Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02111992 - 2.1 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator Costa -'s County DATE: February 6, 1992 STq_cf UK `w - SUBJECT: RECOMMENDED 1992 LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1 . Adopt the attached Legislative Program for 1992, 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 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 year' s 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. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: x YES SIGNATURE: 11%4�7 /1� - Yoe RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURES ACTION OF BOARD ON a ruary 11, 1992 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER The Board APPROVED the recommendations as set forth above as amended to include the reformulation of the property tax distribution formula. The Board REFERRED to the Finance Committee the issue of welfare reform. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS X - - - I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. CC: County Administrator ATTESTED February 11, 1992 Finance Committee PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR M382BY DEPUTY (10/88) -2- Once agreement is reached on those measures which should form the Board' s Legislative Program it is presented to the Board for approval and then forms the program of which the County Administrator, affected department heads and the County's lobbyist seek enactment during the coming year. On December 17, 1991 we presented a proposed 1992 Legislative Program to the Board. The Board made some amendments to the Program and referred it back to the County Administrator for additional work. We believe that the 1992 Legislative Program now reflects the issues and policies which have been outlined by the Board of Supervisors . Unless the Board finds any changes it wishes to make in the attached document, we would recommend its approval by the Board as recommended above. AMENDED DRAFT 1992 LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM 1 . Insure that Contra Costa County is treated fairly in negotiations over the 1992-93 State Budget. The State is estimated to be facing a deficit of between $5 billion and $8 billion over the next 18 months. This is true even after the Legislature and Administration struggled to offset a $14 billion deficit earlier this year. It is clear that none of this problem can be solved by further tax increases . Thus many programs will be targeted for reductions . The likely targets will focus on health and welfare programs, trial court funding and program realignment. Through the efforts of the California State Association of Counties, Supervisor McPeak and many other individuals and groups, counties in general were fairly well treated in the balancing of the State Budget for the current fiscal year. As further cuts are considered over the next few weeks and months, it is essential that staff from this County and Board members 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 . Carefully follow and be a part of discussions involving the Administration and Legislature over clean-up to Program Realignment. The Board has already taken the position that the State should give counties sufficient flexibility so that each county can balance its own budget without further involvement from the State. Examples of the type of flexibility which is needed are the suspension of "Beilenson" hearings when health care reductions must be made, easing the ability of the county to make reductions in the In-Home Supportive Services Program, and clarification regarding the amount of money which counties must deposit into the Health/Social Services/Mental Health Trust Funds as a County opt-in match. The intent of the Legislature was that counties would pay into the trust fund the same amount they received in motor vehicle in-lieu fee increased revenue. However, the law which was enacted requires a specific dollar amount, rather than specifying that the same number of dollars that are received from the motor vehicle in-lieu fee must be deposited in the trust fund. 3. Co-sponsor with CSAC ACA 35 (Bronzan) which would place in the Constitution the guarantee of revenue provided for Program Realignment so the Legislature could not remove this revenue from county health and welfare programs . As a part of Program Realignment, 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 without relieving the counties of the program responsibilities which were included in Program Realignment. ACA 35 has been introduced by Assemblyman Bruce Bronzan to provide the voters the opportunity to place in the 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. -2- 4 . As a first priority, advocate for a backfill of revenue for cities, particularly for the booking fee portion of SB 2557, and leave SB 2557 in place. As a fallback position, agree to the repeal of the Property Tax Administration Fee portion of SB 2557 which provided for counties to recover the cost of administering the property tax, leaving in place the booking fee, with replacement revenue from the State to compensate cities for this fee, but only if such a repeal is accompanied by a stable, reliable and growing alternative source of revenue. Only as a last resort, agree to the repeal of the booking fee and then only if such a repeal is also accompanied by a stable, reliable and growing alternative source of revenue. SB 2557 was enacted in the summer of 1990 in an effort to assist counties adjust to the substantial reductions which were made in State revenue for a variety of health and welfare programs . In 1991, the Legislature repealed the authority of counties to assess the property tax administration fee against schools . Cities and special districts are attempting to have the balance of SB 2557 repealed in 1992 . The Board of Supervisors has previously taken the position that it would not object to a repeal of the balance of SB 2557, providing another source of revenue were made available to counties which fully replaced the balance of the revenue from the Property Tax Administration fee and booking fee. However, because of the beneficial effect of the booking fee on the reduced booking of prisoners into the jail, the Board now feels that this fee should be left in place and that the State should reimburse the cities for the cost of this fee. 5 . Carefully follow and keep the County briefed on discussions regarding regional governance proposals, including the legislation which has already been introduced in 1991 and proposals which have been advanced by groups such as Bay Vision 2020 and ABAG. Several bills have been introduced in 1991 providing for various systems of regional governance. It has been proposed that ABAG, MTC and the BAAQMD be combined. ABAG has debated this issue but has postponed a decision until the spring of 1992 . The Board had a presentation on this subject on December 10, 1991 and adopted a position against which all pending legislation on this subject should be reviewed. It will be important to be kept abreast of developments and proposals in this area. 6 . Work for the passage of AB 494 (Campbell) which would increase the registration fee for boats from $5 per year to $12 per year with the additional revenue dedicated to the Marine Patrol . AB 494 passed the Assembly in 1991 and is now pending a hearing in the Senate Transportation Committee. Efforts are being made to develop some amendments to the bill which will make it more acceptable to those who now oppose it. 7 . Work for passage of a successor to AB 495 (Campbell) with amendments which are yet to be developed which would place in statute any agreement the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District and the County are able to reach on what contribution the Fire District is required to make to the Special District Augmentation Fund in light of the alleged application of the decision in the case of American River Fire Protection District v. Board of Supervisors of Sacramento County to the formation of the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District. Y -3- Assemblyman Campbell originally introduced AB 495 for this purpose. It is clear that the County could not get AB 495 passed in the form which it was introduced. It will be necessary to reach some level of agreement with the Fire Protection District in order to have any reasonable chance of obtaining the passage of legislation. Discussions continue with the Fire District and will be incorporated into a new piece of legislation if and when some level of compromise is reached between the . County and the Fire District. 8 . Abandon for 1992 the reintroduction of SB 130 (Boatwright) with amendments which are acceptable to the Administration, providing a mechanism by which revenue can be generated to assist the Assessor in automating his records . In 1991, the Board sponsored legislation which would apply a fee of $1 to all documents which are recorded, with the resulting revenue dedicated to automating the Assessor's records . The bill passed the Legislature but was vetoed by the Governor. It seems unlikely that similar legislation can be enacted successfully with the deficit situation the State is facing. It is, therefore, recommended that the Board drop this proposal for the current calendar year and consider co-sponsoring a similar measure in 1993 with the Assessor, providing the economy is in better condition so that fee increases are seen as less of a burden than is the case presently. 9 . Seek passage of legislation which will create two additional Superior Court Judges and one additional Municipal Court Judge ( for the Delta Judicial District) . The Board sponsored SB 457 in 1991. It is unlikely that any new judicial positions will be created in 1992 in view of the trial court reform legislation which was enacted in 1991 and which requires the submission of a plan of cooperation by the Superior and Municipal Courts which would result in a reduction of costs for the trial courts . In addition, since the creation of each additional judicial position requires an increase in Trial Court Funding for the County, it is unlikely that the Legislature will ' incur additional financial liability in light of their existing budget problems . It is, however, appropriate for the Board to continue to support the additional of these needed judicial positions until evidence that they are no longer needed is presented to the Board. 10 . Support enactment of AB 1572 (Campbell) which would increase penalties for violating state law and regulations regarding the release of air contaminants into the atmosphere. In 1990, the Board sponsored AB 3783 (Campbell) which would have accomplished what is being sought in terms of increasing penalties for violating laws regulating emissions into the atmosphere. AB 3783 passed the Legislature but was vetoed by then-Governor Deukmejian. As a result, Assemblyman Campbell introduced AB 1572 in 1991. Some further amendments to this legislation are needed in order to make it as acceptable as possible to all affected parties . AB 1572 passed the Assembly in 1991 and is now in the Senate awaiting a Committee assignment. 11 . Sponsor technical amendments to AB 688 (Baker) which revises the administration of alternatives to custody programs . In 1991, the Board sponsored AB 688 (Baker) which streamlined the County Parole and Electronic Home Detention Programs to make them more parallel to the Work Furlough Program, since all three programs are administered by the same staff and many of the same prisoners are eligible to any of the three programs . The bill passed and has been signed into law (Chapter 437, Statutes of 1991) . J -4- Unfortunately a technical error was made in referencing a section of law and should be corrected in order to be absolutely clear what is intended by the section. 12 . Agree to sponsor legislation similar to AB 2210 of 1990 and AB 1132 of 1991 if Assemblyman Campbell decides to reintroduce legislation along these lines . AB 2210 and AB 1132 would have required the State, in administering the State Water Project, to protect all reasonable and beneficial uses of the water in the Bay-Delta Estuary. In both cases the bills failed passage in the Assembly Ways and Means Committee. The Board sponsored both previous attempts to establish this water policy for the State of California. If Assemblyman Campbell is willing to either pursue AB 1132 or reintroduce similar legislation the Board should be prepared to sponsor such an effort. 13 . Sponsor an amendment to Revenue & Taxation Code Section 7209 which would permit errors in the allocation of sales tax revenue to be corrected for more than the two quarters limit currently in statute. On December 3, 1991 the Board approved a report from its Finance Committee which included this provision. Under current law the State Board of Equalization is only allowed to correct an error in the allocation of sales tax revenue between jurisdictions for two quarters prior to the quarter in which they are made aware of the error. This has resulted in a situation where the Board of Supervisors recognizes that it received $68,506 of sales tax revenue which should have been credited to the City of Brentwood but because of the two quarter limitation, there is no legal way the City of Brentwood can be repaid for this money. A longer period of time to bring errors to the attention of the State Board of Equalization would allow greater equity in these types of situations . While the specific situation which brought this issue to the Board' s attention has been resolved by the State Board of Equalization by reimbursing the City of Brentwood for the funds in question, the basic problem remains and should be resolved through increasing the period of time over which such corrections can be processed administratively. 14 . Seek funding in the 1992-93 State Budget in the amount of $120, 000 for a risk assessment study of pollutants in the Bay-Delta. On April 2, 1991 the Board of Supervisors endorsed the Fish and Wildlife Committee report on a proposed risk assessment study addressing the effects of pollutants on fish species . This study would be conducted by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment of the new California Environmental Protection Agency and would examine white sturgeon and white catfish in an attempt to determine the degree of contamination to toxic agents and the human health risks associated with consumption of these species . 15 . Seek technical amendments to legislation enacted in 1990 (AB 3223) to provide for guaranteed eligibility and lock-in of pregnant Medi-Cal beneficiaries to the Contra Costa Health Plan in order to satisfy the federal government in order to obtain the necessary waivers so the pilot project can be implemented. In 1990 the Board sponsored AB 3223 (Campbell) which provided for a pilot project for the Contra Costa Health Plan whereby new Medi-Cal patients who are pregnant or become pregnant while on Medi-Cal would be offered the opportunity to join the CCHP and would be provided guaranteed eligibility during their pregnancy and for a period of six months thereafter. The individual could not disenroll from the CCHP during this period of time. AB 3223 J -5- was passed by the Legislature and signed into law by the Governor. Federal law limits any guaranteed eligibility and/or lock-in proposal to a total of six months. In order to receive the federal waivers it will be necessary to amend State law to limit the total time period to six months . Assemblyman Campbell has authored AB 2354 to make the necessary changes to State law to conform State law to the federal requirements . 16 . Sponsor a Municipal Court Pay and Staffing Bill in 1992, if one is judged to be necessary to incorporate in State law matters which have been acted on by the Board of Supervisors affecting the pay and classification of Municipal Court employees . Each year the Board is asked to sponsor a Municipal Court Pay and Staffing Bill . This is generally a routine piece of legislation which is required in order to conform State law to actions which have been taken by the Board of Supervisors which affect the number, classification, responsibilities and pay of Municipal Court employees . The Municipal Court Administrator anticipates a number of changes will be required as a result of legislation enacted in 1991 which requires a plan of cooperation to be prepared and submitted to the Judicial Council by the Superior and Municipal Courts . The details of this legislation will be reviewed with the Board of Supervisors before requesting its introduction into law. 17 . Sponsor or support the efforts of others to obtain enactment of legislation which would provide a financial incentive to nursing home operators who accept Medi-Cal patients if they have had no significant violations in the past two years : This might take the form of a reduced license renewal fee and might be undertaken in Contra Costa County as a pilot project. The Health Services Director has been working closely with a Task Force of nursing home operators who handle large numbers of Medi-Cal patients in an effort to work cooperatively with them and be supportive of their needs as long as they continue to accept Medi-Cal patients . This is one aspect of that work and could be a significant step in the direction of insuring quality nursing home care for Medi-Cal patients and some financial recognition for those operators who are willing to accept the lower payments Medi-Cal makes compared to private rates . The County has a legitimate concern about the availability of nursing home beds for Medi-Cal patients since if there are insufficient beds available these patients frequently cannot be released from Merrithew Memorial Hospital, thereby taxing the County' s facilities . 18 . Actively support any efforts put forward by CSAC and others to expand program realignment to include drug and alcohol programs as well as the juvenile justice system. A number of health and social service programs were "realigned" in 1991 by transferring responsibility for the programs to the counties and providing a new source of more flexible revenue to finance the programs . Drug and Alcohol Programs as well as Juvenile Justice Programs were not among those which were included in the 1991 Program Realignment. The Health Services Director believes that responsibility for the alcohol and Drug programs programs should also be transferred to the counties, along with the revenue which is available to support the programs . The Board of Supervisors is also interested in supporting any efforts which may be made to include the juvenile justice system in Program Realignment. This is not something that can be undertaken unilaterally by a single county. However, by including this -6- item in the Board' s Legislative Program, the County' s lobbyist will have a mandate to cooperate fully with CSAC and work actively to insure that drug and alcohol programs as well as juvenile justice programs are included in Program Realignment if at all possible. 19 . Support the efforts of CSAC or others to undertake further reform of the General Assistance Program in order to require work programs for employable General Assistance recipients and other efforts to contain the costs of the program. The General Assistance Program is one of the fastest growing programs in the County and one of the most difficult to control . A number of initiatives are being undertaken by the Board of Supervisors and Social Services Department to contain costs . However, further legislative efforts may be needed in Sacramento in order to provide a firm legal base for further cost containment efforts . 20 . Support the efforts of others to amend the County Service Area Law to permit the use of County Service Area fees for the purpose of funding additional law enforcement services . When the Board of Supervisors initially reviewed the proposed 1992 Legislative Program in December, they voted to include in the Program the enactment of legislation similar to AB 1505 . This legislation was passed by the Legislature in 1991, but was vetoed by the Governor with the comment that such use of Service Area fees should require approval by the voters . The Board has, however, expressed its support for such legislation. If such legislation is introduced in 1992, we will bring it to the Board's attention for their support and will instruct the County' s lobbyist to actively support such legislation. 21 . Sponsor amendments to Government Code Section 8641 to clarify that the Board' s emergency stand-by alternates can serve in all cases of disaster, not just cases of war. Under current law, members of the Board of Supervisors are authorized to appoint stand-by officers to represent them in case of a disaster where they are unable to serve in their normal capacity due to injury, death or inability to reach the area from which the government is being operated. Due to some confusing language in the statute, it can be read as allowing these stand-by officers to function in time of war but not in time of a declared disaster. County Counsel has suggested that this language be clarified in order to remove any doubt but what the intent is that the stand-by officers are authorized to function in both declared disasters and in time of war. 22 . Take appropriate action at the State and/or Federal level to attempt to protect the County' s investment in the purchase of the Southern Pacific right-of-way if it is determined that it is appropriate to put a recreational trail in the right-of-way which may have to be disturbed later when it is possible to develop the right-of-way for transit purposes. One portion of the Southern Pacific right-of-way (the Iron Horse Trail) is being considered for recreational purposes during the period of time when it is not feasible to develop the right-of-way for transit purposes . However, federal law makes it extremely unlikely that once a recreational trail is developed in the area it would be possible to move or disturb the trail in order to implement a transit project in the same area. This could hinder such a transit project and could result in the County having to return to the State the funds which were provided for the original purchase of the right-of-way on the basis that the right-of-way would be used for a transit project. Staff are still exploring what actions may be possible in order to protect the County' s ultimate interests in the right-of-way. S ' -7- 23 . Provide an appropriate mechanism for raising the revenue necessary to fund the federal non-point source stormwater pollution improvements which are necessary to comply with federal law. As the Board of Supervisors has been advised, the required compliance with the federal government' s non-point source stormwater pollution standards will cost the County and cities millions of dollars over the next several years, both to initially reach the necessary level of compliance and then to maintain that level of compliance. Since the responsible agency, the County Flood Control District, does not have the authority to increase fees to fund these improvements, as it would if were also a water district or sanitary district, some alternative source of revenue must be found in the very near future. Staff are still exploring how this might be accomplished and will present a detailed proposal to the Board before it is proposed in legislative form. However, continued exploration of this issue will be needed in 1992 and 1993 . Recommended to the Board of Supervisors December 17 , 1991 Amended by the Board of Supervisors December 17, 1991 to expand on items # 4 and #18 and add items # 19 & # 20 and referred back to staff for a subsequent report to the Board. Returned to the Board of Supervisors February 11, 1992 for approval as noted above with the addition of items #21, #22, and # 23 as well as the changes noted above and other updating as required to several items .