County of San Mateo

2009-2010 State Legislative Session Program

San Mateo County Board of Supervisors

Richard S. Gordon, President

Mark Church, District 1
Carole Groom, District 2

Rose Jacobs Gibson, District 4

Adrienne J. Tissier, District 5

Revised

January 2009

February 2009

January 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION

The mission of the San Mateo County Legislative Program is to sponsor legislative proposals and to influence the state budget process and legislation that relates to the people, places, prosperity and partnerships of our community. The 2009-2010 State Legislative Session Program reflects San Mateo County’s commitment to our Shared Vision 2025.

The overarching goal of the San Mateo County Legislative Program is to identify legislation that could impact San Mateo County and to attempt to influence the outcome of such legislation. In this effort, the Legislative Committee with the support of County staff will assess the impact of legislation and refine and represent the Board’s positions on the range of proposals, priorities and policies found in this document. The goal of the Legislative Program also includes legislative ideas that originate from County staff and Board members. This document, the 2009-2010 State Legislative Session Program, is intended to provide a basic policy framework in which San Mateo County can work toward this goal. Divided into three general categories (legislative proposals, priorities, and policies), the program asserts some of the key issues and general positions for issues of concern to San Mateo County.

While this document attempts to cover the breadth and depth of legislative issues that may have an impact on San Mateo County, it is not comprehensive, complete or final. The Legislative Committee will review policy positions related to legislation and make recommendations to the full Board. All legislation, on which the County takes a position, will be tracked through the legislative process. For relevant issues, County staff or consultants will prepare position letters for relevant legislators and committees, deliver testimony at hearings, conduct other advocacy roles, and provide regular status reports to the Legislative Committee and the Board. Some issues may require heightened advocacy. As a result, Board members may testify or meet with relevant legislators. With the approval of the Director of Intergovernmental and Public Affairs and the Board President, staff will utilize the authority found in the 2009-2010 Legislative Session Program in lieu of an official Board position to advocate on particular legislation or issues that conform to adopted policy positions.

2009-2010 STATE LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES

This section highlights the most important 2009-2010 Legislative Session issues that could significantly affect San Mateo County. While San Mateo County will not actively pursue legislation in the following areas, the following priorities will receive heightened scrutiny and may warrant significant involvement on the part of County staff or Board members. The County may request amendments that conform to the general goals and objectives of the below priorities to legislation in these priority areas.

A. Protecting County Revenues and Operations

San Mateo County has had a long-standing policy relating to timely and full funding for state-mandated and partnership programs, increased flexibility and the simple elimination of programs not properly funded by state and/or federal funds (2001-2002). The County generally supports the principle and related legislation that guarantees local governments including schools, cities, special districts and counties reliable, predictable and equitable funding. This support includes the proper allocation of existing tax revenues. The County supported the passage of Proposition 1A in November 2004. San Mateo County opposes state program reductions that have the effect of increasing reliance on county “safety net” services. In light of the ongoing State Budget crisis, the County’s highest priority in the 2009-2010 Legislative Session will be to protect funding for current safety net programs, to prevent further loss of local revenues, cost shifts to local governments, and reductions to County programs without a corresponding change in service responsibility.

Should timely and full funding for programs not be maintained with the current budget revenue and expenditure levels, the County would support increases in alcohol taxes as well as changes in the state government’s business practices that lead to greater economies and improved program outcomes.

Not mutually exclusive to increases in revenues, the County supports, in concept, the reduction in funding for various programs and activities only when the concomitant requirement to provide such programs and activities is relieved. The Board has not considered what specific programs would be acceptable for reductions in funding and expressly reserves its ability to take a position on this issue should (as) it arises during the next legislative session and any pertinent special sessions.

The County supports restoration of historic reductions in local government funding and increased flexibility in implementing and administering services. Providing local governments with greater flexibility to provide services to local communities ensures that services match local needs and greater efficiencies for limited resources. The County also supports the preservation and increase of funding for health and human services “realigned” to counties in the early 1990s. The County opposes any effort to alter the existing Realignment funding allocation formula if it will result in a reduction of funds to San Mateo County. It also opposes any changes to and/or the elimination of the transfer of revenues to cities and counties from the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF).

For programs, like trial courts, no longer operated by counties, the County supports the elimination of maintenance of effort requirements and equitable transition of responsibilities and facilities to the State.

B. Infrastructure Needs, Investments and On-going Revenues

In November 2006, California voters approved $42.7 billion (from Propositions 1B-E and 84) in bond funding for infrastructure needs. Where appropriate, the County supports allocation formulas that ensure the County receives a fair share of infrastructure bond funding by reflecting, in part, the wide variation in the cost of living and doing business among California’s diverse communities. San Mateo County, like others, is already addressing local infrastructure needs through local efforts such as housing trust funds and dedicated revenues for transportation. As a result, the County supports recognition of local efforts to address infrastructure needs by ensuring that housing trusts gain access to Proposition 1C funding.

Of greater importance is the need to secure additional and/or dedicated on-going revenues for the operations and maintenance of existing local infrastructure and future infrastructure improvements. While capital improvements are needed, maintaining existing infrastructure first-“fix it first”-is a sound, cost effective investment of tax dollars. Unfortunately, revenues have not been able to keep pace with the costs of operating and maintaining our critical infrastructure. As a result, the County supports:

C. Fostering Prevention and Healthy Communities

The County supports the development and sustainability of communities through changes in the social and physical environments that promote health. The County supports changes that maximize opportunities for every day physical activity, improved nutrition, reduced violence, increased social connections, and smoke-free environments. To reduce health inequities driven by wealth disparity and a history of discrimination, the County supports stable incomes and housing, opportunities for wealth creation, educational attainment and economic development, particularly in under resourced communities. In order to protect our natural resources for future generations, the County supports measures that protect and improve our air and water quality and mitigate land toxicity.

Specifically, the County supports systems that prioritize more active and sustainable transportation modes such as walking, biking and public transit; improving access to fruits and vegetables, especially locally-grown produce; reducing the availability of high calorie and low nutrient foods. We also support reducing access to tobacco and the abuse of alcohol, especially by youths and measures that reduce waste and pollution that threaten the quality of the environment around us. The state cannot rely upon the County to engage in all prevention efforts but must align state (and federal) policies to prioritize the health of future generations.

D. Universal Health Care Coverage

The County supports the creation and funding of health insurance to all San Mateo County residents regardless of their ability to pay. Any expansion of coverage cannot rely on the County to expand coverage and access – such an expansion must be funded from other levels of government. Such insurance should prioritize access to primary care to prevent and catch diseases early and treat them cost-efficiently. And any health insurance reform must keep safety net providers financially sustainable since no currently-proposed system will provide true universal coverage.

The County supports the provision of more intensive services to families with minor children, particularly those who are at risk of needing higher levels of service. The County also supports the provision of long-term care for elderly and disabled residents in the least restrictive setting possible. Finally, the County supports State efforts to adequately fund existing public health programs.

E. Use of County-specific Cost of Doing Business in State Funding Allocations

While the cost of doing business varies widely by county, most state allocations of funding to the counties do not account for such differences. For example the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act (SACPA) allocation methodology assumes that a dollar of allocation can purchase an equal amount of services in each county. In contrast, Federal funding to states accounts for cost differences among states. The formula in the Federal Public Health Service Act for allocating funds to the states for the Federal Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment (SAPT) Block Grant utilizes a Cost of Service Index Factor whose purpose is to accurately reflect the differences between California and the other states cost of providing substance abuse services. The County supports adjustments to county human service fund allocations that account for the cost differences among California counties of providing services.

The State must fully fund social service programs to eliminate the Human Services Funding Deficit. Counties provide essential services to low-income residents, including Child Welfare Services, Food Stamp Administration, In-Home Supportive Services Administration, and Adult Protective Services. Yet Counties are not fully compensated by the State for the costs of these services. Funding for these services is frozen at 2001 cost levels. The prolonged funding shortfall has resulted in service reductions that have negatively impacted clients. State funding for mandated programs to Counties must be aligned with programs and priorities.


Given the State’s dire financial situation, it is expected that the Governor or Legislature will propose deferral and/or suspension of local government resources such as Proposition 42 (the sales tax on gasoline) and HUTA gas tax (the excise tax on gasoline). San Mateo County had anticipated the receipt of approximately $16 million from these funds in FY 2009-10 to support the County’s roads program. Such a large reduction will have serious consequences for the Public Works Roads Program (including the delay of necessary road maintenance and the potential of staff reductions). Therefore the County will work closely with CSAC and the League of California Cities to advocate for the State to make up for any reductions by advancing the schedule for the release of Proposition 1B Transportation Bond funds for use FY 2010-11. It is critical that the State allow the borrowing and re-purposing of the Bond funds already allocated to meet the on-going expenses for road maintenance. It is equally important that the State relax the deadlines for expending the Bond funds once the borrowed funds are repaid so that local jurisdictions are not at risk of losing funds because they were forced to temporarily use them to meet current cash needs.

In 2006, the Legislature enacted Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006 (AB 32, Nuņez-The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006). The act establishes the goal of reducing, by 2020, the state’s emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) to what those emissions were in 1990. San Mateo County supports the implementation of AB 32. However, it is vital that the State provide funding, incentives and/or revenue raising authority to Counties to assist local government for all climate change actions and impacts.

III. STATE LEGISLATIVE POLICIES

This section describes San Mateo County’s general positions on legislative issues that are expected to appear in the next legislative session, appear regularly at the federal and state levels or are standing policies of the County. While the policies are broken down into five general categories (Administration and Finance, Human Services, Health Services and Hospitals, Public Safety and Justice, and Land Use, Housing Transportation and Environment) many of the policies bridge more than one category. Every effort has been made to properly place each of the policies.

A. Administration and Finance

B. Human Services

The County supports:

C. Child Support

D. Promoting Health and Providing Health Care Services

E. Public Safety and Justice

The County supports:

F. Land Use, Housing, Transportation and Environment

The County supports: