HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04081997 - C27-C32 • AUDITOR-CONTROLLER USE ONLY
�f CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FINALA OVR NEEDED BY:
�1 f
APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENT ® Bo'noasuFEawsoas
T/C 27 COUNTYADMINIsTRATM
ACCOUNT CODING BUDGET UNIT: Sheriffs Office 0255
Daswi m SUB-OBJECI EXPENDITRUE ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION (DECREASE) INCREASE
4407 4282 Forensic Science Center Office 49,000.00
4407 4aW Paving Delta Sub-Station 30,000.00
2517 2490 Misc Services&Supplies 135,000.00
2518 2490 Misc Services& Supplies 99,403.00
2505 2479 Other Special Departmental Expense 3A600.00
ZSl9 ?3!o peerESs+nN�a /SPLCL2D SVCS 13 03,00
TOTALS 178,403.00178,403.00
APPROVED EXPLANATION OF REQUEST
AUDITOR-COVOy} To transfer budgeted funds from the Sheriffs Office to General
Do%:J497 Services Department plant acquisition to pave the Sheriffs Delta
Sub-Station parking lot, and to continue the build out of office
C ADMIN T - OR space at the Forensic Science Building 1960 Muir Rd. Martinez.
By: DBcJ,12—T'? These funds were made available by the decision of the C.C.C.
CAL-ID Remote Access Network Board to, in part, fund Contra
BOARD OF S PERVISORS Costa County's CAL-ID's share from the AFIS Trust Fund, and the
SURRVISORS ROGERS.UILKEMA, remainder is due to Departmental savings.
YES: OMER.DESAULNIER,CANCWdILLA
i
Oa Bel Wft,dark or tee&)w or
fulw�Yixroa
on"(:nimF,� Armini.gra* - BIONAT TME T—��IM�n
By: Meld]AM AP`00. /�
C. Zg
• AUDITOR-CONTROLLER USE ONLY
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FINAL APPROVAL NEEDED BY:
APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENT 0 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T/C 27 M COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
ACCOUNT CODING BUDGET UNIT: CRIMINAL JUSTICE FACILITY CNSTRN(0119)
EXPENDITURE
ORGANIZATION SUB-ACCOUNT EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION <DECREASE> INCREASE
0119 2131 Minor Tools and Instruments 59,500 O'>7
TOTALS 0 00 59,500 00
APPROVED EXPLANATION OF REQUEST
AUDITOR-CONTROLLER:
BY: / DATE.3` 97 Appropriate revenues and expenditures for Radar Gun purchase.
CO MINI T TOR:
BY: DAT
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
YES: SUPERVISORS ROGERS,UILKEMA,
GERBER,DESAULNIER,CANCIAMILLA
NO:
• ftklar,deck of the BOW� ' Bud System Admin 3/18/97
&WrWmrs and County Advini SIGNATURE TITLE
APPROPRIATION APOO
BY:SL LA h.,j DATE Q t ,- ADJ.JOURNAL NO.
(M129 Rev 2/86)
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
ESTIMATED REVENUE ADJUSTMENT
T/C 24
ACCOUNT CODING BUDGET UNIT: JUSTICE SYSTEM PROGRAMS(0325)
REVENUE
ORGANIZATION ACCOUNT REVENUE ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION INCREASE <DECREASE>
0119 9161 General Fines 59,500 00 00
TOTALS 59,500 0 0 00
APPROVED EXPLANATION OF REQUEST
AUDITOR-CONTROLLER:
BY: v� DATE i T Appropriate increases revenues from traffic fines.
CO MI S TOR:
BY: DAT
4�
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
SUPERVISORS ROGERS,UILKEMA,
YES: '1 GERBER,DESAULNIER,CANCIAMILLA
NO:
B1td1l10►, ClErlt Of tN ��� -• ud System Admin 3/18/97
111110arib=aad COugty AdmleisVaW I A UR L DATE
BY: ATE 0
,, � _ REVENUE ADJ. RA00 S�
�g'9 JOURNAL NO.
(M 8134 Rev.2/86)
FF'I"L lLY
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY APPROVAL NEEDED BY:
APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENT
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T/C 27
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
ACCOUNT CODING BUDGET UNIT: 0335 - Agriculture
ORGANIZATION EXPENDITURE EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION
SUI-MUNI DECREASE INCREASE
-
'00 100
3305 2110 Installation and purchase of office i j
paging system and cellular phones 1 1 , 750100
I �
3305 2131 Truck tool boxes (7) and tools I 3, 20 000
3305 2131 Office Furniture - ergonomically i 8 , 35000
designed chairs (27) 1 I
3305 4951 Laptop computers (3) , printers (3) ,' I 159300 .00
scanner (1) , software and peripherals I 1
1 I
3305 4951 LCD Audio Visual Projector I 8 , 800100
I '
3305 4953 1 Longbed Subcompact Truck I 1570001100
3305 4953 3 Yamaha Timber Wolf ATVs 117600 i00
I 1
I T
I '
I 1
I I
I 1
I
I 1
0990 6301 Reserve for Contingencies 64 ,000 100 1
I
0990 6301 Appropriable New Revenue 64,000 100
t
I I
TOTALS 649000 bO 128 ,000 b0
APPROVED EXPLANATION OF REQUEST
AUDITOR-CONTROLLER The Department, Org. 3305, wishes to allocate
$64,000 in additional revenue from Agricultural
By: Date Gas Tax refunds to the above specified accounts .
This will allow the Department to replace old
COUNT A II R TOR or damaged equipment and furniture. It will
also provide electronic equipment for field
By; Da work and training.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
YES: SUPERVISORS ROGERS.UILKEMA.
GERBER,DESAULNIER.CANCIAMILLA
No: WOOF-
FM 11"etor.CterR of the Bond d Agricultural
1 60ervb=AndCountyAdmiRrsftbr � /N yy� Commissioner
SIGNATURE TITLE DATE
By: DG 1G 'C$- APPROPRIATION A P0o �15:9
ADJ. JOURNAL NO.
_ CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 2q
ESTIMATED REVENUE ADJUSTMENT
T/C 24
ACCOUNT COOING BUDGET UNIT: Agriculture - 0335
ORGANIZATION ACCOUNT REVENUE DESCRIPTION INCREASE <DECREASE>
100 100
3305 9330 Agricultural Gas Tax Refund 64, 000 100
I '
I
I ,
I 1
I 1
I I
1
I ,
I 1
I I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
� I
I I
I �
TOTALS 64, 000 :001 1
APPROVED EXPLANATION OF REQUEST
AUDITOR-CO ROLLER The Department , Org. 3305 , will receive
By: Dare39 $64 ,000.00 in additional revenue due to
an increase in Agricultural Gas Tax refunds .
COUNTY VINI TR TOR
Lk
By: D T
BOARD OF SLWERVISORS
SUPERVISORS ROGERS.UILKEMA,
YE S: GERBER,DESAULNIER,CANCIAMILLA
NQ: NPdE OAgricultural
NP: phpy"dw,CIerkOfthe BOW d ' �� �/�� Commissioner /`�
jwv,,ARR one County Ad@InlS"CON' SIGNATURE TITLE OAT
7211
By: CIAVAP)DOII444,11
REVENUE AOJ. RA00 '575—?
JOURNAL X0.
(a 8134 Rev. S6)
`. t C.3o
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AUDITOR—CONTROLLER USE ONLY
APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENT FINAL APPROVAL NEEDED Br.
TIC 2714r.
K BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
97 MAR 20 RM : 46 O OOUNTYADMINISTRATOR
BUDGET UNIT:
ACCOUNT CODING HSD EF1 145000 Pigo t W t
EXPENDITURE
ORGANIZATION sus-ACCOUNT EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION <DECREASE> INCREASE
0540 1011 Permanent Salaries 9,080.00
0540 3580 Contributions to Other 5,000,000.00
0995 6301 Reserve for Contingencies 6,083246.00
0853 4954 Medical&tab Equipment 1,074,16600
0995 6301 Appropriable New Revenue 6,083,246,00
TOTAL $6083,246.00 $12,165,492,00
APPROVED EXPLANATION OF REQUEST
AUDITOR—CONTROLLER
By To appropriate fund balance for FY 96(97
; X{ oat,
COUNTy,!l 1
By: "`✓✓�� Date
BOARD OF SUPE SORS
SUPERVISORS ROGERS,UILKEMA,
?Es: ER ,DESAULWER,CANCURMILLA�
NO: Vax Cterk of the 8=0 at ,, t
itry Msnrs aRr Co" A+djJymiinistralgr p
BYp,`%9�� ..U .. +� I 1 7 H.S.D.cwltraNr
�y s1GdJATURE TITLE DATE
V APPROPRIATION APOO S_)'/&O
ADJ.JOURNAL NO.
(IN 129 RW MIS)
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
ESTIMATED REVENUE ADJUSTMENT
i�
T/C 24
91 MAR 20 PM 3* 41
BUDGET UNIT:
ACCOUNTCODING HSD EF1 145000 Pape of 1
EXPENDITURE
ORGANIZATION I SUB-ACCOUNT REVENUE DESCRIPTION INCREASE <DECREASE>
0540 8981 Approp.Fund Balance 5,009,080.00
0853 8981 Approp. Fund Balance 1,074,166.00
TOTAL $6,083,246.00 $0.00
APPROVED EXPLANATION OF REQUEST
AUDITOR-CONTROLLER
To appropriate fund balance for FY 96(97
By: wea 3 �
COUNTY ADMI R
By: Dae. l�
BOARD OF SUPER ORS
SUPERVISORS ROGERS,UILKEMA,
AS: GERBER,DESAULNIER,CANCIAMILLA�
NO: p hft.Cert of the Bead of '
,I.ndcm an oUaty A1miRistrOW `�Q Q
e. oQ .149 C H.S.D.Controller
1 SIGNATURE TITLE DATE
EVE
RNUE ADJ. RAOO d i4z>
JOURNAL NO.
"134 Rw a/W
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Contra
FROM: PHIL BATCHELOR, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR !' Costa
o'. 3
x., County
,p
Aril 1 1997
DATE:
SUBJECT: LEGISLATION: SB 1294 (LESLIE, JOHANNESSEN, RAINEY, AND
THOMPSON)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)8 BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION:
AGREE to CO-SPONSOR SB 1294 by Senators Tim Leslie, Maurice Johannessen,
Richard Rainey, and Mike Thompson which would treat the five original "Teeter'
counties the same as other counties which have opted to become Teeter counties
in the past few years, thereby obtaining a one-time revenue increase.
BACKGROUND:
A county has two options in distributing property taxes to other taxing jurisdictions:
1) distribute property taxes periodically as they are received, or 2) opt to become a
'Teeter" county, which provides an alternative method of distributing property taxes.
Under this alternative, the County guarantees each taxing jurisdiction its proper
share of property taxes and distributes that revenue to the other taxing jurisdiction,
regarding of when or whether the property taxes are actually paid. The County
establishes a Tax Loss Reserve Fund to insure that the County will eventually be
reimbursed for any delinquent taxes which have already been distributed to other
taxing jurisdictions. Because the County keeps all penalties and interest on
delinquent taxes, it is able to insure that the County General Fund never loses any
money from having advanced the property taxes to the other taxing jurisdictions.
This alternative has been available to counties for several decades, but until the
1994-95 fiscal year only five counties took advantage of these alternative provisions
(Contra Costa, Siskiyou, Modoc, EI Dorado & Solano).
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _VES SIGNATURE: IK
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ,.RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE /,�() /�/—�/�O>�THERR��/�f
SIGNATURE(S): / mak/ ?Z/iT1' // - � ��'�•
ACTION OF BOARD ON Apra! A 1997 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED — 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 ON THE DATE SHOWN.
CC: See Page 3 ATTESTED April 8, 1997
PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY �• J, ,DEPUTY
M382 (10/88)
Those counties that first implemented the "Teeter" provisions for the 1994-95 fiscal
year were allowed to keep what otherwise would have been a one-time windfall for
the schools. This would have occurred because in non-Teeter counties, property
taxes are distributed as they are received. This means that the schools (and all
other taxing jurisdictions) do not receive their share of property taxes which become
delinquent until those taxes are actually paid.
The advantage for other taxing jurisdictions in "Teeter counties" is that the county
fronts the property taxes for all other jurisdictions and reimburses itself from the
property taxes and interest and penalties when the property taxes are paid or
ultimately from the Tax Loss Reserve Fund.
When a county switches from "non-Teeter" to "Teeter' status, all the other taxing
jurisdictions receive a one-time bonus because they no longer have to wait to
receive their share of delinquent taxes. When the property tax shift was made for
the 1994-95 fiscal year, Revenue & Taxation Code Section 97.3(a)(5) was added to
allow as a credit against the property taxes which were being transferred to the
schools, the schools' share of the delinquent property taxes where the county was
also switching to becoming a Teeter county. Since the schools now receive the
single largest share of the property taxes in most counties, they would also have
received the largest benefit from having the county switch to being a Teeter county.
This windfall, which the State would ultimately have received since the larger
transfer of property taxes to the schools would have reduced the State's obligation
to the schools, was left with the county in the form of a credit against what was being
transferred to the school through the ERAF.
The five original "Teeter" counties were disadvantaged when the bulk of the other
counties became Teeter counties in 1994-95, because since they were already
"Teeter' counties, the schools received all of the transfer, including the current year
delinquencies. As a result, these five counties were unable to offset their property
tax transfer with this one-time "windfall,"which the State ultimately received through
reduced subventions to the schools.
The four senators representing the five original Teeter counties (Senators Leslie,
Johannessen, Rainey, and Thompson) have introduced SB 1294 which, as
introduced, would simply remove the requirement that the county have first switched
to being a Teeter county in the 1994-95 fiscal year, thereby including the five original
Teeter counties, including Contra Costa County. This adjustment would be made
for these five counties in the 1998-99 fiscal year.
In 1996, the Board of Supervisors asked Senator Leslie to amend a bill (SB 1845)
he had introduced on a similar subject to do exactly what SB 1294 now proposes to
do. That was not accomplished in 1996, but it put the Board firmly in support of
legislation to accomplish this one-time equity adjustment so that the original Teeter
counties are treated the same as all other counties. In view of the Board's support
for these same provisions in 1996, we are recommending that the Board agree to co-
sponsor SB 1294.
-2-
031
cc: County Administrator
Auditor-Controller
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
-3-
031
SENATE BILL No. 1294
Introduced by Senators Leslie, Johannessen, Rainey, and
Thompson
February 28, 1997
An act to amend Section 97.36 of the Revenue and Taxation
Code, relating to local government finance.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 1294, as introduced, Leslie. Property tax revenue
allocations: Teeter Plan counties: shift reduction.
Existing law requires the county auditor, in each fiscal year,
to allocate property tax revenues to local jurisdictions in
accordance with specified formulas and procedures, and
generally provides that each jurisdiction shall be allocated an
i amount equal to the total of the amount of revenue allocated
to that jurisdiction in the prior fiscal year, subject to certain
modifications, and that jurisdiction's portion of the annual tax
increment, as defined. Existing property tax law modifies
these provisions by requiring that, for purposes of
determining property tax revenue allocations in each county
for the 1992-93 and 1993--94 fiscal years, the amounts of
property tax revenue deemed allocated in the prior fiscal year
to the county, cities, and special districts be reduced in
accordance with certain formulas. It requires that the
revenues not allocated to the county, cities, and special
districts as a result of these reductions be transferred to the
Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund in that county for
allocation to school districts, community college districts, and
the county office of education.
t.�
99
0..3/
SB 1294 — 2 —
Existing
2 —
Existing law modifies these reduction and -transfer
provisions by decreasing a "qualified county's" reduction and
transfer amount, attributable in the "designated fiscal year"
to the reduction and transfer amount determined for that
county in the 1993-94 fiscal year, by the amount of increased
allocations made in the designated fiscal year to certain
educational entities as a result of that county's adoption of a
specified alternative method for the distribution of ad
valorem property tax revenues. Existing law defines a
"qualified county" as a county that has first implemented this
alternative distribution method in the 1994-95 fiscal year or
any subsequent fiscal year, and defines the "designated fiscal
year" as the first fiscal year in which the relevant "qualified
county" first implemented this same alternative distribution
method.
This bill would instead define a "qualified county" as any
county that has implemented this specified alternative
distribution method, and would, with respect to counties that
first implemented this alternative distribution method prior
to the 1994-95 fiscal year, define the "designated fiscal year"
as the 1998=99 fiscal year. By imposing existing duties upon
additional county auditors in the annual allocation of ad
valorem property tax revenues, this bill would impose a
state-mandated local program. This bill would also make
additional nonsubstantive, technical, and clarifying changes.
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
malting`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.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows.,
1 SECTION 1. Section 97.36 of the Revenue and
` 2 Taxation Code is amended to read:
3 97.36. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of
4 this chapter, for the designated fiscal year, the amount of
99
- 3 — SB 1294
1 the revenue allocation reduction with respect to a-
2
2 qualified county that is attributable in that fiscal year to
3 the reduction determined for that county for-the 1993-94
4 fiscal year pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of
5 Section 97.3 or its predecessor section shall be reduee
6 decreased by the amount of any increased revenues,
7 allocated in the designated fiscal year in that county to a
8 "qualifying school entity" as defined in paragraph (5) of
9 subdivision (a) of Section 97.3 or its predecessor section,
10 that would not have been so allocated but for that county
11 being a qualified county.
12 (b) For purposes of this section:
13 (1) A" "Qualified county" means a county or
14 city or county that has fifet implemented fe the 4994AA
15 er efty subsequent €iseal yeas the alternative procedure
16 for the distribution of property tax levies that is
17 authorized by Chapter 2 (commencing with Section
18 4701) of Part 8.
19 (2) Fer perpeses of tkis seetien, "de tea
20 "Designated fiscal year" means the following.
21 (A) In the case of a qualified county that first
22 implemented the alternative method for the distribution
23 of property tax levies that is authorized by Chapter 2
24 (commencing with Section 4701) ofPart8in the 1994-95
25 fiscal year or thereafter, the fiscal year. in which the
26 relevant qualified county first implemented khe that
27 alternative method for the distribution of property tax
28 levies that is authorized by Chapter 2 (commencing with
29 Section 4701) of Part 8.
30 (B) In the case of a quaffed county that first
31 implemented the alternative method for the distribution
32 of property tax levies that is authorized by Chapter 2
33 (commencing with Section 4701) of Part 8 prior to the
34 1994-95 fiscal year, the 1998-99 fiscal year.
35 SEC. I No reimbursement is required by this act
36 pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California
37 Constitution because this act pr_ovidos for offsetting
38 savings to local agencies or school districts that result in
39 no net costs to the local agencies or school districts, within
40 the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code.
99
SB 1294 — 4 -
1
4 -
1 Notwithstanding Section 17580 of the Government
2 Code,unless otherwise specified,the provis ons of this act
3 shall become operative on the same date that the act
4 , takes effect pursuant to the California Constitution.
Ken Corcoran
From: senate-News-Reply
To: Recipients; of;bill:sb 1294;messages
Subject Message on bill 5b_1294: bilimat:[current.sb.from1200.sbt294]saclgov.bd
Date: Friday, March 28, 1997 7:55AM
GILL ANALYSIS
SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE
Senator William A- Craven,Chainj:an
BILL NO- SB 1294 HEARING— 04102/97
AUTHOR: Lesiie FISCAL: 'Yes
AMENDED: 02/297 CONSULTANT: Manatt
TEETER PLAN COUNTIES '
Background and E�dsting Law
County auditors allocate property tax revenues to local
governments in one of two ways. The traditional method was
to allocate the money that actually came ip and then
allocate the delinquent payments and penalties later-
Under the Teeter Plan,a county auditor sends each local
government the total amount of property fax revenues it's
entitled to receive,and then the eourdy ggvemment
collects and keeps the delinquency and penalty payments.
Use of the Teeter Plan benefits the state by reducing the
state's financial obligations to schools by the amount of
increased property tax revenues which schools receive.
In 1992-93 and 1993-94,the Legislature shifted$3.4
billion in property tax revenues from locali agencies to
schools- To encourage counties to adoplkhe Teeter Plan,
the Legislature allowed counties that fust jmplemented the
Teeter Pian in 1994-95 to reduce their 1993-94 property tax
shift amount that year by the amount of new revenue that
schools received (SB 742, Committee onBudget and Fiscal
Review, 1993). All but six counties(Alpl6e, Calaveras,
Los Angeles,Mono, Mariposa, Momerey)!adopted the Teeter
Plan in 1993-94.
In 1994, the Legislature allowed Mariposa to adopt a Teeter
Plan and receive the
the same one-time benefit(AS 786, Hannigan, t994). In
Page 1
1996,the Legislature extended the incentive to all
counties that adopted the Teeter Plan after 1994-95 (S8
1845, Leslie, 1996). Caleveras County has since adopted a
Teeter Plan.
Five counties adopted the Teeter Plan before there was an
incentive to do so. These counties ward the same incentive
that other counties received. F)dending the incentive to
these counties would result in the following relief:
County Amount
Contra Costa $4,951,000
Et Dorado $2,500,006.
Modoc $115,0110
Swyou $658,000 .
Solan $2,242,000
TOTAL
$10.466.000
Proposed Law
If a county adopted the Teeter Plan prior}0 1994-95,
Senate Bill 1294 requires the current value of the countyos
1993-94 property tax shift to be reduced-911 SOU-99 by the
amount of increased revenues allocated to school entities.
Comment
1. Penalized for foresight? Five countie8 adopted Teeter
Plans long Before the Legislature offered kn incentive. In
1993,the Legislature realized that it coup mitigate its
financial support for schools N county auditors allocated
schools'property tax revenues using the teeter Plan. To
encourage counties to play along,the Legislature and the
Governor provided an incentive which allbwed counties to
reduce their ERAF shifts for one year by the additional
revenues allocated to schools. By 1995,the Legislature
had extended this benefit to all counties that fast
implemented a Teeter Plan after 1994. ljut what about the
five counties that were already doing the Bright thing7'
Why should they be excluded from the state incentive—
worth over$10 million--just because they'd already
adopted a Teeter Plan?
2. Apples& oranges? The Legislature's!1993 incentive
payments to counties with Teeter Plans rod not extend to
the courdles that had already adopted Tepter Plans because
they don't generate any new offsetting benefits forthe
Page 2
Cn•J 1rnT^ n I '1'1'1 ?I 77n} l ldn'1-vn l i nr IJn�j PP.OTI ,cc i_op_Lui.i
h0'd 111101
state(since schools in those counties are Olready
receiving their entire allocation of property tax revenues
up-front). SB 1294 alloys counties that adopted the Teeter
Plan before the 1993 legislative encouradement to reap the
benefits of the state Incentives. But why�,�'hhould the state
pay an incentive payment to these ooun li s for something
they re already doing? Moreover,why should the Slate z
General Fund backidl the reduced ERAF losses it these
couhtties when these counties,unlike the counties that
adopted Teeter Pians after 1993,aren't providing any nuw,
offsetting benerd to the state?
3. End of the line_ In 1993,the Legislature provided an
incentive 10 adopt the Teeter Plan and implement it for the
first time in 1894-05. in IMM and 1996,the Legislature
extended this benefit to all other ooun ies�first
fmplementing the Teeter Plan in later yeats. This year,SB
1294 proposes to erdend the finical benefit to counties
that adopted the Plan prior to 1994,therapy Including all
counties in the program and preduding the need for any
hdure bills on this topic
Page 3
110'd 360TS 01 JOW LM102LLNOD-601I0113 hOad Tr::60 L66T-BZ-atlW
C. 32
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
FROM: PHIL BATCHELOR, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR o ; Costa
County
DATE: April 1, 1997 rr=:---'-
'� coUN�
SUBJECT: LEGISLATION: AB 972 (TORLAKSON)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)8 BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION:
ADOPT a position in SUPPORT of AB 972 by Assemblyman Tom Torlakson, which
currently makes technical changes to state mandate legislation but which will be
amended to relieve local government of a number of state mandates which are not
deemed to be necessary, but which unnecessarily complicate administration of
programs at the local government level, and which can be eliminated without any
serious programmatic or fiscal consequences.
BACKGROUND:
Assemblyman Torlakson has introduced AB 972 in an effort to provide some relief
to local governments from some of the process-related requirements in State law
which do not appear to be necessary, but which make the administration of programs
more difficult at the county level and which can be eliminated without too much
difficulty. It is the intent to include measures which are not overly controversial and
which can probably receive bi-partisan support in the Legislature and support of the
Administration in terms of the Governor's willingness to sign the legislation.
The Board of Supervisors has been on record for a number of years as seeking relief
from a variety of unfunded state mandates. More recently, the Board has indicated
an interest in being held responsible for accomplishing results, rather than simply
following process requirements which do not guarantee the accomplishment of any
objectives.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _YES SIGNATURE: �
T RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE _OTHER
0
SIGNATURE(S): � L& 6 �
ACTION OF BOARD ON Arbil 8, 1997 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
X 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: See Page 2 ATTESTED April 8, 1997
PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
M382 (10/88)
BY e .DEPUTY
l
x'.32
In view of the Board's previous positions on the subject of unfunded mandates and
the importance of results rather than process, it appears appropriate for the Board
to indicate its support for AB 972. Staff will be attempting to work with Assemblyman
Torlakson's staff to identify some specific items that can be included in the bill.
Assemblyman Torlakson's staff are also working with CSAC to identify additional
items that can be included in the bill.
cc: County Administrator
County Counsel
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. 972
Introduced by Assembly Member Torlakson
February 27, 1997
An act to amend Sections 17525, 17553, 17557, and 17560 of,
and to add Section 17558.6 to, the Government Code, relating
to state mandates.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 972, as introduced, Torlakson. State-mandated local
costs.
Existing law requires the Governor to appoint 2 persons to
the Commission on State Mandates from 3 categories.
This bill would instead require the Governor to appoint 3
persons to the commission with one of those designated to be
an alternate for the other 2 to vote when either member is
absent.
(2) Existing law requires the commission to adopt
procedures that ensure that a statewide cost estimate is
adopted within 18 months after receipt of a test claim or 6
months after receipt of an undisputed test claim.
This bill would instead require that a statewide cost
estimate be adopted within 12 months after receipt of a test
claim and delete the reference to an undisputed test claim.
The bill would also provide that this deadline may be
extended for up to 6 months upon the request of either the
claimant or the commission.
99
032-
AB
32-
AB 972 — 2 —
(3)
2 —
(3) Existing law requires that a test claim be submitted on
or before December 31 following a fiscal year in order to
establish eligibility for reimbursement for that fiscal year.
This bill would revise the last date following the close of a
fiscal year on which a test claim may be submitted to June 30.
(4) Under existing law, all claims that are filed after the
determination of a test claim are required to be transferred
to the Controller who is required to pay and audit the claims.
This bill would provide that if the Controller determines
that a reimbursement claim should be reduced and the
determination is contested, in lieu of a hearing on the issue
before the commission, the local agency would be authorized
to have the issue resolved by binding arbitration.
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. Section 17525 of the Government Code
2 is amended to read:
3 17525. (a) There is hereby created the Commission
4 on State Mandates, which shall consist of sever ffie bees
5 ae fellows the following members:
6 (1) The Controller.
7 (2) The Treasurer.
8 (3) The Director of Finance.
9 (4) The Director of the Office of Planning and
10 Research.
11 (5) A public member with experience in public
12 finance, appointed by the Governor and approved by the
13 Senate.
14 (6) Twe Three members from the following three
15 categories appointed by the Governor and approved by
16 the Senate,provided that no more than one member shall
17 come from the same category. The Governor shall
18 designate one of these three appoin tees as an alternate to
19 the other two to vote when either of the other two
20 members is absent:
21_ (A) A city council member.
99
- 3 — AB 972
1 (B) A member of a county or city and county board of-
2 supervisors.
3 (C) A governing board member of a school district as
4 defined in Section 17519.
5 (b) Each member appointed pursuant to paragraph
6 (5) or (6) of subdivision (a) shall be subject to both of the
7 following:
8 (1) The member shall serve for a term of four years
9 subject to renewal.
10 (2) The member shall receive per diem of one
11 hundred dollars ($100) for each day actually spent in the
12 discharge of official duties and shall be reimbursed for any
13 actual and necessary expenses incurred in connection
14 with the performance of duties as a member of the
15 commission.
16 SEC. 2. Section 17553 of the Government Code is
17 amended to read:
18 17553. (a) The commission shall adopt procedures
19 for receiving claims pursuant to this article and for
20 providing a hearing on those claims. The hearing
21 procedure shall provide for presentation of evidence by
22 the claimant, the Department of Finance and any other
23 affected department or agency, and any other interested
24 person. The procedures shall ensure that a statewide cost
25 estimate is adopted within 1812 months after receipt of
26 a test claim or sig nienths after- ae ebb tteet elate;
27 exeept €er- ar-ry exteftsiens of pestpenefnen by the
28 elaimant,er-if ieeefplete kger-e}atiee is sebfflitted by the
29 elat, when a determination is made by the
30 commission that a mandate exists. This deadline may be
31 extended for up to six months upon the request of either
32 the claimant or the commission. Hearing of a claim may
33 be postponed at the request of the claimant, without
34 prejudice, until the next scheduled hearing.
35 (b) The procedures adopted by the commission
36 pursuant to subdivision (a) shall include the following:
37 (1) Provisions for consolidating test claims relating to
38 the same statute or executive order filed with the
39 commission with time limits that do not exceed 30 days
40 from the initial filing for consolidating the test claims and
99
d
�. 32
AB 972 — 4 -
1
4 -
1 £or claimants to designate a single contact for information
2 regarding the test claim.
3 (2) Provisions for claimants to designate a single
4 claimant for,a test claim relating to the same statute or
5 executive '6rder filed with the commission, with time
6 limits that do not exceed 30 days from the initial filing for
7 making that designation.
8 (c) If a completed test claim is not received by the
9 commission within 30 calendar days from the date that an
10 incomplete test claim was returned by the commission,
I the original test claim filing date may be disallowed, and
12 a new test claim may be accepted on the same statute or
13 executive order.
14 (d) This section shall become operative on July 1, 1996.
15 SEC. 3, Section 17557 of the Government Code is
16 amended to read:
17 17557. (a) If the commission determines there are
18 costs mandated by the state pursuant to Section 17555, it
19 shall determine the amount to be subvened to local
20 agencies and school districts for reimbursement. In so
21 doing it shall adopt parameters and guidelines for
22 reimbursement of any claims relating to the statute or
23 executive order. The successful test claimants shall
24 submit proposed parameters and guidelines within 30
25 days of adoption of a statement of decision on a test claim. '
26 At the request of a successful test claimant, the
27 commission may provide for one or more extensions of
28 this 30-day period at any time prior to its adoption of the
29 parameters and guidelines. If proposed parameters and
30 guidelines are not submitted within the 30-day period and
31 the commission has not granted an extension, then the
32 commission shall notify the test claimant that the amount
33 of reimbursement the test claimant is entitled to for the
34 first 12 months of incurred costs will be reduced by 20
35 percent, unless the test claimant can demonstrate to the
36 commission why an extension of the 30-day period is
37 justified. A local agency, school district, and the state may
38 file a claim or request with the commission to amend,
39 modify, or supplement the parameters or guidelines. The
i
99
- 5 — AB 972
1 commission may, after public notice and hearing, amend,
2 modify, or supplement the parameters and guidelines.
3 (b) In adopting parameters and guidelines, the
4 commission may adopt an allocation formula or uniform
5 allowance which would provide for reimbursement of
6 each local agency or school district of a specified amount
7 each year.
8 (c) The parameters and guidelines adopted by the
9 commission shall specify the fiscal years for which local
10 agencies and school districts shall be reimbursed for costs
11 incurred; previded, iewever, gmt However, the
12 commission shall not specify therein any fiscal year for
13 which payment could be provided in the annual Budget
14 Act. A test claim shall be submitted on or before
15 giber a+June 30 following a fiscal year in order to
16 establish eligibility for reimbursement for that fiscal year.
17 The claimantmay thereafter amend the test claim atany
18 time prior to a commission hearing on the claim without
19 affecting the rights of any other local agency that may
20 submit a test claim for the subject fiscal year.
21 (d) This section shall become operative on July 1, 1996.
22 SEC. 4. Section 17558.6 is added to the Government
23 Code, to read:
24 17558.6. If the Controller determines that a
25 reimbursement claim should be reduced and this
26 determination is contested by a local agency, in lieu of a
27 hearing on the issue before the commission, the local
28 agency may decide to have the issue resolved by binding
29 arbitration. The costs of arbitration shall be paid by the
30 local agency and the arbitrator shall be mutually agreed
31 upon from a panel submitted by the American
32 Arbitration Association.
33 SEC. 5. Section 17560 of the Government Code is
34 amended to read:
35 17560. Reimbursement for state-mandated costs may
36 be claimed as follows:
37 (a) A local agency or school -district may file an
38 estimated reimbursement claim by November 30 or 60
39 days after the release of claiming instructions by the
40 Controller, whichever is later, of the fiscal year in which
99
AB 972 — 6 -
1
6 -
1 costs are to be incurred, and, by November 30 or 60 days
2 after the release of claiming instructions by the
3 Controller, whichever is later, following that fiscal year
4 shall file an annual reimbursement claim that details the
5 costs actually incurred for that fiscal year; or it may
6 comply with the provisions of subdivision (b) .
7 (b) A local agency or school district may, by
8 November 30 or 60 days after the release of claiming
9 instructions by the Controller, whichever is later,
10 following the fiscal year in which costs are incurred, file
11 an annual reimbursement claim that details the costs
12 actually incurred for that fiscal year.
13 (c) In the event revised claiming instructions are
14 issued by the Controller pursuant to subdivision (c) of
15 Section 17558 between September 1 and November 30, a
16 local agency or school district filing an annual
17 reimbursement claim shall have 120 days following the
18 issuance date of the revised claiming instructions to file
19 a claim.
20 (d) Subdivision (c) of this section shall become
21 operative on July 1, 1996.
O ;
99