HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06111985 - 1.28 TO!' BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Contra
FROM: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator
Costa
DATE: June 6 1985 Cou�
SUBJECT: I
Legislation: AB 807 (Campbell)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION•
Adopt a position of "support if amended" for AB 807 by
Assemblyman Robert Campbell and authorize the Chairwoman to send
a letter to Assemblyman Campbell detailing the amendments sought
by the Board.
BACKGROUND: .
AB 807 is Assemblyman Campbell's proposal to secure a stable
funding base for the Association of Bay Area Governments and
other Councils of Government (COG's) . The decline of federal
(e.g. 11701" planning grants) , and State financial support
combined with the inability of local governments to pay
substantial membership fees following Proposition 13 , has left
COG's with substantially diminished revenues. The Association of
Bay Area Governments (ABAG) has been subsisting on grants and
State funds for special purpose projects while basic work, such
as maintaining the regional plan, has been neglected. Recent
proposals by ABAG to secure stable funding through regional taxes
or fees have not attracted much support.
The County has previously opposed the direct funding of Councils
of Government by the State because of previous experiences with
state and federal agencies imposing single-purpose and arbitrary
requirements on the Bay Area when they provided the greater share
of ABAG's finances in the 19701s. However, local governments can
no longer provide adequate funding for COG's. Furthermore, it
would be equitable for the State to provide a share of the stable
funding base that the COG's are seeking because there is a
statewide interest in COG' s providing regional forums and
maintaining regional plans, and there is justification for
dependable State support for specific COG programs (i.e. ,
population/housing data and regional clearinghouse functions)
which are performed for the State. Under the circumstances, the
Board of Supervisors may now wish to support the concept of
direct State funding provided that it is "pass-through" funding
for general programs and leaves de facto control of the COG' s in
the hands of the member local governments. The bill contains an
appropriation of $5 million for the 1985-86 fiscal year.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
X RECOMMENDATION';OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
_X APPROVE OTHER
r
i
SIG NATURES) 14&
ACTION OF BOARD ON June 1 1 1985 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AYES: _ NOES: AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
County Administrator
CC: Community Dev. Director ATTESTED
Assemblyman Robt. Campbell
Assemblyman John Vasconcellos
PH)LiZATCHELOR. CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
Chairman, Ways & Means SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Assemblymen William Baker, Phil 'Isenberg
M382/7.88 BY i ��.� , DEPUTY
Page 2
AB 807 (Campbell)
However, the bill should clarify its rationale for distinguishing
between COG' s which would be eligible for State support and those
which would not be eligible. Reliance on Government Code Section
65040.4, pertaining to State-identified "regional planning
districts" , does not appear to be wholly adequate because these
districts seem to be seldom used for any purpose. Under other
criteria, a multi-county joint powers agency, such as the Delta
Advisory Planning Council, might be eligible for funds to update
its Delta Action Plan, and planning for the Delta area is
certainly a subject of statewide interest.
Since the matter of eligibility is unclear, it is also unclear
how much money any COG would receive. Obviously, no one wants to
discover later that any COG received a "windfall". The bill
should enable a reader to determine the general amounts that any
eligible COG would receive.
The Community Development Director recommends that the Board of
Supervisors support AB 807, but request that the following
changes to the bill be considered by Assemblyman Campbell:
a. That the bill clarify the matters of eligibility and extent
of financial support discussed above.
b. That the bill specify that its intent is to provide
pass-through monies to metropolitan area Councils of
Governments to at least the extent of 85% of its annual
appropriation, (as provided for in the bill, although we
would prefer 100%) , to provide a component of stable funding
for COG' s.
C. That the bill identify the maintenance of comprehensive
regional plans as the primary justification for State
financial assistance (Note: since the demise of federal
11701" financial assistance, regional plans have not been
kept up) . This would essentially result in local dues being
used for general support of the organizations and for the
support of their forum and coordination activities.
d. That the bill identify ( 1) the support of population and
related economic information, and ( 2) the support of
regional clearinghouse activities, as two State-mandated
programs warranting State financial support.
e. That the bill eliminate the list of specific reporting
subjects now contained in Section 65606 because these would
tend to promote special-purpose planning by virtue of their
mention, and priorities will vary from time-to-time and from
place-to-place. The list, for example, does not include
transportation congestion which is currently a prominent
issue in Contra Costa County.
The bill is scheduled to be heard in the Assembly Ways and Means
Committee on June 12.