Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11062001 - SD.5 r i TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS •:;� r• s - CONTRA •�' '` :• COSTA r - � _ COUNTY FROM: Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema z DATE: November 6, 2001 c�vrY SUBJECT: Constitutional Amendment Proposal SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. CONSIDER CSAC's response to constitutional amendment proposal issues raised by the Board of Supervisors at its September 18, 2001 meeting. 2. ACKNOWLEDGE that CSAC's constitutional amendment proposal is one of several efforts to protect and stabilize local government finances. 3. SUPPORT the concept of constitutional protection of local generated revenues, restoration of property taxes lost under the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) and prohibition of future unfunded state mandates. 4. AUTHORIZE Supervisor Uilkema, in her capacity as a member of the CSAC Board of Directors, to advance this policy position as appropriate at CSAC board meetings in consideration of CSAC's constitutional amendment proposal and related initiatives. BACKGROUNDIREASON(S) FOR RECOMMENDATION(S): At its September 18th meeting, the Board of Supervisors reviewed CSAC's constitutional amendment proposal (attached). Generally, the constitutional amendment proposal is designed to help stabilize local government funding by prohibiting unfunded mandates and state seizure of local revenue sources by the state. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: —YES SIGNATURE: _ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR_ ECO END ON OF BOA CO ITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS L I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A UNANIMOUS(ABSENT a�VtU4`-C ) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ON MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact:Sara Hoffman,335-109001 // ' ATTESTED 0 V CM �-( v ," JOHN SWEETEN,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR cc: CAO c Employee Organizations BY, Q DEPUTY BACKGROUND/REASON(S) FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (cont'd): Board members raised numerous questions about the proposal, which were submitted to CSAC with a request for response (see attached response). In addition, please see the attached request from the Board of Supervisors to Contra Costa County's employee organizations for their opinion of the constitutional amendment proposal and the response from SEIU. GSAC Board of Directors On September 21St, the CSAC Board of Directors considered the constitutional amendment proposal. Board members had a spirited discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of proceeding. Some of the more frequently expressed points included: ➢ Unions - It is very important to get the unions behind the proposal. Initial responses from state union representatives had not been positive. ➢ Defense, not Offense - The constitutional amendment is a defensive move to protect future raids on local resources, but does not restore ERAF losses. Financing - It will be difficult to raise funds on a defensive measure. ➢ Ballot Process - Putting the constitutional amendment on the ballot via the initiative route makes it more difficult to change language as necessary to garner support; the legislative route is more flexible. ➢ Voter Attention - The events of the day (i.e., the terrorist attack) have diverted people's attention from the amendment. State Budget Status - The recession and state's energy debt indicate that counties will be vulnerable to state cuts in FY 02-03, making the constitutional amendment even more necessary. After considerable discussion, the CSAC Board of Directors agreed to continue working on a constitutional amendment, including: ➢ working with labor to resolve their concerns and issues; finalizing language and submitting it to the Attorney General for title and summary; ➢ strategically determining if it is best to go the legislative route to the ballot or the legislative and initiative route, simultaneously; ➢ request counties to adopt resolutions of support for the constitutional amendment. The CSAC Board of Directors will again consider the constitutional amendment at its annual meeting on November 29th in Sacramento. League of California Cities CSAC has been working closely with the League of California Cities in developing the constitutional amendment. The League's Board of Directors met during the week of October 15th and voted to "stay the course" by filing the title and summary with the Attorney General by the first of November. League staff expects that their Executive Committee will be making a final decision sometime in November, following further consultation with mayors and cities regarding funding. According to League staff, the League's position is that the constitutional amendment should proceed on both the legislative and petition gathering routes, since the signature process would provide leverage in the legislative process. 2 Other Initiatives ACA 10 (Cogdill) would reduce, over time, current transfers of ERAF funds. The bill is in the suspense file of the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Assemblyman Cogdill's staff has said that he will continue to work for its passage during the next legislative session. To proceed, ACA 10 would need to get out of Appropriations by the end of January; however, given the state budget shortfall, many believe that is unlikely. At a recent Urban Counties Caucus meeting, there was a report that law enforcement is considering putting a measure on the March ballot, which would add a quarter cent sales tax for anti-terrorism and other security efforts. There was some mention of monies for public health activities as well. In addition, apparently, there has been some discussion of adding language in the ballot measure to protect VLF, since its loss could result in an overall reduction of law enforcement funding. The status of this initiative is not clear at this time. Unknown Factors There are still many unknown factors which could affect the viability of the constitutional amendment proposal. Rather than taking a definitive position at this time, it may be prudent to concur conceptually on the need for ERAF restoration, protection from further state raids on revenues or increases in unfunded mandates. Under this broad policy position the Board's representative to the CSAC Board of Directors can then take under advisement new developments which will undoubtedly occur between our Board of Supervisors meeting and the CSAC Board of Directors meeting on November 291h and appropriately represent the best interests of Contra Costa County at the CSAC annual meeting. 3 California State Association of Counties October 24, 2001 The Honorable Gayle Uilkema Contra Costa Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street 1100 K Street Martinez CA 95453 Suite 101 Sacramento Dear Supervisor Uilkema: California 95914 Thank you for attending the CSAC Board of Directors meeting on Scptcrnber 21". Your "0- participation was valuable and the meeting was productive. At the meeting you shared 916.327.7SOO Faawe your County Counsel's analysis of the language as well as a list of nine issues raised by feaimle 916.441.5501 the Board of Supervisors. I will try to address each of the issues in order. • Q: In order to place the constitutional amendment proposal on the November 2002 ballot,it will be necessary either to have a requisite number of voter signatures or legislative action. What is the timing of the decision to move forward based on voters' signatures? • A: If the Board of Directors agrees to go forward with a signature gathering effort, the decision would have to be made by the annual meeting. Although signatures are not due until April of 2002,we would need as long a period as possible to collect them. The Board of Directors approved the submission of language to the Attorney General for title and summary in October. We will receive title and summary back from the Attorney General in late November and signature gathering can begin anytime after that. • Q: Section 6(a)(1)(C) governs the need for state subvention for reductions, reallocations, and redistributions among local governments or to state-created funds. Does"local governments"transfer from one type of local government to another; i.e., from a county to a school district, or could it be from one county to another? Does a state-created fund include the state general fund? Does this limit the ability of state to require local government to provide what is currently the state match for federal funding? • A.: Yes, all transfers among local governments would be covered, including transfers between counties and/or to a school district. Yes, a state created fund would include the state General fund. This Constitutional amendment does limit the ability of the state to require local government to provide what is currently the state match for federal funding(Section 6 (a)(1)(B)). • Q: Section 6(a)(2)(A) states that the legislature may, but need not, provide subvention of funds for legislative mandates requested by local governments. What does the word "request"mean? Ts it a formal vote? By what mechanism does local government indicate a request? If a local government supports a bill, does this supply grounds for being considered a request? • A: This is current law and was included in Proposition 4 in 1979. • Q: Section 6 (a)(2)(B) states that subvention is not necessary for legislation defining a new crime or changing the definition of a crime. What is the reasoning behind this section? • A: This is also currently in the Constitution and was part of Proposition 4. • Q: Section 6 (a)(2)(C) states that subvention is also not necessary for legislative mandates enacted prior to January 1, 1975. What is the reason the 1975 date? • A: This is also current law and was part of Proposition 4,when It passed in 1979. • Q: Is the constitutional amendment proposal the most effective mechanism.to prevent new state mandates? • A: The Constitutional amendment process is the most effective way protect local government revenues. Statutes can be changed by the Legislature at any time, and the Courts are not a reliable or appropriate venue for local government revenue protection. • Q: Is the amendment proposal"do-able"? • A: If,by"do-able"the question is, "can it pass?",then the answer is a definite yes. A large part of the exploratory phase we've been in has been conducting voter research, which has clearly shown.that it is possible to win. A niu ber of factors need to be in place for this to happen. 1) The language must be carefully crafted, 2) it must generate no funded opposition, 3).adequate funds must be raised to communicate our basic message to voters and 4) a strong grassroots support system must be developed. • Q: Past state rules for funding mandates have been ineffective, for emi mple, trial court fwiding. What would make this effort any different? • A: Although I'm not sure exactly what you mean in the reference to trial court funding, at least part of the reason for the ineffectiveness of prior mandate legislation has been vague and unclear language that has been subject to interpretation. Our proposal clarifies the Constitution and should make pursuit of future mandate reimbursements easier. Perhaps the most important change in our proposal is the shifting of proof from local government to the state, e.g for new mandates, the state would have to prove that something wasn't a mandate, rather than our having to prove that it was. • Q: The current mechanism for enforcement would be the courts,which means that one level of government would be suing another level of government. Are other mechanisms available for enforcement? • Ultimately, it is always up to the Courts to make a final determination of disputed issues. In California, there is no other mecharxism which would be more effective or more definitive. I hope that this information fully addresses your questions. Please contact me, or Pat Leary if you need any additional information. incerely, Steven C. Szalay The attached letter was sent to: Karen Moore, President, D.A. Investigators Association Al Schaal, President, Western Council of Engineers Jim Hicks, Business Agent, AFSCME Local 512/2700 Francisco Ugarte, Labor Representative, California Nurses Association Chuck Egbert, General Manager, CCC Employees' Assn., Local #1 Richard Jensen, President, Deputy Sheriffs' Association Mike Impastato, Labor Representative, East Diablo Firefighters, IAFF, Local 1230 Lou Paulson, President, United Professional Firefighters, IAFF, Local 1230 Paul Cutino, President, Oakley/Knightsen Firefighters Assn. Stephen Daniels, MD, President, Physicians' & Dentists' Organization of Contra Costa County Dana Simon, Assistant Director, Home Care Division, SEIU Local 250 Ian Arnold, President, SEIU Local 535 Henry Warren, President, United Chief Officers Association I ne tsoara of 5upervlsors contra CIe,kotlheBo; and County Administration Building Costa la County Administ 651 Pine Street, Room 106 (925)335-190 Martinez,California 94553-1293 County John Glola, 1st District County Gayle B.Uilkema,2nd District a,E-s Donna Gertner,3rd District Mark DeSaulnier,4th District Federal D.Glover,5th District p1 ' �o: •cJ' .sT�.coiiir� September 27, 2001 Henry Warren President United Chief Officers Association P. O. Box 5666 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Dear Mr. Warren: On September 21, 2001, the CSAC Board of Directors reviewed draft language of a constitutional amendment designed to stabilize local revenues by prohibiting new state program mandates or increases in sharing ratios without new state subventions. As proposed, the constitutional amendment would be put on the November 2002 ballot by the legislature. At the CSAC meeting, I raised questions and concerns regarding the proposed constitutional amendment (attached). Also, I brought up the difficulty of raising funds during elections with local campaigns as well as the need for offensive measures, such as the return of ERAF. In addition, success of such effort would require broad support, particularly that of the employee organizations. The County's ability to provide competitive salary and benefits, indeed employment, to your members depends upon our fiscal health. As you know, the loss of 50% of our property tax revenues due to the ERAF shift in 1992-93 was a blow that resulted in considerable disruption to our organization. Each year, the transfer has grown and is now over $100 million a year. This year, we are told that the governor may put the vehicle license fee backfill on the table, which provides approximately $35 million of local discretionary revenue to Contra Costa County. I would appreciate your review of the proposed constitutional amendment. Js it a viable mechanism for stabilizing County finances? Are there any-issues that you feel need to be addressed? What are your concerns? The County Board of Supervisors has been asked to take a position on the constitutional amendment proposal, most likely on October 23`d or November 6th. Your comments and thoughts would be appreciated by that time., Please contact Sara Hoffman, Assistant County Administrator at 335-1090, if you would like further explanation on the constitutional amendment or the process for its review. In addition, Pat Leary of CSAC is available to answer technical questions. Her number is 916/327-7500. Sincerely, Gayle B. Uilkema Chair, Board of Supervisors Member, CSAC Board of Directors cc: Board Members ! John Sweeten, County Administrator Sara Hoffman, Assistant County Administrator Pat Leary, CSAC LOCAL 535 �r low. 0 SE1U October 16, 2001 =SUP'EERVISOT? - Hon Gayle B. Uilkema SOCIAL SERVICES UNION 651 Pine Street AMERICAN FEDERATION Supervisor, Contra Costa County OF NURSES Martinez, CA 94553-1293 Dear Supervisor Uilkema: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed constitutional amendment to prevent new state mandates without corresponding new state 661 -27TH STREET subventions. We share many of your concerns over this proposed amendment and, OAxUNID, CA 94612 in addition the initiative raises a number of questions and concerns of our own. 510-893-8766 The initiative limits the legislature's ability to address future budget FAX 510-893-0934 deficits. In fact, the only solution for future budget deficits under this initiative would be to cut services to needy Californians just when those services are most needed. It fails to acknowledge the interrelated nature of most state and local services. This raises concerns about future costs of trial court funding, homecare,and many other services currently under realignment. It appears to us that future augmentations to county services would be at risk under this concept. OfMER OFFICES IN Any changes to retirement law that increase costs could, under this SAMWENrO proposal, be defined as a reimbursable mandate,jeopardizing the passage SAN JOSE of any such enhancements. FRESNO SHWA BM AFA This.proposal would limit the state's ability to fund education above the Los ANGELES Proposition 98 level. Education funding would be in competition for a smaller portion of the budget, effectively ensuring Proposition 98 would SAN DIEGO become a ceiling, rather than a floor, for school funding. We share the California State Association of Counties' concern over imposition of state mandates without the appropriate accompanying funding. We believe this is an unfair burden on local governments and should be addressed; however, the proposed constitutional amendment fails to resolve the overall issue while creating a number of new problems. I SFRVICF FMPI_QYFFS INTFRNATIONAi. UNION AFL-CIO, CL.0 QLa�3 In it's current form we, and the SEN California State Council, are opposed to this initiative. If you would like further clarification on these issues, I can be contacted at 706-4515. Sincerely, Ian Arnold _ President Contra Costa Workers TOTAL P.03 09/12/01 12: 55 PM 40386 RN0122207 PAGE 1 Senate Constitutional Amendment No. A resolution to propose to the people of the State of California an amendment . to the Constitution of the State, by amending Section 6 of Article XIII B thereof, and by adding Section 20 to Article XVI thereof, relating to local government finance. 09/12/01 12 : 55 PM 40386 RN0122207 PAGE 2 Resolved by the Senate, the Assembly concurring, That the Legislature of the State of California at its 2001 -02 Regular Session commencing on the fourth day of December 2000, two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring, hereby proposes to the people of the State of California that the Constitution of the State be amended as follows: First--That the people of the State of California find and declare all of the following: (a) In 1979, the voters amended .the California Constitution to require the State to reimburse local governments whenever the State mandated that local governments carry out a new or higher level of service . - 11 La-i s (b) T allow the State to avoid its reimbursement obligations at the expense of local programs such as libraries, fire and police protection, public health and welfare, and parks . (c) The voters. are enacting this measure to ensure that the original intent of the 1979 amendment is respected. (d) It is the intent of the people of the State of California that this measure be applied in a manner that does not have a net fiscal impact upon the amounts of revenue otherwise required to be applied by the State for he support of school district s a:�(1J cc-:.::::.1;'1. :V college 09/112/01 12 : 55 PM 40386 RN0122207 PAGE 3 districts pursuant to Section 8 of Article XVI of the California Constitution. (e) This measure may not be construed to provide independent authority to the Legislature or any entity of state government to reallocate revenues derived from locally adopted taxes, fees, assessments, or charges . ( f) This measure shall be known and may be cited as the Government Accountability Act of 2001 . Second--That Section 6 of Article XIII B thereof is amended to read: SEC. 6 . Whenever (a) ( 1Z Except as otherwise provided in paragraph ( 2) , the State shall provide a subvention of funds to reimburse each local government for the costs, reduction in revenue, or the amount paid by or charged to that local government, whenever the Legislature or any state agency mandates agency, whether by statute or by regulation, does any of the following: (,A Mandates a new program or higher level of service on any local government; the State shall provide a subvention of funds to reimburse such local government for the casts of such the program or increased level of sernree; exeept that the government . ( B) Increases a local government ' s proportionate share of funding of a program funded jointly by the local_ government and the Sta=te . 09/12/01 12 : 55 PM 40386 RN0122207 PAGE 4 (C) Reduces, or reallocates or redistributes from one local government to another or to a state-created fund for any purpose, revenues derived from the ad valorem property tax or any local tax, fee, or assessment . (D) Reduces or eliminates that amount of vehicle license fee revenues required to be allocated by the statutory allocation formula _set forth in the Vehicle License Fee Law (Part 5 (commencing with Section 10701 ) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code) , as it read on January 1 , 2001 . (E) Changes the requirements to distribute revenues to local governments as set forth in Sections 1463 to 1465. 6, inclusive, of the Penal Code and Article 3 (commencing with Section 40200) of Chapter 1 of Division 17 of the Vehicle Code, as those statutes read on January 1 , 2001 . (F) Modifies the allocation formulas prescribed by Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 17600) of Part 5 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, as that chapter read on January 1 , 2001 . ( 2 ) The Legislature may, but need not , provide sueh a subvention of funds for the following mandates: fat (A) Legislative mandates requested by the local agency effeetee; 09/12/01 12 : 55 PM 40386 RN0122207 PAGE 5 fb} affected. (B) Legislation defining a new crime or changing an existing definition of a errme, er fe} crime. (C) Legislative mandates enacted prior to January 1 , 1975, or executive orders or regulations initially implementing legislation enacted prior to January 1 , 1975. (b) ( 1 ) The subvention requirement of subdivision (a) may be suspended for one year by the enactment of an urgency statute, other than the annual Budget Act, as described in subdivision (d) of Section 8 of Article IV. If, under paragraph ( 1 ) , the subvention requirement of subdivision (a) is suspended for two or more consecutiveey ars, any statute or regulation that imposes the conditions that otherwise would require a subvention of funds pursuant to subdivision (a) shall be inoperative for that portion of the suspensionep riod that exceeds oneey ar . (c) The amount of any subvention to a local government required by subdivision (a) as a result of a reallocation or redistribution of revenues shall be equal to the actual amount reallocated or redistributed , not to exceed the a1[lount of revenue received , in the fiscai year 09/12/01 12 : 55 PM 40386 RN0122207 PAGE 6 immediately preceding the first year the statute or regulation requiring the subvention took effect, by the local government from which the revenues are reallocated or redistributed, adjusted annually to the current fiscal year by the change in the cost of living, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 8, and the change in population as defined in Section 7901 of the Government Code, as that section read on January 1 , 2001 . (d) Except in the case of a suspension pursuant to subdivision (b) , for any claim filed by a local government to enforce this section for a mandate imposed after January 1 , 2002, the State bears the burden of proof that a subvention of funds is not required by this section. Third--That Section 20 is added to Article XVI thereof, to read: SEC. 20 . (a) In conjunction with each adoption of a budget, each local government, as defined in subdivision ( e) , shall do all of the following: ( 1 ) Design and conduct a process that provides the public with the opportunity to provide input into the development of public service goals and spending priorities for the period during which that budget applies , and results in a written report identifying those public sr-�--: ].cr goals and snendina priorities . 09/12/01 12: 55 PM 40386 RN0122207 PAGE 7 ( 2) After the close of each budget period, issue to the public a written report that describes both of the following: (A) How its provision of services achieved the public service goals during that period, noting any deviations and the reasons therefor . (B) How its expenditures during that period conformed to its spending priorities for that period, noting any deviations therefrom and the reasons therefor . ( 3 ) Undergo a locally designed financial audit upon the conclusion of each budget period, and present the written findings of that audit at a public meeting. (b) This section does not supersede, preempt, or otherwise modify the budget or fiscal provisions of a county or city charter adopted under the authority of this Constitution. (c) This section applies to a local government in the absence of statutory provisions that impose a mandatory process for the adoption of the budget of that local government . (d) It is the intent of this section to allow local government taxpayers to hold their locally elected officials accountable for the expenditure of local revenues . ( e ) As used in this section : . 09/12/01 12 : 55 PM 40386 RN0122207 PAGE 8 ( 1 ) "Local government" means a county, charter county, city and county, city, charter city, or special district. ( 2) "Special district" means an agency of the State, formed pursuant to a general law or special statute, for the performance of governmental or proprietary functions within limited geographic boundaries, but does not include a school district, a county superintendent of schools, or a community college district. Fourth--That this measure be liberally construed to effectuate its purpose of requiring the State to reimburse local governments whenever the State increases the responsibilities of local governments or reduces the existing funding of local governments. Fifth--That if any part of this measure or the application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that reasonably can be given effect without the invalid provision or application. 0 - i REQUEST TO SPEAR FORM (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. 7 Name: a4Phone: Address: /r(i City: I am speaking for myself or organization: (name of organization) CHECK ONE: ./ ✓� I wish to speak on Agenda Item # Date: My comments will be: general for against I wish to speak on the subject of I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider: SPEAKERS 1. Deposit the "Request to Speak" form (on the reverse side) in the box next to the speaker's microphone before your agenda item is to be considered. 2. You will be called on to make your presentation. Please speak into the microphone at the podium. 3. Begin by stating your name and address and whether you are speaking for yourself or as the representative of an organization. 4 . Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation if available before speaking. 5. Limit your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previous speakers. (The Chair may limit length of presentations so all persons may be heard) .