|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
Inter-Departmental Correspondence
County Manager’s Office
|
|
|
|
DATE:
|
January 30, 2010
|
BOARD MEETING DATE:
|
February 9, 2010
|
SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:
|
None
|
VOTE REQUIRED:
|
Majority
|
|
|
TO:
|
Honorable Board of Supervisors
|
FROM:
|
David S. Boesch, County Manager
|
SUBJECT:
|
County Manager’s Report #2
|
A.
|
Analysis of the 2010-11 Proposed State Budget
|
|
|
RECOMMENDATION:
|
Accept this report.
|
|
|
BACKGROUND:
|
On January 8, 2010, the Governor released his proposed budget for FY 2010-11. Facing an estimated $18.9 billion General Fund deficit ($6.6 billion in FY 2009-10 and $12.3 billion in FY 2010-11) the plan includes $19.8 billion in solutions with a $1 billion reserve.
|
|
|
The proposal would make an additional $8.5 billion in reductions to health, human service and public safety programs; relies upon $6.9 billion in new federal funding; and shifts some $3.8 billion from other programs.
|
|
|
A “trigger” provision is pulled if the additional federal funds are not secured. The result would be elimination of CalWORKS, In-Home Supportive Services, Healthy Families, and Transitional Housing Placement for Foster-Youth Plus programs; further reductions to Medi-Cal eligibility; shifting Proposition 63 funds to mental health services; and implementation of banked parole for low-risk serious and non-violent offenders.
|
|
|
A number of the Administration’s proposals would require voter approval at the June 2010 ballot, including the proposed shifting of Propositions 10 and 63 funds and earmarking 10 percent of the state General Fund for higher education coupled with the privatization and contracting-out services for state prisons.
|
|
|
The Governor declared a fiscal emergency and called for a Special Session to address the current year budget gap giving the Legislature 45 days to act.
|
|
|
|
|
DISCUSSION:
|
Specific impacts on San Mateo County services include:
|
|
|
HEALTH SYSTEM—($46.2 million)
|
Healthy Families
|
Program Eligibility
|
Reduce program eligibility from 250 percent to 200 percent of the federal poverty level. Approximately 2,500 clients would be impacted, including 440 California Children’s Services Program cases that would revert to increased County share of cost, and 63 Behavioral Health and Recovery Services clients who would no longer be eligible for services.
|
|
|
Benefit Reduction
|
Eliminate vision coverage and increased monthly premiums for families above 150 percent of the federal poverty level.
|
|
|
In-Home Supportive Services ($6.6 million)
|
Elimination of Services Based on Functional Index
|
Limit services to a functional index score of 4.0 or higher. This change would impact approximately 2,680 clients or 84 percent of the current client base.
|
|
|
Reduction of State Participation in Wages
|
Reduce state participation in wages for IHSS workers from $11.50 to $8 per hour, the state minimum. This would impact 3,200 IHSS independent providers.
|
|
|
Medi-Cal
|
Cost Containment Strategies
|
Limit on services and utilization controls and increased cost of sharing through co-payment requirements and/or premiums. Approximately, 38,000 adults would be affected.
|
|
|
Legal Immigrants
|
Eliminate full-scope Medi-Cal benefits for adult Newly Qualified Immigrants, except pregnant women, and elimination of full-scope benefits for Immigrants Permanently Residing Under Color of Law (PRUCOL). This would impact 900 residents.
|
|
|
Optional Adult Day Health Care
|
Eliminate the optional adult day health care benefit, effective March 1. This would impact an unknown number clients.
|
|
|
Delay Provider Checkwrite
|
A one-week deferral of weekly payment to institutional Medi-Cal providers, including hospitals, clinics and nursing homes. This would present a cash flow issue for the Medical Center.
|
|
|
AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP) ($160,000)
|
Eliminate funding for ADAP services to inmates in county jails.
|
|
|
Federal Matching Assistance Program (FMAP)
|
Increase federal matching fund rate for Medi-Cal to national average from 50 percent to 57 percent. This proposal would decrease the County share of programs in Aging and Adult Services, Family Health, the Medical Center, and Behavioral Health and Recovery Services. It is unclear how the proposed cuts in the Medi-Cal program would reduce the number of eligible clients with this revenue change.
|
|
|
Proposition 36 ($357,636)
|
Eliminate funding for the Substance Abuse Offender Treatment Program. This reduction would impact 169 clients, referred by the courts for outpatient and residential treatment services, probation supervision and methadone services.
|
|
|
Adult Protective Services ($143,453)
|
Continue a 10 percent funding reduction for the program. APS funding has been held flat since 2001, while experiencing an increase in its caseload. It is expected that the number of individuals needing services will increase due to the reduction in other programs, such as IHSS and the Alzheimer’s Day Care Resource Center.
|
|
|
Mental Health Services Act ($708,149)
|
Substitute state General Fund with Mental Health Services Act funds (Proposition 63) to pay for a portion of the EPSDT and the Mental Health Managed Care programs. This action would require voter approval.
|
|
|
Proposition 10 ($1 million)
|
Shift 50 percent of First Five revenue directed to state and local accounts to programs administered by the Department of Developmental Services and Department of Social Services. Family Health receives $1 million in Prop. 10 funding to support the Prenatal to Three and Black Infant Health programs. This action would require voter approval.
|
|
|
Additional “Trigger” Cuts ($37.2 million)
|
• Eliminate Healthy Families—($9 million)—10,000 children affected
|
• Eliminate In-Home Supportive Services—3,200 clients impacted
|
• Reduce Medi-Cal eligibility to the minimum allowed under federal law and elimination of most optional benefits—($14.4M)—4,000 low-income parents and persons with disabilities affected
|
• Redirect Proposition 63 funding to existing mental health services—($13,831,433)—4,600 clients impacted. The funding loss would also result in an unknown loss in federal matching funds.
|
|
|
HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY—($29 million)
|
CalWORKS
|
Grants
|
A 15.7 percent reduction in monthly grants effective June 1, 2010. The proposal is in addition to a 4 percent cut implemented July 1,2009. The average monthly grant for a family of three in the County would decrease from $543 per month to $458 per month.
|
|
|
|
|
Recent Noncitizen Entrants Program
|
Eliminate CalWORKS grants for Recent Non-Citizen Entrants, effective June 1, 2010. Approximately 348 recipients would loose eligibility.
|
|
|
Child Care Provider Reimbursements ($690,000)
|
Reduce state reimbursement levels for child care providers. The budget proposes no Stage One reserve.
|
|
|
Regional Market Rate Ceilings for Childcare Providers
|
Reduce reimbursement rates for licensed childcare providers from the 85th percentile to the 75th percentile. The County and its partners work with over 625 childcare providers annually who are reimbursed at or close to the 85th percentile. This proposal would result in fewer providers willing to care for children who receive subsidized childcare.
|
|
|
Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants ($1.2 million)
|
Eliminate CAPI. The County’s current caseload is 272. If 95 percent of these clients qualify for General Assistance, it is estimated the cost to the County would be $1.2 million per year.
|
|
|
Child Welfare Services, Foster Care and Adoption Assistance Program Redirecting of County Savings
|
Redirect county “savings” created by reductions to the CalWORKS and IHSS programs to the state General Fund for revised state and county sharing ratios in Child Welfare Services, Foster Care and Adoption Assistance Programs. Increased ratios to the County include 15 percent for Foster Care, 34 percent for the Adoption Assistance Program and 40 percent for Child Welfare. The funding stream to support these programs would shift from the state to the County and would rely on Vehicle License Fees and California sales tax revenues.
|
|
|
Foster Care Grants
|
Continue 10 percent reduction to group homes, foster family agencies and rates paid on behalf of Seriously Emotionally-Disturbed Children. While the rate cut was approved in the 2009-10 budget, it has not been imposed due to a temporary restraining order imposed by the courts.
|
|
|
SSI/SSP
|
A $15 per month reduction in SSI/SSP grants to individuals, beginning June 1, 2010, from $845 to $830, the federal minimum.
|
|
|
Cost of Doing Business ($10 million)
|
Counties have not received a funding adjustment since FY 2000-01. It is estimated that the County is owed approximately $10 for the administration of human service programs.
|
|
|
Realignment Base ($1 million)
|
The Administration has projected a 5 percent shortfall for the current budget year, which would result in four straight years of funding below the base.
|
|
|
Additional “Trigger” Cuts ($16.6 million)
|
• Eliminate CalWORKS—($14.9 million)—1,500 families impacted, including 5,000 County children
|
• Eliminate funding for the Transitional Housing Placement for Foster-Youth Plus Program—($1.7 million)— 44 youth affected
|
• Increase County Share of Costs for the administration of the Food Stamp program—(unknown)—New sharing ratios have not yet been set.
|
|
|
SHERIFF’S OFFICE—($272,358)
|
Vehicle License Fee Funding ($272,358)
|
The 2009-10 State Budget set aside a portion of a Vehicle License Fee (VLF) increase to backfill lost funding for local enforcement subventions, specifically the Citizen’s Option for Public Safety (COPS), Cal-EMA grant programs and the Booking Fee. The decline in new vehicle purchases has resulted in a sharp decrease in VLF revenues. Estimates are that the County will receive approximately $272,358 less in funding for the operation of these programs.
|
|
|
Modify Sentencing Practices (unknown)
|
Modify sentencing practices to allow offenders convicted of certain non-serious, non-violent, non-sex felonies to be incarcerated for up to one year in local jails. Offenses include drug possession, grand theft, check fraud and receiving stolen property. This proposal will place additional pressures on the County’s already overcrowded jails, which are currently operating at 140 percent of capacity. It is estimated this would add an additional 250 inmates.
|
|
|
PROBATION—(unknown)
|
Vehicle License Fee Funding
|
The 2009-10 State Budget set aside a portion of a May 2009 VLF increase for payment of public safety programs, including the Youthful Offender Block Grant, the Juvenile Probation and Camps Program and the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act. Decreased revenue collection through the VLF has made this an extremely variable funding source.
|
|
|
DISTRICT ATTORNEY—($217,949)
|
Vehicle License Fee Funding ($36,464)
|
It is expected that the downturn in VLF monies will result in a loss of $36,464 in Realignment Sales tax and Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund revenues that fund State Community Oriented Policing Services.
|
|
|
Statutory Rape Vertical Prosecution Grant ($127,473)
|
Eliminate funding for this program.
|
|
|
CORONER—($183,660)
|
Mandate Suspension
|
Continue suspension of all mandates suspended in the current fiscal year. Counties have the option of funding the services at their own cost or not providing the service at all. Services include Post Mortem exams, Sudden Infant Death Autopsies and Sudden Infant Death Notification with a combined annual cost of $183,660.
|
|
|
PUBLIC WORKS—($16 million)
|
Transportation Funding Tax Swap
|
The budget proposes to eliminate the sales tax on gasoline, proceeds of which fund Proposition 42, and instead increase the excise tax on gasoline (Highway Users Tax Account or HUTA) by 10.8 cents. Expectations are that if this proposal is adopted, the state could more easily “borrow” HUTA tax funds. Combined, Proposition 42 and HUTA funds are the department’s primary sources of funding for the maintenance and rehabilitation of the County’s unincorporated transportation network.
|
|
|
Performance Measure(s):
|
Measure
|
FY 2008-09
Actual
|
FY 2009-10
Projected
|
Federal/State Measures analyzed and acted on
|
25
|
35
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FISCAL IMPACT:
|
The proposed State Budget results in an estimated $36.2 million impact on the County’s FY 2010-11 budget. An additional $53.8 million reduction would result from the “trigger” cuts and, if approved in a June 2010 Special Election, a loss of $1.7 million in Proposition 10 and 63 funding — or $91.8 million.
|
|
|
B.
|
Resolution approving edits to the 2009-10 State Legislative Program for San Mateo County
|
|
|
RECOMMENDATION:
|
Adopt a resolution approving edits to the 2010 State Legislative Program for San Mateo County.
|
|
|
BACKGROUND:
|
The 2009-2010 State Legislative Program Session Program articulates the state legislative priorities for the County. These priorities, in combination with positions taken by the Board of Supervisors, guide the County’s legislative advocacy efforts.
|
|
|
DISCUSSION:
|
Due to the continuing State budget crisis, the County will be sponsoring three bills in the current session that would improve administrative and achieve fiscal efficiencies. These include: statutory changes that would result in a savings of several hundred thousand dollars to the County by aligning California law with the S-CHIP Reauthorization ACT (CHIPRA); allowing the County Registrar to distribute one copy of the Sample Ballot to multiple households, except in primary elections; and allow children enrolled in the foster care program a Medi-Cal card to ensure uninterrupted health, educational support and counseling services.
|
|
|
Over all the top priorities remain securing adequate funding for programs administered by the County, opposing reductions to state programs that shift additional financial responsibility to the County and opposing any efforts to shift costs or federal penalties to the County.
|
|
|
Approval of this resolution contributes to the Shared Vision of 2025 of a Collaborative Community by providing the County with a basic policy framework on the Board of Supervisor’s positions on a range of proposals, priorities and policies that impact the County.
|
|
|
Performance Measure(s):
|
Measure
|
FY 2008-09
Actual
|
FY 2009-10
Projected
|
Number of legislation related actions taken—County action
(sponsor/support/oppose/amend)
|
40
|
45
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FISCAL IMPACT:
|
None.
|