The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 06092000 - MR.1 .� CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ` = BUDGET WORKSHOP %91 Richard Rainey Supervisor Donna Gerber.Chair Supervisor District III Senate 7"District BOARD OF SUPERVISORS John M.Gioia Don Perata Supervisor District I Senate 4"District and rria Tom Torlakson Gayle isB.UDistri Assembl,-1PhDistrict LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION Supervisor District Il Mark DeSaulnier Dion Aroner Supervisor District IV Assembly-14"District Lynne C.Leach Friday, June 9, 2000 Joe Canciamilla Assembly-15"District 10:00 - 11:00 a.m. Supervisor District V 651 Pune Street, Room 107 AGENDA 10:00 Welcome and Public Comment 10:05 Contra Costa's Fiscal Health and Challenges 10:20 Board Members - Priorities and Concerns 10:30 Legislative Delegation -- Budget Status and Possibilities 10:40 Discussion ➢ What can the County expect? > How can the County support our Legislators? > What Joint Strategies Should We Work On? • Short Term? • Long Term? 4 5 TME BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Date: June 9, 2000 Matter of Record Subject: County Budget Workshop of Board of Supervisors and Legislative Delegation On this date, the Board of Supervisors held a workshop attended by the Legislative Delegation regarding the County's fiscal health and challenges. All five Supervisors were in attendance. Chairwoman Gerber introduced the Legislative Delegation and their representatives: Steve Lesher, representing Assemblywoman Lynne Leach; Alecia Ashby, representing Senator Don Perata; Diane Longshore, representing Senator Richard Rainey; Assemblyman Tom Torlakson; and Assemblywoman Dion Aroner. Also present were Philip Batchelor, County Administrator and Sara Hoffman, Assistant County Administrator. Mr. Batchelor narrated a slide presentation regarding the County's fiscal concerns. The Legislative Delegation offered comments on their perspective of State and County budget matters. Discussion followed, and the Board took no action. THIS IS A MATTER FOR RECORD PURPOSES ONLY c.c.CAO Supervisors SACRAMENTO OFFICE MEMBER STATE CAPITOL SACRAMENTO.CA 95814-4906 `��A`i-�R LOCAL GOVERNMENT (91 6)445-6083 CHAIRMAN FAX+9161445-2527 RICHARD K. RAINEY PUBLIC SAFETY DISTRICT OFFICE VICE CHAIRMAN 1946 MT. DIABLCs BLVD SEVENTH SENATORIAL DISTRICT CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS WALNUT CREEK,CA 94596 1925!260-0276 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY FAX;9251 280.0299 +� TRANSPORTATION } JUN 8 2000 June 5, 2000 ' Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors 651 Pine Street, Room 105 Martinez, CA 94553-1293 Dear Board Members: Thank you for inviting me to participate in the workshop to discuss Contra Costa's budget scheduled for Friday,June 9, 2000. Unfortunately, I made a commitment several weeks ago, which conflicts with the timing of your workshop. Although I will not be able to attend, I will send Diane Longshore,my Chief of Staff, who is extremely knowledgeable on Local Government issues. Diane will be certain to brief me on your concerns and the challenges you face Again, thank you for the invitation and I look forward to meeting with you in the near future Sincerely, is a. I . iney Senator, Distric RKR.: C� -STATE CAPITOL snay y COMMITTEES: Y P.O.BOX 942849 1. 1 CHAIR,TRANSPORTATION (916)319-2011 ��r+t SACRAMENTO,CA 94249-0011 CHAIR,SELECT COMMITTEE ON FAX(916)319-2111 JOBS-HOUSING BALANCE 615 ESTUDILLO STREET ��`(((�(�(�( MEMBER: MARTINET,CA94553 � � � BUDGET (X(92 -7AND 990 PA5)372-0934 HOUSING DEVELOPMENOMMUNITY JOINT GOVERNMENT CENTERry 7� ry 7� TI LOCAL GOVERNMENT 420 W.3Rd STREET TOM 1 ORLA11SON AN 94509 (925)925)776-8-5790 ASSEMBLYMEMBER,ELEVENTH DISTRICT 7 FAX(925)776-5174 E-MAIL:Tbm.ToriaksbnCassernNy.ca.gov ASSEMBLY BILL 1612 The Neighborhood Street Improvement and Transit Assistance Act PURPOSE: This bill would provide $380 million per year from the state General Fund to assist state and local government in addressing the needs on our extensive network of local streets an roads, as well as our public transit systems. This revenue, which is generated by the state sales tax on gasoline, is a suitable source of transportation funding for our transportation needs. Under the bill, local agencies would receive a long-term, predictable source of funds to address their deferred maintenance needs. Cities and counties could use the funds to patch potholes, repave cracked pavement, and boost public transit service. Specifically, AB 1612 would provide $280 million per year for local streets and roads, and$100 million for the Public Transportation Account (PTA), a vital but under-funded revenue source for transit agencies. STREET AND ROAD NEEDS ■ In California, 60 percent of county roads are in poor condition, according to The Road Information Program, a Washington, D.C.-based group. Driving on these roads costs California motorists $2.9 billion a year in extra vehicle repairs and operating costs, or$145 per driver. 11 Counties and cities reported a$400 million annual shortfall statewide for pavement maintenance and rehabilitation, according to the California Transportation Commission. Deferred maintenance drives costs much higher. Periodic repaving costs $100,000 per lane-mile, but replacement can reach $500,000 per lane-mile. PUBLIC TRANSIT NEEDS ■ Bus systems are a vital part of the transportation network, and buses help ease traffic by providing an alternative to driving. However, the Legislative Analyst's Office in a report released last January projected a$53 million shortfall in the PTA in the next four budget years. This shortfall is project to grow to $158 million by 2006. ■ Meanwhile, goverrlment mandates increase operating costs. For instance, complying with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act will cost transit agencies $154 million in the 2000 fiscal year, according to the California Transit Association. Printed on Recycled Paper M z AB 1612 SPECIFICS • Transfers can't be authorized unless voters approve State Constitutional Amendment 3 in the November 2000 election. SCA 3 would authorize counties to pass or extend transportation sales taxes by majority vote. • Transfers would be suspended when the Governor declares a state of emergency, and finds that the emergency will result in a significant negative fiscal impact to the General Fund. • Transfers won't affect Prop, 58 funding for education purposes. STATE CAPITOLsrmhy COMMIT'rEES: P.O.BOX 942849 1 CHAIR,TRANSPORTATION SACRAMENTO,O 94249-001 i yy� CHAIR,SELECT COMMITTEE ON (918)319.- l2011 J FAX(916)319-2111 OBS-HOUSING BALANCE',y(�.r '}�' �` "�' �" ''}�'yy 815 EILLOSTREET 1✓4 { �✓ MEMBER: MARTINEZ,CA 94553 BUDGET {925)372-7990 HOUSING AND COMMUNITY FAX(925)372-0934 DEVELOPMENT JOINT GOVERNMENT CENTER7► Y� A �+�^�7� LOCAL GOVERNMENT 420 W.3RD STREET TOM TORLAK�7O AN 925)778-8-5790 94509 (925)778-5790 ASSEMBLYMEMBER,ELEVENTH DISTRICT FAX(925)778-5174 E-MAIL:Tom.Torlakson0assombly.oa.gov Jobs-Housing Balance Legislative Package Authored by Assemblymember Torn Torlakson (6/2000) Four legislative initiatives originated from a public hearing process conducted by the Assembly Select Committee on robs-Housing Balance. Each is summarized following a brief background description of the select committee process. Backeround The select committee conducted six hearings throughout the state, four of which provided regional or inter-regional perspectives on the Bay Area, the Central Valley, Southern California, and greater San Diego area. The focus of the hearings, and a working group that was formed out of the hearing process, was on the ever-growing imbalance of jobs and housing and its consequences: • Lack of affordable housing close to urban job centers, • Increasing traffic congestion and environmental pollution; • Residential development that is farther and farther away from urban job centers to accommodate the need for affordable housing for a workforce that spends more and more time commuting; and • Encroachment upon open space and agricultural land. In the last two years, many have embraced the idea that "smart growth" is a way of addressing many of these consequences. Discussions about "smart growth" usually center on land use and transportation policy solutions such as infill, higher-density, mixed-use development in urban core and older suburban neighborhoods, near or adjacent to public transit. Pedestrian and bicycle-friendly neighborhoods are encouraged and development that addresses the need for a balanced mix of employment centers and appropriately priced housing. Another component of this discussion is linking such development with fiscal incentives from the state by giving local jurisdictions practicing "smart growth" a higher priority for housing, transportation, and infrastructure dollars. Local governments can also encourage "smart growth" with incentives such as density bonuses, permit and fee waivers, and a more streamlined development process. 1 Printed on Recycled Paper '. - Reforming the fiscal relationship between state and local government has also been presented as a way of mitigating land use planning that values "big box" retail establishments over affordable residential housing development. It could be said that this post-Proposition 13 trend has exacerbated the imbalance of jobs and housing by creating fiscal disincentives to residential development. Representatives from local governments, regional planning agencies, transportation and land use planners, economists, academics, the building industry, and advocates of affordable housing and the poor raised all of these issues consistently throughout the select committee hearing process. Accordingly, the four bills emerging from the hearings reflect the policy issues and possible solutions raised during the hearings and in three meeting of the Select Committee Working Group AB 2048 -Jobs-Housing-Opportunity Legislation This bill is no longer active. However, in lieu of it, the Legislature appropriated$110,000 to create the Jobs-Housing Balance Improvement Program to provide a state-fiscal incentives to jurisdictions that mitigate the imbalance of jobs and housing either by developing needed housing in high growth urban job centers or attracting job centers in housing-rich communities Incentives will be designed to encourage development around transit hubs, mixed-use, and infill development and attracting economy-rich employment where an abundance of housing already exists. AB 2054 - Inter-Regional Partnership (IRP) State Pilot Project to Improve the Balance of Jobs and Housing This bill has a similar focus to the first bill discussed above. However, this bill is a pilot project limited to the counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Santa Clara, San Joaquin and Stanislaus under the auspices of the Inter-Regional Partnership. The IRP is a group of 15 local elected officials formed with the support of the three regional councils of government that oversee transportation and land use planning in the five-county region. the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the San Joaquin Council of Governments, and the Stanislaus Council of Governments. The pilot project has a two and a half year timeline and a$625,00 budget request is associated with the legislation. During the time period, the IRP will undertake inter-regional GIS mapping of the five-county area. Using the mapping, five to ten project sites (or zones) will be identified as needing either an infusion of affordable housing development or the location of employment clusters or job centers to mitigate the imbalance of jobs and housing that has significantly impacted the regions in the last several years. As in the statewide bill, the local governments where the 2 IRP selected sites are located will receive a state fiscal incentive to support the development of either housing or job centers. AB 2033 - State Land Inventory for Strategic Growth Planning This legislation will create a statewide land inventory that can be used as a planning tool by state agencies, local governments, regional transportation and land use planning agencies, and others in projecting and planning appropriately for growth, relative to residential, commercial, and industrial development, and the preservation of open space and agricultural land. AB 2033 requires the California Research Bureau(CRB) to research and assess land inventory initiatives that have been and are being done regionally, determine methodologies and technologies used to create them, and assess their compatibility with one another. The CRB will also research state-of-the-art methodologies and cost estimates for undertaking the development of a statewide land inventory. Included in the CRB report will be recommendations on what entity is most appropriate to develop and oversee statewide strategic growth planning goals, and what are the criteria and appropriate timelines for accomplishing these goals, using the mapping system as a tool. Based on the research above, AB 2033 will also authorize the completion of a statewide mapping and data collection process. An appropriation of$5 million has been added to the bill to authorized the California Resources Agency to produce a high resolution, aerial digital image of the entire state of California using UAV (Uninhabited Aerial Vehicle) technology. AB 779 - Density Bonus for Transit-Oriented Development This bill, sponsored by the State Treasurer's Office, will be amended to require local governments to award a 25% density bonus and a 15%parking bonus to developments within a quarter mile of a transit stop Unassociated with this legislation, the Legislative Budget Conference Committee is considering a$5 million appropriation for low-interest loans to fund pre-development costs associated with transit-oriented development. The Department of Dousing and Community Development through its Urban Pre-Development Loan Fund will administer the money. 3 i cLn c 1 o ; i .. F E E a Ln cm ca . e �- zCD 9 C a to A ¢n ` f ' " a, cn cm s a. 1=2 EE " ds W a d t p 2 7S .� WE E E Ea gc z X88 zo R ami 7S CL CL C'a I w e :g"? aESr f- Z ' ori C\1 c CL 0 co rr, i cs c+e I " 0 9L i E o ( 0C oCD 72 a� P-8c . N � .0all A . E E � ( oo ECI En ami 1 Lf We 9 ' ¢4—Aw.8 tU E LM C ® o cs g t'3 CS CI3 S .� .5 E qp tt�� 4°civ civ E Cr rr• i 117 C� N..' Bf} C".3 Cl: Lo t to tt � I cw w LU 16 V3 E ce 15 E LL -W3 � ;, _c a c ME 0 -�o_ ca f C W 0 C 0 x ! a- 1 �1 „ C} O icy GCF `�7' CrT�� SU co0)0) 6"51 'Nt County - State Budget Workshop lune 9, 2000 Ca/ifomiB A UM Economic Pmspetfty r< Mame SUIP/Us T.12.3 Bi//ion County Deficit .3 Million why the Wilsparify? Contra Cosfa County S&vctural Handicaps »Lower than average general revenues w No ability to raise general revenues w State seizure of property tam ►►Inadequate funding of state mandates 2 According to LAO* Contra Costa UNDER State Average in key general revenues •6•7/D8 repat Mooed an M7 data According to LAO MINIMMOMMIMMINIMMIN LOWER on VLF LOWERon Sales Tax LOWER on Property Taxes $7.0 All ore VLF e1$,5`�"`.s� +IAB'AvE'fage State Average$64 per capita Contra Costa $55 per capita 3 #1.8 M More Sales rax at State Average State Average$14 per capita Contra Costa $12 per capita $50.6 M More PtvperW 7-ax Share at Slane A wnWe 5tatevAde Average 185% Contra Costa 11.8% At State Averages, CCC Would Get 34% Mere General Revenue $237.4 f Hii $59.� 4, $174.iM11fion 4 Over $607 Million Lost to ERAF $129.9 $199.9 -- 599.9 5d9.9 mo Y39.9 99A 95.99 9F ! Contra Costal.Cop 'th Prop 1.72 Sales Tax Offte& ccc Lost Over million What Has the Govemor Proposed to Afie vlaf e CCUs Flnam*l PlIght? 5 Governoes L' RAFP Vposa/ Non-RecUlringr Allocation $'3.4 Milllon ccs'"Losing GIVUn►d:/ 00-01 ERAF LOSS* $98.0 M 99-00 ERAF LOSS $93.2 j Growth $ 4.8M s C/ • ev /J cVl•iJf�/jLMing Loss $4.8M One-11 a Relief S3.4 $1.4M Low Greater than Refleff Goventar'r ERrAFProposal ■$750 Million ■One-Time Only ■split.. . 50%on Population • ■ r 50%on Lou LOCAL ERA►F LOSSES ,380,861 Contra Special Costa Districts 75 0°1a Cities FY 99-00 15% 7 '_e9l etj Governor's One-Time ERAF Relief Proposal Does NO Reflect Loss* City Lost $18.9 M Relief $ 3.3 M (17.5%) CCC Lost $93.2 M Relief $ 3.4 M ( 3.7%) •FY 99-00 loss data Growing Gap Revenue &Service Needs Animal Services Juvenile Justice Health Care New State Laves - Animal Shelters ■MUST hold aninuds longer ■MUST increase veterinary care e MUST spay/neuter before adoption Curnent SlhelfVrs TOO Small to eet Mte Requirements U35,,000 Animals Handled J, Each Year A* AW% OPP PMbadvn Vepartmwt $3.9 M111/0n Deficit At Frisk Population Growing ■25%(237,035)under 18 years old ■19%Increase In age 10-17 since 1990 ■COC youth population growing faster than in CA or Bay Area Aaw-Ordered Placements is 3uvenile Hall population up 25% -First 4 months of 2000 •CYA costs up 198% -up to$80,457/month in 2 years ■Foster Cara costs up 34% -$2,838 to$8,810/month in 3 years Indigent and Working Poor Need Health Care! 1/3 patients served by CCC - uninsu�d!!! jk .00-4 Million Defidt •Medl-Cal patient utilization 31% T BAC patient utilb ation 45% T Phannacy Costs 52% T Expenditures 12% y DSH Payments -15% y Prop 99/Tobacco Settlement -19% y Medi-Cal Revenues -23% 10 Contra Costa Needs Fiscal Help! Medi-Cal Rates Property Tax Administration Trial Court Funding ERAF Growth Medi-Cal Rates *3.8%Increase Statewide *Unknown CCC increase,if any *2 Possible 1% Withholds . . .PLUS proposed $1.8 Million retroactive rate decrease for CCC Ptgpetty raxAdminIS&VffOn ►49%revenue distributed to Schools ►$10.3141 administrative cost r$3.9101 city/dIstrict payments COUNTYABSORW$5,113. 08 OF L CIOSMFAR STAVE 11 .................. Trial Court Funding ►State pays 1010 for 38 Counties ►CCC pays to State ►MOE-$11,974,535 w Fines/Forfeitures-$4,168,194 min. .l5 Irlt'7E REOLAC77M BLE? ERAF Growth •Permanent Lose Continues to Grow r$14 M In 92-93 NOW$98.0 M Need pemwnwt cap bias!on loss ',rid TOTAL Countypopu/at/on flow Can We Wol*Together to C01TWt Contra Costa County's RSW/Mandlcap►s,? IZ June 8, 2000 Contra Costa County FY 00-01— Budgetary Concerns Contra Costa County is currently facing a $14.3 million budget deficit, $10.4 million in our Health Services Department and $3.9 million in Probation. Health Services' budget deficit is driven by inadequate Medi-Cal reimbursement rates and declining indigent health care financing, increasing compliance documentation requirements and skyrocketing numbers of uninsured patients. The Probation Department's shortfall is primarily the result of increases in court-ordered placements in Juvenile Hall and group homes and growing California Youth Authority charges. We are also very concerned about the fiscal risks associated with proposals to limit availability of CalWORKs incentive funds as well as the conditional increase in state support for In Home Supportive Services, subject to unknown "state revenue targets." Contra Costa County has identified areas where the State budget process could have a major impact on correcting the current fiscal handicaps under which the County must operate. The following issues have been identified: ➢ Medi-Cal managed care rates — rates for local initiatives, including the Contra Costa Health Plan, are slated at a statewide average increase of 3.8%, which could be reduced by two 1% withholds. This means that, potentially, the County could receive no rate increaseI Explicit assurances of the rate increase would be extremely beneficial. ➢ Retroactive Medi-Cal rate decrease -- Currently, the Health Services Department is in negotiation with the State Department of Health Services over the proposed retroactive rate decrease, which would cost the County 1.8 million. This decrease comes after the County received written verification of the rate. We would like explicit "forgiveness" of this retroactive rate decrease. ➢ California Youth Authority (CYA) — The average monthly CYA charge to the County was $27,000 two years ago. It is now $80,457, a 198% increase. Going back to the 1998 rate would save the County approximately $730,000 in FY 00-01. ➢ Property Tax Administration — The County receives only about 38% of the cost of administering property taxes for the State (for its schools), cities and special districts. Yet, we receive only 12.5% of the benefit. State payment equivalent to its share for schools would benefit the County by $5,113,808 million for FY 99-00. ➢ Trial Court Funding - The State has already assumed 100% of Trial Court operation costs for the 38 smallest counties. The remaining counties have an MOE which is $11,974,535 for Contra Costa County. AB 2385 (Longville) would relieve the County of$3,991,112 of its MOE debt. ➢ Teeter Plan Benefits — Following the implementation of ER.AF, non- Teeter plan counties were allowed to reduce their ER.AF shift to the State by a like amount. This one-time benefit to Contra Costa is worth approximately $6 million. ➢ ERAF Growth — Contra Costa County has lost over $607 million since the shift in property taxes in 1992. Each year the loss grows larger: $93.2 million in FY 99-00, compared to $88.6 million in 98-99. Capping the growth at the 98-99 levels would provide an immediate $4.6 million relief. Contra Costa County is considered a "poor" county. Our revenues from property taxes, vehicle license fees and sales taxes are less than the statewide average, according to the Legislative Analyst. If our general purpose revenues were even just equal to the state average, we would have approximately $59 million more this yearl As a low revenue county, Contra Costa County is particularly vulnerable to state budgetary action. 2