UCC Board of Director s Meeting Summary September 7, 2016

Transcription

1 Chair Supervisor Susan Peters Executive Director Jolena L. Voorhis 1100 K Street, Suite 101/Sacramento, CA 95814/ (916) FA (916) /UCC@urbancounties.com UCC Board of Director s Meeting Summary September 7, 2016 Alameda: Contra Costa: Los Angeles: Orange: Riverside: Sacramento: San Bernardino: San Francisco: San Mateo: Santa Clara: Ventura: UCC: Amy Shrago Supervisor Federal Glover Donna Seitz Cynthia Shintaku, Nicole Wordelman Supervisor John J. Benoit, Brian Nestande Supervisor Susan Peters Supervisor James Ramos, Nicole Wordelman Connie Juarez-Diroll Supervisor Ken Yeager, Michael Rattigan Supervisor Kathy Long, Sue Hughes, Nicole Wordelman Jolena Voorhis, Grace Childs I. Call to Order UCC Chair Supervisor Susan Peters convened the meeting and called the members to order. II. III. Roll Call of Counties There were 7 Supervisors, 2 alternates and 11 counties represented at this meeting. Approval of Minutes from the August 3, 2016 UCC Board Meeting APPROVED A motion was made to approve the August 3, 2016 minutes and approved. Below is the vote count. Member County Yes No Absent Not Voting Supervisor Peters, Chair Sacramento Supervisor Benoit, Riverside Vice-Chair Supervisor Carson Alameda Supervisor Glover Contra Costa Supervisor Knabe Los Angeles Supervisor Bartlett Orange

2 Supervisor Ramos San Bernardino Supervisor Roberts San Diego Supervisor (VACANT) San Francisco Supervisor Groom San Mateo Supervisor Yeager Santa Clara Supervisor Long Ventura Vote Total IV. Items for Consideration 1) Budget Update Staff provided a memo with an update on the State Budget. No Place Like Home Bond Securitization Bill (AB 1628) When No Place Like Home passed in June 2016, one of the pieces that counties were still waiting for was the bond securitization language. This was introduced on August 8, 2016, and included some changes to the No Place Like Home Program. Sets up the bond securitization specifics between the state departments. Sets a cap of $140 million per year to be taken from MHSA to begin in fiscal year and that it be taken from counties on the last day of the month. Provides that none of these funds can be used to backfill the General Fund. While there are not a lot of details on the specific amounts to be taken from counties, AB 1628 sets up a process by which the state department and agencies would provide notice to the Controller regarding the amount of funds needed and provides specific dates June 15 and December 15 to provide this notice. Transportation Funding SBx1 1 (Beall and Frazier) A new transportation funding proposal was announced by both houses of the Legislature in mid-august. This proposal is now in SBx1 1 as amended. Specifics include: $7.4 billion annual funding package to repair and maintain our state and local roads. $705 million repayment of outstanding transportation loans for state and local roads. Eliminates the BOE true-up that causes funding uncertainty for counties. Provides streamlining to CEQA including exemption for improvements in the existing roadway and creating an Advanced Mitigation program for transportation projects. No vote is expected before the end of session, but there have been discussions regarding taking a vote after the November election and before the new Legislative session convenes.

3 2) Other Emerging or Continuing Legislative Issues Before staff got started on discussing the initiatives, they went over the process. First, staff gave an overview of the Initiative, then stated that the Proponents and Opponents would have 5 minutes to present, after which, the Board can ask questions of both sides and then the Board would have a discussion and take action on that particular Initiative. a) Ballot Initiatives ACTION ITEMS Proposition 53 Revenue Bonds Motion to Oppose APPROVED Proposition 53 would require that all revenue bonds issued or sold by the State over $2 billion dollars for any single project financed, owned or operated by the State, must first be approved by the voters at a statewide election. While this measure exempts local governments including counties from this measure, there could be a county impact if there is a JPA (Joint Powers of Authority) with the state. The LAO has estimated that the fiscal impact of this measure is unknown and would vary by each project. Background: Revenue bonds are bonds issued by the state and local governments in California. These bonds are a way the state and local governments can borrow up-front money to fund costly projects, and make a commitment to repay with interest over a period of time. Revenue bonds are not guaranteed directly by the state or local government taxing powers. They are repaid by using designated funding streams, generally associated with the projects they finance. In some cases, governments pay for a type of revenue bond called a lease revenue bond, which is usually through a lease or rent paid from a government s general tax or special fund revenues. Proposed Measure: All revenue bonds issued or sold by the State in an amount either singly or in the aggregate over $2 billion dollars for any single project financed, owned, operated, or managed by the State must first be approved by the voters at a statewide election. Expressly exempts cities, counties and other local governments from the measure. A single project for which state revenue bonds are issued or sold in an amount over $2 billion dollars may not be divided into, or deemed to be, multiple separate projects in order to avoid the voter approval requirements contained in this section. Fiscal Impact According to the Legislative Analyst s Office (LAO) and the Department of Finance (DOF), the fiscal impact on state and local governments is unknown and would vary by each project. These impacts would depend on the outcome of projects brought before the voters, the extent to which the state relied on alternative approaches or alternative financing methods, and whether those methods have higher or lower costs than revenue bonds. The LAO also notes that this could affect a number of projects. For example, the measure does not provide a definition for a project, and a project could be limited to what is built on a given site at a specific time, or could include larger systems of improvements constructed

4 over time. A broader definition of a project would result in more instances in which the $2 billion threshold is reached, triggering the measure s voting requirements. County Impact While the counties are specifically exempted from this measure, they may be affected if they enter into a JPA with the state or are part of a state-created JPA. Under these circumstances any projects would be subject to the revenue-bond voter-approval requirements. Pros: Provides transparency on large projects by requiring voter approval. Provides information on debt for large projects. Cons: Could prevent large projects from moving forward or delay projects due to the voter requirement. Undermines local control by putting local measures or projects to be approved by voters statewide. Staff Recommendation: Oppose. Due to possibility that this measure could impact important infrastructure projects and undermines local control. Proponents Key Points Maria Brichetto Nielsen Merksamer Proposition 53 requires a public vote and ensures the total cost before going to the polls. Applies to state revenue bonds projects over $2 billion. Would fund High Speed Rail and Delta Tunnels, instead of the monies coming from increased water rates. Opponent Key Points Brandon Castillo Bicker, Castillo and Fairbanks Proposition 53 would hurt local government and local control. Includes JPA and will require statewide votes. Projects could be impacted, including bridges, tolls, UC campuses and Regional Rail. New form of CEQA which could have barriers. Opposed by 200 organizations. BOD Comments Sacramento moved to support the measure, however there was no second so the measure failed. Supervisor Benoit noted that he was concerned that the measure could affect a transportation project in Riverside County. Santa Clara moved to oppose the measure and it was seconded by Riverside. The measure passed and below is the vote count: Member County Yes No Absent Not Voting Supervisor Peters, Chair Sacramento Supervisor Benoit, Riverside Vice-Chair Supervisor Carson Alameda

5 Supervisor Glover Contra Costa Supervisor Knabe Los Angeles Supervisor Bartlett Orange Supervisor Ramos San Bernardino Supervisor Roberts San Diego Supervisor (VACANT) San Francisco Supervisor Groom San Mateo Supervisor Yeager Santa Clara Supervisor Long Ventura Vote Total Proposition 55 Tax Extension to Fund Educaiton and Health Care Motion to Support APPROVED Proposition 55 would amend the California Constitution and extend the temporary taxes passed by Proposition 30 in 2012 for 12 years. This measure allocated up to $2 billion for health care programs and allocated 89% of the revenue to K-12 schools. The revenue is first distributed to meet the Proposition 98 guarantee and the remaining funds will be used for Medi-Cal. According to the LAO, this measure would increase state revenues in the $5 to $11 billion range depending on economic trends. Summary: Proposition 55 would amend the California Constitution and extend the temporary taxes passed by Proposition 30 in 2012 for 12 years, and allocates up to $2 billion per year for health care programs and allocates 89% of the tax revenues to K-12 schools. Background: Proposition 30 increased the sales tax rate by one-quarter cent from which is expected to raise $1.5 billion of revenue. Prop 30 also increased marginal income tax rates by roughly 1 percent of taxpayers with the highest incomes from , which is expected to raise $6-8 billion of revenue. Proposition 30 also added constitutional protections for counties for Public Safety Realignment. Proposed Measure: The income tax revenue is guaranteed in the California Constitution to go directly to local school districts and community colleges, and to help the State pay for healthcare expenses for low income children and their families. Increased revenues would be allocated to schools and community colleges, budget reserves, debt payments, and health care programs as follows: The Director of Finance will estimate the amount available for transfer to meet the minimum funding guarantee under Proposition 98.

6 The workload budget for the following fiscal year, excluding Proposition 98 for various state operations including statutory cost-of-living adjustments, chaptered legislation, costs incurred pursuant to constitutional requirements, federal mandates, and court-ordered mandates. In order to enhance the ability of all California school children and their families to receive regular, quality health care, whenever DOF estimates that the amount available for transfer into the Education Protection Account during the following fiscal year exceeds the amount of revenues required DOF shall identify the remaining amount. Fifty percent of that remainder, up to a maximum of two billion dollars in any fiscal year, shall be allocated by the Controller from the Education Protection Account to the Department of Health Care Services on a quarterly basis to increase funding for the existing healthcare programs and services for Medi-Cal. The healthcare revenues distributed by DOF shall be used only for critical emergency, acute and preventative healthcare services to children and their families, provided by health care professionals and health facilities that are licensed and to health plans or others that manage the provision of healthcare for Medi-Cal beneficiaries that are contracting with the Department of Health Care Services to provide health benefits. The allocation provided to DHCS may be suspended by statute during a fiscal year in which a budget emergency has been declared. Fiscal Impact According to the Legislative Analyst s Office (LAO), this measure would increase state revenues from in the $5 to $11 billion range, with amounts varying based on stock market and economic trends. Pros: Provides dedicated funding to health programs including the Medi-Cal program. Provides stability to the State Budget and the State General Fund. Cons: Continues a tax that was temporary in nature. Increases the tax burden on Californians. Staff Recommendation: Support. This measure would ensure continued funding to critical health care programs provided by the state and counties. Proponent Proponent - Anne McLeod, California Hospital Association Maintain current tax rates on wealthiest. Prevent billions in funding cuts, includes children s healthcare. Strict accountability. Middle class does not pay for this measure. Aimed at keeping kids healthy.

7 CA will take $4 billion cut w/o this measure. Opponent David Wolfe, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (Unable to attend) BOD Comments Supervisor Yeager noted that there was a good discussion of this measure at the CSAC Board Meeting. Supervisor Long noted her support of the measure. Santa Clara moved to support the measure and it was seconded by Ventura. Below is the vote count: Member County Yes No Absent Not Voting Supervisor Peters, Sacramento Chair Supervisor Benoit, Riverside Vice-Chair Supervisor Carson Alameda Supervisor Glover Contra Costa Supervisor Knabe Los Angeles Supervisor Bartlett Orange Supervisor Ramos San Bernardino Supervisor Roberts San Diego Supervisor (VACANT) San Francisco Supervisor Groom San Mateo Supervisor Yeager Santa Clara Supervisor Long Ventura Vote Total 9 3 Proposition 56 Cigarette Tax Proposition 56 would increase cigarette taxes by $2 per pack with the same increases on other tobacco products including e-cigarettes. The revenues raised from this increase would be used for existing health care programs and for tobacco use prevention. Specifically funds would be used for tax administration and backfill losses that occur, allocated funds to specific state entities (Approx $100 million) with the rest being distributed to state health programs including Medi-Cal, Tobacco Control and Tobacco-related disease programs. Medic-Cal would receive 82 percent of these funds. The LAO estimates that the new tax is estimated to be $1.3 to 1.5 billion in annual revenues.

8 Summary: Proposition 56 would increase cigarette taxes by $2.00 per pack with equivalent increase on other tobacco products, including electronic cigarettes, and allocates the revenue to increase funding for existing health care programs and for tobacco use prevention. Background: California State excise tax on the distribution of cigarettes and other tobacco products are paid by distributors who supply cigarettes and other tobacco products to retail stores. These taxes are passed on to consumers. The state s cigarette tax is currently at 87 cents per pack. Roughly $400 million in annual revenue from slaes and use taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products are provided to state and local governments. Revenues from existing excise taxes support Proposition 10 and Proposition 99. In 2009, this tax was increased by 62 cents per pack to help fund the Children s Health Insurance Program, which provides subsidized health insurance coverage to children in low-income families. Proposed Measure: This proposal would increase the sales tax on cigarettes and other tobacco products, including electronic cigarettes, by $2 per pack. Revenues from this tax would be deposited into a new special fund called the California Healthcare, Research and Prevention Tobacco Tax Act of This new tax measure would be spent the following ways: 1. Replace Revenues Lost Would require the transfer of some revenues raised by the new taxes to backfill any revenue losses that occur to funds supported by existing state cigarette and tobacco taxes and affected local governments, as a result of the imposition of new taxes. 2. Pay for Tax Administration The Board of Equalization (BOE) would receive 5 percent of the remaining funds for administrative costs. 3. Allocate Specific Amounts for Various State Entities $48 million to various enforcement activities of tobacco-related laws. $40 million to the University of California for physician training. $30 million to the Department of Public Health for the State Dental Program. $400,000 to the California State Auditor to audit those agencies receiving funds. 4. Remaining Funds for State Health Programs The remaining funds will go to State Health Programs such as, Medi-Cal, CA Tobacco Control, Tobacco-related Disease and School Programs to prevent and reduce the use of tobacco products programs. Medic-Cal would receive 82% of these funds.

9 Fiscal Impact According to the Legislative Analyst s Office (LAO), this measure would have a number of fiscal impacts on state and local governments. The major impacts are: Pros: Revenues would be affected by consumer response By either the consumer reducing the consumption of cigarettes and tobacco products or changing the way they acquire cigarettes by purchasing cigarettes that have been smuggled into California. New Excise Tax Are estimated to be $1.3 to $1.5 billion in annual revenues. Effects on Existing Tax Revenues Due to the decline in consumption would reduce revenues from existing excise taxes that go to support Proposition 99 and Proposition 10, the General Fund and the Breast Cancer Fund. Will reduce youth smoking, help fight cancer, and only target tobacco and nicotine users. Would provide revenues for state Medi-Cal activities. Cons: Revenues could be used to fund other projects not related to tobacco use. The range in potential new revenue reflects uncertainty due to how much consumers will reduce their purchases in response to higher prices. Staff Recommendation: Support. This measure would provide additional funds to combat tobacco use and help to fund the Medi-Cal program and other important health initiatives. Proponent Anthony Wright Health Access $2 a pack increase have dramatic affect Can save lifetime of addiction as most youth start smoking early. Not many year olds starting to smoke. $3.5 billion we spend in Medi-Cal treating tobacco affected diseases. Backfills First 5. Tripled monies are going into tobacco cessation. Opponent Maria Brichetto Nielsen Merksamer Deceptive tax increase 13% allocated to treat smokers Cheats schools by 6 million. Unsteady and declining revenue stream. Ignores California s other pressing needs suchas; schools, roads, violent crime. Ventura County Supervisor Kathy Long moved to support the measure and San Diego County seconded it. Below is the vote count:

10 Member County Yes No Absent Not Voting Supervisor Peters, Sacramento Chair Supervisor Benoit, Riverside Vice-Chair Supervisor Carson Alameda Supervisor Glover Contra Costa Supervisor Knabe Los Angeles Supervisor Bartlett Orange Supervisor Ramos San Bernardino Supervisor Roberts San Diego Supervisor (VACANT) San Francisco Supervisor Groom San Mateo Supervisor Yeager Santa Clara Supervisor Long Ventura Vote Total 9 3 Proposition 57 Juvenile Crimial Proceedings and Sentencing Motion for No Position -- APPROVED Proposition 57 would make changes to the California Constitution related to parole consideration, credit earning and release of prisoners. Allows any person convicted of a non-violent felony sentence to be eligible for parole consideration after completing the full term of their primary offence. Allows the Secretary of CDCR to award credits earned for good behavior. Requires that before juveniles can be transferred to adult court they must have a hearing in juvenile court and removes the requirement that youth automatically be tried in adult court. According to the LAO this measure could reduce state costs as the size of the prison population declines and could be in the tens of millions of dollars annually. In addition, they note that could cause some increased workload to county probation. Summary: Proposition 57, the Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016 would make changes to the California Constitution related to parole consideration, credit earning, and release of prisoners.

11 Background 3 Judge Panel The 3-Judge Panel issued their final order regarding the prison population in February The final order granted the state a two-year extension to meet the required prison population benchmark making the new deadline February 28, However, the State must meet several interim benchmarks with the first being on June 30, In addition, the extension comes with strict guidelines from the federal judges on compliance, including limits on the number of inmates that can be moved to out-of-state prisons. The 2-Judge Panel instructed the state to immediately carry out a series of measures to either release or move inmates from state prisons, which included: Increase credits prospectively for non-violent second-strike offenders and minimum custody inmates. Create and implement a new parole determination process which would allow nonviolent second-strikers to be eligible for parole consideration by the Board of Parole Hearings once they have served 50% of their sentence. Implement an expanded medical parole process and create an elderly parole program for specified inmates. Activate new reentry hubs at 13 designated prisons to be operational within one year. Pursue expansion of pilot reentry programs with additional counties. Expand alternative custody programs for female inmates. The 3-Judge Panel also appointed a compliance officer to ensure that California is on track with the population cap and also barred prison officials from exceeding the current 8,900 inmates in out-of-state prisons. In early 2016, Governor Jerry Brown proposed this measure to address the overcrowding and to continue to comply with the 3-Judge Panel. Proposed Measure: Any person convicted of a non-violent felony offence and sentenced to state prison shall be eligible for parole consideration after completing the full term for his or her primary offense. The full term for the primary offense means the longest term of imprisonment imposed by the court fro any offense, excluding the imposition of an enhancement, consecutive sentence, or alternative sentence. CDCR shall have the authority to award credits earned for good behavior and approved rehabilitative or educational achievements. CDCR must adopted regulations in furtherance of these provisions, and the Secretary of CDCR shall certify that these regulations protect and enhance public safety. Changes existing law to require that before juveniles can be transferred to adult court they must have a hearing in juvenile court to determine whether they should be transferred. In addition, this measure removes the requirement that youths automatically be tried in adult court and no youth can be tried in adult court based only on the decision of the prosecutor.

12 Specifies that prosecutors can only seek transfer hearings for youths accused of committing certain significant crimes listed in state law when they were age 14 or 15 or committing a felony when they were 16 or 17. Fiscal Impact According to the Legislative Analyst s Office (LAO) this measure would reduce state costs as the size of the prison population declines. The level of savings would depend on the number of individuals the Board of Parole Hearings chose to release. Based on recent experience the LAO estimates that the ongoing fiscal impact would likely be state savings in the tens of millions of dollars annually. The LAO also notes that because this measure would result in the early release of some individuals who are supervised by county probation officers the measure would likely increase the size of the probation population in the near term. Pros: Provides additional state savings by making changes to the current process for parole consideration and credits for good behavior. Allows the State to continue to comply with the 3-Judge panel order to reduce the prison population and overcrowding. Provides incentives for inmates to participate in rehabilitation programs in order to obtain early release. Cons: Could result in the release of additional inmates from state prison which could impact county services and supports. Places in the Constitution more authority for the Secretary of CDCR to provide credits for good behavior with only regulations as a backstop or for public input. Support Governor Jerry Brown, Chief Probation Officers of California, Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice, Human Rights Watch, National Center for Youth Law, San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis. Opposition California District Attorneys Association of California. Staff Recommendation: No Position. With different positions among county departments or offices, staff is recommending a position of No Position. Proponent: Diane Cummins, Special Advisor to the Governor Certify they enhance public safety. Manage county jail population. Court ordered methods are important. Board reviews inmate history DA can provide input. No sex offenders & Public Safety screens inmates immediately eligible which would leave eligible each year.

13 Credits already given to offenders. 46.5% recidivism rate without treatment and15.3% with after care treatment. Opponent: Ann Marie Schubert, Sacramento District Attorney Early parole for non-violent offenders. o Misleading to public. Domestic violence, child molestation, drugs, trafficking under non-violent Discretion CDCR has to give credits. o Transfers what was passed by the Legislature. Creates danger to California. Being released without assurances of rehabilitation. LAO estimates 16,000 immediately eligible for release. No assurance that sex offenders or lifers are not eligible. They could sue if told they are not eligible. BOD Comments Supervisor Ramos stated that San Bernardino s DA is opposed to the measure. A motion was made by Riverside County Supervisor John Benoit to take a No Position and seconded by San Diego. The measure passed and below is the vote count: Member County Yes No Absent Not Voting Supervisor Peters, Chair Sacramento Supervisor Benoit, Riverside Vice-Chair Supervisor Carson Alameda Supervisor Glover Contra Costa Supervisor Knabe Los Angeles Supervisor Bartlett Orange Supervisor Ramos San Bernardino Supervisor Roberts San Diego Supervisor (VACANT) San Francisco Supervisor Groom San Mateo Supervisor Yeager Santa Clara Supervisor Long Ventura Vote Total

14 Proposition 64 Adult Use of Marijuana Act Motion for No Position - APPROVED Proposition 64 is a little more complicated and has several changes. Here are some of the highlights: Legalizes the use of recreational marijuana for those 21 years of age or older. There are exceptions for those personal grows (6 plants established under prop 215 and for local ordinances. Changes various penalties for this behavior in existing law and makes most of these penalties into fines and drug counseling. Prohibits personal use in public places and or near schools. Changes requirements related to medical marijuana specifically requiring county health departments to develop protocols for identification cards and requirements for deadlines to contact patients by the county health department. Provides a regulatory structure for recreational marijuana similar to the medical marijuana structure provided under last year MCRSA. Institutes a 15% excise tax similar in design to SB 987 which the Board discussed earlier this year. The revenues from this tax are used for education, law enforcement, environmental protection, and public health. Counties are eligible to apply for Community Reinvestment Grants and Law enforcement funds. Maintains the ability for counties to impose a tax on cultivation, manufacture, producing etc, similar to provisions in MCRSA. Key Issues: Maintains local control as established last year with the exception of indoor grows. Therefore, if a local government wants to ban they can still do so. Maintains counties ability to impose a tax for various marijuana activity. Regulatory process under AUMA has some differences: o Does not allow a local license before a state license. o Allows for cross-ownership under certain conditions which is not as restrictive as MCRSA. o Allows for marketing and advertising of Marijuana. LAO estimates that the revenue generated could reach $1 billion a year and notes that it could reduce county jail population due to changes in penalties. Proponent Richard Martin Hagel & Fishburn Protect and Preserve local control. Blue Ribbon recommendations. Comprehensive regulatory structure. Similar pricing as regulatory structure. Robust packaging, limited potency, ban advertising towards children. No marijuana billboards near schools, playgrounds & youth centers. Complete local control. Additional requirements can be imposed on top of state requirements. Allow legislature to add regulatory process.

15 Opponent --Cory Salzillo State Sheriffs Association Colorado s experience annual survey on impacts of marijuana. If local government bans they cannot receive any monies. Marijuana will be diverted to black market. Could increase ER visits, traffic death and youth access. TV advertising allowed. Home delivery allowed in some areas. Sheriffs, police chiefs, Diane Feinstein opposed. BOD Comments Supervisor Yeager noted that it could be a slap in the face to put in so much work on measure by CSAC and other staff then turn around and vote oppose. Supervisor Peters noted that it was a controversial conversation at the CSAC meeting. Supervisor Benoit stated that it was a bad step for California and that it contained flaws. He made a motion to oppose Proposition 64 and Supervisor Peters seconded it. This motion failed on a 3-5 vote. Below is the vote count: Member County Yes No Absent Not Voting Supervisor Peters, Sacramento Chair Supervisor Benoit, Vice-Chair Riverside Supervisor Carson Alameda Supervisor Glover Contra Costa Supervisor Knabe Los Angeles Supervisor Bartlett Orange Supervisor Ramos San Bernardino Supervisor Roberts San Diego Supervisor (VACANT) San Francisco Supervisor Groom San Mateo Supervisor Yeager Santa Clara Supervisor Long Ventura Vote Total Supervisor Yeager made a motion for UCC to take No Position because this measure protects counties and Supervisor Roberts seconded it. Below is the vote count: Member County Yes No Absent Not Voting Supervisor Peters, Sacramento Chair Supervisor Benoit, Riverside Vice-Chair Supervisor Carson Alameda

16 Supervisor Glover Contra Costa Supervisor Knabe Los Angeles Supervisor Bartlett Orange Supervisor Ramos San Bernardino Supervisor Roberts San Diego Supervisor (VACANT) San Francisco Supervisor Groom San Mateo Supervisor Yeager Santa Clara Supervisor Long Ventura Vote Total 9 3 b) Legislative Update Staff provided a handout on the list of bills UCC is following. c) Other UCC WorkPlan Staff provided an updated version of the UCC Workplan Action Log. This workplan was adopted by the Board at our annual meeting and this is the update on the work related to the Priorities. V. Proposals for Next Month s Meeting Agenda 1) State Budget 2) Legislative Update 3) UCC Priorities 4) UCC Policies 5) UCC WorkPlan VI. VII. Public Comment There were no public comments made. The next meeting will be held on November 30, The November meeting will be held in person and there will be no conference call line available.