|
|
|
|
COUNTY OF SAN MATEOInter-Departmental Correspondence |
County Manager's Office |
| |
DATE: |
October 15, 2002 |
BOARD MEETING DATE: |
October 22, 2002 |
| |
TO: |
Honorable Board of Supervisors |
FROM: |
John Maltbie, County Manager |
SUBJECT: |
County Manager's Report |
| |
Legislative Report # 8 |
| |
1. H.R. 4058 (Lofgren, D-CA) Military Standards for Airport Security Screeners Act |
| |
Recommendation |
Adopt a resolution in support of H.R. 4058 regarding the Military Standards for Airport Security Screeners Act. |
| |
Background |
H.R. 4058 would permit qualified legal permanent residents to work as airport security screeners without compromising security standards at America's airports. Under H.R. 4058, and as outlined by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security would still be required to perform thorough background checks on all airport screener applicants. |
| |
Discussion |
The San Francisco International Airport is a major contributor to the San Mateo County economy. According to the Human Services Agency, approximately 900 airport security screeners at the San Francisco International Airport will be laid off in mid November due to the new requirement that all airport security screeners be U.S. citizens.
The Board supported S. 1829 (Feinstein) which would allow transitional employment eligibility for those airport security screeners until their naturalization process is completed.
Supervisor Jacobs Gibson referred these bills to the Legislative Committee for review and recommendation to the full Board. The Legislative Committee recommends support by the full board. |
| |
Vision Alignment |
Support for H.R. 4058 helps the County realize the potential of our diverse population and ensure basic health and safety for all. It also supports Goals #1 and 7 to foster strong communities through diversity and to maintain and enhance the public safety of all residents and visitors. |
| |
Fiscal Impact |
Cost avoidance from potential increase in unemployed non-citizen SFIA screeners residing in San Mateo County. |
| |
2. Filipino World War II Veterans |
| |
Recommendation |
Adopt resolutions in support of S. 2630 (Inouye, D-HI) and H.R. 4904 (Filner, D-CA) Health Care for Filipino World War II Veterans Act; H.R. 491 (Gilman, R-NY) Filipino Veterans Equity Act of 2001; and S. 1042 (Inouye, D-HI) Filipino Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 2001. |
| |
Background |
According to the White House Initiative on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, S. 2630 and its companion bill, H.R. 4904, would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide health care, nursing home care and medical services to Commonwealth Army veterans or new Philippine Scouts who are residing in the United States and are U.S. citizens or permanent residents. Furthermore, it provides a rate of payment equal to the rate provided for active-service veterans and their spouses, indemnity and veterans' disability compensation for surviving spouses of Commonwealth Army veterans or new Philippine Scouts. Lastly, it grants national cemetery burial benefits for new Philippine Scouts. A similar bill, H.R. 3645 (Evans, D-IL), the Veterans Health Care Procurement Improvement Act, would provide hospital and nursing home care and other medical services to some World War II veterans of the Philippine Commonwealth Army and former Philippine "New Scouts" who permanently reside in the country. H.R. 3645 passed the House and has been referred to the Senate Committee of Veterans Affairs, the same location as S. 2630.
H.R. 491 would restore full official recognition of surviving Filipino World War II veterans. If passed, the bill would restore veteran status to Filipinos who served in World War II and give them entitlement to the same benefits given to other World War II veterans.
S. 1042 would provide eligibility for VA health care and permanent disability pension benefits to Filipino American veterans. It would also provide additional benefits to Filipino veterans residing in the Philippines. It is currently in the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs (7/19/01). |
| |
Discussion |
According to the sponsor, Senator Inouye, "the treatment of Filipino World War II veterans is bleak and shameful." As part of the agreement to transition the Philippines to independence (in 1946) from the United States following the Spanish-American War, the United States reserved the power to call on all military forces of the newly created Philippine Commonwealth. Under President Roosevelt, the Commonwealth Army of the Philippines was, in 1941, called into service for the United States. Many Filipinos who served were killed or wounded in combat. Those who survived were supposed to receive full veterans' benefits for their service with American armed forces. In 1946, Congress enacted the Rescission Act of 1946, which deemed that the service performed by these Filipino veterans would not be recognized as "active service" for the purpose of any U.S. law conferring "rights, privileges, or benefits." This included the denial of veterans' access to health care and pension benefits and limited their death compensation to half of their American counterparts.
In support of H.R. 491 Congressman Gilman (R-NY), sponsor, states, "over 100,000 Filipinos, of the Philippine Commonwealth Army fought alongside the allies to reclaim the Philippine Islands from Japan. Regrettably, in return, Congress enacted the Rescission Act of 1946. That measure limited veterans' eligibility for service-connected disabilities and death compensation and also denied the members of the Philippine Commonwealth Army the honor of being recognized as veterans of the United States Armed Forces."
"A second group, the Special Philippine Scouts called ``New Scouts'' who enlisted the United States armed forces after October 6, 1945, primarily to perform occupation duty in the Pacific, were similarly excluded from benefits."
Supervisor Jacobs Gibson referred these bills to the Legislative Committee for review and recommendation to the full Board. The Legislative Committee recommends support by the full Board. |
| |
Vision Alignment |
Support for H.R. 4904, S. 2630, H.R. 491 and S. 1042 helps the County realize the potential of our diverse population and ensure basic health and safety for all. It also supports Goals #1 and 5 to foster strong communities through diversity and to ensure access to health care and preventative care. |
| |
Fiscal Impact |
No fiscal impact to the County. |
| |
3. Statewide Propositions on the November 2002 Ballot |
There are seven measures on the Tuesday, November 5, 2002 General Election ballot: three of the ballot measures would authorize state general obligation bond financing for housing, water and school facilities. Currently, the State has about $28 billion of outstanding bond debt with an additional $11 billion of authorized bonds but not yet sold. According to the Legislative Analyst, the debt payments on the State's General Fund bond debt totaled about $2.9 billion in 2001-02, with debt service payments estimated to fall in 2002-03 and 2003-04 due to the temporary deferral of bond payments to help relieve the State' budget shortfall. Debt payments will increase to $3.6 billion in 2004-05 with a gradual decline in subsequent years.
If all $18.6 billion in bonds considered at the November ballot were approved and once sold, it would result in an increase in debt service to about $4.7 billion for 2007-08, declining in subsequent years. The state's debt ratio would increase from the current 4.3 percent to about 4.9 percent declining in subsequent years. Thus staying within the prudent 5 percent debt ratio observed by the State for more than three decades.
Many regard general obligation bonds as the most cost-effective method of taxpayer financing and the three bonds proposed come at a time when the cost of borrowing is at an all time low. Moreover, it is argued that the proposed infrastructure projects are necessary to support the growth in the state and would also serve as economic stimulus.
|
|
| |
Recommendation |
Adopt a resolution in support of Proposition 46 regarding the Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2002. |
| |
Background |
From the Secretary of State's website, "This act provides for the Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2002. For the purpose of providing shelters for battered women, clean and safe housing for low-income senior citizens, emergency shelters for homeless families with children, housing with social services for the homeless and mentally ill, repairs and accessibility improvements to apartments for families and handicapped citizens, homeownership assistance for military veterans, and security improvements and repairs to existing emergency shelters, shall the state create a housing trust fund by issuing bonds totaling two billion one hundred million dollars ($2,100,000,000), paid from existing state funds at an average annual cost of one hundred fifty seven million dollars ($157,000,000) per year over the 30-year life of the bonds, with the requirement that every city and county is eligible to receive funds as specified in the measure and with all expenditures subject to an independent audit?" |
| |
Discussion |
San Mateo County has one of the highest costs of living in California. The County and relevant nonprofit organizations will be eligible for the increased funding the Housing Bond will provide to existing programs including Multifamily Housing, Supportive Housing, Homebuyers Down payment Assistance and Farmworker Housing programs such as providing health services at farmworker housing.
New programs include the Local Housing Trust Funds and Preservation programs. While the San Mateo County Housing Endowment is still in its early stages of development, it may be eligible for $1-2 million from the competitive local housing trust funds program of the Housing Bond Act. The program has been allocated $25 million from the Multifamily Housing program portion of the Bond. The County or county nonprofit to preserve existing affordable housing agreements that are about to expire could utilize the Preservation funds. |
| |
Vision Alignment |
Support for Proposition 46 will help the County realize its commitment to offer a full range of housing choices and strive toward Goal #9 to ensure that housing exists for people of all income levels and for all generation of families. |
| |
Fiscal Impact |
Potentially millions of additional dollars to housing programs in San Mateo County. |
| |
|
| |
Recommendation |
Adopt a resolution in support of Proposition 47 regarding the Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2002. |
| |
Background |
From the Secretary of State's website: "This thirteen billion fifty million dollar ($13,050,000,000) bond issue will provide funding for necessary education facilities to relieve overcrowding and to repair older schools. Funds will be targeted to areas of the greatest need and must be spent according to strict accountability measures. Funds will also be used to upgrade and build new classrooms in the California Community Colleges, the California State University, and the University of California, to provide adequate higher education facilities to accommodate the growing student enrollment. These bonds may be used only for eligible projects. Fiscal Impact: State cost of about $26.2 billion over 30 years to pay off both the principal ($13.05 billion) and interest ($13.15 billion) costs on the bonds. Payments of about $873 million per year." |
| |
Discussion |
The County has, through the Visioning 2010 process, made a commitment to assist in providing equal access to educational opportunity. As part of that commitment, the Board recently held a public meeting to explore the linking, through training, of aid recipients to the employment needs of county businesses. During that meeting, the Board focused on potential connections between the county's community college system and larger employers in the county. |
| |
Vision Alignment |
Support for Proposition 47 will help the County realize its commitment to provide equal access to educational opportunities and to strive toward Goals #4 to work toward residents having many educational and training opportunities beyond high school. |
| |
Fiscal Impact |
No impact to County government expected. |
| |
|
| |
Recommendation |
NONE. Informational Only. |
| |
Background |
From the Secretary of State's website: "Amends Constitution to delete references to the municipal courts, which references are now obsolete due to the consolidation of superior and municipal trial courts into unified superior courts. Fiscal Impact: No additional cost to state or local government." |
| |
Fiscal Impact |
No impact to County government expected. |
| |
|
| |
Recommendation |
Adopt a resolution in support of Proposition 49 regarding the Before and After School Programs. |
| |
Background |
From the Secretary of State's website: "Increases state grant funds available for before/after school programs, providing tutoring, homework assistance, and educational enrichment. Requires that, beginning 2004-05, new grants will not be taken from education funds guaranteed by Proposition 98. Fiscal Impact: Additional annual state costs for before and after school programs of up to $455 million, beginning in 2004-05." |
| |
Discussion |
The County currently spends approximately $400,000 from County General Fund monies to support after-school programs. Should existing and new before and after school programs receive funding through Proposition 49, the current appropriation from the County General Fund could be reviewed and possibly freed for other purposes. |
| |
Vision Alignment |
Support for Proposition 49 will help the County realize its commitment to work with other community leaders across boundaries to preserve and enhance the county's quality of life and to strive toward Goals #23 to promote regional solutions in childcare and education. |
| |
Fiscal Impact |
While County government does not administer before or after school programs, the county as a whole has the potential to receive new funds. |
| |
e. Proposition 50 Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal and Beach Protection Act of 2002
|
| |
Recommendation |
Adopt a resolution in support of Proposition 50 regarding the Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal and Beach Protection Act of 2002. |
| |
Background |
From the Secretary of State's website: "Authorizes $3,440,000,000 general obligation bonds to fund a variety of specified water and wetlands projects. Fiscal Impact: State cost of up to $6.9 billion over 30 years to repay bonds. Reduction in local property tax revenues, up to roughly $10 million annually; partially offset by state funds. Unknown state and local operation and maintenance costs." |
| |
Discussion |
As the Legislative Analysts Office's analysis notes, over half of the bond funds would be directed at the CALFED Bay Delta Program ($825 million) and Coastal Protection Program ($950 million). Coastal Protection Program funds would benefit acquisition, protection and restoration of coastal watersheds and upland areas adjacent to coastal watersheds. With both San Francisco bay and coast, San Mateo County projects may likely be eligible for many of the programs to be funded by this proposed bond. Of the $950 million, $20 million is directed toward the San Francisco Bay Conservancy Program.
Additionally, as you know Assembly Bill 1823 (Papan), Assembly Bill 2058 (Papan) and Senate Bill 1870 (Speier) were recently enacted by the Legislature to among other things, ensure Bay Area Water Users can access state funds for water projects. That legislation also calls for the creation a new "Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency" for water distribution and conservation. The Board may wish to consider working with the member agencies to develop and promote a list of local projects that would be eligible for Proposition 50 funds should it be enacted at the November ballot. |
| |
Vision Alignment |
Support for Proposition 50 supports commitment #14 important natural resources are preserved and enhanced through environmental stewardship; and #22 County and local governments effectively communicate, collaborate and develop strategic approaches to issues affecting the entire County. |
| |
Fiscal Impact |
Due to the competitive nature of many of the funded programs, staff cannot predict the County's fund potential of the bond. |
| |
|
| |
Recommendation |
Adopt a resolution in opposition to Proposition 51 regarding transportation and the creation of the "Traffic Congestion Relief and Safe School Bus Trust Fund." |
| |
Background |
From the Secretary of State's website: "Redistributes portion of existing state motor vehicle sales/lease revenues from General Fund to Trust Fund for transportation, environmental, and highway and school bus safety programs. Fiscal Impact: Redirects specified General Fund |
| |
revenues to transportation-related purposes, totaling about $420 million in 2002-03, $910 million in 2003-04, and increasing amounts annually thereafter, depending on increases in motor vehicle sales and leasing." |
| |
Discussion |
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) staff report on Proposition 51 asserts that the proposition does not provide the flexibility and local/regional control to program transportation funding based on local needs. Proposition 51 fixes the percentage allocation of funding for various categories without regard for local determination of differing needs. The proposition also allocates priority funding to projects not currently found in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
The San Mateo City/County Association of Governments (CCAG) has taken an oppose position of Proposition 51. |
| |
Vision Alignment |
Passage of Proposition 51 would be contrary to the County's commitment to responsive, effective and collaborative government and contrary to Goal #22 to collaborate and develop strategic approaches to issues affecting the entire County. |
| |
Fiscal Impact |
While passage of Proposition 51 would not have a direct impact on the County's fund obligations, it could have the potential to reduce state general fund revenues generated from state motor vehicle sales tax revenues. State general fund revenues that have been used to fund a variety of county programs could be diverted to the purposes of Proposition 51 if it passes. |
| |
|
| |
Recommendation |
NONE. Informational Only. |
| |
Background |
From the Secretary of State's website: "Allows legally eligible persons to register to vote on election day. Increases criminal penalties for voter and voter registration fraud. Criminalizes conspiracy to commit voter fraud. Fiscal Impact: Annual state costs of about $6 million to fund counties for election day voter registration activities. No anticipated net county costs. Minor state administrative costs and unknown, but probably minor, state costs to enforce new election fraud offense." |
| |
Fiscal Impact |
According to the Legislative Analysts Office, "The measure annually appropriates $6 million (adjusted for cost-of-living increases) from the state's General Fund for the county costs of election day voter registration activities. As a result, no net costs to counties are anticipated." |