Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03281989 - 1.34 , O 1-034 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORSs----L Phil Batchelor •�1_ � s`• Contra Costa FROM: County Administrator March 20 1989 ' <`° �....,__. v County DATE: oorTq-couK`� cP SUBJECT: Status Report on 1989 Legislative Program SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION• Acknowledge receipt of this report from the County Administrator on the Board' s Legislative Program for 1989 and request the County Administrator to prepare a similar report in June 1989. BACKGROUND: On December 6, 1988, the Board of Supervisors approved its 1989. Legislative Program. Now that the deadline has passed for the introduction of most legislation for 1989 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. 1 . Authorize counties to levy an "override" on property taxes to fund the County contribution to the retirement fund as a voter-approved indebtedness. 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 a part 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) CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: &Q11-4hX RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE X APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): YA&hA61Y& ACTION OF BOARD ON March 28, 1989y APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED �]� OTHER 12 VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE —A UNANIMOUS(ABSENT AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. CC: County Administrator ATTESTED MAR 2 8 1989 Les Spahnn, Jackson/Bari sh & Associates PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF All Department Heads (via CAO) SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Legislative Delegation (via CAO) BY DEP M382 (10/88) UTY r. Page 2 1 . (continued) Assemblyman Campbell has introduced this legislation for the Board of Supervisors as AB 1202. The bill is awaiting assignment to its initial policy committee. 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 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. 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. It appears unlikely that either the Senate or Assembly Judiciary Committees will recommend creation of any more judges in 1989. However, Contra Costa County' s bill is available and will hopefully receive favorable consideration in 1990 . 4 . Increase Tipping Fee to Pay for Solid Waste Public Education Programs. The Board of Supervisors has made it clear that this is a priority item in order to provide funding for a solid waste public education program. The intent here 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) 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. Assemblywoman 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. e Page 3 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 in AB 558, but broadened to include staff from other disciplines. Assemblyman Campbell has introduced AB 899 for this purpose. Social Services Department staff, in conjunction with Mental Health and Probation staff are currently developing amendments to the legislation as introduced. The bill is scheduled for its first policy hearing in Assemblyman Bates ' Human Services Committee in April. 6 . Reintroduce "Buy-America" Legislation Similar to SB 2185 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. 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. Page 4 7. (continued) Conversations have been held with the Administration in an effort to determine what type of legislation the Governor is willing to sign. Assemblyman Clute has indicated a willingness to work with this County on legislation which, will provide a funding source for an abandoned vehicle program. 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. 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 per 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 ) G Page 5 10. (continued) AB 281 has been introduced by Assemblyman Frazee for this purpose at the request of the Court Clerks ' Association. While Assemblyman Cortese has also introduced AB 1638 for this purpose on behalf of this County, we will probably use AB 1638 for another purpose if it appears that AB 281 will pass without any difficulty. 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. We are working with Senator Robbins ' office in an effort to convince Senator Robbins that we currently lose money on financial responsibility law citations because of the number of such citations which are dismissed when the defendant produces proof of insurance coverage. Assemblyman Campbell has introduced a bill for the County so that we have legislation available for this purpose. Once all details are worked out with Senator Robbins, we will determine who will carry the legislation for the County. 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 is currently on referral to the Senate ,judiciary Committee. Page 6 I 13 . Waive Two-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 Company within the current two-year time limit. This time limit helps to protect residential homeowners from the sometimes slow process of government. Eventually, the assessment 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. 14. Allow Public Member on Parole Board to have an Alternate. Under current law, the membership of a county board of parole 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. 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 in those counties. It is recommended that these two counties be authorized to 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) Page 7 15. (continued) 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 point. 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 they pay. There is so much opposition from the Legislature to adding more penalty assessments that this issue is not given much chance of passage this year. We will, however, pursue this and other penalty assessments and fine and forfeiture enhancements to the extent that we are able to do so. 17 . Reintroduce SB 458 to Allow Administrative Fee on Certain Vehicle Code Actions in Contra Costa County. r•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 had its initial hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 14, 1989 and was put on consent, providing it was amended to apply to all counties in the State. Senator Petris accepted this amendment and we do not anticipate any difficulty with this bill through the Senate. 6 c Page 8 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 BARTD and the Municipal Court Administrator requests authority to adjust these percentages with the Kensington Community Services District. Staff are still reviewing the implications of such an adjustment, but if no problems are identified, it would be appropriate to seek such authority. (See PC 1463 ( 1) (c) This is probably not a controversial measure and will be inserted into other related legislation during the session. 19. Require DMV to Accept Holds on all Traffic Offenses for Failure to Pay Fine. Under current law, DMV accepts driver' s 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 driver' s 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 driver' s 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. Conversations are still underway with DMV on their willingness to accept this type of legislation. If they can be convinced to accept this legislation, we will pursue it either this session or in 1990. 20. Increase Civil Automation and Micrographics Fee from $1. 00 to an Amount Acceptable to the Legislature. 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. Page 9 20. (continued) Discussions are underway with the lobbyist for the bill collectors, who oppose all increases to the civil filing fee in Municipal Court. 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 increassing the filing fee in Municipal Court. It is the County' s intent to use AB 1638 which has been introduced by Assemblyman Cortese for this purpose once the final language of a compromise has been achieved. 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 we expect to ask the Board to support in the near future. 28. Relieve Small School Districts of Cost of Special Education Students Placed by Another District, particularly Transportation Costs. The County Administrator ' s Office is working with the Superintendent of Schools, the School Districts in East County, and the Social Services Department in an effort to define the precise nature of this problem which is placing an enormous strain on the small East County School Districts. Once staff is able to determine what solutions the Superintendent is willing to support, it will be possible to return recommendations to the Internal Operations Committee, to whom this item is currently on referral. Depending on their subsequent report to the Board, the Board may wish to consider whether to sponsor legislation in this area. Assemblyman Campbell has introduced AB 300 for this purpose. A meeting is being held March 20 between Supervisor Torlakson, Assemblyman Campbell, and the Superintendents of the East County School Districts to attempt to reach agreement on what needs to be done to resolve this problem. I Page 10 29 . Clean-Up to SB 1974 of 1988 ( 1988 Muni Court Pay and 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. 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. We are finalizing amendments to this legislation which we expect will pass without controversy. This office will provide the Board of Supervisors with a further status report on this subject during June 1989.