COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

County Manager’s Office

DATE:

January 31, 2007

BOARD MEETING DATE:

February 6, 2007

SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:

None

VOTE REQUIRED:

Majority

TO:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

FROM:

John Maltbie, County Manager

SUBJECT:

County Manager’s Report #3

A.

Resolution amending the 2007-08 State Legislative Session Program to include a legislative proposal for a Next-of-Kin "Right to Know" law

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a resolution amending the 2007-08 State Legislative Session Program to include a legislative proposal for a Next-of-Kin "Right to Know" law.

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:

This proposal would require coroners to notify, in a timely manner, known next of kin that the Coroner may retain parts of a body. This proposal would also require that the Coroner offer to return the parts of the body. This proposal would exempt notification if it would interfere with a criminal investigation.

In recent months, a young man died of natural causes (a heart defect) in Daly City. After the burial, the family discovered that the Coroner’s Office had retained his heart. The fact that the family was not told in advance that an organ would be retained was deeply disturbing to the family, as was the fact that burial of the remains was not complete—the heart remained with the county. The Coroner ultimately released the heart to the family, but it remains unburied.

DISCUSSION:

Current law grants the Coroner the right to retain parts of the body removed at the time of autopsy or acquired during a coroner's investigation as may, in the opinion of the Coroner, be necessary or advisable. With minor exceptions, current law does not require notification or consent of next of kin. In many instances next of kin are unaware that coroners can remove and retain parts of the body. The discovery that a coroner has removed and retained a body part, especially if a family has already buried their loved one, can prevent closure by survivors and cause other serious difficulties. Balancing the duty of the Coroner to determine a cause of death and the needs of the next of kin to obtain accurate information in a timely manner, this proposal would require notification of the next of kin, but it would not require consent of the next of kin.

Supervisor Tissier is working with the Coroner to change the county’s policy on notification and retention, and will be presenting a proposed policy change to the Board. She also feels, however, that state law needs to be changed. Prior notification that a part of the body may be retained will help next-of-kin in the grieving and burial process and ensure that, to the degree feasible, the family will be able to understand the circumstances surrounding the handling of remains of their family member.

The Legislative Committee has reviewed this proposal and recommends that it be included in the Legislative Program.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Unknown.

B.

Resolution to support in concept AB 83 (Lieber), Property tax administration: PARE program

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a resolution to support in concept AB 83 (Lieber), Property tax administration: PARE program.

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 83 (Lieber) would establish the Property Tax Assessment and Education Revenue (PARE) funding program to provide state financial assistance in property tax administration. A voluntary program, PARE would condition receipt of funds on an annual plan and performance measures. PARE would give the county auditor administrative control of the funds, but the assessor would direct the expenditure of funds. In addition, PARE would require that PARE funds supplement, not supplant, current local resources. To that end, participating counties would be required to maintain a base staffing level as determined in Fiscal Year 20004-05. In addition, AB 83 requires that, “Any other county agency or department directly involved in property tax administration that receives PARE funding shall also maintain these staffing and funding levels to be eligible for use of PARE funding.”

CSAC, UCC and Santa Clara have all interpreted the staffing maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement to include staff that is not directly related to property tax administration as long as the relevant departments have some duties directly related to property tax administration. This raises the concern of reducing local flexibility in non-property tax operations in order to receive funding for property tax administration. In addition, UCC staff question the need to set MOEs on staffing levels (versus funding levels). Such limitations could stall technical and administrative streamlining.

The amount of funding for the PARE program has not been determined. More importantly, the Governor has elected to not fund local assistance for property tax assessment costs. CSAC report in their analysis of the state budget, “Administration officials noted that the Governor's spending plan would not include funding for counties' property tax administration programs. The state's fiscal analysis showed that their marginal benefit from this program had been decreased due to the Triple Flip, the VLF swap, the end of ERAF III, and other effects of Proposition 1A. Under the new structure, the state only collects 35-37% of increased property tax revenues, so property tax administration assistance is not in the state’s economic interest.” According to the Controller’s Property Tax Highlights for Fiscal Year 2005-06, 46.6 percent of property tax revenue was directed to schools.

DISCUSSION:

Counties administer the property tax system, which generates revenues for cities, counties, special district and schools. 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 state has a significant 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’ past share was estimated at $250 million, which was well in excess of the state’s $60 million program. However, in 2005-06 and 2006-07 the $60 million grant program was not funded.

In response, AB 1717 was introduced to appropriate $60 million annually. However, the allocation formula proposed in AB 1717 would have allocated funds based on each county’s proportional share of the statewide property tax allocated to non-basic aid school districts. This would have left 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.

In addition, AB 1717 generated concern from CSAC, the Tax Collectors Association and individual counties due to heightened MOE requirements and the authority of the Assessor to determine the funding plan. However, San Mateo County took a support position on AB 1717.

While AB 83 would allow PARE funds to reimburse for revenue collection for schools (including basic aid schools), the MOE requirements raise concerns and heighten the question why schools do not share in the cost of property tax administration. Staff would recommend that the Support in Concept position reference the MOE concern, reiterate the importance of retaining cost recovery for basic aid school revenues, and the idea of a proportionate share of cost among revenue recipients be included.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Assuming a similar amount ($60 million statewide) and allocation of funding as prior programs, San Mateo County could see approximately $2.2 million. Should funding for property tax administration related to basic aid schools not be included funding would shrink to $1.3 million. While the reach of the MOE requirement is unclear, staff estimates that if the requirement applies only to those staff directly involved in property tax administration, the staffing MOE could require the addition of one FTE in the Assessor’s Office.

C.

Resolution adopting the 2007-08 Legislative Program Procedures and Processes

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a resolution adopting the 2007-08 Legislative Program Procedures and Processes.

VISION ALIGNMENT:

Commitment: Leaders work together across boundaries to preserve and enhance our quality of life.

Goal(s): Goal 23—Leaders throughout the County provide the impetus for broader regional solutions in land use, housing childcare, education, health and transportation.

BACKGROUND:

The 2007-08 Legislative Program Procedures and Processes (Procedures) serve as a guide for department staff and advisory boards and commissions on the process by which the County addresses legislative and budgetary issues at the state and federal levels.

The Procedures establish a process through which department staff and advisory boards and commissions can make to the Board of Supervisors about recommendations on legislative and budgetary issues on the state and federal level.

DISCUSSION:

With the increasing interest of advisory boards and commissions in legislative and budgetary issues, the Procedures are intended to ensure that all entities have a clear and established mechanism to recommend federal and state legislative and budgetary policy positions to the Board of Supervisors.

With wide ranging missions, county departments can have differing perspectives on legislative and budgetary issues. This can result in significantly divergent policy positions. The Procedures reiterate the implicit understanding that the Board of Supervisors establishes legislative and budgetary policy positions for departments and advisory boards and commissions. Establishing a clear process through which the Board of Supervisors adopts federal and state legislative and budgetary policy positions can ensure that the County’s positions are uniform and consistent.

The Procedures also reiterate that with the approval of the Director of Intergovernmental and Public Affairs and the Board President, County Legislative Advocates and staff can utilize the authority found in the Legislative Session Program or Board Resolutions to advocate on particular legislation or issues that conform to adopted policy positions.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.