The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 03051991 - 2.2 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS s L Contra o� y - FROM: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator Costa February 27, 1991 County =- DATE: srq-cotiN SUBJECT: LEGISLATION: AB 303 (Baker) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: Acknowledge that the Board of Supervisors is the SPONSOR of AB 303 by Assemblyman William P. Baker, which would allow retired employees of the County to return to work for not more than 120 days or 960 hours per year. BACKGROUND: Current law authorizes retired employees to return to work for the County for not to exceed 90 days or 720 hours per year without jeopardizing their status as a retired employee. This provision can only be used where the retirees "special skills and experience" are required for an interim period of time. This provision has been used when a skilled craftsman retires and until a replacement can be located. The same has been done with a department head who retires before a replacement can be located and the County asks the department head to stay on for a brief period of time until his or her replacement is hired. At times, the provision for 90 days a year is insufficient and it would be helpful to make use of the retiree for more days per year. Therefore, the Board of Supervisors included as a part of its 1991' Legislative Program legislation which would extend these limits from 90 ' days or 720 hours per years to 120 days or 960 hours per year. The legislation is drafted so as. to apply on an optional basis to any 1937 Act County and in addition to include CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENTYeS YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON March 5, 1991 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS SOONj THE DATE SHOWN. CC: ATTESTED SZ �Q9� PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF Please See Page 2. SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BYQa- ,, DEPUTY M382 (10/88) i- Tier II retirees in Contra Costa County, since they were otherwise covered by a more restrictive provision which limited their ability to return to work for the County to 30 days per year. In view of the fact that this was a provision of the Board' s 1991 Legislative Program, it is appropriate for the Board of Supervisors to acknowledge its sponsorship of AB 303 . cc: County Administrator County Counsel Retirement Administrator Director of Personnel Les Spahnn, SRJ. Jackson, Barish & Associates rM � - Introduced ASSEMBLY BILL No: '303 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Introduced by Assembly Member Baker January 23, 1991 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- z An act to amend Section 31680 . 3 of, and to add Section 31680 . 6 to, the Government Code, relating to the County Employees Retirement Law of 1937, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 303, as introduced, Baker. County retirement: limited reemployment of county retirees . The existing County Employees Retirement Law of 1937 authorizes counties generally to reemploy, without reinstatement from retirement, retired members in a position requiring special skills or knowledge for not to exceed the greater of 90 working days or 720 hours, , in any one fiscal year or any other designated 12-month period. This bill would authorize boards of supervisors generally, by resolution, to extend that general reemployment period for not to exceed the greater of 120 working days or 960 hours, in any one fiscal year or any other designated 12-month period. That law also authorizes Contra Costa County to reemploy, without reinstatement from retirement, retired members in a position requiring special skills or knowledge for not to exceed 30 working days in any one fiscal year. This bill would expand that Contra Costa County reemployment period to the greater of 120 working days or 960 hours, in any one fiscal year. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute. Vote: 2/3 . Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. State-mandated local program: no. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: SECTION 1 . Section 31680 . 3 of the Government Code is amended to read: 31680 . 3 . Notwithstanding Section 31680 . 2, any member who has been covered under the provisions of Section 31751 and has retired may be reemployed in a position requiring special skills or knowledge, as determined by the county or district employing the member•, for not to exceed [D> 30 <D] [A> 120 <A] working days [A> or 960 hours, whichever is greater, <A] in any one fiscal year and may be paid for [D> such <D] [A> that <A] employment. [D> Such <D] [A> That <A] employment shall not operate to reinstate the person as a member of this system or to terminate or suspend the person's retirement allowance, and no deductions shall be made from the person's salary as contributions to this system. SEC. 2 . Section 31680 . 6 is added to . the Government Code, to read: 31680 . 6 . Notwithstanding Section 31680 . 2, any county subject to Section 31680 . 2 may, upon adoption of a resolution by a majority vote by the board or supervisors, extend the period of time provided for in Section 31680 . 2 for which a person who has retired may be employed in a position requiring special skills or knowledge, as determined by the county or district employing him or her, to not to exceed 120 working days or 960 hours, whichever is greater, in any one fiscal year or any other 12-month period designated by the board of supervisors and may be paid for that employment. That employment shall not operate to reinstate the person as a member of this system or to terminate or suspend his or her retirement allowance, and no deductions shall be made from his or her salary as contributions to this system. SEC. 3 . This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate _ preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are: In order that county positions requiring special skills or knowledge for which there are insufficient available personnel may be temporarily filled at the earliest possible time by county retirees possessing the needed skills or knowledge, it is necessary that this act take effect immediately. END OF REPORT Enter Bill # (or END to exit) _> In bill text, brackets have special meaning: [A> <A] contains added text, and [D> <D] contains deleted text. TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra i. FROM: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator n� ,•s Costa February 27, 1991 County o.- =_ �'` DATE: SUBJECT: LEGISLATION: AB 494 (Campbell) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: Acknowledge that the Board of Supervisors is the SPONSOR of AB 494 by Assemblyman Robert J. Campbell, which would authorize any board of supervisors to increase the boat registration fee from $5 to $12 as long as the proceeds of the increased fee are dedicated to boating safety and law enforcement programs like the Sheriff ' s Marine Patrol. BACKGROUND: Current law fixes the registration fee for boats at $5 per year. A portion of this amount is retained by the Department of Motor Vehicles and the balance is forwarded to the Department of Boating and Waterways for various purposes, including making grants to local governments to enhance boating safety and law enforcement programs. However, as a condition of receiving any of these grant funds, a county must show that it is already spending on boating safety and law enforcement programs an amount which is at least equal to the amount of property tax the county receives from boat owners. Contra Costa County qualified in this regard until the summer of 1989 when the property tax on boats had to be reallocated to finance other vital services. As a result, the County is not currently eligible for any of these grant funds. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENTYeS YES SIGNATURE: I( 4 RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE c APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON March 5. 1991 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE 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: Please see Page 2. ATTESTED MAR 5� 1991 PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR M382 (10/88) BY zk&& DEPUTY In an effort to raise sufficient funds to restore and maintain the Sheriff's Marine Patrol, the Board of Supervisors included in its 1991 Legislative Program a proposal to increase the boat registration fee from $5 to $12, with the proceeds of the increased fee to be dedicated to the Sheriff' s Marine Patrol. Receipt of these increased funds would not require meeting the same criteria which have to be met for the other, existing grant program in regard to the property tax proceeds from boats. Assemblyman Campbell has agreed to carry this legislation for the Board of Supervisors. As introduced, the legislation mandates an increase in the boat registration fee statewide. However, this constitutes an appropriation and therefore requires a 2/3 vote in both Houses of the Legislature. Amendments have, therefore, been draftedto eliminate the mandate and simply allow each board of supervisors to increase the fee in their county if they wish to do so. This would, then, require only a majority vote because it is no longer an appropriation of funds. In view of the fact that this bill is an important part of the Board' s 1991 Legislative Program, it is appropriate for the Board of Supervisors to acknowledge that it is the sponsor of, the legislation. cc: County Administrator Sheriff-Coroner County Counsel Les Spahnn, SRJ. Jackson, Barish & Associates �. TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra _ C L FROM: - Phil Batchelor, County Administrator Costa,s C J x�.� : _ o� County February 27, 1991 d•. �p> DATE: rA couN SUBJECT: LEGISLATION: AB 495 (Campbell) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: Acknowledge that the Board of Supervisors is the SPONSOR of AB 495 by Assemblyman Robert J. Campbell, which would apply only in Contra Costa County and would express the intent of the Legislature that, despite the ruling of the court in the case of American River Fire Protection District v. Board of Supervisors, all fire districts in Contra Costa County continue to make their required contributions to the Special District Augmentation Fund. BACKGROUND: Current law requires that all special districts which existed in fiscal year 1978-79 and which received state assistance payments (bailout) in the 1978-79 fiscal year contribute to a fund referred to as the Special District Augmentation Fund (SDAF) . The SDAF is under the control of the Board of Supervisors and is used to meet the priority needs of special districts as determined by the Board of Supervisors. The State Court of Appeals, in the American River case cited above, concluded that under certain circumstances, when fire districts are consolidated or annexed to each other in certain ways, the resulting district is no longer a "special district which 'existed in the 1978-79 fiscal year" . As a result, the court ruled that the fire district no longer had to contribute to the SDAF. CONTINUED ON'ATTACHMENYeS YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON_ March 5, 19 91 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS' I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THEDATESHOWN. CC: ATTESTED MAR. Please see Page 2. PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY DEPUTY M382 (10/88) Olt Contra Costa County has a somewhat similar, although legally distinct, situation with the annexation and dissolution of the San Ramon and Danville Fire Protection Districts. The resulting San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District now claims that under the American River ruling it is no longer required to contribute to the SDAF. County Counsel is able to clearly distinguish the circumstances of the annexation of the San Ramon Fire District to the Danville Fire District and the subsequent dissolution of the San Ramon District with a corresponding name change to the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District from the circumstances which were involved in the American River case. Staff believe that, rather than continuing to test the statutory language in court, it would be preferable if the Legislature were to clarify their intentions at the time the SDAF was established. This legislation is included as an important part of the Board' s 1991 Legislative Program. In view of the fact that Assemblyman Campbell has agreed to author this legislation, it would be appropriate for the Board of Supervisors to acknowledge its sponsorship of this legislation. cc: County Administrator County Counsel Terry McGraw, Management Analyst, CAD' s Office Fire Chiefs (Via CAO) Les Spahnn, SRJ. Jackson, Barish & Associates