Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06061986 - 1.74 n^- Board of Supervisors ,;`� s L .a 1.74 FROM: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator ° °s A � DATE: May 31, 1989 r --o- SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT ON 1989 LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM Specific Request(s) or Recommendations(s) & Background & Justification RECOMMENDATION: Acknowledge receipt of this second status report from the County Administrator on the Board's Legislative Program for 1989 and request the County Administrator to prepare a similar report in August 1989. BACKGROUND: On December 6, 1988 the Board of Supervisors approved its 1989 Legislative Program. Now that many bills have been heard in their policy committee it is timely to report to the Board on the status of those measures which were considered of the highest priority for adoption in 1989. What follows is a restatement of each of some 23 items from the Board's 1989 legislative program along with the status of each.The current status of each item is in bold to distinguish it from the original statement included in the Board's legislative program for 1989. 1. Authorize counties to levy an "override" on property taxes to fund the County contribution to the retirement fund as a voter-approved indebtedness. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: 1C Recommendation of County Administrator Recommendation of Board Committee X Approve Other: Signature(s):��� Q �� �✓u�Z Action of Board on: June 6, 1989 Approved as Recommended Other Vote o Supervisors I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND Unanimous(Absent ) CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND Ayes: Noes: ENTERED ON HE MINUTES OF THE BOARD Absent: Abstain: OF SUPERVISORS ON DATE SHOWN. cc: County Administrator ATTESTED JUN 6 1989 Les Spahnn,Jackson(Barish&Associates PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD All Department Heads(via CAO) SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Legislative Delegation(Via CAO) CLVM:eh BY: Deputy Clerk legsrept i Current law allowed counties to levy an "override" on property taxes only during the 1982- 1983 and 1983-1984 fiscal years. In order to give the Board of Supervisors an opportunity to determine whether they wish to impose all or apart of the County's voter-approved retirement costs as an override on the property tax it is necessary to either repeal the sunset date or move it ahead into the future a year or so to provide the Board of Supervisors with a"window" within which to make such a decision. (See R & T 97.65) Assemblyman Campbell has introduced this legislation for the Board of Supervisors as AB 1202. The bill has passed the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee and is awaiting action on the Assembly floor. 2. Repeal Oakland Zoo funding in Trial Court Funding Act. This provision, which was added to the trial court funding bill the last evening of the 1988 Session,has nothing to do with the Trial Court Funding Program and should not have been included in it. The requirement that the Board of Supervisors provide $50,000 a year to the Oakland Zoo preempts the responsibility of the Board of Supervisors to decide priorities for use of the General Fund money freed up by the Trial Court Funding Act. When combined with the requirement that the County transfer a portion of its property tax revenue to certain cities,the Trial Court Funding Act as it affects this County makes the whole program less attractive. It appears unlikely that the County will be successful in entirely repealing this provision. However,the County is considering other efforts to increase revenue in other areas which will offset the loss of revenue in this area.No specific action has been taken in this regard since our last status report to the Board. 3. Add one Municipal Court Judge to the Delta Municipal Court. This proposal is currently under discussion with the Municipal and Superior Court Judges as a part of the negotiations under which the judges will agree to opt-in to the Trial Court Funding Act. It is placed here as a high priority item on the assumption that these negotiations will eventually prove successful and the County will opt-in to the Trial Court Funding Program. Otherwise,the Board of Supervisors should reserve the right to remove this as a priority item if these negotiations are not successful or if trial court funding is withdrawn by the Legislature. (See GC 73341) Senator Boatwright has introduced SB 468 for this purpose and Assemblyman Isenberg has introduced AB 1908 for this purpose. SB 468 has passed the Senate Judiciary Committee and is currently on the Suspense File in the Senate Appropriations Committee. AB 1908 is being held at this time in the Assembly Judiciary Committee until the Committee determines whether and how many new judges will be created in 1989. 4. Increase tipping fee to pay for solid waste public education ro rg ams The Board of Supervisors has made it clear that this is_a priority item in order to provide fundingfora solid waste public education program. The intenthere is simply to obtain state approval to include public education programs within those programs which are a legitimate expenditure from the current tipping fee. At present this fee can be used only for the planning and preparation of the solid waste management plan. A separate tipping fee is available for the enforcement actions necessary to insure that sanitary disposal site operators are properly complying with current state and county regulations. (See GC 66784.3) - 2 - Assemblywoman Eastin has been approached about amending current legislation in order to permit the tipping fee to be used to fund`'a solid waste public education program. As- semblywoman Eastin has asked for more details regarding the type of public education program the County has in mind in order to determine whether legislation is, in fact,required in order to permit expenditures for this purpose. The Community Development Department staff are drafting an outline of the type of public education program which we have in mind. Once this is completed we will forward it to Assemblywoman Eastin. 5. Include Contra Costa County in AB 558 pilots to test the value of using foster care funds to prevent placements. - Current law enacted in 1988 allows three counties,including Solano County,to use a portion of their foster care funds to provide an intensified social work program designed to prevent the need to place a child in out-of-home care. If these efforts+are successful there should be sufficient savings in foster care funds to offset the cost of the additional staff. The Social Service and Probation Departments hope to design a multi-agency,interdisciplinary team which can provide the same type of intensified support services for a family,but using a variety of professional staff from the Social Service,Probation,Schools and Mental Health Departments. The intent here is to have Contra Costa designated as a pilot county to test this concept,similar to that provided for inAB 558,but broadened to include staff from other disciplines. Assemblyman Campbell has introduced AB 899 for this purpose. AB 899 has passed the Assembly Floor and is currently awaiting assignment to the Senate Health & Human Services Committee. Conversations are underway with the State Department of Social Services to determine the exact scope of the bill. 6. Reintroduce "Buy-America" Legislation similar to SB2185 of 1988. In 1988 legislation was introduced at the request of the Board of Supervisors to allow local governments and the state to require the use of domestic products in major construction projects like highways,bridges and the West County Justice Center. The bill ran into trouble with opposition from a number of domestic firms that purchase semi-finished products from foreign suppliers and then finish it locally. SB 2185 was not drafted carefully enough to permit such situations to be included within the definition of"domestic"products. If the language is more carefully drawn to permit this type of situation we believe we have a reasonable chance of getting it passed. Each member of this County's legislative delegation has been approached about introducing this legislation. Each has declined to carry the legislation. While we will continue to pursue legislation in this area, it does not appear likely that we will be successful this year. No further activity is planned in this area during 1989. 7. Provide Funding for an Abandoned Vehicle Program. The County, and most other cities and counties in the state, are caught in a bind in terms of obtaining state funding for an abandoned vehicle program. The Legislature is apparently willing to pass a statewide, mandated $1.00 surcharge on vehicle registrations to pay for an abandoned vehicle program. However,it appears likely that the Governor will veto such legislation on the basis that it is a tax increase. The Governor is more likely to sign legislation which authorizes each county to impose such a surcharge. However,such an optional"tax"requires approval of the voters. Since it seems unlikely that the Governor will sign any surcharge on vehicle registrations which does not require a vote of the people it is recommended that the County press for legislation which provides for such an option,either sponsoring such legislation or providing substantial support to CSAC or other counties and cities who may sponsor such legislation. - 3 - Assemblyman Steve Clute has introduced AB 1441 at our request for this purpose. AB 1441 has passed the Assembly Transportation Committee and is currently pending a hearing in the Assembly Ways and Means Committee. We are continuing to attempt to determine exactly what type of measure has the best chance of being signed by the Governor. 8. Increase Excise Tax on Alcoholic Beverages. The Board of Supervisors has clearly indicated its intent to try for legislation in 1989 that will provide for at least a modest increase in the excise tax on alcoholic beverages. It is believed that such legislation has a reasonable chance of passage only with the support of the alcoholic beverage industry. Their opposition will more than likely doom the County's efforts. The Board of Supervisors has,therefore,directed the County Administrator to seek a meeting with representatives of the alcoholic beverage industry in an effort to'reach a compromise on legislation. If such a compromise proves not to be possible the Board of Supervisors may wish to consider pursuing an initiative campaign in 1990. This item is listed here primarily for the purpose of attempting to reach such a compromise. A major effort probably cannot be successfully mounted in the Legislature without such a compromise. This item,which is currently on referral to the Internal Operations Committee,is being pursued along the lines of either legislation this year or an initiative campaign in 1990. Assemblyman Connelly is leading the initiative effort. We will continue to track activity in this area and will report regularly to the Internal Operations Committee. There are currently several pieces of legislation pending which would increase the excise tax on alcoholic beverages. Among these are the following: AB 1712 (Harris)- as amended May 2, 1989 would authorize counties, upon a 2/3 vote of the board of supervisors,to impose a transactions and use tax upon alcoholic beverages not to exceed 3%, to provide funds for essential or customary public services. AB 2051 (Connelly)- As introduced, which is only a spot bill at this point which makes no substantive changes in law. AB 2066 (Killea)- As amended May 9, 1989 would increase the tax on beer from $1.24 per barrel to $12.40 per barrel,effective July 1, 1990. It would increase the tax on wine from $0.01 per gallon to$0.50 per gallon,effective July 1, 1990. It would increase the tax on distilled spirits from$2.00 per gallon to$3.25 per gallon;effective July 1,1990. The bill designates one- half of the proceeds of the increased tax for alcohol and drug abuse prevention,education and treatment, trauma care and law enforcement. AB 2441 (Cortese)-As introduced would increase the tax on wine from $0.01 per gallon to $0.10 per gallon. ACA 41 (Cortese)- As introduced would exempt from state and county "Gann" limits the proceeds of increased excise taxes on alcoholic beverages levied on and after January 1, 1990. SB 1243 (Garamendi)-As introduced is a spot bill which makes only technical changes to the tax on alcoholic beverages. SB 1597 (Alquist)- As amended May 11, 1989 the bill is identical to AB 2441 (Cortese). - 4 - 9. Increase amount of liability for causing unnecessary emergency response. Under current law, an individual who causes an emergency response by fire,medical or law enforcement personnel because of the abuse of alcoholic beverages while operating an automobile or boat can be billed for the actual cost of the.response up to$1000 for incident. It has been suggested that$1000 may not be an adequate figure. It is therefore recommended that the Board of Supervisors seek an increase to $1000 per emergency response agency up to a total not to exceed $5000 per incident. (See GC 53155). Senator Royce, who authored the original emergency response liability legislation, has introduced SB 318 for this purpose. As a result of a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 14 it is likely that the bill will be amended in the Senate Judiciary Committee in order to clarify that routine traffic stops do not justify a billing for emergency response liability. This is acceptable to this County because we do not bill for routine traffic stops as some jurisdictions apparently do. 10. Increase small claims certified mailing fee to reflect actual cost of mailing Under current law a court often mails documents for the plaintiff or defendant using certified mail. The fee which can be charged for this purpose'is currently$3.00. This does not cover the actual mailing cost and administrative costs of the court "staff. Therefore, it is recommended that this fee be increased to a figure which will reimburse the court for actual mailing costs, rounded to the next higher dollar figure and then indexed for future increases in mailing costs. (See CCP 117.14) AB 281 has been introduced by Assemblyman Frazee for this purpose at the request of the Court Clerk's Association. While Assemblyman Cortese has also introduced AB 1638 for this purpose on behalf of this County,it is no longer necessary to hold this bill for this purpose. Assemblyman Harris amended this provision into his AB 9, which has now passed and been signed into law. The bill had an urgency clause and therefore became effective May 10, 1989 when it was signed by the Governor. 11. Allow administrative fee on dismissal of financial responsibility to see if it reduces caseload. Under current law, a driver is required to carry proof of insurance in his or her vehicle at all times. If a driver is found by a law enforcement officer to not have appropriate proof of insurance in the vehicle when the driver is stopped for any other reason the driver can be cited. However, if the driver has insurance but simply did not have it available in the vehicle the driver need only produce proof of the fact that he or she has insurance and the citation is normally dismissed. This causes a great deal of work for the court personnel and the entire procedure produces no revenue for the court. It is therefore suggested that a$10.00 administrative fee be authorized for cases where the citation is dismissed to see whether the knowledge that a driver will at least have to pay a$10.00 fee even if the citation is dismissed would be a deterrent to failure to carry proper proof of insurance coverage and thereby reduce the burden on the courts. It is suggested that this might even be a pilot project with Contra Costa County serving as the pilot to see whether the administrative fee reduces the number of citations that are issued. Assemblyman Campbell has introduced AB 2488 on behalf of this County for this purpose. We are continuing to explore a variety of options for obtaining this administrative fee. One issue which has to be resolved is that the entire financial responsibility program sunsets as of January 1, 1990. If the program is not going to be continued then there is no need for our administrative fee. If the sunset date is eliminated or extended we will attempt to have the provisions of AB 2488 amended into such legislation. - 5 - 12. Allow County to recover costs of successfully prosecuting a civil or criminal violation of nuisances. Under current law if an individual repeatedly violates nuisance ordinances County Counsel can take the individual to court on civil or criminal charges. However, if the County is successful there is no way for the County to recover from these deliberate,repeat violators the often extensive administrative and legal costs which are sustained by the County. These costs can discourage the County from prosecuting such cases. It is,therefore,suggested that counties(and cities,if they wish) be authorized to recover their reasonable administrative and legal costs when they successfully prosecute such a case. (Add GC 25845.5) Senator Boatwright has introduced SB 618 for this purpose. The bill has been amended to allow the County to recover treble damages instead of having to document actual costs. In this form the bill has passed the Senate Floor and is currently on referral to the Assembly Local Government Committee. 13. Waive 2-year time limit on complex assessment appeals During the 1988 legislative session the County had legislation introduced which would have allowed a waiver of the two-year time limit within which assessment appeals must be processed where the amount of the assessment which is in dispute exceeds$10 million. This legislation grew out of a concern that the County would be unable to complete processing of the assessment appeals filed by Tosco Oil Co. within the current two-year time limit. This time limit helps to protect residential homeowners from the sometimes slow process of government. Eventually the assess- ment appeals were settled to the County's satisfaction.The issue still remains unresolved,however. While a two-year limit is appropriate for residential and most commercial property there are difficult and highly technical assessment issues facing such property as oil refineries and other large industrial firms which often cannot be resolved within the two-year statutory period. It is therefore suggested that the County seek authority to waive the two-year limit where the amount of the assessment in dispute exceeds $10 million. This will exclude all but the largest and most complex of such appeals. Since the Tosco assessment appeal has been resolved successfully most legislators are unwilling to carry this legislation at this time. We are currently continuing to work on this item, but it appears unlikely that we will be successful this year. No further action on this item is anticipated during 1989. 14. Allow public member on parole board to have an alternate Under current law the membership of a County Board of Patrol Commissioners consists of the Sheriff,the County Probation Officer and a public member selected by the Presiding Judge. The Sheriff and the County Probation Officer have the opportunity under the law to appoint alternates from their offices to represent them at meetings of the County Parole Board. No such authority exists for the public member. While this has not been a problem in the past,the inception of the maximum supervision parole program in 1987 has increased the number of parole applications and thereby the number and length of meetings which have to be held. It is therefore recommended that the Presiding Judge be authorized to select not only the public member but an alternate for him or her as well. This would relieve the burden on public members who have other responsibilities and cannot necessarily dedicate several half days a month to this task. (See PC 3085). This is seen as a non-controversial measure which we will place in another bill at an appropriate time during the session. - 6 - 15. Partial Block Grant for Temporary Court Commissioners. Under current law only two counties have authority to appoint temporary court commissioners under a tightly supervised and structured program. These counties are Contra Costa and Napa. Under the Trial Court Funding Act counties are entitled to a block grant of$212,000 for each judicial position which is authorized by the Legislature. However, Contra Costa and Napa Counties are not entitled to any reimbursement for the temporary court commissioner positions which are authorized by the Legislature for those counties. It is recommended that these two counties be authorized a partial block grant payment based on the proportion of a full-time position which is represented by the actual number of hours which the temporary court commissioners work in a year. (See GC 73362.1). There will be cleanup legislation to the Trial Court Funding Act this year and we will attempt to have this provision added to such legislation. There is no point to try to carry separate legislation on this subject at this time. 16. Extend Courthouse Construction fee of$2 per$10 of filing fee to small claims and civil cases. Under current law persons found guilty of vehicle code violations pay most of the penalty assessments for the courthouse construction fund. And yet, these individuals often use the courthouse the least of all violators,particularly in the municipal court. Many such violators never appear in court but nevertheless pay a penalty assessment to assist with the construction of the .courthouse facilities for the County. Current law places no such assessment on civil claimants and small claims claimants all of whom, by definition, use the courthouse facilities regularly. It is therefore suggested that the current courthouse construction penalty assessment of$2.00 for each $10.00 of fine be imposed on civil and small claims claimants by charging them $2.00 for each $10.00 of filing fees they12ay. Senator Alquist has introduced SB 430 to provide that the Board of Supervisors can impose a surcharge on civil filing fees of not more than$50. SB 430, which was originally only for Santa Clara County has been amended to allow any County to take advantage of this provision, which previously has been available on to San Francisco. SB 430 has passed the Senate Floor and is currently assigned to the Assembly Judiciary Committee. 17. Re-introduce SB 458 to allow administrative fee on certain vehicle code actions in Contra Costa County. In 1986 legislation was introduced to allow Alameda County to impose a municipal court administrative assessment of not to exceed $30.00 to cover the cost of recording and maintaining a record of convictions for vehicle code violations and the cost of notifying the DMV. In addition this legislation authorized Alameda County to establish a fee in both the Municipal Court and Superior Court for the processing of accounts receivable for fines owed in criminal cases, not to exceed$30.00 Contra Costa asked to be added to this legislation. The author agreed. However, so many counties asked to be added that the author eventually allowed the bill to be made applicable statewide. It, thereby, lost some critical support in the Legislature and in order to get it passed the author amended the bill back to include only Alameda County, although the author had agreed to leave Contra Costa County in the bill. The legislation was eventually enacted with only Alameda County included. In an effort to correct this oversight the author introduced SB 458 in 1987. This legislation never went anywhere and the County still needs to have the authority, currently granted only to San Diego and Alameda Counties, to impose these assessments. (See GC 72062). Senator Petris has introduced SB 358 for this purpose. This bill has passed the Senate Floor and is presently on referral to the Assembly Public Safety Committee where it is scheduled for a hearing on May 30, 1989. - 7 - 18. Amend 1463 PC dealing with Kensington to allow for local agreement to alter percentage of split_in fines and forfeitures. Under current law the percentage of fees, fines and forfeitures that go to cities and counties are specified. Local jurisdictions are able to alter these percentages by mutual agreement. No such authority exists to alter the percentage split that goes to -a special district like the Kensington Community Services District that provides law enforcement services. Authority exists to adjust these percentages with BART and the Municipal Court Administrator requests authority to adjust these percentages with the Kensington Community Services District. (See PC 1463 (1)(c)). This provision,which we do not think is controversial,will be amended into another bill at some point this session if at all possible. 19. Require DMV to accept Holds on all traffic offenses for failure to pay fine Under current law DMV accepts Drivers' License holds on the more serious vehicle code offenses for failure to pay a fine or otherwise to comply with a court order. The only alternative a Judge has under current law for less serious offenses is to issue a bench warrant,a much more serious action than simply refusing to renew a Drivers' License until all fines are cleared. This leaves us with a situation where a Judge may have to issue a bench warrant for a muffler violation whereas a speeding ticket which is not paid results only in a hold on the Drivers'License. We would like to determine the willingness of DMV to accept holds on all vehicle code violations,thereby eliminating the need for many bench warrants and establishing a more consistent penalty for failure to pay a fine. If DMV is willing we would like them to join us in sponsoring legislation to require DMV to accept holds on all vehicle code violations. Senator Beverly has introduced SB 1002 for this purpose. While SB 1002 exempts some vehicle code violations such as pedestrian and bicycle violations, the substance of what was included in the Board's legislative program for this item is included in SB 1002. SB 1002 has passed the Senate Floor and is currently on referral to the Assembly Transportation Committee. 20. Increase civil automation and micrographics fee from $1.00 to an amount acceptable to the Lecislature. Under law in effect until August of 1988 the Board of Supervisors was able to increase the fee which is charged on civil filings to pay for micrographics conversion and automation of court records. Some counties apparently abused this right and pushed up the fee to unacceptable levels. As a result, at the end of the last session of the Legislature, a bill was passed which removed this authority from the Board of Supervisors. In Contra Costa County this fee was at$8.00. The change in law returned this fee to the statutory maximum of $1.00. This fee is inadequate to finance the micrographics and automation which is required in the courts. It is, therefore, suggested that the County sponsor legislation which will increase this fee under legislative control to whatever level the Legislature is willing to accept, hopefully to about $8.00. We have had Assemblyman Cortese amend AB 1638 to provide for increases in the micrographics and civil automation fees. Final amendments are still being made to the bill, which is currently pending in the Assembly Judiciary Committee. We believe that we have reached an agreement on a compromise package which will increase the revenue to the Civil Automation and Micrographics Fund without increasing the filing fee in Municipal Court by making the increases in Small Claims Court on those firms which file more than 12 claims a year. While this will not generate as much money as an increase in the micrographics fee itself, it is a compromise which the Municipal Court Administrator believes he can live with. By reaching a compromise on this issue we have a much better chance of having it enacted. - 8 - 21. Request a study of the whole problem of how to properly dispose of recycled motor oil and request that recommendations be made to the Legislature for future action. The Board had originally requested that legislation be sponsored to impose a surcharge on the sale of motor oil to pay for recycling programs designed to properly dispose of used motor oil. The County's lobbyist has indicated that this proposal will generate substantial opposition from the petroleum industry and is therefore unlikely to be passed by the Legislature. An alternative which has been suggested is to have the Legislature request a study by the Legislative Analyst or other appropriate body to determine the extent of the problem and develop recommendations for future legislative action. This appears to be the action which is most likely to receive legislative support and is therefore recommended as an interim measure, leading to further legislation in a year or so after adequate documentation of the extent of the problem is gathered. We are preparing a Resolution requesting a study as suggested above. Senator Petris has also introduced legislation (SB 1200) authorizing a grant program for used oil recycling programs which the Board is now on record as supporting. SB 1200 is currently on referral to the Senate Appropriations Committee. 28. Relieve small school districts of cost of special education students placed by another district, particularly transportation costs. As requested by the Board of Supervisors, the County Administrator's Office set up a meeting between Assemblyman Campbell, Supervisor Torlakson and the superintendents of the East County school districts. Assemblyman Campbell indicated that AB 300 had been introduced at the request of this County in order to address this situation. At the conclusion of the meeting the superintendents agreed that they would provide Assemblyman Campbell's staff with additional data to support their need for additional transportation funding for special education children. There does not appears to be anything further for the Board of Supervisors or the County Administrator's Office to do on this issue at this time,although we will continue to follow AB 300. AB 300 is currently on referral to the Assembly Ways and Means Committee. 29. Clean-Up to SB 1974 of 1988 (1988 Muni Court Pay & Staffing Bill) to remove references to the Marshal. When the Marshal/Sheriff consolidation legislation was enacted earlier this year it left in statute the determination of the pay and staffing for classifications in the Marshal's Office. Now that the consolidation has been completed under the Sheriff there is no need for the state law to fix the pay and staffing for those positions that were previously in the Marshal's Office. A fairly simple change in legislation will be pursued that will clean-up this issue. 30. Municipal Court Pay & Staffing Bill. Each year the Board of Supervisors must sponsor a Municipal Court Pay and Staffing Bill that allows the Legislature to fix the staffing and pay for employees in the Municipal Court. This Legislation is generally not controversial and the County Administrator will again prepare such legislation for introduction by a member of this County's delegation. This Legislation will probably be combined with the clean-up to the Marshal/Sheriff consolidation discussed above so that all of the changes to the staffing and pay for the Municipal Courts can be handled in a single piece of legislation. - 9 - Senator Boatwright has introduced SB 305 to address both the changes to remove the references to the Marshal's office and to make other changes to the Municipal Court Pay and Staffing legislation to reflect decisions already made by the Board of Supervisors as well as the terms of the agreement with the Courts over the Trial Court Funding Act legislation. Final amendments for this bill have been forwarded to Senator Boatwright. SB 305 has passed the Senate Floor and is currently on referral to the Assembly Judiciary Committee. This office will provide the Board of Supervisors with a further status report on this subject during August, 1989 after the Legislature recesses for their Summer break. - 10 -