HomeMy WebLinkAboutRPT 5 ADOPTED BUDGET 10-01-90'AGEND JA
DATE:
U191
FROM:
SEPTEMBER 19, 1990
WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
RONALD A. NAULT, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
REPORTS NO. 5
10-1-90
Inter - Com
SUBJECT: IMPACT OF THE ADOPTED STATE BUDGET ON THE CITY OF TUSTIN
1990-91 BUDGET
At the meeting of September 17, the City Council requested that
staff report back to the Council on the immediate impact of new
fees implemented by the County after the adoption of the City's
90-91 annual budget that were a direct result of the adopted State
budget package.
I've attached a League of California Cities Memo dated August 15,
1990 that summarizes some 19 items that impact Cities and Counties
that the State considered prior to the budget adoption. Nine of
these items were approved and incorporated in the adopted budget.
Only four of the items impact the City of Tustin directly.
1. Drinking water regulation fees
($0.50 per service connection)
2. Requirement that Counties charge
Cities and Special Districts for
collecting Property Taxes. Effective
1/1/91 (half year only for 90-91)
3. Allowing Counties to charge Cities
"Booking Fees". ($75 each)
4. Shift a portion of Cigarette Tax to the
State for funding State Board of
Equalization
Total
$ 7,000
23,000
54,000
12,000
$96,000
The County has not had sufficient time to react to the new
provisions approved in the State budget, and has told all Cities
and Special Districts that they will be receiving the actual cost
of providing these services and, will be adjusting their fees for
the next fiscal year accordingly. The current booking fee of
$75.00, appears to be most likely to increase significantly to a
range of $100-$150.
Page 2
September 19, 1990
In addition to these items, the County Fire is moving ahead with
their Paramedic Fee Program. Their target gross receipts from
these fees for the current fiscal year is $2.4 million growing to
$5.3 million in fiscal 91/92. The intention of the County is to
apply these fees over and above the cost the City currently pays as
a cash contract City. The revenue targeted from the City of Tustin
is between $108,000 and $132,000, assuming that the City would
participate in the Community Incentive Subscription Program.
The State has also targeted the Motor Vehicle in Lieu Fees (MVIL
Fees) as a potential State Budget balancer. According to their
sources, MVIL Fees are only 4% of the typical City's revenue and
could easily be made up in other areas. The MVIL revenue for 90-91
is estimated to be $1.4 million, 8.6% of total General Fund
recurring revenues. The impact of the long term loss of this
revenue source is increased by its population driven distribution
formula. As our population continues to grow, we can expect an
accelerated increase in MVIL Fees.
Also, on the table for future consideration, is the shifting of all
Cigarette Tax revenue to the State at a loss to the City of Tustin
of an additional $138,000.
The attached memo from the League goes into significantly more
detail regarding the items approved in the adopted budget.
� r
7
1
Ron ld A. Nault
Director of Finance
RAN: 1s
a:impact.bgt
r NICK
I 4s'. ;Im e League of California Cities
f,` 0 1400 K STREET • SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 • (916) 444-5790
«m
California Cities
Work Together
Sacramento, CA
August 1.5, 1990
TO: All City Managers, and City Clerks in Non -Manager Cities
RE: Special Notice -- State Budget Items Affecting Cities
On July 28, 1990, the California Legislature finally approved its budget for the 1990-91 fiscal
year. The purpose of this communication is to provide you with current information on how
the state's adopted budget will impact cities, and hopefully assist you in assessing how your
particular budget will be affected. As indicated below, some of the particular cost impacts will
be forthcoming from others (especially each county) as the state's budget decisions are being
implemented. Our information is the most current to date.
For the first time since 1983, the state's budget creates a significant impact on city finances.
In 1983 the state faced a budget shortfall that resulted primarily from a downturn in t1le
economy. This time the state's budget "crisis" was more self-imposed, in that the $3.6 billion
gap was the product of the Governor and key legislators being unwilling to raise revenues, and
unable and/or unwilling to cut state programs in the face of rapid increases in the state's
population and caseloads. Compounding this problem is the Proposition 98 (June, 1989)
constitutional guarantee of state funds for schools.
This budget environment created a situation where the state is unwilling to balance its budget
by making the tough decisions of raising revenues or cutting programs. All 457 cities in
California have already made these decisions and balanced their budgets. While cities have no
responsibility or authority for state and county programs, we have been forced to provide
financing for those programs. As a result, the state finally balanced its budget in August by
throwing out -of -balance the 457 city budgets adopted in June. Each city should take every
opportunity to communicate with their legislators on how the state's budget actions have
affected the city's budget and programs.
As indicated in the League's Legislative Bulletins, major costs to cities were being proposed
to help solve the states budget crisis. In the Bulletin of July 20, (#27-1990), state budget
proposals were identified that would have affected cities' finances. Attached to this memo is
an updated summary chart of how the adopted state budget compares to the 19 budget
proposals that were on the table during budget negotiations. If all of these had been approved,
the net cost to cities could have been over $2.5 billion statewide. In particular, serious
consideration was being given to shifting the cities' $800 million share of Vehicle License Fee
(VLF) revenues to counties to backfill significant state cuts to county funds (estimated to be at
least $700-800 million). Thanks to major opposition from cities, this and other major costs to
cities were dropped from consideration.
Considering what could have happened, costs to cities were comparatively low. However, the
state's adopted budget still results in significant new coy -,s to cities that will probably require
cities to reevaluate their adopted budgets. The League has appointed a special task force to
develop a recommended response to the State Budget Package, especially SB 2557.which grants
new authority to counties to charge cities "booking fees" and for the cost of property t�ix
administration. Among other things, this task force will be reviewing how cities can minimize
these costs locally; how to ensure that county charges are approl)rilite and adequately
documented; how to identity and document any county abuses of this new authority; and what
remedial actions should be taken, both locally and at the state level.
The attached provides a summary of budget a: -tions affecting cities, as contained in the State
Budget Act (SB 899) and the accompanying legislation that constitute the California State.
Budget Package.
1.
2.
J.
4
5.
6
7
S.
a
10.
STATE BUDGET IMPACTS ON CITIES:
COMPARISON OF PROPOSALS vs. ADOPTED BUDGET
(As of July J-01 1990)
1
Adopted State
Proposal
1990-91 Amount
Budget Packa'c
Repeal sales tax exemptions
+ 73 million additional to cities
Not included
for 10 commodities; candy,
if all 10 exemptions repealed
newspapers, etc.
Impose sales tax for first tune on
+ 195 million if proposals are
Not included
a variety of services, e.g.,
arc approved
entertainment, janitorial, security
scnriccs, etc.
Sales tax acceleration to require
+ 44 million to cities
Not included
retailers to submit one week's
additional prepayment
Water quality regulation and
- 20.0 million cost to all
Not included
water rights fees ($1 per acre
affected agencies
foot surcharge on all water used
in state, surface and groundwater)
Drinking water regulation fees
- 3.6 million cost to all
Approved
charged by State Department of Health
affected agencies
Services to "large drinking water
systems" (over 200 connections)
Fees are 50 cents per service connection
Department of Justice - fees
- 13.0 million cost to
Not included
for criminalistics lab
cities and counties
Mandates - remove state funding of
- 30.9 million cut in funding
Approved
reimbursement for up to 19 state-
of mandated programs which include
mandated programs which would be
cities. Programs made "optional"
made optional.
for 1990-91 only.
Mandates - defer state reimbursement
- 99.0 million state "savings."
Approved
of certain state -mandated local
Relatively little of these funds
programs.
would have gone to cities (mostly
schools and counties).
Authorize counties to levy new taxes
Unknown
Not included
(same as charter cities authority)
countywide, in cities and unincor-
porated area
Authorize counties to levy business
No impact directly on cities
Approved
license and utility user taxes in
unincorporated area only
1
11
Requires counties to charge cities and
permits charges to special districts and
schools for costs of collecting and
administering the property tax by county
assessor, tax collector and auditor,
plus overhead
Allow counties to charge cities a
"booking fee" for cost of "booking and
processing" persons arrested in cities
"No- and Low- Property tax cities" -
freexes property tax revenue for 1990-91
at 90% of 1989-90 revenue.
Give counties all or part of city
Vehicle License Fee (VLF) revenue
Require redevelopment agencies to draw
down "reserve funds" for one year only
Shift of city and county cigarette
tax to state for funding of State Board
of Equalization Property Tax Assessments
Reduction in special supplemented
subvention to certain redevelopment
agencies for business inventory losses
Eliminate local public safety grants
to cities and counties from the
Office of Criminal Justice Planning
Shift all city cigarette tax
revenue to the state
L: \lcg\ma\state2.bgt
Estimated to be 150-200 million Approved
total. City share uncertain, estimated
at 20-30 million.
Uncertain. Could be as little as Approved
15-20 million, or over IM million
statewide.
- 6.2 million at least Approved
- 800 million if cities lose Not included
all
- 400 million Not included
- 4.8 million cost to cities Approved
- 31.5 million state "savings" Approved
in '90-91 only (real cost to cities
about 10.5 million)
- 26 million Not included
- 55.8 million Not included
2
STATE BUDGET ITEMS AFFECTING CITIES
CIGARETTE TAX SHIFT TO STATE --SB 899 (AAl uist). Chapter 467, Statutes of 1990
Included in the State Budget Act is a new shift of $5.7 million to the state General Fund from
the Cigarette Tax Fund. The purpose of this shift is to finance costs of the Property Tax
Assessment Program (primarily the valuation of private utilities) of the State Board of
Equalization. Since only cities and counties receive cigarette tax revenue, this results in a
subsidy of the state's cost by only cities and counties, even though special districts and schools
also benefit from the property tax assessments.
This is especially unfair to cities since cities currently receive 87.8 percent of the cigarette tax
revenue and will therefore finance that amount of revenue shift to the state. Schools get 36
percent of the property tax and special districts get 18 percent (a total of 54 percent), yet they
will pay none of the costs for property tax assessments by the state. In contrast, cities receive
only 13 percent of the property tax, but will finance nearly 88 percent of the state's property tax
assessment costs. The revenue loss to cities is projected to be $5.0 million in 1990-91, or a
reduction of approximately eight percent. SB 899 was enacted as an urgency measure and takes
effect. immediately.
DRINKING WATER REGULATION FEES --SB 1806 (Torres) --Chanter 462, Statutes of 1.990
As part of the State Budget Package, SB 1806 requires that "large public water systems" (those
with over 200 service connections) pay the State Department of Health Services an annual fee
of 50 cents for each service connection. This is estimated to raise $3.6 million annually for the
state from all sources. The city share of this statewide cost is unclear at this time. To the
extent possible, those cities subject to the annual fee may wish to include this new fee in their
service charges and specifically identify this cost as attributable to the state regulation fee
surcharge. SB 1806 takes effect immediately.
CHARGES FOR COUNTY PROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRATION --SB 2557 (Maddy)
Chapter 466, Statutes of 1990
SB 2557 requires counties to charge cities for the collection and administration of property
taxes, and permits counties to charge all other "local agencies." At this time it appears that
city redevelopment agencies are not included in the definition of "local agencies."
Oil a statewide basis this was originally estimated by the state to produce approximately $160
million in new revenue to counties. Cities receive approximately 13 percent of the property tax
on a statewide basis and would therefore incur a cost of approximately $21 million statewide.
However, based on early indications of what some counties plan to charge their cities, it appears
that costs could be significantly above this amount.
There are a number of flaws in the legislation authorizing these charges, from both a technical
and policy perspective. As noted earlier, the League has appointed a special task force to assist
in developing a recommended response to this legislation and the new authority for counties
to charge "booking fees" (see below). As a minimum, cities should be aware of county
intentions to implement a very broad interpretation to the provisions authorizing these charges,
and challenge them as appropriate. Please advise Jim Harrington, in the League's Sacramento
3
Office, of communications you receive from your counties on their interpr�-_ta<,.;;)n and prop,,):;cJ
implementation of the charges for property tax administration and "honking fees".
SB 2557 is effective January 1, 1991, but authorizes charges for the entire fiscal year of 1990-
91. Therefore the provisions of the bill become retroactive, and cities can e):pect to have their
property tax revenue reduced for the entire year by the full-vear costs of' county property tax
administration. The following summarizes the key provisions authorizing countic, to char,^e for
the costs of property tax administration (Section 4 of SB 2557):
1. Property tax shift to counties. Counties will recover their charges 1)),shifting city
pr, -)perry tax revenue to the county's 1990-91 property tax base, in an ar otint: equal
to their 1989-90 propertytax administration costs proportionately attributable to cities.
Phereafter the county will continue to receive the growth in this shifted property tax
base, provided that (1) no more than one-half of a city's growth in property tax revenue
may be retained; and (2) when actual property tax administration costs are less than
fhe grt)wth in the shifted base amount, the county must apportion the differe..ce to
each city. At least once each fiscal year, the county auditor must rep,ar* the nwoun
of these act.►Tal costs and allowable overhead costs to the >bcard of supervisors a aid an, y
other ,jurisdiction or person that requests the information.
2. Calculation of county costs. The charges for property tax administration are to
include the "property tax -related costs of the assessor, tax collector, and auditor,
including applicable administrative overhead costs as permitted by federal Circular
A-87 standards." What constitutes "property tax -related cost;" is not defined and will
likely be debated as counties calculate these and the overhead costs. 'rhe city sharc
of these costs is determiner; by multiplying the total property tax administration costs
by a percentage that is calculated as the total property tax revenue received by cities
in 19�c�_90 � I'
., video by the total rrop•erty tax revenue received by all local jurasdictio:as
in the county for that year.
3. Oplion for charging other local jurisdictions. All local jurisdictions, other than;
cities and the county, may be charged on a year-to-year basis. Each year the county
auditor may calculate the charges to each of these jurisdictions multiplying the total
costs from "2" above for each fiscal year by a percentage calculated as the property
tax revenue received by that jurisdiction divided by the total property tax revenue to
aii local jurisdictions in the county for that fiscal year.
The imposition of these costs on cities is unfair and poor policy for a number of reasons,
including: (1) counties currently receive property tax revenues from city property owners which
finance this county tip-ncral fund function, and counties will now be "double-dipping" by also
Charging main for al;�P
costs with no on'set for the property tax revenues already going to counties
for this purpose; ( 2) counties will get a "triple -dip" because they already get reimbursed for costs
of implementing and administering the supplemental property tax roll and the "no/low property
tax city" shift; and (3) there is no limit to their expenses, in fact they will be encourage? to
increase costs so as to at least equal the growth in property tax revenue (averaged about 12610
annually statewide since Proposition 13), othervvIse this bill requires counties to refund the
difference if their costs grow less than the growth in revenues.
51
"BOOKING I`EES"--SB 2557 (Mal lv . biter 466, Statutes of 1900
Far less clear is the new authority for counties to charge "booking fees." Section 1 of S13 2557
creates a Criminal Justice Administrative Fee (now commonly referred to as the "booking fee")
and says that, "... a count}, i:.ay impose a fee upon a city, special district, school district,
community college district, college, or university for reimbursement of county expenses incurred
with respect to the booking or other processing of persons arrested by a i employee ()f that
city...where the arrested persons are brought to the county jail for bookin;� or detention." [Note:
some cities currently handle their own booking and/or detention at city facilities. In circler tO
avoid or minimize this new cost some cities, or COITlbination of cities, may wish to consider
doing at least their booking, since many booked prisoners do riot enol ul) being detained in a
county jail]. The fee imposed by a county, "shall not exceed the actual administrative costs,
including applicable overhead costs as permitted by federal Circular A-87 standards, incurred
in booking or otherwise processing arrested persons.
A county may submit an invoice to a city or other affected entity for these expenses. As with
the charges for property tax administration, the booking fees are authorized for the entire fiscal
year of 1990-91, but since SB 2557 is not effective until January 1, 1991, cities can expect to
receive six months' charges (July -December) after January 1, 1991.
The League has already begun to hear of counties taking very broad interpretations of what
should be eligible expenses for the "booking and processing" of arrested persons. Any
documented examples of such cases should be forwarded to Jim Harrington, at the League's
Sacramento office. As noted earlier, a new League task force is working on a recommended
response to these new county charges, at the local level and for the Legislature.
CLJT IN REV►INUE TO "NO/LOW PRQPI✓RTY TAX CITIES" SI3 >7 Madcjv�t✓:l�tl�ter
466., Statutes of 1990
All "No- and Low -Property -Tax Cities" will receive property tax revelIues in 1990-91 equal to
90 percent of the allocation received in 1989-90. This means the No/Low property tax cities
must forego the phase-in of additional property taxes scheduled for the 1990-91 fiscal vear. The
additional 1 cent on the property tax for qualifying No/Low cities will he postponed this fiscal
year and the affected cities will receive only 90 percent of what they got last year. Unless there
is additional legislation, a qualifying city would then receive in 1991-92 the amount to which
they are otherwise entitled, e.g., a no -tax city would receive a shift equivalent to a 3 cent tax
rate in 1991-92. For many No/Low cities this will be a major reduction from what they were
expecting to receive this year. There are over 90 qualifying No/L)Nv cities that will recei;,e
approximately $7.0 million less property tax revenue in 1990-91 than they had previously
expected to receive.
C LJT IN SUPPLEMENTAL SUBVENTIONS FOR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES --
AB 160 (Mot►nti0Y Chapter 449 Statutes of 1990
AB 160 reduces the "supplemental subventions" currently received by some redevelopment
agencies. This subvention was enacted in 1980-81 when the Legislature exempted business
inventories from the property tax for that fiscal year and subsequent fiscal years, and established
5
the business inventory subvention to reimburse: all local agencies for ;h, ;us� prc>l)criy tax
revenues. In 1984, the Legislature enacted the "Long -'Perin U- cal F=iri,l110110 : kict of 11984' which
totally repealed the business inventory subvention and instead provided a "sp:'ciai `iipp11C11i(,;ntai
subvention" to cert�.in cities, multicounty special districts and redevelopinelli abenc; s. x'iic�
special supplemental subvention for cities was phased out over a five-year period, terminatnig
in the 1988-89 fiscal year.
AB 160 reduces the amount of special supplementai subventimis coi ►►,� ,_c ��,_�� ,_►�,,, ���,�
a 7encies on a one-time basis for the; 1990-91 fiscal year mily. "Fo a; C-on-rr.►,:�;�
the legislation does the following:
1. Three payments to two. Eliminaites th;; three payrne'ats now received during a fiscal
ye.ir to two payments. The first paymcn,t will be made on or before December 3 i,
1800. The second payni,. nt wi'1 be received on July 1, 19191. This two-payonk-- nt
will continue for the life of t1he program, unless subsequent legislation, is �s;acte�i.
2. Reduction. The December payment will be calculated at 25 f.ercel of t;le L ,�li
amount redevelopment agencies would have, received for fiscal y -c ai
reduction was being rnade. -i-tie second payment will be iiiade on :iuiy 1, 133)1 wid
will be 50 percent of the amount the redevelopment ag ,►cies %vould flava:
no reduction was being made. The actual loss will be at a maxiinum of $i0.> rnillloll
to redevelopment agencies or about 25 percent of the annual total 'this assumes that
the total amount going to redevelopment agencies in fiscal year i9190-91 would have
been $42 million). Under this same assumption, the savings to the state for fiscal year
1990-91 will be x;31.. million) dcie tc; the Fact that the. sttoiiu payai::rit is ; ;;ii -J 0% "1
to fiscal year 1991-92. AB 160 makes only this one tirne rC;,itie li.lil '1 h: pi 15r:;11 ;vlH
continue under its present conttitiolis, kith no reducil01,13, Ill full,!'., y: �►�, �:,L�E,t lli..►�:
will be two payments per year liistead Of the three-payl-ifl: iit 11-10 pa.;
3. Bond Security. The bili states that the reductions do not. apply t;; any
redevelopnient agencywhich has stated in boncl histrunierits �:r�:i supportir►�; d:il� ►,ts
that the special supplemental subventions are pledged as security for payment of the
principal and interest. of those bonds and the bond reserve account is insufficient to
cover the bond payments.
4. No Future Bond fledges. The bill further states that no r:,develop ment agency
sl -jail, on or after the effective date of the bili pledge, as security for payment of the
1)rinClpal and 1I1tt CeSt. of bonds, 611 spei..lal supple li.ei1tai ;iUbVellLIOUS ie:CC B/V' j fly
redevelopment agencies.
CUTS ,4N D DELA N'S IN REPAB RSEf.-iENTT rOtt STATE -1A/-, DATF,D C"ISTS--S13 1333
(Dills) Chapter 459 ,Statutes of 1990
Another part of the State Budget Package is S13 i3331 which provides thai local ugc .-,Cies
not be required to implement any state mandaite during any fis:ul year if the ina;lduic; is
"specifically identified by the Legislature in the Budget Act for the fiscal year as being one for
I
which reimbursement is not provided for the fiscal year." Since the bill contains an ur(;e11Cy
clause, it takes effect immediately.
Using this authority to save the state some money and help solve t11e budget deficit, the
Legislature specifically identified 19 mandates in the Budget Act for suspension durim', the
1990-91 fiscal year. This means that for an 11 -month period (beginning in August with the
effective date of SB 1333 and ending July 1, 1911), local agencies will not be required to co niply
with the mandate, neither will they have an opportunity to claim reimbursement for costs
incurred as a result of the programs Already in place to implement the mandate,
Of the 19 suspended mandates, seven include programs mandated on cities and for which citi-s
would have expected to claim and receive reimbursement during 1990-91.
It is important for city officials to understand two features of this suspension of mandates:
(1) Only the specific provisions of any law containing a mandate, which have been deemed
to impose reimbursable costs on local agencies, are suspended. All other provisions
of the statutes or executive orders in question continue in effect. The summary below
identifies the provisions constituting reimbursable mandates which are suspended during
1990-91.
(2) The suspension is temporary. Absent further legislative action, all of these mandates
will be in full effect on July 1, 1991.
City officials will immediately recognize that local decisions will not be as straightforward as the
budget language suggests. Political and administrative issues will have to be considered before
a city decides to modify programs or procedures for a temporary period.
Summary of Suspended Mandates Affecting, Cities
Following is a summary of the reimbursable provisions (and therefore temporarily suspended
provisions) of the seven identified mandates which affect cities:
1. Dental Records. (Chapter 462, Statutes of 1978)
- Estimate of Statewide Costs for 1990-91: $971000
Section 11114 of the Penal Code
Law enforcement agencies are required to request written consent of families for use
of dental records in missing persons reports. (The records are then sent to the
Department of Justice for use in the identification of the deceased.)
2. Destruction of Mariivana Records. (Chapter 952, Statutes of 1976)
Estimate of Statewide Costs for 1990-91: $6061000
Section 11361.5 of the Health and Safety Code
Local law enforcement agencies are required to destroy or obliterate records of
marijuana convictions and arrests not followed by convictions two years from the date
of conviction or arrest.
7
3. Emplo ec Personnel Files. (Chapter 1)'(), Statutes of 1953)
Estimate of StateNvide Costs for 1990-91: 528,000
- Section 1195.5 of the Labor Cade
Public employers are required to provide a copy o, personnel records at the enapl(woo"�
work location and to permit employees to inspect their personnei records.
4. Motorist Assistance. (Chapter 1203, Stailmtes of 198S)
- Estimate of Statewide Costs for 199()-91: $3,150.000
Section 20018 of the Vehicle Code
Law enforcement agencies with traffic law enforcement responsibility ,trc re�.l�rir��,l to
provide assistance to disalfled motorists.
5. Missing Person Reports. (Chapter 51, Statutes of 1984 )
Estimate of Statewide Costs for 1990-91: � ►1,000.UUO
Section 11114(c) of the Penal Code
When ,: person under 18 veers of a ,c is reported missing .trod thee hm c'i�irtT� •i>>r���
agency determines that the disappearance was under suspicious circu111SU (les, tlh,:, I��•,v
enforcement agency must immediately obtain from the farnrly a forn-t authm-izino
release of the missing person's dental records, obtain the dental records from ill-,.
intssing person's dentist, confer with the coroner or medical examiner, surd submit �t
report including dental records to the Department of Justice.
Note retarding Budget Act: The "missing person reports" mandate and the $11 million
cost for 1990-91 is actually the accumulated �Jctivity and cost for four separate Chapters
containing reimbursalDle nand; t; s. however, the Budgct Act, SES 899, mentlons, oniy
the first chapter (Chapter 51 of 1954). We believe omission of the o;t_her, Chapters
accidental and is likely to be corrected in clean-up legislation. i •ao app, ;lpriation was
made to reimburse costs resulting from any of the Chapters under the missing hers;),,
reports mandate.
Other "missing person" provisions presumably intende;l for suspension during 1990-9 i
include:
a. Chapter 177, Statutes of 1955
- Section II I14(f) of the Penal Code
Requires lav✓ enforcement agencies to accept missing person reports re�gardk,cs
of the legal residence of the person reported missing; if the person re�jor.L:d
missing is under IS years of age.
b. Chapter 1111, Statutes of 19SR5
- Section 11114(a) of the Penal Code
Law enforcement agencies are required to accept and transmit any report
of a missing person or runaway without delay. If the missing persor, is u?idcr
12 years of age, the report must also be transmitted to the Naticlnal C: r 1ille
Information Center Missing, Person Svstem.
8
C. Chapter 249, Statutes of 1986
- Section 11114(b) and (c) of the Penal Code
Law enforcement agencies are required to obtain a release of a recent photo
of a missing person who is under 18 years of age. When any missing person
has not been found within 45 days, the law enforcement agency must obtain
and submit a photograph of the missing person to the Department of Justice
along with the missing person report and dental records. When a missing
person is under 13 years of age and has been missing at least 14 days, the law
enforcement agency must obtain a form authorizing; the release of dental
records or prepare a written declaration to obtain the release of dental
records, secure records from the dentist, confer with the coroner or medical
examiner, and submit a missing person report including dental records and
recent photograph.
6. Investment Reports. (Chapter 1226, Statutes of 1984)
- Estimate of Statewide Costs for 1990-91: $206,000
Sections 53600, 53630 and 53646 of the Government Code
The City Treasurer or Chief Fiscal Officer is required to render an annual statement
of investment policy to the legislative body and render a monthly report containing
specified information regarding investments and deposits to the Chief Executive Officer
and the legislative body.
Note regarding Budget Act: The investment reports mandate and the $2,606,000
estimated cost also includes Chapter 1526, Statutes of 1985. This Chapter was not
referenced in the Budget Act but we expect it will be added in clean-up legislation.
Chapter 1526 amended Government Code Section 53646 by requiring that the monthly
report rendered by the Treasurer or Chief Fiscal Office include any information
demonstrating that the local agency's expenditure requirements can be met in the
following month.
7. Open Meetings, Act. (Chapter 641, Statutes of 1986)
Estimate of Statewide Costs for 1990-91: $2,310,000
Sections 54954.2 and 54954.3 of the Government Code
Local agencies are required to post an agenda, 72 hours before the meeting and in a
location freely accessible to the public, containing a brief general description of each
item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting. Local agencies are also
required to provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative
body on specific agenda items or any item of interest that is within the subject matter
of the jurisdiction.
Currently before the Legislature is SB 62 (Dills) which proposes to reinstate the mandate for
missing person reports and the Open Meetings Act (5 and 7 above). However there is no
appropriation for reimbursement of costs associated with the reinstated mandate. SB 62 is
currently on the Assembly floor.
0
Delav in Reimbursement of Past Costs
Another provision of SB 1333 is to delay payment of nearly $55 million which is due local
agencies for costs incurred in prior fiscal years to implement reimbursable mandates. Of' the
eight mandates listed in this category, only one applies to cities. The prior cost of complying
with provisions of the Open Meeting Act (Chapter 641 of the Statutes of 1986) will not he pard
in 1990-91 as anticipated. Instead, under the provisions of SB 1333, these casts, totailin4.;
$7,418,000, will be appropriated for reimbursement by the state in equal installments in the.
Budget Acts of 1991, 1992 and 1993.
OTHER CUTS OF CONCERN TO CITIES --Governor's Line -Item Vetoes to SB ASM
Before signing the State Budget Act, SB 899, the Governor used his line -item veto authority
to make additional "blue pencil" cuts. One of those affects city libraries by reducing the amount
of state funding for libraries from the Library Foundation Program by approximately 20 percent.
The California Literacy Campaign local assistance money was cut 29 percent (from $4.3 million
to $3.1 million).
The Governor also cut the Department of Commerce's funding for local development by 60
percent (from $5.0 to $2.0 million). Another $2.5 million was cut from the Emergency Shelter
Program of the Department of Housing and Community Development.
The Governor deleted $17.3 million from the Mass Transportation budget of the Department
of Transportation, as well as funding for construction of certain soundwalls in Los Angeles
County (I-405 between Victory Blvd. and Sherman Way). In the State Parks and Recreation
Department, $485,000 in local assistance money of the State Urban and Coastal Park Fund was
deleted for funding projects in the cities of Cudahy, Ojai and Chico.
In the Department of Water Resources, $45.9 million was deleted for local mood cot -,+,L -,e-0!
subvention payments.
Local assistance money in the Office of Criminal Justice Planning was reduced by $1.8 million,
primarily in the "Crack Down Cocaine Task Force" program.
The preceding highlights the most apparent "blue pencil" cuts aff,--cting cities. Those cities with
individual program concerns should obtain a copy of SB 899 (Chapter 467, Statutes of 1990) as
finally enacted with the Governor's line -item vetoes. Free copies can be obtained directly from
the State Capitol Bill Room at (9'16),445-2323.
H: \1 eg\j h\rpt: dgsum.mem
10