URBAN COUNTIES CAUCUS

Transcription

1 URBAN COUNTIES CAUCUS Supervisor Federal Glover Executive Director Jolena L. Voorhis 1100 K Street, Suite 101/Sacramento, CA 95814/ (916) FA (916) /UCC@urbancounties.com UCC Board of Directors Meeting Summary February 5, 2014 Alameda: Contra Costa: Los Angeles: Orange: Riverside: Sacramento: San Bernardino: San Diego: San Francisco: San Mateo: Santa Clara: Ventura: UCC: Guest Speaker: Amy Shrago, Nicole Wordelman Supervisor Federal Glover, Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, Lara Delaney Supervisor John Moorlach, Melinda McClain Supervisor John Benoit, Alex Gann Supervisor Susan Peters, Natasha Carl, Leslie McFadden Supervisor Josie Gonzales, Josh Candelaria, Valerie Clay Supervisor Dave Roberts, Geoff Patnoe, Erin Gilbert Supervisor Carole Groom, Connie Juarez-Diroll, Steve Cruz Jim Weston (Alternate), Michael Rattigan, Danielle Christian Supervisor Kathy Long, Sue Hughes, Nicole Wordelman Jolena Voorhis, Lennette Childs Kathy Rollins-McDonald, San Bernardino LAFCO Carolyn Emery, Orange County LAFCO I. Call to Order UCC Supervisor John Moorlach convened the meeting and called the members to order. II. Roll Call of Counties There were 10 Supervisors present and 10 counties were represented at this meeting. III. Installation of New Officers Supervisor John Moorlach turned the chairmanship over to Contra Costa County Supervisor Federal Glover, UCC for Orange County Supervisor John Moorlach was installed as the 2014 UCC Vice-.

2 IV. Approval of Minutes from January 8, 2014 UCC Board Meeting APPROVED 9-0 Member County Yes No Absent Not Voting Supervisor Glover, Contra Costa Supervisor Orange Moorlach, Vice- Supervisor Carson Alameda Supervisor Knabe Los Angeles Supervisor Benoit Riverside Supervisor Peters Sacramento Supervisor San Bernardino Gonzales Supervisor Roberts San Diego Supervisor Mar San Francisco Supervisor Carole San Mateo Groom Jim Weston, Santa Clara Alternate Supervisor Long Ventura Vote Total V. Items for Consideration 1) State Budget a) Update on State Budget Activities Staff reported that the Governor s Budget was released on January 9, A handout was provided of the UCC Summary of the Governor s Budget. The Governor s Budget proposes total funding of $108.7 billion in General Fund resources, which includes $2.5 billion in total reserves. This plan is balanced and no budget deficit is noted in the Governor s Budget. The Governor s Budget highlights the investment in education, strengthening the safety net, strengthening our infrastructure, addressing climate change and paying down debts and liabilities and saving for a rainy day. Some of the major proposals include: Rainy Day Fund and Continue Paying down Wall of Debt. Changes to 2011 Public Safety Realignment including long-term sentences in county jail, fire camps, split sentences, and jail construction proposals. No major cuts to health and human services programs. Reestablishment of Property Tax Administration Grant Program. Cap and Trade investment plan. Economic Development Proposals including legislative changes to Infrastructure Financing Districts. Infrastructure investment plan.

3 Proposal to change the recycling program including the elimination of payments to cities and counties and the establishment of a grant program. Staff reported that the LAO has issued their analysis which basically agrees with the Governor on Rainy Day Fund but raises issues over the Cap and Trade investment plan. Subcommittees will begin their hearings at the end of February/Early March. 2) Other Emerging or Continuing Legislative Issues a) Disincorporation Guest Speaker At the last Board meeting the Board requested more background information on the issue of disincorporation and the impacts to counties. Staff provided the white paper done by the Orange County LAFCO. UCC invited Kathy Rollings-McDonald, Executive Officer of San Bernardino LAFCO, to speak to the Board and provide some background and additional information on these issues. Also in attendance was Carolyn Emery, from Orange County LAFCO. Staff provided the paper by Orange County LAFCO and the background on disincorporation (on page 24 of that paper). Kathy Rollings-McDonald, from San Bernardino LAFCO, sits as of the Subcommittee that looks at issues of disincorporation. She said that the statutes are outdated and have not been looked at in a long time and that she didn t think disincorporation would happen. She said there are 4 general areas that need review: Special Taxes. LAFCO requirement to certify indebtedness of a city. She does not think that there is a qualification or that they have the money to pay for this requirement. Transfer of existing property taxes. They are proposing to expand this section. Disincorporation will reduce services. Concerned that CEQA can trigger the EIR for disincorporation. The areas in the white paper identify some obstacles: Avoid impairment of contracts. Whether or not bankruptcy should be a precursor for disincorporation. Election Process Disincorporation subject to special election and requires a 2/3 vote, which raises concerns that it might fail. Supervisor Glover asked if there was a public forum for this process and Ms. Rollings- McDonald responded that internally there is at LAFCO and then it will go out to the stakeholders. She said it will be about a 2-year process. Supervisor Moorlach referenced Vallejo as an example and asked if bankruptcy filing needed to precede a disincorporation effort, and staff responded in the affirmative. Supervisor Benoit said he feels the only way for resolve would be through a legislative approach, and Carolyn responded that that would depend on what plan they have for the city and that there are costs to do the studies on disincorporation, which is expensive. She said

4 there will be an impact of services to residents and that there needs to be a creation of a county services department to handle such things. Supervisor Gonzales said she has 1 st hand experience with the local and elected confusion of how the process will work. She said there is an assumption out there that counties will take it over. Supervisor Gonzales asked LAFCO if they could reach out to the League of Cities and ask them if they could include a white paper and any additional information on disincorporation. UCC staff said that they spoke with the League of Cities and they are aware of the situation and want to be engaged. They are focused on 2 bills specifically right now, but said if there s anything they can do they are open. Supervisor Gonzales mentioned conducting a study to identify the indebtedness of a city and that clear guidelines were needed in trying to identify all steps, authority and immunity of the lawsuits. LAFCO representative said that in code section there are 6 lines on this matter, but that the implication is vast. They want to have peer review and get understanding. In this section it requires LAFCO to certify, but if they cannot, it says counties are to certify. She said no one has looked at the process in detail. b) 3-Judge Panel and Prison Population On December 11, 2013, the 3-Judge Panel granted another extension to the prison population cap which was originally set for December 31, 2013, and the deadline is now April 18, The deadline for negotiations between the parties had also been extended until January 10, Since the negotiations did not result in an agreement, the 3-Judge Panel asked for each side to submit filings on how to reach the population cap. The State s order, which was provided by staff, asks for an additional two years (instead of previously asking for 3 years) to meet the population cap, which would permit the use of outof-state facilities, expand medical parole and elderly parole, and activate new reentry hubs. In addition, the State would pursue a new parole suitability screening process and appoint a compliance officer. The plaintiffs proposed order would require the State to meet the population cap by May 2014, vacate the court s earlier order prohibiting the state from contracting for out-of-state beds, require the State to provide reports to the court every two weeks, and appoint a compliance officer, and maintain jurisdiction with the court over the overcrowding issue. Both the State and the plaintiffs have the option of submitting any comments or objections to the court regarding the other party s proposed order by January 28, It is anticipated that the 3-Judge Panel will issue an order sometime in February. c) Proposition 41 AB 639 (Perez, 2013) ACTION ITEM - APPROVED Last year, UCC took a position of support on AB 639 (Perez), which would restructure the $600 million of existing Proposition 12 bond to construct and rehabilitate multifamily veterans housing. AB 639 would allow California voters to amend the Veterans Bond Act of

5 2008 to better respond to the housing needs and changing demographics of the current California veteran population. The full $900 million remains unspent from Proposition 12 due to the fact that it is restricted to single family housing. Funds that were approved by Proposition 12 have not been utilized and this bill would allow the funds to be used. UCC has been asked by the proponents of Proposition 41 to support and be listed as support in campaign materials. Since UCC By-Laws require a different voting threshold for initiatives the Board needed to take another vote on this issue. Staff provided a handout with more background materials on Proposition 41. Below is the vote on the measure: Member County Yes No Absent Not Voting Supervisor Glover, Contra Costa Supervisor Orange Moorlach, Vice- Supervisor Carson Alameda Supervisor Knabe Los Angeles Supervisor Benoit Riverside Supervisor Peters Sacramento Supervisor San Bernardino Gonzales Supervisor Roberts San Diego Supervisor Mar San Francisco Supervisor Groom San Mateo Jim Weston, Santa Clara Alternate Supervisor Long Ventura Vote Total d) Legislative Update Staff provided a list of the bills that UCC has taken an official position on and have sent letters to the Legislature and Governor. This version of the bill list reflects only those bills that are currently active and expected to meet the house of origin deadline on January 31, AB 194 (Campos) Open Meetings: Public Criticism This bill would make null and void actions by a local legislative body if that action was taken in accordance of curtailing public comment/public criticism associated with the Brown Act. This bill was recently amended to clarify that the bill would only affect action items on the agenda and not the entire agenda.

6 Status: Passed the Assembly Floor on January 29, 2014; currently pending in the Senate for assignment. UCC Position: Oppose. Staff noted that January 31, 2014, was the house of origins deadline, so many two years bills are now officially dead. The bill introduction deadline is February 21, Some new bills include AB 1442 on the Information Privacy Act; SB 942 on Special Election Reimbursement; and a few new bills on human trafficking. Supervisor Benoit inquired about the 4 cities bill. Staff responded that SB 56 (Roth), has been put into SB 69 (Roth) and AB 1521 (Fox) for a 2-bill package to present to the Governor. e) ACA Implementation January 22, 2014, was the deadline for the County Board of Supervisors to adopt a resolution regarding which option they will choose for the ACA implementation. At the last Board meeting, staff was asked to provide a chart with all of the decisions of the urban counties. Staff provided the chart of the resolutions adopted as well as other information noted in the memos to the various Boards. V. Proposals for Next Month s Meeting Agenda 1) State Budget 2) Legislative Update 3) Disincorporation Issue 4) Prison Population Update 5) Other VI. Public Comment There were no public comments made. VII. The next meeting will be held on March 12, 2014 at 4:00pm. The March meeting will be held via conference call.