Legislative and budgetary actions on both the federal and state levels have enormous fiscal and policy impacts on Contra Costa County. For example, in the past couple of years, major reforms in corrections and health care have been enacted and implemented which have profoundly affected the County's delivery of services. Contra Costa County continues to play a significant leadership role on a statewide basis through active participation at the National Association of Counties (NACo), the California State Association of Counties (CSAC), the Urban Counties Caucus (UCC), the County Administrative Officers Association, and other professional associations. It may be an appropriate time to strategize on ways to increase the effectiveness of the County’s Federal and State Legislative Programs.
Consideration should be given to issues such as:
-
the role of Board of Supervisors’ policy advisory committees and individual Board members in determining and advocating Contra Costa County’s position on issues and bills;
-
mechanisms to increase the County’s ability to respond quickly to issues and to advocate positions;
-
ways to increase communication with the County’s congressional and legislative delegation;
-
establishment of better linkages between the professional associations, department staff participating in professional associations and the development and articulation of County policy positions;
-
creation of a communication infrastructure to ensure message consistency and to brief/debrief Board members and departments on activities of interest (such as the annual Washington D.C. visits, committee testimony, UCC/CSAC meetings, legislative conferences and other events);
-
participation on CSAC and NACo Policy Committees; and
-
development and periodic review of the County’s legislative platforms.
In addition to the development and review of the County's adopted State and Federal Platforms, the County has developed policies that guide the advocacy efforts by our contracted lobbyists, Department staff (including CAO), and the Board's advisory bodies. (See Attachments A and B.)
2015 Advocacy Priorities
The adopted 2015 Federal Platform does not identify specific advocacy priorities. For the past several years, owing to the elimination of appropriation earmarks in the Federal Budget, the County's federal advocacy efforts have centered on securing federal funding for various navigation related projects, influencing federal water/drought (and specifically Delta) related policy, and seeking grant support for various projects and programs.
The Board of Supervisors' adopted State advocacy priorities for 2015 include:
Priority 1: State Budget – The state’s continuing economic recovery, prior budget cuts, and the additional, temporary taxes provided by Proposition 30 have combined to bring the State Budget to a much improved financial condition. California’s budget outlook for 2015-16 continues to show the promise begun in 2014-15. Our economy is expected to see continued improvement over the next several years and revenue growth is exceeding last year’s projections. General Fund revenues are projected to be $109.7 billion in 2014-15 and $114.6 billion in 2015-16, a 4.5 percent increase over the updated 2014-15 revenues. Compared to revenues adopted for the budget last June, revenues are forecast to be $4.1 billion higher over 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16. About half of these additional revenues are required to satisfy Proposition 98, the K-14 funding guarantee. The other half would be placed in the Rainy Day Fund and used to pay down debt per the terms of Proposition 2, the ballot measure passed in November 2014 that strengthens the reserve requirements and pays down debt in years of strong capital gains tax revenue growth.
The Governor’s Budget proposes total GF expenditures of $113.2 billion and a regular reserve for liquidation and economic uncertainties of $1.5 billion. The Prop. 2 Rainy Day Fund is proposed to contain $2.8 billion, of which $1.6 billion was placed in the account in 2014-15 and $1.2 billion is added in 2015-16.
While the Governor's Budget identifies cost pressures and budget risks in health and human services programs, of particular concern to counties is the inadequate reimbursement for our ever-increasing cost of operating several human services programs: the “Human Services Funding Deficit,” formerly referred to as the “Cost of Doing Business.” The annual shortfall between actual county expenses and state reimbursement has grown to over $1 billion since 2001, creating a de facto cost shift to counties. The funding gap forces counties to reduce services to vulnerable populations and/or divert scarce county resources from other critical local services. It also increases the risk of state and federal penalties.
Priority 2: Health Care – Counties play a critical role in California’s health reform efforts. Counties serve as employers, payers, and providers of care to vulnerable populations. Consequently, counties stand ready to actively participate in discussions of how to best reform the health care system in California and implement the national health care reform legislation passed in 2010, The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA).
The optional Medi-Cal Expansion, in effect on Jan. 1, 2014, was a significant part of the State Budget process in 2013. (The mandatory expansion includes changes to eligibility and enrollment for populations currently eligible for Medicaid and is estimated to cost the state General Fund $350 million.) The ACA had required states to expand Medicaid programs to allow childless adults at or below 138 percent of poverty to be eligible for Medicaid (known as Medi-Cal in California). The Supreme Court struck down that mandate but allowed it to be an option for states, which California has exercised.
The Governor’s proposed Budget provided two options for that optional expansion: a “state option” and a “county option.” Governor Brown announced in his proposed budget that he intended to either realign the county responsibility to provide medical care to indigent adults to include providing care to Medicaid eligible adults or recoup as much of the 1991 health realignment funding from counties as possible. CSAC successfully redirected the realignment effort and instead negotiated a fiscal transaction that reflects the shift of indigent adults to the state’s Medi-Cal program.
However, significant unknowns remain including questions about the actual impact of the ACA coverage expansions on counties and the number of uninsured individuals to whom counties will still need to provide services. Counties will retain the Section 17000 responsibility, and there will be significant variations in the impacts of both the ACA and AB 85 for the different types of counties: county hospital (12 counties including Contra Costa County), payor/clinic and County Medical Services Program (CMSP) counties.
In the coming year, the County will continue to work on the implementation of required health care reform measures to maximize federal revenue. The County will support efforts to provide counties with the necessary tools to implement health care reform which may include performing eligibility and enrollment, preserving existing county resources from 1991 Realignment, providing for a smooth transition in 2014 for the various operational systems, and supporting legislation to ensure that low-income families are covered under the Affordable Care Act while opposing legislation which would reduce Medi-Cal eligibility. In addition, the County will continue to work to reduce uncompensated health care costs and on the adequacy of rates under the new health care system.
Priority 3: Water and Levees /The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta – The enactment of the Delta Reform Act (2009), a bill that established the co-equal goals for reliable water supply and ecosystem restoration for the Delta, created the Delta Stewardship Council as the state entity overseeing the Delta through the proposed Delta Plan, and supported the proposed Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP)--an effort to construct a pair of massive tunnels under the Delta--will bring significant, large-scale change to the Delta as we know it. The scope and content of these changes, as well as enduring political battles between northern and southern California over water, will continue to guide legislative and administrative agendas in the coming year. Enabling legislation was also passed in 2009 for a state water bond, which was delayed from the 2010 and 2012 ballots but successfully passed on the 2014 state ballot, as Proposition 1.
Significant future impacts upon the County in the areas of water quality and supply, levee stability, ecosystem health, local land use authority and flood control are anticipated. Consideration should be given to the potential for the County to sponsor Delta-related legislation through our legislative delegation. The County may also work with the Delta Counties Coalition (DCC) to sponsor Delta-related legislation.
Particular areas of concern for 2015 include, but are not limited to: (1) the ongoing development of the BDCP project and whether the state water bond appropriates funds specific to the BDCP; (2) the impacts of the Delta Plan on local land use authority, efforts to expedite state bond funding for levee improvement projects, and the development of flow standards that will impact water quality and ecosystem health in the Delta. The County’s adopted Delta Water Platform, as well as the Strategic and Action Plans, are incorporated in this Platform by reference.
Priority 4: Realignment Implementation – The battle for constitutional protections for 2011 Realignment concluded successfully on November 6, 2012 when Proposition 30 was passed by the voters. Proposition 30 provides constitutional guarantees to the funding that supports Realignment and safeguards against future program expansion without accompanying funding. With these provisions in place, Contra Costa County can continue to implement the array of programs transferred under 2011 Realignment, confident that funding is secure and programmatic responsibilities are defined. However, the County remains concerned that the funding is not sufficient and is also concerned about liability issues arising from the new responsibilities.
Any future proposals to realign programs to counties must have constitutionally guaranteed ongoing funding and protections. The County will oppose any proposals that will transfer additional program responsibility to counties without funding, constitutional protections, county participation and approval. The County will also oppose efforts that limit county flexibility in implementing programs and services realigned in 2011 or infringe upon our ability to innovate locally.
The County resolves to remain accountable to our local constituents in delivering high-quality programs that efficiently and effectively respond to local needs. Further, we support counties’ development of appropriate measures of local outcomes and dissemination of best practices.
With regard to Public Safety realignment, counties have received parolees whose latest crime fits the specified “non-violent, non-serious, non-sex offender” (N3) definition but who have a criminal background that includes violent, serious and/or sexual crimes. Under the current legislation, the person’s latest offense/crime determines if they meet the N3 criteria. Specifically, a change would be requested to prevent those whose total criminal background does not meet the N3 criteria. These individuals should stay under the responsibility of the state.
The County will also support efforts to provide additional funding/grants to those counties that have a commitment to lowering the crime rate and reducing recidivism through the provision of innovative, comprehensive, evidence-based programs for offender populations and their families. The County will also continue to support efforts to ensure that the receipt of Local Community Corrections Funds matches the amounts anticipated from the state, without undue delay. Finally, the County also supports more funding for mental health and behavioral health programs and facilities in order to meet the requirements of Realignment and the goal of reducing recidivism.
The proposed 2015 advocacy priorities for CSAC are included in Attachment C.
|