COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

County Manager’s Office

DATE:

March 28, 2006

BOARD MEETING DATE:

April 4, 2006

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 in support of AB 2108 (Evans), Vehicles and child passengers

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a resolution in support of AB 2108 (Evans), Vehicles and child passengers.

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:

AB 2108 (Evans) would expand current law requirements regarding the use of child passenger restraint systems and safety belts. Current law requires parents or, in the absence of parents, drivers to ensure that children under six years of age or under 60 pounds use an appropriate child passenger restraint system in the rear seat of a vehicle.

AB 2108 would expand that requirement by:

●

Requiring children less than eight years of age to be secured in a rear seat with an appropriate child passenger restraint system;

●

With an exception for children four feet nine inches or taller, who may use a seat belt in a rear seat position of the vehicle;

●

But with the additional requirement that children under one year in age or under 20 pounds are to be secured in a vehicle’s rear seat using an appropriate rear-facing child passenger restraint system.

●

Requiring children eight years of age or older but less than 13 years of age to be secured in a rear seat with a safety belt (or an appropriate child passenger restraint system).

●

Requiring children 13 years of age or older but less than 16 years of age to be secured with a safety belt (or an appropriate child passenger restraint system).

With a working group, Senator Jackie Speier initiated this effort and the early draft language for the bill. While she is not the primary author, Senator Speier is expected to co-author AB 2108. The bill is expected to be heard in the Assembly Transportation Committee on April 24.

DISCUSSION:

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 2003 Fatality Analysis Reporting System, significant increases in child restraint usage due to efforts like the Buckle Up America campaign (www.buckleupamerica.org) have caused continued decreases in the number of child passenger motor vehicle deaths. The 2003 report indicates that the number of fatalities for children from birth to three years of age remain at historically low levels. Older children did not have as positive outcomes in 2003. While the report indicates overall crash-related fatalities for children four to eight years of age decreased in 2003 (including street crossings, bike riding and riding in cars), fatalities among four to eight year olds as passengers in cars increased by 5.1%.

While San Mateo County reported no motor vehicle occupant deaths in 2003 of children in this age group, 27 non-driver youth from birth to 20 years of age required hospitalization as a result of traffic related injuries. It is unclear how many (if any) of these youth were properly restrained. However, according to the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, the use of booster seats can reduce serious injury by 60%.

San Mateo County’s current Child Passenger Safety Program includes:

●

Free car seats and booster seats along with education/installation for clients referred by the Health Department, Human Services Agency, Sheriff’s Office or the San Mateo Medical Center.

●

A referral service for the general public to sites where they can have their own car seats/booster seats inspected and properly installed and resources to low-cost programs.

●

Participation on Santa Clara/San Mateo Counties SAFE KIDS Coalition Child Passenger Safety Committee, who organize a minimum of two large public car seat events/year in San Mateo County.

By requiring booster seat protection for children until they are at least 8 years old and requiring children 12 and under to ride in the back seat, AB 2108 could save lives and result in expanding the applicability of booster seat use, a potential decrease in hospitalizations of children 6-8 years, who may be injured while wearing adult seat belts or ultimately a decrease in potential fatalities of those children not wearing any restraints at all.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Unknown.

B.

Resolution in support of SB 1125 (Chesbro), Natural resources funding

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a resolution in support of SB 1125 (Chesbro), Natural resources funding.

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:

Current law authorizes the collection of revenues from tideland oil leases and determines the allocation of that revenue in an established priority. Any remaining funds not used to satisfy the prioritized obligations are transferred to the Resources Trust Fund, which supports a number of resource protection activities including protection of salmon and steelhead trout. The code section dedicating the tideland oil lease revenues will expire by January 1, 2007.

AB 1125 (Chesbro) would remove the sunset on existing law, modify the existing subcategories of funding under the Resources Trust Fund and allocate $12 million to each of the three subcategories of the Resources Trust Fund.

The three subcategories of the Resources Trust Fund are the Salmon and Steelhead Trout Restoration Account, the Marine Life Management Account and the Nongame Fish and Wildlife Program Account.

DISCUSSION:

Maintenance of fund sources for the Resources Trust Fund is needed to continue to meet the grant fund demands of San Mateo County. The San Mateo County Parks and Recreation Division is currently working on their eighth habitat restoration effort utilizing these fund sources. Past projects include:

●

Two instream restoration projects in Memorial Park (in 1993 for $75,000 and in 1995 for $138,000).

●

Removal of three small dams in Memorial Park (in 2001 for $100,000).

●

Sediment Assessment of 72 miles of road and Trail in the 8,937-acre Pescadero Park Complex (in 2003 for $70,000).

●

Installation of 80 rolling dips to improve existing drainage on 6 miles of Old Haul Road in Pescadero Park (in 2003 for $70,000).

Other projects include:

●

The Department of Public Works has secured $450,000 in 2005 for sediment reduction projects in Memorial and Pescadero Park. The projects are expected in Summer 2006.

●

County Parks has secured $280,000 in 2005 for modification of Sequoia Flat crossing and removal of the Memorial Park dam, which are barriers to juvenile Steelhead migration. This will open up over 60 miles of spawning habitat, and are the last remaining barriers in the County Park’s portion of the Pescadero Creek watershed. The projects are expected in Summer 2006 (Sequoia Flat) and Summer 2007 (flashboard dam removal)

●

The Department of Public Works has secured $73,750 from this fund source to repair or construct new weirs downstream of a fish ladder on Alpine Creek. The projects are expected in Summer 2006.

Unfortunately, the allocation of funding has been suspended frequently due to fluctuations in the amount of tideland oil lease revenues collected and the general state of state revenues. In addition, other sources of funding for the activities reflected in the three subcategories have been reduced in recent years. For example, funding for wildlife and marine conservation activities fell from $84 million in 2000 to $37 million in 2005.

The lack of revenue for Department of Fish and Game activities has resulted in a series of failings including the inability to manage species or habitat lands and delays in administering streambed alteration agreements. Sunset of this fund source will only exacerbate the problems found in the state Department of Fish and Game and reduce the grant fund opportunities for projects in San Mateo County.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Unknown. Likely positive.

C.

Resolution in support of Proposition 81, California Reading and Literacy Improvement and Public Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act of 2006

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a resolution in support of Proposition 81, California Reading and Literacy Improvement and Public Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act of 2006.

VISION ALIGNMENT:

Commitment: Provide equal access to educational opportunity

Goal(s): Goal 4—Residents have many educational and training opportunities beyond high school.

BACKGROUND:

Approved by the Senate (28:9) and the Assembly (57:15) and signed into law by the Governor, SB 1161 (Alpert, 2004) submits to voters the California Reading and Literacy Improvement and Public Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act (the Act) of 2006. If approved by a majority of voters, the Act would provide for the issuance of up to $600 million in bonds for the construction and renovation of public library facilities with the goal of expanding access to public library services to all residents of California.

Bond funding for library facility improvements is not new. In 1988, California approved $75 million in bond funding for library construction, expansion and renovation. In 2000, voters approved $350 million in library bond funding. Despite these efforts and successes, a 2003 State Library needs assessment concluded that there is over $2 billion in library funding needs statewide. The 2000 Library Bond Act funds were oversubscribed and a significant number of requests (well over half of all the requests) for the 2000 bond funds were denied due to a lack of funding.

The Act will prioritize and distribute funds in the following manner:

●

Up to half ($300 million) of funds for projects eligible, but not funded through the 2000 Library Bond Act.

●

At least $25 million, if applied for, will be made available for joint-use projects that include a public library and public education institutions such as a school, county office of education or community college.

●

Remaining funds will be awarded on a competitive basis.

Grant recipients must provide at least 35% of project costs with the remaining 65% funded by the Act. However, Act funding cannot exceed $20 million for any one project. The matching requirement will leverage $323 million in local funds for a total fund package of $923 million statewide.

State costs for the Act are estimated at $1.2 billion over 30 years ($600 million in principal and $570 million in interest)—approximately $40 million per year. According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), California has approximately $44 billion in outstanding infrastructure-related bond debt and current authority to sell an additional $32 billion in infrastructure-related bonds. For Fiscal Year 2005-06, the LAO estimates California’s bond obligation at $3.8 billion (rising to $5.8 billion in out years if California exercises it remaining bond authority). If deficit-financing bonds are included, debt-service costs for FY 2005-06 are estimated at $5.1 billion (rising to $7.6 billion). California’s current debt-service ratio is 4.3% for infrastructure-related debt and 5.7% when deficit-financing debt is included.

DISCUSSION:

From the 2000 Library Bond Act, San Mateo County as a whole (not just the San Mateo County Library) received funding for the San Mateo Main Library ($20 million), and the Redwood Shores Community Library ($10 million). In addition, the City of Belmont has been successful in raising local funds (including local bonds) to construct the new Belmont Library, for which San Mateo County is seeking a federal appropriations request.

Despite these accomplishments, San Mateo County and specifically the San Mateo County Library have significant facility needs. According to the San Mateo County Library, many of the existing library facilities are aging or in need of significant improvements. Coast side branches in particular have the added challenge of deterioration due to weather and the elements. Examples include:

●

Constructed in 1965, Pacifica Library is poorly designed for today’s needs and presents accessibility challenges;

●

While constructed in 1982, Sanchez Library is cramped and lacks adequate space for operational and public needs;

●

Portola Valley Library has recently been moved to a temporary building due to seismic concerns of the permanent structure; and

●

East Palo Alto Library, while part of an existing County building, has significant community use (homework center and other usage) that taxes the current space.

In addition, the Half Moon Bay Library, a branch of the San Mateo County Library, received the highest rating in the third application cycle of the 2000 Library Bond Act, but due to a lack of funding was not awarded. As a result, it is likely a strong candidate for priority funding in the Act. The new Half Moon Bay is critical since it is the only permanent library service on the coast between Pacifica and Santa Cruz and serves a large unincorporated area of the county.

With a request of $11 million from the 2000 Library Bond Act and a local share of $3 million of County funds and $3 million in Half Moon Bay funds, the new Half Moon Bay Library would house over 60,000 volumes in 33,260 square feet. While funding through the new Act is not guaranteed, should voters reject the new bond, the Half Moon Bay Library project will need to identify an alternative fund source for $11 million.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Unknown. Likely positive.