|
|
|
|
|
|
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
Inter-Departmental Correspondence
|
County Manager’s Office
|
|
|
DATE:
|
April 19, 2005
|
BOARD MEETING DATE:
|
April 26, 2005
|
SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:
|
None
|
VOTE REQUIRED:
|
Majority
|
|
|
TO:
|
Honorable Board of Supervisors
|
FROM:
|
John Maltbie, County Manager
|
SUBJECT:
|
County Manager’s Report #6
|
|
|
A.
|
Resolution to amend the 2005-2006 Legislative Session Program to include a legislative proposal creating legislative authority for a 1/8th cent sales tax dedicated to parks and recreation activities and programs in San Mateo County
|
|
|
RECOMMENDATION:
|
Adopt a resolution to amend the 2005-2006 Legislative Session Program to include a legislative proposal creating legislative authority for a 1/8th cent sales tax dedicated to parks and recreation activities and programs in San Mateo County.
|
|
|
VISION ALIGNMENT:
|
Commitment: Preserve and provide people access to our natural environment
|
Goal(s): Goal 15—Residents have nearby access to green space, such as parks and recreational opportunities.
|
|
|
BACKGROUND:
|
Since approximately 2003, a group of park and recreation advocates (now called Parks for the Future) has advocated the development of a dedicated revenue source for parks and recreation departments/programs throughout San Mateo County. Lead by Supervisor Jerry Hill, then-Supervisor Mike Nevin and recently Supervisor Adrienne Tissier, Parks for the Future (PFF) has included representatives from County Parks, various cities, nonprofits and interested individuals.
|
|
|
In January 2004, the Legislative Committee recommended (January 13, 2004) and the Board of Supervisors approved (January 27, 2004) a legislative proposal regarding the creation of a countywide special park district. If passed, SB 1885 (Sher) would have established enabling legislation for the creation of a countywide parks and recreation special district in San Mateo County. Efforts to advance SB 1885 were dropped after the legislative policy committee to which it was assigned required inclusion of some governance structure—an issue the Parks for the Future had not yet settled. However, the effort has moved forward.
|
|
|
DISCUSSION:
|
PFF has continued to meet to determine the viability of various options for securing dedicated revenues for parks and recreation programs. While funding allocations among the various park programs throughout the County has not been determined, PFF has reached consensus and concluded that a 1/8th cent sales tax would both meet some of the needs of parks and recreation programs while having the possibility of being approved by voters. A poll conducted by the San Mateo County Parks and Recreation Foundation found likely support for a 1/8th cent sales tax. The development of a sales tax approach with a clear (but to be determined) allocation formula would avoid the need for a complex governing body charged with deciding levels of funding for each jurisdiction.
|
|
|
While counties have existing authority to levy sale taxes (up to 2%) that authority is limited to increments no smaller then 1/4th of a cent. Smaller increments require special legislation.
|
|
|
FISCAL IMPACT:
|
Existing staff resources would be used to develop the legislative proposal. The cost of placing the measure before voters has not been determined. However, public funds cannot be used to advocate for passage of this measure. It would be the responsibility of measure supporters to develop a campaign to advocate for the measure’s passage. A 1/8th cent sales tax would generate between $13-16 million per year, allocation for which has yet to be determined.
|
|
|
|
|
B.
|
Resolution in support of Senate Bill 116 (Dutton) regarding child abandonment of newborns
|
|
|
RECOMMENDATION:
|
Adopt a resolution in support of Senate Bill 116 (Dutton) regarding child abandonment of newborns.
|
|
|
VISION ALIGNMENT:
|
Commitment: Ensure basic health and safety for all.
|
Goal(s): Goal 6—Children grow up healthy in safe and supportive homes and neighborhoods.
|
|
|
BACKGROUND:
|
SB 116 would delete the January 1, 2006 sunset of current law that provides a process through which a parent of a baby 72 hours or younger can safely surrender the baby at county-designated sites.
|
|
|
|
|
Abandonment of a child younger than 14 years of age is a crime in California. However, SB 1368 (Brulte, 2000) provides for the surrender of a newborn (72 hours of age or younger) by a parent or other responsible person. Intended to prevent the unsafe abandonment of newborns, the bill also established a process of designating safe surrender sites where surrendered newborns can receive appropriate care.
|
|
|
Since this law was enacted over 60 babies have been safely surrendered in California. Several other states have enacted similar legislation.
|
|
|
DISCUSSION:
|
Since SB 1368 was enacted, over 70 newborn babies have been surrendered safely and, according to the author, 111 children one year old or younger were found abandoned in California. San Mateo County has had no known instances of an abandoned newborn.
|
|
|
Hospitals in San Mateo County, including San Mateo Medical Center, are currently designated as safe surrender sites. Some counties in California have designated local fire stations as safe surrender sites. Staff from Health Services and Human Services has worked with the local fire service agencies to develop uniform procedures for accepting surrendered infants.
|
|
|
On March 1, 2005, the Board of Supervisors approved the expanded the available safe surrender sites in San Mateo County to include nearly all fire stations in the County.
|
|
|
By eliminating the January 1, 2006 sunset on the safely surrendered baby process, SB 116 will allow San Mateo County’s program and other programs statewide to maintain this option for parents who might otherwise unsafely abandon their newborns.
|
|
|
FISCAL IMPACT:
|
No fiscal impact.
|
|
|
|
|
C.
|
Resolution in Support of AJR 14 (Yee) SEACOR and Oppose Provisions of the Federal Energy Bill
|
|
|
RECOMMENDATION:
|
Adopt a resolution in support Assembly Joint Resolution 14 (Yee) State Enhanced Authority for Coastal and Offshore Resources (SEACOR) and Oppose Provisions of the Federal Energy Bill
|
|
|
VISION ALIGNMENT:
|
Commitment: Preserve and provide people access to our natural environment.
|
Goal(s): Important natural resources are preserved and enhanced through environmental stewardship.
|
|
|
|
|
BACKGROUND:
|
In 1981, Congress enacted the first moratorium on offshore leases for central California with annual extensions. In 1991, President Bush singed a 10-year presidential ban that was extended by Clinton. In December three members of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Committee requested an inventory of offshore reserves, a move many believe is a precursor to proposing offshore production. And the House Resources Committee is touting a proposal to put revenues in to debt-ridden state coffers and affordable energy into homes and business across the nation. Their plan called State Enhanced Authority for Coastal and Offshore Resources (SEACOR) would end the federal ban on offshore drilling for oil and natural gas, while allowing coastal states to decide whether they want energy development off their shores.
|
|
|
Already there is currently more than 325,000 miles of oil and gas pipelines in the United States that are located near the coast or waterways that flow to the ocean, yet there are few regulations to monitor the aging pipelines. There are no requirements to replace the pipelines, many of which are over 50 years old and deteriorating. Increasingly there are reports of leaks causing environmental damage and safety issues.
|
|
|
Additionally, recent votes in the U.S. Senate may result in opening the largest coastal region in the nation – the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil drilling. This has prompted the nation’s 1,000 leading scientists to write a published letter calling on the Administration to protect ANWR.
|
|
|
California has long protected the coastline supporting the creation of four sanctuaries: the Monterey Bay Sanctuary, the Gulf of the Farallones national Marine Sanctuary, the Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary and the Channel Island National Marine Sanctuary to provide additional protections.
|
|
|
The moratoriums have been in place not just to protect balanced ecosystems and habitats, but also recognition of the significant economic importance of the coastal regions. California’s spectacular 1,100-mile coastline is vital to the $50 billion tourism and commercial fishing industries.
|
|
|
Along with proposed offshore oil drilling, the 1,200-page federal energy bill currently pending before Congress includes some additional troubling provisions:
|
•
|
It would give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) sole authority to site and license Liquefied Natural Gasoline import terminals, silencing both state and local governments in siting issues with 40 new sites being proposed;
|
•
|
The measure retains the methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) liability protection that would protect MTBE producers from lawsuits, putting the responsibility for cleanup on the jurisdiction in which the pollution is found;
|
•
|
Creates “refinery revitalization zones” to be located in places with an unemployment rate that is 10 percent higher than the national average;
|
•
|
Contains $8 billion in incentives over the next 10 years, but the incentives are primarily for oil and natural gasoline productions, coal and nuclear power.
|
|
|
The energy bill does include a 15 percent credit for residential solar hot water and photovoltaic; credits for fuel cells through 2007; amortizes geological and geophysical expenditures; provides credits for advanced, lean-burn motor vehicle technology; and a 20 percent credits for energy efficiency improvements to existing homes. The package includes the extension of daylight savings time so that it begins a month earlier and ends a month later, which would cut oil consumption by as much as 10,000 barrels a day.
|
|
|
DISCUSSION:
|
The United States and the State of California both lack comprehensive energy policies that reduce reliance on fossil fuels and energy consumptions, better protect consumers and are developed with citizen scrutiny. The lack of a national energy policy, plan and comprehensive program, coupled with skyrocketing gas prices has renewed the push for offshore oil drilling. This policy void has enabled oil and gas producers to manipulate the energy market. No place is this more evident that California which fell prey to industry-basked deregulation legislation that allowed Enron and other producers to manipulate the market at the expense of California consumers.
|
|
|
The nation requires a comprehensive energy policy that promotes sustainability, which reduces reliance on fossil fuels, promotes renewables with meaningful incentives to develop alternative sources. Such a policy will generate more and permanent jobs and protect natural resources that directly benefit the economy.
|
|
|
The attached resolution would express your support for Assembly Joint Resolution 14 (Yee) to oppose SEACOR including those provisions in the federal energy package that would promote offshore oil and natural gas exploration; and a letter to the County’s federal delegation expressing opposition to several of the most onerous provisions being considered as part of the energy package, including its failure to include a meaningful policy to promote sustainability and reduce reliance on fossil fuels.
|
|
|
FISCAL IMPACT:
|
Undetermined at this time.
|
|
|
|
|
D.
|
Resolution in support of Assembly Bill 772 (Chan) and Senate Bill 437 (Escutia), California Health Kids Insurance Program
|
|
|
RECOMMENDATION:
|
Adopt a resolution in support of Assembly Bill 772 (Chan) and Senate Bill 437 (Escutia), California Health Kids Insurance Program.
|
|
|
VISION ALIGNMENT:
|
Commitment: Ensure basic health and safety for all
|
Goal(s): Goal 5—Residents have access to healthcare and preventative care.
|
|
|
BACKGROUND:
|
Identical, AB 772 (Chan) and SB 437 (Escutia) would create a statewide California Healthy Kids (CHK) program to provide insurance for all uninsured children, regardless of immigration status. Under California Healthy Kids, all children will be able to qualify for either Medi-Cal or Healthy Families, depending on their income and these programs will operate in a coordinated and seamless way for children. These bills would also expand the eligibility of the Healthy Families portion of the program to allow children with family incomes up to 300% of the federal poverty level. It would allow counties, such as San Mateo, the option to buy or partially subsidize Healthy Families coverage to children with family incomes above 300% of FPL and to seek federal financial participation, to the extent available. AB 772 and SB 437 would also streamline eligibility and reenrollment processes.
|
|
|
The Program would rely and build on existing Health Kids (Children’s Health Initiatives) programs by providing local enrollment investment grants (when funds are available), flexibility for demonstration projects and local options to fund hardship programs.
|
|
|
DISCUSSION:
|
San Mateo County has been successfully operating its Health Kids (Children’s Health Initiative) program for children with incomes up to 400% of the federal poverty level (FPL) and who are otherwise ineligible for Medi-Cal or Health Families program services. It has funded this program with county resources and private foundation grants, many of which will expire in 2008.
|
|
|
As approved by the Board through the 2005-06 Legislative Session Program, County staff has been advancing state legislation (AB 1085 (Ruskin)) to expand federal SCHIP funding eligibility for Health Kids participants with family incomes up to 400% of the federal poverty level. This would provide San Mateo County partial relief from funding the full cost of insurance coverage to children with family incomes between 300-400% FPL.
|
|
|
AB 772 (Chan) and SB 437 (Escutia) offer a long-term, sustainable solution for funding coverage for all uninsured San Mateo County children, regardless of income and documentation. It will provide the County with relief of the cost of its Healthy Kids members under 300% of the FPL. In addition, it includes the provisions of AB 1085 to allow counties, such as San Mateo, to be reimbursed for a portion of the cost of coverage for Healthy Kids members with family incomes between 300-400%.
|
|
|
FISCAL IMPACT:
|
Should AB 772 and/or SB 437 become law, possible net county cost savings.
|
|
|
|
|