HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03052002 - SD2 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA
R y COSTA
Z., = COUNTY
FROM: Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema
Member, CSAC Executive Committee
DATE: March S,2002
SUBJECT': Possible Re-Opening of Constitutional Amendment and
State Budget Campaign by CSAC
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONfS)f
1. CONSIDER Contra Costa County's position on CSAC's consideration of joining the
League of California Cities in sponsoring a ballot measure in November to protect'local
government revenues.
2. CONSIDER Contra Costa County's position on a CSAC proposal for a statewide,
coordinated all-County campaign to protect local government revenues during this year
and next year's state budgetary processes.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: S SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION Of COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR—RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE —OTHER
SIGNATURE(S).
AaCTK'N OF BOARD APPROVED AS I:fECOMMENDEQX_OTHER X
See attahced addendum for Board action.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS Is A
X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT None ) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY Of AN
AYES, NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ON MINUTES Of THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact: Sara Hoffman,335-1052
ATTESTED Marcb, S-, 2002
JOHN'SWEETEN,CLERK OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
cc. CAO
BY, J DEPUTY
C R NIS/ t3N FOR RgCOMMEHR&TIONift
On Thursday, February 2'0'', the CSAC Executive Committee took two actions which could affect
local government revenues:
➢ re-opened the possibility of joining the League of California Cities in support of a ballot
measure to protect all local revenues, dependent upon:
• commitment by large California cities;
• review of title and summery; and
• countyresponse on feasibility of raising funds.
➢ directed CSAC staff to flesh out a proposal on a campaign to protect local government
revenues during this year and next year's state budgetary processes.
A tentative meeting has been scheduled for a further consideration by the Executive Committee on
Friday, March 'e. At that time, as the Board's representative, I will be asked for Contra Costa'
County's'position on these proposals.
For either proposal to have the possibility of success, there would need to be a commitment from
each board amber for their time, energy and, for the ballot measure, fund raising (approximately
$14,000 each,for a total of$69,861). There are also considerable time constraints associated with
these activities: the State Budget process'is already underway and the ballot measure is slated for
November.
Ballot h asure on Local evenue Proteoon
Following the`CSAC Board of Directors' decision not to pursue a ballot measure on the November
ballot to protect local revenues, the League of California Cities' Board of Directors decided to move
forward on the ballot measure. Chris McKenzie, Executive Director of the League, said that this
decision was based on current momenturn on the ballot measure the fact that the likely opponents
would be focused primarily on the governor's election and the education ballot measure and,
consequently, may not field an active opposition; and the commitment of five of the big cities (Santa
Ana, Oakland,,,San Diego, Long Beach and Anaheim). The League Board'also set four benchmark
conditions for continuing to move forward:
1)` commitment by seven of the ten targe cities;
2) raising $1 million by the end of March;
3) receipt of a gond title and summary; and
4) participation by CSAC.
Pat Leary, CSAC staff', reviewed the attached Option 'I on joining the League on the ballot measure.
CSAC Chair, Supervisor Muriel Johnson (Sacramento) and others spoke of the need to preserve the
goad relationship developed between CSAC and the League over the past year. All agreed on the
value of the CSAC/League partnership and felt that could be achieved either through the support of
the ballot measure or by lobbying on this year and next year's state budget.
Some of the more interesting points brought out during the meting included:
union positions — The union positions are not yet firm; however, neither active support nor
opposition is expected by the League at this time.
➢ big city support -- Recent contact with Los Angeles City and San Francisco City have been
positive. L.A. is considered the most critical, since polling results got the greatest support
from southern California.
any ballot measure should be done in November or wait until 2006, since the presidential
election does not provide enough pressure/alternative priorities to neutralize the governor's
expected opposition.
CSAC Executive Committee Board Members were asked to poll their'board of supervisors' members
and assess their commitment to raising each county's fair share of needed campaign funds ($5
million total statewide, 50% from counties, 50% from cities). Contra Costa County's fair share would
be $69,861, or approximately $14,000 per Board member. (Contra Costa cities' fair share would be
$74,220.).
2
state Buggej Carm igr1
The CSAC Executive Committee concurred on the need to aggressively lobby to minimize the loss of
local governments revenues during this year and next year's state budget cycle. There seemed to
be a consensus that the counties would tape a revenue hit. The question is how much and where.
CSAC staff put together a brief overview of a campaign strategy(attached Option 2).
The discussion focused around the fact that without substantial monetary backing, a grassroots
campaign is essential. This would include an active role for every county supervisor: meetings with
legislators, mobilizing community-based organizations and meetings with editorial boards and the
press. Supervisor Muriel Johnson pointed out that all of us are extremely busy and in order for
supervisors to be effective, we would needstaff support. [Note: The League has hired 14 new staff,
one assigned to each region, for this effort.
The CSAC Executive Committee designated an ad hoc committee consisting of Supervisor Keith
Carson (Alameda), Tom Stallard (Yolo) and John Tavaglione (riverside) to work with CSAC 'staff to
flesh out the Option 2 proposal, including a proposed budget and staffing requirements.
Option 1
J In thea Lgaguo In su ort of a Sallot WIsure to r tett all ocal Roo noes
This would entail the dedication of$1 mullion in non-public CSAC funds either as a gift or in the
form of a loan to;a joint CSAC/League Ballot Measure Committee,
It will require raising additional funds in support of the campaign. A 5 million campaign
(above signature-gathering costs) is considered a small to medium- sized statewide
campaign.
It will also require members actively working in support of the measure at the grassroots level
including community organizing, ally development, and pursuit of local editorial support.
Pros,
• Allows continuation of the partnership between the League and CSAC.
• Electoral success would protect local government revenues and restore stability and
predictability.
• Even a credible defeat (achieving at least 45 percent support, after waging a significant
campaign) could result in additional respect gained in Sacramento.
Cons:
• Polling suggests victory will be a challenge.
• A lack of enthusiasm could translate into inability to raise funds for a credible campaign.
• A poor showing could result in a loss of respect and adverse actions based on belief
that local government is permanently powerless.
Option 2
Focus Woft on he outr nt and next Year's budget cle w nth treat to local
governirnent budgets is imminent.
Take the lessons learned from 1992-93 and 1993-94 and immediately place them into action.
• This would entail a dedication of approximately $150,000 to $250,000 in CSACIFinance
Corp. funds for a budget campaign.
• Develop a strong, consistent, and compelling message, to be carried by all local
government representatives,from elected officials to advocates and allies.
• Establish strong alliances with
v League of California Cities
• California Special Districts Association
• Labor leaders and rank-and-file members
• Fire/Law enforcement
o Medical affiliates: hospitals, doctors, nurses, aides, and technicians
o Businesscommunity
• Initiate, coordinate,and implement an effective, hands-on grassroots campaign
• Identify each legislator's supervisorial district(s) and create a template to contact, meet, and
communicate with each legislator between now and the end of the legislative session (e.g.
bi-monthly breakfasts, regional dinners, one-on-one sessions in the district and in the
Capitol).
• Facilitate the coordination with other local governments and allies in the region to
participate in these legislator contacts.
• Develop and direct statewide media campaign using local issues to demonstrate the impact
of budget cuts on local services.
• Develop local media materials and events to thank members of the legislature in their local
media every time they take a budget action that supports local government services.
• Communicate with members on a weekly basis the actions of the subcommittees, full
committees, or conference committee as they occur along with specific, time-sensitive
message paints and action items.
• Coordinate supervisors' and allies' attendance and testimony at committee hearings
whenever appropriate.
Is Create an inescapable face for local governs-lent in the Capitol and in members' districts.
Pros:
• Immediate protection of local government revenues in the current and next fiscal year.
■ Continues important partnerships with the League of Cities and Special Districts
Association and provides opportunities for further°alliances with other interested parties
(e.g. labor).
• Allows continued work on a ballot measure for 2004 while protecting the flank during the
next two years.
Cons
• Will require the use of CSAC resources that would have otherwise been spent on the
ballot measure.
• May not protect all revenues or all programs.
• Provides only short-term protection.
ADDENDUM TO ITEM SD.2
March;5, 2002
The Board of Supervisors considered the County's position on California<State Association of
Counties' (CSAC) consideration of strategies to protect local government revenues via a ballot
measure and/or state budget campaign.
Supervisor Uilkema presented the report and recommendations. Also present was Sara Hoffman,
County Administrator's Office.
The Board discussed the matter. The chair then invited those who wished to address the board
on this issue. The following person presented testimony:
John Wolfe, Contra Costa County Taxpayers Association, 600 Las Juntas,Martinez.
After further discussion, the Board took the following'action:
:ACCEPTED Contra Costa County's position on California State Association.of Counties''
(CSAC)proposal for a statewide coordinated all-County campaign to protect local'
government!.revenues during this year and next year's state budgetary processes