so by Chapter 3,
Statutes of 1992 .
Current law requires law enforcement agencies to mask out the
name, address and telephone number of victims and witnesses to
certain crimes before furnishing police reports to a
defendant. However, the copy of the police report which is
7
furnished to the District Attorney and which is subsequently
furnished to the court with the criminal complaint still has
this identifying information. The court does not believe it
is appropriate for it to mask this information after receiving
it since to do so changes the documents which the courts is
required to maintain in the manner in which they were filed
with the court. Law enforcement agencies cannot mask the copy
which goes to the District Attorney, since to do so would
deprive the District Attorney of information vital to the
prosecution of the case. Therefore, the only way in which it
appears possible to keep this information from a defendant is
for the District Attorney to mask the name, address and
telephone number of victims and witnesses before the criminal
complaint is filed with the court.
CATEGORY 3 - High Priority - Primarily Local Impact - Requires some
coordination with others:
19 . Permanent reform of "Teeter Plan" regarding distribution of
property taxes - Sponsor legislation to provide a permanent
solution to "Teeter Plan" provisions which allow for access to
unneeded funds in the Tax Losses Reserve Fund while
maintaining the fiscal integrity of the Fund.
See also the discussion under item # 2 . Historically, if the
property tax delinquency rate remained below 3% for three
consecutive years, the County was allowed to withdraw any
surplus funds from the Tax Losses Reserve Fund for any
legitimate County purpose. However, if in any year the
property tax delinquency rate went above 3%, the County was
punished by losing the opportunity to withdraw the surplus
funds until the delinquency rate was again below 3% for three
more consecutive years . Since Contra Costa County currently
is able to withdraw about $4 million a year in surplus funds
from the Tax Losses Reserve Fund, this amounts to a $12
million penalty for exceeding the 3% delinquency rate. In
1992, Contra Costa County was successful in getting this
penalty provision waived on a one-time basis by moving the
delinquency figure at which the penalty is imposed from 3% to
4% . However, it appears prudent to make some permanent
changes to this formula which will not penalize a County for
three consecutive years thereafter for exceeding the 3% figure
occasionally and slightly. A specific proposal is being
developed jointly by the County Administrator and Auditor-
Controller and will be shared with the Board of Supervisors
for approval before being introduced as legislation.
Obviously, any such changes must remain fiscally prudent and
responsible.
This is a singularly unique Contra Costa County situation
since, of the "Teeter Plan" counties, Contra Costa County is
the only county that has recently been below a 3% delinquency
rate or has any prospect of being below 3% again in the
foreseeable future.
20 . Marine Patrol - Support the efforts of other jurisdictions to
introduce legislation to identify a funding source for the
Marine Patrol . At the same time, work with Delta Protection
Commission through Supervisor Torlakson on the implementation
of SB 1866 to insure marine patrol needs are identified as a
part of the Commission's report which is due to the
Legislature by July 1, 1994.
The Board of Supervisors has tried very hard over the past two
years to enact a Marine Patrol bill which would impose a
modest increase in the boat registration fee, with the
additional money dedicated to funding Marine Patrol . These
efforts have, thus far, been unsuccessful . We have,
therefore, decided to recommend a different approach for 1993 .
8
Senator Patrick Johnston authored SB 1866 in 1992 which
established the Delta Protection Act and created the Delta
Protection Commission. At Contra Cost County' s request,
Senator Johnston included in SB 1866 a provision which
requires the Commission to address the need for Marine Patrol
in the Delta Protection Plan which the Commission must prepare
by July 1, 1994 . At the time, we indicated to Senator
Johnston that we would like to work with him in 1993 on a
funding measure for Marine Patrol.
Our hope is that we can join with the other Delta counties
which are included in the Delta Protection Act to identify a
source of funding for Marine Patrol . It would be our hope
that Sacramento and San Joaquin counties would ask Senator
Johnston to author legislation which would provide a funding
source for Marine Patrol which the other Delta counties (Polo,
Solano and Contra Costa) could support. The details of this
legislation have not bee identified to date so it is
recommended that the Board of Supervisors provide conceptual
approval for this course of action so that we can proceed to
develop a funding source and strategy for obtaining passage of
the necessary legislation.
21 . Retirement Legislation - Sponsor legislation to:
* Include Tier II retirees in the group of retirees who are
eligible for ad hoc, supplemental COLA's,
* Include clarification that, for any supplemental
increases which are prefunded, their value reduces the
retiree's accumulated unpaid COLA account.
* Allow the amortization schedule to be extended "not to
exceed" 30 years, rather than only 30 years as per SB
1107 . Going all the way to 30 years reduces the
employer's contributions by 2 .43% and saves the County
$7 .5 million a year.
* Add a revised version of AB 2411 from 1992, regarding
optional spousal survivor benefit election.
Retirement legislation is being proposed which would assist
various groups of employees and retirees, but which would not
cost the County anything. The first element simply corrects
a technical oversight in the drafting of Tier II legislation.
The Board of Supervisors is authorized under certain specified
circumstances to offer a supplemental cost-of-living-increase
(COLA) to retirees whose retirement pay has fallen at least
25% behind the cost of living since the individual retired.
Provision is included in the law for the Board to provide such
supplemental COLA' s to Tier I and Safety retirees. However,
there is no similar provision for Tier II retirees . This is
not an immediate problem because so few Tier II members have
retired. Of those who have, the gap between their retirement
income and the accumulated cost of living since retirement is
only a few percentage points. However, eventually this will
become an issue and it appears to be better to clarify the law
now when it does not affect any specific individual.
The second provision is related to the first. The Board of
Supervisors is authorized to prefund supplemental COLA' s, so
that there is no immediate drain on the retirement fund when
they are granted. For each retiree, there is an account
maintained which identifies the difference between the
individual ' s retirement COLA and the increase in the cost of
living since the individual retired. Obviously, if a
supplemental COLA is granted, its value is deducted from the
accumulated gap between retirement COLA' s and the cost of
living increase. A supplemental COLA cannot be granted until
the gap is at least 25% . However, there is no provision in
law to require or provide that if a prefunded supplemental
COLA is granted that its value also be deducted from this
accumulated "gap" . This is again a technical change which
9
probably ought to be made now when it is unlikely that the
Board of Supervisors will be in a position in the near future
to prefund a supplemental COLA. The change would simply
provide that the amount of such a supplemental COLA be
deducted from the"gap" account which is being maintained for
each employee.
The third piece of legislation is, in a sense, a technical
change - although it is a significant one. Currently, this
County's retirement fund is funded in such a way that the
retirement system' s accrued unfunded actuarial obligation will
be fully funded in about 18 years . This amount is being
reduced each year so that in 18 years the County' s accrued
unfunded actuarial obligation will be reduced to zero. In
1992, legislation was enacted that would allow any 1937 Act
county to return to a 30 year amortization period. This would
mean that the County as the employer could, in effect,
remortgage the accrued unfunded actuarial obligation and repay
it over 30 years, rather than 18 years . This action requires
a request from the Board of Supervisors and approval by the
Retirement Board. We have received clear indications that the
Retirement Board would not agree to moving back to a 30 year
amortization period. However, the law as enacted in 1992 does
not allow any other period of time less than 30 years . For
instance, the Retirement Board might, for instance, be willing
to allow the Board of Supervisors to move to a 25 year
amortization period, rather than 30 years . This is not
permitted. A simple change in the law to read "not to exceed
30 years", rather than "30 years" would allow a good deal of
negotiation and compromise between the Board of Supervisors
and the Retirement Board. As an example, moving back to a
full 30 years amortization period would save the County 2 .43%
of payroll or approximately $7 .5 million a year in retirement
contributions .
The fourth and last portion of the recommended retirement
package involves optional survivor benefit election. The
problem here involves a situation where an employee is
terminally ill . If the employee remains an employee and lives
long enough, a decision can be made regarding which retirement
option will best suit the spouse's age and financial situation
and a change in option can be made before the employee dies .
In the case of a sudden accident which kills the employee
instantly or nearly instantly, there generally is not
sufficient time to change the election made regarding the
option the spouse has an opportunity to select.
Legislation passed the Legislature the past two years and has
been vetoed by the Governor both times. However, the 1992
veto suggested an alternative methodology which would
apparently be acceptable to the Governor. It is recommended
that staff and the Retirement Administrator be authorized to
draft legislation which would meet the Governor' s objections
and which would still provide the spouse with the maximum
possible options under the circumstances . This can apparently
be done by simply limiting this election to those spouses of
retirement system members who "would have been entitled to
disability retirement, but died prior to making application" .
22 . State approval of County Integrated Waste Management (AB 939 )
Plans - Sponsor amendments to AB 3001 of 1992 to permit this
County and others similarly situated to have their AB 939
Plans approved by the State and therefore to become effective.
Delay the requirement for completion of a nondisposal facility
element to the Plan until the Plan is first amended after
having been approved.
Contra Costa County and other counties have spent a great deal
of time and money preparing their Integrated Waste Management
(AB 939) Plans . This year, legislation was enacted that
requires the preparation of a separate Non-Disposal Facility
Element for the AB 939 Plan by each city and the approval and
submission of that Element to the County for inclusion in the
10
AB 939 Plan and effectively excludes such a facility from
review by the County. This will hamper this County' s ability
to obtain State approval of its AB 939 Plan. It is
recommended that the County pursue legislation which would
allow the preparation and submission of the Non-Disposal
Facility Element to be delayed until the Plan is first amended
after having been approved by the State. This will allow time
to prepare such an Element and will avoid delay in the State's
approval of the County' s AB 939 Plan.
23 . Sponsor legislation to incorporate any settlement with the San
Ramon Valley Fire Protection District into State law - Sponsor
legislation which can be used as a vehicle to place in statute
any settlement to the pending litigation with the San Ramon
Valley Fire Protection District.
The County has been sued by the San Ramon Valley Fire
Protection District and the Contra Costa Mosquito Abatement
District because these independent special districts believe
that the circumstances under which their districts were
created are covered by the American River case in Sacramento
County. In this case, the court ruled that certain types of
reorganizations and consolidations of special districts result
in the formation of a new district which cannot be required to
contribute to the Special District Augmentation Fund (SDAF) .
The Board has urged staff to try to arrange an out-of-court
settlement of this case. If such a settlement is reached by
both sides, it may be necessary to sponsor legislation to
place the terms of the settlement in State law as an exception
to the normal rules for contributions to the SDAF, similar to
what was done by Sacramento County as a result of the American
River case. Such legislation should be introduced and held
until needed for this purpose.
24 . Protect Tanner Plan agreements on "Fair Share" in the Bay Area
- Sponsor or support the efforts of others to require State
agencies to act on pending Hazardous Waste Management (Tanner)
Plans .
Contra Costa County has one of the few State-approved
Hazardous Waste Management (Tanner) Plans . Contra Costa
County has also entered into agreements with the other Bay
Area counties as a part of a regional effort initiated by
ABAG, whereby counties in the Bay Area would cooperate in
providing for the hazardous waste needs of the entire region,
without the need for each county to separately provide for its
own hazardous waste needs.
However, many counties in California either did not submit
plans by the statutory deadline, or had their plans rejected
by the State and did not resubmit amended plans within the
statutory deadline. The State Department of Toxic Substances
Control has decided that it does not have the authority to
approve any plans which were not submitted or resubmitted
within the existing statutory deadlines . It appears that
legislation will be necessary to order for the Department to
act on those applications which are pending or to extend the
deadline for any county to submit or resubmit its plan and
then for the Department to review and act on the plan.
25 . Exempt publicly operated health plans from licensure by the
State Department of Corporations - Support legislation to
exempt publicly operated health plans which are only for
employees and dependents from licensure by the Department of
Corporations. Depending on the status of the study being
conducted by the Senate Office of Research, a further
extension of the waiver as per SB 1664 of 1992 may be
required.
Current law requires that publicly operated health plans which
are open only to an employer's employees, the employee's
dependents, and retirees need to be licensed in the same
manner as any other health plan. However, this requirement
11
has been suspended since January 1, 1990 pending the
completion of a study commissioned by the Legislature to study
such matters as the impact on taxpayers of having such plans
licensed, the impact on providers in - the community, the
chances of financial insolvency, etc. The original exemption
was to expire December 31, 1992, but the Senate Office of
Research had not yet completed its report. Legislation was
passed in 1992 to extend this sunset date until December 31,
1993 . Risk Management and County Counsel have urged that the
exemption be continued indefinitely. It appears that the
Senate Office of Research will be prepared to submit its
report to the Legislature by late January or early February,
1993 . What action the County needs to take will depend in
large part on the nature of the recommendations which are made
by the Senate Office of Research. Staff are asking at this
time for authority to prepare legislation to extend or repeal
the deadline on licensure of publicly sponsored health plans,
and will report back to the Board on the specific action which
appears to be appropriate once the report from the Senate
Office of Research has been released and staff have had an
opportunity to evaluate the report.
26 . Eliminate unnecessary tests which the Coroner is currently
required to perform - Sponsor or support the efforts of others
to eliminate unnecessary tests being performed by Coroners .
There are a number of tests which a Coroner is required under
current law to perform when an individual is a fatal victim of
a motor vehicle accident, whether driver, passenger, or
pedestrian. These include tests for alcohol content, and the
presence of specified drugs . In some cases, the Coroner does
not believe that the circumstances of the accident warrant
some of these tests . They are, however, mandated by State
law, regardless of the circumstances. It is recommended that
we make as many of these tests as possible optional with the
Coroner, depending on the circumstances of the accident. The
Sheriff-Coroner estimates that this County would save at least
$3,000 a year if some of these tests could be avoided.
27 . Obtain unlisted telephone numbers from the telephone company
for purposes of the Community Alert Network Program - Sponsor
legislation, if needed, to require telephone companies to
release unlisted telephone numbers to the Community Alert
Network (CAN) system.
Currently, the State law allows telephone companies to release
the names and telephone numbers of persons having unlisted
telephone numbers in case of an emergency. The law also
prohibits the release of such numbers when doing so is for the
purpose of selling or licensing lists of residential
subscribers . The Community Alert Network (CAN) with which the
County contracts does not fall cleanly into either of these
groups. The imminence of an emergency is not clearly present,
although the CAN system is designed to plan for such a need.
At the same time, CAN clearly does not sell lists of
residential telephone subscribers to anyone.
The problem seems to be that the current law has not caught up
with current technology. The law clearly does not anticipate
a situation where, as a planning tool, a government may want
to provide to a private company the unlisted telephone numbers
of individuals in the County in order to be able to contact
those individuals in case of an emergency. The Public
Utilities Commission and Pacific Bell apparently have
different opinions regarding whether Pacific Telephone can or
must release unlisted telephone numbers for purposes of
alerting individuals in case of an emergency.
While staff are trying to resolve this situation
administratively, there is a good possibility that the
situation can only be resolved by amending the law to take
into account new technology like CAN. It is, therefore,
recommended that the County be prepared to sponsor legislation
12
to require the telephone company to release unlisted numbers
for this purpose or order the Public Utilities Commission to
direct the telephone companies to release unlisted telephone
numbers for this purpose.
28 . Additional Judgeships for the Delta Judicial District of the
Municipal Court - Sponsor the inclusion in any omnibus bill
creating new judges of- two new judges for the Delta Judicial
District of the Municipal Court.
The Municipal Court has data which continues to justify the
addition of two judicial positions to the Delta Judicial
District. The County has sponsored legislation for several
years which would request the addition of two judges for this
purpose. This year, it is recommended that the County sponsor
the addition of two judges to the Delta Judicial District in
any omnibus legislation which adds judges .
29 . Expand Court Commissioner Authority - Provide the courts in
Contra Costa County with the authority to grant Court
Commissioners the full authority of magistrates as a pilot
project in conjunction with the County's approved
administrative adjudication project which was approved by the
Legislature and the Governor in 1992 .
Currently, Commissioners have some of the authority of
magistrates ( judges) , but not all of the authority of a judge.
In an effort to save money on assigned judges and be more
efficient, it is recommended that legislation be sought which
would allow the court to establish the criteria under which a
Commissioner could be granted the full authority of a
magistrate and under which the State Judicial Council would
oversee the use of Commissioners as judges in additional
roles . This might be done as a part of the County's
Administrative Adjudication Pilot Project which the Board of
Supervisors successfully sponsored in 1992 .
CATEGORY 4 - Either entirely local impact or statewide in pact but
purely technical in nature and without controversy:
30. Municipal Court Pay & Staffing Bill - Sponsor legislation to
conform State law to County approved practices regarding
Municipal Court personnel .
Each year, the Board of Supervisor needs to sponsor a piece of
legislation to conform State law to the actions which the
Board has approved in adjusting the salary and benefits,
classifications and other conditions relating to employees who
work for the Municipal Court. Such a bill will be initiated
depending on the extent of the adjustments which are approved
by the Board of Supervisors by January 1, 1993 .
31 . Clarify Duties of a Superior Court Commissioner regarding
Other Duties Prescribed by Law - Technical clean-up to
Government Code Section 70141 . 11 regarding duties of a
Superior Court Commissioner.
This is a purely technical adjustment which is necessary due
to the change in a section number of the Code relating to the
duties of a Court Commissioner. No substantive change in
duties is accomplished by this change.
32 . Clarify publication requirements for fire district budgets -
Sponsor legislation to require only one time publication for
fire district budgets so it matches other special district
publication requirements .
Under current law, the notice of the hearing on the budgets of
all special districts except fire districts needs be published
only once. Another section of the Code requires that the
hearing on the budgets of fire districts be published on two
separate occasions . This is confusing for the Clerk of the
13
r r
Board and requires duplicative notices for some special
districts which are not required for other special districts .
It is recommended that the required publication for fire
districts be reduced from twice to once for the sake of
consistency.
33. Provide clear authority for counties to place special tax
measures on the ballot for consideration by the voters . -
Sponsor legislation or support the efforts of others to enact
legislation which would clarify that counties have the
authority to place a special tax measure on the ballot for
consideration by the voters.
Proposition 62 effectively prohibited any local government
from placing a special tax measure on the ballot unless the
local government had separate specific statutory authority for
the tax. The Courts have struck down portions of Proposition
62, not including the prohibition on the placement of special
tax measures on the ballot. Cities and special district have
obtained special legislative authorization to place such
special tax measures on the ballot. Counties have never
obtained such authority. There is, therefore, some question
regarding the ability of a county to place a special tax
measure on the ballot for consideration by the voters, without
resorting to the use of special features, such as the County
Service Area Law. It is recommended, therefore, that the
County seek clear authority to place such measures on the
ballot as a county.
14