COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

County Manager’s Office

DATE:

April 19, 2007

BOARD MEETING DATE:

April 24, 2007

SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:

None

VOTE REQUIRED:

Majority

TO:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

FROM:

John Maltbie, County Manager

SUBJECT:

County Manager’s Report #7

A.

Resolution in support of SB 744 (Runner), Food facilities

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a resolution in support of SB 744 (Runner), Food facilities.

VISION ALIGNMENT:

Commitment: Ensure basic health and safety for all

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

BACKGROUND:

Last year, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed SB 144 (Runner, 2006), a comprehensive revision to the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities law (CURFEL). SB 144 was developed through a collaborative process of stakeholders including local food safety regulators. CURFEL provides for the authority for regulation of health and sanitation standards for food facilities. This law and related regulations are enforced by local health agencies. In San Mateo County, the Environmental Health division inspects food facilities and enforces relevant state laws and regulations.

SB 744 would make minor, technical changes to CURFEL.

DISCUSSION:

The provisions of SB 144 are scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2007. As a result, the proposed changes in SB 744 must be enacted before that date, which requires that SB 744 be passed as an urgency measure with a 2/3rds vote.

The changes to CURFEL proposed in SB 744 have been reviewed and approved by the California Retail Food Safety Coalition. Dean Peterson, Deputy Director of Public Health and the Legislative Committee recommend the Board support SB 744.

FISCAL IMPACT:

No fiscal impact.

B.

Resolution of Support in Concept for the California State Sheriffs Association Prison/Jail Construction and Reform Proposal

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a resolution of Support in Concept for the California State Sheriffs Association Prison/Jail Construction and Reform Proposal.

VISION ALIGNMENT:

Commitment: Ensure basic health and safety for all

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

BACKGROUND:

In late December 2006, Governor Schwarzenegger proposed a far-reaching corrections reform proposal. This proposal was in response to a possible June 2007 federal court order to address California’s prison overcrowding problem. California’s prison system has a capacity of approximately 100,000 beds with a current population of 174,000 inmates. Overcrowding has become so severe that 17,000 inmates are currently housed in gymnasium and classroom spaces. A federal court order could result in extremes including the release of state prisoners.

The Governor’s December 2006 proposal included the construction of 16,238 additional beds in state correctional facilities, 10,000 medical and mental health beds and 45,000 local beds with a change in law to place in local jails low-level offenders that have sentences of up to three years.

The proposal included $10.9 billion for construction costs, but did not include or identify how ongoing costs would be met. The operation of 45,000 additional local jail beds was estimated at $500 million per year. As a result, many local officials were skeptical of the proposal. A number of additional concerns arose relating to rehabilitation and reentry costs. CSAC has formally opposed the Governor’s proposal to shift adult offenders populations to counties.

DISCUSSION:

Based conversations with the Governor’ office during the week of April 9, CSAC anticipates a revised corrections reform plan for adult offenders will be announced soon, following a meeting among the Governor and Senate and Assembly leadership (aka the Big Five). There is growing belief that the revised corrections reform proposal will focus on adult corrections and may mirror the California State Sheriffs Association’s proposal. It is unclear how, if at all, the revised proposal will impact or alter the Governor’s initial proposals regarding juvenile justice, probation and sentencing.

The Sheriff’s proposal, which is expected to be the basis for the Governor’s revised proposal would do the following:

•

Reject the Governor’s initial proposal for local retention of state prisoners with sentences of up to three years;

•

Provide construction and operational funding for 16,000 state prisoner re-entry beds to be located on county property. These facilities could be joint state/county facilities with the expectation that costs will be split proportionate to the number of state and local beds;

•

Permit the housing of various populations—traditional jail inmates, parole violators (possibly limited to “technical” violators and those who are now in county jails) and state prison inmates nearing their parole date;

•

Provide construction and operational funding for 7,500 state prison medical beds;

•

Provide construction funding with a 25 percent local match for 16,000 local jail beds. The local match will likely be “soft” allowing for both cash or in-kind participation; and

•

Allow for a county to “opt-in” on the construction of any additional local jail beds as well as on the construction and operation of county-located state re-entry beds.

The Sheriffs’ proposal would increase local jail capacity (16,000 beds statewide) and allow for “opt-in” re-entry facilities at the local level, where prisoners are returned even without a re-entry program.

While the proposal has some key benefits (notably removing the retention of state prisoners with sentences of up to three years), a number of questions need to be addressed including, in part:

•

How will construction costs be met? Assuming bond funding is needed, would such bonds rely on county or state bonding capacity?

•

For re-entry facilities, will the facility be staffed by state or local corrections officers?

•

Is there an adequate supply of service providers for mental health, health care, re-entry needs and other services? Who will determine the level of services provided and how will those services be provided and funded (especially in the long-term)? Will there be assurances that funding will be adequate?

These questions highlight the conceptual nature of the current proposals and discussions. Sheriff Munks has been working with District Attorney Fox, County Manager Maltbie and others to develop consensus within San Mateo County. The Legislative Committee has reviewed the rough outlines of the Sheriffs Association proposal and recommends a Support in Concept position.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Unknown. Potentially significant.

C.

Resolution in support of S. 100 (Boxer), Healthy Students Act of 2007

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a resolution in support of S. 100 (Boxer), Healthy Students Act of 2007.

VISION ALIGNMENT:

Commitment: Ensure basic health and safety for all

Goal(s): #7 Children grow up healthy in safe and supportive homes and neighborhoods

BACKGROUND:

S. 100 would establish the Commission to Improve School Meals, which would be tasked with developing new nutritional standards for school food programs. These standards could include bans on foods of low nutritional value. S. 100 would create a student loan forgiveness program for nurses who work full time in elementary or secondary schools for at least three years. S. 100 would also establish pilot programs providing grants to:

•

School districts or community organizations that promote healthy food alternatives; and

•

Elementary and secondary schools that increase each school day by one hour dedicated to physical activity.

DISCUSSION:

According to the County’s Health Department, S. 100 aligns well with the County’s ongoing efforts related to the Blueprint for Prevention of Childhood Obesity. This includes school, school district and community organization activities.

While the intent of S. 100 is important, the bill highlights many ongoing concerns with the current nutrition program. Most notably:

•

While increasing the number of school nurses is an important element in improving the health outcomes of students and addresses the lack of available nurses, it highlights the lack of funding needed to hire nurses. Schools face the challenge of both finding school nurses and paying them adequately.

•

Improving the nutritional standards of schools is important. However, schools face the daunting challenge of meeting those standards with existing resources. Healthier food choices, especially healthier choices students will eat, tend to be more expensive than less healthy (but more attractive) “junk” foods. This is critically important in light of the fact that schools receive the low reimbursement only if the child actually accepts the offered meal.

•

While the “healthy hour” pilot to provide a daily hour of physically activity is laudable, there appears to be no funding included in S. 100.

•

The absence of long-term funding, beyond the duration of the food alternative pilot, can be a disincentive for interested schools districts and community organizations. Once a program is created, it can be challenging to dismantle.

Despite the above comments, S. 100 represents a step toward healthier and more livable communities.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Unknown. Potentially positive.

D.

Resolution in support of H.R. 1424 (Kennedy), Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a resolution in support of H.R. 1424 (Kennedy), Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007.

VISION ALIGNMENT:

Commitment: Ensure basic health and safety for all

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

BACKGROUND:

H.R. 1424 would create greater nationwide access to mental health and addiction treatment by prohibiting health insurers from placing discriminatory restrictions on such treatments.

According to the author’s office, “The bill expands the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 by requiring group health plans that offer benefits for mental health and addiction to do so on the same terms as care for other diseases. The legislation closes the loopholes that allow plans to charge higher co-payments, coinsurance, deductibles, and maximum out-of-pocket limits and impose lower day and visit limits on mental health and addiction care.”

Many health plans impose financial and treatment limitations on mental health and addiction services unlike other insured services.

DISCUSSION:

In February 2007, Congresswoman Eshoo hosted a Congressional Forum in San Mateo County to discuss the lack of parity for mental health and addition services from insurance providers. Several advocates from San Mateo County and throughout California spoke before the Forum. In March 2007, Representative Patrick Kennedy introduced H.R. 1424.

H.R. 1424 is co-sponsored by 261 Members of Congress including Congresswoman Eshoo and Congressman Lantos.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Unknown.