Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05221990 - 2.5 a.s THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on May 22 , 1990 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: - SEE VOTE BELOW - ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ SUBJECT: City/County Revenue Committee Status Report The Board received the attached report dated May 22, 1990 from the City/County Revenue Committee relative to activities of the Committee and the concept of a Council of Governments to address certain Countywide issues. Supervisor Tom Torlakson commented on the proposal to form a Council of Governments, composed of representatives of the Board of Supervisors and each city, that would have the ability to coordinate and implement services more efficiently and with independent taxing authority. Supervisor Robert Schroder advised that while he supports the formation of a Council of Governments, he opposes the concept of an independent taxing authority. Supervisor Sunne McPeak expressed agreement and stated that a pooling of resources and joint allocation of funds might be a better approach. She moved to amend the recommendation to delete the concept of an independent taxing authority. Supervisor Nancy Fanden seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Schroder, McPeak, Fanden NOES: Supervisor Torlakson ABSTAIN: None Supervisor Tom Powers noted that this is the first regional decision making program proposed in the Bay Area, and commended the City/County Revenue Committee for this work on the proposal. Supervisor Powers moved to accept the status report and direct that the concept of a Council of Governments as amended be forwarded to the City/County Relations Committee. Supervisor Robert Schroder seconded the motion. The vote was as follows: AYES: Supervisors Powers, Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson, Fanden NOES: None ABSTAIN: None cc• County Administrator I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. ATTESTED: 2Ndo a-z, 19 96 PHIL BATCH R,Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator Deputy "-005 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: City/County Revenue Committee: Wayne Bennett, Nancy Parent, Tom Torlakson, Costa Bob Schroder, Tony Donato, Phil Batchelor : , �� Cour 1-% DATE: May 22, 199Q SUBJECT: STATUS OF CITY/COUNTY REVENUE COMMITTEE WORK AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO CONSIDER SPECIFIC REOUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Accept this progress report on the work of the City/County Revenue Committee. 2. Forward the concept of a Council of Governments to address certain countywide issues to the City/County Relations Committee. BACKGROUND: The City/County Revenue Committee has been meeting monthly since December 1989 to discuss revenue issues of mutual concern, including annexation negotiations. A proposal on annexation is currently being circulated among city managers for comment. Our committee expects to complete its work on this subject by the end of the summer. A number of other issues have reached the point where it seems appropriate to forward them to your respective bodies for action. COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS: .The major item of interest is the attached proposal to form a Council of Governments (COG) which would have independent taxing authority. The COG would deal with such issues as solid waste management, library services, war on drugs activities and day care, among others. This proposal would require a change in state law. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: i RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATUREM: : CTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 HE Y CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS(ABSENT } AND COR T COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON DATE SHOWN. CC: ATTESTED PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK O E BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADM( TRATOR M382 (10/88) BY FUTY -2- Our committee has taken the following actions related to this proposal: 1. Endorsed the concept of formulating a COG with the ability to better coordinate and implement services, to do so more efficiently and with independent taxing authority. 2. Directed staff to forward the proposal to your honorable Mayors' Conference and Board of Supervisors. 3 . Recommended that your bodies forward the proposal to the newly formulated City/County Relations Committee for further study and action. OTHER ACTIONS: Other actions taken by our committee are: 1. Formally recognized that it is more productive for the County and Cities to work on enlarging the size of the revenue "pie" than to fight over a pie that is too small. . 2. Encouraged the Cities and County to review their fee structures on a regular basis, to include a "full-cost accounting" in order to maximize revenue. 3 . Recommended considering regional or district fee "packages" to recognize the special needs and demands of infrastructure needs in geographical areas, Mello-Roos Districts. 4. Encouraged the Mayors ' Conference to support the five cents alcohol tax initiative and to oppose the liquor lobby' s ACA 38. 5. Visited the County' s legislative delegation to discuss our efforts to solve our problems locally, as well as to discuss other service and revenue issues. 6. Received and analyzed background materials on property tax exchange agreements and Marine Patrol. 7. Surveyed the Cities to determine average City salary cost-of-living adjustments compared to the County. We encourage your bodies to take positions on any of the items above that seem appropriate. Finally, two members of our committee will be attending the June meeting of the Mayors ' Conference to discuss these issues in more detail. We expect that the Board of Supervisors will act on this report prior to the Mayors ' Conference meeting. KHT/amb Attachment Toru Torlaks®n '�' -�� 300 East Leland Rd. ,f Supervisor, District Five Suite 100 —. ;' Pittsburg, California 94565 Contra Costa County (415) 427-8138 �, q•q Board of Supervisors a`•,, ' rcc `5�1C'UUN 1� March 27 , 1990 This letter sent to the members of the City/County Revenue Committee: Councilman Wayne Bennett Councilwoman Colleen Coll Councilwoman Nancy Parent Supervisor Robert Schroder Dear !name! There is much to discuss after our last meeting reviewing property tax allocation formulas and after our trip to Sacramento. In order to set the stage for discussion at our next meeting, I would like to summarize a few ideas that we discussed on our journey back and .forth from Sacramento. I believe there was a clear message from our legislative delegation that we shouldn't count with a great deal of hope on the State ..Legislature for major relief for county government and city government service needs in terms of new State funding programs . We have been, in general, exploring "self-help, " locally-generated sources of new dollars to handle service demands . I was hoping we could explore further new local revenues through majority approved voter mechanisms, different types of user fees and special fees for services like the boater license fee increase for Marine Patrol and business license authority for the unincorporated county. While continuing to pursue these ideas, the magnitude of the problems we have analyzed calls for bigger and more comprehensive solutions . I am convinced that we must take a' bold new approach to organizing city and county services in order to provide them more efficiently to our mutual constituents and in order to_ get the attention of the legislature and obtain its help in meeting our goals and needs . The concept of a COG--or council of governments--for Contra Costa cities and county government has had a great deal of appeal to me. Our discussions have further heightened my hopes that we can develop a new structure to oversee a significant set of programs and services and to give it decision-making InamelI March 27, 1990 Page TWO powers for setting priorities and raising revenues . Let me share one possible scenario and format for purposes of discussion at our next meeting: 1 . A COG of the 18 cities that currently exist and Contra Costa County government would be formed pursuant to State Legislation and could be composed along lines similar to that of the Transportation Authority. Since many of the functions and decision-making responsiblities would be those currently held by the Board of Supervisors, it is appropriate to consider three members representating the Board. The question of membership, however, should not be the main focus of this concept at this- time. 2 . The COG would operate from month to month with an Executive Committee and with special subcommittees . Again, the numbers are not so important at this time as the concept, but a number such as 11 would make a good workable Executive Committee. Changes in statute could be made to also allow the COG to make appointments on very important committees that are currently overseeing some of the county services and programs such as the Correctional and Detention Services Advisory Committee, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Commission, the Mental Health Advisory Board, and the Family and Children's Services Advisory Committee. (Currently, by the way, Contra Costa County is sponsoring a bill to merge the Drug Advisory Board and the Alcohol Advisory Board. I think we should seek an amendment to the legislation which would allow the Conference of Mayors to appoint members to this body. ) In the future, the COG could have a central role in making some of the appointments of these types of advisory and policy making boards . Like COG's such as ABAG, subcommittees could be set up in addition to the Executive Committee to deal with some of the specialty program areas . The subcommittees would be able to involve other elected officials, citizens as well as private sector participation. Additionally, like ABAG, General Assemblies of all the elected officials in the 19 represented jurisdictions could be held once . or twice a year to deal with certain policy issues defined in the COG bylaws or deal with such an issue as adopting the annual budget for the COG. Inamel1 March 27, 1990 Page THREE 3 . Provision should be made to take into consideration the incorporation of new cities in the county. It is my prediction that we will have three to four new cities in the next five years in Contra Costa County. The formation of the City of Oakley is very likely. Alamo, West Pittsburg and Discovery Bay may not be very far behind. This will, of course, provide greater community identity and focus within those currently unincorporated towns and at the same time provide a greater challenge for us all to coordinate regionally the programs and policies of Contra Costa County. This will present an even greater need for regional cooperation. At the same time, the county will experience a significant loss of revenue streams for the important program services provided to all citizens of Contra Costa County. It is projected that just with the incorporation of . Oakley alone, that 95% of the development in the next 15 years will be in the incorporated cities rather than in the unincorporated county. In terms of population, that translates to about 98% of the growth would be within city boundaries rather than within unincorporated towns . 4 . The Contra Costa Council of Governments would be charged by the State Legislation initially with providing services in a cooperative, jointly-managed fashion for the following functions: a. Solid Waste Total System Management b. Library Services . c. Animal Services d. The Criminal Justice System. ( 1 ) Narcotic Enforcement Teams and War on Drugs activities ( 2 ) Crime Lab ( 3 ) Marine Patrol (4 ) Other programs by contract such as for Juvenile Hall and Jail staffing or with Health Services for Drug & Alcohol Prevention and Treatment Programs . e. Day Care ( 1 ) child care ( 2) elder care InamelI March 27, 1990 Page FOUR 5 . The COG would also be given the task of conducting a study to examine the consolidation of all Public Works Departments and functions to see what the dollar savings might be and the efficiency gains . It would be charged with making a report back to the Mayors Conference and cities, to the Board of Supervisors and to the Legislature within a three-year period. 6 . The COG would also be given the task of conducting a study of the consolidation of police districts into one police agency. 7 . The COG would also be given the task of conducting a study looking at the consolidation of city and county fire districts . 8 . The COG would also be given the task of conducting a study of consolidating the Building Inspection functions and the Code Enforcement functions . 9 . The COG would be asked to conduct an examination of the consolidation of all the transit districts for the dollar savings and efficiency gains and to make a report back to the Mayors Conference and cities, to the Board of Supervisors and to Legislature within a three-year period. 10 . The COG, by majority vote, would be given the power under legislative statues to raise property tax for any of the function areas that it determines there is a great public need up to the maximum ability that the county did have after Prop 13 to raise taxes to re-finance the Contra Costa Retirement System. Instead of asking that the Board of Supervisors be given back this authority, it could be placed in the hands of the COG--thus affording a greater representation of elected officials in the county in that decision-making process and therefore also having a greater "grass roots" accountability to the electorate. It would also obviously afford a greater opportunity to build consensus regarding program prioirites and revenues needed " to meet mutual city and county services . We would seek legislative reinstatement of the authority to raise assessments/taxes as Richmond did after Prop 13 and as the county could have done until a legislative change in 1982 . This post-Prop 13 mechanism allowed counties or cities to re-finance their retirement systems out of a new property tax assessment thus freeing up other general fund monies for regular services and programs . Tax increases by the COG would be limited to a "ceiling" set at the maximal InamelI March 27, 1990 Page FIVE retirement refinancing potential under the post-Prop 13 mechanism. Allocations made by the COG must be program-specific and controlled by contracts--such as with the Sheriff'.s Department or Probation Department. These contracts should, of course, have specific performance standards and sunset and re-evaluation dates . 11 . The COG would also be charged with the responsibility of doing a study upon any annexation request or incorporation request of the service impact on both the city and the county. The COG be given the ability by statute by majority vote of the COG to allocate funds from any of three revenue sources to handle -any shortfall, identified service gaps or service reductions that would be the result of an annexation or incorporation. The three sources in the order that the COG should utilize them to their limits are: (a) Efficiency Savings: Consolidations and efficiency restructurings of the services outlined in #2 and in the other consolidation studies above should result in millions of dollars of savings . These dollars could be reallocated to provide for service level increases or to take care of annexation/incorporation service funding shortfalls . (b) Reallocated property tax base: This fund could be created by legislative action pursuant to a review by our committee and all effected agencies (all cities, special districts and the Board of Supervisors) of the potential of reallocating the property tax from certain special districts such as sanitation districts, water districts, mosquito abatement districts, etc. , that we might determine to better rely solely on service charges for their revenues . Again, these dollars could be allocated to provide for service level increases or take care of annexation/incorporation service level shortfalls . (c) Retirement System Refinancing Fund. Again; a tax increase "ceiling" would be set using the maximal refinancing potential under the post-Prop 13 mechanism that existed until 1982. That limit would be approximately $25 million in 1990 dollars. 12 . Annexation finance agreements would be "automatic" upon the vote of the COG to address the identified service needs in the service assessment study accompanying an annexation request. Similarly, a county agreement on an InamelI March 27, 1990 Page SIX incorporation would be "automatic" pursuant to the COG determination on the service impacts and a resolution of funding shortfalls . (13) The COG would also be charged with implementing a common fee schedule for city and county development to handle municipal and county infrastructure costs such as Stanislaus County has done--to include consideration of courts, juvenile facilities, and future adult incarceration facilities . Work should begin on this right away. (14) COG and the existing CC Transportation Authority would jointly study and report out --in three years regarding the feasibility of merging the Authority with the COG. It is possible that the major workload of the startup of the Transportation Authority will taper off in the next two years as the growth management policies, project prioritization and financing issues get resolved. It may make sense to merge the two forms of COG within Contra Costa. If a majority of the COG and of the Transportation Authority members agree that such a merger is feasible, we would then report to the Mayors Conference, cities and Board of Supervisors . If there is consensus; at this level, we would then pursue legislative and electorate approvals . This list of ideas is merely a beginning point for discussion. I invite your further input and feedback prior to and during the next meeting. I have drafted this letter to enable Kerry Harms-Taylor and Phil Batchelor to analyze some of the revenue concepts and in particular the potential of various special districts property-tax monies that might be made available to resolving the annexation/incorporation. tax sharing issues . I am asking the CAO to bring to our next meeting as much informaton as they can gather regarding the potential revenue stream from such districts as the sanitation district, water districts, and mosquito abatement districts . We should review the total list of districts. and see if there are others that should be added to the list for consideration. I have also asked the CAO to provide a copy of the program that .Assemblyman Isenberg mentioned whereby the the county of Sacramento and its cities are looking at consolidating various functions and re-looking at the distribution of property tax shared between agencies within that county. We hope to have most of this information to you by mail in advance of the next meeting. InamelI March 27, 1990 Page SEVEN I am very much looking forward to discussing with you further these ideas. I believe the potential is great for a win-win solution to most of the problems our committee was formed to address . The cities and county of Contra Costa posses two recent excellent examples of the positive results of working together to solve mutual major challenges: ( 1) Measure C is, of course, the first--with our commitment to growth management and funding priorization through our new transportation regional government--the Contra Costa County Transportation Authority. ( 2) The countywide Substance Abuse Action .Plan on this June's ballot is the second example. Grass roots involvement, interagency integration of ideas and priorities, regional and inter-regional thinking were the dominant guidelines to the successful process which created this ballot measure. The positive vote we anticipate in June may serve as a mandate for us to solve mutual problems together forgetting jurisdictional lines--and serve as a springboard for a COG to address the identified needs . We have pioneered already in innovative governance. I am confident our committee will develop some further workable innovations . The 1990's will be a decade of action and change for government in California.' It must become a decade of regional thinking and cooperative problem solving; that's just what our committee is set up to tackle! Sincerely, Tom Torlakson TT:gro cc: Phil Batchelor Kerry Harms-Taylor Tony Donato Other Interested Parties