HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06242003 - D.7 d1*
CONTRA
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS �;
..,� COSTA
FROM: John Sweeten,County Administrator • COUNTY
DATE: June 17,2003
SUBJECT: Child Support Services—State Budget Allocations
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION(S):
AUTHORIZE the Chair, Board of Supervisors, to execute letters to the County's legislative delegation, the
California Health and Human Services Agency and the State Department of Child Support Services requesting
implementation of local Child Support Agency budget allocation reforms adopted by the state legislature in
1999 and assurances that counties Will not bear the financial burden of federal penalties for California's failure
to implement a statewide child support automation system.
BACKG ASON(S)FOR RECOMMENDATION(S):
During the June 9. 2003 budget hearings, the Board of Supervisors heard a report from Linda Dippel, Child
Support Services Director, on the status of her department. She reported on financing difficulties due to lack of
im lementation of budget reform adopted by the state legislature in 1999 as well as the Governor's proposal to
shift aportion of the federal penalties on the statewide child support automation system to counties,which could
have a significant financial impact to the County general fund or her department. The Board of Supervisors
requested that the County Administrator to bring back a position on these issues at their June 17'hmeeting.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: *to_YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF GrD COMMITTEE
APPROVE -OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
X
ACTION OF BOARD ON JMe 24 2 20()3 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
ACCEPTED presentation by Assemblywoman Loni Hancock on the status of the 2003/2004 State Budget,
and positions to be taken on spending and revenue proposals;AUTHORIZED the Chair,Board of
Supervisors,to send individual letters to Contra Costa County delegates,Urban Counties Caucus,
California State Association of Counties(CSAC),the Mayors'Conference,and legislative representatives
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT lonel 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.
*District III Seat VACANT*
Contact:Sara Hoffman,335-1090 ATTESTED June 24: 2003
cc: CAO JOHN SWEETEN,CLERK OF
Dept of Child Support Services THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
County Lobbyist ,,.AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Byqty
.... CONTRA
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COSTA
FROMO Supervisor Gayle B.Uilkema
COUNTY
DATE: April t,2003
�`
SUBJECT: Support for Continued Williamson Act Funding
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) &BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
.REC kTI (S):
ADOPT the attached resolution to support full ftmding of the Open Space Subvention Program (Williamson
Act)by the State of California.
BACKGROIRMfflEASON(S)FOR REC
The Open Space Subvention Program (Williamson Act) allows private landowners to voluntarily contract with
counties to keep their land M* agriculture/open space in return for a lower property tax rate. Approximately
49,018 acres of agricultural land in Contra Costa County are under Williamson Act contracts(as of 2001).
In his budget the Governor proposes to permanently eliminate the Williamson Act subvention. Statewide,
counties Will lose $38.6 million to compensate for lost property tax revenues and the cost ofsteringthe
%01
Williamson Act. Contra Costa County would lose approximately$75,000.
Loss of Williamson Act subventions, will not have a material impact on Contra Costa County's overall budget.
However, for some rural counties, it is a substantial portion of their general fund revenues. The rural counties
have requested support M* their efforts to ensure continuance of the Williamson Act subvention. As of March
20,2003,34 counties had adopted such resolutions. The adoption of the resolution by Contra Costa County will
demonstrate our concern for our sister counties and solidarity M* the collective effort to protect county general
purpose revenues.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOtYI
-
MENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMEN A OFBO COMMI I I E
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON 11 1,9 MM APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
VOJE OF SUPERVISORS
UNANIMOUS
(ABSENT NOW ) I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
AYES: NOES: TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
ABSENT: A13STAIN: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED
DISTRICT M SEAT VACANT ON MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact:Sara Hofftvian,,336-1090
ATTESTED..Argil l,=I.,
cc: CAO JOHN SYVEE I ,CLERK OF
CSAC THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Rural Counties Caucus Mae A.140 CO 71STRIATOR
Suburban Counties Caucus
Urban Counties Caucus BY, DEPUTY
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
PASSED by the following vote of the Board of Supervisors on this first day of April 2003
AYES: croiA, vuia, mom and wsmxmm
NOES: Now
ABSENT: Nome
ABSTAI N: Nose
**Distxict TTT Spit Var+ant** --
RESOLUTION NO. 20031199
Subject: Support Full Funding of the Open Space Subvention Program (Williamson Act)
WHEREAS,the California Land Conservation Act of 1965,popularly known as the Williamson Act,
is a voluntary program which provides lower property taxes to agricultural landowners in exchange
for their contractual commitments with participating cities or counties to keep their land in
agricultural or open space uses for at least 10 years; and
WHEREAS, the Williamson Act currently protects over 16.3 million acres of agricultural land,
much of it having scenic open space and wildlife value, and over half of the state's prime farmland
in 52 counties is protected by the Act; and
WHEREAS in 1998 the Act was amended toP rovide for the establishment of the Farmland
Security Zones, commonly referred to as the Super Williamson Act, which allows landowners to
receive an additional tax reduction if they keep the property in the conservation program for at
least 20 years; and
WHEREAS,the 1971 Open Space Subvention Act provides a formula for allocating payments to
local governments based on acreage enrolled in the program, to help replace the foregone
property tax revenue to participating local government; and
WHEREAS, this financial support from the state has provided a tangible incentive for local
governments to stay in the program and initiate more contracts; and
WHEREAS, in 1993, the Legislature and then-Governor Wilson augmented the open space
subventions as a means to help rural counties deal with the creation of the Educational Revenue
Augmentation Fund; and
WHEREAS, the Governor's proposal for the 2003-04 State Budget includes permanent
elimination of the Williamson Act subvention to Counties (approximately $38.6 million
statewide);and
WHEREAS, eliminating the open space subvention payments will remove the incentive for
counties to participate in the program, potentially leading some counties to non-renew Williamson
Act contracts due to the lack of financial resources to support the continuation of property tax
incentives for landowners; and
WHEREAS, without the financial incentive for farmers to participate in this important land
conservation program, other more lucrative land uses may be considered, thus threatening the
overall viability of California's agricultural economy; and
WHEREAS, the integrity of the Williamson Act as a planning tool used to support general plan
and zoning objectives, prevent leapfrog development and to promote orderly growth will be
threatened; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Contra Costa County joins the California State
Association of Counties(CSAC)and other California counties in supporting continued full funding
of the open Space Act Subventions Program and urges the Governor and Membeirs of the State
Legislature to restore subvention funding to the 2003-04 State Budget, thus preventing the
potential decimation of the state's premier farmland protection program.
RESOLUTION 2003/199
Page 1 of 2
r
1
hereby certify that y4 i;; is a true and correct
copy of an action and entered on the
minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the
date shown.
ATTESTED:,,,-.APr 1 1, 2003
JOHN SWEETEN,Clerk of the Board
A+,.$ypervisors dministrator
y` Deputy
PMOUTI' ON 2003/199
Paw 2 of 2
DOS
TO: BOA"OF SUPERVISORS •
CONTRA
__�, COSTA
FROM: John Sweeten,County Administrator COUNTY
DATE: February 4,2003
SUBJECT: Preliminary Analysis of Impact of Governor's Proposed Budget
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMN[ENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JU CATION
RECOINMENDA
TION(S):
I ACCEPT the prelims analysis of the impact of the Governor's Proposed Budget reductions on
Contra Costa County revenues,services andprOgrdMS,
2. ACKNOWLEDGE that this prel imine analysis does not consider the potential impact of loss of
Vehicle License Fee(VLF)revenues or the proposed reah ment of specified hath,human services
and court responsibilities.
3. AUTHORIZE the Chair, Board of Supervisors, to sign a letter to each of the Contra Costa County
State Legislative delegation members and the Governor informing them of the negative
consequences of the Governor's proposed reductions on the children, families, businesses and
economy of Contra Costa County and urging them to be cognizant of these impacts as they strive to
balance the State budget.
BACKGROUND/REASQNIS
j FOR REC
The Governor's Janes budget identifies a$34.6 billion budget deficit for the State of California. The
Governor proposes addressing apprald mately 60%of this deficit through cuts and savings totaling$20.73
billion. Some of these proposals to reduce the deficit affect the FY 02-03 budget year as well as the FY 03-04
budget year.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: 1p_YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR...RECOMME AVON OF"BOAT COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED..OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
AYES: NOES: ACTION AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED
ABSENT:— ABSTAIN: ON MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Conftct: Sara "i 335-1090
cc: CAO ATTESTED JOHNS CLERK OF
Deparbnent Heads THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY, DEPUTY
BACKGROUND/REASON(S)FOR RECONMENDATIONS 14):
The Legislature is in special session, as of this writing, to consider the Governor's budget proposals that affect
the current year, FY 02-03. Budget reductions approved by the Legislature will go into effect 90 days from the
close of the session. Urgency measures, which require a 2/3 majority vote, would be effective immediately
upon end of session.
The Governor's proposed cuts to local government for the current year total$2.87 billion. At this time,both the
Assembly and Senate Budget Subcommittees have largely rejected these proposals;however,no action been
taken on the floor of either house(as of January 2e)and the Joint Conference Committee not yet met.
For FY 03-04, the Governor proposes to cut $4.3657 billion from the State budget for local programs and
services. At this time,the impact on local government is not fully known, particularly in the health and human
services programs. However, to the extent possible, County departments have attempted to estimate the fiscal
and m
proemmntic impacts of the Governor's proposed budget.
%--1
Overall,the preliminary assessment of the ficial impact of the Governor's proposed reductions is upwards of
$29.9 mon for 13 departments and the County General Fund (not including the potential impact of loss of
$42 million of nonrealiguaaent VLF in FY 03-04).
SB 90 Mandate Reimbursements(Multiple Departments)
> Governor's Proposal—Suspend payment of various FY 2003/04 reimbursable non-Proposition 98
*1k
(education)mandates,resulting M* the deferral of an additional$769.4 mon in reimbursements for
local government. If the FY 03-04 suspension is approved,the State will have deferred 2 years of SB 90
payments(over$1 billion,in total).
Last year,the Governor allocated$1,000 for each of the mandated programs,so that local government
remained obligated to continue providing the services. The assumption is that the same tactic
will be used for FY 03-04.
> CCC Fiscal Impact-For FY 03-04,estimated claims will total approximately$4.8 million. For FY 02-
03, Contra Costa County submitted$8 million in claims to the State Controller Office on behalf of the
County Administrator's Office,Auditor-Controller,Public Defender,Public Health,Mental Health,
Elections,Coroner andA Animal A Services. The amount claimed in FY 02-03 *included first time claims
covering several years for i.mal Adoptions and Megan's Law. Animal Adoptions m costs
were claimed for fiscal years 1998/99-2001/02 and Megan's Law mandated costs were aimed for
-I
fiscal years 1996/97 -2001/02. In total,the County currently $15 on in outstanding oilMIR
which have not been paid.
SB 90 reimbursements are seldom full compensation for County incurred costs. Consequently,budgeted
revenues are no much less cl amounts. For FY 02-03,the loss in budgeted revenue for
the County Administrator's Office,Auditor-Controller,Public Defender,Public Health Mental Health,
Elections and Coroner was$1,174,000,collectively. Animal Services reports an annual expected loss of
approximately$1.4 mon.
The Governor's allocation of$1,000 for each mandate results in a continuing obligation for County
departments to provide mandated services.
Child Support Services—Child Support Penalties
> Governor's Proposal—Charge the counties 25%of the federal child support p es M* FY 03-04 for a
cost Of$51.8 mon to counties.
> CCC Fiscal Impact—Contra Costa's estimated share of the state penalty would be$1,338,559 for FY
03-04. Payment would come from the County General Fund and could not come from the Child Support
Services budget.
> CCC Programmatic Impact- The program impact will depend on the Board of Supervisors decision of
prods 1 eliminate go 0
regarding which s to reduce or e to make up for this$1.3 million required payment.
It should be noted that the child support penalty is due to the fact that California does not have a single
computer collection system as required by federal law. Counties have no control over the State
2
system;therefore, it is highly unreasonable to expect the counties to bear the cost of noncompliance when
they have no influence on the system used in California.
40
Upalth 63emces—Medi`_Cal Provider Rates
Governor's Proposal—Reduce Medi-Cal provider rates by 15%for three years with a statewide savings
of ap 0
proximately$1.6 billion in the current year and FY 03-04 budget year.
➢ CCC Fiscal Impact—Private doctors in the community will see their payment rates decrease by 15%.
The reduction in provider rates will also have an impact on the State's calculation of the amount payable
to the Contra Costa Health Plan. It is possible that the annual capitation payment would decrease by$I-
$3
CCC Programmatic Impact—The reduction in provider rates will likely result in fewer community
physicians walling to see Medi-Cal patients. This will reduce access to health care and will result in more
patients being seen at our Hospital.
Health Services—Optional Medi-Cal Benefits
)00 Governor's Proposal—The Governor's mid-year budget proposal eight of the 34 optional
"ft+ fits, including adult
benefits. His FY 03-04 budget proposal ell ,nates s' es an additional 10 optional bene
dental services, mescal supplies and non-emergency transportation.
➢ CCC Fiscal Impact—Due to the Federally Qualified Health Center{FQHQ status of Contra Costa
County's clinics, the manner and ability of the State to implement these reductions is open to debate. A
worst case scenario could result in a loss of$3 million annually.
➢ CCC Programmatic Impact—Children, f *es and adults currently on Medi-Cal would receive fewer
medical benefits.
Health Services—Mental Heath Managed Care
)00 Governor's Proposal-- 10%reduction in managed care allocations to counties form r Medi-Cal
mental h�Programs, resulting in an annual revenue loss of$22 million to the counties per year.
CCC Fiscal Impact—Revenue losses will approximate$250,000 per year.
➢ CCC Programmatic Impact—Fewer Contra Costans will be able to be served by the County's mental
health aged
care program.
Public Works—Road Maintenance(AB 2928)
➢ Governor's Proposal—Eluate the remaining FY 02-03 payments(2'd,, 3rd and 0 quarters)to cities
and counties under AB 2928 to create a$90 million savings in the State Highway Account.
➢ CCC FiSCal Impact — Gent year'sA;V%,5" �o
Lfor road maintenance will be reduced by $2.5
representing
over 16% of the County's Road Funds. The County's road program does not receive any
County General Fund support.
Ain
The County's AB 2928 allocation was spent in the first quarter of the fiscal year as the funding a use-
it-or-lose-it provision. If the Governor's proposal were approved by the Legislature, it would mean that
este the Department would have to zate other programs to backfill the revenue loss.
Subsequent to announcing his mid-year budget reduction plan, the Governor requested the State
Controller's Office to stop processing payments to cities and counties. However, Public Works received
the second payment on January 23.
)00 CCC Programmatic Impact - Throughout the County,., streets will not receive surface treatment (151
streets), overlay (I street) or reconstruction (6 streets) next year due to loss of AB 2928 and Prop 42
revenues. Public Works also estimates that the combined net effect of both the AB 2928 and Prop 42
revenue loss will result in the nn of two FTE M` its tenance operation as well aspart time
3
summer positions. Based on studies by the Federal Highway Administration, the $5.4 million reduction in
construction related activities would result in the loss of 270 jobs locally.
Public Works—Road N[aintenance(Prop 42)
S' Governor's Proposal - Suspend Proposition 42 for FY 03-04, saving over $1 billion in State General
Funds and eliminating $147 million of earmarks to cities and counties.
CCC Fiscal Impact— Reduces the Road Maintenance program by $2.9 mon, over 16% of total Road
Funds. Approximately 70%of the reduction will result in ..on of construction contracts.
CCC Programmatic Impact - Throughout the County, streets will not receive surface treatment (151
streets), overlay (I street) or reconstruction (6 streets) next year due to loss of AB 2928 and Prop 42
revenues. Public Works also estimates that the combined net effect of both the AB 2929 and Prop 42
revenue loss will result in the of two FTE in its maintenance operation as well as part time
i
Positions,
Based on studies by the Federal Highway Administration, the $5.4 million reduction in
construction related activities would result in the loss of 270 jobs locally.
Public Works—Water Board Fees
;-no+e,m
)0- Governor's Proposal-Eluate State General Fund support of the Water Quality Control Board and its
regional boards for a savings of$23 million.
5' CCC Fiscal Impact - The exact fiscal impact is unknown at this time. Last year, the Governor reduced
the State General Fund support of the Water Board by $2.5 million. At that time, the Water Board
proposed *increasing the permit fee to local agencies from $1,500 to $15,000 per year. We estimate that
the fee could be*increased by as much as 500%this year, to $75,000 per year for Contra Costa County.
CCC Programmatic Impact - The County collects about $2.7 million of Storm Water Assessment per
year for the Clean Water Program and for County Drainage Maintenance. This permit fee *increase will
reduce our ability to meet the Clean Water Permit requirements.
..Also, the Regional Board is in the process of amending the County's five-year permit to include
additional requirements for new developments and redevelopment projects. The potential cost to meet the
proposed permit requirements will be very expensive. The Governor's budget proposal further reduces
the department's ability to meet the new mandates.
District Attorney—Statutory Rape Vertical Prosecution
>' Governor's Proposal--Cut$1.6 million(19.1%of$8.36 million currentyear flanding)in 03-04 for
the Statutory Rape Vertical Prosecution Program, a local assistance program under the Office of Criminal
Justice Planning.
A;,"
CCC Fiscal Impact-If the State's 19%program cut is passed on to recipient sv the State G., Of
the District Attorney's project would be reduced from$ 150,000 to$ 121,295 (a cut of$28,,705).However,,it may
not be viable for the District Attorney to operate the program at reduced funding level. If the District Attorney
is forced to drop program,the cut would amount to $ 150,900 from current budgeted revenue.
CCC Programmatic Impact-It is unclear whether the District Attorney could operate the program
within State guidelines at the proposed funding level, since funding would be insufficient to fund the
attorney and Part-time investigator currently in the project budget. If this occurs, and the District
Attorney is forced to drop this program, statutory rape crimes would no longer receive the special
attention afforded by vertical prosecution. These cases would be added to already high caseloads which
are assigned different attorneys at various stages of cases.
District Attorney—Career Crimm* aj Prosecution Program
>' Governor-s Proposal—Cut$350,000(9%of$3.9 mon currentyear in FY 03-04 for the
Career Criminal Prosecution Program under the Office of Crinninal Justice Planning.
in A;*%
)�Po CCC Fiscal Impact- A 9%cut fimding for FY 03-04 from the FY 02-03 base Aitar,level equates to
$14 a
,700 for Contra Costa County. This cut is in to a$15,815 mid-year cut for FY 02-03
4
(adopted by the legislative budget subcommittees of both houses), for a total reduction by the State of
$311418.
➢ CCC Programnofic Impact- The programmatic impact of this reduction is quite Problematic. District
Attorneys have been receiving Career C Prosecution Grants since the late 1970's. This grant is
one of the few State programs which assist in prosecuting the serious felony crimes that are high priority
with local prosecutors and the public. It has provided stable funding to assist in the prosecution of major
offenders for twenty-five years. The District Attorney cannot cut out this function when funding&01)S.
However, it does mean that the District Attorney will have less outside revenue to fund the prosecution
of serious and violent offenders-a loss which the County General Fund would have to offset elsewhere
in his department in order to have the same level of prosecution of serious violent criminals in Contra
Costa County.
District Attorney—Spousal Abuser Prosecution Program
➢ Governor's Proposal—Eluate inatte the$3 million Spousal Abuser Prosecution Program under the
Department of Justice—Attorney General 's Office.
)0, CCC Fiscal Impact-The State is proposing to elimnnate this program totally. This will reduce budgeted
revenue in the District Attorney's Office by$120,000.
➢ CCC Programmatic Impact: - The Spousal Abuser Prosecution Program has been the cornerstone of the
District Attorney's enhanced domestic Violence prosecution program. FY 02-03 is the ninth year that the
District Attorney been receiving this grant which has funded one M-time attorney dedicated to
domestic violence prosecution. Elimination of this program at the State level would force the District
Attorney to reduce,by one attorney, the current efforts dedicated to domestic violence prosecution.
Since this area would also be subject toA5 ILcuts from the County, cuts in State A;*%rv5 would result:
in virtually all domestic violence cases being handled in the general caseload. Elimination of thisA5 A;V%"
source could result in the loss of more than one attorney,because cuts would be have to be carried by
less costly attorney positions.
District Attorney—California Witness Protection Program
➢ Governor's Proposal- Emote the$3 million California Witness Protection Program under the
Department of Justice, Attorney General's Office.
➢ CCC Fiscal Impact-In the last four years, the Contra Costa County District Attorney has received
reimbursement for over$430,000 spent on protecting witnesses who have been threatened for testifying
against criminals in court
➢ CCC Programmatic Impact-It is expected that the elation of the California Witness Protection
Program will have a significant negative impact on the prosecution of the most serious crimes in Contra
Costa County. These funds have been used to pay transportation and housing costs to relocate witnesses
in fear for their lives in 26 cases during this period. Most of these were gang-related homicides, sexual
assaults, robberies, etc., where it is unlikely the District Attorney could have gotten convictions,without
the testimony of key witnesses. Although a majority of the cases originated from West County,both
East and Central County have been represented, as well. There is no local fiianding available to replace
State cuts in this area.
County General Fund—Transfer of Undesignated Court Fees
➢ Governor's Proposal- Transfer to the State an estimated$31 million of undesignated fee revenue
currently accruing to California County General Funds for county-funded court functions, including the
trial Court ceding subsidy to the State.
➢ CCC Fiscal Impact- Contra Costa County does not track these funds separately. Consequently, it is not
currently possible to estimate the fiscal impact on this County{although, the loss would be directly on the
General Fund). The Court is attempting to find a way to calculate these fees.
➢' CCC Programmatic Impact- These funds are used to offset Trial Court ob igations of the County such
as capital case costs, local judicial benefits,, and the trial court .4;" subsidy to the State.
5
Community Development Department—Williamson Act
> Governor's Proposal--Permanently eliminate the Williamson Act subventions,to counties($38.6 million)
which provides for the cost of administrating the State Williamson Act.
)'e CCC Fiscal Impact—County will lose approximately$75,000 for program administration.
> CCC Progrmnmatic Impact—The Williamson Act allows private landowners to voluntarily contract with
the County to keep their land in agriculture/open space in return for a lower property tax rate.
Approximately 49,018 acres of agricultural land M* Contra Costa County are under Williamson Act
contracts(as of 2001). Loss of this subvention will either result M* notices of nonrenewal to current
contractors,, eliminatmg incentives for farmers and agricultural landowners to open space, or it
will be a loss to the County General Fund if backfilled by the Board of Supervisors.
Employment and Duman Services—Multiple Programs
> Governor's Proposal—The Governor's budget provides funding levels for various programs which are
not sufficient to maintain current service levels. These include CaIWORKs, Adult Protective Services,
Child Welfare Services,Foster Care and Adoption.
)0' CCC Fiscal Impact—Funding shortfalls for CaIWORKs are estimated at$7.1-$7.3 million,APS are
estimated at $65,0001, Child Welfare Services at$327,000,,Foster Care at$8,900 and Adoptions at
$36,,000. (Note: These shortfalls take into account the cost of absorbing projected FY 03-04 salary and
benefit increases)
> CCC Progrconmalic Impact—No specific impacts are available at this time due to the very preliminary
nature of these reduction estimates. Overall, the A;%ft shortfall would require a iination of
approximately 105 FTE within these programs.
Library
Governor's Proposal - $15.8 million reduction to the Public Library Foundation (current and budget
year).
➢ CCC Fiscal Impact- Estimated loss of$974,926, 74% of current revenues of$1,324,926 and about 5%
of the total library budget. In addition, the Families for Literacy program would be reduced by at least
5%5 an approximate loss of$3,500.
rV
Since FY 01-02, State ceding of local libraries has been reduced by 70%.
> CCC Programmatic Impact — A 5% decrease in Families For Literacy would mean that 10-15 fewer
Patrons would learn to read. Loss of$975,000 for general library operations equates to:
N 37,217 books not purchased
or
0 41.,655 fewer hours open,
or
a 4 hours lost weekly at each library location,
and a loss of 13 FTE
Probation—California Youth Authority
> Governor's Proposal-Raise rates for the California Youth Authority(CYA)by 17%in FY 03-041y
generating approximately$7.1 million in revenue for the State.
CCC Fiscal Impact- The cost of commitments of Contra Costa youth to CYA was$1,0751000 in FY
0
01-023P and is running at a lower pace M" the current year. A 17%increasem rates will cost in the range
of$150,000 to$1801,000.
6
> CCC Programniatic Impact-Commitments to C'A'A are made by the Juvenile Court. Their classification
-on
and duration are determined by the Youth Authority. The Probation Department does not control their
number,their cost *on or their length.
Probation—Local Coneectional Officer Training
> Governor's Proposal- Transfer responsibility for local correctional training costs now covered by the
State to the local agencies, for a State savings of$16.8 million.
> CCC Fiscal Impact-In FY 01-02 Probation received$205,000 for local correctional officer-A-
This revenue, which augmented the breadth of Probation's training program, would be lost for 03-04.
> CCC Programmatic Impact- The training program would be reduced to cover only the basic, essential
t * that are considered the necessary for officer and client safety. Probation maint
topics
s for STC certification which would no longer be possible without this revenue source.
Redevelopment Agency—Housing Set-Asides and ERAF
)0- Governor's Proposal—Transfer unencumbered(not legally committed)low and moderate income
houS1119 funds from community redevelopment agencies to schools in FY 02-03.
> CCC Programmatic Impact-As of December 1, 2002 the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency
had a housing fund balance of approximately$4.0 million. Thirty percent, or$1.2 million are legally
encumbered. The remaining seventy percent- $2.8 million—are committed but not yet legally
encumbered(subject to a binding contract)and would therefore be lost under the Governor's proposal.
> Governor's' Proposal-Divert property taxes from redevelopment agencies to schools under the ERAF
formula,,beginning with 25% of the total($250 million in FY 03-04)and-increasing annually by 5%until
redevelopment agencies are sending 100% of the general property tax ERAF subvention to schools.
> CCC Fiscal Impact—Due to the wide variance in the school share of property taxes prior to Proposition
13,the ERAF shift would vary widely by project area. Overall, the full shift of school funds based on
current tax increment of the Agency would be almost $2.8 million as shown below.
School District
Project Share of Tax Full ERAF FY 2003/04
Area Increment Shift st Shlost
.-I
Pleasant ffill BART 37.0% $12793,1760 $4951000
North Richmond 43.0% 3617200 115,110
Bay Point 45.0% 427,050 221,392
Rodeo 25.5% 199,410 - 75,.184
TOTAL $217811420 $90631686
1. Assumes 105%of FY 02-03 revenue, school district share, and 25% shift of
school's share.
> CCC Fiscal Impact-The Governor's proposal would significantly' the viability of redevelopment
as a tool for economic development,jobs and affordable housing. Specific program impacts relate to the
projects underway in each of the County's four project areas:
Pleasant Hill BART — The Governor's proposal would eliminate almost 50% of the Agency's
additional bonding capacity, effectively eliminating the feasibility of the transit village
development which requires an upfront investment of approximately $35-$40 million for the
BART parking garage, public u* nprovements, infrastructure, plaza and civic uses and affordable
a
housing- The County General Fund was to be the recipient of a sub flow of revenue from.
this inve and which is now at risk.
7
North Richmond - The Governor's proposal would a minate over $3 million of bonding
capacity m' North Richmond. This would greatly impair the agency's ability to continue on local
employment generating activities, including a machiningltooling small business incubator,
'6
financing plan for major infrastructure and the development of affordable housmg-
;*%&I+ AI'lln
Bay Point— The Governor's proposal would AM nearly $4.5 million of b capacity in
Bay Point affecting completion of the North Broadway area infrastructure improvements,
including two housing projects, the transit-oriented development program of housing and retail,
the and waterftont area redevelopment program and a racing plan to provide
infiwtructure for a light industrial business park.
Rodeo - The Governor's proposal could -1*%Am+ over$2 million of bonding capacity, inhibiting
i
the agency's ability to proceed on revitalizing the marina/waterfront and the downtown, including
development of housing.
SM9.
El Sobrante/Montalvan Manor Plan Adoption — Redevelopment plans are currently in the
adoption stages in El Sobrante and Montalvan Manor area. At this point, there are no revenue
projections; however the amount of tax increment in initial years is always fairly modest. The
Governor's proposal would substantially alter the feasibility of project financing, as would the
alternate proposal for a moratorium on redevelopment plan adoptions.
Sheriff—POST Training
➢ Governor'sProposal — Eminate $28.3 million of funding for the Commission on Peace Officers
Standards and T (POST) program, that partially reimburses local law enforcement agencies for
training and associated costs.
%of
CCC Fiscal Impact— The Sheriffs Office received $310,188 from this source last year. This revenue
would be lost for FY 03-04 with a consequent increase in the uncompensated cost for this mmdated
CCC PrWammalic Impact - At this time, it is not known how the State reduction would be
implemented; for example as a reduced amount per mandated course or as a change M* the reimbursable
courses. Consequently, it is not yet possible to assess how much control the Sheriffs Office will have to
ameliorate the negative impact of this funding loss.
Sheriff—Local Correctional Officer Training
➢ Governor's Proposal—Transfer responsibility for local correctional officer training costs now covered by
the State to local agencies, for a State savings of$16.8 million.
CCC Fiscal Impact - In FY 01-02, the Sheriff s Office received $147,059 for local correctional officer
training. For FY 02-033, it expects to receive about $206,000. This revenue would be lost for FY 03-04
CCC Programmatic Impact — The Sheriff s Office believes that the mandate for this staff training will
remain intact. Consequently, the revenue loss will need to be backfilled through cuts elsewhere in the
SheriT s Office.
8
THE BOARD OF SUPERWSORS OF CON77ZA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
410
PASSED by the following vote of the Board of Supervisors on this 21%t day of January 2003
AYES: 5 GIOTA, MIMM, GUMM9 M-OM AM DeSMEM
NOES: NM
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: NM
RESOLUTION NO. 2003111
Subject. A RESOLUTION URGING THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE TO HONOR THE 1998
CONOMMENT TO RESTORE THE VLF AND NOT TO ADOPT THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSED
SHIFT OF LOCAL VLF REVENUES
WREREAS,prior to 1935,cities and counties collected property taxes on motor vehicles to fund essential
local public health and safety services;
in 1935,the Le - lature first enacted the Vehicle License Fee(VLF)Act,replacing the
property tax on vehicles with a 1.75 percent fee charged against the value of the motor vehicle;
,in 1948,the rate of the VLF was increased to 2 percent of the value of the vehicle;
P in 1986,the voters voted overwhelmingly to constitutionally dedicate the proceeds of the
VLF to fund city and county services;
WHEREAS in 1998,a period of strong economic growth,the Legislature approved the use of a portion of
I*
the rapidly growing state General Fund to reduce the VLF payments of vehicle owners. This amount,
known as the"offset",grew in future years to a 67.5 percent offset against the amount owed. The amount
paid to local governments in lieu of the reduced VLF payment is known as the"VLF backfill";
WHEREAS,the 1998 legislation and subsequent enactments contain clear provisions that when
insufficient fiords are available to be transferred from the General Fund to fully fund the offsets and
backfill amount that the VLF offset shall be reduced and VLF payments increased;
MVEREAS,VLF backfill revenues constitute 23%of Contra Costa County's general purpose revenues,
$59 million($17 million realignment and$42 million non-realignment)in FY 2002-03
WHEREAS,revenues derived from the VLF backfill are critical to Ing front line law enforcement,
pro
,&health care services,child Pro,& services,adult protective services,libraries,district
attorney prosecutions and other services necessary to meet the needs of our local communities;
any failure by the Legislature to maintain the VLF backfill or restore the VLF will cause
V
widespread disruption in local government services essential to the well-being of California citizens and
their cities and counties;
Governor Davis'proposal to divert$4 billion M' local VLF backfill payments over the next
jun *11 be felt by
17 months fails to honor the 1998 commitment and is a direct assault on local services that W1
every California resident;and
WHEREAS. sig$4.2 billion in locally controlled revenues used for local services is neither equitable
nor fair. No state FILOSMU or department has been asked to shoulder such a disproportionate share of the
budget pain. These cuts come on top of the newly$5 billion each year that is already transferred from
local services to fund state obligations.
NO Wo I'l lEREFORE,BE MMOL AW BY IME"CO OF C01W,"COSTA,CALIFORNIA,
that if the state Cmm-al Fund can no longer afford all or part of the expense of the VLF"backfill,"that the
Legislature and Governor of California we hereby respectfully urged to implement the provisions of
current law providing for the reduction of the VLF offset in bad economic times and to restore the VLF in
an amount necessary to maintain local VLF backfill revenues;and to do so as a prior condition to
10
consideration of adopting the State Budget;and
RESOLVED FURTRER,that the County of Contra Costa hereby expresses its profound appreciation to
the legislat6ts who support such VLF resiwlauwu legislation.
RESOLUTION NO. 2003111
I hereby cc*that this is a true end corned copy
of an action taken and entered an the minutes of
the Board of Supervisors on the dote shown:
ATTESTED: January 21,2003
JOHN SWEETEN, Clerk of the Board of
BYZand ors W County AdmWstraW
s
A 0 Deputy
"Del
Contra Costa County
2003 State Legislative Platform
Since the State is in such a dismal financial situation, much of the County's legislative effort in 2003
is focused on ensuring that the services and programs to citizens and businesses in Contra Costa
County suffer as little as possible as a result of the Governor's and Legislature's efforts to balance
the State Budget.
The proposed 2003 State Legislative Platform addresses both short and long term issues related to
the State budget as well as state/local structural relationships. It should be noted that realignment or
other proposals that alter the state/local relationship may affect the County's position on specific
issues in a manner that was not predictable when this platform was adopted.
(Note: policy positions continued from 2002 are marked with an asterisk)
General Revenues/Finance Issues.
1. SUPPORT efforts to unconditionally return ERAF local property tax revenues to local
governments*
2. OPPOSE any state-imposed reduction m' general purpose revenue, including vehicle license
fees(VLF), sales taxes and property taxes.*
3. OPPOSE any efforts to increase the County's share-of-cost, maintenance-of-effort
requirements or other financing responsibility for state mandated programs absent new
revenues sufficient to meet current and future program needs.
4. SUPPORT the state's effort to balance its budget through actions that do not affect local
government revenues or services-.*
S. SUPPORT efforts to ensure that counties receive their fair share of state allocations,
*
including pass-through of federal funds,for anti-terrorism and homeland security measures.
6 SUPPORT efforts to establish a date certain payment of mandated cost obligations for local
governments.(SB 90 payments).
7. SUPPORT efforts to limit County financial liability for future unfunded mandates.
8. SUPPORT efforts to receive reimbursement for local tax revenues lost pursuant to sales and
property tax exemptions approved by the legislature and the State Board of Equalization.
9. SUPPORT efforts to reform the state/local relationship in a way that makes both fiscal and
programmatic sense for local government.
10. SUPPORT efforts to ensure that any reductions in State funding of State mandated programs
are conditioned upon commiserate reductions in program mandates.
11. SUPPORT efforts to relieve California of the Federal Child Support penalties without
shifting the cost of the penalties to the counties.
12. CONSIDER a balanced realignment and/or restructuring of state/county finances in
programs only if an acceptable resolution is reached on VLF.
13. SUPPORT efforts to redefine the circumstances under which commercial and industrial
property is reassessed to reduce the growing imbalance between the share of overall property
taxes paid by residential property owners vs. commercial/industrial property owners.
14. SUPPORT reduction in the % vote requirement for special taxes that find high priority local
services.
Library Issues
15. SUPPORT efforts to increase bond fimding for library construction and renovation.
Land Use/Community Issues
16. SUPPORT efforts to promote economic incentives for "smart growth," 'Including in-fill and
transit oriented development.*
17. SUPPORT efforts to expand the availability of affordable housing, including, but not limited
to, state issuance of private activity bonds, affordable and low income housing bond
measures, low-income housing tax credits and state infrastructure financing.*
18. SUPPORT efforts to reform state housing element law to promote the actual production and
preservation of of housing and to focus less on process and paper compliance.*
19. SPONSOR legislation to establish a pilot program within the County Redevelopment
Agency's low and moderate income housing find by redefining housing affordability from
the current 30%of income ratio standard for very low*income and low income families to
40%and from 28 35%for moderate *income families,to less than 40%.
20. SPONSOR legislation to increase the maximum fines for code compliance violations to
reflect increases in the Consumer Price Index since 1983 (last time fine amounts were
updated).
21. SUPPORT efforts to limit charges by the Department of Finance against the Agricultural
Fund.
22. SUPPORT efforts to ensure sufficient State handing for pest and disease control to protect
both agriculture and the native environment,including glassy winged sharpshooter control;
high risk pest exclusion activities;pesticide regulatory and law enforcement activities; and
weed pest management area control.
23. SUPPORT continued appropriations for regulation and research on sudden oak death, a
fungal disease affecting many species of trees and shrubs in native oak woodlands.
24. SUPPORT funding for agricultural land conservation programs and agricultural enterprise
programs to protect and enhance the viability of local agriculture.
25. SUPPORT efforts to provide local agencies with more flexibility and options to fund clean
water programs.
26. SUPPORT protection of transportation funds dedicated to counties for maintenance
rehabilitation of roads.
27. SUPPORT efforts to reduce the fiscalization of land use decision-making by local
government,which favors retail uses over other job-creating uses and housing.
Health Care Issues
28. SUPPORT efforts to increase revenues and to contain mandated costs in the County's
hospital and clinics system.*
29. SUPPORT efforts to increase funding for breast cancer and prostate cancer awareness,public
education and treatment and to ensure equitable allocation of resources for awareness and
education efforts among the County's public health departments.*
30. SUPPORT efforts to streamline the Healthy Family program to simplify the application
process and reduce the dropout rate.*
31. SUPPORT the development and institutionalization of a tracking system for use on
utilization and notification of Healthy Family substance abuse benefits for youths enrolled
under California's Health Family program.
32. SUPPORT efforts to require coverage of medically necessary alcohol and substance abuse
related disorder treatment on the same levels as other medical conditions in health care
service plans and disability insurance policies.
Human Services Issues
33. SUPPORT efforts to increase County flexibility in use of Ca1WORKs funds and in program
requirements in order to better support the transition of welfare dependent families from
welfare-to-work and self sufficiency, including, but not limited to, extending supportive
services beyond the current limit; enhancing supportive services; increasing diversion and
early intervention to obviate the need for aid; expanding the state earned income tax credit;
expanding job retention services; expanding the eligibility definition to 250% of the poverty
level; and exempting the hard-to-serve from welfare-to-work activities and the 20%
exemption or providing flexibility in the time limit (dependent upon terms and conditions of
TANF reauthorization)*
3
34. SUPPORT efforts to ensure funding of child care for CalWORKs and former CalWORKs
families at levels sufficient to meet demand.*
35. SUPPORT efforts to reduce County costs for In-Home Supportive Services, including but
not limited to extending the required reassessment period(reduces administrative costs).
36. SUPPORT efforts to eliminate the finger-imaging requirement for adult food stamp
applicants, recognizing that the new Electronic Benefits Transfer System will be a deterrent
against fraud.
37. SUPPORT efforts to streamline the Medi-Cal eligibility redetermination process in order to
reduce 'strative costs.
38. SUPPORT changes in State regulations to permit County Medi-Cal eligibility staff to enroll
children in the Healthy Families program.
Law and Justice System Issues
39. SUPPORT protection of County revenues derived from undesignated court fees (non AB
233/Trial Court Funding Act).
Animal Services Issues
40. SUPPORT efforts to protect local revenue sources designated for use by the Animal Services
Department; i.e., animal licensing, fines-and fees.
41. SUPPORT efforts to protect or increase local control and flexibility over the scope and level
of animal services.
42. SUPPORT efforts to protect against unfunded mandates in animal services or mandates that
are not accompanied by specific revenue sources which completely offset the costs of the
new mandates,both when adopted and in future years.
43. SUPPORT efforts to protect and/or increase County flexibility to provide animal services
consistent with local needs and priorities.
44. SUPPORT efforts to preserve the integrity of existing County policy relating to Animal
Services (e.g.,the Animal Control Ordinance and land use requirements).
4
WAlk.-IVIL JL
ana K.'"Wrall
ASsemblymembers Canciamilla and Richman Unveil Fiscally Responsible Budget Plan Page I of 3
Woo
ASSEMBLYMEMBER JOSEPH CANCIAMILLA
11TH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT
For Immediate Release: June 17, 2003
Contact: Stephanie Yoder-Canciamilla's office or Dan Pellissier(Richman's office)
Phone: (916)319-2011 or(916) 319-2038
oil in
Assemblymembers Canciamilla and Richman Unveil Fiscally Responsible Budget Plan
LAO Report_on Canciamilla/Richman Budget Plan{PDF)
41
SACRAMENTO--In order to add perspective to the budget crisis, Assemblymembers Joe Canciamilla
(D- Pittsburg)and Keith Richman(R-Northridge)today unveiled a financially responsible budget and
economic stimulus package. The proposal rolls per capita spending and state employee levels below
1998 levels, protects essential services,provides a solid foundation for future budgets and promises to
increase jobs by improving California's economic climate. Yet because of its breadth,the budget rescue
.framework is unlikely to generate wide support in the Legislature and does not represent other members
of the Bipartisan Group.
"We need to stretch beyond traditional solutions to resolve California's worst-ever budget deficit,"
Canciarruffla,said. "We must stop looking at short-term smoke and mirrors fixes. These desperate times
call for new solutions not tethered to the traditional approaches of continuing reckless spending and
slashing essential programs."
"Our budget solution goes a long way to resolving the long term structural deficit that is eroding our
fiscal integrity. By reducing state spending and state employee levels below 1998 benchmarks, we
would put the state back on course to having responsibility budgets for years to come. With fiscal
reforms designed to ensure accountability and an economic stimulus package that will promote job
growth, our comprehensive budget solution is the tough medicine needed to regain California's financial
health,"Assemblyman Richman said. "I would like to thank the Legislative Analyst's Office for their
help in crafting a financially responsible budget,plan. Liz Hill and Brad Williams have been an
invaluable resource in the past months."
Assernblymember Richman and Canciamilla's detailed proposal outlines three areas: additional budget
cuts from the Assembly budget passed on May 27, common sense fiscal reform measures and an
economic stimulus package supported by the business co nunity.
Additional Budget Cuts
The detailed proposal verified by the Legislative Analyst's office makes$5.4 billion in reductions to
i
several categories in 2003-04. With$6 billion in additional cuts for 2004-05 and$7.5 billion n 2005-06,
the proposal makes substantial progress to balancing the budget in future years. In this budget year the
following cuts are included:
:,e
* Corrections-$150 million
* Education-$781 million
* Health and social services- $1.4 billion
file://C:\TEMP\c.lotus.notes.dataXAssemblymembers%20Canc*lamille/o20and0/,IA.D-*,"-
A
Asseinblymemners uanclamina anu munintui unvun r im.;alty t1GJpVllalum, LuuS%,L 1 Lc"i
i
• Higher education- $461 million
• General government- $400 million
• Local government- $500 million(one-time)
• Transportation- $43 8 million(loan)
Fiscal Reform Measures
• Spending Cap—Limit the growth in state spending to the increase in population and inflation.
• Responsible Budgeting—Allow the state budget to spend only 95%of the revenue projected by the
May revise and build a 5%budget reserve by the end of budget year 2006-07.
. Legislative Oversight Require a comprehensive look at all major spending programs to ensure they
meet their public policy goals in the most cost efficient manner and establish a two-year expenditure
plan prior to any other legislative work in each two-year session.
• Local Government and School Mandate Reform—Review existing mandate responsibilities,
directly fund the worthy requirements and eliminate the underlying mandates in all others after two
years.
• Sinclair Paint Fees—Narrow the"nexus"requirements established by the Sinclair Paint decision to
include only direct costs, voluntarily incurred by the payer.
• Pension Reform—Close the current defined benefits plans to new state, local and education
employees and adopt a fiscally responsible plan for new employees.
Economic Stimulus Package
• Workers Compensation Reform—Provide comprehensive reforms that improve workers' health care
and reduces program costs by controlling medical expenditures,reducing administration expenses,
eliminating fraud,reducing litigation and improving California's business climate.
• Extend the Manufacturers Investment Tax Credit Permanently extend the state tax credit for
purchase of j obs-producing manufacturing equipment.
. End Abusive Commercial Lawsuits—Require trial lawyers to find a specific individual with
provable damages and notifying the Attorney General before allowing lawsuits to be filed under the
Unfair Competition statute(Business and Professions code section 17200).
• Energy Cost Reform—Restore customer choice in energy procurement and establish fair energy
costs for all customer classes.
"The Legislature must resolve the state's fiscal crisis with a bold plan that gives Californians confidence
that we are doing our jobs. Deadlock, finger pointing and unrealistic assumptions must end now.
Without bipartisan cooperation,we are headed for a fiscal train wreck. Sadly,there is little hope for
f le://C:\TEMP\c.lotus.notes.data\Assemblymembers%20Canciamilla%2Oa.nd%20Richman%... 6/18/03
Assemblymembers,Canciamilla and Kiclunan unveil riscany twsponsnxe ruin et ritul
change,"Richman concluded.
"Passing a budget this year will require sacrifice from all sides;new revenues will be needed,as well as
spending cuts. It is imperative to work together and find a way to combine these to prepare a fair and
equitable budget. By doing so,we can provide a boost in confidence to those Californians who will be
most affected by such tough decisions," Canciamilla said. "Also by demonstrating real cooperation and
diligence, we can provide evidence to the Wall Street bankers who rate the state's credit, that we are
taking our financial stability seriously."
Capitol Office: State Capitol--P.O.Box 942849--Sacramento,CA 94249-0011 --Phone:(916)319-2011 --Fax:(916)319-
2111
District Office:815 Estudillo,Street--Martinez,CA 94553--(925)372-7990
Satellite Offices:420 West Third Street Antioch,CA 94531 Ph:925-778-5790--Fax:925-778-5174
Assemblvmem__.ber_.Canciamillaa,assembl-y.ca.gav
file://C*-\TEMP\c.lotus.notes.data\Assemblymembers%20Canc*lamillaO/o2Oand%2ORichman�/�.,, 6/18/03