HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04011997 - C57-C60 x.51
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
FROM: PHIL BATCHELOR, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ;� r - s Costa
County
DATE: March 17, 1997 °r---
SUBJECT: LEGISLATION: SS 808 (COSTA)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION:
ADOPT a position in support of SB 808 by Senator Costa, which would place a bond
measure on the November 3, 1998 ballot in the amount of$350 million to provide for
juvenile detention facilities.
BACKGROUND:
The Board of Supervisors has been on record for some time in support of finding
mechanisms to provide funding for implementation of the County's Continuum of
Care for Juveniles, part of which requires the replacement of a major portion of the
existing juvenile hall.
The Board's 1997 Legislative Program indicates an interest in supporting bond
measures or other alternative mechanisms for funding juvenile hall facilities, as
follows:
It had been anticipated that if Proposition 205 had been approved by
the voters Contra Costa County might have received as much as $35
million to pay for the replacement of juvenile hall, consistent with the
Board approved continuum of care model. The failure of Proposition
205 leaves the County with few alternatives for the construction of a
new juvenile hall and the distinction of having one of the oldest
juvenile halls in California. Staff is suggesting that various alternative
financing mechanisms be explored.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: -YES SIGNATURE: 2&a;;,
l
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR -RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE _OOTHEER
SIGNATURE(S): �
ACTION OF BOARD ON April 1, 1997 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT V 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: ATTESTED April 1. 1997
See Page 2 PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
M382 (10/88) BY6Z ,DEPUTY
c,57
Senator Costa has introduced SB 808 which, as introduced, would place on the
November 3, 1998 ballot a $350 million bond measure solely to fund juvenile hall
facilities. In view of the Board's support for similar measures in the past, it is
recommended that the Board indicate its support for SB 808.
cc: County Administrator
Juvenile Court Judge
County Probation Officer
Ken Torre, Executive Officer, Coordinated Trial Courts
George Roemer, Senior Deputy County Administrator
Les Spahnn
Heim, Noack, Kelly & Spahnn
1121 L Street, Suite 100
Sacramento, CA 95814
Casey Sparks Kaneko, Executive Director
Urban Counties Caucus
1100 K Street, Suite 101
Sacramento, CA 95814
Steve Szalay, Executive Director
California State Association of Counties
1100 K Street, Suite 101
Sacramento, CA 95814
-2-
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
FROM: PHIL BATCHELOR, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR f js Costa
County
DATE: March 27, 1997 °sr°
� CUVY�
SUBJECT: LEGISLATION: AB 696 (ARONER)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)8 BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION:
ACKNOWLEDGE that the Board of Supervisors is the SPONSOR of AB 696 by
Assemblywoman Dion Aroner, which would establish demonstration sites to
implement children's receiving center pilot projects.
BACKGROUND:
In the Board's 1997 Legislative Program, the Board agreed to sponsor legislation to
seek funding for two receiving centers, possibly with one of them being a joint effort
with Alameda County. The language in the 1997 Legislative Program reads as
follows:
"The Social Service Director is seeking funding of approximately $200,000 each for
two Children's Receiving Centers. These Centers would provide regional sites for
assessing the placement and care needs of children who have been removed from
their caretaker due to abuse or neglect. It has been suggested that we attempt to
work out a joint regional approach with Alameda County for at least one of the
Centers in the West County area. These Centers would provide stabilization,
respite, and basic assessment services for children as an alternative to immediate
placement with a caretaker who may be ill-prepared to meet the needs of the child."
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE _,fOTT/HHHER
SIGNATURE(S); DC.�fJ��((�[j/ e�4G�
ACTION OF BOARD ON 1, 1997 ApilAPPROVED AS RECOMMENDED _ OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
X V I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT 1 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: ATTESTED April 1 1 1 qq
See Page 2 PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SU�PEERVVII,SORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
(//�y
M382 (10/88) BY - • 'v ,DEPUTY
Assemblywoman Dion Aroner has agreed to author this legislation and has
introduced AB 696 for this purpose. The concept now is that we would try to have
up to five demonstration sites designated throughout the State, with at least one
being in Alameda County and at least one being in Contra Costa County.
Currently, the County has no place to hold a child for a few hours while a suitable
foster home is being sought. There is no place for the child to be seen by a
physician if necessary, for the child to be bathed and fed if necessary, or for other
assessments to be conducted in preparation for placing the child in an appropriate
setting. A receiving center would provide these resources and could be as simple
as the use of a large home for this purpose. The facility would hopefully be available
24 hours a day to receive a child for a temporary period of time. A child would never
be kept at the receiving center for more than 24 hours, thereby avoiding the need to
have the facility licensed. In addition, the concept is not to have a receiving center
be a replacement for a foster or group home, but a place where a child can be
brought briefly while the necessary assessments can be made, where the child can
be made to feel comfortable and where the child's personal needs can be
addressed.
In view of the fact that Assemblywoman Aroner has agreed to author AB 696 at the
request of the Board of Supervisors, it is appropriate for the Board to acknowledge
at this time that it is the sponsor of AB 696.
cc: County Administrator
Social Service Director
Les Spahnn
Heim, Noack, Kelly & Spahnn
1121 L Street, Suite 100
Sacramento, CA 95814
Casey Sparks Kaneko, Executive Director
Urban Counties Caucus
1100 K Street, Suite 101
Sacramento, CA 95814
Steve Szalay, Executive Director
California State Association of Counties
1100 K Street, Suite 101
Sacramento, CA 95814
-2-
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE-1997-98 REGULAR SESSION
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 696
Introduced by Assembly Member Aroner
February 26, 1997
An act to add Chapter 5.8 (commencing with Section
18340) to Part 6 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions
Code, relating to human services, and making an
appropriation therefor.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 696, as introduced, Aroner. Children's receiving
centers.
Existing law provides for the placement of children in foster
care and for the care and sheltering of children.
This bill would require the State Department of Social
Services to implement children's receiving center pilot
projects in not more than 5 demonstration sites in
participating counties, and would specify the functions of the
demonstration receiving centers.
This bill would appropriate $1,000,000 from the General
Fund for the purposes of funding this bill for the first year of
the demonstration-projects.
Vote: 213. Appropriation: yes. Fiscal commit_tee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows.
1 SECTION 1. The Legislature fords and declares all of
i 2 the following:
AB 696 — 2 -
1
2 -
1 (a) The development of series of receiving centers
2 may provide valuable resources for very short-term care
3 and supervision of children while their return to their
4 home or other placement options are considered.
5 (b) Regional receiving centers are an innovative
6 service delivery model in that they would offer services
7 in the community they are serving on a local basis.
8 (c) Care can be provided for less than 24 hours per day
9 while activities designed to assess the needs of the child
10 and his or her family in order to match them with the
11 appropriate level of care may take place.
12 (d) Currently, federal funding is not available to fund
13 the concept. of receiving centers because they do not
14 provide care on a 24-hour a day basis.
15 (e) The concept of a receiving center is one that is
16 important to test to determine whether it is an effective
17 model for assessing the needs of a child and making a
18 placement decision that allows the issues of permanency
19 to be addressed at the earliest possible point.
20 SEC. 2. Chapter 5.8 (commencing with Section
21 18340) is added to Part 6 of Division 9 of the Welfare and
22 Institutions Code, to read:
23
24 CHAPTER 5.8. CHILDREN'S RECEIVING CENTERS
25 DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
26
27 18340. (a) The State Department of Social Services
28 shall implement a pilot program, and shall designate not
29 more than five demonstration sites for the operation of
30 children's receiving centers in counties in which the
31 board of supervisors of the county has submitted a request
32 not later than March 1, 1998, to be a demonstration site.
33 (b) At least one demonstration site shall be located in.
34 the County of Alameda, and at least one' demonstration
35 site shall be located in the County of Contra Costa, upon
36 the request of the board of supervisors of each county.
37 18341. Each receiving center shall do all the
38 following:
39 (a) Provide care for less than 24 hours per day.
- 3 — AB 696
1 (b) Be the single point of reception or entry into the
2 shelter care system.
3 (c) Be available to provide services 24 hours per day
4 seven days per week.
5 (d) Have the capacity to feed, clothe, and bathe
6 children as necessary.
7 (e) Have appropriate spaces for children to nap or
8 sleep.
9 (f) Provide crisis intervention and support for
10 children in the center.
11 (g) Provide a site for supervised visitation of children
12 with their parents or other relatives.
13 (h) Provide space for county social work staff.
14 (i) Have the capability to provide emergency mental
15 health assessments.
16 0) Provide public health evaluations on short notice.
17 (k) Be a resource center for training and support of
18 shelter foster families.
19 SEC. 3. (a) The sum of one million dollars
20 ($1,000,000) is appropriated from the General Fund to
21 the State Department of Social Services for the first year
22 of the demonstration projects established.under this act.
fu
23 (b) Each demonstration site nded under this section
24 shall receive, upon application by the county board of
25 supervisors in which each demonstration site is located,
26 a sum of not more than two hundred thousand dollars
27 ($200,000) from the money appropriated by subdivision
28 (a) .
I
I
i
0
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
FROM: PHIL BATCHELOR, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Costa
- County
DATE: March 27, 1997
SUBJECT: LEGISLATION: SB 608 (JOHANNESSEN)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)6 BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION:
ADOPT a position in SUPPORT of SB 608 by Senator Maurice Johannessen, which
would provide a funding mechanism for Veterans Service Offices throughout the
State, based on their performance in obtaining additional benefits for veterans.
BACKGROUND:
Existing law authorizes a county board of supervisors to appoint a county veteran
service officer, and permits the county to provide the officer with any assistance and
facilities that it determines to be necessary.
Existing law also requires the Department of Veterans Affairs to disburse funds
appropriated to the department for the purpose of supporting county veteran service
officers pursuant to the annual Budget Act, on a pro rata basis to counties that
comply with certain conditions. Effective January 1, 2001, existing law includes the
condition that county funds are allocated to county veteran service officers in an
amount not less than that allocated in the 1988-89 fiscal year.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _YES SIGNATURE: aw
X_RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE _OTHER /J
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON ^MH1 11 997 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT V ) 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: See Page 2 ATTESTED April 1 1997
PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
M382 ()0/ee)
BY �• � ,DEPUTY
0,-561
Senator Johannessen has introduced SB 608 which, as introduced, would do the
following:
1 . Require the State Department of Veterans Affairs to annually, by January 1,
determine the amount of new or increased benefits paid to eligible veterans
by the federal government as a result of the assistance of the county veterans
service officer and forward that information to the State Department of
Finance.
2. Require the State Department of Finance to review the information provided
by the State Department of Veterans Affairs in time to use the information in
the annual Budget Act.
3. Encourage the State Department of Finance, after reviewing the information
provided by the State Department of Veterans Affairs to consider increasing
the annual budget for county veterans service officers by $6 million, if it is
justified.
The bill includes findings which note that the State currently provides about $6
million in subventions for county veterans service officers. The bill could result in a
doubling of the State's funding for county veterans services offices.
The County Veteran Service Officer, Gary Villalba, supports SB 608 and urges the
Board to indicate its support of SB 608. In view of the fact that the bill could result
in additional State funding for the County Veterans Service Officer, it is our
recommendation that the Board indicate its support for SB 608.
cc: County Administrator
Veterans Service Officer
Les Spahnn
Heim, Noack, Kelly & Spahnn
1121 L Street, Suite 100
Sacramento, CA 95814
Casey Sparks Kaneko, Executive Director
Urban Counties Caucus
1100 K Street, Suite 101
Sacramento, CA 95814
Steve Szalay, Executive Director
California State Association of Counties
1100 K Street, Suite 101
Sacramento, CA 95814
-2-
Veterans Service OfficeContra Gary D.Villalba
County veterans
10 Douglas Drive,#100 Costa Service°fter
Martinez,CA 94553-4078
FAX 313-1481
0)313- County
fAX(510)313-1490
s' -t
❑ 100-37th Street,#270
Richmond,CA 94805.2179
(510)374-3241
March 17, 1997
TO: Claude L. Van Marter
Assistant County Administrator
FR: Gary Villalba
Director, County Veteran Services
SJ: SB 608 - Senator Johannessen
Claude, I am attaching a copy of SB 608 which is a current bill to
enhance the State Subvention to fund County Veteran Service Offices
(CVSO).
I would be grateful if you could include this bill in our County
Legislative Platform with any appropriate resolution. This is a very
important bill for the CVSO and the County General Fund.
Thank you Claude!
Cil'— 6iTA 70UWV
RCCEIV2
I
MAR 181997
i
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
SENATE BILL No. 608
Introduced by Senator Johannessen
February 25, 1997
An act to amend Section 972.1 of the Military and Veterans
Code, relating to veterans.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 608, as introduced, Johannessen. County veteran
service officers: disbursements to counties.
Existing law authorizes the county board of supervisors to
appoint a county veteran service officer, and permits the
county to provide the officer with any assistance and facilities
that it determines to be necessary. Existing law requires the
Department of Veterans Affairs to disburse funds
appropriated to the department for the purpose of supporting
county veteran service officers pursuant to the annual Budget
Act, on a pro rata basis to counties that comply with certain
condition. Commencing January 1, 2001, existing law includes
the condition that county funds are allocated to county
veteran service officers in an amount not less than that
allocated in the 1988-89 fiscal year.
This bill would require the Department of Veterans;Affairs
to annually determine the amount of new or increased
monetary benefits paid to eligible veterans by the federal
government attributable to the assistance of county'veteran
service officers and to annually transmit its determination for
the preceding fiscal year to the Department of Finance. The
bill would require the Department of Finandb to review the
Department of Veterans Affairs' determination in time to use
the information in the annual Budget Act. The bill would state
99
SB 608 — 2 —
legislative
2 --
legislative findings and declarations and encourage the
Department of Finance, after reviewing the Department of
Veterans Affairs' determination,to consider an increase in the
annual budget for county veteran services officers, in an
amount not to exceed $6,000,000 if it is justified.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
1 SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares that
2 through the efforts of the county veterans service officers,
3 benefits to the veterans in this state approximate an
4 average of eighty-eight million dollars ($88,000,000) per
5 year from the federal government either through the
6 United States Department of Veteran Affairs or other
7 federal agencies. It has been determined by the
8 California Department of Finance that 33 percent of
9 these funds become part of the State General Fund. The
10 state however provides only 16 percent of the subvention
11 for the county veterans service officers' functions with
12 the counties providing the rest. It is, therefore, the intent
13 of the Legislature in enacting this act that, in keeping
14 with the philosophy that whose efforts result in efficiency
15 should benefit thereby,a portion of the funds attributable
16 to the performance of county veterans service officers be
17 utilized in funding their operations.
18 SEC. 2. Section 972.1 of the Military and Veterans
19 Code, as amended by Section 1 of Chapter 286 of the
20 Statutes of 1995, is amended to read:
21 972.1. (a) The sum of five hundred thousand dollars
22 ($500,000) is hereby appropriated from the General Fund
23 to the Department of Veterans Affairs for allocation,
24 during the 1989-90 fiscal year,for purposes of funding the
25 activities of county veteran service officers pursuant to
26 this section. Funds for allocation in future years shall be
27 as provided in the annual Budget Act.
28 (b) Funds shall be disbursed each fiscal year on a pro
29 rata basis to counties that have established and maintain
30 a county veteran service officer in accordance with the
99
- 3 — SB 608
1 staffing level and workload of each county veteran
2 service officer under a formula based upon performance
3 that shall be developed by the Department of Veterans
4 Affairs for these purposes.
5 (c) The department shall annually determine the
6 amount of new or increased monetary benefits paid to
7 eligible veterans by the federal government attributable
8 to the assistance of county veteran service officers The
9 department shall on or before ,January 1, prepare and
10 transmit its determination for the precedingfiscal year to
11 the Department of Finance and the Legislature. The
12 Department of Finance shall review the department's
13 determination in time to use the information in the
14 annual Budget Act for the budget of the department for
15 the next fiscal year.
16 (d) (1) The Legislature .finds and declares that 50
17 percent of the amount annually budgeted for county
18 veteran service officers is approximately six million
19 dollars ($6,000,000). The Legislature further folds and
20 declares that it is an efficient and reasonable use ofstate
21 funds to increase the annual budget for county veteran
22 service officers in an amount not to exceed six million
23 dollars ($6,000,000) if it is justified by the monetary
24 benefits to the state's veterans attributable to the effort
25 of these of1`icers
26 (2) It is the intent of the Legislature, after reviewing
27 the department's determination in subdivision (c), to
28 consider an increase in the annual budget for county
29 veteran service officers in an amount not to exceed six
30 million dollars ($6,000,000), if the monetary benefits to
31 the state's veterans attributable to the assistance of
32 county veteran service of1i'cersjustify thatincrease in the
33 budget.
34 (e) This section shall remain in effect only until
35 January 1, 2001, and as of that date is repealed, unless a
36 later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1,.,,
37 2001, deletes or extends that date.
38 SEC. 3. Section 972.1 of the Military and Veterans
39 Code, as amended by Section 2 of Chapter 286 of the
40 Statutes of 1995, is amended to read:
99
SB 608 — 4 -
1
4 -1 972.1. (a) The sum of five hundred thousand dollars
2 ($500,000) is hereby appropriated from the General Fund
3 to the Department of Veterans Affairs for allocation,
4 during the 1989-90 fiscal year,for purposes of funding the
5 activities of county veteran service officers pursuant to
6 this section. Funds for allocation in future years shall be
7 as provided in the annual Budget Act.
8 (b) Funds shall be disbursed each fiscal year on a pro
9 rata basis to counties that have established and maintain
10 a county veteran service officer in accordance with the
11 staffing level and workload of each county veteran
12 service officer under a formula based upon performance
13 that shall be developed by the Department of Veterans
14 Affairs for these purposes, and that shall allocate county
15 funds in any fiscal year for county veterans service
16 officers in an amount not less than the amount allocated
17 in the 1988--89 fiscal year.
18 (c) The department shall annually determine the
19 amount of new or increased monetary benefits paid to
20 eligible veterans by the federal government attributable
21 to the assistance of county veteran service officers. The
22 department shall on or before January 1, prepare and
23 transmitits determination for the precedingfiscal year to
24 the Department of Finance and the Legislature. The
25 Department of Finance shall review the departments
26 determination in time to use the information in the
27 annual Budget Act for the budget of the department for
28 the next fiscal year.
29 (d) (1) The Legislature finds and declares that 50
30 percent of the amount annually budgeted for county
31 veteran service officers is approximately six million
32 dollars ($6,000,000). The Legislature further fids and
33 declares that it is an efficient and reasonable use ofstate
34 funds to increase the annual budget for county veteran
35 service officers in an amount not to exceed six million
36 dollars ($'6,000,000) if it is justified by the monetary
37 benefits to the state's veterans attributable to the'effort
38 of these officers.
39 (2) It is the intent of the Legislature, after reviewing
40 the department's determination in subdivision (c), to
99
- 5 — SB 608
1 consider an increase in the annual budget for county
2 veteran service officers in an amount not to exceed six
3 million dollars ($6,000,000), if the monetary benefits to
4 the state's veterans attributable to the assistance of
5 county veteran service offzcersjustify that increase in the
6 budget.
7 (e) This section shall become operative January 1,
8 2001.
O
99
bo
= Contra
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Costa
FROM: TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE County
DATE: March 17, 1997
SUBJECT: Support Senate Bill 367
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
Adopt a position in support of Senate Bill 367.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
BACKGROUND/R�ARONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
In 1991, the Legislature passed Assembly Bill 434, which established a surcharge on
vehicle registration fees in the Bay Area initially of $2.00 and later of $4.00. These
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR XRECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
—APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE( ): Donna G rbe J anciamilla
ACTION OF BOARD ON:—App, 1997 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED xOTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT) V TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Orig Dept: Community Development ATTESTED April 1 , 1997
Contact: Ernest Vovakis, 335-1243 PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
cc: THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND
/COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BYE DEPUTY
.w
Senate Bill 367
March 17, 1997
Page 2
funds, known as the Transportation Fund for Clean Air, are allocated to the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District and other public agencies for specified purposes which benefit air quality. In
1995, this legislation was amended to include, for a period of two years, bicycle facility improvement
projects. The eligibility of bicycle projects will expire on January 1 , 1998, unless the bill is amended.
Senate Bill 367, introduced by Senator Byron Sher who as an Assemblyman sponsored the original AB
434 legislation, removes the sunset provision for bicycle projects.
Contra Costa County has been a leader in promoting bicycle transportation and is currently offering the
GO 8/KE! program as a means of expanding bicycle use in the County. Bicycle use for transportation
purposes yields many benefits to the community, including reduced emissions, reduced automobile
congestion, and reduced parking needs. The Committee recommends that the Board add its support
to Senate Bill 367.
SENATE BILL No. 367
Introduced by Senator Sher
February 13, 1997
An act to amend Section 44241 of the Health and Safety
Code, relating to air pollution.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 367, as introduced, Sher. Air pollution: bay district:
motor vehicle fee revenues.
(1) Existing law requires specified motor vehicle fee
revenues generated in the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District to be subvened to the bay district and used for
specified purposes that include, until January 1, 1998,
implementation of specified bicycle facility improvement
projects.
This bill would continue indefinitely the inclusion of those
bicycle facility improvement projects among the projects for
which those revenues are required to be expended, thereby
creating a state-mandated local program by imposing new
duties on local agencies.
(2) 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.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required
by this act for a specified reason.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.
99
SB 367 — 2 —
The
2 —
The people of the State of California do enact as follows.
1 SECTION 1. Section 44241 of the Health and Safety
2 Code is amended to read:
3 44241. (a) Fee revenues generated under this
4 chapter in the bay district shall be subvened to the bay
5 district by the Department of Motor Vehicles after
6 deducting its administrative costs pursuant to Section
7 44229.
8 (b) Fee revenues generated under this chapter shall
9 be allocated by the bay district to implement the
10 following mobile source and transportation control
11 projects and programs that are included in the plan
12 adopted pursuant to Sections 40233, 40717, and 40919:
13 (1) The implementation of ridesharing programs.
14 (2) The purchase or lease of clean fuel buses for school
15 districts and transit operators.
16 (3) The provision of local feeder bus or shuttle service
17 to rail and ferry stations and to airports.
18 (4) Implementation and maintenance of local arterial
19 traffic management, including, but not limited to, signal
20 timing, transit signal preemption, bus stop relocation and
21 "smart streets."
22 (5) Implementation of rail-bus integration and
23 regional transit information systems.
24 (6) Implementation of demonstration projects in
25 congestion pricing of highways, bridges, and public
26 transit, and low-emission vehicles.
27 (7) Implementation of a smoking vehicles program.
28 (8) Implementation of an automobile buy-back
29 scrappage program operated by a governmental agency.
30 (9) {fir} Implementation of bicycle facility
31 improvement projects that are included in an adopted
32 countywide bicycle plan or congestion management
33 program.
34 +B+ par-agrapk shA beeeme ieaperative oft
35 Januar-5 4; 419% wiless a htt" eked statute deletes of
36 extends drat date
37 (c) Fee revenue generated under this chapter shall be
38 allocated by the bay district for projects and programs
99
— 3 — SB 367
Vs: 1 specified in subdivision (b) to cities; counties, the
2 Metropolitan Transportation Commission, transit
Ay 3 districts, or any other public agency responsible for
4 implementing one or more of the specified projects or
his 5 programs. Fee revenues shall not be used for any
)ay 6 planning activities that are not directly related to the
ter 7 implementation of a specific project or program.
ion 8 (d) Not less than 40 percent of fee revenues shall be
9 allocated to the entity or entities designated pursuant to
call 10 subdivision (e) for projects and programs in each county
:he 11 within the bay district based upon the county's
rol 12 proportionate share of fee-paid vehicle registration.
tan 13 (e) In each county, one or more entities may be
14 designated as the overall program manager for the
15 county by resolutions adopted by the county board of
ool 16 supervisors and the city councils of a majority of the cities
17 representing a majority of the population in the
ice 18 incorporated area of the county. The resolution shall
19 specify the terms and conditions for the expenditure of
dal 20 funds. The entities so designated shall be allocated the
nal 21 funds pursuant to subdivision (d) in accordance with the
nd 22 terms and conditions of the resolution.
23 (f) Any county, or entity designated pursuant to
nd 24 subdivision (e), that receives funds pursuant to this
25 section shall, at least once a year, hold one or more public
in 26 meetings for the purpose of adopting criteria for
)lic 27 expenditure of the funds and to review the expenditure
28 of revenues received pursuant to this section by any
n, 29 designated entity.
ick 30 SEC. 2. No reimbursement is required by this act
,cy, 31 pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California
lity 32 Constitution because a local agency or school district has
ted 33 the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments
snt 34 sufficient to pay for the program or level of service
35 mandated by this act,within the meaning of Section 17556
eft 36 of the Government Code.
e 37 Notwithstanding Section 17580 of the Government
38 Code, unless otherwise specified, the provisions of this act
. be
ms
99 99
' SB 367 — 4 —
I
4 -
1 shall become operative on the same date that the act
2 takes effect pursuant to the California Constitution,
O
99