Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11191996 - D3 0.3 •oo BOARD OF SUPERVISORS �F Contra FROM: PHIL BATCHELOR, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Costa County DATE: November 13, 1996 °°STq coUK� SUBJECT: PROPOSED 1997 LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. APPROVE the attached proposed Legislative Program for 1997. 2. DIRECT the County Administrator and the County's lobbyist to seek authors for those items in the Legislative Program which are being sponsored by the Board of Supervisors. 3. AUTHORIZE Board Members, the County Administrator, the County's lobbyist, Department Heads, and their designees to testify in support of the Board's approved positions on legislation in 1997. 4. DIRECT the County Administrator to bring to the Board's attention additional pieces of legislation or issues on which the Board of Supervisors should take a position during the 1997 legislative session. BACKGROUND: Each year, the Board of Supervisors sponsors several pieces of legislation and supports or opposes others which are introduced by other parties. The County Administrator formulates a proposed Legislative Program by soliciting suggestions from Department Heads, making note of issues that arise during the year that require a legislative solution and then reviewing the issues with the County's lobbyist to insure that we are proposing legislative solutions that are feasible and stand a CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: CA RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE _ ` APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): C/^�%� ACTION OF BOARD ON INovamhar 1Q, 1 QQR APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER X Supervisor Smith indicated he would be abstaining on No. 2 of the Proposed 1997 Legislative Program for Contra Costa County since it involves employee benefits. Supervisor Bishop moved approval of staff recommendations and Supervisor Torlakson seconded the motion with the addition of support for the concept of the formation of a local government caucus. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the above recommendations are APPROVED and the concept of the formation of a local government caucus is SUPPORTED. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X UNANIMOUS, IT abstained an Nn_ 2 of the AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN 1997 Legislative Program" AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD of Contra. Costa County OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. ATTESTED November 19, 1996 Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF cc: See Page 2 SUPER RS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY DEPUTY relatively good chance of being enacted by the Legislature. In some cases, we recommend that a department head take a proposal to his or her professional organization if the issue is one which is statewide in its impact and relatively technical in nature. In other cases, proposals are rejected because the measure is simply not feasible given the political climate in Sacramento or because the issue is one which CSAC or other statewide organizations need to pursue rather than a single county. The attached proposed 1997 Legislative Program represents our best effort to assemble a package of measures that we believe are reasonable, achievable and consistent with the Board's past positions on similar subjects. In some cases we are recommending that the Board actually sponsor the measure. In other cases, we are recommending that the Board agree to co-sponsor a measure with other interested parties or support the efforts of others where it is more appropriate for another party to take the lead on a measure. With the Board's approval of a 1997 Legislative Program our lobbyist will seek authors for the measures the County is sponsoring and staff will begin the process of drafting actual legislative language to be submitted to the Legislative Counsel by the author's office. This Legislative Program can, and undoubted will, be amended by adding support or oppose positions on additional measures that are introduced on behalf of other parties. The sponsored portion of the Legislative Program can, of course, be amended as well, although there are relatively tight deadlines for the drafting and introduction of legislation which necessitate that any additional sponsored legislation be identified almost immediately. cc: County Administrator All Department Heads (Via CAO) CAO Senior Staff and Division Heads (Via CAO) Les Spahnn; Heim, Noack, Kelly & Spahnn (Via CAO) CSAC (Via CAO) Urban Counties Caucus (Via CAO) -2- PROPOSED 1997 LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 1. DIRECT staff to monitor State legislation needed to implement Federal Welfare Reform to insure that Contra Costa County's concerns are addressed. We anticipate that a major portion of the time of the County's legislative representative in Sacramento and that of staff in 1997 will be involved in monitoring, analyzing and attempting to influence actions the Legislature and the Administration may take to implement Federal Welfare Reform. Without attempting to anticipate or recommend a position on any possible specific features of such legislation at this time, we do want to clearly establish direction from the Board of Supervisors that staff and the County's legislative representative are to take the time necessary to keep this County's interests in the forefront of discussions such as the formula which may be used to allocate block grant funds among the counties, optional legislation relating to services for undocumented individuals, the impact on the County's General Assistance Program of eliminating SSI benefits to individuals with a diagnosis of alcohol or drug addiction and of eliminating SSI benefits to legal aliens. 2. CO-SPONSOR with the County's employee organizations legislation to enact a Tier 3 retirement option for employees, consistent with the Tentative Agreement entered into between the County and the Labor Coalition on October 15, 1996. Employees who have been with the County since before the Board of Supervisors made AB 144 (Chapter 58, Statutes of 1980) effective in the County, and employees who transferred to the County with reciprocal rights from another jurisdiction are members of what is referred to as the Tier 1 retirement system. Employees hired since AB 144 (Chapter 58, Statutes of 1980) was made effective in the County are members of the Tier 2 retirement system, which costs the employee and employer substantially less than Tier 1, but also provides substantially less in retirement benefits than Tier 1. The County and employee organizations have negotiated an agreement to seek legislation which would allow the Board of Supervisors to implement a Tier 3 retirement system. Tier 3 would be an option available on a one-time basis to all Tier 2 employees who already have five years of employment service in Contra Costa County and to future Tier 2 employees as they complete five years of employment. Tier 3 would provide benefits equivalent to Tier 1 but with disability provisions equivalent to Tier 2. The increased cost of Tier 3 (through September 30, 1999) would be borne by the individual employee for the employee's share of the increased costs and by all employees by foregoing a portion of a salary increase scheduled for October 1, 1997, for the employer's share of the increased costs. 3. SPONSOR legislation to allow the County to protect the confidentiality of unlisted telephone number and address information obtained from Pac Bell for the Community Alert Network. The Board sponsored legislation in 1993, (SB 222, Boatwright [Chapter 751, Statutes of 1993]) to permit the telephone company to release unlisted telephone numbers and addresses to the County for purposes of maximizing the effectiveness of the CAN (Community Alert Network) system. We have just about concluded negotiations with Pac Bell to acquire this information. However, we are concerned that someone might try to gain access to these tapes for unrelated purposes through the Public Records Act. We believe it is essential that the confidentiality of this information be protected in order to maintain the credibility and integrity of the CAN system. We are, therefore seeking legislation which will allow the County or its agents to maintain the confidentiality of this information. 4. SPONSOR legislation to amend Penal Code Section 243.1 to overturn a decision by the California Court of Appeals in the case of the People v. Rochelle Reanna B. It has long been assumed by probation officials that Penal Code Section 243.1 provided that if a battery is committed on a probation counselor in a juvenile hall by a ward that a felony has been committed in that Section 243.1 refers to the definition of custodial officer in Penal Code Section 831. The Juvenile Court in Contra Costa County ruled that a felony had been committed in the instant case. This decision was appealed to the Court of Appeals, which overturned the decision of the Juvenile Court. The Appellate Court reached this decision by concluding that the Legislature never specifically indicated its intent to include juvenile correctional counselors in the definition of"custodial officer", as defined in Penal Code Section 831. The appellate decision concludes as follows: "It is the province of the Legislature and not the courts to enact statutory categories and definitions such as the ones at issue. Clearly, any change in current law must be addressed by the Legislature." Since this case arose from Contra Costa County, even though it has statewide implications, we believe that it is appropriate for Contra Costa County to take the lead in enacting legislation which asks the Legislature to clarify its intent in this regard. 2 5. SPONSOR a 1997 Municipal Court Pay and Staffing Bill. Each year the Board of Supervisors must sponsor legislation to conform state statutes to action already taken by the Board of Supervisors in regard to the pay and staffing of employees of the Municipal Courts. Such a piece of legislation will again be required in 1997 to reflect changes which have been or may soon be made in the pay and staffing of the employees of the Municipal Courts. Court Coordination may require additional amendments to the Municipal Court Pay & Staffing statutes or may actually permit repeal of a significant portion of these statutes. 6. SPONSOR legislation which would expand access to the California Law Enforcement Tracking System (CLETS) to County licensing staff to check backgrounds of family and friends volunteering to care for children. Currently only licensed caretakers have background check through CLETS. Under current law, licensed foster parents are required to be cleared through CLETS to identify any criminal history which might preclude the individual from being licensed to care for children. Relatives are not required to have a criminal records check, regardless of the degree of relationship. Under current practice, the Social Service Department generally tries to place a child with a relative rather than in a foster home in order to preserve family ties and provide a permanent home for a child. In many cases the Department identifies the family member and tries to get the family member to assume responsibility to care for the child. Without a criminal records check, the Department is often unable to identify a relative who, while he or she may appear to be a suitable parent substitute, actually be an individual who has been convicted of any number of serious criminal offenses. Amending the law to apply to relatives as well will help the Social Service Department try to insure that relatives are suitable individuals with whom to place a child. 7. CO-SPONSOR with Alameda County a State Budget appropriation (approximately $200,000 each for one or two Centers) to fund at least one joint Children's Receiving Center, The Social Service Director is seeking funding of approximately $200,000 each for two Children's Receiving Centers. These Centers would provide regional sites for assessing the placement and care needs of children who have been removed from their caretaker due to abuse or neglect. It has been suggested that we attempt to work out a joint regional approach with Alameda County for at least one of the Centers in the West County area. These Centers would provide stabilization, respite, and basic assessment services for children as an alternative to immediate placement with a caretaker who may be ill-prepared to meet the needs of the child. 3 1 0.3 8. SPONSOR legislation or seek an administrative decision to designate Contra Costa County as a demonstration county under the Governor's Adoption Initiative. In the 1996-97 State Budget, the Governor proposed a concurrent planning model whereby Social Service Department staff would concurrently plan for the long-term placement needs of a child while still trying to return the child to his or her family. In this way, if it turns out that preserving the family unit is not going to be possible, planning will already be underway or completed for addressing the child's long-term needs for a stable home environment, whether with a relative or in an adoptive home. The Social Service Director believes that this County is ideally situated to be a demonstration county for this purpose. The Department's experience and level of readiness could help the State identify the pluses and minuses of launching the Initiative statewide. It is not clear at this time whether legislation is necessary for this or whether simply an administrative decision within the State Department of Social Services could accomplish the designation. 9. SUPPORT the efforts of other jurisdictions, including CSAC and the Urban Counties Caucus, to return to local governments the property tax revenue which was redirected to the State. The County has lost ten of millions of property tax revenue over the past four fiscal years because the State took the County's property tax revenue and used it to cover the State's deficit. In 1996, CSAC was successful in getting legislation through the Legislature which would have frozen the transfer of property tax revenue effective July 1, 1997, and would have returned the increase in this portion of the property tax to the local agencies from which it was taken. This legislation was vetoed by the Governor. Efforts will continue to be made in 1997 to return some portion of the property tax to local agencies and this County should support those efforts. 10. SUPPORT the efforts of others to provide more adequate funding for probation ranches and camps through the State Budget for the 1997-98 fiscal year. Some$32 million was provided in legislation for the 1996-97 fiscal year as a partial offset for the increased CYA fees which counties have to pay beginning January 1, 1997. It is essential that an additional stable source of funding for probation ranches and camps be identified and provided for in the State Budget so that this important alternative to committing a youth to CYA remains available to the Juvenile Court. 4 17n 3 11. SUPPORT the efforts of others to enact legislation early in the 1997 Session of the Legislature which would provide for the appropriation of fine and forfeiture revenue to the counties and which would provide for the reform of the funding of the trial courts similar to AB 2553, which failed to pass the Legislature at the end of the 1996 Session of the Legislature. Legislation was introduced and almost enacted in 1996 which would have frozen funding of the trial courts by the counties, increased fine and forfeiture revenue for the counties and clearly provided for the responsibility of the State to fund the trial courts in the future. The legislation failed at the end of the Session because of a disagreement over collective bargaining language for court employees. Unfortunately, the failure of this legislation to be enacted left $300 million in fine and forfeiture legislation being paid to the State unappropriated by the Legislature. It is essential that this $300 million be appropriated as soon as the Legislature reconvenes. It is also important that the remainder of the provisions of AB 2553 be enacted as soon as possible. This County's position should be that we need trial court funding legislation, with or without the collective bargaining language. 12. SUPPORT the efforts of others to again make Probation Department expenses eligible for funding from the Title IV-A Block Grant which will be received by the State from the Federal Government. Last year the Federal Government ruled administratively that Title IV A funds could not be used to offset expenses by the Probation Department for some of their wards. This cost this County's Probation Department $3 million a year. With the enactment of welfare reform at the Federal level, it is anticipated that a block grant will be provided to the State by the Federal Government. In California, some $140 million of Title IV-A funds which were previously used by probation departments will be included in the block grant. The State will apparently have the.right to define rather broadly what services can be reimbursed from these funds, including probation services. It is important to Contra Costa County's Probation Department that these block grant funds be available to appropriate Probation Department services. It is anticipated that the Chief Probation Officers' Association will pursue this issue administratively and legislatively. We recommend that the Board of Supervisors support this effort. 5 13. SUPPORT the exploration of various funding sources for the replacement of juvenile hall, given the failure of Proposition 205. It had been anticipated that if Proposition 205 had been approved by the voters Contra Costa County might have received as much as $35 million to pay for the replacement of juvenile hall, consistent with the Board approved continuum of care model. The failure of Proposition 205 leaves the County with few alternatives for the construction of a new juvenile hall and the distinction of having one of the oldest juvenile halls in California. Staff is suggesting that various alternative financing mechanisms be explored. 14. SUPPORT the efforts of the County Alcohol and Drug Program Administrators Association of California or others to obtain adequate funding from the State Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs for methadone clients, particularly for out-of-county clients who are now being served without additional funding. Since the inception of methadone treatment in Contra Costa County in 1971, the Health Services Department has served residents from surrounding counties. This was done in the spirit of reciprocity of services and the total number of out-of- county patients hovered around 25. When the State Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs lost the Sobky v. Smoley suit several years ago, methadone under Medicaid was re-declared as an entitlement and the State was ordered to institute "statewideness" in the delivery of methadone services. In essence, Sobky v. Smoley ruled methadone "waiting lists"for Medi-Cal clients to be illegal if they are due to budgetary reasons. Because the State did not increase State General Fund dollars to the counties, counties were forced to dismantle other types of programs to fund methadone. Methadone treatment became a priority; residential programs and youth programs suffered. The situation is made dramatically worse in Contra Costa County because the County's local methadone provider, Bay Area Addiction Research anmd Treatment, Inc. (BAART), is now serving over 200 out-of-county clients with another 100-200 on the waiting list. Contra Costa County's costs increased by an additional $300,000 in State General Fund dollars last year because the Department did not compensate the County for care provided to out-of- county residents. The Director of the State Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs can allocate additional funds out of the Department's reserve. It is staff's understanding that this does not require any legislative action. 6 15. SUPPORT the efforts of the State Library and others to seek legislation which would create and fund a program to encourage resource sharing among libraries. The State Library has spent the last seven years working with libraries of all types throughout the state (public, academic, school, special) to create a program that would encourage resource sharing among libraries. The estimated cost for the program is $70 million, the bulk of which would reimburse local libraries for services provided to non-residents of their service jurisdiction. No specific funding source has been identified. The County Librarian has recommended that the Board of Supervisors support these efforts. 16. SUPPORT the efforts of the California Library Association and others to fully fund the Public Library Fund (PLF) item in the State Budget, currently only funded at 40% of its authorized level. This year the Legislature included in the State Budget an increase from $8.8 million to$20.0 million in the per capita funding that the Sytate provides to local libraries. The Governor reduced the funding to $15.0 million. The funding source is the State General Fund. Contra Costa County's library benefitted by $145,000 from this increased appropriation. However, even at this level, the Public Library Fund is only funded at 40% of its authorized level. There will be an attempt again in 1997 to increase the funding level for the Public Library Fund. The County Librarian has recommended that the Board of Supervisors support these efforts. 17. SUPPORT any efforts to place a library construction bond measure on the ballot in 1998. The Board of Supervisors has been supportive in the past with efforts to place a Library Construction bond measure on the ballot. An effort will no doubt"be made again in 1997 to place such a bond measure on the ballot in 1998. The County Librarian has recommended that the Board of Supervisors support these efforts. Considered by the Board of Supervisors 11/19/96. 7