HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04191994 - 1.94 1. qy
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
ter. ri._
Phil Batchelor, County Administrator
Costa FROM: v ll
County
DATE: April 13, 1994
SUBJECT: LEGISLATION: AB 3746 (Mountjoy, et al)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION:
ADOPT a position in OPPOSITION •to AB 3746 by Assemblyman Mountjoy
and 13 co-authors (including -Assemblyman Richard Rainey) , which
would require that the County prove, as a condition of receiving
sales tax revenue from Proposition 172, that it has allocated from
existing resources to each of specified "public services" the
amount that is at least equal to the amount spent on that public
service in either the 1991-92 or 1992-93 fiscal year, whichever
year the local entity had the highest budget for all combined
public safety services .
BACKGROUND:
Under current law, counties and cities receive a share of the sales
tax revenue approved by the voters- in Proposition 172 . The
condition on the receipt of these funds is that all of the funds
must go to "public safety" programs, in this County the District
Attorney and Sheriff-Coroner, although the law also includes fire
protection, county corrections and ocean lifeguards .
Assemblyman Mountjoy has introduced AB 3746 which would 'impose a
maintenance of effort requirement as a condition of receiving the
Proposition 172 funds which were approved by the voters . The
original form of the bill required that the County demonstrate that
it was spending the amount on "public service" programs that it
received in the 1992-93 fiscal year.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S): &kfiC!/i(y z
ACTION OF BOARD ONApril i 1994 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT I ) 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.
ATTESTED April 19 , 1994
Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
M. See Page 2 SUPERVISOR AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
0
BY ,DEPUTY
-2-
Our staff have concluded that it would cost Contra Costa County
$34,545,735 to comply with a 1992-93 maintenance of effort
requirement for the District Attorney, Sheriff-Coroner, Probation,
and Fire. This is because we would have to spend $159,875,514 of
County dollars before we would be eligible to receive the
$38, 183, 000 in Proposition 172 funds which we are anticipating for
the current fiscal year. If the Proposition 172 funds are deducted
from our budgeted expenditure levels for the current fiscal year,
we find that we are spending $125, 329,779 . Therefore, we would
have to transfer some $34 .5 million from other programs in order to
be eligible to the Proposition 172 funds .
It is clearly not practical -- or probably even possible -- to
consider taking $34 .5 million from other programs in order to
increase public safety funding by this amount, even though Public
Safety may be the County's # 1 priority.
On April 4, 1994, AB 3746 was amended to probably compound the
problem even more. A County would be tied to a maintenance of
effort at the higher of the 1991-92 or 1992-93 total level of
expenditures for defined public safety programs, which are expanded
to include County Probation. Once the fiscal year to which the
County is tied has been determined, then the County would be
required to demonstrate that it is spending at that fiscal year' s
level in each of the public safety categories . In other words, if
the Sheriff and District Attorney' s budget had both been augmented
so that total spending was at the higher of the 1991-92 or 1992-93
fiscal year level, but Probation had been cut and was below that
year' s level, Probation would have to be brought up to the proper
level, regardless of what the overall level of spending on public
safety programs was . This would probably increase this County' s
liability, although we have not made a detailed determination of
this .
What would most likely happen in this and many other counties is
that the County' s taxpayers would have to continue paying the one-
half sales tax, but the County would not be able to afford to
receive the funds, which would then be reallocated to other
jurisdictions . The end result of this would no doubt be that the
public safety departments which are now receiving the Proposition
172 funds would be cut drastically since we would be unable to
provide the match for the Proposition 172 funds . This could well
backfire on the advocates of the bill and actually result in
wholesale reductions in public safety funding. Only those
jurisdictions which were wealthy enough to meet their maintenance
of effort match would be eligible to receive the Proposition 172
funds - and they would also split up the fund which other
jurisdictions were unable to match.
In addition, the requirement appears to be that the county and each
city in the county must meet the match requirement before the
county or any city in that county could receive Proposition 172
funds . As a result, the poorest city in this county might be
$1, 000 short of meeting its match, causing the County to lose $38
million in Proposition 172 funds !
AB 3746 is so totally flawed, so utterly unrealistic, and so
totally out of touch with the reality of the County' s overall
responsibilities and mandates that it deserves only the Board' s
total opposition.
cc: County Administrator
District Attorney
Sheriff-Coroner
County Probation Officer
Auditor-Controller
County Counsel
Les Spahnn, Heim, Noack & Spahnn
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 4, 1994
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE-1993-94 REGULAR SESSION
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 3746
Introduced by Assembly Members Mountjoy, Andal, Conroy,
Ferguson, Harvey, Haynes, Hoge, Honeycutt, Knowles,
Morrow, Rainey, and Weggeland
(Principal coauthor. Assembly Member Johnson)
(Coauthor: Senator Wyman)
February 25, 1994
An act to and Seetie38056 t-e amend Section 30052 of, and
to add Section 30056 to, the Government Code, relating to
taxation.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 3746, as amended, Mountjoy. Sales and use taxes: local
agencies: public safety services.
The California Constitution imposes a tax at a rate of 1/2 of
1% on the gross receipts from the sale in this state of, or the
storage, use, or other consumption in this state of, tangible
personal property. The revenue from the tax is allocated to
counties, as specified, for allocation to the county and the
cities therein to use exclusively for public safety services ,
which includes, but is not limited to, sheriffs, police, fire
protection, county district attorneys, county corrections, and
ocean lifeguards.
This bill would provide that public safety services is limited
to those services enumerated above, with the addition of
county probation officers. It would require any county, city
and county, or city in the county, including any chartered
city, before it may receive an allocation of revenues derived
from these taxes, to demonstrate to the Controller that it has
allocated existing resources for each of the local public safety
98 80
AB 3746 — 2 —
services
2 —services at the level each of those services were was funded
in the 1991-92 or 1992-93 fiscal year, whichever year the local
entity had the highest budget for all combined public safety
services, as specified. The bill would require the Controller to
notify the county auditor-of those entities that have met that
requirement. The bill would also provide that if any county,
city and county, or any city in the county fails to meet that
requirement, the auditor shall allocate that entity's share of
the revenues proportionately among those other entities in
the county that qualify for an allocation of those revenues. By
imposing new duties on cities, counties, and county auditors
with respect to the allocation and receipt of those revenues,
this bill would create a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse
local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated
by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for
making that reimbursement, including the creation of a State
Mandates Claims Fund to pay the costs of mandates which do
not exceed $1,000,000 statewide and other procedures for
claims whose statewide costs exceed $1;000,000.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement shall be
made from the State Mandates Claims Fund for costs
mandated by the state pursuant to this act, but would
recognize that local agencies and school districts may pursue
any available remedies to seek reimbursement for these costs.
The bill would become operative on the July 1 following the
date on which the bill takes effect.
< z Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows: ,
1 SECTION 1. Section 30052 of the Government Code
2 is amended to read:
3 30052. (a) Notwithstanding Section 13340, the two
4 accounts in the Local Public Safety Fund created in
5 Section 30051 are hereby continuously appropriated,
6 without regard to fiscal years, to the Controller for
7 allocation to each qualified county in proportion to its
8 share of the total taxable sales in all qualified counties
oa ion
AB 3746 — 4 -
1
- 4 -1 including any charter city, that provides public safety
2 services shall demonstrate to the Controller that it has
3 allocated existing resources for leeal publie safety
4 seryiees 4 the level Wiese sevviees were ftp in the
5 1992,493 fiseal year-. The each of the local
6 public safety services at the level each of those services
7 was funded in the 1991-92 or 1992-93 fiscal year, �}
8 whichever year the local entity had the highest budget
9 for all combined public safety services, including any
10 capital facility projects or any additional public safety
11 services responsibilities mandated by the Legislature
12 subsequent to the 1991-92 fiscal year. The Controller shall
13 notify the auditor of those entities that have met the
14 requirements of this subdivision.
15 (b) If the county, the city and county, or any city in
16 the county, including any charter city, fails to meet the
17 requirement of subdivision (a), the auditor shall allocate
18 that entity's share of the revenues in the Public Safety
19 Augmentation Fund proportionately among those other
20 entities in the county that qualify for an allocation of
21 those revenues.
22 SEG. 2:
23 SEC. 3. No reimbursement shall be made from the
24 State Mandated Claims Fund pursuant to Part 7
25 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title
26 2 of the Government Code for costs mandated by the
27 state pursuant to this act. It is recognized, however, that
28 a local agency or school district may pursue any remedies
29 to obtain reimbursement available to it under Part 7
30 (commencing with Section 17500) and any other
31 provisions of law. Pursuant to Section' 17580 of- the
32 Government Code, unless otherwise specified in this act,
33, the provisions of this act shall become operative on the
34 July 1 following the date on which the act takes effect
35 pursuant to the California Constitution.
O
98 150
- 3 — AB 3746
1 during.the most recent calendar year for which sales have
2 been reported by the State Board of Equalization. The
3 amounts so allocated shall be available only for public
4 safety services, and shall be allocated in each qualified
5 county in the manner and amount determined pursuant
6 to Section 30054.
7 (b) For purposes of this chapter:
> 8 (1) "Public safety services" ineludes, but- is fiet
9 limited to ; sheriffs, police, fire protection, county district
10 attorneys, county corrections, county probation officers,
11 and ocean lifeguards. "Public safety services" does not
12 include courts.
13 (2) "Qualified county" means:
14 (A) With respect to the Interim Public Safety
15 Account, any county in which the board of supervisors, on
16 or before August 1, 1993, adopts a resolution that does
17 both of the following:
18 (i) Requests an allocation of revenue from the Local
19 Public Safety Fund.
20 (ii) Ratifies the statewide imposition of an additional
21 1/2 percent rate of sales and use tax pursuant to Senate
22 Constitutional Amendment 1 on the November 2, 1993,
23 special election ballot.
24 (B) With respect to the Public Safety Account, any
25 county in which the board of supervisors has adopted a
26 resolution as described in subparagraph (A) or in which
27 the tax levied pursuant to Section 35 of Article XIII of the
artirszl�3z� x 28 California Constitution is approved by a majority of the
29 county's voters voting on the issue at the November 2,
30 1993, special election.
31 , (c) The board of supervisors of a qualified county shall
32 send a copy of the resolution adopted pursuant to
33 subdivision (b) to the Controller.
34 SEC. 2. Section 30056 is added to the Government
35 Code, to read:
36 30056. (a) Before any county e- , any city and
37 county, or any city in the county, including any charter
38 city, may receive an allocation from the county's Public
39 Safety Augmentation Fund pursuant to subdivision (b) of
40 Section 30054, the county and each city in the county,
98 130