Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12092003 - D2 Contra Costa TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County FROM: John Sweeten County Administrator DATE: December 9, 2003 SUBJECT: IMPACTS OF VEHICLE LICENSE FEE REPEAL SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION(S): 1. RECOGNIZE that the recent rescission of the Vehicle License Fee(VLF)restoration, in the absence of a State backfill) results in the immediate loss of approximately$54 million in general purpose revenues included in the County's budget for the current fiscal year. 2. ACKNOWLEDGE that the impact of balancing this revenue loss, in the absence of a State backfill, is magnified in inverse proportion to the number of months available to reduce expenditures—e.g., reductions made over a six-month period would have the effect of a$108 million reduction; reductions made over a three-month period would have the effect of a$216 million reduction. 3. ACKNOWLEDGE that if reductions are not made in the current year budget and there is no backfill from the State, year-end fund balance will be reduced by $54 million and the County's budget in FY 2004-05 will be depleted by that amount. 4. ACKNOWLEDGE that a reduction of$54 million in general purpose revenue will have a severe impact on public services administered by the County. 5. ACKNOWLEDGE that the County has balanced shortfalls of roughly$107 million during the preceding and current fiscal years prior to the present VLF cut. 6. ACKNOWLEDGE the fact that reserves are not sufficient to address the current-year revenue shortfall. 7. ACKNOWLEDGE that the bulk of these reductions will take place in public safety programs(where 41% of net County cost is incurred), and in health and human services programs(where 43% of net County cost is incurred). 8. ACKNOWLEDGE that a reduction of this magnitude may require the elimination of most if not all overmatches and discretionary expenditures(including those of a prevention nature), and may prevent the County from providing required levels of mandated services. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR COMMEIMATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON December 9 20U3 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER XX APPROVED the recommendations and FURTHER DIRECTED the County Administrator to return to Board meeting of December 16 2003 an update on the status of the State's budget. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT None AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN ATTESTED: December 09 2003 JOHN SWEETEN,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF CC: S ERVISORS AND COUNTY ADIVINISTRATOR BY Y_ :�;g�� ����DEPUTY RECOMMENDATIONS (Continued) X%X.J 9. DIRECT the County Administrator to curtail all non-critical net County cost expenditures by County departments—including the filling of vacant positions, travel, discretionary training, fixed assets, services and supplies, and capital improvements. 10. DIRECT the County Administrator, in cooperation with County departments, to develop alternative reduction scenarios that contemplate implementation commencing February 1, March 1, and April 1, 2004, 11. COMMUNICATE to the Governor and the Legislature the severity and urgency of the situation. Governor's VLF Reduction On November 17 the Governor rescinded the restoration of the VLF rates that had been earlier approved by the prior administration. The rescission is effective retroactive to October 1, and results in the loss of$3.6 billion to city and county governments in the current fiscal year. For the County of Contra Costa,the loss in the current year is estimated to be $54 million. The Governor has committed to backfilling this local government revenue loss. He has asked the Legislature to make $2 billion in spending cuts, and to recognize $1.6 billion in unanticipated revenue, as a way to fund that backfill in the current year. There are two problems with this proposal: I. Members of the Legislature, whose cooperation is required to secure the backfill, are not pleased with the prospect of making cuts to programs they value to pay for a revenue reduction made by the Governor without their concurrence. 2. A.substantial portion of the new revenue the Governor wants to count on for the local government backfill is earmarked for education as a result of Proposition 98. In the meantime, legislation has been introduced in the special session that would appropriate from the General Fund sufficient funds to backfill the loss of backfill to local government as originally promised when the VLF rate was first reduced during the Wilson administration. It is too soon to know which programs ultimately would be reduced to free up appropriations for this backfill, but it is safe to say that programs administered by counties—particularly health and human services programs—would be severely impacted. Contra Costa County Considerations It is important to acknowledge that the $54 million VLF reduction is not a proposal; it is a fact. By virtue of the reduction,, the County has been losing approximately $6 million each month since October 1. By the time this report is read, the County will have lost more than $12 million in budgeted current year general purpose revenues. To put this loss in perspective, the $54 million in lost VLF revenue represents nearly 17%. of the County's general purpose revenues for the entire year'. Unfortunately, since the reduction occurs mid-year, it is not possible to spread the loss over a twelve-month period. If this VLF loss is not backfilled by the State, and if the County were to implement $54 million in budget reductions effective(for example)February I to rebalance the budget, the annualized impact of those reductions would be nearly $130 million.2That annualized impact would represent 40%of the County's general purpose revenues for the current fiscal year, on top of the two rounds of budget reductions the County has already made in the current year budget. What strategies might the County consider? In order of priority, they include the following: 1. Support the backfilling of lost VLF. The Governor has indicated a commitment to backfilling local government. The County can assist that approach by providing the administration and the Legislature specific factual information regarding the size of the budget reduction locally and the range of likely programmatic impacts that will result in the absence of backfill. This approach has shortcomings noted above regarding cooperation from the Legislature and the earmarking of new revenues. It would also entail likely reductions to County program subventions. That said, this approach is superior because it would establish a baseline of State spending and revenues that could General purpose revenues in the current year,prior to the Governor's action,were estimated to be$325 million. 2 Beginning February 1,the County would have five months to save$54 million. That amounts to$10.8 million per month. Annualized,$10.8 million per month equals$129.6 million. accommodate the VLF backfill on an ongoing basis. It would also avoid $54 million in VLF losses in the current year. 2. Consider supporting a bond measure sufficient in size to accommodate the current year VLF backfill obligation. The Governor has proposed a $15 billion bond measure for the March ballot. While details are unclear, it is thought that $10.7 billion would replace the Legislature's"deficit reduction bonds") approved as part of the current State budget, and $2.7 billion would replace the legislatively approved pension obligation bonds. That would leave $1.6 billion unspoken for, although there are other shortfalls in the current State spending plan that would easily consume this amount. From the County's perspective, this approach is problematic in that it is one-time in effect and would not address the State's promise to fund the backfill permanently. On the other hand, it would address the immediate problem and give the County several months to plan rationally for how it will address an ongoing VLF revenue loss in FY 2004-05. 3. Commence planning for budget reductions of$54 million in the current fiscal year. The impact of a$54 million reduction in the current year depends on when, between now and June 30, the reductions are commenced. The shorter the period of time into which reductions must be squeezed, the more severe the resulting program impacts. As noted below,the annualized impact of the reduction, and its percentage share of total general purpose revenues for the current fiscal year, grow dramatically as time passes. Table I shows the annualized cost and percent of annual general purpose revenues if the reduction were to have been implemented in July 2003 for the entire fiscal year. It then indicates the annualized cost and percent of annual general purpose revenues if the reduction is implemented in February, March and April 2004. The action of the Governor rescinding the VLF restoration took place in the absence of a specific strategy to fund the backfill promised by the State to cities and counties in 1998. To be successful, any such strategy will require consensus between the two major parties, and between the Legislature and the Governor. If the Legislature and the Governor fail to agree on a backfill strategy, cities and counties will experience a catastrophic loss of revenue. Moreover, as displayed in Table I., the longer the delay in arriving at consensus, the more dramatic the impact becomes. Table 1. Cost of Time Delay Contra Costa County FY 2003-04 Reductions Annualized Percent of GP Begin Cost(M) Revenues Ju12003 $54.0 16.6% Feb 2004 $129.6 39.9% Mar 2004 $162.0 49.8% Apr 2004 $216.0 66.5%