Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06272006 - C.32 4 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra »., FROM: SUPERVISOR FEDERAL GLOVER `* (` MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS `�'�Sta CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES CoUnty s cii" DATE: JUNE 27, 2006 C3, ), SUBJECT: REPORT ON ACTIONS TAKEN BY CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: ACCEPT the report on actions taken by the CSAC Board of Directors at their June 15, 2006 meeting. BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION: At its June 15, 2006 meeting, the Board of Directors of the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) took action in two areas of interest to Contra Costa County: ➢ "Anderson" Initiative - The Board approved CSAC joining a coalition to develop and advocate for an alternative to the "Anderson" Initiative to be placed on the ballot in November. In addition, the Board also authorized expenditures of up to $100,000 to support that; effort. The "Anderson" Initiative is an initiative which would severely restrict the authority of local government in the areas of land use and eminent domain. At its June 6, 2006 meeting, the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County took a position in support of this action by CSAC. ➢ Booking Fees - The CSAC Board of Directors approved a position of opposition to the proposed changes to the booking fee structure. The Board also authorized CSAC to continue to participate in a dialogue on revisions that would meet the needs of all stakeholders and to recommend that the $40 million placeholder in the Governor's January budget be used to off-set city costs for booking fees if the Legislature believes that the cities need fiscal relief. In addition the CSAC Board of Directors were reminded that Supervisor Valerie Brown, Sonoma County, is a candidate for Second Vice-President of the National Association of Counties (NACo). Consequently, it is very important that all counties register for the August NACo Conference and vote for Supervisor Brown. Collectively, California counties hold 625 votes, approximately 1/3 of all votes necessary for her election. Contra Costa County has registered for the conference. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMEND ION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVE AS RECOMMENDED _ OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN UNANIMOUS(ABSENT AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE AYES: NOES: SHOWN. ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTESTED CONTACT: Sara Hoffman 335.1090 JORN CULL N,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR CC: County Administrator BY DEPUTY California State Association of Counties FONTO ® DATE: June 14, 2006 TO: All Members of the Legislature FROM: Rubin R. Lopez and Elizabeth Howard 1100 K Street Suite 101 CSAC Administration of Justice Staff Sacramento California RE: Booking Fees Proposal—COUNTY OPPOSITION 95814 Telephone The California State Association of Counties(CSAC) is opposed to the booking fee 916.327.7500 alternative negotiated between the California Police Chiefs'Association and the California Facsimile State Sheriffs'Association. From the county perspective, we have always remained firm in 916.441.5501 our commitment to preserve the booking fee authority and the critical policy implications that surround it. Booking fees are a fee-for-service granted by the Legislature to offset major reductions to state support for local programs; they effectively spread responsibility—a small portion, at that-for the criminal justice system to other key governmental agencies that participate in it. Further, the booking fee construct is a mechanism that compels all governmental entities to make strategic decisions about arrest and booking practices. Counties continue to believe that these policy considerations are worth protecting. However, we are well aware that a proposed alternative to the existing booking fee structure may arise as part of overall budget discussions.An agreement on a booking fee alternative reached between the chiefs and sheriffs was part of the May Revision. The proposal, which has significant policy and fiscal implications, has never been publicly discussed nor has it received the policy analysis that it deserves. CSAC has, over the last weeks and months, deliberated the proposed alternative carefully and has identified serious policy and operational concerns about the impact and implementation of the proposal. Counties do not feel that the problems identified can reasonably be resolved in the time horizon during which the budget negotiations are concluded, and for those reasons, are opposed to the booking fee alternative. Counties' action to oppose the booking fee alternative is accompanied by a clear commitment to continue discussions with the Administration, Legislature, stakeholders, and policy makers on this important issue.We firmly believe that more deliberation and discussion among interested groups is necessary before all affected parties can arrive at a mutually agreeable resolution. Counties were not a party to the negotiated agreement that resulted in the proposed alternative. Frankly,we expect this effort could take several months and think that all parties should be given a chance to fully vet this issue and its impacts outside the context of other budget discussions. The challenge of adequate public safety in our communities requires all stakeholders to be part of the solution on almost any issue. This tenet holds true for resolution of concerns around booking fees.We would urge the Legislature to reject the booking fee alternative as part of the overall 2006-07 state budget resolution; this "resolution"of a difficult and sensitive issue simply passes off one principal's problems and concerns to another, imposing new and inappropriate burdens solely on counties. Our letter to Governor on this issue,which details our concerns more clearly, is attached. Thank you for considering our position. Attachment California State Association of Counties June 6, 2006 The Honorable Arnold Schwarzenegger 1100 K Street Governor, State of California Suite 101 First Floor, State Capitol Socmmenio Sacramento, CA 95814 fal'rfomia 95814 RE: County Opposition to Booking Fee Altemative rQ 916.327.7500 Dear Governor Schwarzenegger: 10um08 On behalf of California's 58 counties, I write to urge you to withhold support on the proposed 9t6.44t.5507 9 Y PP P P alternative to booking fees. The California State Association of Counties(CSAC)and many individual counties have focused in the last several weeks on assessing the impact and implications of the proposed statutory language to implement the negotiated booking fee compromise between the California Police Chiefs'Association and the California State Sheriffs' Association. Regrettably, the proposed alternative—both for policy and practical reasons—is not good for counties; in our view, neither the timing nor the specifics of the proposal is ripe, and we would respectfully urge you to exclude this proposal from the 2006-07 budget. Counties certainly recognize that the booking fee issue has been a great source of friction at the local level, and it continues to generate significant policy and budget discussions at both the state and local levels. We have approached our analysis of the booking fee alternative with care and deliberation, mindful of the history on this issue. However, our county supervisors and administrative officers have concluded that the depth and breadth of the problems in the specific statutory approach are simply too significant to overcome in the contracted budget period before us.While the alternative fundamentally moves away from an existing construct that counties believe continues to have significant policy benefits, it would put in place a system that would present fiscal, practical, and operational difficulties too numerous to address in a short timeframe. (Please see attachment for the specific elements in the statutory approach that underlie our opposition.) When CSAC's Administration of Justice policy committee recently took a formal oppose position on the booking fee alternative, it was with a clear commitment to continue discussions with the Administration, Legislature, stakeholders, and policy makers on this important policy issue. We believe that more deliberation and discussion among interested groups is necessary before all affected parties can arrive at a mutually agreeable resolution.As you may be aware, counties were not a party to the discussions that resulted in the negotiated agreement between the police chiefs and sheriffs. Counties tremendously appreciate the spirit of partnership and collaboration that has marked our interaction with you and your Administration. We hope you understand how seriously we weighed all options before taking an oppose position on the booking fee alternative, and trust that you will consider the county impact of this proposal in overall deliberations on the state's fiscal plan for 2006-07.Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, r Connie Conway CSAC President and Tulare County Supervisor County Opposition to Booking Fee Alternative Page 2 Attachment cc: The Honorable Don Perata, Senate President Pro Tempore The Honorable Dick Ackerman, Senate Republican Leader The Honorable Fabian Nunez,Assembly Speaker The Honorable George Plescia,Assembly Republican Leader The Honorable Wes Chesbro, Budget Committee Conferee The Honorable Denise Ducheny, Budget Committee Conferee The Honorable Dennis Hollingsworth, Budget Committee Conferee The Honorable John Laird, Budget Committee Conferee The Honorable Judy Chu, Budget Committee Conferee The Honorable Rick Keene, Budget Committee Conferee Cynthia Bryant, Chief Deputy Legislative Secretary, Office of the Governor Les Weidman, Public Safety Liaison, Office of the Governor Brenda Quintana, Director of Local Government and Community Relations, Office of the Governor Eric Csizmar, Deputy Legislative Secretary, Office of the Governor Mike Genest, Director, Department of Finance Vince Brown, Chief Deputy Director, Department of Finance James Keene, Executive Director, CSAC 7 ,.f County Opposition to Booking Fee Alternative Page 3 County Opposition to Booking Fee Proposal (RN 06 10757) On June 5, the California State Association of Counties(CSAC) took action to OPPOSE the booking fee alternative negotiated between the California Police Chiefs'Association and the California State Sheriffs'Association. After identifying a number of policy and practical concerns, counties concluded that the magnitude and nature of these issues warrant formal opposition as the only reasonable option. However, counties remain committed to working collaboratively with interested parties and policy makers and are open to future discussions to consider other options. We identify below the key concerns that underlie our opposition. Fundamental policy concerns Issue Comment Limited role for Board New Government Code Section 29560 references the board of supervisors as the entity of Supervisors that would establish the new fund, but the scope and appropriateness of that role remains unclear. Limitations of non- The non-supplant provision is unclear. There is a need to clarify that it applies only to supplant language "new"money appropriated by the state to the Local Detention Facility Fund and not revenue derived from booking fee authority in GC Section 29550. Lack of cost:escalator The existing booking fee authority allows for recouping of one-half of actual administrative costs,which permits counties to evaluate and adjust to up to 50 percent of actual costs. This proposal effectively caps the state appropriation at$40 million, which, absent a state general fund augmentation,will be quickly outpaced by cost growth over time and any increased volume in arrests. Limitations in jail Counties are fundamentally opposed to the prohibition against charging a jail access fee access fee to new misdemeanors or municipal code violations. Expansions in this area are out of counties' control, and there is no valid policy reason for considering"new"crimes differently than those that are already defined in statute. This bifurcation would create enormous administrative burdens for counties trying to track the three-year rolling average, as they will be required to segregate "old"offenses from "new"offenses. Closure of city-run Counties have raised the legitimate concern that this proposal should recognize the jails difficulties and burdens that result when city-run jail is closed. A mechanism should be identified to mitigate the impact on a county detention facility in the event that a city closes, reduces capacity of, or otherwise substantially alters the operation of a city-run 'ail. Implementation/Technical Issues Issue Comment Timing The timing of the bill is unclear. It appears the bill is keyed "urgency."The intent language states that no county/city and county would receive less revenue than it "would have otherwise received collecting fees"under the existing booking fee authority in 2007-08 (budget year plus one)-perhaps that's to ensure that any expected incremental increases counties intent to propose in the budget year and the subsequent year are taken into account when the distribution is made.Absent a clause making clear when the provisions become effective, it seems like it will be difficult for counties (assuming implementation is immediate)to plan for and switch over to a new system from one day to the next. Administering It is not clear what entity(state or local)will be responsible for(1)collecting data authority necessary to make appropriation pursuant to distribution methodology contemplated in language; (2)calculating three-year average and authorizing application of jail access fee; and (3)calculating and administering the appropriation of funds when the Legislature under appropriates the$40 million. Mechanism for It is not clear how the distribution of funds would work in years when the Legislature appropriation in years fails to appropriate the full$40 million.Will only the proportion of the shortage be of an "under subject to the reversion to the existing booking fee scheme?It is not clear how counties appropriation" would be made whole, the timing of the appropriation within the fiscal year, and the mechanics of the entire process. Designation of local County budget managers have indicated that the designation of the local detention detention facilities facility fund as a "revenue account"is an important and necessary distinction for fund accounting purposes. What the "Anderson" Initiative Would Mean for California's Counties The "Protect Our Homes Act" is a citizen's initiative decided on appeal in a published opinion. that was submitted by Anita S. Anderson; the act is [§19(b)(3)] - sometimes referred to as the "Anderson" initiative. The campaign for the measure has collected and - Give the property owner the right to a submitted about a million signatures and it will determination by a superior court jury as to presumably qualify for the November 2006 ballot. whether the taking is for a public use. [§19(b)(4)] The effects of this measure on counties would be - Change property valuation so that future immediate, dramatic and far-reaching. While the dedication requirements are not considered. initiative is a response to the U.S. Supreme Court's More significantly, the measure provides that Ke(o decision, it deals with issues far broader than property be valued at the use to which the eminent domain. As the California Attorney General government intends to put it, as opposed the notes in his official summary, the measure "limits, current value of the property, but only if it government's authority to adopt certain land use, results in a higher value. [§19(b)(5)] housing, consumer, environmental and workplace laws and regulations." Primarily, it would require - Define "just compensation" as "that sum of compensation at a property's highest use for any money necessary to place the property owner in government regulation that damages economic the same position monetarily...as if the property expectations. The measure would: had never been taken."This would likely include lost income, business goodwill, legal fees and Prohibit the use of eminerit domain for private relocation costs, for example. [§19(b)(6)] "Fair use, including redevelopment, though some legal market value"is defined as "the highest price opinions on the measure question if the language the property would bring on the open market." would actually achieve this purpose. [§19(a)(1)] [§19(b)(7)] Allow the condemning agency to transfer the - Define "damage" to property as including any property to a private party pursuant to an government action that results in "substantial assignment, contract or other arrangement for economic loss to private property," except when the performance of a public use project. taken to protect public health and safety. Down [519(a)(2) and §19(b)(2)] zoning, elimination of access, and limitations on the use of air space are listed as examples of Give the original property owners - or their damage. This would likely affect nearly all land designated heirs or beneficiaries - the right to use decisions as well as local or state measures reacquire the property at fair market value if it relating to height restrictions, mobile home rent ever ceases to be used for the originally stated control, affordable housing covenants, minimum public use. These provisions apply only to wage, consumer protection and environmental property taken after the measure takes effect. protection, to take just a few examples. As one The reacquired property would be taxed based on Supreme Court opinion states, '"government its appraisal at the time it was acquired by the regulation - by definition - involves the condemning agency. [519(a)(3)] adjustment of rights for the public good."'[S19(b)(8)] - Place the burden of proving public use on the government in all eminent domain actions. - Excuse property owners from any liability for the [519(b)(2)] government's attorney fees or costs, regardless of the reasonableness of the owners legal case. - Make null and void unpublished judicial opinions [§19(b)(9)] and orders relating to eminent domain. Only appellate court decisions are published - and - Not prohibit the use eminent domain on specific then only sometimes - and California eminent parcels to abate specific conditions of domain cases are heard in Superior Court, not "nuisances such as blight, obscenity., appellate court. There has been much pornography, hazardous substances or speculation about: the effects of this provision, environmental conditions." [519(e)] The measure which might mean that a public agency would not would also not restrict administrative powers be able to take possession unless the case is under a declared state of emergency. [§19(d)] -17-