HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11171992 - 1.56 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS �� 7
0 Contra
FROM: Costa
Phil Batchelor, County Administrator
County
9b
November '`r~y
DATE: Ni 1992
SUBJECT: SUMMARY OF 1992 LEGISLATIVE WORK AND OUTCOMES OF LEGISLATIVE
REPRESENTATION IN SACRAMENTO
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION:
1 . Accept report from County Administrator on the activities of
the County' s legislative representatives in Sacramento during
1992, including the success which that representation
achieved.
2 . Request the County Administrator to present a proposed 1993
Legislative Program to the Board either on December 8, 1992 or
December 15, 1992 for the Board' s further consideration and
approval .
3 . Request the County' s Legislative Representative to report in
person to the Board not later than February 23, 1993 on what
occurred in Sacramento in 1992 and what he believes the major
issues will be facing the Legislature in 1993 .
BACKGROUND:
For the past several years, the County has contracted with SRJ.
Jackson- Barish & Associates to represent the County' s interests in
Sacramento in most areas other than transportation. For
transportation matters, the County continues to contract with D.J.
Smith Associates . In addition, the County Administrator,
Department Heads and staff from SRJ. Jackson, Barish & Associates
work closely with the staff of the California State Association of
Counties (CSAC) , who represent the broader interests of all
counties before the Legislature.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: x YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON November 17 , 1992 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISOR N THE DATE SHOWN.
ATTESTED
Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR.CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
cc: County Administrator SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
SRJ. Jackson, Barish & Associates
All County Department Heads (Via CAO)
BY DEPUTY
Each year, the Board of Supervisors adopts a Legislative Program
which becomes the principal guideline for the County Administrator,
Department Heads and staff from SRJ. Jackson, Barish & Associates
in their work during the year with the Legislature. This initial
Legislative Program is amended and added to during the year as
additional issues becomes important to the County.
Each year, following the close of the legislative session, the
County Administrator reports back to the Board of Supervisors on
what success County and contract staff had in achieving the Board' s
Legislative Program. This document represents that report for the
1992 half of the 1991-92 Legislative Session, for areas other than
transportation. Attached to this report is a report from the
County' s legislative representative with SRJ. Jackson, Barish &
Associates . We will not attempt to duplicate that report here, but
simply highlight some of the more significant issues the County
faced in 1992 and what success was achieved.
IMPACT OF THE STATE BUDGET DEFICIT ON CONTRA COSTA COUNTY:
Obviously, the fiscal condition of the State of California, the
deficits the State has faced the past two years and the size of the
deficit facing the Legislature for the 1992-93 State Budget
occupied much of the time of the County Administrator, the County's
contract legislative representative, CSAC staff and, in fact,
several members of the Board of Supervisors, under the leadership
of the Chair, Supervisor McPeak.
Contra Costa County exerted a good deal of leadership and
influenced many of the decisions which eventually came out of the
Legislature. Educating members of the Legislature to the
significance of the Special District Augmentation Fund in Contra
Costa County was an important element of this work and resulted in
far less of an impact on the funding of Special Districts than had
been feared earlier in the year. The same was true in terms of
funding for social service programs and insuring some additional
flexibility in the funding of the General Assistance Program. The
eventual cuts the County had to sustain were significantly lower
than had been anticipated when the size of the projected State
deficit became clear, particularly in view of the Governor's
opposition to anything in the way of new taxes, fees or other
revenue increases . We anticipate that in 1993 the State Budget
will continue to occupy much of our time, since a deficit of
perhaps $5 + billion can readily be projected for the current year
and 1993-94 budget year.
CONTRA COSTA HEALTH PLAN DEPOSIT REQUIREMENT:
The Board of Supervisors sponsored AB 2354 (Campbell) which
provided conditions under which the County would not have to leave
some $300,000 or more on deposit to backup the Contra Costa Health
Plan. Working with Assemblyman Bob Campbell and the Health
Services Department and Health Plan staff, we were successful in
achieving passage and signature on AB 2354, which saves at a
minimum $300,000 which the County otherwise had to leave on
deposit, making it unavailable for needed health care in the
community.
ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY FOR THE CONTRA COSTA FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT:
The Board of Supervisors sponsored AB 2768 (Campbell) which
provided desperately needed authority for the Contra Costa County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District to impose an
assessment on real property within the County in order to fund the
requirements of the federal National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Program. This new federal program
requires that all stormwater runoff be collected and treated before
it is released into the waters of the Carquinez Straits or San
Pablo-San Francisco Bay. The eventual cost to plan for, develop,
implement and maintain this program is estimated to cost between
$3-5 million a year, money the County and cities obviously do not
have. Working with Assemblyman Bob Campbell and the Public Works
Department staff, we were successful in achieving passage and
-2-
signature on AB 2768, which allows the Board of Supervisors, on
behalf of the Flood Control District, and at the request of the
cities, to impose an assessment on affected property in the County
to pay for this new federal program.
ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION SYSTEM IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT:
The Board of Supervisors jointly sponsored SB 457 with the
Municipal Court, to authorize a pilot project in this County, under
which minor criminal offenses can be handled in an administrative,
non-judicial setting by a temporary court commissioner, rather than
in the more formal setting of a courtroom, with all of the
additional expense which goes along with a judicial appearance.
This program will allow a temporary court commissioner to dispose
of these cases much as an administrative law judge would. Working
with Senator Dan Boatwright, Municipal Court Judge Mark Simons and
the staff of the Municipal Court, we were successful in achieving
passage and signature on SB 457, which will improve the efficiency
of the Municipal Court, without sacrificing the rights of
individual defendants, and which will thereby, directly or
indirectly, save the County money.
AUTHORITY FOR SBE TO ENTER INTO SETTLEMENT OF UTILITY PROPERTY TAX
ASSESSMENT CASE:
The Board of Supervisors co-sponsored AB 2737 ( Isenberg) which gave
the State Board of Equalization (SBE) explicit authority to enter
into and approve the settlement which was negotiated with the major
utilities in California by this County, CSAC staff and the staff of
several other counties. This settlement specifies the terms under
which the assessment of utility property in California will be
altered to conform to a methodology already supported by the
courts . Failure to reach this agreement could have subjected
counties, cities, schools and special districts in California to
the immediate loss of more than $1 billion in back property tax
revenue and billions of dollars more in lost property tax revenue
in the future. Working with Assemblyman Phil Isenberg, we were
successful in achieving passage and signature on AB 2737, which
specifically allowed the SBE to approve and enter into this
settlement agreement.
TECHNICAL CHANGES TO THE TAX LOSS RESERVE FUND:
The Board of Supervisors co-sponsored SB 1683 (L. Greene) and
requested amendments to the bill to make changes in the
administration of the tax loss reserve fund which were needed to
protect the County's ability to use for other purposes money in
this fund which was not needed to protect against property tax
delinquencies . Without this change, the County would have been
penalized $12 million over the next three years because the
property tax delinquency rate was above 3% as of June 30, 1992 .
This amendment made a one-time change in this provision to allow
the delinquency rate to be up to 4%, rather than 3%, and still
allow the County to use the additional money in this fund for other
purposes . Working with Senator Leroy Greene, the Auditor-
Controller and Treasurer-Tax Collector, we were successful in
achieving passage and signature on SB 1683, which has the effect of
saving the County $4 million each year for the next three years .
DELTA PROTECTION ACT:
The Board of Supervisors co-sponsored SB 1866 (Johnston) and
requested amendments to the bill. As enacted, SB 1866 establishes
a Delta Protection Commission, on which this County will be
represented, to develop a Plan for the use of the land in the Delta
area which is outside the primary planning jurisdiction of the
cities in the Delta. The County was successful in getting
amendments to SB 1866 which included as one element which must be
addressed in the Delta Protection Plan, the need for adequate
Marine Patrol services on the Delta and in the Delta area. Working
with Senator Pat Johnston and staff from the Community Development
Department and Sheriff 's Department, we were successful in
achieving passage and signature on SB 1866, which will now provide
-3-
the framework for further planning and protection of the Delta and
which will require that the Marine Patrol needs on the Delta be
addressed as a part of this Plan.
PROSPECTS FOR 1993 :
We anticipate that the State Budget and its spinoff impacts on the
County will continue to occupy a significant portion of the time of
the County Administrator and our contract legislative
representative, as well as the CSAC staff in 1993 . These will
include possibly significant changes in the structure and financing
of Special Districts, the likely loss of the remaining AB-8
property tax funds, possible efforts by the State to actually dip
into the County' s underlying property tax base and take that
revenue to balance the State' s Budget, the extension of the 1/4
sales tax which is due to expire June 30, 1993, other possible
revenue measures, and the underlying fundamental relationship
between the State of California and counties .
In addition, we anticipate health care and the funding and
administration of the Medi-Cal Program will occupy much of our time
in 1993 . The financing and administration of the Courts and
welfare programs will no doubt be major issues as well .
It is our intent to place before the Board of Supervisors on either
December 8, 1992 or December 15, 1992 a Legislative Program for
1993 for the Board' s consideration. We also plan to ask Mr. Les
Spahnn, our legislative representative with SRJ. Jackson, Barish &
Associates, to appear before the Board of Supervisors after the
first of the year to outline his view of the issues we will face in
1993 and the prospects we have for successfully addressing those
issues .
-4-
w II J,,ackson,
a u . > Associate's pe .
October 5, 1992
6ontra Go uu -
MEMORANDUM
OCT 8 a 1992
Office Of
TO: Phil Batchelor
OountY Administrator
FROM: Leslie S. Spahnn 0- . .
RE: Summary of 1992 Legislative Work and Outcomes
I thought it would be a good idea for me to provide you with a brief review of the
bills our firm worked on for the County this year, as well as the outcome of each
measure. Inasmuch as our contract with the County will be up for renewal at the
end of this calendar year, the information contained in this memo will hopefully be
useful to you in assessing our performance.
The bills that I am listing below are largely those measures which I spent
significant time on at the County's direction, which include county sponsored bills,
and those bills which the County directed me to support, amend, or defeat. What
are not included in the detailed listings below are the many budget related bills
(both enacted and offered as earlier versions of enacted bills) upon which I spent
substantial amounts of time from the beginning of May to the end of August. The
reason I am not detailing those measures in this memo is that the work I did was
done in conjunction with, and largely as a part of a team effort with the CSAC staff
and the other county caucus lobbyists.
Indeed, there were many issues (probably more than the actual number of bills)
which occupied our time during the protracted budget debate. Some of these
issues were ones for which I believe Contra Costa County acted in a lead capacity
on. For example, the whole notion of reduced general assistance grants for
recipients who share housing, changes to Beilenson hearing requirements,
elimination of health and welfare maintenance of effort requirements, and changes
Governmental 916 442-45€4 770 L Street
Affairs Fax Sacramento,CA
Consultants 916 443-4925 95614
Summary 1992 Legislative Work
October 5, 1992
Page 2
to community standards of health care, are issues which you, Supervisors
McPeak and Powers, and myself started advocating for as early as February and
March of this year. As I'm sure you recall, we spent considerable time talking with
the county legislative delegation, Department of Finance, Health and Welfare
Agency staff and many others about the changes we were seeking. In the end,
we achieved a great deal of what we sought in this area.
Other budget issues proved less successful dealing with matters such as the shift
of AB 8 property taxes to schools (which was compounded by the linkage the
County has to special districts and to its redevelopment agency), trial court
funding, state mandates, and state administered health programs (such as Medi-
Cal optional funding) which also impact county programs. One budget related
issue that I was particularly involved in that other counties were not, dealt with a
proposal to enroll all Medi-Cal recipients into managed care programs. This
proposal, if enacted as originally drafted, could have been a major threat to the
Contra Costa Health Plan and county hospital. However, working in conjunction
with many persons from the health insurance and health provider community,
language was finally included in SB 485 which deferred action on this idea
pending study by the Director of Health. Language was also included which
recognized the need for the program to protect county health plans and public
health facilities.
The following list of bills is presented in numerical order and not by County
priority. However, I have noted what the County's position or direction was (e.g.
sponsor, support, amend, etc.), a short description of the bill, and of course its
outcome.
AB 408 (Epple): AMEND -- This measure sought to alter the procedures by
which parking and other minor traffic violations for which motorists have been
cited are dealt with, including the collection of fines. Contra Costa County
Municipal Court currently has a contract with its eighteen cities to collect fines for
these citations, in exchange for a cut of the revenue. This procedure generates a
positive cash flow for the County of between $125,000 and $300,000 per year.
Summary 1992 Legislative Work
October 5, 1992
Page 3
The bill was successfully amended to insure that during any changes to the
method of collecting and disposing of these fines, Contra Costa County will be
able to continue being the collection agency for the individual cities (i.e. have right
of first refusal) so as to maintain the positive cash flow. The bill was signed into
law and is Chapter 1244, Statutes of 1992.
AB 494 (Campbell): SPONSOR -- This measure sought to allow counties to
increase boat registration fees for the purpose of generating revenue to fund the
sheriff's marine patrol. While the Assembly approved this measure, the bill was
vigorously opposed by Senator Boatwright when it reached the Senate. The
measure was defeated in the Senate Transportation Committee, on which
the Senator sits.
AB 1572 (Campbell): SPONSOR -- This measure would revise the penalties for
facilities which knowingly and negligently emit foul and potentially harmful
pollutants into the atmosphere. The measure would allow more rigorous
enforcement of air pollution laws. The bill was signed into law and is Chapter
1252, Statutes of 1992.
AB 2354 (Campbell): SPONSOR -- This bill allows the Contra Costa Health Plan
to avoid setting aside a certain amount of cash "on deposit" which provides
security in the event of the plan's financial collapse. In turn, this will allow the
County to divert between $300,000 and $1,000,000 to county health programs
that otherwise would have to be set aside and unavailable for use in any capacity.
The bill was signed into law and is Chapter 600, Statutes of 1992.
AB 2409 (Isenberg): AMEND -- This measure makes a number of changes in
court operations and functions. Contra Costa sought to amend the bill to allow an
increase in the fee which the county office of collections could charge defendants
who pay their fines in installments. Currently the fee is $30 and AB 2409 would
raise it to $35. The amount of additional revenue this would generate for the
county is contingent upon the number of fines paid in installments. However, the
additional revenue will likely be used to offset losses that were being incurred by
Summary 1992 Legislative Work
October 5, 1992
Page 4
the revenue collection office. The bill was signed into law and is Chapter 1199,
Statutes of 1992.
AB 2591 (Cortese): SUPPORT -- This bill allows the State Board of Alcohol and
Drug Programs to issue a single allocation to county alcohol and drug programs.
This will allow greater efficiencies in the operation of the programs by the county.
The bill was signed by the Governor and is Chapter 584, Statutes of 1992.
AB 2737 (Isenberg): CO-SPONSOR -- This bill gives explicit authority to the
State Board of Equalization to enter into and approve the settlement between
counties and utilities regarding the method of valuing utility property and the
disposal of the litigation concerning this issue. The bill was signed into law and
is Chapter 93, Statutes of 1992.
AB 2768 (Campbell): SPONSOR -- This bill permits the Contra Costa Flood
Control District to impose benefit assessments upon property owners for the
purpose of funding the District's activities related to the processing of non-point
water pollution generated by storm water runoff. This authority will save the
County between $3 and $5 million per year which otherwise would be required to
carry out the elements of the plan pursuant to the federal mandate ordering this
activity. The bill was signed into law and is Chapter 565, Statutes of 1992.
ACA 39 (O'Connell): OPPOSE -- This constitutional amendment would have
required local governments to increase the notice and hearing requirements
whenever they intended to consider imposing or increasing any fees. These
requirements would have been costly and burdensome to the County.
Opposition to the measure kept it bottled up in the Assembly where it died
at the end of the session.
SB 457 (Boatwright): SPONSOR --This measure allows Contra Costa County to
implement a five year trial program to dispose of non-criminal minor offenses in a
non-judicial administrative setting. It will allow the county courts to free up staff
and other court resources and redirect those resources to dealing with the
Summary 1992 Legislative Work
October 5, 1992
Page 5
growing case load of more serious offenses. Expected savings should be at least
$100,000 per year and very possibly more if the pilot project succeeds in
achieving its objectives. The measure was signed into law and is Chapter 521,
Statutes of 1992.
SB 1296 (Davis): AMEND and CO-SPONSOR --This measure was amended to
include the annual court pay and staffing changes for the county. The measure
was signed into law and is Chapter 373, Statutes of 1992.
SB 1420 (Russell): AMEND and SUPPORT -- This measure allows selected
counties to increase birth certificate fees by three dollars, the revenue from which
would be devoted to a juvenile court dependency mediation program. The
program would develop plans in the best interests of children and families in
custody disputes, abuse cases and more. The program could be an adjunct to
the County's successful Foster Care Family Intervention Program. The measure
was signed by the Governor and is Chapter 360, Statutes of 1992.
SB 1486 (Petris): SPONSOR --This bill originally would have allowed the state to
adjust nursing home licensing fees in exchange for nursing facilities increasing the
number of sub-acute Medi-Cal patients they would receive from county hospitals.
The measure ran into difficulty when the Senate Appropriations Committee felt
there was not a concrete method of determining whether increases in nursing
home intake of county hospital Medi-Cal patients would result in reductions of
Medi-Cal payments for administrative days. Hence, the measure was amended
into a study to permit the County, with the assistance of the State Department of
Health Services to develop a means of assessing benefits of increased nursing
home intake of sub-acute Medi-Cal patients from county hospitals. The measure
was signed into law and is Chapter 1156, Statutes of 1992.
SB 1584 (Boatwright): SPONSOR -- This bill would have extended the period of
time during which the State Board of Equalization could correct an erroneous
distribution of sales tax revenue between jurisdictions. The County sponsored the
measure to assist one city in the County which claimed that money owed was
Summary 1992 Legislative Work
October 5, 1992
Page 6
erroneously allocated to the County, but too much time had passed since making
the claim. Notwithstanding the desire to help out a city, the League of California
Cities said "no thanks" and decided to oppose the bill. The County decided that
if the cities did not want to help themselves, then the bill was unnecessary
and dropped the measure.
SB 1683 (L.Greene): CO-SPONSOR -- This bill was an omnibus property tax
collection clean-up measure. It included a provision for those counties including
Contra Costa, which operate under the "Teeter Plan" for collecting and distributing
property taxes, to allow a higher percentage of property tax delinquencies before
having to increase a cash set aside used as security in the operation of the plan.
The allowance is for one year only. However, given the fact that delinquencies
were up in the County this year, and the fact that an increase in delinquencies
requires an increase in the set aside for the current year and the following two
years, the savings to the County amounts to $12 million over the three year
period. The bill has been signed by the Governor, and is Chapter 523,
Statutes of 1992.
SB 1866 (Johnston): AMEND and SUPPORT -- This measure sets up a Delta
Regional Planning Commission comprised of representatives of local government
and property owners in the Delta region, including a representative from the
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. The Commission would be funded
with fine revenue derived from citations issued for violations of fishing and game
laws and boating and waterway laws. The bill was amended at the County's
request to authorize the Commission to support activities of the sheriffs' marine
patrols from each of the Delta counties inasmuch as marine patrols are necessary
to enforce various laws associated with the funding of the Commission. The bill
was signed into law by the Governor and is Chapter 898, Statutes of 1992.
SB 2037 (Boatwright): SUPPORT -- This bill would allow under certain
conditions, neighboring jurisdictions to arrange to meet fair share low and
moderate income housing needs within the overall boundaries of their collective
Summary 1992 Legislative Work
October 5, 1992
Page 7
area. The bill allows the counties of Alameda and Contra Costa to participate with
their cities in such arrangements. The Governor vetoed the measure.
In addition to the bills detailed above there were many other measures which
were monitored for potential county impacts throughout the year. All in all, 1992
proved to be a remarkably busy session legislatively for the County.
LSS/das
cc: Claude Van Marter
Clayton R. Jackson