County of San Mateo
2011 State Legislative Session Program
San Mateo County Board of Supervisors
Carole Groom, President
Rose Jacobs Gibson, District 4
Adrienne J. Tissier, District 5
Revised
A. State Budget—Protecting County Revenues and Operations…………………………4
B. Realignment/Restructuring…………………………………………………………….5
C. Vehicle License Fees for Public Safety………………………………………………..5
D. Fostering Prevention and Healthy Communities……………………………………….5
E. Support Health Care Reform Efforts and Strengthen the Financing of Existing Programs………………………………………………………………………………..6
F. Use of County-Specific Cost of Doing Business in State Funding Allocations………..6
G. Human Services Funding Deficit………………………………………………………..6
H. Transportation Funding……………………………..……………………………….......6
I. Mandate Reimbursement- Improvemnts to the SB 90 Claims Process............................7
III. STATE LEGISLATIVE POLICIES………………………………………………………8
A. Administration and Finance…………………………………………………………...8
B. Human Services……………………………………………………………………..…8
C. Child Support……………………………………………………………………….....9
D. Promoting Health and Providing Health Care Services………………………………9
E. Public Safety and Justice………………………………………………….……….....12
F. Land Use, Housing, Transportation and Environment…………………………...…..12
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 2011 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 2011 State Legislative Session Program, is intended to provide a basic policy framework in which San Mateo County can work toward this goal. Divided into two general categories (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 and reported on to the Board, the County Manager, Department Heads, and relevant County staff via the County’s monthly Legislative Activity Report. For issues of greatest concern, 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 be asked to testify or meet with relevant legislators. Members of the Legislative Committee and County staff will also conduct two annual visits to Sacramento to advocate on behalf of County interests. With the approval of the Director of Intergovernmental and Public Affairs and the Board President, staff will utilize the authority found in the 2011 Legislative Session Program in lieu of an official Board position to advocate on particular legislation or issues that conform to adopted policy positions.
II. 2011 STATE LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES
This section highlights the most important 2011 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. State Budget—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 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. Restructuring/Realignment
Given the severity of the State’s budget crisis, the County understands the need to restructure public safety, health and human service programs to local governments, which are better able to provide services more effectively and at less cost. However, the County strongly believes that it is critically important that any realigned programs be fully funded with a logical, dedicated, stable and ongoing revenue source. The transfer of program responsibility must be accompanied with a transfer of authority from the State for program design and delivery. For discretionary programs, the County believes it should have the maximum flexibility to manage the programs and design services for new populations transferred to county responsibility within the revenue base made available, including the flexibility to transfer funds between programs. For entitlement programs, the County believes it must have maximum flexibility over the design of service delivery and administration, to the extent allowable under federal law. There must also be a mechanism to protect against entitlement program costs consuming non-entitlement program funding. Federal maintenance of effort requirements, as well as federal penalties and sanctions, must remain the responsibility of the State.
C. VLF Funding for Public Safety
The County supports the continuation of the temporary increase in the Vehicle License Fee (VLF), which supports a number of local public safety programs formerly supported by the State General Fund. In San Mateo County, this funding supports a variety of prevention and early intervention programs for juvenile offenders, as well as important law enforcement services provided by the Sheriff’s Office. The County supports a permanent extension of the current VLF rate. It is important that the Legislature take action on the VLF extension early in 2011 so as to ensure continuity of funding to these programs before the expiration date of June 30, 2011.
D. 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. We support changes that maximize opportunities for every day physical activity, for improved nutrition, reduced violence, reduced access to alcohol and other drugs, increased social connections, and for 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. The county also supports reducing access to tobacco and the abuse of alcohol, especially by youth; measures that reduce waste and pollution that threaten the quality of the environment around us.
E. Support Health Care Reform Efforts and Strengthen the Finances of Existing Programs
The County supports the creation and funding of health insurance to all San Mateo County residents regardless of their ability to pay. The historic passage of the federal Affordable Care Act and California’s action to achieve successful implementation and a “bridge to reform” under the State’s Medi-Cal 1115 Waiver open new opportunities for sustaining and improving access to health care for low-income and vulnerable San Mateo County populations. Successful implementation of health reform must support adequate medical, dental, and behavioral health care and community-based supportive services capacity for the covered population. Given the prominent role of key safety net providers in serving the Medi-Cal population, it is critical for these providers to remain financially sustainable to serve an expanded Medi-Cal and subsidized population and to serve those not included in the federal reform law’s provisions.
The County supports the continuation of our highly successful universal health insurance coverage of children, regardless of documentation status, which will require continued investment at the local level to sustain coverage for undocumented children. The County will seek opportunities to maximize leverage of Federal and State resources available for the functions that support administration of universal health coverage by local health departments, health plans, provider systems, community-based organizations and others.
The County supports the provision of more intensive services to families with minor children, including home visiting and other case management services, 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.
F. 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. The County supports adjustments to county human service fund allocations that account for the cost differences among California counties of providing services.
G. 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.
H. Transportation Funding
In March 2010, a historic transportation tax swap occurred that resulted in the elimination of the sales tax on gasoline (Proposition 42 funds) and replacement of the lost funds with an increase in the gasoline excise tax (Highway User Taxes Account, HUTA) in an amount that would generate revenue equal to the amount lost the elimination of Prop. 42 funds. This swap was approved through a simple majority vote of the legislature. Combined, Prop. 42 and HUTA are the primary sources of revenue for the County’s Road Fund.
In November 2010, State voters approved Propositions 22 and 26. Among other things, Prop. 26 requires that new taxes secure a two-thirds, majority vote, and for the State, Prop. 26 makes this requirement retroactive to January 1, 2010. As a result, the portion of the tax swap that increased HUTA funds was nullified because it was a tax increase approved by a simple majority; however, the elimination of Prop. 42 funds remains in effect because it was a reduction, and not an increase, in taxes. This translates into loss of approximately one-third of the County transportation funding. The County supports full transportation funding and the reenactment of the March 2010 transportation gas tax swap by the State Legislature.
I. Mandate Reimbursement—Improvements to the SB 90 Claims Process
Senate Bill 90 (Statutes of 1972, Chapter 1406) outlines the State’s requirements to reimburse local government for the cost of certain mandated services. However, the process is a complicated and lengthy one, resulting in years of delay for payments to local governments. Furthermore, counties (in many cases) are still required to provide the service even without receiving reimbursement. In recent years, suspending mandate reimbursement has become a common practice by the State as a cost shifting measure to locals. The County supports improvements to the mandate reimbursement process that simplify the claiming requirements, expedite the process, and provide sufficient reimbursement to counties. The County also opposes the practice of mandate suspension as a State budget solution. Local governments should be provided the opportunity to comment on proposals to suspend mandates and then be provided adequate time to end program services.
This section describes San Mateo County’s standing policy positions. While the policies are broken down into five general categories (Administration and Finance, Human Services, Health Services and Hospitals, Public Safety and Justice, and Housing, Land Use, Environment and Transportation 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. 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.
2. The provision of federal matching funds to match State expenditures of child support performance incentive payments.
3. Amendment of the Statewide Uniform Child Support Guideline to ensure the determination of appropriate child support award amounts, including a low-income adjustment that adequately considers the economic challenges faced by many parents.
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. This includes aggressive greenhouse gas emissions targets and performance-based policy standards.
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, childcare sites and after school programs, as well as for publicly funded food security programs such as WIC and food stamps.
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.
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 the safety of food.
9. 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.
10. Implement laws and regulations which require health as a consideration in all General Plan development, either as a required element or a required area of study.
11. Funding high-quality medical, dental and mental health supports to families, particularly families with small children.
12. Providing stable funding for home visiting and other case management services for families at risk for poor health and social outcomes.
13. Reducing costs, increasing revenue and providing flexibility in the use of State and federal funds for the Health System. Some current examples are the Hospital Fee legislation; opportunities associated with State’s new 1115 Medicaid waiver, and increased flexibility in the rules for Federal Qualified Health Centers (FQHC).
14. Improving care for elderly and disabled residents by
• Implementing the Long-Term Care Integration (LTCI) by giving San Mateo the flexibility to spend money on long-term support services in ways that most benefit the client, as is being pursued through serving as a pilot for a coordinated and system of supports for older adults and persons with disabilities with Medi-Cal coverage within the 1115 Waiver.
• 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.
15. Establishing inflation and caseload adjustments for the federal Older Americans Act so this funding stream can keep pace with increases in cost and demand. Modifying laws and regulations so that people with sex offender labels who are no longer a threat to the community can be placed in appropriate care facilities.
16. Improving care for children with special health care needs by:
• Unifying California Children’s Services (CCS) Administration program with the Health Plan of San Mateo using a CCS waiver for pilot programs (RFP to be released December 2010). Providing ongoing funding for the CCS Medical Therapy Program.
17. Providing financial relief for correctional health responsibilities, such as access to 340B and other Medi-Cal-related cost containment/revenue generation methods.
18. Promoting funding for technology for outreach and enrollment into health care coverage programs.
19. 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.
20. Providing stable funding for Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and related programs including trauma, emergency medical care reimbursement and local EMS agencies.
21. 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.
22. Providing stable funding for locked long-term care and ancillary services for people with behavioral health problems.
23. Promoting integration of mental health and alcohol/drug services with primary care services through opportunities presented by the State’s Medicaid waivers.
24. Providing support to local healthcare services and programs that serve clients in the criminal justice system.
25. Providing stable funding for alcohol and other drug services through a California alcohol tax.
26. Providing regulatory protection for the confidentiality of After Action Reports developed in response to an emergency incident to ensure reports are honest and comprehensive without fear of public retaliation or law suits.
27. Increasing options for adult mediation as a strategy for jail diversion including confidentiality protection similar to that provided for juveniles.
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. 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)
7. 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)
8. Meaningful reform related to redevelopment agencies-reform that includes an examination of the definition of blight and of project area mergers. (2006, CMO)
9. Careful and cautious review of the implementation of Proposition 50 water bond funds.
10. Careful and cautious examination of State efforts to manage regional growth issues.
11. Maintenance of adequate open space/park lands through increased funding for development easements, needed restoration and rehabilitation activities.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Implementation of AB 32 (Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006), the Global Warming Solutions Act, that establishes the goal of reducing, by 2020, the State’s emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) to 1990 levels. However, it is vital that the State provide funding incentives and/or revenue raising authority to local governments for its implementation and impacts.
15. 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)
16. Allocation of formulas that ensure the County receives it 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.
17. The County supports the protection from diversion or borrowing of the federal or State gas tax. Specifically, it supports additional protections in the State Constitution for local streets and road funding derived through Proposition 42 (the sales tax on gasoline) and the Highway Users Tax Account (HUTA, the excise tax on gasoline). The County also supports prohibitions on the delayed pass-through of State transportation funding (HUTA) to counties caused by State budget delays.
18. Consideration of additional and/or dedicated Statewide ongoing revenue sources that support local operations and maintenance of existing and future infrastructure needs.
19. Updating, adjusting and/or indexing the current gas tax.
20. Statewide policies that ensure rehabilitation, operation and maintenance of local infrastructure as priorities.
21. Balanced with the need for environmental protection, the streamlining and coordination of regulatory requirements so that routine projects can be processed without delay, expectation for routine work can be established and the costs of both initial construction of and ongoing operations and maintenance of local infrastructure can be effectively reduced.
22. Funding for new regulations on storm water management required by the State Regional Water Quality Control Boards.
23. 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.