AGENDA Urban Counties of California Board of Directors Meeting November 28, :00 PM

Transcription

1 Chair Supervisor Carole Groom Executive Director Jolena L. Voorhis In-person Board meeting in San Diego. AGENDA Urban Counties of California Board of Directors Meeting November 28, :00 PM I. Call To Order UCC Chair Supervisor Groom will call the meeting to order. II. III. Roll Call of Counties Approval of Minutes IIIA. Minutes of September 25, 2018 UCC Board Meeting ACTION ITEM UCC MInutes - FINAL.doc IV. Items for Consideration IVA. UCC Legislative Priorities for 2019 ACTION ITEM UCC DRAFT Legislative Priorities (Clean version).doc IVB. UCC Legislative Policies 2019 ACTION ITEM UCC DRAFT Legislative Policies 2019 (Highlighted Version).doc IVC. 501c3 Creation ACTION ITEM UCC Memo on 501c3 Creation FINAL.doc Draft 501c3 Workplan.docx 501c3 Timeline.docx UCC Restructuring Committee History and Actions (2018).docx IVD. UCC By-Laws ACTION ITEM Board of Directors: Chair: Supervisor Carole Groom, San Mateo County Vice Chair: Supervisor James Ramos, San Bernardino County Treasurer: Emily Harrison, Finance Director, Santa Clara County Members: Supervisor Keith Carson, Alameda County; Supervisor Federal Glover, Contra Costa County; Supervisor Ernest Mendes, Fresno County; Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, Los Angeles County; Supervisor Lisa Bartlett, Orange County; Supervisor Chuck Washington, Riverside County; Supervisor Susan Peters, Sacramento County; Supervisor Bill Horn, San Diego County; Vacant, San Francisco County; Supervisor Bob Elliott, San Joaquin; Supervisor Ken Yeager, Santa Clara County; Supervisor Kelly Long, Ventura County 1

2 UCC BYLAWS (2018) - Ballot Measure Revisions FINAL.doc IVE. UCC Conflict of Interest Policy ACTION ITEM UCC Conflict of Interest Policy 2019.doc V. Election of UCC Chair and Vice-Chair VA. Election of UCC Chair and Vice-Chair ACTION ITEM UCC Memo on UCC Officers for docx VI. Informational Items VIA. VIB. UCC Workplan Informational WorkPlan Action Log (Updated ) FINAL.xls UCC Annual Report See Separate Attachment Informational VII. VIII. I. Proposals for Next Month's Meeting Agenda Public Comment Adjournment Adjourn until January 28, The January Meeting shall be conducted via conference call. 2 2

3 Agenda Item No:IIIA. Board of Directors Meeting Agenda Item Report Meeting Date: November 28, 2018 Submitted by: Grace Childs Submitting Department: Item Type: Minutes Agenda Section: Approval of Minutes Subject: Minutes of September 25, 2018 UCC Board Meeting Suggested Action: ACTION ITEM Attachments: UCC MInutes - FINAL.doc 3

4 1100 K Street, Suite 101/Sacramento, CA 95814/ (916) FA (916) /UCC@urbancounties.com UCC Board of Director s Meeting Summary September 25, 2018 Chair Supervisor Carole Groom Executive Director Jolena L. Voorhis Alameda: Contra Costa: Fresno: Los Angeles: Orange: Riverside: Sacramento: San Bernardino: San Diego: San Francisco: San Joaquin: San Mateo: Santa Clara: Ventura: UCC: Lara Delaney Supervisor Buddy Mendes, Supervisor Nathan Magsig Peter DeMarco (Alternate), Nicole Wordelman Supervisor Chuck Washington Supervisor Susan Peters, Steve Cruz Josh Candeleria (Alternate), Nicole Wordelman Geoff Patnoe (Alternate) Supervisor Bob Elliott Supervisor Carole Groom, Connie Juarez-Diroll, Steve Cruz, Devon Anderson Jim Weston (Alternate), Danielle Christian Supervisor Kelly Long, Sue Hughes Jolena Voorhis, Grace Childs-Ferguson I. Call to Order UCC Chair, Supervisor Carole Groom convened the meeting and called the members to order. II. III. Roll Call of Counties There were 6 Supervisors 4 Alternates and 11 counties represented at this meeting. Approval of Minutes from the August 27, 2018 UCC Board Meeting APPROVED The August 27 th minutes were Approved and below is the vote count: Member County Yes No Absent Not Voting Supervisor Groom, San Mateo Chair Supervisor Ramos Vice-Chair (Alternate) San Bernardino Supervisor Carson Alameda Supervisor Glover Contra Costa Supervisor Mendes Fresno Board of Directors: Chair: Supervisor Carole Groom, San Mateo County Vice Chair: Supervisor James Ramos, San Bernardino County Treasurer: Emily Harrison, Finance Director, Santa Clara County Members: Supervisor Keith Carson, Alameda County; Supervisor Federal Glover, Contra Costa County; Supervisor Ernest Mendes, Fresno County; Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, Los Angeles County; Supervisor Lisa Bartlett, Orange County; Supervisor Chuck Washington, Riverside County; Supervisor Susan Peters, Sacramento County; Supervisor Bill Horn, San Diego County; Vacant, San Francisco County; Supervisor Bob Elliott, San Joaquin; Supervisor Ken Yeager, Santa Clara County; Supervisor Kelly Long, Ventura County 4

5 Supervisor Ridley- Thomas Los Angeles Supervisor Bartlett Orange (Alternate) Supervisor Riverside Washington Supervisor Peters Sacramento Supervisor Horn (Alternate) San Diego Vacant San Francisco Supervisor Elliott San Joaquin Supervisor Yeager Santa Clara (Alternate) Supervisor Long Ventura Vote Total IV. Items for Consideration 1) Homeless Funding Update UCC provided a memo on Homeless Funding. As part of the Budget package this year, the State has invested $700 million in various programs to provide to cities and counties. The major programs are as follows: Homeless Emergency Aid Program (HEAP) ($500 million) The HEAP program has three separate pots: $250 million to the Continuums of Care (CoC) based on Point-In-Time Count ranges. $100 million to CoCs based on percent of homeless population. $150 million to large cities. HEAP funds are intended to provide funding to Continuums of Care (COCs) and large cities (LCs) with populations over 330,000, so they may provide immediate emergency assistance to people experiencing homelessness. Eligible uses include, but are not limited to the following: homelessness prevention activities, criminal justice diversion programs for homeless individuals with mental health needs, meeting the needs of homeless youth, and emergency aid. The Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency has held several workshops on the HEAP program across the state and released guidelines for the program. Applications are being accepted on a rolling basis starting September 5, 2018 through December 31, California Emergency Solutions and Housing Program (CESH) ($53 million) Under SB 2 (Atkins, 2017), the first year of funds received from the $75 fee will be provided to homeless funding. As part of the budget, the Legislature split this into two pots (ESG and Housing Board of Directors: Chair: Supervisor Carole Groom, San Mateo County Vice Chair: Supervisor James Ramos, San Bernardino County Treasurer: Emily Harrison, Finance Director, Santa Clara County Members: Supervisor Keith Carson, Alameda County; Supervisor Federal Glover, Contra Costa County; Supervisor Ernest Mendes, Fresno County; Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, Los Angeles County; Supervisor Lisa Bartlett, Orange County; Supervisor Chuck Washington, Riverside County; Supervisor Susan Peters, Sacramento County; Supervisor Bill Horn, San Diego County; Vacant, San Francisco County; Supervisor Bob Elliott, San Joaquin; Supervisor Ken Yeager, Santa Clara County; Supervisor Kelly Long, Ventura County 5

6 for a Healthy California). The CESH program provides funds to the Continuum of Care (CoC) based on the 2017 Point-In-Time count, the number of extremely low-income households in rental housing that pay more than 50 percent of household income on rent, and the number of persons below the federal poverty line. HCD has released the Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for this program and applications are due by October 15, Housing for a Healthy California ($53 million) This funding is provided under SB 2 (Atkins, 2017) and would provide 50% of the homeless funding in the first year to this program which was created by AB 74 (Chau, 2017). This program provides funding to counties who can use the funding for acquisition, new construction, or reconstruction and rehabilitation; project-based operating assistance, which may include long-term assistance for 5 years or establishing a 15-year capitalized operating reserve. HCD is required to make it operational by January 2019, but has not begun the guideline process. No Place Like Home (NPLH) In 2016, the Legislature passed the No Place Like Home Program (AB 1618 and AB 1628) which provided for the creation and implementation of the program which provides $2 billion in bond funding through the Mental Health Services Act to fund permanent and supportive housing to the homeless. As part of the budget, the Legislature placed the NPLH program on the November ballot for approval due to the validation action pending in the courts. HCD has released guidelines on the non-competitive portion of the funds ($200 million) and is expected to released guidelines on the competitive pot sometime in the next month. However, no funds or applications can be received unless the ballot measure is approved by the voters. 2) Other Emerging or Continuing Legislative Issues a) Ballot Initiatives Action Items Staff noted to the board the vote requirements (50% +1) and that 8 votes are needed to take a position on a ballot initiative. While Proposition 1 and 2 did not have any formal opposition, Proposition 5 did. Two guest speakers were present and given 5 minutes to provide arguments for proponents and opponents. Proposition 1 Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond of NO ACTION Summary: Proposition 1, the Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2018, would authorize the issuance of $4 billion in bonds for affordable housing. Board of Directors: Chair: Supervisor Carole Groom, San Mateo County Vice Chair: Supervisor James Ramos, San Bernardino County Treasurer: Emily Harrison, Finance Director, Santa Clara County Members: Supervisor Keith Carson, Alameda County; Supervisor Federal Glover, Contra Costa County; Supervisor Ernest Mendes, Fresno County; Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, Los Angeles County; Supervisor Lisa Bartlett, Orange County; Supervisor Chuck Washington, Riverside County; Supervisor Susan Peters, Sacramento County; Supervisor Bill Horn, San Diego County; Vacant, San Francisco County; Supervisor Bob Elliott, San Joaquin; Supervisor Ken Yeager, Santa Clara County; Supervisor Kelly Long, Ventura County 6

7 Background Affordable housing continues to be a top priority for the Legislature and there is a significant crisis regarding affordable housing in California with 2.2 million extremely low-income households competing for only 664,000 affordable rental homes. The last housing bond was Proposition 1C which was passed in 2006 and provided $2 billion in bonds for affordable housing to various programs at the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), all of which have been expended. Proposed Measure: This measure would enact the Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2018, and would authorize the issuance of $4 billion in bonds. The bonds shall be allocated in the following manner: $1.5 billion for the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Fund to be used for the Multifamily Housing Program to assist in the new construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of permanent and transitional rental housing for persons with 60% of the AMI. $150 million for the Transit-Oriented Development Program which provides assistance to cities and counties to encourage higher density projects. $300 million for the Infill Incentive Grant Program. $150 million for the Self-Help Housing Fund at CALHFA. $300 million for the Farmworker Housing Grant Fund. $300 million for the Affordable Housing Innovation Fund to fund competitive grants or loans to local housing trust funds. $300 million for the CalHome Program to provide direct, forgivable loans to assist mortgage assistance programs and for manufactured homes. $1 billion for veteran home loans. Fiscal Impact According to the LAO, this measure would create increased state costs to repay bonds averaging about $170 million annually over the next 35 years. Pros: Provides additional funding for affordable housing due to the significant affordable housing crisis. Provides funding to various entities including counties through a competitive process. This could create up to 137,000 jobs and provide $23.4 billion into California s economy. Board of Directors: Chair: Supervisor Carole Groom, San Mateo County Vice Chair: Supervisor James Ramos, San Bernardino County Treasurer: Emily Harrison, Finance Director, Santa Clara County Members: Supervisor Keith Carson, Alameda County; Supervisor Federal Glover, Contra Costa County; Supervisor Ernest Mendes, Fresno County; Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, Los Angeles County; Supervisor Lisa Bartlett, Orange County; Supervisor Chuck Washington, Riverside County; Supervisor Susan Peters, Sacramento County; Supervisor Bill Horn, San Diego County; Vacant, San Francisco County; Supervisor Bob Elliott, San Joaquin; Supervisor Ken Yeager, Santa Clara County; Supervisor Kelly Long, Ventura County 7

8 Cons: This measure would increase state costs to repay these bonds. Support Staff provided a list of supporters on Proposition 1. Opposition No registered opposition to Proposition 1. Staff Recommendation: The UCC Board voted to support SB 3 (Beall, 2017), which placed this on the ballot. Staff recommends a support position on Proposition 1. A Motion was made to Support Proposition 1, and below is the vote count: Member County Yes No Absent Not Voting Supervisor Groom, San Mateo Chair Supervisor Ramos Vice-Chair (Alternate) San Bernardino Supervisor Carson Alameda Supervisor Glover Contra Costa Supervisor Mendes Fresno Supervisor Ridley- Thomas Los Angeles Supervisor Bartlett Orange (Alternate) Supervisor Washington Riverside Supervisor Peters Sacramento Supervisor Horn (Alternate) San Diego Vacant San Francisco Supervisor Elliott San Joaquin Supervisor Yeager (Alternate) Santa Clara Supervisor Long Ventura Vote Total Due to UCC By-Laws requirements, this action did not carry and UCC has no position on this ballot measure. Board of Directors: Chair: Supervisor Carole Groom, San Mateo County Vice Chair: Supervisor James Ramos, San Bernardino County Treasurer: Emily Harrison, Finance Director, Santa Clara County Members: Supervisor Keith Carson, Alameda County; Supervisor Federal Glover, Contra Costa County; Supervisor Ernest Mendes, Fresno County; Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, Los Angeles County; Supervisor Lisa Bartlett, Orange County; Supervisor Chuck Washington, Riverside County; Supervisor Susan Peters, Sacramento County; Supervisor Bill Horn, San Diego County; Vacant, San Francisco County; Supervisor Bob Elliott, San Joaquin; Supervisor Ken Yeager, Santa Clara County; Supervisor Kelly Long, Ventura County 8

9 Proposition 2 No Place Like Home Act of 2018 NO ACTION Summary: Proposition 2, would place the No Place Like Home statutes before the voters to gain approval to use Mental Health Services Funds (Proposition 63) to provide permanent and supportive housing to the homeless who are seriously mentally ill. Background No Place Like Home Background In 2016, the Legislature passed the No Place Like Home Program (AB 1618 and AB 1628) which provided for the creation and implementation of the program which provides $2 billion in bond funding through the Mental Health Services Act to fund permanent and supportive housing to the homeless. UCC staff was actively involved in the negotiation on AB 1618 and while we did not have an official position on the bill, due to differing opinions among the urban counties, we worked in conjunction with CSAC, RCRC, and CBHDA to provide comments on the guidelines to HCD throughout We also created a technical working group to continue to provide feedback on the guidelines. The final guidelines on NPLH were released in July However, because NPLH is using MHSA funds under Proposition 63, the use of those funds needs to be validated by the court. This has resulted in significant delay in NPLH and only technical assistance funds have been provided to counties. The first court date was set for July 23, 2018, but HCD has indicated that this process could take another year. NPLH Funding Allocations Under NPLH there are three funding allocation: Competitive Program ($1.8 billion). This program uses county tiers so that urban counties compete against urban counties, rural counties against rural counties. Non-Competitive Program ($200 million). This will allow HCD to distribute two hundred million from the fund on an over-the-counter basis to finance the construction, rehabilitation, or preservation of permanent and supportive housing for individuals in the target population. Alternative Process ($1.8 billion). This program provides for an alternative process for allocating funds as grants directly to counties with at least five percent of the state s homeless population. Under the guidelines released there are four counties with this level of homeless: Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, and Santa Clara. Proposed Measure: This measure provides that the Mental Services Act Funds can be used for NPLH and is consistent with and in furtherance of Proposition 63. Board of Directors: Chair: Supervisor Carole Groom, San Mateo County Vice Chair: Supervisor James Ramos, San Bernardino County Treasurer: Emily Harrison, Finance Director, Santa Clara County Members: Supervisor Keith Carson, Alameda County; Supervisor Federal Glover, Contra Costa County; Supervisor Ernest Mendes, Fresno County; Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, Los Angeles County; Supervisor Lisa Bartlett, Orange County; Supervisor Chuck Washington, Riverside County; Supervisor Susan Peters, Sacramento County; Supervisor Bill Horn, San Diego County; Vacant, San Francisco County; Supervisor Bob Elliott, San Joaquin; Supervisor Ken Yeager, Santa Clara County; Supervisor Kelly Long, Ventura County 9

10 Provides that no more than $140 million of MHSA could be used for NPLH in any year. Also provides that the Controller shall make transfer no later than 90 days after the effective date of the appropriation by the Legislature. Provides that in any month that MHSA funds are insufficient to fully transfer to the subaccount the shortfall shall carry over to the next month. Allows the California Health Facilities Financing Authority to sell up to $2 billion in bonds to pay for NPLH. Fiscal Impact According to the Legislative Analyst s Office (LAO), this measure would allow the state to use up to $140 million per year of county mental health funds to repay up to $2 billion in bonds. Pros: - Allows the No Place Like Home Program to be utilized instead of waiting for court validation. - Provides significant investment to address the homeless and housing crisis. - Provides funds in both non-competitive and competitive pots to allow for all counties to have access and to build these projects. Cons: - Would divert county MHSA funds to repay the bonds that these funds would have otherwise been allocated by the county. - Requires counties to compete for funds that otherwise would have been directly allocated to counties. Support Staff provided a list of supporters. Opposition NAMI Contra Costa (Opposed to SB 3). Staff Recommendation: Support. The UCC Board voted to support SB 1206 (De Leon), which had the same provisions regarding approval by the voters of NPLH. A motion was made to Support Proposition 2 and below is the vote count: Member County Yes No Absent Not Voting Supervisor Groom, Chair San Mateo Supervisor Ramos Vice-Chair (Alternate) San Bernardino Supervisor Carson Alameda Supervisor Glover Contra Costa Board of Directors: Chair: Supervisor Carole Groom, San Mateo County Vice Chair: Supervisor James Ramos, San Bernardino County Treasurer: Emily Harrison, Finance Director, Santa Clara County Members: Supervisor Keith Carson, Alameda County; Supervisor Federal Glover, Contra Costa County; Supervisor Ernest Mendes, Fresno County; Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, Los Angeles County; Supervisor Lisa Bartlett, Orange County; Supervisor Chuck Washington, Riverside County; Supervisor Susan Peters, Sacramento County; Supervisor Bill Horn, San Diego County; Vacant, San Francisco County; Supervisor Bob Elliott, San Joaquin; Supervisor Ken Yeager, Santa Clara County; Supervisor Kelly Long, Ventura County 10

11 Supervisor Mendes Fresno Supervisor Ridley- Thomas Los Angeles Supervisor Bartlett Orange (Alternate) Supervisor Washington Riverside Supervisor Peters Sacramento Supervisor Horn (Alternate) San Diego Vacant San Francisco Supervisor Elliott San Joaquin Supervisor Yeager (Alternate) Santa Clara Supervisor Long Ventura Vote Total Due to UCC By-Laws requirements, this action did not carry and UCC has no position on this ballot measure. Proposition 5 Property Transfer Tax Initiative NO ACTION Staff provided a brief summary and then allowed the proponents and opponents 5 minutes each to present. After the presentations, staff opened it up for questions to the guest speakers. Summary: This measure would change the process for base year value transfers by allowing unlimited transfer opportunities for seniors and those with disabilities. Background Under existing law, base year transfers allow a homeowner to continue paying property taxes at the amount of their previous home and prevent the reassessment of their newly purchased or constructed home to full market value. Under Proposition 13 (1978), homeowners are able to use their prior homes protected assessed value when purchasing a home of equal or lesser value. This is provided to homeowners 55 years of age or older and also to those homeowners with a severe, permanent disability, as long as certain conditions are met. Generally, a home s value is established when it is purchased, constructed, or undergoes a change in ownership under Proposition 13. Proposition 13 also offers that the property s full cash value as adjusted for inflation or 2% per year, whichever is lower. As a result, a homeowner who holds onto his or her home for a long period of time has a much lower property tax bill than someone who just recently purchased or built their home, even if the fair market value is similar. Board of Directors: Chair: Supervisor Carole Groom, San Mateo County Vice Chair: Supervisor James Ramos, San Bernardino County Treasurer: Emily Harrison, Finance Director, Santa Clara County Members: Supervisor Keith Carson, Alameda County; Supervisor Federal Glover, Contra Costa County; Supervisor Ernest Mendes, Fresno County; Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, Los Angeles County; Supervisor Lisa Bartlett, Orange County; Supervisor Chuck Washington, Riverside County; Supervisor Susan Peters, Sacramento County; Supervisor Bill Horn, San Diego County; Vacant, San Francisco County; Supervisor Bob Elliott, San Joaquin; Supervisor Ken Yeager, Santa Clara County; Supervisor Kelly Long, Ventura County 11

12 Existing Law: Both properties must be located within the same county unless the county where the homeowner seeks to purchase their new residence has adopted an ordinance allowing intercounty transfers. Currently 11 counties allow intercounty transfers (Alameda, El Dorado, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Tuolumne and Ventura). A homeowner can transfer their assessed value only once in their lifetime. Proposed Measure: This measure would expand the base year value transfers for homeowners 55 years and older and/or severely disabled by providing no value limit on replacement properties, unlimited transfer opportunities, and allow transfers anywhere in the state. Fiscal Impact According to the Legislative Analyst s Office (LAO), schools and local governments would lose over $100 million in annual property taxes growing to about $1 billion per year. There will be similar state costs to backfill school property losses. Pros: - Would allow seniors who are on a fixed income to be able to afford a new home. - Reduces property taxes for seniors and those with disabilities. Cons: - Would result in significant property tax losses to counties due to the lower property taxes. - Would increase the duties of the county assessors. Support California Association of Realtors (Sponsor), California Chamber of Commerce, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. Opposition California Teachers Association, California School Boards Association, California State Association of Counties. Staff Recommendation: Oppose due to fiscal impact on counties. Proponents: The California Realtors noted in support of Proposition 5, that people are moving out of 3, 4 and 5 bedroom homes after 20 plus years allowing the younger generation in. Proposition 5 allows transfers anywhere in the state. This measure should avoid moving penalty. The issue is funding. The LAO did a static analysis and the California Realtors did an economic report which they said they would be happy to share. It showed a 43,000 bump. Board of Directors: Chair: Supervisor Carole Groom, San Mateo County Vice Chair: Supervisor James Ramos, San Bernardino County Treasurer: Emily Harrison, Finance Director, Santa Clara County Members: Supervisor Keith Carson, Alameda County; Supervisor Federal Glover, Contra Costa County; Supervisor Ernest Mendes, Fresno County; Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, Los Angeles County; Supervisor Lisa Bartlett, Orange County; Supervisor Chuck Washington, Riverside County; Supervisor Susan Peters, Sacramento County; Supervisor Bill Horn, San Diego County; Vacant, San Francisco County; Supervisor Bob Elliott, San Joaquin; Supervisor Ken Yeager, Santa Clara County; Supervisor Kelly Long, Ventura County 12

13 Opponents: Dorothy Johnson from the California State Association of Counties presented the opposition arguments and noted $1 billion per year would be lost affecting local government and schools. This might be a wash but they are not looking at permanent erosion of county taxes. This is a detriment to first time homebuyers. Noted that the San Francisco Chronicle said this measure should go down in flames. Local control is at stake and 11 counties are ending the program. She concluded by noting that it would be half a million annual loss from the program. Supervisor Washington from Riverside county said their county has a program in place to accept transfers into their county. They are adamantly opposed to this measure. A motion was made to Oppose Proposition 5 and below is the vote count: Member County Yes No Absent Not Voting Supervisor Groom, Chair San Mateo Supervisor Ramos Vice-Chair (Alternate) San Bernardino Supervisor Carson Alameda Supervisor Glover Contra Costa Supervisor Mendes Fresno Supervisor Ridley- Thomas Los Angeles Supervisor Bartlett (Alternate) Orange Supervisor Washington Riverside Supervisor Peters Sacramento Supervisor Horn (Alternate) San Diego Vacant San Francisco Supervisor Elliott San Joaquin Supervisor Yeager (Alternate) Santa Clara Supervisor Long Ventura Vote Total Due to UCC By-Laws requirements, this action did not carry and UCC has no position on this ballot measure. Some Board members expressed concerns that UCC would not be able to take a position due to the vote threshold for ballot measures (50%+1). San Diego County suggested that UCC should take a look at changing the Bylaws related to supporting propositions that mirror state legislation that UCC supports. Board of Directors: Chair: Supervisor Carole Groom, San Mateo County Vice Chair: Supervisor James Ramos, San Bernardino County Treasurer: Emily Harrison, Finance Director, Santa Clara County Members: Supervisor Keith Carson, Alameda County; Supervisor Federal Glover, Contra Costa County; Supervisor Ernest Mendes, Fresno County; Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, Los Angeles County; Supervisor Lisa Bartlett, Orange County; Supervisor Chuck Washington, Riverside County; Supervisor Susan Peters, Sacramento County; Supervisor Bill Horn, San Diego County; Vacant, San Francisco County; Supervisor Bob Elliott, San Joaquin; Supervisor Ken Yeager, Santa Clara County; Supervisor Kelly Long, Ventura County 13

14 b) Legislative Update Staff provided a handout of the list of bills UCC has positions on. Governor had 5 days left to take action on the remaining bills. Staff reported some really good news The Governor signed AB 1804 (Berman), which provides counties with a similar exemption to CEQA for infill projects that are residential and mixed use. The Governor also signed the Conference Committee Report on the Wildfires (SB 901). FCC Action on Wireless Staff noted to the Board that they may have seen this in various updates last week or in UCC s e- news, that the FCC is proposing a new rule on permitting small cell facilities similar to SB 649. Staff sent a letter of opposition to the proposal but it is unclear if this will stop the FCC from adopting the final order. Informational Items a) WorkPlan 2018 Staff provided a handout outlining the WorkPlan for V. Proposals for Next Month s Meeting Agenda 1) State Budget 2) Legislative Update 3) Ballot Initiatives VI. VII. Public Comment There was no public comment. Adjourn until Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 5:00PM. This meeting will be an inperson meeting held in conjunction with the CSAC Annual Conference in San Diego. *Note: no conference line will be available. Board of Directors: Chair: Supervisor Carole Groom, San Mateo County Vice Chair: Supervisor James Ramos, San Bernardino County Treasurer: Emily Harrison, Finance Director, Santa Clara County Members: Supervisor Keith Carson, Alameda County; Supervisor Federal Glover, Contra Costa County; Supervisor Ernest Mendes, Fresno County; Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, Los Angeles County; Supervisor Lisa Bartlett, Orange County; Supervisor Chuck Washington, Riverside County; Supervisor Susan Peters, Sacramento County; Supervisor Bill Horn, San Diego County; Vacant, San Francisco County; Supervisor Bob Elliott, San Joaquin; Supervisor Ken Yeager, Santa Clara County; Supervisor Kelly Long, Ventura County 14

15 Agenda Item No:IVA. Board of Directors Meeting Agenda Item Report Meeting Date: November 28, 2018 Submitted by: Jolena Voorhis Submitting Department: Item Type: Action Agenda Section: Items for Consideration Subject: UCC Legislative Priorities for 2019 Suggested Action: ACTION ITEM Attachments: UCC DRAFT Legislative Priorities (Clean version).doc 15

16 Executive Director Jolena L. Voorhis 1100 K Street, Suite 101/Sacramento, CA 95814/ (916) FA (916) /UCC@urbancounties.com UCC Legislative Priorities 2019 DRAFT (Alphabetical Order) 1991 Realignment & In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) In 2017, the funding for the IHSS program changed with resulting modifications to the underlying 1991 Realignment structure and a substantial cost shift to counties. State law provides for a reexamination of the changes to these fiscal structures in UCC supports ways to address IHSS funding, while maintaining our capacity to provide vital health, mental health, and other social services programs. Affordable Housing UCC supports a permanent funding sources for affordable housing. This includes providing additional incentives for counties to approve housing and reducing regulatory barriers to that approval. The cost of living is particularly acute with seven California s urban counties documented as the most expensive places in the country to buy a home. Therefore, UCC also supports efforts to address workforce housing needs and reduce the costs of housing in the urban regions of the state. UCC will work to ensure that the funding under SB 2 (Atkins, 2017) for the permanent source of housing are appropriated equitably to the urban counties. UCC will closely monitor legislation dealing with changes to fees for housing projects due to the upcoming report on developer fees being conducted by HCD. UCC will support efforts to provide new tools for economic development and affordable housing as long as new funding sources have been approved by the affected tax entities. Health Care Financing UCC supports the ability of counties to continue to provide health care services to our members and will oppose any efforts to reduce funding to counties and to county hospitals. This includes the following issues: Repealing or reducing coverage offered under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Medicaid funding, behavioral health funding, and public health funding. UCC will monitor upcoming health care discussions for county impacts, including but not limited to, the Managed Care Organization (MCO) tax, the Hospital Quality Assurance Fee, the Medicaid 1915B waiver renewal, the Medicaid 1115 waiver renewal, and universal coverage. In addition, UCC opposes any new diversion of county funds from the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA). UCC supports maximum flexibility in the use of the MHSA funds to best serve local mental health needs as well as efforts to streamline existing programs to ensure operational efficiencies. Homelessness With the growing numbers of homeless in urban counties, UCC will work on the implementation of the No Place Like Home program, the Homeless Emergency Aid Program, and the SB 2 funding program, to ensure that urban counties receive their fair share of funding and that the guidelines work for all counties. In addition, UCC will advocate for additional funding that reduces and prevents homelessness; expand the availability of permanent supportive housing; and provide urban counties with the ability to maximize and 16

17 leverage available Federal, State and local funds to provide services for at-risk and homeless families and individuals. Public Safety As counties continue to manage expanded local criminal justice responsibilities, UCC will support efforts that allow for flexibility, encourage local innovation, and strengthen services that improve public safety and reduce recidivism. Bail reform legislation that passed in 2018 (SB 10, Hertzberg) eliminates the cash bail system beginning in October UCC will work on implementation of bail reform to ensure that adequate funding is provided to counties for any new responsibility. In addition, UCC will advocate for counties to receive adequate time and local flexibility to implement SB 10 or any other bail system reforms. Finally, UCC will support efforts that promote the use of risk-based release decisions through risk assessment tools and processes that mitigate racial and economic disparities while maintaining public safety. State Budget Issues UCC will focus on the State Budget with an emphasis on securing adequate funding for programs administered by urban counties. UCC will oppose reductions in state programs that increase the burden on urban county programs and will also oppose efforts to reduce funding without a commensurate reduction in county responsibility. UCC will further oppose any efforts to shift costs or federal penalties to urban counties. UCC will support efforts to require the state to continue to reimburse the urban counties for all outstanding mandates claims currently owed to urban counties. UCC will oppose any realignment proposals that transfer additional program responsibility to counties without adequate funding, constitutional protections, county participation and approval. UCC will remain vigilant about sustaining Proposition 30 protections for all realigned programs. 17

18 Agenda Item No:IVB. Board of Directors Meeting Agenda Item Report Meeting Date: November 28, 2018 Submitted by: Jolena Voorhis Submitting Department: Item Type: Action Agenda Section: Items for Consideration Subject: UCC Legislative Policies 2019 Suggested Action: ACTION ITEM Attachments: UCC DRAFT Legislative Policies 2019 (Highlighted Version).doc 18

19 Executive Director Jolena L. Voorhis 1100 K Street, Suite 101/Sacramento, CA 95814/ (916) FA (916) /UCC@urbancounties.com Governance and Finance UCC Legislative Policies DRAFT 2019 Proposed Changes in Underline and Bold 1. In order to fulfill the dual roles of agent of the state and local service provider, counties must have adequate authority, flexibility, and resources. Most importantly, counties must have stable sources of revenue that enable them to both implement state law and respond to essential local priorities. 2. UCC will oppose proposals that preempt county authority. This includes attempts to eliminate local control for land use and other siting decisions. 3. UCC will support proposals that provide constitutional protections and guaranteed funding to counties under realignment. UCC will oppose proposals to realign additional program responsibility to counties without adequate funding and protections. 4. UCC opposes any efforts to reduce funding to realignment without replacing it with an adequate and ongoing alternate funding source, as required under the Constitution. 5. UCC will support legislation that enhances or maintains a county s revenue base and oppose measures that limit a county s revenue raising authority or reduce a county s revenue from any source without a commensurate reduction in responsibility. 6. UCC will oppose formulas that discriminate against urban areas, such as by providing a high minimum funding floor to low population states and localities and not taking into account the higher cost of living, land costs, and risk factors in urban areas. 7. UCC will oppose the shift of any additional local property taxes, support the return to counties of property taxes that were transferred to schools, support measures that would enhance counties efforts to administer the property tax system, and oppose those that increase counties unfunded responsibility for the system. 8. UCC will oppose proposals that continue or increase county responsibilities or expenses without a viable and adequate source of state or federal revenue. 9. UCC will oppose legislation that requires a new program, higher level of service, expanded employee benefits, or other costs imposed upon counties by the State without adequate ongoing funding. Further, UCC believes that counties should be reimbursed promptly and by a date certain for mandates imposed by the state. Finally, because suspended mandates create liability and fiscal issues for counties, mandates should be repealed, not suspended. UCC will oppose any future efforts to eliminate the reimbursement for mandates required to be provided by counties. 19

20 10. UCC will oppose future efforts to eliminate or modify the mandate reimbursement provisions from existing law and will support efforts to clarify that any future changes to the California Public Records Act or the Ralph M. Brown Act should be analyzed for the cost impact to local governments and allow for reimbursement of any potential new costs. 11. UCC will support proposals that increase a board s ability to raise local revenues. 12. UCC will support measures that maximize federal revenues. 13. UCC will support measures that reduce maintenance of effort or participation fee requirements and will oppose measures that impose additional maintenance of effort requirements on counties unless they are at least revenue neutral. 14. UCC will support measures that increase a county s flexibility to administer federal, state, or local programs, including modernization efforts to improve efficiencies. For example, UCC will support legislation that provides counties with the necessary authority to establish and manage local programs such as code enforcement of illegal dumping and littering laws. 15. UCC will oppose measures that limit a county s ability to operate in a reasonable and cost effective manner. 16. UCC will support proposals that eliminate unnecessary, redundant, or overlapping requirements for program eligibility, funding, maintenance of effort, monitoring, permitting or reporting. 17. UCC will support the equitable application of existing tax policies to ensure taxpayer compliance and dependable revenues. 18. UCC will support periodic evaluation of the economic benefit and equitable application of all tax expenditures. 19. UCC will support measures that enable counties to better exercise their responsibility to plan for, respond to, and receive reimbursement and property tax relief for emergencies and disasters. 20. UCC will support pension reform proposals that achieve the objectives of financial sustainability for county budgets and the county s ability to maintain service levels. 21. UCC will support efforts to educate the public and the legislature on public compensation and the services provided by counties. 22. UCC will oppose measures that restrict county flexibility in the operation of employee relations. 23. UCC will oppose measures that would have a negative fiscal impact on the worker s compensation system and support measures that reform and streamline the system. 24. UCC will oppose changes to the inverse condemnation strict liability standard. 20

21 Health and Human Services 1. UCC will support legislation that enhances the local safety net and its multiple components including mental health, public health, and the numerous human services that counties provide on behalf of the State and will support proposals that promote dependable, long-term funding for these services. 2. UCC will support proposals that maximize eligibility for Federal and State-funded programs. UCC will oppose proposals that diminish funding to counties. 3. UCC will support proposals that reduce the number of uninsured persons, or expand Medi-Cal coverage to low-income persons. UCC will oppose any efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and will oppose reductions to Medicaid funding. 4. UCC will support proposals to simplify and align Medi-Cal eligibility rules and application processes to increase and expedite the enrollment of uninsured families. 5. UCC will support proposals that increase net Medicaid/Medi-Cal payments to government providers while opposing proposals that reduce such payments. 6. UCC will support proposals that use intergovernmental transfers (IGTs), health provider fees, certified public expenditures (CPEs), and other allowable methods to increase net Federal Medicaid and SCHIP matching payments to California and its health providers at no cost to the State General Fund. 7. UCC will support the use of State capital improvement funds, currently limited to hospitals, for the construction of clinics and other public health facilities and support assistance to hospitals that enables them to meet seismic safety requirements. 8. UCC will support measures and funding that strengthen the ability of the public health system to respond to chemical, biological, and other forms of terrorism. 9. UCC will support the provision of federal matching funds for child support performance incentive payments used for child support enforcement. UCC will support changes to the funding formula to ensure that all counties are adequately funded, without reducing current allocations to other counties. 10. UCC supports a system of services for adolescents with drug or alcohol problems and provide adequate funding to operate such a system. 11. UCC supports continued and improved funding for substance abuse treatment and mental health services including those that provide alternatives to incarceration. 12. UCC will support a State backfill of any reduction in Federal financial participation in Federal programs, such as child support enforcement, Medicaid, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). 13. UCC will support proposals to hold counties harmless from fiscal penalties when the Federal or State governments do not provide additional funding commensurate with the cost of meeting new requirements or performance measures. 14. UCC supports federal funding for the 211 phone system and also supports the implementation of statewide coverage of the 211 system. 21

22 15. UCC supports Laura s Law as long as there is adequate funding and flexibility provided to counties that implement the program. 16. UCC will support proposals to preserve supplemental payments to public and private hospitals as the Federal Medicaid Managed Care rules are implemented in California. 17. UCC will oppose any effort to shift additional IHSS costs to counties. UCC supports the reevaluation of the IHSS MOE in the context of 1991 realignment due to its unsustainable program growth and the likelihood of fiscal impact to other realigned programs, while maintaining our capacity to provide vital health, mental health, and other social services programs. Housing, Land Use and Transportation 1. UCC will support measures that provide funding for local infrastructure. 2. UCC will support measures that provide additional funding, resources, and flexibility to address the affordable housing needs in our counties. This includes providing additional incentives for counties to approve housing and reducing regulatory barriers to approving housing. UCC also supports efforts to address workforce housing and the high cost of living in urban counties. 3. UCC will advocate for proposals that fund initiatives that reduce and prevent homelessness, expand the availability of permanent supportive housing and allow counties to maximize and leverage available Federal, State and local funds to provide services for at-risk and homeless families and single persons. 4. UCC will support proposals that eliminate or revise unnecessary, redundant, or overlapping requirements for land use, planning, and permitting. This includes efforts to improve the CEQA process and requirements where appropriate including the preparation of master environmental documents and the use of tiered EIRs and negative declarations while maintaining county land use decision- making authority. 5. UCC supports maintaining a county s flexibility to use eminent domain for public projects. 6. UCC will monitor activities related to tribal gaming and other tribal enterprises in urban areas with the goal that any tribal compacts include provisions that address county concerns including off-reservation impacts and the ability of counties to meet their governmental responsibilities. Any proposal to place land in trust for a tribe should require the approval of the county within which the land is located. 7. UCC will support proposals that maintain the same level of funding for bridges as in previous years and opposes any formula that would disadvantage discriminate against urban counties. 8. UCC will support efforts to provide new tools for economic development and affordable housing contingent on new funding sources that have been approved by the affected tax entities. 9. UCC will support measures that use Cap and Trade auction revenues to fund local infrastructure projects consistent with AB 32 objectives and builds on the framework of SB 375 which are focused on reducing greenhouse gases and other pollutants. 22

23 10. UCC will oppose efforts to eliminate or restrict the ability of counties to regulate land use including the siting of projects or facilities. 11. UCC will oppose proposals that would increase or add to our responsibilities under the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) without adequate funding. UCC is opposed to using the RHNA allocation as a measurement tool in the production of housing. 12. UCC will oppose any regulatory framework for cannabis that would place new mandates on any county department or function. Instead, UCC supports a regulatory framework operated by the state which may include some county role as long as there is funding for any new responsibility. UCC supports local land use control for the siting and licensing of cannabis facilities and operations including the ability to ban activity and will oppose any legislation that will remove that authority. 13. UCC supports additional funding to the local transportation system and supports the preservation of existing funding. UCC supports continued direct subventions to local governments through existing formulas for the maintenance, operation, preservation, and safety needs of the local system. UCC supports efforts to minimize damage to existing transportation and infrastructure systems including limits on the size or length of tractor trailer trucks. 14. UCC opposes efforts to eliminate or restrict local control over the permitting of solar photovoltaic projects. 15. UCC will closely monitor efforts to make changes to local authority over land use related to the wildfires and supports efforts for the state to recognize the impediments to building housing in fire hazard severity zones. 16. UCC will support emerging technologies in our jurisdictions as long as counties maintain oversight of the design, siting and safety of these new technologies. Justice 1. Counties administer the justice system including law enforcement, correctional treatment facilities, detention, district attorney, public defender, and probation. In addition, the larger counties still make maintenance of effort payments to the state towards support of trial court operations. UCC will support increases in funding for justice facilities and the operational costs of the justice system. 2. UCC opposes any shift of responsibility from the state to counties for court operations and court facilities. 3. UCC supports the elimination or reduction of the Maintenance of Effort requirements for urban counties related to the courts. 4. UCC will support proposals that ensure county justice agencies that interact with the courts have appropriate access to new or upgraded court computer systems at no additional cost to the county. 5. UCC will support proposals that maximize the pass-through of Federal homeland security assistance from the State to counties based on their potential terrorist threat and risk levels 23

24 and responsibilities for emergency preparedness and response, law enforcement, first response, public health, and emergency medical services. 6. UCC will oppose any new proposals that would shift the responsibility of additional parolees from the state to the counties without adequate notification, documentation and funding. 7. UCC will supports stable funding for front-line law enforcement including juvenile justice crime prevention, juvenile camps and parole, adult probation, and adequate facilities to house prisoners. 8. UCC will support proposals that will help counties implement the 2011 Public Safety Realignment as long as the proposal would: provide for county flexibility, eliminate redundant or unnecessary reporting, and does not transfer more responsibility without funding. 9. UCC will support efforts to combat the negative impact that human trafficking and sex trafficking has on victims in our communities, including the impact that this activity has on a range of county services and supports. UCC also supports proposals that provide additional tools, resources and funding to help counties address this growing problem. 10. UCC will oppose legislative or regulatory changes that would require counties to retrofit or reconfigure jail facilities, including existing facilities and any detention facility construction project that was conditionally awarded a state grant prior to the effective date of AB 103 (2017), to accommodate new in-person visitation requirements. 11. UCC will support efforts to adequately fund dependency counsels. 12. In the context of bail reform, UCC will support the use of risk-based release decisions, but will oppose imposition of significant pre-trial or other responsibilities without adequate funding and local decision-making authority. UCC supports flexibility for counties to implement bail reform including adequate time to address local needs and priorities. UCC supports risk assessment tools and processes that mitigate racial and economic disparities while maintaining public safety. 24