COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

County Manager's Office

DATE:

February 5, 2004

BOARD MEETING DATE:

February 24, 2004

TO:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

FROM:

John Maltbie, County Manager

SUBJECT:

County Manager's Report #3

1.

Resolution in support of Senate Bill 131 (Sher), Possession Penalty for Marijuana

Recommendation

Adopt a resolution in support of Senate Bill 131 (Sher), Possession Penalty for Marijuana.

Background

Current law provides that marijuana possession of 28.5 grams or less of marijuana is a misdemeanor, but punishable only by a fine of $100 or less. Those convicted three or more times for this same offense within the previous two years are eligible for drug diversion.

This bill would make marijuana possession of 28.5 grams or less an infraction (with the existing $100 maximum fine) for the first offense. For a second offense or subsequent offense, a defendant can be charged with either an infraction or misdemeanor. For a third or subsequent offense within two years of a prior conviction, a defendant is charged with a misdemeanor and the case can be subject to a deferred entry of judgment or diversion drug treatment statutes.

Judge Quentin Kopp is in support of SB 131.

Discussion

While current law provides a misdemeanor for possession of 28.5 grams or less of marijuana, the maximum penalty is a $100 fine without the possibility of time in jail. According to the author, the low maximum (of a $100 fine with no jail time) is consistent with an infraction rather than a misdemeanor.

Despite the fact that this misdemeanor has "infraction-like" penalties, a defendant is afforded a trial by a judge or jury and potentially appointed counsel. According to the author, "there exists no disincentive for the accused to drain the resources of the state and the courts with a lengthy trial," since the maximum penalty is a $100 fine. Such trials can take two to three days. In contrast, an infraction would, according to Penal Code Section 19.6, not entitle a defendant to a trial by jury or appointed counsel paid at public expense unless he or she is held in custody.

While the California Narcotics Officer's Association (CNOA) argues that this bill would allow defendants to evade Proposition 36 treatment, the Assembly Committee on Public Safety notes in its analysis that courts may grant to a person convicted of an infraction probation that can include voluntary participation in Proposition 36 diversion programs. In fact, Proposition 36 does not require defendants to participate in drug treatment. Rather, Proposition 36 provides defendants the option to receive treatment rather than the traditional sentence. The Committee analysis notes, "As a practical matter, it is unlikely that a defendant in a marijuana possession case will choose to participate in a drug treatment program instead of paying the $100 fine, particularly since the court can require the defendant to contribute to the costs of the treatment program," which presumably would be greater than $100.

District Attorney Jim Fox supports the reclassification of Section 11357(b) offenses as infractions. The Legislative Committee has reviewed SB 131 and recommends a support position.

Vision Alignment

Support of SB 131 (Sher) would help the County provide responsive, effective and collaborative government and work toward Goal #20-to ensure that government decisions are based on careful consideration of future impact, rather than temporary relief or immediate gain.

Fiscal Impact

Should the legislation pass, unknown, but likely court and attorney-costs savings.

2.

Resolution in support of Assembly Bill 1195 (Cohn), Midpeninsula Regional Open-Space District Annexation Project-eminent domain

Recommendation

Adopt a resolution in support of Assembly Bill 1195 (Cohn), Midpeninsula Regional Open-Space District Annexation Project-eminent domain.

Background

AB 1195 would prohibit the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) from using eminent domain to acquire real property or interest in real property in the San Mateo County Coastal Annexation Area, which is composed of nearly 140,000 acres on the southern and mid San Mateo County coast.

Discussion

MROSD has worked for some time to annex the southern and mid-coast of San Mateo County. Among the more contentious issues, MROSD's power of eminent domain has caused concern among some local residents and property owners. While the MROSD board of directors adopted an ordinance prohibiting the use of eminent domain the annexation area, eminent domain opponents note that the board could reverse its own decision in future years.

In a compromise, the San Mateo County Farm Bureau and MROSD have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding that in part confirm their agreement to jointly support legislation (AB 1195) that permanently removes MROSD's power to eminent domain in the annexation area.

The Legislative Committee reviewed AB 1195 and recommends the full Board's support. The bill was heard by the Senate Local Government Committee on February 18 and passed 6:0. The bill will likely move to the Senate Floor for a vote or pass from the Senate on the consent calendar. The Assembly Local Government Committee will also review the bill. MROSD is already working with the Governor's office with the hopes that this bill will be signed into law (taking effect immediately as an urgency bill) before the San Mateo County LAFCo completes its hearing process. While there may be some individual opposition to annexation generally, there is no known organized opposition to AB 1195.

Vision Alignment

Support of AB 1195 (Cohn) would help the County preserve and provide people access to our natural environment and work toward Goals #13-to protect the quality of the natural environment by fixing the boundary between open space and development.

Fiscal Impact

No impact.

3.

Resolution in support of Proposition 57, Economic Recovery Bond Act

Recommendation

Adopt a resolution in support of Proposition 57, Economic Recovery Bond Act.

Background

If approved by voters, Proposition 57 would authorize the state to issue a one-time bond of up to $15 billion to finance the state's accumulated budget deficit as of June 30, 2004. This bond would be used in place of the $10.7 billion bond proposed for the current year. Proposition 57 was placed on the ballot by the Legislature through ABx5 9 (Oropeza) and will appear on the March 2, 2004 (Presidential primary) ballot.

Discussion

According to the Legislative Analyst's Office, California has experienced General Fund shortfalls since Fiscal Year 2001-02, during the economic downturn. In addition to various reductions in program expenditures, some increases in revenues and other measures, the Legislature authorized a $10.7 billion in deficit-financing bond for the current (2003-04) year. It was to be repaid through a multi-step transfer of funds popularly named the Triple Flip and would include a half-cent diversion of local government sales tax, a diversion of property tax (normally dedicated to schools) to local governments to offset the lost sales tax, and an increase state General Fund payments to schools to offset the lost property tax to schools. Authorized through ABx1 7, the $10.7 billion bond and the Triple Flip did not appear before voters for approval and were challenged in court by a California nonprofit. A decision as to the constitutionality of the $107 billion bond will not be decided before the March 2 election.

As a result of the lawsuit, the current Administration proposed Propositions 57 and 58. The bond authorized by this measure would be used in place of the $10.7 billion deficit-financing bond authorized last year by the Legislature. The repayment of the Proposition 57 bond would be through a similar Triple Flip mechanism. Rather than using a half-cent diversion of local government sales tax, the Proposition 58 mechanism would use only a one-quarter cent diversion. Authorization of the bond is subject to the passage of Proposition 58, the California Balanced Budget Act.

Proponents argue that the $15 billion bond will keep the state from running out of money and prevent devastating budget cuts. In contrast, opponents argue that Proposition 57 will allow additional spending and avoid needed budget cuts.

On January 13, the Legislative Committee reviewed Proposition 57 with the other ballot measures on the March 2, 2004 ballot. While the Committee did not act on Proposition 57, the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) took a position in support of Propositions 57. Supervisor Gordon, in a memo to the Board, detailed CSAC's actions.

Vision Alignment

Support of Proposition 57 would help the County provide responsive, effective and collaborative government and work toward Goals #22-to collaborate and develop strategic approaches to issues affecting the entire County.

Fiscal Impact

According to the LAO, the proposed bond would result in near-term budgetary savings compared to the bond authorized in current law (about half the annual cost of the $10.7 billion in bonds proposed for the current year), but added annual costs over the longer term. The increased long-term costs come from the increased amount of the proposed bond ($15 billion versus $10.7 billion) and the repayment duration (between 9 to 14 years versus 5 years).

4.

The revised County Manager's Report regarding the Preliminary Analysis of the Governor's Proposed 2004-2005 Budget

Recommendation

Accept the revised County Manager's Report regarding the Preliminary Analysis of the Governor's Proposed 2004-2005 Budget.

Background

The initial Preliminary Analysis of the Governor's Proposed 2004-2005 Budget was presented to the Board on January 13, 2004. The revised analysis is attached.

Vision Alignment

Consideration of the Governor's proposed 2004-05 Budget aligns with the County's commitment to responsive, effective and collaborative government and impact Goal # 3, 5, 8, 16, 17, 9, 20 and 22.

Fiscal Impact

No fiscal impact.