COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

County Manager’s Office

DATE:

March 21, 2006

BOARD MEETING DATE:

March 28, 2006

SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:

None

VOTE REQUIRED:

Majority

TO:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

FROM:

John Maltbie, County Manager

SUBJECT:

County Manager’s Report #5

A.

Resolution in support of H.R. 4794 (McDermott), Child Support Protection Act of 2006

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a resolution in support of H.R. 4794 (McDermott), Child Support Protection Act of 2006.

VISION ALIGNMENT:

Commitment: Responsive, effective and collaborative government

Goal(s): Goal 20—Government decisions are based on careful consideration of future impact, rather than temporary relief or immediate gain.

BACKGROUND:

H.R. 4794 would simply repeal the Deficit Reduction Act (S. 1932) provision Section 7309, which ends federal matching of states’ spending of federal incentive payments. As related to child support, the Deficit Reduction Act will prevent the use of federal incentive dollars as local match funds for federal child support funds.

Under current law, child support programs can apply federal “performance incentive dollars” toward the local share of cost for child support services. The Deficit Reduction Act will, among other things, prevent the use of federal incentive dollars as match. With this change, bCalifornia is estimated to lose $90 million starting in FY 2008. In doing so, this will significantly reduce the state’s ability to collect child support. The Child Support Directors Association of California estimates the loss in child support collections could be over $200 million annually in California.

DISCUSSION:

On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, then-President Gordon issued a December 8, 2005 letter expressing concern about the proposal, at that time, to reduce the current 66 percent federal financial participation rate (FFP) to 50 percent over four years and to alter requirements of incentive funds related to child support enforcement. While child support advocates were able to defeat the Administrations proposal to reduce FFP, it was not able to prevent the restrictions on performance incentive dollars.

These proposed reductions are particularly ill advised considering data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that demonstrate each $1 spent on child support enforcement generates approximately $4.38 in child support. These child support payments support families that might otherwise rely on, turn to or return to TANF, Food Stamps, Section 8 and the Healthy Families programs for assistance.

San Mateo County’s Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) is considered one of the best performing in the state. Last year, DCSS collected nearly $30 million in child support and ranked among the top performing counties in the collection of current support and the percent of cases with payment on arrears. Of that $30 million, $7 million of that was returned to federal, state and local governments as recovery for various welfare program costs.

The impact on San Mateo County is unknown due to a number of factors including the hopeful elimination of the federal automation penalties. However, following past cuts and ongoing flat funding, any future funding cut will likely impact the County’s ability to collect child support. This is particularly troubling in light of the fact that collecting child support reduces dependence on other social services like TANF.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Unknown. Potentially positive.

B.

Resolution in support of AB 2297 (Ruskin), Pests

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a resolution in support of AB 2297 (Ruskin), Pests.

VISION ALIGNMENT:

Commitment: Preserve and provide people access to our natural environment

Goal(s): Goal 14—Important natural resources are preserved and enhanced through environmental stewardship.

BACKGROUND:

AB 2297 would authorize an undetermined amount of increased funding for county High-Risk Pest Exclusion Programs. The statewide High-Risk Pest Exclusion Program (HRPE) was established in January 1999 with the amendment of Section 2282.5 of the State Food and Agricultural Code, which authorized the appropriation of $5.5 million dollars for county inspection activities to prevent the introduction of harmful exotic plant pests and diseases into California’s agricultural crops and environment.

Since 1999, county agricultural commissioners have contracted with the California Department of Food and Agriculture to perform inspection activities. Annual contract work plans identify high-risk pest pathways and entry points in each county, and outline inspection activities for shipments of plants and produce arriving in California through these entry points. The program has been extremely successful. In the first year of implementation, statewide interceptions of significant pests increased 300% and shipments rejected for violations of plant quarantine laws increased 175%.

Due to reductions in the State General Fund in 2004, the Secretary of Food and Agriculture redirected 80% of the local assistance funding to State border inspections and currently only $977,000 in funding remains available for the county HRPE programs. The intent of AB 2297 is to not only restore the original $5.5 million local assistance appropriation, but to provide an adequate funding level for an optimal HRPE inspection program statewide. The specific program funding appropriation will be added to the bill at a later date.

In San Man Mateo County, HRPE contractual funding has supported the inspection of over 29,000 incoming shipments annually, including plants and produce at SFO and truck nursery stock shipments at wholesale and retail nurseries. Additionally, funding provides staff resources for parcel inspections at Federal Express, the U. S. Postal Service airmail facility, UPS and specialty markets.

AB 2297 was introduced on February 22 and cannot be acted upon until March 25.

DISCUSSION:

Current year contractual funding for the San Mateo County Agricultural Commissioner’s High Risk Pest Exclusion Program totals $281,323. This is 45 percent less than the $625,000 San Mateo County received in State program funding during FY 2003-04. Under the current HRPE contract, inspection activities are limited to incoming air freight at San Francisco International Airport (SFO) and truck shipments of nursery stock at coastside nurseries. Inspection hours are still greatly reduced at SFO and other exclusion activities such as parcel carrier and specialty market inspections remain unfunded. Following the funding reduction, the number of interceptions of significant pests (such as red imported fire ant, giant African snail and Oriental fruit fly) dropped from an annual high of 2,123 to only 275 interceptions in FY 2004-05.

Depending on the specific appropriation included in the final legislation, AB 2297 could provide the County with sufficient program funding to meet or exceed the level of inspections for high-risk pest pathways in place in previous years. Any increase in inspection personnel hours will result in additional pest interceptions and greater protection for the County’s agricultural and export industries, urban landscapes, parks and natural habitats.

While amount of funding included in AB 2297 is expected to increase from the current law amount of $5.5 million, actual funding of the project would remain subject to an annual appropriation from the state budget.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Unknown. Likely positive.

C.

Resolution in support of AB 2479 (Villines), Noxious and invasive weeds

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a resolution in support of AB 2479 (Villines), Noxious and invasive weeds.

VISION ALIGNMENT:

Commitment: Preserve and provide people access to our natural environment

Goal(s): Goal 14—Important natural resources are preserved and enhanced through environmental stewardship.

BACKGROUND:

AB 2479 would appropriate $2,500,000 annually from the General Fund to be deposited into the Noxious Weed Management Account. Ten percent of the funds in the Account would be made available to California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) to develop noxious weed control strategies, seek new, effective biological control agents, and conduct workshops to discuss and plan weed management strategies. Ten percent of the fund would continue to go toward research on the biology, ecology or management of noxious and invasive weeds. Eighty percent of the funds in the account are to be used at the local level by Weed Management Areas or the Agricultural Commissioner for the control and abatement of noxious weeds.

The California Food and Agricultural Code defines a ‘noxious weed’ as any species of plant that is, or is liable to be, troublesome, aggressive, intrusive, detrimental, or destructive to agriculture, silviculture, or important native species and is difficult to control, or eradicate. Noxious weeds crowd out native plants, harm animal habitats, create a fire danger and are a costly problem for farmers, ranchers, and landowners.

Noxious and invasive weeds present a serious threat to California’s natural resources. To address the impacts from these destructive plant species AB 1168 was enacted in January 1999 establishing the Noxious Weed Management Account. This bill authorized the expenditure of $600,000 for local weed control/eradication projects, provided for the establishment of local Weed Management Areas, and designated the dissemination of these funds to local organizations by the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). In September 2000, AB 1740 appropriated $5,000,000 to the Noxious Weed Management Account for expenditures without regard to fiscal year. There have been no additional funds appropriated to the Noxious Weed Management Account since September 2000, and all monies in the account have been expended.

AB 2479 was introduced February 23 and cannot be acted upon March 26.

DISCUSSION:

On December 18, 2001, the Board adopted Resolution 64965 approving the Memorandum of Understanding for County participation in the San Mateo County Weed Management Area (WMA). The WMA promotes and coordinates efforts to prevent the introduction, establishment and spread of noxious weeds in San Mateo County. Participants in the WMA meet bi-monthly and include the following organizations/agencies:

• San Mateo County Agricultural Commissioner

• San Mateo County Department of Parks and Recreation

• San Mateo County Department of Public Works

• Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District

• San Mateo County Farm Bureau

• Friends of Edgewood Natural Preserve

• Peninsula Open Space Trust

• San Francisquito Creek Watershed Council

• University of California Cooperative Extension

• California Department of Food and Agriculture

• California Department of Transportation

• California Native Plant Society

• San Francisco PUC –Water Department

• California Department of Parks and Recreation

• San Mateo County Resource Conservation District

• Pescadero Conservation Alliance

Over the last five years, the WMA has actively worked toward controlling/eradicating invasive and noxious weeds in San Mateo County. Since 2001, the Agricultural Commissioner has administered over $100,000 in grants from the Noxious Weed Management Account to complete a variety of weed projects in the County. Projects included the control of yellow starthistle and removal of Eucalyptus trees impacting endangered species habitat at Edgewood Park and Natural Preserve, removal of pampas grass from the south coast, a cost-share program for property owners to control yellow starthistle and wooly distaff thistle, and production of a San Mateo County invasive weed brochure and field guide. Two workshops, a yellow starthistle workshop and a weed-mapping seminar, were held to educate the public on weed identification and effective weed control strategies.

Currently there is no State funding available for local WMA assistance. AB 2479 would provide grant funding for continuing collaborative efforts to ensure that the threat posed by noxious and invasive weeds to the County’s agricultural lands and natural resources is addressed in a systematic manner.

It is unclear how AB 2479 funds would be allocated among the local weed management areas and agricultural commissioners. In the past, funding has been allocated on a bifurcated competitive/noncompetitive basis with each local agency receiving a fixed amount of funding based on their respective weed management plan and the remainder of funds allocated project-by-project through a competitive process. San Mateo County received approximately $100,000 (or 2 percent) of the $5 million in funds allocated in 2000—$50,000 through the non-competitive allocation formula and $50,000 for a competitive grant.

San Mateo County’s WMA is currently updating the County’s weed management plan, which prioritizes identified projects and newly discovered infestations. This prioritization process considers the species of weed/invasive and other criteria.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Unknown. Likely positive.

D.

Resolution in support of San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority federal appropriations request for the Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration Project

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a resolution in support of San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority federal appropriations request for the Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration Project.

VISION ALIGNMENT:

Commitment: Ensure the basic health and safety for all

Goal(s): Goal 7—Maintain and enhance the public safety for all residents and visitors.

BACKGROUND:

Each year, Congresswoman Eshoo invites local governments and community organizations from her district to submit federal funding requests for projects with clear federal interest. As part of that process, requesting groups often seek support from other community partners and related interest groups. Like other local entities, San Mateo County has sought the assistance of Congresswoman Eshoo in securing federal funds for local projects.

The San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority has asked Congresswoman Eshoo for assistance in addressing both creek and tidal flooding that can impact up to 5,000 homes in three cities from San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties.

DISCUSSION:

The San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (JPA) is an agency empowered to protect and maintain the 14-mile San Francisquito Creek and its 45 square-mile watershed. Members include, in part, the San Mateo County Flood Control District and the cities of East Palo Alto and Menlo Park. According to the JPA, the creek has flooded eleven times since 1955. The most recent flood occurred in 1998 causing over $30 million in damages.

As noted above, each year San Mateo County works with its Congressional delegation to secure federal appropriations requests for specific projects. This year, the Board approved five federal appropriations requests—San Mateo County Preschool for All Funding; San Mateo Medical Center Emergency Department Workflow Redesign; Fitzgerald Marine Reserve Interpretive Center; Belmont Library and Emancipated Foster Youth Housing.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Unknown. Likely none.

E.

Resolution to amend the 2005-2006 Legislative Session Program to include a legislative proposal for SB 1483 (Alquist), Child support

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a resolution to amend the 2005-2006 Legislative Session Program to include a legislative proposal for SB 1483 (Alquist), Child support.

VISION ALIGNMENT:

Commitment: Responsive, effective and collaborative government

Goal(s): Goal 22—County and local governments effectively communicate, collaborate and develop strategic approaches to issues affecting the entire County.

BACKGROUND:

SB 1483 would establish for the counties of Alameda, Fresno, Orange, San Mateo, and Santa Clara a child support pilot project that would authorize the use of expedited modification orders for courts when a local child support agency submits an application for modification of support that complies with specified provisions.

Current law requires time-consuming court procedures to adjust child support orders. A court based modification procedure is currently the only option available to adjust child support court orders. This procedure requires that a motion be prepared, calendared and filed with the court. After filing, both the non-custodial parent (NCP) and the custodial parent (CP) are served with the moving papers and advised of the date set for hearing. Due to limited number of calendar openings, it can take up to 120 days or more to hear a motion to modify.

In addition to the time it takes an attorney to review and prepare for a hearing, hours of paralegal, attorney clerk, and child support officer time are necessary to prepare the necessary court documents. Although the exact percentage varies from county to county, estimates range from 20% to 40% of the adjustment motions that are not contested by either the NCP or the CP, but must proceed through the noticed motion procedure nonetheless.

SB 1483 has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, but cannot be acted upon until March 26.

DISCUSSION:

The basic concept of SB 1483 is to provide for an expedited out-of-court procedure to modify child support orders when neither the Non Custodial Parent (NCP) nor Custodial Parent (CP) objects to the adjustment. This procedure would increase the percentage of current support collected, reduce the accrual of arrears, and increase the cost-effectiveness of the Local Child Support Agency (LCSA). Federal law requires the state to have an expedited process for adjustment of child support orders.

In addition, SB 1483 would ensure that both the CP and NCP receive better customer service. Child Support court orders would be adjusted in a timelier manner with greater convenience. In factually uncontested cases, both parties would receive the benefit of the adjusted court order within a short period of time. In uncontested cases, neither party would be required to come to court. Due process of law and judicial determination would be guaranteed to either the NCP or CP who disagreed with the proposed adjusted order.

By ensuring that court orders accurately reflect the ability of the NCP to pay, the percentage of current support collected would be positively impacted. The proposed change would also prevent the accrual of uncollectible arrears and reduce the amount of arrears owed. The process is also cost effective and would increase the cost efficiency of the local child support agencies as well as the State.

Discussions are ongoing with the Administrative Office of the Courts about additional language that would refine the types of cases that are eligible for the expedited process. The basic concept will not change. The concern is about limiting the types of cases that are eligible for the pilot process. San Mateo County’s Courts have reviewed the proposal and have no concerns.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Unknown. But likely cost savings.

F.

Update on infrastructure bond activities

RECOMMENDATION:

None. Informational only.

BACKGROUND:

Since 2005 Legislators and the Governor have been working together and independently to craft infrastructure bond proposal(s). In early January, the Governor proposed the “Strategic Growth Plan,” which was proposed to leverage $68 billion in bonds for approximately $222 billion in funds for infrastructure needs ranging from transportation to education to water and flood control. The Strategic Growth Plan and related efforts proposed to present voters with a measure on the June 2006 ballot.

DISCUSSION:

Despite hearings, meetings and lengthy negotiations, it appears that efforts to place a bond measure before voters in June 2006 have failed. Late Wednesday (March 15) evening, legislators received notice from the State Printer that the deadline to conclude negotiations and to issue an approved measure was midnight that night. This deadline was required to allow the supplemental ballot statement to be prepared, translated, printed and mailed before the statutory deadline.

While each house has approved infrastructure bills, the bills are very different. The Assembly proposed a pair of bonds for education and higher-education--$10.4 billion and $9.1 billion in 2006 and 2008 respectively. In addition, the Assembly proposed an additional $4.5 billion for flood protection. The Senate proposed a $1 billion appropriation (not bond) for flood control. Opposed to the Assembly’s approach of a package of bonds (rather than a mega bond), the Senate failed to take up the Assembly’s efforts before adjourning on Wednesday night. As of March 20, neither house has addressed the other house’s proposals.

While Senator Perata expects continued work toward a November 2006 ballot, the strained relations among the various parties, houses and branches impair the likelihood of a November 2006 ballot.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.