Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010/01/12 Item 9 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ~\f? CITY OF .~ (HULA VISTA 1/12/10, Item~ ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA SUPPORTING THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES IN OPPOSING THE DIVERSION OF HIGHWAY USERS TA,'{ ACCOUNT FUNDS FROM LOCAL AGENCIES TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 4 DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS ~ ASSISTAI\fT DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: ASSIST AL,\[T CITYFAGER CITY MANAGER 4/5THS VOTE: YES D NO ~ SUMMARY The League of California Cities has asked local agencies to be aware of pending legislation that would reduce the amount of Highway Users Tax Account funds and Proposition 42 funds that normally would be used by local agencies on pavement rehabilitation projects and instead be diverted to the State of California. Council is being asked to support the League of California Cities in opposing any legislation that would reduce the funding we anticipated for pavement rehabilitation in light of the shortfall already experienced by the City of Chula Vista for pavement maintenance and rehabi litation purposes. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The EnVIronmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a "Project" as detined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines hecause approval of this action will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. Therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is necessary. RECOMMENDA nON Council adopt the resolution. BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDA nON Not applicable. 9-1 1/12/10, Item~ Page 2 of 3 DISCUSSION The League of California Cities (League) and the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) are asking our public works officials to share the findings of the "California Statewide Local Streets and Roads needs assessment dated October 20, 2009", prepared by Nichols Consulting Engineers, Chtd. Engineering & Environmental Services during a January City Counci l/board meeting in order to raise awareness of pending state legislation that would sub vent the funds that would normally be provided to the local agencies. The following discussion summarizes the Executive Summary of the report. This study is the first comprehensive study of the state's local streets and roads pavement conditions and shortfall of funding needed to maintain the current conditions. California's 58 counties and 478 cities own and maintain 141,554 centerline-miles of local streets and roads. This is an impressive 81 % of the state's total publicly maintained lane miles. Conservatively, this network is valued at $271 billion. The City of Chula Vista has approximately 421.03 centerline miles of accepted public streets with a value of approximately $215 million. The Pavement Condition Index (PCI) average for all local streets is 77 as last reported in 2006. Thus the PCI index means that the City's streets rank in "Good' condition overall. Small agencies are those with less than 300-centerline miles of streets. Chula Vista is considered one of 80 statewide with over 300-centerline miles of pavement. The statewide average PCI of 68 will decline to 48 (poor condition) by 2033 based on existing funding levels available to cities and counties. To bring the state's local street and road system to a best management practice level where the taxpayer's money can be spent cost effectively, we will need up to approximately $51.7 billion of additional funding for pavement alone and more than $71 billion, including the essential components, for a functioning system over the next 10 years. The sooner this is accomplished, the less funding will be required in the future. The conclusions from this study state that given existing funding levels available to cities and counties for maintaining the local system, California's local streets and roads will deteriorate rapidly within the next 25 years to a poor condition. Unless this condition is addressed, costs to maintain the local system will only continue to grow, while the quality of California's local transportation network deteriorates. Local elected leaders (and local media outlets) throughout the month of January are being asked to adopt resolutions opposing the State subvention to better position our associations and individual cities against potential raids on the highways user tax account (HUTA, or gas tax), Proposition 42, and other local funding sources during the FY 2010-11 budget negotiations. Proposition 42 This is also known as the gasoline sales tax. For Fiscal Year 2008-09, the City received approximately $1.9 million, so it is anticipated that the City would receive at least $1.5 million in Fiscal Year 2009-10. However, the State has decided to postpone distribution of the first two quarterly installments of the Fiscal Year 2009-10 revenues until May 2010. The last two installments would be distributed on schedule in April and July 2010. 9-2 1/12/10, ltem----=t Page 3 of 3 Proposition 1 B An established allocation of funds from Proposition 1B was to be distributed to all California cities after adoption of programs to spend the allocation. The City has received its entire allocation of approximately $3.67 million for Fiscal Year 2007-08. The City's second allocation of $3.3 million was to be received in Fiscal Year 2008-09. However, the State stopped distributing these funds, withholding approximately $700 million from California counties and cities, so the City has not received this installment. The State has infomled us that these funds will be available in Fiscal Year 2009-10, but no specifIc date has been given. The preceding discussion was taken in part from the report: http://www.savecalifomiastreets.org/. DECISION MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council and has found no property holdings within 500 feet ofthe boundaries of the property which is the subject of this action. FISCAL IMPACT There is no immediate impact to the General Fund as a result of this action but proposed statewide legislation would reduce pavement rehabilitation funds needed by the City delaying needed rehabilitation needs for the City and ultimately increasing the cost to the local agency to , rehabilitate roadways to the same level as was originally anticipated. ATTACHMENTS I. League of California Cities "California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment" excerpt 2. Highlights of the revised Fiscal Year 2009-10 State budget Prepared by Francisco X. Rivera, P.E., T.E., Principal Civil Engineer, Public Works Dept. M:\EngilleerIAGENDAICAS20/UIO/-/2-/OIHighway Users Tax rev. doc 9-3 ATTACHMENT I Final Report: October 20 2009 /"'''' _", LLAGUE r~1'c<>.. -'? ({fill ~.~ ,.. '"':.'2.1"\"'''' :" "'" ...,.._C II I ES ~~ Executive Summary California's local street and road system is reaching a point of crisis. City streets and county roads are where every trip begins and ends. Whether traveling by bike, bus, rail, truck or family automobile, Californians need the local system. As the first comprehensive statewide study of California's local street and road system, this report provides critical analysis and information on the local transportation network's condition and funding needs. The study's objective was to fully assess the condition of the local system and complete the overall transportation-funding picture for California's transportation network. We wanted answers to the following: What are the pavement conditions of local streets and roads? What will it cost to bring pavements to a Best Management Practices (BMP) or most cost-effective condition? How much will it cost to maintain them once we achieve the BMP or optimal pavement condition? What are the needs for the essential components to a functioning system? Is there a funding shortfall? If so, what is it? What are the solutions? This study collected existing road condition information to determine the future funding needs necessary to maintain the system in good condition. Other (2% )-, Federal (8%), I State highways (9%) Cities (43%) As owners and operators of 81 percent of the state's roads (Figure 1), cities and counties found that this study was of critical importance for several reasons. While federal and state governments' regularly assess their system needs, no such data existed for the local component of the state's transportation network. Historically, statewide transportation funding investment decisions have not been based on local pavement condition data, or adequate recognition for the local system. Further, recent actions to remove city and county discretion over federal and state funding have diminished resources available to the local system. Counties (38%) The goal is to use the findings of this study to educate policymakers at all' levels of government about the Figure 1, Breakdown of Maintained Centerline Miles infrastructure investments needed to provide California with a seamless transportation system. The findings of this study will provide credible and defensible analysis to support a dedicated, stable funding source for maintaining the local system at an optimum level. It will also provide for the most effective and efficient investment of public funds. The study surveyed all of California's 58 counties and 478 cities in 2007-08. The response was outstanding. Information collected resulted in capturing data from more than 93% of the state's local streets and roads. Furthermore, since the majority of the data submitted came from recognized pavement management systems, the accuracy of the data is very high. Where no data existed, models were developed, tested, and used to estimate the pavement condition and funding needs. The results show that California's local streets and roads are on the edge of a cliff. On a scale of zero (failed) to 100 (excellent), the statewide average pavement condition index (PC I) is 68 ("at risk category"). If current funding remains the same, the statewide condition Page Hi Nichols Consulting Engineers, Chtd. ~ 9-4 Final Report: October 20 2009 '~i.lrcml~~'~'\J.\~W,\ \\~':) IJliIJ ~CITIES ~ is projected to deteriorate to a PCI of 58 in 10 years, and further to 48 ("poor" category) by 2033 (see Figure 2). Even more critical, the unfunded backlog will more than double from $37 billion to $79 billion by 2033. Based on the results of this study, approximately $51.7 billion of additional funding is needed to bring just the pavement condition of the state's local streets and roads to a level where the taxpayer's money can be spent cost- effectively. To spend the taxpayer's money cost-effectively, it makes more sense to preserve and maintain our roads in good condition than to let them deteriorate, which will only make it more costly in the future. Consistent with that approach, the costs developed in this study are based on achieving a roadway pavement condition of what the industry calls Best Management Practices (BMPs). This condition represents improving the roadway condition to a level where roads need preventative maintenance treatments (i.e., slurry seals, chip seals, thin overlays). These treatments have the least impact on the public's mobility and commerce. Further, these treatment types are more environmentally friendly than the next level of construction that would be required (i.e. rehabilitation and reconstruction). The importance of this approach is significant. As roadway pavement conditions deteriorate, the cost to repair them increases exponentially. For example, it costs twelve times less to maintain a BMP pavement compared to a pavement that is at the end of its service life. Even a modest resurfacing is four times costlier than a pavement in the BMP condition. With counties and cities on fixed budgets, employing maintenance practices consistent with BMP results in treating four to twelve times more road area. By bringing the roads to BMP conditions, cities and counties will be able to maintain streets and roads at .the most cost- effective level. It is a goal that is not only optimal, but also necessary. Although no similar statewide bridge needs assessment were available for inclusion in this study, a brief review indicates that approximately $2.6 billion of bridge projects have been identified and approved for funding. Of this, local agencies must provide 11.47% (approximately $300 million) as the local match. This study helps answer the following key questions: What are the pavement conditions of local streets and roads? California's local streets and roads are on the edge. Currently at a PCI of 68, the pavement condition will decline to 48 (poor condition) by 2033 based on existing funding levels available to cities and counties. What will it cost to brinq pavements to a 8MP or most cost-effective condition? It will cost $67 6 billion to reach BMP in 10 years. How much will it cost to maintain them once we achieve the BMP or optimal pavement condition? Once the BMP condition is reached, it will cost approximately $1.8 billion a year to maintain them at that condition. Page iv Nichols Consulting Engineers, Chtd. ~ 9-5 Final Report: October 20 2009 ,0"'", l/'l1:\"jr \ LE/\GUE \~) L!l.rn ~~C \(rTE"s ~ What are the needs for the essential components to a functioninQ system? The transportation network includes essential safety and traffic components such as curb ramps, sidewalks, storm drains, streetlights and signals, These components require $32,1 billion over the next 10 years, Is there a fundinq shortfall? If so, what is it? Yes, The table below shows the pavement and essential component shortfall of $71 A billion over the next 10 years, Summa of 10 Year Needs and Shortfall (2008 $Billion) . .. What are the Sotutions? To bring the state's local street and road system to a best management practice level where the taxpayer's money can be spent cost effectively, we will need up to approximately $51 7 billion of additional funding for pavement alone and more than $71 billion, including the essential components, for a functioning system over the next 10 years, The sooner this is accomplished, the less funding will be required in the future, The conclusions from this study are inescapable, Given existing funding levels available to cities and counties for maintaining the local system, California's local streets and roads will deteriorate rapidly within the next 25 years to a poor condition, Unless this condition is addressed, costs to maintain the local system will only continue to grow, while the quality of California's local transportation network deteriorates, To bring the local system back into a cost-effective condition, thereby preserving the public's $271 billion pavement investment and stopping further costly deterioration, at least $7 billion annually in new money is needed to stop the further decline and deterioration of local streets and roads, This is equivalent to about a 38-cent gas tax increase, Or to put it another way, the average driver will pay an additional 50 cents a day for gas, It is imperative that cities and counties receive a stable and dedicated revenue stream for cost effective maintenance of the local system to avoid this crisis, Page v Nichols Consulting Enginee,s, Chtd, ~ 9-6 ATTAC~ENT ~ WALTER F. EKARD CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFiCER (619) 531-6226 FAX: (619)557-4060 ([ount~ of ~an ~iego CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE HELEN N. ROBBINS.MEYER ASST. CHIE,... ADMtNISTRA riVE OFFICER (619)531-4940 F':>'x'(619)557-4060 1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY, STE. 209, SAN DIEGO, CA 92101-2472 August 11, 2009 TO: Supervisor Dianne Jacob, Chairwoman Supervisor Pam Slater-Price, Vice Chairwoman Supervisor Greg Cox Supervisor Ron Roberts Supervisor Bill Horn FROM: Walter F. Ekard Chief Administrative Officer HIGHLIGHTS OF THE REVISED FISCAL YEAR 2009-10 STATE BUDGET AND POTENTIAL COUNTY IMPACTS On July 28, the Governor signed a package of bills aimed at closing a $24 billion state budget shortfall - a budget deficit which is on top of the $36 billion gap addressed by the Legislature and Governor in February of this year. The $24 billion in "solutions" include approxirnately $16.1 billion in spending cuts, $3.4 billion in revenues and revenue accelerations, $2.1 billion in borrowing (including S1.9 billion from local government property tax revenues), $1 billion in fund shifts, and $1.3 billion in other "solutions" (including a one-time savings by deferring the payment of state employees' final paycheck for the 2009-1 0 fiscal year until July 1, 2010). Prior to leaving for their August recess, on July 24 the Legislature passed a budget package which fell short of a "balanced" budget. Therefore, the Governor used his line-item veto authority to cut the proposed spending by another $489 million - with the majority of the cuts being made to health and human services programs, including Child Welfare Services and Healthy Families. Upon their return to Sacramento on August 17, the Legislature will make policy decisions on how to implement the $1.2 billion in cuts to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation approved in the revised budget and some members of the Legislature have expressed an interest in revisiting the line-item cuts made by the Governor. While the fiscal year 2009-1 0 budget is "balanced" for now, the Administration anticipates a $7 to $8 billion deficit for fiscal year 2010-11 arid larger shortfalls projected in out-years. Some of the budget actions taken by the Legislature andior the Governor to "balance" the budget face legal challenges. On Monday, Senator Steinberg filed a lawsuit against the Governor for abuse of executive power for the Governor's line-item veto actions. Redevelopment agencies are mounting a legal challenge to the taking of the redevelopment property tax collections. Should these or any other budget-related legal challenges prevail, there will be even greater deficits. The attached document includes highlights of the July revision of the fiscal year 2009-10 state budget and potential impacts to the County of San Diego. Respectfully, \ J\ (f ~Q);GW WALTER F. EKARD Chief Administrative Onicer cc ACAO, FGGG, HHSA, PSG, LUEG, CSG, CNL, CLK 9-7 REVISED FISCAL YEAR 2009-10 STATE BUDGET POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO MISCELLANEOUS BUDGET Budget Balancing Solutions (Governor's Revised Budget Summary) . The Revised Budget closes the $24 billion budget gap by reducing expenditures, shifting funds, deferrals, accelerating revenues, and borrowing. o Expenditure reductions - cuts to state programs such as education, corrections, Medi-Cal, CalWorks, In-Home Supportive Services, child welfare services, other health and human services programs, state parks, and state employee compensation. (page 5) o Funding shifts - shift of redevelopment funds. (page 13) o Deferrals - due to the state's cash flow shortfalls, AB 3632 children's mental health, education and transportation payments have been deferred. (pages 9 and 32) o Revenue increases - accelerate wage withholdings, accelerate corporate tax payments, privatize the State Compensation Insurance Fund, and other revenue increases. (page 30) , o State reforms - reorganize, consolidate, and eliminate various state agencies or boards. (page 26) o Borrowing - borrow from local government property tax revenues. (page 32) o Cash management - the Revised Budget assumes a savings in external borrowing costs due to the adoption of a budget and reducing the size of the Revenue Anticipation Notes (RANs) issued. (page 27) State Mandate Suspensions (ABX4 1, page 404 and 408 and ABX4 12) . The Revised Budget suspends specific reimbursable mandates during fiscal year 2009-10 for a state savings of $65.6 million. FINANCE AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT Borrowing from Local Government - Proposition 1A (Prop 1A) Suspension (ABX4 14 and ABX4 15 and Governor's Revised Budget Summary) . The Revised Budget borrows eight percent of the total amount of ad valorem property tax revenues that were apportioned to counties, cities and special districts as property tax revenues for fiscal year 2008-09 ($1.9 billion); this take is effective immediately. (ABX4 14, page 16) . The funds the state borrows under the Prop 1A suspension will be shifted to county-level Supplemental Revenue Augmentation Funds where they will be used to fund K-12 schools, courts, prisons, Medi-Cal, hospital and K-12 school bond expenses that would have otherwise been funded by the state's general fund. e Governor's Revised Budget Summary, page 32) Estimated Countv fiscal impact: $67.8 million reduction to County general fund (general purpose revenues). $2.4 million reduction to County library fund. $721,000 reduction to County special districts (i.e. flood control, lighting, some county service areas, some permanent road divisions) that are organized to provide services such as parks and private road maintenance in limited geographic areas. These services are provided or managed by the County and the associated costs are charged to the respective special districts. Estimated imoact to unincorporated area non-County aoencies: . $10.5 million reduction to independent special districts (primarily fire and water districts). . The Revised Budget provides that the state will repay the borrowed funds with interest no later than June 30, 2013 and sets forth the following securitization options for local governments (ABX4 15, pages 8, 10, 15 and 19): 0. Option 1 - Ajoint powers authority (JPA) may issue bonds backed by the state's repayment obligation and use the proceeds to replace the property taxes diverted from local agencies. The terms and conditions of the JPA's bond issuance are required to be approved by the state's Department of 9-8 Revised Fiscal Year 2009-10 State Budget August 11, 2009 Page 2 Finance (DOF) and the state Treasurer. The state will pay the financing costs including interest of up to 8 percent for up to $2.25 billion. The amount will cover the total principal of $1.9 billion plus credit enhancement, which will likely be necessary to sell the bonds. The California Statewide Communities Development Authority (CSCDA) would be the jPA that issues the bonds. (ABX4 15, pages 8 and 10) Potential County impact: This would allow the County to receive cash upfront instead of waiting for the state's repayment of borrowed property tax revenues. The downside of this option is that we do not know if the bonds could be sold in the current recessionary market. Investors may demand a higher yield and if the credit enhancement is available, it will likely be costly. o Option 2 - The state is offering an option to encourage local agencies to use existing resources instead of securitizing through the jPA or to issue bonds using the local agency's credit to reduce the state's borrowing costs. Local agencies may choose to take their property tax reduction in fiscal year 2009-10 and be repaid by the state directly at an interest rate that will be set by the DOF, subject to a 6 percent cap. (ABX4 15, page 19) Potential County impact: As stated above, the impact to the County's general fund is estimated at $67.8 million. If the County uses its own resources, this will reduce reserves and limit the County's lIexibility to respond to emergent needs. If the County issues its own bonds securitized by the state's receipts, it is not likely that the cost to the state would be cheaper than using the jPA option. While the state is statutorily obligated to repay the County with interest, currently there is no plan or proposal to guarantee that funding will be available to meet this debt obligation. o Option 3 - Allows counties to borrow from their redevelopment agencies to cover the suspended amount of property tax revenues. (ABX4 15, page 15) Potential County impact: This would allow the San Diego County Redevelopment Agency (SDCRA) to make a loan to its legislative body for the payment required under Prop 1 A borrowing. The drawback of this option is that the resources of SDCRA are insufficient to provide significant relief to the County's obligation. SDCRA received an annual tax increment of $3.9 million in fiscal year 2008-09, which is used substantially to make debt service payments on bonded indebtedness (Gillespie Field Project Area) and to assist the Lakeside Fire Protection district in the construction and design of its new fire station (USDRIP Project Area). The SDCRA is required to shift approximately $793,000 of its tax increment to schools in fiscal year 2009-10 pursuant to ABX4 26. . The Revised Budget also includes a Prop 1A hardship provision that allows local agencies that are 1) in bankruptcy proceedings, 2) would likely have to seek bankruptcy as a result of the Prop 1A take, or 3) do not have enough reserves to provide core services, to apply to the DOF for a reduction or elimination of their Prop1 A suspension amount. The DOF may grant hardship reductions or eliminations totaling up to 10 percent of the total suspension amount in any county. Any hardship amounts granted by DOF will then be reallocated amongst all of the other local agencies in that county so that the total suspension amount in a region remains unchanged. (ABX4 15, pages 16 and 17) . The Revised Budget allows two or more local agencies in a county to agree to reallocate exclusively among themselves as part of their reduction amounts. (ABX4 15. page 17) . California State Association of Counties (CSAC) plans to pursue "clean up" legislation when the Legislature returns in August to address some needed fixes in ABX4 15 since the dates of the Prop IA securitization were tied to a bill that did not pass and bond maturity and issuance dates may need to be adjusted in order for CSCDA to be able to access the bond markets. Redevelopment Shift (ABX4 26) . The Revised Budget takes $17 billion in fiscal year 2009-10 and $350 million in fiscal year 2010-11 in property tax revenue from redevelopment agencies (RDA) which will be deposited into a county Supplemental Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (SERAF) to be distributed to meet the state's Proposition 98 obligations to schools. This shift may be made from reserves or current income, including tax increment, proceeds of land sale or bonds, interest or other earned income, or borrowing the 20 percent of the tax increment that is normally dedicated to the low and moderate income housing fund. A RDA may also borrow from its parent agency (ABX4 26. pages 12, 13, 17,20 and 21) 9-9 Revised Fiscal Year 2009-10 State Budget August .11 , 2009 Page 3 Countv fiscal impact: Gillespie Field - $793,000 estimated fiscal year 2009-1 0 impact for San Diego County Redevelopment Agency, Gillespie Field Project Area. The fiscal year 2010-11 impact is estimated to be $163,000. The Gillespie Field Project Area will be affected by reduced funding to assist in public or private redevelopment projects. There is also a resulting decreased capacity for bond issuance or other debt, to finance potential projects. Overall, any loss or reduction of revenue may impact implementation plans to cure blight and stimulate economic development. . General fund (general purpose revenues) - there is an estimated $1.4 million fiscal year 2009- 10 impact to general purpose revenues received by the County, under the terms of various redevelopment area tax sharing agreements between the County and some cities in the region. These revenues, unless restricted, are recorded as general purpose revenues. The estimated . impact for fiscal year 2010-11 is $300,000. General fund (Public Safety Group - Poway Agreement) - the estimated fiscal year 2009-10 impact is $3.5 million. The fiscal year 2010-11 impact is estimated to be $700,000. Under the terms of the agreement, these funds are used for the acquisition, construction, maintenance and operational costs of regional criminal justice facilities. . Library fund - $308,000 estimated fiscal year 2009-10 impact to the library fund. The estimated fiscal year 2010-11 impact is $63,000. Similar to the general fund, the library fund receives tax increment revenue pursuant to certain redevelopment area agreements. This revenue loss will result in reduced services, library materials, and programs for library patrons. . Upper San Diego River Improvement Project (USDRIP) - due to the use of fiscal year 2006-07 tax increment for the calculation of amounts due, the USDRIP is not expected to be affected by this action. . RDAs may extend their time limits for plan effectiveness and for receipt of tax increment revenues by one year after they meet their payment obligation for fiscal year 2009-10. (ABX4 26, page 4) Countv fiscal impact: If all 61 redevelopment projects (for which the County currently receives property taxes) were extended for one year beyond their expiration date, the aggregate impact to the County of San Diego would be a net loss of approximately $111 million, the net present value of which is $46.3 million. The expiration dates range from fiscal year 2017-18 to fiscal year 2053-54. . The Revised Budget provides that if a RDA borrows and fails to restore their low and moderate income housing funds by June 30, 2010, the RDA will be subject to a 5 percent increase in their required annual housing set- aside. (ABX4 26, page 4) . Last fiscal year, the state attempted to take a lesser amount and the California Redevelopment Association (CRA) successfully sued to prevent it. The fiscal year 2009-10 shift has elements that are supposed to cure the deficiencies of the fiscal year 2008-09 shift; however, the CRA plans to sue again. COMMUNITY SERVICES Animal Adoption Mandate Suspension (ABX4 1, page 404) . The Revised Budget suspends the Hayden mandate (Chapter No. 752, Stats. 1998) funded with the SB 90 reimbursement process, which enhanced the previous 3-day minimum animal holding period to 4 business days (not counting the initial day of impound) for San Diego County. When Hayden was adopted, it allowed the County and its contract cities to submit claims to be reimbursed for services that were already mandated and/or in practice by policy before the bill was enacted. As a result of the suspension, those mandates are not eligible for reimbursement but are still required by other state law (such as medical treatment for animals in the department's care) or good business practice (such as being open at least one weekend day). County fiscal impact: . $250,000 estimated impact for fiscal year 2009-10 as a result of the suspended SB 90 reimbursement. The County will not be reimbursed for costs related to the care and maintenance for impounded stray or abandoned animals that die or are euthanized during the increased holding period while they are held in County shelters, including weekends. 9-10 Revised Fiscal Year 2009-1 0 State Budget August 11, 2009 Page 4 SB 90 funds are not budgeted and are treated as unanticipated revenue. When payments are received, the resulting fund balance has been used for upgrades and maintenance to the three County animal shelters. May 19 Special Election . The Revised Budget does not address the issue of reimbursing counties for their May 19 special election costs. Countv fiscal impact: . The May 19 election cost the County of San Diego an estimated $5 million. HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) (ABX4 4 and ABX4 19) The Revised Budget approves cost containment measures for a state general fund savings of $263.5 million: . Eliminates IHSS domestic and related services for recipients with functional index ran kings below four. Only those clients that are able to perform a function with substantial human assistance or, cannot perform the function with or without human assistance, will be eligible for domestic and related services. (ABX4 4, page 49) . Eliminates alllHSS services for recipients with functional index rankings below two. Clients that are able to perform a function independently and without human assistance will no longer be eligible for IHSS services. (ABX4 4, page 51) County impact: . Eliminating these services provides the state with $4.5 million in savings for fiscal year 2009-10. The County will save $2.5 million in realignment dollars because the County will not be required to match these funds. There may be some offset to the cost savings due to increased requests by clients for reassessment of services and hours. These actions result in the disquatification of more than 7,000 clients from the program. . Reduces funding for Public Authority administration. (ABX4 1, page 12) County imoact: These actions provide the state with $900,000 in savings for fiscal 2009-10 by providing a reduced amount to the County for administration. The County will save $500,000 in realignment dollars because the County will not be required to match these funds. This cut will result in reduced staff positions. These positions assist IHSS recipients with finding a provider, investigating the background of potential providers, and training providers. . The Revised Budget eliminates the state's share-of-cost contribution for recipients receiving a state buyout. (ABX4 4, page 46) Client imoact: There is no direct impact to the County. Approximately 500 IHSS recipients would have to pay a higher share of cost for services. The Revised Budget enacts the following measures to address IHSS fraud. (ABX4 19): . Requires that all providers go through a criminal background check process, including fingerprinting. (ABX4 19, pages 7 and 16) Requires recipients to submit a fingerprint to the County for their file. (ABX4 19, page 3) . Requires the provider and recipient to sign timesheets under penalty of perjury and submit fingerprints as part of the timecard submission process. (ABX4 19, page 5) Establishes a civil penalty for timesheet fraud. Requires providers to sign an acknowledgement of eiigible recipient services effective July 1, 2011. (ABX4 19, page 5) Providers must be given a list specifying the approved duties to be performed for each recipient under the provider's care and a complete list of supportive service tasks available under the IHSS program. (ABX4 19, page 4) . Requires providers to complete an orientation at the time of enrollment. The orientation will be developed by the state and counties. (ABX4 19, page 4) . Requires county social workers to conduct unannounced visits for certain high risk IHSS cases. (ABX4 19, page 14) Provides counties with the authority to investigate fraud and to share data with the state Department of Health Care Services to prevent fraud. (ABX4 19, page 21) 9-11 Revised Fiscal Year 2009-10 State Budget August 11,2009 Page 5 . Provides $10 million statewide for local anti-fraud investigation and activities. Provides additionat positions at the state Department of Social Services and Department of Health Care Services for anti-fraud activities. Requires counties to train staff in additional fraud prevention efforts. Requires counties to issue targeted mailings in certain circumstances. limits the ability of providers to receive a check at a post office box. (ABX4 19, pages 13 and 16) Unknown Countv impact: The state has not provided sufficient detail to accurately determine the potential impact of these fraud prevention measures on the County. Based on limited information, it is anticipated that there will be undetermined workload increases associated with fraud activities. Although new funding is identified, it is unclear if the funding would be adequate to cover increased costs for these activities or if local savings can be achieved from these activities. Child Welfare Services (CWS) (ABX4 1, page 12 and Governor's Revised Budgef Summary, page 22) The Revised Budget makes various reductions in funding to the CWS program including: . Reduces state general fund support to counties for CWS by $80 million. County impact: . The reduction to CWS is anticipated to result in a loss of $5.5 to $7.6 million to the County and a reduction of staff positions. Impacts include: longer wait times for child abuse hotline calls, increased response times, increased caseloads, children remaining in care longer, reductions in contracted services, and difficulty meeting required court timelines. . Reduces by 10 percent rates paid to group homes, foster family agencies, and on behalf of seriously emotionally disturbed children. Local impact: Reduces by 10 percent rates paid to group homes and foster family agencies for at-risk children and youth. It is anticipated that some private facilities will not be able to absorb the 10 percent rate reduction and will not remain open. As a result, the Polinsky Children's Center may be impacted with additional youth. . Reduces funding to provide transitional housing services to emancipating foster youth. Unknown Countv impact: There is insufficient information at this time regarding how the reduction in transitional housing services will be implemented. . Eliminates automatic increases in financial support available to families receiving adoption assistance payments for children with special needs. Unknown County impact: The reduction will have an unknown impact on County workload. Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment Services (EPSDT) (ABX4 1, page 214) . The Revised Budget reduces funding for county EPSDT programs which provide mental health services to children. County fiscal impact: . Reduced EPSDT funding will result in a loss of $700,000 to the County. If these are allowable Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) programs, MHSA dollars may be used to cover the loss of revenue. AS 3632 Mandate Suspension (ABX4 1, page 214) . The Revised Budget defers funding for AB 3632 payments to counties for one year. AB 3632 provides payments to counties for special education students requiring mental health services. County fiscal imoact: This action will result in a delay of $1.1 million to the County. Mental Health Managed Care Services (ABX4 1, page 434) . The Revised Budget approves a $113.3 million statewide reduction in funding for mental health managed care services. County fiscal impact: Reduced funding will result in a loss of up to $7.3 million to the County. 9-12 Revised Fiscal Year 2009-10 State Budget August 11, 2009 Page 6 Alcohol and Drug Services (ABX4 1) . Substance Abuse Treatment and Crime Prevention Act (SACPA) (Proposition 36) and the Offender Treatment Program (OTP). (ABX4 1, pages 229-234) o The Revised Budget eliminated funding for the SACPA ($90 million). o The Revised Budget preserves $18 million of state general fund for the OTP. o To offset reductions to the OTP and the elimination of Proposition 36 funding, $45 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) Byrne JAG funds will be added to the OTP and used to provide substance abuse treatment to criminal offenders in a drug court setting. This is a one-time allocation. Countv fiscal impact: The elimination of SACPA would result in a reduction in local funding of $6.3 million (including probation funding of $1 7 million). The augmentation to the OTP will result in an increase of $3.5 million. (It is unknown at this time if these funds can be used by the Probation Department). Additional impacts to the Probation Department are included under the PUBLIC SAFETY heading on page 11 of this document. . The Revised Budget reduces rates for drug Medi-Cal treatment by 10 percent (substance abuse treatment services for Medi-Cal eligible individuals). Local impact: The 10 percent rate reduction may cause contractors to choose not to provide drug Medi-Cal services. This could result in clients waiting longer to receive services. Public Health Services (ABX4 1, page g) In a line item veto, the Governor took the following actions: . Eliminated HIV education and prevention funds to local health jurisdictions. County fiscal impact: Potential $1.3 to $2.1 million loss in state and federal funds and the reduction of staff positions. The range is due to an unknown loss in federal funding. This funding pays for contracts that cover education and prevention services including individual and group interventions and social marketing designed to prevent spread of this disease and encourage partner notification. Decreased funding could result in the reduction of up to five provider contracts (a loss of up to 1 g,OOO client interactions) to provide HIV education and prevention services and HIV early intervention services. . Eliminated Maternal, Child and Adolescent Health programs including local county Maternal Child Family Health Services grants (MCFHS) and the Black Infant Health Program. County fiscal imoact: . Elimination of MCFHS programs will result in the loss of $200,000 to the County and a reduction of staff positions. The loss of the funding will result in fewer prevention services provided to pregnant women and infants. This will lead to delays in medical care and increase the use of emergency rooms impacting our county safety net. Elimination of the Black Infant Health program will result in a loss of $400,000 in contracted services for 240 pregnant women and 600 highest risk children in low income communities. Other impacts include a potential increase in the number of premature and low birth weight infants and maternal and infant mortality for African-American women and babies. . Eliminates funding for the Immunization Program. Countv fiscal impact: This action results in a one-time reduction of $700,000 to the County. However, if the state backfills with Federal stimulus funds, there will be no impact. . The Revised Budget suspends the children's dental disease prevention program. Potential County impact: This action may result in an increase in demand for the County's Child Health and Disability Prevention Program. 9-13 Revised Fiscal Year 2009-10 State Budget August 11,2009 Page 7 Centralization of Eligibility Determinations (ABX4 4, page 35) The Revised Budget authorizes development of a plan to centralize eligibility determinations for the Medi-Cal, CaIWORKS, and Food Stamps programs, Implementation of the plan is subject to legislative approval. Unknown Countv impact: This action has no immediate impact, as there is no plan yet. If the state assumes all responsibility for eligibility and enrollment for these assistance programs, it would result in the elimination of County responsibility for these programs including a significant number of related staff positions, California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CaIWORKS) (ABX4 4 and ABX4 8 and Governor's Revised Budget Summary) . The Revised Budget includes a $509,6 million reduction reflecting the following actions: o $370 million reduction from prioritizing resources for employment services and child care to recipients who are working, (Governor's Revised Budget Summary, page 18) County fiscal imoact: . At this time, there is little information from the state regarding the exact amount that will be reduced from each allocation, The Agency anticipates that the impact of this action may be an estimated $17,5 million loss of funding to the County which would result in a reduction of County staff positions, welfare-to-work contracts, child care provider payments, as well as supportive services for participants. o $42,6 million by rejecting mid-year increase based on case load growth to the County's allocation in fiscal year 2008-09 to offset costs in fiscal year 2009-10, No County impact. o $60,1 million reduction by utilizing ARRA funds to create subsidized employment slots, No County impact. o $20 million reduction by offsetting employment training funding on a one-time basis, No County impact. o $16 million reduction by reflecting a reduced caseload projection, Unknown County imoact. . Increased sanctions effective July 1,2011, Allows for deeper grant reductions for noncompliant families than currently provided by law, The noncompliant individual would be subject to graduated grant reductions, (ABX4 8, pages 5-8) Countv impact: Caseload impact - the current sanction population is approximately 1,158 individuals, The percentage that would remain non-compliant is unknown. Potential increased workload for County and contract staff, At each interval of noncompliance, a face-ta-face interview or home visit is required prior to imposing the grant reduction. . Potential cost savings due to decreased grant amounts which could be offset with cost increases due to additional families participating in work activities in order to stay in compliance. Families may require supportive services (ancillary, transportation, child care) to participate and remain in compliance with work requirements at an unknown County cost. Potential costs associated with the need to update the California Works Information Network (CaIWIN) program, There is a County share of cost for most changes to the system, . Self-sufficiency reviews effective July 1, 2011, Requires counties to conduct a self-sufficiency review six months after the determination of eligibility and after each annual re-determination, If the recipient fails to attend the review, it will result in a grant reduction of 50 percent. (ABX4 8, pages 3-5) County impact: Caseload impact - approximately 5,037 recipients would require review, Staff workload - increased staff workload associated with face-to-face interviews, Additional workload impact due to an increased number of individuals choosing to participate in work activities to avoid grant reductions. Welfare-lo-work contracts - due to potential increased workload, contract amendments may be needed, Contractors may request additional funding to serve an increased population, I ncreased supportive services - individuals may choose to participate in work activities and will require supportive services (ancillary, transportation, child care), Potential CalWIN costs associated with the need to update the program, There is a County share of cost for most changes to the system, 9-14 Revised Fiscal Year 2009-10 State Budget August 11,2009 Page 8 . Limit time on aid effective July 1, 2011. Limits continuous eligibility for CalWORKS to 48 months, after this period the adult grant and CalWORKS services may not be provided for at least 12 months. Maintains current lifetime limit of 60 months of benefits. (ABX4 8, page 2) County impact: Caseload impact - potential caseload impact is unknown at this time. Staff workload - increased caseloads for eligibility and employment staff due to an increase in case changes, monthly monitoring, tracking, and engaging of participants; increased time on aid tracking requirements; additional training requirements and administrative requirements. Welfare-ta-work contracts - due to potential increased workload, contract amendments may be needed. Contractors may request additional funding to serve an increased population. . Reduces by 25 percent the child only grant for non-work-eligible adults, unless they meet work participation requirements. (Governor's Revised Budget Summary, page 19) County impact: Caseload Impact- approximately 2,500 to 3,500 individuals may be impacted. Staff workload - these safety-net families are currently not monitored for work participation and can not be sanctioned. By requiring these individuals to participate, the caseloads would increase for welfare-to-work staff and workload would increase for eligibility staff to impose sanctions for those not meeting participation requirements. Welfare-to-work contracts - due to potential increased workload, contract amendments may be needed. Contractors may request additional funding to serve an increased population. Increased Supportive Services - additional individuals may choose to participate in work activities and will require supportive services (ancillary, transportation, child care). Potential CalWIN costs associated with the need to update the program. There is a County share of cost for most changes to the system. . Exempts from welfare-to-work activities, families with one child under 2 years of age and families with two children under 6 years of age. (ABX4 4 page 29) County impact: Cost savings due to a potentially larger exemption population with less supportive services being issued. Potential decrease in caseload. . Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) Elimination. Eliminates COLA for CalWORKS grants effective fiscal year 2010-11. (ABX4 8, page 2) Local impact: . Clients will not receive an annual increase to their assistance payment. Medi-Cal (ABX4 1, ABX4 6 and Governor's Revised Budget Summary) The Revised Budget reflects the following adjustments to the program: . In a line item veto, the Governor made a $60.5 million statewide reduction to counties for administration costs. (ABX4 1, page 8) Unknown County impact: There is insufficient information at this time to determine the impact to the County. . Expands efforts to address fraud, waste and abuse in the program. (Governor's Revised Budget Summary, page 16) No County imoact: . There is no County workload impact and no cost savings to the County expected as a result of this action as the fraud prevention efforts will not impact County programs. . Requires the Department of Health Care Services to apply to the federal government for a Medi-Cal waiver in order to implement reforms to the Medi-Cal program including utilizing managed care, or other specialized delivery systems of care, for vulnerable populations including seniors, people with disabilities, children with significant medical needs, and people with behavioral health problems. (ABX4 6, page 5) County imoact: . Currently, the aged or disabled individuals receiving Medi-Cal are not subject to managed care enrollment. Patients may have to change providers, which may increase the County's administrative activities associated with enrolling them in health plans. 9-15 Revised Fiscal Year 2009-10 State Budget August 11 , 2009 Page 9 . Reduces payments by 10 percent to private hospitals and reduces the distressed hospital fund by $23.9 million general fund. (Governor's Revised Budget Summary, page 16) Local impact: This action may discourage providers from participating in the Medi-Cal program and reduce access to services. Healthy Families (ABX4 1, page 10) . The Revised Budget includes a reduction of $178 million in state general fund to the Healthy Families program. The Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board (MRMIB), which oversees the program has frozen new enrollments and established a waiting list for the program. The MRMIB will disenroll current beneficiaries from the program at their annual eligibility re-determination as necessary. County impact: Many children who are disenrolled or not allowed to enroll, meet Medi-Cal eligibility criteria. This may result in undetermined increases in Medi-Cal and California Children's Services caseloads and costs. California Children's Services (CCS) (ABX4 1, page 9) . The Revised Budget directs the Department of Health Care Services to convene a workgroup with representation by impacted families, counties, care providers, children's hospitals and medical suppliers to discuss the administrative structure of the CCS program and to identify methods for streamlining and creating administrative cost-efficiencies in the program. Unknown County imoact: Impact pending the outcome of the workgroup. . The reduction to Healthy Families and the resulting wait list and disenrollments will result in some clients becoming CCS eligible only, at an increased County share of cost. County fiscal impact: Undetermined increased costs. Aging Services - Linkages Program, Community Based Services Program (ABX4 1, page 8) . In a line item veto, the Governor eliminated the Linkages Program and the Community Based Services Programs. County fiscal impact: Elimination of these programs will result in a reduction of $500,000 and staff positions. There will be a loss of case management, nutrition, and respite services for up to 1,700 low income seniors. Domestic Violence Program (ABX4 1, page 10) . In a line item veto, the Governor eliminated this program which provides funds for domestic violence shelters/centers, transitional housing, legal advocacy, temporary restraining orders, and other support services. Local impact: . Elimination of this program impacts domestic violence shelters/centers providing emergency and other services to dornestic violence victims and their children. As a result, the reduction may put additional demands on County services including the domestic violence hotline, the domestic violence response teams and domestic violence services for families. The proposal may also impact the ability of the County to contract with domestic violence shelter-based agencies in all regions. LANDUSEANDEN~RONMENT Highway User Tax Account (HUTA) (SBX4 16, pages 14 and 15) . The Revised Budget does not take or borrow from the local gas tax revenues of the HUTA. However, the Revised Budget includes a deferral of local government HUTA payments from July through December 2009 and requires the state to repay the deferrals at an unspecified date in the future sometime after January 10, 2010 9-16 Revised Fiscal Year 2009-10 State Budget August 11,2009 Page 10 County fiscal imoact: $20 million in fiscal year 2009-10 revenue deferred. . There are conflicting opinions regarding when the state is required to make payment of the deferred local government HUT A funds-some think existing law would require the state to pay within the fiscal year (no later than June 30, 2010) while others believe the state may have up to three years to pay the funds. . Stakeholders have plans to pursue "clean up" legislation when the Legislature returns in August that would allow Proposition 1B funding received to be used to backfill HUTA payment deferrals and to ensure deferred HUTA payments will be repaid no later than June 30, 2010 (preferably in January 2010). Proposition 42 (Prop 42) (ABX4 16) . The Revised Budget defers the first two quarterly payments of Prop 42 (Oct. 2009 and Jan. 2010 payments) to counties and cities until May 2010. County fiscal imoact: . Approximately $10 million deferred. . As of now, counties and cities are slated to receive their third and fourth quarterly Prop 42 payments on schedule (April and July 2010). . The Prop 42 deferral is not a loan and repayment is not required to include interest. . The Revised Budget authorizes a county or a city to temporarily make use of any cash balances in its road fund, including certain transportation bond act funds, for local street and road maintenance, provided the cash is replaced once the payments from the state's transportation investment fund are received. Proposition 1 B Local Streets and Roads (Prop 1 B) (ABX4 1 and ABX4 16) . The Revised Budget appropriates the remaining $700 million of Prop 1 B funding for counties and cities. (ABX4 1, page 412) The Revised Budget imposes new requirements in order for counties and cities to access fiscal year 2009-10 Prop 1 B appropriations. A county or city must have: received its full allocation for fiscal year 2007 -08, submitted annual reporting information to the state for fiscal year 2007-08, agree that the fiscal year 2009-10 funds will be used for projects that are not currently funded with a dedicated funding source or sources, agree to encumber the funds before July 1, 2010, report to the OaF the total balance of unencumbered funds in the road fund, certify that the total balance of unobligated or unencumbered funds in the road fund is no more than the sum of the balance of three months of anticipated apportionments from HUTA and Prop 42, and revert any of Prop1B funds back to the state if they have not been allocated by July 1,2010. (ABX4 1, pages 413-414) County fiscal impact: $31.7 million potential revenue increase. However, under the new conditions imposed in ABX4 1, the County of San Diego may not qualify to receive this funding because of a new requirement that the balance of unobligated or unencumbered funds in the road fund must be less than the sum of the balance of three months of anticipated apportionments from HUTA and Prop 42. Furthermore, based upon the definition of "unobligated" and "unencumbered" in ABX4 1, the County's road fund balance may be even higher if activities such as planning, review, and design cannot be considered as part of the obligated road fund balance. It is prudent to maintain an overall fund balance in the road fund equivalent to three months of revenue from all sources to offset fluctuations in revenues that are influenced by changes in the economy and budgetary decisions made by the state of California and federal government. . Other concerns include: state's ability to go to the market and sell bonds, 2009-10 Prop 1 B funding cannot go towards projects currently underway, and the June 30, 2010 encumber date may be challenging to meet depending upon when the County receives the funds because sufficient time is needed to go through the appropriate Board and procurement processes. . The Revised Budget provides counties and cities with the ability to backfill the Prop 42 deferrals with Prop 1 B funds during the period of the deferral as long as the local Prop 1 B funds are made whole upon Prop 42 deferral repayment by the state. (ABX4 16, pages 413-414) CSAC plans to pursue "clean up" legislation when the Legislature returns in August that would remove counties from under the three month HUTAlProp 42 fund balance requirement in order to access the fiscal year 2009-10 Prop 1 B appropriation. An alternative would be to define when a county must certify a fund balance and via what process in order to set criteria that would allow as many counties as possible to access their Prop 1 B funding allocations. 9-17 Revised Fiscal Year 2009-1 0 State Budget August11,2009 Page 11 CALFIRE Funding Reduction (ABX4 1 pages 117-119) . The Revised Budget reduces $27 million of funding for the state's Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALF IRE). These cuts renect a delay in vehicle and equipment replacements, a cancellation of existing DC-10 aircraft contracts, and a reduction to the resource management program. Unknown Countv imoact: This reduction in state funding may result in an impact to the existing agreements the County has with CALFIRE to provide fire protection in the unincorporated area. Mobile Home Inspection Program (ABX4 12, page 31) . DEH regulates mobile home parks within the unincorporated area of the county through a delegation from the state's Department of Housing and Community Development. Previous permit fees for mobile home and recreational vehicle parks that were set in statute have been insufficient to fund a full staff position. The Revised Budget increases the permit fees that can be charged from $25 per park and $6 per space to $140 per park and $11 per space. County fiscal impact: Estimated annual revenue increase of $77,000. PUBLIC SAFETY Substance Abuse Treatment and Crime Prevention Act (SACPA) (Proposition 36) and the Offender Treatment Program (OTP) (ABX4 4, pages 229-231) . The Revised Budget eliminated funding for the SACPA ($90 million). . The Revised Budget preserves $18 million state general fund for the OTP. . To offset reductions to the OTP and elimination of Proposition 36 funding, $45 million in ARRA Byrne JAG funds will be added to the OTP and used to provide substance abuse treatment to criminal offenders in a drug court setting. This is a one-time allocation. Countv fiscal impact: . $1.7 million fiscal impact to the Probation Department. On July 21, 2009, the Board of Supervisors acted on a workforce reduction plan due to this loss of state funding. State law continues to require the Probation Department to carry out certain activities for persons convicted of non-violent drug possession offenses and to continue to supelVise these offenders using local resources. The required probation services are determined by the state court. There are a total of 1,426 current supervised cases (1,125 felony offenders and 301 misdemeanors). For additional impacts see Alcohol and Drug Services under the HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES heading on page 6 of this document. Trial Courts - Court Security (SBX4 13, pages 12, 14 and 15) . The Revised Budget approved a one-day per month court closure as a cost cutting measure to absorb reductions to the judiciai branch budget. The court closure will impact court security contracts between the Sheriffs Department and the local court as the measure requires negotiation of court security contracts to reduce compensation due to the Sheriffs Department for court security services by 4.62 percent. The closure provisions are operative through the end of the fiscal year. . The Revised Budget limits, for purposes of court security funding, the cost of services to the average cost of salary and benefits for court security officers (based on equivalent classifications within the individual county) rather than actual costs. The Revised Budget also excludes the cost of retiree health benefits from the definition of "benefits" used in the context of allowable court security costs. County impact: Information on impacts is pending discussions with the local court and county criminal justice departments. A reduction in compensation for court security of 4.62 percent, the exclusion of retiree health benefits and other state reductions to court security equate to a reduction of $2.3 million. 9-18 Revised Fiscal Year 2009-1O State Budget August 11, 2009 Page 12 Sexually Violent Predators and other Mandate Suspensions (ABX4 1, page 404-406) . Funding is deleted for the Sexually Violent Predators and the Crime Victim Rights mandates. The Legislature will seek to redraft the law in such a way as to let various voter-approved initiatives take effect and remove the requirement for state reimbursement. Countv impact: The District Attorney and the Public Defender will continue to be required to perform certain activities in the prosecution and defense of Sexually Violent Predators without state reimbursement. Details of those required activities may not be known until the Legislature takes action. Lost reimbursement equals approximately $600,000 annually. Several mandates are suspended, including: Peace Officers Procedural Bill of Rights, AIDS/Search Warrant, Deveiopmentally Disabled Attorneys' Services, Mentally Disordered Offenders' Extended Commitments Proceedings, Mentally Disordered Sex Offenders' Recommitments, Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity and Stolen Vehicle Notification. County departments are currently evaluating the impact of these suspensions and changes to required activities. Reductions to Corrections (ABX4 1, page 285) . The Revised Budget approved $1.2 billion in unallocated cuts to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The Legislature is expected to consider a prison population reduction package in August. Unknown County imoact. . Certain actions taken in the Revised Budget, along with authorities vested through the Constitution, permit the implementation of the following state reductions without further action on the part of the Legislature: o Rehabilitative program reductions ~ $175 million in savings associated with eliminating or scaling back of rehabilitative programs for prison inmates and parolees. Unknown County imoact. Rehabilitative program reductions may impact funding for County prisoner re-entry initiatives. o Select commutation and deportation of undocumented persons in state prison - $182.1 million in savings. o Operational savings - $147.6 million in a one-time reduction for facility repairs, efficiencies within the state juvenile justice systems and other operational savings. o Contract medical rates - $50 million associated with a cap on contract reimbursement rates for inmate medical services. No Countv impact as a result of these actions. The remaining state savings needed, approximately $631 million, which includes the unallocated 5400 million cut the Governor imposed in February at the time of the initial enactment of the fiscal year 2009-1 0 budget, will be achieved through the reforms to be discussed when the Legislature returns in August. Some of the cost savings proposals that have been discussed include: parole reforms, sentencing/credit earning changes, reductions of property crime thresholds and the conversion of some wobblers to misdemeanors. Unknown County impact. Byrne-JAG Federal Stimulus Funding (ABX4 1, page 47) The Revised Budget contains language directing the California Emergency Management Agency (CaIEMA) to distribute $135 million statewide in Byrne-JAG federal stimulus funding. These are one-time funds that may be spent over three years. Funds will be made available to counties, however, at this time, it is unknown whether funds will be made available (or how much will be available) to San Diego County. ABX4 1 outlines the specific programs and funding distribution levels. Summarized below are programs that will potentially provide funding to San Diego County: . Aduit Probation Services - CalEMA is directed to distribute $45 million proportionately to all county probation departments that submit a qualifying application based on each county's population of adults aged 18 to 25 years. These funds are the intended to serve as "seed money" to get the probation incentive funding program, which will be established pursuant to SB 678 (Lena and Benoit), up and running. The Administrative Office of the Courts is to receive $424,000 off the top of the overall allocation for the provision of technical assistance to recipient county probation departments. . Offender Treatment Program (OTP) - to offset reductions to the OTP and the elimination of Proposition 36 funding, $45 million in Byrne JAG funds will be added to the OTP and used to provide substance abuse treatment to criminal offenders in a drug court setting. CalEMA is to provide $600,000 through an interagency agreement with the State Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs (DADP) to administer the OTP funds. 9-19 Revised Fiscal Year 2009-10 State Budget August 11, 2009 Page 13 . Anti-Drug Abuse (ADA) Enforcement Program - $19.75 million dedicated to support multi-jurisdictional drug task forces that combat mid-level drug sales, manufacturing, and distribution at the local level. . Reentry Courts - the Judicial Council is to receive $10 million to create, in partnership with California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, collaborative reentry courts with enhanced supervision and services for parole violators. . California Multi-jurisdictional Methamphetamine Enforcement Teams (Cal-MMET) Program - $4.5 million in funding to combat mid-to-high level methamphetamine manufacturing and drug trafficking organizations. . Human Trafficking Task Forces - $3.75 million in funding to increase coordination among law enforcement agencies, district attorneys, victim services groups, and others to improve or increase training in human trafficking cases and investigation and prosecution of such cases. . Firearm Trafficking Programs - 53.3 million to increase coordination among state, federal and local law enforcement agencies in California's border region. . Regional Anti-Gang Intelligence-Led Policing Program - $2.1 million to establish a statewide network of anti- 'gang coordinators among law enforcement agencies and community anti-gang efforts to support intelligence-led policing focused on gang violence. 9-20 RESOLUTION 2010- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNClL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA SUPPORTING THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES IN OPPOSING THE DIVERSION OF HIGHWAY USERS TAX ACCOUNT FUNDS FROM LOCAL AGENCIES TO THE STATE OF CALIFORt'JIA WHEREAS, cities and cOllnties own and operate over 81 % of the roads in California, where every trip begins and ends, and the local system is critical for safety and mobility of the traveling public, farm to market needs, multi modal needs, and commerce; and WHEREAS, the local street and road system provides two-fold opportunity for economic recovery during the worst fiscal crisis in California in decades. The maintenance and preservation of the local transportation network provides both public and private sector jobs and thus supports economic recovery in every corner of the state. Furthermore, well maintained infrastructure is critical for economic development by attracting businesses and providing for the safe and efficient movement of both people and goods; and WHEREAS, while federal and state governments regularly assess their transportation system needs, no such data existed for the local component of the State's transportation network; and WHEREAS, the California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment provides critical analysis and information on the local transportation network's condition and funding needs; and WHEREAS, the study surveyed all of California's 58 counties and 478 cities in 2007-08, resulting in data that represents 93% of local street and road miles in the state; and WHEREAS, the results show that California's local streets and roads are on a path of significant decline. On a scale of zero (failed) to 100 (excellent), the statewide average pavement condition index (PCl) is 68, placing it in the "at risk category"; and WHEREAS, if current funding remains the same, the statewide condition is projected to deteriorate to a PCI of 58 in 10 years, and further to 48 ("poor" category) by 2033; and WHEREAS, the City Chula Vista of has a PCI of 77; and WHEREAS, ongoing road maintenance is a significant public safety concern. Fatality rates on county roads already exceed those of the State's freeway system. Maintaining the paved road network (potholes filling, sealing, overlays, etc.), traffic signals, signs, and street lights has a direct correlation to improving public safety thus reducing traffic accidents, injuries and deaths; and WHEREAS, to spend the taxpayer's money cost-effectively, preserving and maintaining the local system in good condition, or at a level of best management practices, is less costly in the long term; and 9-21 WHEREAS, in order to bring the local system back into a cost-effective condition, thereby preserving the public's $271 billion pavement investment and stopping further costly deterioration, at least $7 billion annually in new money going directly to cities and counties over a period of ten years is needed to stop the further decline and deterioration of our streets and roads. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Chula Vista supports the findings and recommendations of the California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment. Presented by Approved as to form by Richard A. Hopkins Director of Public Works ~/~ L---=--L... 0~"" ..--~, ~. Bart Miesfeldr;; 71.' City Attorney {,.' 1/"7 '-1 9-22 l-km q / Ide; , '..'. '" . . ~ .' l@~~ ill~~~~W@~9 ~uwUIDD~@ ~~g~aw,'~ITB@ '. . ' 1r~&B@[W@~~o@rrn ~Ef@~@@~0@0l) A@R '., .., . The Local Taxpayers, Public Safety and Transportation Protection Act would protect city funding for public safety, city streets and road maintenance and number of vital services Californians rely on: ./ Fire Protection ./ law Enforcement ./ Parks ./ libraries ./ Mass transit ./ Water delivery ./ Healthcare ./ And more! ~ kF~~2~~ CITIES " " t' . ~ . '. < l; , I,' "'" C T,. . , ... fDr@~~~~~l@@~m 1r~~~~W@~ ;~rrn(fj ... . ", "\Y7~~~~ ~@uW~@@~ '. ", ,..... .' . . : ,', The Local Taxpayers, Public Safety and Transportation Protection Act would protect: v""Local property tax revenues v""Community redevelopment funds v""Proposition 42 funds v""Highway users tax funds (HUT A) "'Public transit funding v""locally levied taxes (sLOch as Parcel, UUT, TOT) ~ ~F~~I~~~ CITIES .~ . . <',", , ~ '.' "'" ", b' 2' 2'" (0)' l' 0" '''' ~'~ t 'J.. .,- I ' , ~r ", ;.:' ,.;f'.', '1'0"'" . 'J :"\" " "-, -.' .': - '. '..:. . .\,.' '; . ..." ,,," ',~ ;"~' .' (' ..':- , '0 ". '.., d' , . .,' c . I (o\1(6)m.o~r hI') ,:0 iD ;,'~(Qh . , The Local Taxpayers, Public Safety and Transportation Protection Act >- Signature gathering to qualify measure for November 2010 underway >- Petitions throughout San Diego County -where most petitioners can be located >- Community volunteers may also gather signatures on a voluntary basis >- Signature gathering dates are January 4 - April 16,2010 >- 700,000 valid signature needed to qualify measure >- 20,000 volunteer signature goal from San Diego County >- Petitions may be requested at www.SaveLocaIServices.com CO " ,.: .". .'. - , ,.' " U@@ [l@@@~ U@2!~@~@[Jg ~MtQ)~D@ ~@q@uw ~ITDcQj U[f@ITD@~@m~a@[f1)~[f@~@@1l ~@~ @ff t2@~ @ . www.SaveLocaIServices.com For more information about this measure, to find out where to sign this petition or to request a petition to help gather signatures to place this on the ballot, please go to www.SaveLocaISell..Vices.com