HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01162007 - SD.3 4 /
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ,"` r :• CONTRA
• COSTA
FROM: John Cullen, County Administrator o !�. :,` ,." '; COUNTY
n
DATE: January 16, 2007 �; _ _ ��V`4
�srA,coiin'�';
SUBJECT: 2007 State Legislative Platform
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION(S):
CONSIDER adopting a policy position in the Contra Costa County 2007 State Legislative Platform
that supports reduction in the 2/3 vote requirement for special taxes that fund high priority local
services.
BACKGROUND/REASON(S) FOR RECOMMENDATION(S):
Annually the Board of Supervisors considers its legislative platforms for the following year. On
December 19, 2006, the Board of Supervisors reviewed the proposed 2007 State Legislative
Platform. The District IV Supervisor-elect was not in attendance, however, pending her swearing in
scheduled for January.
One of the proposed General Revenue/Finance policy positions in the 2007 State Platform did not
receive majority support when it was presented. Therefore, the position is recommended for
reconsideration at this time by the full Bloard.
The proposed policy is: 10. SUPPORT reduction in the 2/3 vote requirement for special taxes
that fund high priority local services.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR_ MMENDATION OF BIOAFrOMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
UNANIMOUS ABSENT ) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: S NOES:-�r,1I ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ON MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact:Sara Hoffman-335-1090 �
ATTESTED � k�I(,e Lc) -T/.
JOHN CULLEN,CLERK OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
cc: CAO
Nielsen Merksamer(via CAO)
Dept Heads(via CAO)
BY, UTY
General Revenues/Finance Issues
As a political subdivision of the state, many of Contra Costa County's services and programs are the
result of state statute and regulation. The state also provides a substantial portion of the County's
revenues. However, the state has often used.its authority to shift costs to counties and to generally
put counties in the difficult position of trying to meet local service needs with inadequate resources.
While Proposition 1A provided some protections for counties, vigilance is necessary to protect the
fiscal integrity of the County.
1. SUPPORT the state's effort to balance its budget through actions that do not adversely affect
County revenues, services or ability to carry out its governmental responsibilities.
2. OPPOSE any state-imposed redistribution, reduction or use restriction on general purpose
revenue, sales taxes or property taxes unless financially beneficial to the County. (Note that a
redistribution of sales and property tax may be beneficial to Contra Costa County in the event
that sales tax growth continues to lag behind property tax growth.)
3. OPPOSE efforts to limit local authority over transient occupancy taxes (TOT).
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 Contra Costa County receives its fair share of state
allocations, including mental health funding under Proposition 63 and pass-through of federal
funds for anti-terrorism and homeland security measures. The state utilizes a variety of
methods to allocate funds among counties, at times detrimental to Contra Costa County. For
example, with Proposition 63 mental health funding, the Department had anticipated $12-16
million per year. The state allocation is only $7.1 million for the first 3 years, in part because
the homeless population was not considered in the allocation methodology.
6. 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.
7. SUPPORT continued efforts to reform the state/local relationship in a way that makes both
fiscal and programmatic sense for local government.
8. OPPOSE reductions in County-run State programs that shift responsibility or costs to the
County.
9. SUPPORT efforts to relieve California of the federal Child Support penalties without shifting
the cost of the penalties to the counties.
10. SUPPORT reduction in the 2/3 vote requirement for special taxes that fund high priority
local services.
11. SUPPORT efforts to authorize counties to impose forfeitures for violations of ordinances, as
currently authorized for cities. This would provide the County with the opportunity to require
deposits to assure compliance with specific ordinance requirements as well as retain the
deposit if the ordinance requirements are not met. Currently, the County is limited to imposing
fines which are limited to only $�00 - $200 for the first violation, which has proven to be an
ineffective deterrent in some cases.
12. 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.
13. SUPPORT efforts to reduce County costs for Workers Compensation, including the ability to
control excessive medical utilization and litigation. Worker's Compensation costs are
significant, diverting funds that could be utilized for County services. Worker's Compensation
should provide a safety net for injured employees, for a reasonable period of time, and not
provide an incentive for employees to claim more time than medically necessary.
2
14. SUPPORT state actions that maximize federal revenues for County-run services and
programs.
15. SUPPORT legislative compliance with both the intent and language of Proposition 1A.
16. SUPPORT full State funding of all statewide special elections, including recall elections.
17. OPPOSE efforts of the state to avoid state mandate claims through the practice of repealing
the statues, then re-enacting them. In 2005, the State Legislature repealed sections of the
Brown Act that were subject to mandate claims, then re-enacted the same language pursuant
to a voter-approval initiative, and therefore, not subject to mandate claims.
18. REQUEST the Board of Equalization (BOE) provide more detailed and accurate data on the
Bradley-Burns local sales and use tax revenue administered by the BOE on behalf of local
governments.
19. SUPPORT strong Public Utilities Commission (PUC) oversight of state-franchised providers of
cable and telecommunications services, including rigorous review of financial reports and
protection of consumer interests. AB 2987 (Nunez), Chapter 700, statutes of 2006 transferred
regulatory oversight authority from local government to the PUC.
20. SUPPORT timely, full payments to Counties by the State for programs operated on their
behalf or by mandate. The State currently owes counties approximately $252 million in State
General Funds for mental health costs dating back to FY 2003-04 and continuing through FY
2005-06.
i
3