HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01202004 - D2 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS `i '' CONTRA.
FROM: John Sweetens,County AdministratorCOSTA'
COUNT
DATE: January 20,2004
SUBJECT: Strategic Response to Governor's Budget Proposal
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONM:
CONSIDER policy and other actions in response to the Governor's State Budget Proposal.
BACKGROUNDIREASON(S)FOR RECOMMENDATIONJS):
At its January 13, 2004 meeting, the Board of Supervisors considered a presentation by the County
Administrator on the Governor's State Budget Proposal. During the ensuing discussion by the Board, individual
Board members made various suggestions on how best to respond strategically. In addition, Supervisor
Uilkema, as the Board's representative to the California State Association of Counties and Urban Counties
Caucus, said it would be helpful if there was a clear message that she could take to both organizations as part of
our effort to ensure consistent advocacy among counties.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: ZYES SIGNATURE: - i r�t,
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR_ _RECC* ATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
—APPROVE _OTHER i
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON JanUarY 20, 20M APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED_OTHER
APPROVED the recommendations with the exception to the March Bond Measure
supporting the California Economic Recovery Bond Act(Chapter 2, Statutes of 2003,
Fifth Extraordinary Session, AB 9)which would authorize the issuance of up to$15
billion in bonds to finance a portion of the State budget deficit; and DIRECTED the
County Administrator to continue to work with California State Association of Counties
regarding the March Bond Measure.
SPEAKER: Rollie Katz, Public Employees Union, Local One, P.O. Box 222, Martinez.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
R UNANIMOUS(ABSENT None I 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,335-1090
ATTESTED Jmmary>20, 2004
cc: CAO JOHN SWEETEN,CLERK OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND COUNTY:ADMINISTRATOR
t
! y
..............................................................................................
.........................................................
BACKGROUND/REASON(S)FOR RECOMMENDATION(cont1d):
Listed below are the policy positions and analyses suggested by Board members at the last meeting:
General Purpose Revenues
The policy of"no general purpose revenue reductions" should be set in stone. Any State cuts should be specific
to programs or services,and be accompanied by commensurate reductions in state mandates.
Currently, the County's State Legislative Platform has the following policy position relative to general purpose
revenues: "Oppose any state imposed reduction of, or use restrictions on, general purpose revenue, including
vehicle license fees (VLF), sales taxes and property taxes"and "Support the State's efforts to balance its budget
through actions that do not affect local government revenues or services. " If the Board wishes to advocate for
any State cuts being specific to programs and services, it is recommended that the second adopted policy
position be amended to read "Support the State's efforts to balance its budget through actions that do not affect
local government revenues or services, although, if cuts to County government are necessary, they should be
specific to programs or services and be accompanied by commensurate reductions in:state mandates.
March Bond Measure
Passage of the March bond measure is key to balancing the State budget for 04-05. Without it, counties will be
the target of further reduction proposals. Counties should individually support the bond measure and make
efforts to educate the public on the local consequences if it fails passage.
Suggested new policy language for the State Legislative Platform: "Support the California Economic Recovery
Bond Act(Chapter 2, Statutes of 2003, Fifth Extraordinary Session, AB 9)which would authorize the issuance
of up to $15 billion in bonds to finance a portion of the State budget deficit.
Long-Term Consequences
Many of the Governor's proposals to reduce services and programs will result in short-term expenditure
reductions. However, in the long term, these service reductions could put pressures on other programs and
result in even higher costs for government services,particularly in areas where reductions are very difficult(for
example,public safety). These long-term consequences need to be identified and quantified wherever possible.
Suggested new policy language for the State Legislative Platform.- "Support efforts to quantify the long-term
consequences of budget reduction proposals, including spillover effect on other programs.
Economic Impact
The Governor has asserted the need for a strong economy in California,yet,many of his budget proposals could
be detrimental to that economic recovery. County should seek an independent economic impact analysis that
assesses the affect of the Governor's proposals on California's business climate.
Suggested new policy language for the State Legislative Platform language: "Support efforts to analyze
economic impact of State budget reduction proposals on the State's business climate.
Structural Reform
The State has been skirting the issue of financing reform for too many years,resulting in a"boom-bust"cycle of
revenues. Revenue volatility,equity and impact on businesses are all considerations. Local government should
continue its advocacy for reform and,if possible,identify areas of common agreement among counties.
Suggested new policy language for the State Legislative Platform: "Support continuation of efforts to
restructure California's system of financing state government". This policy would augment existing board
policies, including "Support efforts to reform the state/local relationship in a way that makes both fiscal and
programmatic sense to local government. "
While the Board of Supervisors' State Legislative Platform is very comprehensive, nonetheless, it may be very
prudent to revisit it now that the Governor's Budget Proposal is available for review. Staff has forwarded
copies of the attached current platform to department heads and asked them to determine if additional policy
statements would be appropriate.
................
2004 State Legislative Platform
Contra Costa County
With the State in such a dismal financial situation, much of the County's legislative effort in 2004
needs to be focused on ensuring that the services and programs to citizens and businesses in Contra
Costa County suffer as little as possible as a result of the Governor's and Legislature's efforts to
balance the State Budget.
The proposed 2004 State Legislative Platform addresses both short and long term issues related to
the State budget as well as state/local structural relationships. It should be riotedthat realignment or
ether proposals that alter the state/local relationship may affect the County's position on specific
issues in a manner that is not predictable at this time.
The platform recommends sponsoring two bills: 1) school credits for jail inmates and 2) redefinition of
income ratios and other eligibility criteria for low income home ownership programs of the
Redevelopment Agency (carried forward from 2003). In addition, the platform includes sponsorship
of a state legislative resolution urging the federal government to more strictly regulate alcohol
advertising targeted at youth.
(Note: new policy language in italics)
General Revenues/Finance Issues
1. SUPPORT the state's effort to balance its budget through actions that do not affect local
government revenues or services.
2. OPPOSE any state-imposed reduction of, or use restrictions on, general purpose revenue,
including vehicle license fees (VLF), sales taxes and property taxes.
3. OPPOSE efforts to limit local authority over transient occupancy taxes (TO 7).
4. OPPOSE any efforts to increase the County's share-of-cost, maintenance-of-effort
requirements or other financing responsibility for state mandated' programs absent new
revenues sufficient to meet current and future program needs.
5. SUPPORT efforts to ensure that counties receive their fair share of state allocations, including
pass-through of federal funds, for anti-terrorism and homeland security measures.
6. SUPPORT efforts to establish a date certain payment of mandated cost obligations for local
governments (SB 50 payments).
7. SUPPORT efforts to limit County financial liability for future unfunded mandates.
8. SUPPORT efforts to unconditionally return ERAF local property; tax revenues to 'local
govemments.
9. SUPPORT efforts to receive reimbursement for local tax revenues lost pursuant to sales and
property tax exemptions approved by the legislature and the State Board of Equalization.
10.SUPPORT efforts to reform the state/local relationship in a way that makes both fiscal and
programmatic sense for local government.
11.SUPPORT efforts to ensure that any reductions in State funding of State mandated programs
are conditioned upon commensurate reductions in program mandates.
12.SUPPORT efforts to relieve California of the Federal Child Support penalties without shifting
the cost of the penalties to the counties.
13.CONSIDER a balanced realignment and/or restructuring of state/county finances in programs
only if an acceptable resolution is reached on VLF.
14.SUPPORT reduction in the 2/3 vote requirement for special taxes that fund high priority local
services.
15.SUPPORT efforts to redefine the circumstances under which commercial and industrial
property is reassessed to reduce the growing imbalance between the share of overall property
tax paid by residential property owners versus commercial/industrial owners.
16.SUPPORT efforts to reduce County costs for Workers Compensation, including the ability to
control excessive medical utilization and litigation.
17.SUPPORT efforts to grant constitutional authority to counties to obtain voter approval of
increases to the property transfer tax.
Library Issues
18.SUPPORT SB 40 and AB 222, the new Public Library Construction Bond Acts that address
new and unmet library facility needs identified in the 2000 Bond Act.
19.SUPPORT increased funding of the Public Library Fund (PLF) and oppose any reductions
beyond the FY 03-04 budget level of$15.8 million.
Land Use/Community Issues
20.SUPPORT efforts to promote economic incentives for "smart growth," including in-fill and
transit oriented development.
21.SUPPORT efforts to expand the availability of affordable housing, including, but not limited to,
state issuance of private activity bonds, affordable and low income housing bond measures,
low-income housing tax credits and state infrastructure financing.
22.SUPPORT" efforts to reform state housing element law to promote the actual production and
preservation of affordable housing and to focus less on process and paper compliance.
2
23.Continue to SPONSOR legislation to authorize a pilot program within the County
Redevelopment Agency that increases the income ratio standardand broadens other eligibility
criteria for the'low and moderate income home ownership program.
24.SUPPORT efforts to reduce the frscalization of land use decision-making by local government,
which favors retail uses over other job-creating uses and housing.
Agricultural Issues
25.SUPPORT efforts to limit charges by the Department of Finance against the Agricultural Fund.
26.SUPPORT efforts to ensure sufficient State funding for pest and disease control to protect both
agriculture and the native environment, including glassy winged sharpshooter control, high risk
pest exclusion activities; pesticide regulatory and law enforcement activities; and weed pest
management area control
27.SUPPORT continued appropriations for regulation and research on sudden oak death, a
fungal disease affecting many species of trees and shrubs in native oak woodlands.
28.SUPPORT funding for agricultural land conservation programs and agricultural enterprise
programs to protect and enhance the viability of local agriculture.
Flood Control/Clean Water Issues
29.SUPPORT efforts to provide local agencies with more flexibility and options to fund clean
water programs.
30.SUPPORT efforts to provide immunity to local public agencies for any liability for their clean-up
of contaminations on private lands.
Health Cage Issues
31.SUPPORT efforts to increase revenues and to contain mandated costs in the County's hospital
and clinics system.
32.OPPOSE efforts to weaken the health care safety net or reduce state health care spending,
that would result in shitting health care costs or responsibilities to the County.
33.SUPPORT efforts to increase funding for breast cancer and prostate cancer awareness, public
education and treatment and to ensure equitable allocation of resources for awareness and
education efforts among the County's public health departments.
34.SUPPORT efforts to streamline the Healthy Family program to simplify the application process
and reduce the dropout rate.
35.SUPPORT the development and institutionalization of a tracking system for use on utilization
and notification of Healthy Family substance abuse benefits for youths enrolled under
California's Health Family program.
3
36.SUPPORT efforts to require coverage of medically necessary alcohol and substance abuse
related disorder treatment on the same levels as other medical conditions in health care
service plans and disability insurance policies.
37.SPONSOR a resolution by the State Assembly and Senate urging the federal government to
more strictly regulate alcohol advertising targeted at youth.
Human Services Issues
38.SUPPORT RT efforts to increase County flexibility in use of CaIWORKs funds and in program
requirements in order to better support the transition of welfare depende=nt families 'from
welfare-to-work and self sufficiency, including, but not limited to, extending supportive services
beyond the current limit; enhancing supportive services; increasing diversion and early
intervention to obviate the need for aid; expanding the state earned income tax credit;
expanding job retention services; expanding the eligibility definition to 250% of the poverty
level; and exempting the hard-to-serve from welfare-to-work activities and the 20% exemption
or providing flexibility in the time limit (dependent upon terms and conditions of TANF
reauthorization)
39.SUPPORT efforts to ensure funding of child care for CaIWORKs and former CalWORKs
families at levels sufficient to meet demand.
40.SUPPORT efforts to reduce County costs for In-Home Supportive Services, including but not
limited to extending the required reassessment period (reduces administrative costs).
41.OPPOSE efforts to shift excess TANF funds or other allocations that would otherwise accrue
to County health and human services programs to subsidize the State's share of In-Home
Supportive Services costs.
42.SUPPORT efforts to eliminate the finger-imaging requirement for adult food stamp applicants,
recognizing that the new Electronic Benefits Transfer System will be a deterrent against fraud.
43.SUPPORT efforts to streamline the Medd-Cal eligibility redetermination process in order to
reduce administrative costs.
44.SUPPORT changes in State regulations to permit County Medi-Cal eligibility staff to enroll
children in the Healthy Families program.
45.SUPPORT elimination or extension of the sunset dates for the Youth Pilot Program (AB 1741)
which gives the County special status with the State in qualifying for waiver of regulations
and/or statutes.
Law and Justice System Issues
46.SUPPORT protection of County revenues derived from undesignated court fees (non AB
233/Trial Court Funding Act).
47.SPONSOR legislation to authorize the Sheriff to grant school credits to inmates.
4
..........I.................................................................................................I.......
...............................................................................................
..... .. ...
48.SUPPORT efforts to increase the sanctions andlor treatment mquirements for automobile
drivers responsible for traffic accidents who have previous driving under the influence
convictions or multiple suspensions of their licenses.
Animal Services Issues
49.SUPPORT efforts to protect local revenue sources designated for use by the Animal Services
Department; i.e., animal licensing, fines and fees.
50.SUPPORT efforts to protect or increase local control and flexibility over the scope and level of
animal services.
51.SUPPORT efforts to protect against unfunded mandates in animal services or mandates that
are not accompanied by specific revenue sources which completely offset the costs of the new
mandates, both when adopted and in future years.
52.SUPPORT efforts to ensure full funding of state animal services mandates, including defense
of the State Department of Finance's lawsuit against the State Commission on Mandates
regarding the State obligations for reimbursement of local costs for animal services incurred in
compliance with SB 1785.
53.SUPPORT efforts to protect and/or increase County flexibility to provide animal services
consistent with local needs and priorities.
54.SUPPORT efforts to preserve the integrity of existing County policy relating to Animal Services
(e.g., the Animal Control Ordinance and land use requirements).
5
Office of
COUNTY AUDITOR-CONTROLLER
Contra Costa County
Martinez,California
January 16,2004
To: Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema,District 2
Attn: Steve Dexter, Chief of Staff
From: Ken Corcoran,Auditor-Controller
By: Paul Abelson, Chief Accountant
Subject: Property Tax Information Request
Attached find the property tax information you requested via the CAO. It contains a table
showing the estimated allocations of each $1,000 of property tax allocated countywide,
by broad agency type,comparatively for three timefiameslscenarios:
1. Before ERAF (based on 1991-92 allocation formulas),
2. After ERAF 1 (based on 2003-04 allocation formulas), and
3. After ERAF 2 (basedon 2003-04 allocation formulas, adjusted for the Governor's
proposed $1.336 Billion shift).
If you have additional questions, my email is pabelgac.cccoun1y.us and my phone
number is 646-2233.
cc: John Gioia, Supervisor, District 1
Federal Glover, Supervisor, District 5
Millie Greenberg,Supervisor, District 3
Mark DeSaulnier, Supervisor, District 4
Bill Pollacek,Treasurer-Tax Collector
Gus Kramer,Assessor
Sara Huffman,Assistant County Administrator
Steve Ybarra, Assistant Auditor-Controller
Estimated Allocation of Each-$1,000 in PropeLty Tax CounbMide Average
Pre-ERAF* Post 'ERAF 1' ** Post 'ERAF 2' ***
County $ 244 $ 115 $ 88
Library 13 13 13
Special Districts 216 196 192
Cities 100 81 75
RDAs 82 107 102
Schools (includes ERAF) 345 488 530
00 $ 1.000
*Pre-ERAF-based on 1991/92 allocation formulas
**
Post'ERAF V-based on 2003/04 allocation formulas
*"*Post'ERAF 2'-based on 2003104 allocation formulas adjusted by the estimated impact of the
State's$1.336 billion proposed ERAF shift(if shared proportionally using 2003/04 shift/contribution amounts)
3 . ._VY
Pre-PostERA F l andERAF2RevenuesTransmittai.xis.xis 1/16/04