County of San Mateo
2009-2010 State Legislative Session Program
San Mateo County Board of Supervisors
Richard S. Gordon, President
Rose Jacobs Gibson, District 4
Adrienne J. Tissier, District 5
Revised
January 2010
II. 2009-2010 STATE LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES……………………………………..3
A. Protecting County Revenues and Operations……………………………………….3
B. Infrastructure Needs, Investments and On- going Revenues………………………..4
C. Fostering Prevention and Healthy Communities……………………………………4
D. Universal Health Care Coverage…………………………………………………….5
E. Use of County- specific Cost of Doing Business in State Funding Allocations…….5
F. Human Services Funding Deficit……………………………………………………5
G. Proposition 1B Transportation Bond Funds…………………………………………6
H. Climate Change……………………………………………………………………...6
III. STATE LEGISLATIVE POLICIES…………………………………………………...7
A. Administration and Finance………………………………………………………….7
B. Human Services………………………………………………………………………7
C. Child Support…………………………………………………………………………8
D. Promoting Health and Providing Health Care Services………………………………8
E. Public Safety and Justice………………………………………………….…………10
F. Land Use, Housing, Transportation and Environment………………………………11
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:
• Funding that adequately supports local infrastructure needs;
• From existing revenue sources like gas tax and Proposition 42 on the State level and SAFETEA-LU on the Federal level, funding allocations that reasonably support local needs;
• Protection of the gas tax and Proposition 42 funding from redirection by the State into their General Fund;
• Consideration of additional and/or dedicated statewide on-going revenue sources that support local operations and maintenance of existing and future infrastructure needs;
• Increasing local flexibility to create new and increased local transportation revenue sources such as local transportation sales taxes, vehicle license fees;
• Updating, adjusting and/or indexing the current gas tax;
• Statewide policies that ensure rehabilitation, operation and maintenance of local infrastructure are among the top funding priorities;
• Balanced with the need for environmental protection, the streamlining and coordination of regulatory requirements so that routine projects can be processed without delay, expectations for routine work can be established and the costs of both initial construction of and on-going operations and maintenance of local infrastructure can be effectively reduced; and
• Funding for new regulations on storm water management required by the State Regional Water Quality Control Boards.
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.
F. Human Services Funding Deficit
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.
G. Proposition 1B Transportation Bond Funds
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.
H. Climate Change
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.
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.
The County supports:
1. Preservation of existing revenues and revenue authority, including the elimination of ERAF and maintenance of effort (MOE) requirements. The County opposes efforts to expand MOE requirements and ERAF. Maintenance of effort requirements tend to penalize more progressive counties that implement programs before the statewide program.
2. Maintenance of property tax revenues directed to local government. The County opposes efforts to direct property tax revenues away from local government.
3. Efforts to allocate funding through block grants, which allow for maximum flexibility in the use of funding within the designated program.
4. Increased funding for county infrastructure needs, should such funds be available.
5. Examination of equitable funding structures and formulas that reflect a county’s responsibilities, demographics, cost of living and caseloads. The County opposes funding restructuring efforts that do not ensure adequate revenues for new responsibilities and obligations.
6. Federal funding mechanisms that allow funding to flow directly to local governments rather than through state government.
7. Efforts to create faster reimbursement processes from state and federal sources to local government.
8. Increased ability to utilize state or local matching funds to draw down additional federal funds.
9. “Revenue neutrality” that requires the transfer of adequate revenues to accompany the corresponding responsibility. Generally, the County opposes the use of local revenues to satisfy state or federally mandated activities.
10. Economic Development efforts that grow the California and local economies in a sustainable (environmental and economic) fashion.
11. Efforts that improve voting accessibility and the implementation and compliance of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). (2006, CoD)
The County supports:
1. Preservation of the 1991 county health and human services realignment program. The County also supports a careful and cautious analysis of any efforts to alter the current system in light of California’s fiscal constraints. (2001-2002, revised)
2. Increased flexibility for the administration of CalWORKs. Flexibility in the CalWORKs program should include income eligibility standards for child care.
3. Reinstate Title IV-E programs and services to children who are in need of prevention and early intervention services.
4. Preservation of children’s protective services, participation and funding. (2008, HSA, Revised)
5. Maximum flexibility to institute innovative practices in child welfare and foster care such as “wraparound” services and multi-discipline service approaches.
6. Increased funding and greater funding flexibility for foster care services, which are critical to adequately protect children in need.
7. Elimination of reductions to penalties related to the failure to meet the work participation rate in CalWORKS.
8. Allowing for county flexibility in the work component and permissible activities that contribute to the work participation rates in Temporary Assistance to Needy Families legislation. (2008, HSA)
9. Eliminate the fingerprint requirement or allow counties to waive the fingerprint requirement for food stamps.
1. The passage of the Revenue Stabilization Fund proposed in the Governor’s 2009-2010 Proposed State Budget. The Revenue Stabilization Fund will provide necessary funding to allow local Child Support Agencies to maintain core critical case management resources to stabilize collections.
2. Support the allocation of funding to local agencies that takes into account the differences in the cost of doing business in California’s diverse counties.
The County supports:
1. Implementation of SB 375 and other climate change laws, policies, and programs on the federal, state and regional levels in ways that incentivize or require physical changes that promote active transportation, such as walking, biking, and public transit, over more sedentary and less environmentally-friendly forms of transportation.
2. Taxes and other measures to reduce the attractiveness and availability of high calorie, low nutrient foods, such as a tax or fee on sugar-sweetened beverages, a reduction in subsidies for commodity crops (particularly corn), and financial support for the provision of produce to low-income residents and publicly funded settings such as schools, daycares and after school programs
3. Taxes and other measures to reduce the attractiveness and availability of alcohol, particularly for youths, such as a tax or fee on alcoholic beverages and limitations on the siting of stores selling liquor. Use of alcohol tax revenues as a stable and increased funding for alcohol and drug services.
4. Taxes and other measures to reduce the attractiveness and availability of tobacco, particularly for youths, such as increased taxes or fees on tobacco products and limitations on the siting of stores selling tobacco and on smoking in public places.
5. Implementation of laws, regulations and programs that increase income self-sufficiency and wealth creation such as increasing the minimum wage, increasing the supply of affordable housing first-time home buyer subsidies, neighborhood improvements and opportunities for education attainment.
6. Implementation of laws, regulations and programs that improve the quality and scope of environmental health programs throughout the state, and promote uniformity in implementing such programs.
7. Implementation of laws, regulations and programs that support the principles of Product Stewardship (also known as Extended Producer Responsibility) that directs all participants involved in the life cycle of a product to take shared responsibility for the environmental and human health impacts that result from the production, use, and disposal of a product.
8. Implementation of laws, regulations and programs that promote Green Chemistry.
9. Implementation of laws, regulations and programs that promote the safety of food.
10. Implementation of laws, regulations and programs that promote a philosophy of a Green Chemistry initiative in order to provide recommendations for developing a consistent means for evaluating risk, reducing exposure, encouraging less-toxic industrial processes, and identifying safer, non-chemical alternatives. A Green Chemistry initiative should ensure a comprehensive and collaborative approach to increase accountability and effectiveness of environmental programs across state and local government.
11. Funding high-quality medical and mental health supports to families, particularly families with small children.
12. Reducing costs, increasing revenue and providing flexibility in the use of state and federal funds for San Mateo Medical Center (SMMC). Some current examples are the Hospital Fee legislation, a continuation of the increased FMAP to improve the revenues of the San Mateo Medical Center, opportunities associated with the State’s development of a new 1115 Medicaid waiver, and increased flexibility in the rules for Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC).
13. Improving care for elderly and disabled residents by
13.1. Implementing the Long-Term Supportive Services Program by giving San Mateo County the flexibility to spend money on long-term support services in ways that most benefit the client;
13.2. Continuing the Nursing Home Diversion Program. This grant program has helped older Americans and veterans remain independent and to support people with Alzheimer’s disease to remain in their homes and communities; and
13.3. Establishing inflation and caseload adjustments for the federal Older Americans Act so this funding stream can keep pace with increases in cost and demand.
14. Providing financial relief for correctional health responsibilities, such as access to 340B and other Medi-Cal-related cost containment/revenue generation methods.
15. Promoting funding for technology for outreach and enrollment into health care coverage programs.
16. Reinstating funding for maternal, child and adolescent health programs including the Adolescent Family Life Program, the Black Infant Health Program, Comprehensive Perinatal Services Program, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome Program, and general maternal, child and adolescent health programs.
17. Providing ongoing funding for the California Children’s Services Medical Therapy program.
18. Providing stable funding for Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and related programs including trauma, emergency medical care reimbursement and local EMS agencies.
19. Providing stable funding and increased access for mental health and drug and alcohol services through full implementation of state and federal mental health and drug and alcohol parity laws; stable funding for the mandated AB 3632/26.5 program for children enrolled in special education program who require mental health services as well as for alcohol and other drug services; and for locked long-term care and ancillary services for people with behavioral health problems. Promoting integration of mental health and alcohol/drug services with primary care services through opportunities presented by the State’s Medicaid waivers.
20. Providing stable funding for alcohol and other drug services through a California alcohol tax.
The County supports:
1. Preservation of funding for local public safety efforts, including inmate health, juvenile probation and prevention programs, mental health and drug and alcohol programs. (2001-2002)
2. Preservation of funding and, in the future, seek additional funding for Proposition 36 implementation. Support statutory changes that improve the operational efficiency and local flexibility of the program. (2001-2002, revised)
3. Full funding and/or equity in the trial court realignment block grant. The County also supports efforts to continue examination into trial court funding and maintenance including the transfer of trial court facilities.
4. Full funding for the cost of booking and processing of persons arrested by public entities in San Mateo County. In the event full funding is not made available through a state appropriation or other fund source, the County supports reinstatement of booking fees that ensure full cost recovery.
5. Increased regulation of firearms.
6. Efforts to facilitate the construction and operation of youth services facilities, such as increased or reallocated funding for correctional facilities that are ready for immediate construction.
7. Increased funding for substance abuse treatment, mental health services and other diversionary services for inmates.
8. Continued review of the alignment of Chief Probation Officer selection, appointment and retention authority with funding. The County also supports cautious review of any potential separation of adult and juvenile probation activities.
9. Efforts to align law library costs, including facilities maintenance, with trial courts rather than the County.
10. Increased federal funding for State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP).
11. Disaster preparedness measures that enable local governments to better plan for and respond to emergencies and disasters.
12. Corrections reforms that are developed through a collaboration between state and local governments and adequately funded and that building upon successful, existing programs such, to include financial support for local jail construction projects, recognize the importance of alcohol and other drug treatment as well as mental health services and provide local flexibility that meets the unique characteristics of each county.
The County supports:
1. Solutions and funding for the region’s housing crisis that address the needs of homeless, lower-income residents, CalWORKs participants and at-risk populations including the housing needs of people with disabilities and the elderly.
2. Efforts to preserve affordable and accessible housing and the development of new affordable and accessible housing through activities including additional funding for local housing trust funds, development of statewide and national housing trust funds, and efforts to increase the amount of multi-family housing in San Mateo County.
3. Smart Growth efforts and other land use decisions that facilitate appropriate mixed use developments along efficient public transportation corridors. The County also supports an examination of current rules and standards that benefit lower density development (over higher density development) and vehicular movement at the expense of pedestrian traffic and safety. While the County supports development incentives for Smart Growth related activities, the County opposes efforts to divert or restrict funding usage to specific programs.
4. Increases in Housing Assistance Payments and Administrative Fee amounts and greater flexibility for use of Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program funds. The County opposes efforts to reduce funding amounts in this arena and or limitations on the flexibility of use of funds. (2006, Housing)
5. Renewal of subsidies for the Supportive Housing Program as well as the Shelter Plus Care Program. These programs fund San Mateo County’s transitional and permanent supportive housing for homeless families and homeless persons with disabilities. It also is the primary funder of our homeless providers for support staff and program operations. These funds also support rental assistance for disabled homeless people. (2006, Housing)
6. Meaningful reform related to redevelopment agencies-reform that includes an examination of the definition of blight and of project area mergers. (2006, CMO)
7. Careful and cautious review of the implementation of Proposition 50 water bond funds.
8. Careful and cautious examination of state efforts to manage regional growth issues.
9. Maintenance of adequate open space/park lands through increased funding for development easements, needed restoration and rehabilitation activities.
10. Efforts to protect, conserve, restore, and enhance environmental resources of the San Mateo County and its coast and adjacent waters for environmentally sustainable and prudent use by current and future generations. (2005, ESA)
11. The Legislative Analysts Office recommendation to require a statewide transportation needs assessment every five years, if the assessment has no fiscal impact on County funds or revenues.
12. Changes in policies and practices that result in a net reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions; increased energy efficiency and conservation efforts that reduce California’s per-capita need for energies including electricity and fossil fuels; increased production and use of renewable energies that grows the renewable energies “market share” of California’s energy consumption profile; and, when necessary, non-renewable energies development that meets environmental reviews, that maintains or exceeds current environmental and/or emission controls, and that best protects our natural environments and offshore areas.
13. Exploration of new funding sources to implement local government programs that benefit the environment such as: watershed protection, green house gas reduction, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) compliance, and development of alternative energy sources. (PW, 2008)
14. Advancing the schedule for the release of Proposition 1B Transportation Bond funds so that additional monies will be available in FY 2010-11 beyond what is already scheduled to be released in FY 2009-10. This proposal is necessary so that the County can maintain its streets and roads and avoid the deterioration of infrastructure. (PW, 2008)
15. Preserving land use authority of local governments by allowing jurisdictions that have adopted inclusionary zoning ordinances, such as County of San Mateo, to take the intended and predictable effect of the ordinance into account when calculating availability of adequate zoned capacity to meet their Regional Housing Needs Allocation. (Housing, 2009)
16. Expansion of the California Assisted Living Waiver Pilot Project so that senior low-income residents of San Mateo County may use Medi-Cal benefits to pay for affordable assisted living services in a residential setting. (Health, Housing, 2009)