COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

County Manager’s Office

DATE:

February 22, 2007

BOARD MEETING DATE:

February 27, 2007

SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:

None

VOTE REQUIRED:

Majority

TO:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

FROM:

John L. Maltbie, County Manager

SUBJECT:

County Manager’s Report #4

A.

Resolution amending the 2007-08 State Legislative Session Program to include legislative proposals regarding dedicated revenue and funding for local housing trusts

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a resolution amending the 2007-08 State Legislative Session Program to include legislative proposals regarding dedicated revenue and funding for local housing trusts.

VISION ALIGNMENT:

Commitment: Offer a full range of housing choices.

Goal(s) 9: Housing exists for people at all income levels and for all generations of families.

BACKGROUND:

On November 30, 2006, the County hosted a housing forum to discuss dedicated revenue for California's local housing trusts. Assemblymembers Lori Saldaña and Gene Mullin, respectively the current and former chair of the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee participated in the Forum, which underscored both the need and the challenges to solving the housing crisis in California. Witnesses who testified at the Forum affirmed the importance of local housing trusts, which support cost-effective solutions, local flexibility and the ability to leverage state, local and private funding.

There is strong consensus that developing affordable housing is necessary to sustain California’s economic vitality and to keep pace with the state’s population growth. The California Housing and Community Development (HCD) Department estimates the average annual need to be 225,000 units of (all forms of) housing. However, HCD reports that since 1999, less than 170,00 residential new construction permits have been issued each year. California’s housing gap grows.

In addition to highlighting the importance of new and meaningful state and local partnerships, the Forum focused attention on the need for ongoing, dedicated revenue for affordable housing. The State’s Strategic Plan for housing calls for dedicated revenue (goal number 3). Local governments, foundation and corporate contributions have combined to establish 37 local housing trusts in California. Across the country there are more than 350 local housing trusts that dedicate $750 million toward affordable housing annually.

In San Mateo County, the Board of Supervisors appropriated $3,000,000 to initiate the Housing Endowment and Regional Trust (HEART). In just three years, 17 cities in the County have joined with corporate and foundation contributions resulted in a 21 to 1 leveraging ratio, putting $84,000,000 into the construction of more than 400 new housing units in our County.

DISCUSSION:

In an effort to address the need for stable, predictable and permanent state revenue for local housing trusts, a package of legislative ideas arose from the Forum. A small group of nonprofit and County staff have worked to develop the package of ideas in to proposed legislation. The package of legislative options originally included:

1.

Local flexibility to increase recording fees on real estate transactions;

2.

The pooling of redevelopment authority funds for affordable housing;

3.

Allocating Proposition 1C funds to local housing trusts;

4.

The use of ERAF funds as a matching incentive for local investment in affordable housing; and

5.

Local flexibility to implement a payroll tax

Based on discussions with representatives from various housing-related interest groups and the lack of interest on the part of legislators from the County’s delegation, staff is not recommending advancing the legislative proposal regarding local flexibility for a payroll tax.

In order to meet the Legislative deadline of submitting proposals to Legislative Counsel for the drafting of proposed legislation, staff advanced these proposals to members of our delegation with the request that they submit these “unbacked” (without commitment to author). The HEART Legislative Committee considered the proposals during their most recent meeting and has recommended that their board co-sponsor this package with the County.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Unknown. Potentially positive.

B.

Resolution in support of SB 119 (Cedillo), Medi-Cal: minors: drug and alcohol treatment

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a resolution in support of SB 119 (Cedillo), Medi-Cal: minors: drug and alcohol treatment.

VISION ALIGNMENT:

Commitment: Ensure basic health and safety for all.

Goal(s) 8: Help vulnerable people, including youth, achieve a better quality of life.

BACKGROUND:

SB 119 would expand Drug Medi-Cal services to include various drug-related services for youth (12-20 years of age). Specified in the Youth Treatment Guidelines (which provide best practices, treatment models and intervention), services would include, in part, residential treatment, family counseling and aftercare services.

The bill directs the Department of Health Care Services to try to obtain a Medicaid state plan amendment from the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), but conditions service coverage on the availability of federal financial participation. In addition, the bill expressly states that county welfare departments shall not be responsible for the costs of residential care.

Under current law, youth receive a patchwork of services through Drug Medi-Cal (one of the optional benefits the state has chosen to offer) or, if not covered by Drug Medi-Cal, through the federally mandated early, periodic, screening, diagnosis and treatment (EPSTD) program, which requires states to provide any medically necessary (as determined by a physician) service. There are no other funding sources specifically designated for services to youth. Any additional funding would come from existing state and federal funding sources, which have remained static.

DISCUSSION:

Last year, the Board supported SB 1288 (Cedillo), which is nearly identical to SB 119. SB 1288 was vetoed by the Governor, who stated, “I cannot support this bill as it would substantially expand Drug Medi-Cal services and result in millions of dollars of new state costs. I believe this policy can be more appropriately addressed during the budget process.”

According to supporters of last year’s SB 1288, there is an inadequate amount of alcohol and other drug services for youth. The Legislative Analysts Office (LAO) found in a 2004 report that, “while children and youth constitute about 23 percent of the caseload, they received only about 6 to 8 percent of the Drug Medi-Cal budget.”

San Mateo County has an estimated 4,500 youth (12-17 years of age) that have substance abuse problems warranting treatment. However, the County serves only an estimated 300 youth through the patchwork of funding.

According to the Human Services Agency, 42.2 percent of San Mateo County students in grades 7, 9, 11, and non-traditional (NT) settings have used alcohol at least once in their lives; 26.3 percent are current users; and 25.1 percent of 11th graders have “had enough alcohol to feel it a lot” or “until I get really drunk.” 13.4 percent of 9th, 11th, and NT students have mixed alcohol with driving. In addition, one in four San Mateo County students, grades 7, 9, 11, and NT, have used marijuana at last once and 13.2 percent report current use.

By expanding funding for youth-focused drug and alcohol services, SB 119 is intended to encourage the development of more youth-focused treatment facilities that can then create a continuum of care.

The Senate Health Committee will hear SB 119 on March 14, 2007.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Unknown. Potentially positive.

C.

Resolution in support of H.R. 211 (Eshoo), Calling for 2-1-1 Act of 2007 and with a request to amend the bill to include local governments as part of the 2-1-1 Collaborative lead entity

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a resolution in support of H.R. 211 (Eshoo), Calling for 2-1-1 Act of 2007 and with a request to amend the bill to include local governments as part of the 2-1-1 Collaborative lead entity.

VISION ALIGNMENT:

Commitment: Responsive, effective and collaborative government.

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

BACKGROUND:

2-1-1 is intended to be a simple telephone number similar to other service-related numbers including 4-1-1 (general information), 9-1-1 (for emergencies) and 5-1-1 (for transportation information). 2-1-1 would connect callers to various health and social services and volunteer opportunities. Generally, 2-1-1 call centers are staffed with referral specialists that assess callers’ needs, determine what services are most appropriate and which service provider is best equipped to meet the caller’s needs and provide relevant information to the caller. In support of the call center, 2-1-1 providers maintain comprehensive resource databases for a wide array of services including basic needs (food, clothing and housing), health resources (insurance programs, medical information and crisis intervention services), employment support (job training and education), and volunteer opportunities.

Efforts to create 2-1-1 started in 1997 with United Way (www.211.org). Today, there are only 17 states with statewide 2-1-1 systems. However, there are over 200 2-1-1 call centers in 41 states. In the Bay area, the United Way of the Bay Area has established 2-1-1 in San Francisco (www.211sf.org) and is working to expand service to Marin, Napa, San Mateo, Alameda and Contra Costa counties. Santa Clara County launched their 2-1-1 service in early February 2007 (www.211scc.org).

Congresswoman Eshoo has worked on similar legislation in the past. In 2003, she introduced legislation to appropriate $200 million in federal funds for creating a nationwide system.

H.R. 211 would provide $700 million through 2013 in federal matching grants to create statewide 2-1-1 systems. In addition to connecting services to those in need, H.R. 211 is intended to strengthen the referral infrastructure, to support improved response to large-scale emergencies (such as that following Hurricane Katrina), and to provide aggregated data to better assess community needs.

DISCUSSION:

H.R. 211 would appropriate $150 million per year for Federal Fiscal Years 2008 and 2009. From 2010 through 2013, the bill would appropriate $100 million per year. The bill would ensure that every state seeking a grant would receive funding subject to conditions including a one-to-one match from other sources including in-kind contributions.

States seeking funding would be required to establish a state lead entity such as a 2-1-1 Collaborative that includes representatives from a variety of sectors including state agencies, community-based organizations, not-for-profits, faith-based organization, business and foundation. H.R. 211 does not require the inclusion of local governments. In California, the bulk of health and social services are provided through counties. As a result, local governments could provide meaningful contributions to the state’s lead entity, which would be charged with crafting the state’s application for H.R. 211 funding.

The failure to include local governments in the lead entity could result in an incomplete or poor application and subsequent difficulties in implementing a statewide 2-1-1 system.

S. 211 is a related bill sponsored by Senator Clinton.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Unknown. Potentially positive.