COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

County Manager’s Office

 

DATE:

July 5, 2006

BOARD MEETING DATE:

July 11, 2006

SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:

None

VOTE REQUIRED:

Majority

 

TO:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

FROM:

John Maltbie, County Manager

SUBJECT:

County Manager’s Report #12

 

A.

Resolution in support of AB 32 (Núñez), California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006

 

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a resolution in support of AB 32 (Núñez), California Global Warming Solutions 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:

AB 32 would charge the State Air Resources Board (ARB) with the responsibility of setting limits on greenhouse gas emissions with the purpose of curbing global warming. In turn, the bill would require the ARB to institute mandatory emissions reporting and tracking.

 

In 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order S-3-05 in which he set targets for reducing global warming pollution in California. Specifically he called for a reduction by 2010, to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 2000 levels; by 2020, to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; by 2050, to reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.

 

To accomplish these goals, the Governor created the Climate Action Team, which released draft recommendation in December 2005.

 

DISCUSSION:

AB 32 follows and is consistent with the Governor’s executive order. Proponents assert that it will “put teeth in the Governor’s executive order by establishing a binding statewide limit on global warming emissions.”

 

FISCAL IMPACT:

Unknown.

 

B.

Resolution in support of AB 1717 (Lieber), Property tax administration: PARE program

 

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a resolution in support of AB 1717 (Lieber), Property tax administration: PARE program

 

VISION ALIGNMENT:

Commitment: Sow the seeds of our future prosperity

Goal(s): Goal 19—The skill level of new workers rises with improved K-12 education and training options.

 

BACKGROUND:

AB 1717 would allocate $60 million for property tax administration activities and create the State-County Property Assessment and Revenue for Education Funding (PARE) program. Administration funds would be allocated among counties proportional to the individual counties prior three-year average share of “non-basic aid” K-12 school district funding compared to the statewide average.

 

AB 1717 would also prohibit using the PARE funding to supplant local financial participation.

 

DISCUSSION:

Counties administer the property tax system, which generates revenues for cities, counties, special district and schools. Statewide counties receive 17 percent of property tax revenues collected. Schools receive 56 percent. In San Mateo County, the County receives only 14 percent while schools receive 65 percent.

 

Receiving less than one-fifth of the revenues, counties have few incentives to invest in property tax administration. While counties can recover administrative costs for property tax administration and collections from cities, and special districts, it cannot recover such costs from schools, the largest recipients of the property tax revenues. The state may have the greatest interest in ensuring aggressive and timely collection of property tax revenues since much of the school-dedicated revenues offset state funding that would otherwise have to come from the state General Fund.

 

In the past, the state has provided administrative grants to cover some of the costs of collecting property taxes. Statewide counties spend an estimated $500 million in property tax collection activities. Of that amount, the schools’ share is estimated at $250 million, which is well in excess of the state’s $60 million program. However, in 2005-06 and 2006-07 the $60 million grant program was/will not be funded. AB 1717 is intended to address this problem by appropriating $60 million annually.

 

While the general concept of funding property tax administration is worthy, the allocation formula as proposed would allocate funds based on each county’s proportional share of the statewide property tax allocated to non-basic aid school districts. This may leave San Mateo County at a disadvantage since eight of San Mateo County’s school districts are designated basic aid and revenue from only the remaining 16 school districts would be used to calculate the County’s share of the grant funding.

 

FISCAL IMPACT:

Due the carve out of basic aid school districts, San Mateo County’s estimated grant amount would be $1,377,000. This is in contrast to the estimated $2,220,000 the County would have received under the previous grant program.

 

C.

Resolution in support of SB 1309 (Scott), Nursing education

 

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a resolution in support of SB 1309 (Scott), Nursing education

 

VISION ALIGNMENT:

Commitment: Ensure basic health and safety for all

Goal(s): Goal 5—Residents have access to healthcare and preventative care.

 

BACKGROUND:

SB 1309 would establish various initiatives and programs to try to address California’s nursing shortage. Efforts would include competitive grants to schools for health-related career education; one-time grants to students enrolled in Registered Nursing pre-licensure programs; creation of a loan forgiveness program for persons who agree to work for at least four consecutive years as a full-time registered nurse in a state-operated 24-hour facility that has a nursing vacancy rate of at least 10 percent and grant funding for community college nursing faculty.

 

DISCUSSION:

Like San Mateo County, California has a severe nursing shortage. Statewide California graduates approximately 7,700, but needs to graduate an additional 3,300 annually by 2011 to meet the projected five-year shortfall of nurses statewide. According to the Assembly Committee on Higher Education, California ranks 50th among states n the number of nurses per capita.

 

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

 

D.

Resolution in support of SB 1609 (Simitian), Reverse mortgages annuities

 

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a resolution in support of SB 1609 (Simitian), Reverse mortgages annuities

 

VISION ALIGNMENT:

Commitment: Offer a full range of housing choices

Goal(s): Goal 8—Help vulnerable people including those who are elderly, have disabilities and others achieve a better quality of life.

 

BACKGROUND:

SB 1609 would require reverse mortgage lenders to refer potential borrowers to independent counseling.

 

Senate Bill 1609 enacts a number of important safeguards to ensure that borrowers of reverse mortgages are protected and fully informed of the terms of the transaction.

 

SB 1609 would make three significant changes:

1.

Mandate independent counseling from a HUD approved counselor for all reverse mortgage loans.

2.

Require reverse mortgage contracts to be translated into the language it was negotiated in, pursuant to civil code section 1632.

3.

Prohibit annuities from being sold to a reverse mortgage borrower before the expiration of a 30-day “cooling off” period.

 

A reverse mortgage is a type of loan that allows homeowners 62 and older to borrow against the equity in their home in order to access funds. A reverse mortgage is much more complicated, complex and expensive than a traditional mortgage, or other type of loan.

 

DISCUSSION:

The San Mateo County Commission on Disabilities, which recommends the Board adopt a support position, asserts that reverse mortgages are inherently aimed at one of the most vulnerable populations in society: seniors who are “house-rich and cash-poor.” These factors have made reverse mortgages ripe for financial fraud and abuse against seniors particularly in San Mateo County where home prices have risen sharply in the past ten years.

 

By prohibiting a reverse mortgage lender from accepting a reverse mortgage application until the lender has received a certification from the potential borrower that the borrower received independent counseling regarding the reverse mortgage, SB 1609 provides seniors the opportunity to discuss and consider more thoroughly the full implications of a reverse mortgage.

 

HIP Housing, the certified HUD advisors for reverse mortgages in San Mateo County, reports that from 2004-05 they had 201 voluntary counseling sessions. Only a little more than 60 percent elected to take out reverse mortgages.

 

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

 

E.

Preliminary Analysis of the 2006-07 State Budget as approved by the Legislature

 

PAPERS TO FOLLOW