“The Governor’s budget guarantees California’s recession will continue into the foreseeable future, as it will only create greater unemployment and further stifle our state’s ability to financially recover.  The Governor was wrong when he proclaimed we had a spending problem and he is wrong to propose a budget that decimates programs for our children and our most vulnerable.

When you propose to layoff teachers, close domestic violence shelters, and take away critical social services and healthcare, there is no doubt you have a revenue problem.  I have opposed and will continue to oppose all budgets that are balanced on the backs of our students, elderly and working poor.  We must clawback tax credits for corporations that abandon California, implement an oil severance tax like all other states, and ensure the wealthy pay their fair share. 

 For too long, we have allowed Republicans to keep taxes off the table.  Democrats need to stand strong and say draconian cuts to education and other critical services will not be tolerated.”

Yee has consistently voted against budget cuts to education, social services and healthcare, and has led the effort to save California’s domestic violence shelters.  This year, Yee is authoring legislation to allow the state to recoup or “clawback” tax credits given to corporations that decrease jobs or move out of the state.  Yesterday, SB 1391 was approved on a 3-1 vote by the Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee.

Senator Yee was a member of the San Francisco Unified School district board before his term as state senator.

The governor’s proposed budget will force cuts to over 29,000 teachers in California and a bevy of reduced services, such as increased classroom sizes, gifted education and library services. Districts across the state have been scrambling to bridge budget shortfalls by cutting back on positions and services.

Redwood City has announced 98 teacher layoffs, nearly one-fifth of the districts teacher population. Belmont-Redwood shores has announced 24 teacher layoffs prompting one ten year old student to donate her birthday party money in an effort to save her teacher. The San Bruno Park School district has recently approved the layoffs of over 20 teachers while the South San Francisco Unified School District approved the layoffs of 50 teachers in February.

UPDATED: Frank Pugh, president of the California School Boards Association had this to say about the Governor’s proposed budget, “How dare the state balance the budget on the backs of our children. Voters have voiced their concerns around education cuts and asked lawmakers to make education a priority, and yet the governor still proposes a budget that will severely affect every classroom, every teacher and every child.  We need a balanced budget that doesn’t depend on cuts alone. It is now up to the Legislature to remember that the most important capital we have is human capital.”

CSBA Executive Director Scott P. Plotkin added, ”It is impossible to justify why our state government chooses to disregard the importance of a child’s education and well-being. What is clear is that we can no longer wait for the state to act in the interest of our students.  In these dire circumstances, we are given no choice but to take drastic measures to fix our broken education finance system.”

While the report does stipulate that district should find a suitable alternative for the current Peninsula high school as well as the County Office of Education programs, the report recommends that the entirety of the 41 acre Crestmoor site to be declared surplus. This includes the athletic fields currently used by hundreds of athletes in various leagues. The committee does recommend that any future action by the governing board regarding the disposition of the Crestmoor buildings and grounds should reflect the community’s expressed goal of preserving open space and playfields.

As for the 3 acres of land on the current home of Hillsdale high school in San Mateo, the committee recommends that any dispostion of the land should be compatible with the surrounding low density residential neighborhood.

The committee has met it’s share of obstacles in producing the report. During a number of public hearings in both San Bruno and San Mateo, citizens representing both communities spoke passionately about the benefit of the sites to the students and outlying neighborhoods. Also during the recommendation process, former 7-11 committee chair and current San Bruno Park School District board member William ‘Skip” Henderson resigned from the 7-11 committee over a closed door meeting with a real property negotiator regarding the Crestmoor site. This was seen as a conflict of interest and Henderson stepped down as 7-11 committee chair shortly thereafter. 

The committee is scheduled to present its findings to the SMUHSD board of trustees on May 13. It will then be entirely up the the SMUHSD board of trustees to the declare the sites as surplus land. The board may take some, all or even none of the committee’s findings into its final decisions.

The meeting opened with a presentation from San Bruno Park School district board members Kevin Martinez and Jennifer Blanco. Each delivered a short presentation on the upcoming Dia de los Ninos celebration in San Bruno City Park on Saturday, May 8^th from 1:00 to 4:00 pm.

Conduct of business included reports from the city treasurer as well as financial reports from the city’s financial director and city manager.

San Bruno city treasurer John Marty presented a quarterly investment report to the council. Of the city’s investment pie, $8 million dollars is invested in obligation bonds, $10.5 million in an independent investment fund and $16.7 million invested in the San Mateo County investment pool, managed by the county treasurer’s office.

In addition, Marty reported on the possible reimbursement of losses in Lehman investments to local agencies. According to the federal secretary of the treasury, it is not within the treasury’s means to make reimbursements. Further discussions regarding profits received from paid-in-full TARP funds which could be used to purchase Lehman bonds at par were discussed. Marty is awaiting further news from the county treasurer’s office on this possible option.

The city council was then presented a quarterly financial report from San Bruno finance director Edmund Suen. Suen reported that sales taxes were flat from this time last year and that the TOT, while showing signs of improvement over recent months, was down from one year ago at this time. Property tax was up this year over this period last fiscal year and the general fund, internal services funds and enterprise funds measured positively against last year’s performance.

San Bruno unemployment numbers remained in alignment with San Mateo County. The current unemployment rate of 8.5%, up slightly from 8.2% this time last year, was in line with the county’s rate of ~9%.

Proposed changes to the reserve policies were discussed with the board by finance manager Suen. Both the general fund and capital equipment fund reserves were discussed. The proposed changes to the general fund reserve to minimum 2months annual expenses or 16.6%. This minimum would allow for the excess fund to be worked back into the general fund for use. The proposed capital equipment reserve would cap at 50% of the total value of the city’s equipment assets. Like the general fund, this would open up excess reserve fund money for use.

All council members expressed concern over the proposed changes. “I don’t know that that’s enough,” observed vice-mayor Rico Medina. “I would like to see what other cities are doing to get an apples to apples comparison”. Mayor Jim Ruane agreed. “Two months is not enough for me” said Ruane.

Other matters that were discussed as part of the reports were the $1.3 million budget deficit. As part of the budget meetings last March, proposed budget shortfall strategies included personnel cuts, redevelopment loan repayments and ERAF reimbursements. These strategies will not bridge the budge gap entirely, leaving remaining $378k shortfall. Further cuts in city staff were discussed to balance the budget for the 2010-2011 fiscal year.

Lastly, an oral report was delivered by council member Ibarra regarding the annual San Mateo County progress seminar. The seminar, attended by Ibarra and council member Irene O’Connell, consisted of a day of breakout sessions. Topics included shared services, banking, education, water and social networking.

The next council meeting is scheduled for May 11^th.

Arnott’s detractors readily point out that San Mateo County has lost $155 million as part of the Lehman Brother’s collapse in 2008. “I won’t deny the Lehman damage” said Arnott.

Any fund manager will tell you that they are judged on overall performance for a lifetime, not a single quarter. Despite the Lehman write-down of $155 million dollars, the pool has made $662 million over the past decade while maintaining an average earnings rate of nearly 3.5%. Additionally the San Mateo County pool has grown from $2.4 billion to $2.9 billion dollars since August of 2009.

“It’s important to know that the Treasurer’s office was never outside of investment policy” said Arnott. “We requested an audit by Standard and Poor and were given a AAA rating, their highest”.

While her education level has been criticized, Arnott points out that there are no necessary educational requirements for the position. She believes her length of experience and understanding of the entire process tax year to tax year is what sets her apart from the other candidates.

Arnott considers her strengths to be the knowledge of the position and the overall administration of the treasurer/tax collector office. As the deputy treasurer her list of duties include administrative and tax collection, managing the $10 million dollar budget, managing the general obligation bonds, collecting $1.6 billion in taxes and managing a 63 person staff.

When it comes to the transition from Deputy Treasurer to Treasurer, Arnott feels that her experience will help smooth the transition to treasurer. “I think it helps,” said Arnott, “I know what needs to be done”. Some of the areas she feels improvement could be made would be communication and accessibility. She envisions working closely with investors to fully understand reports and providing more online resources such as forms and tax statements as key areas to improve.

Arnott is currently working on a number of different initiatives, such as reinstating the Senior Citizens and Disabled Tax Postponement Programs and moving the Revenue Collections Office in South San Francisco.

Overall Ms. Arnott feels positive about the June 8^th election for County Treasurer. As a county employee, her ability to work the campaign trail is limited by the demands of her job as Deputy Treasurer. But she has been getting the word out about herself through interviews and expects a series of debates with her competitors at some point.

“It’s important to me that the people of San Mateo County know that I am not running for the position because I feel entitled” she said. “I feel it’s important to be proud of what you do.”

The city council announced that Operation Clean Sweep will be held on Saturday, May 1 at 9:00AM in San Bruno City Park. Other comments from the city council included a reminder to fill out and mail in the U.S. Census. April 16th is the last day to complete the census form.

Mr. Kevin Butler submitted a letter of resignation from his position as Community Preparedness Committee Member. The position is now vacant, and the process to fill the vacancy has been initiated. Interviews are scheduled for April 27th at 6:00pm at the San Bruno Senior Center. Applicants should contact the city clerk for more information.

A number of public hearings were held by the council. The first hearing introduced new smoking regulations to Title 6 of the San Bruno Municipal Code. This would prohibit smoking in wholesale and retail tobacco specialty shops. The second hearing proposed additional provision to Title 3 requiring payment of assessed taxes prior to legal action. This would apply to city levied taxes only, such as business license taxes or the transient occupancy tax. Other public hearings included clarification of appeal rights regarding vicious animal determinations and introducing an ordinance temporarily extending the 5.5% airport parking tax through the end of the fiscal year for the applicant, Skypark. All hearings waived the first reading and passed unanimously.

During the conduct of business, the council adopted resolution to add the Lion’s Field Synthetic Grass Project to the 2009-2010 Capital Improvements Program. As presented at the March 9th city council meeting, the project would improve the current Lion’s field with an all purpose surface and provide markings for baseball, softball and soccer. Renovations and upgrades to the restroom facilities have been proposed as well. The Parks and Recreation department has applied for grants from the Soccer Foundation as well as the state of California. The use of $200,000 in Parks-in-Lieu fees have been appropriated for survey and design work. Park-in-lieu fees, part of the Quimby act, are used to expand capacity of park facilities and the city has a five year deadline to use these funds.

Other conduct of business included the adoption of a resolution was to close San Mateo Avenue on Sundays from May 02, 2010 through October 31, 2010 between the hours of 7:00 AM and 3:00 PM to support the Farmer’s Market. The hours have changed slightly from last year due to early patronage, and the layout of the booths will be modified this year to allow foot traffic around and through them. As was the case last season, local vendors have agreed to open restroom facilities to the public. After a brief discussion of parking concerns during the Posy Parade on June 6th, the resolution was adopted.

After the meeting adjournment, the council held a closed session to meet with the City Manager and Hum Resources Director for direction regarding labor negotiations with various associations.

Supervisor District vs. Countywide elections.

In what may turn out to be a shot heard round the county, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, a San Francisco-based civil rights legal foundation, has announced that it will send representatives to the next meeting of the San Mateo County Charter Review Committee.

The appearance of the Lawyers’ Committee representatives is not likely a coincidence as the County’s Charter Review Committee is set discuss the options for and possibility of changing the way members of the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors are elected from an at-large or countywide system to a district based system.

The Charter Review Committee is the ad hoc board, empanelled every eight years, charged with reviewing and making recommendations for revising and updating the County’s Charter—a document akin to a local constitution that governs San Mateo County’s governmental structure and a variety of major policies.

The appearance of the Lawyers’ Committee may send shockwaves through the ranks of the County’s political elite as the Lawyers’ Committee has built a reputation in California for the vigorous enforcement via lawsuits against many local jurisdictions of the California Voting Rights Act of 2001, among many civil rights pursuits.

Most famously, the Lawyers’ Committee successfully sued the Madera Unified School District in 2008. In that ruling, Madera County Superior Court Judge James E. Oakley invalidated, in advance, the results of the November 2008 school board election based on the fact that the at-large voting system, in which all voters in the district cast ballots for all board members rather than for a candidate representing their section of town, violated the Voting Rights Act.

Since that ruling, according to a Los Angeles Times article, many California school districts and cities have abandoned at-large voting systems and have adopted district based systems.

The issue of district elections for San Mateo County Supervisors has surfaced a few times in the past four decades but has never gained the traction necessary to change the County’s election system. The issue went to the ballot twice, once in 1978 and once in 1980, but both efforts failed. Since then, the issue has slowly simmered under the surface.

But in late 2008, the issue was raised again following the appointment of former San Mateo City Councilmember Carole Groom to the supervisorial seat left vacant by former Supervisor Jerry Hill, who had been elected to the State Assembly that November. Groom’s appointment to the board was roundly criticized in local newspaper editorials and formally opposed by organizations such as the San Mateo County Democratic Party, the county’s Republican Party, the Sierra Club, and even the League of Women Voters. Despite the firestorm of opposition, Groom was appointed by the Supervisors with only Supervisor Rich Gordon calling for a special election instead.

The appointment touched a nerve and again reminded many of the machine politics that continue to dominate San Mateo County. In fact, in the months following Groom’s appointment, the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury took up the issue for review. Last summer, the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury issued an advisory letter to the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors directing the five-member board to change the system under which supervisors are elected from an at-large system to a district based system.

According to the Civil Grand Jury’s report, San Mateo County is the only county in the State of California that elects supervisors at-large—or countywide. Tehama County in the Sierra Mountains also maintained such a system until voters overwhelmingly approved a county charter amendment to impose a district-based system in November of 2008.

The Grand Jury also warned the county that it may be edging close to a violation of the Voting Rights Act and referenced the Madera ruling as only two minorities have ever been elected to the County Board of Supervisors.

The civil Grand Jury added that the task of running for the board in a county with a population topping 700,000 is daunting at best. The cost to run such an election without major support from entrenched political interests is all but impossible. Running in such an election would even dwarf the size of an U.S. Congressional district.

It has been 12 years since there was a hotly contested supervisorial race when Supervisor Gordon actually had to earn his seat in a special election without an incumbent.

More startling is the fact that an incumbent San Mateo County Supervisor has not been unseated since 1980 when now Congresswoman Jackie Speier unseated James Fitzgerald.

Over the same period of time, according to county records, when incumbent supervisors run, approximately 50 percent of the time, they are not even challenged. Worse yet, 86 percent of the time, when incumbent supervisors run, they face no competition or only token competition from protest candidates who rarely even mount a hint of a political campaign.

While the Madera case focused exclusively on the lack of access of Latinos to political office within the district, the Lawyers’ Committee could easily make a similar case in San Mateo County as the Board of Supervisors has had only one Latino member and one African American member in 154 years.

The San Mateo County Charter Review Committee will hold its next meeting on April 7 at the San Mateo Main Library, Oak Room, 55 West Third Avenue, San Mateo at 5:30 P.M.

If representatives of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights are in attendance, county voters may want to be there to possibly hear the shot that may start a revolution.

Bruce Balshone is a community activist and has worked as a city planner in three peninsula cities. He currently serves on various citizen’s transportation and land-use committees and operates his own planning and government relations firm in San Mateo County. Bruce also served as a city planner for San Bruno in the 1980′s.

Visit Bruce’s blog page.

San Mateo County Transit District community relations manager Todd McIntyre and grade separation project manager Raphael Bolon made a presentation detailing the timeline and scope of the proposed project. The presentation also included project phases and artist renderings of the completed project.

Starting in the spring of 2010, the project plans to move the current San Bruno Caltrain station closer to downtown at the corner of San Bruno and Huntington Avenues. The above ground station will have all the latest and enhanced amenities including handicap access, bike friendly amenities and drought tolerant landscaping. In the process Posy Park will also be completely renovated with enhanced amenities.

“We have been working closely with San Bruno city council, and they have been very clear with us on their desire for enhanced features,” said Bolon.

The project is currently in the construction contract procurement period and is slated to break ground in May of 2010 with underground utility work. By spring of 2011 a temporary shoofly will be built to allow the trains to continue while the new above ground platform and station is constructed. The project is scheduled to finish in the summer of 2012.

While the presentation was informative, many citizens voiced concerns regarding the project. Many had been present during the BART construction project and wanted to ensure some of the same mistakes were not being made.

Many who spoke had questions regarding the amount of noise that would be created by the new station during and after the construction. Others were concerned about the school children who use the safety crossing at the current train station to make their way to Belle Air elementary.

“Caltrain has completed a comprehensive noise and vibration study as part of the project,” said Colon. “Noise is reduced as part of the project.”

According to Colon, reduced vibrations are due to the use of lightweight back fill that has vibration dampening qualities. Because the station is elevated, there will be reduced train horns at the crossings. While the horns will be reduced, they cannot be eliminated.

“Federal law requires that a horn sounds as the train approaches the platform,” said McIntyre.

While Caltrain has planned the project with as little impact to the neighborhood as possible, there will be inconveniences to the surrounding areas. A temporary train station will be built approximately 500 feet south of the current location, meaning that the children who use the station to cross will need to foot the extra distance to get to Belle Air school. Additionally, road closures can be expected on San Mateo and San Bruno avenues starting in the fall of 2010. Finally, trees and landscaping on both sides of the tracks, which aid to buffer residents from noise, will be removed while the project is in progress.

“The trees will be replaced,” said Colon. “You will get more trees than you had before”.

Caltrain is in the process of negotiating management agreements with city’s government to determine who is responsible for ongoing maintenance and upkeep of the station. Once the agreement is negotiated is should be clear who will be maintaining the landscape and fixing wear and tear.

Caltrain will be holding another community meeting once the construction contracts have been awarded. Further questions and comments can be directed to the Caltrain Office of Public Affairs at (650) 508-7726 or by email at sbgradesep@caltrain.com.

The proposed changes would call for the preservation of the current athletic fields at the site of the old Crestmoor high school. Additional verbiage would be added to discourage high density housing on the surplus land at Hillsdale high school in San Mateo. The athletic fields at Crestmoor are heavily used by the community as well as various athletic leagues. At Hillsdale, the proposed surplus land provides the needed parking to support the site’s multi-purpose athletic fields.

Despite the findings, not all committee members agree that the Crestmoor site should be designated a surplus site. Committee member Neil Wild openly questioned the designation of the Crestmoor site as surplus and asked why the committee has not identified a suitable replacement for Peninsula High School, a continuation school that is located on the Crestmoor site.

“I’ve talked to other districts,” said Wild. “They sold off land twenty of thirty years ago and now have serious regrets.”

In regards to finding a suitable replacement for Peninsula high school, he added, “It’s like we are putting the cart before the horse.”

The draft is scheduled to be finalized by the committee in April, with the goal of presenting the findings to the San Mateo Union High School District Board in May. Ultimately the district board will make all final decisions.

The meeting also included a public hearing, giving citizens the opportunity to voice their opinions. As was the case at the three previous public hearings, the support from citizens to keep the both sites was overwhelming.

As one citizen put it, “Once the sites are sold, they can not be brought back at any cost.”

Nevares, a San Mateo resident, believes that the coroner’s office has lost dignity and respect under the current coroner’s leadership. She aims to restore the integrity of an office that has been marred by lawsuits and investigations.

“The incumbent coroner has become too costly for the County,” said Nevares. “The investigations and court cases have been going on for a while.”

Nevares’ goals are to help raise awareness and educate the public on the role the coroner provides. She would like to focus on outreach to the communities of San Mateo County in order to help its citizens understand the services that coroner’s office provides. Additionally, Nevares plan to initiate collaborative efforts with various local agencies including the police and fire departments.

“Younger officers often find their first death scene to be very intimidating,” she said. “I see the coroner’s office helping them make the transition.”

Another goal for Nevares is tissue and organ donation. According to Nevares, only 20% of the California population is an organ donor. Nevares envisions the coroner’s office working with the families to understand all of their options.

“The goal of the coroner’s office should be to take a proactive approach and provide information at every step of the process,” said Nevares.

Other goals Nevares would like to reach if elected would be to work with private cemeteries for indigent burials, help the San Mateo County board of supervisors establish the proper governance over the coroner’s office, develop a connection between the hospices and the coroner’s office and reach out to young people.

“The suicide rate of young people concerns me,” she said. “I want to address the issues before the suicide, not after.”

Nevares plans to fund outreach programs through federal grants and other funding resources. If elected she would attempt to maximize work efficiency of the office without losing staff.

“My goal is to make the coroner’s office accessible to people,” said Nevares. “I want to make the coroner’s office an asset.”

In a special meeting held last night at district headquarters, the San Bruno Park School District Board passed a resolution to move forward on funding classroom size reduction for the next four years. Passed by a majority vote of 3 to 2, the resolution initiates a plan to use money currently allocated for capital improvements for district facilities to the use of deficit spending activities such as staff salaries.

The board, facing a $3.3 million dollar budget shortfall due to California’s education funding cuts, has been looking at ways bridge the gap.

The plan, conceived and submitted by junior board member Dr. Henry Sanchez, looks to use $10 million dollars of Fund 40 money over the next four years for deficit budget spending.  The plan also looks to create a ‘superfund’ account of $6 million to fund retirement benefits for district staff, generating $300,000 per year to the general fund. The remaining $12 million dollars of capital improvement money would still be available for it’s intended use.

The plan seeks approval from the State Allocation Board to make a one time transfer of $10 million from Fund 40 to Fund 17 and create an irrevocable trust for the remaining $6 million.

Despite the passage of the resolution the plan would still need approval from the State Allocation Board and possibly all bodies of California government up to and including the Governor. Planning to use the money over several years breaks the “one time use” requirement of the State Allocation Board. The State Allocation Board may approve some facets of the plan and deny other facets, leaving the approval request back at square one.

Attorney Harold Freeman, speaking to the board in an advisory role, felt the plan may not fit within the educational code framework. “It’s a close call,” he said. If the plan does not fit within the education code framework it would require an exception from the ‘five fingers’ of California government including the state senate, the state assembly and even the governor. Board Superintendent Dr. Lionel Hutt also felt the plan violated the ‘one time use’ requirement for the funds. “Using $16 million out of a fund availability of $30 million, you have got some explaining to do” he said.

Several members of the community felt the plan mortgaged the future for the needs of today. Chris Kiely, San Bruno Education Foundation Board Member and former school district board member, asked “What do we tell the students in three years? Sorry, we needed to spend the funds on the kids before you.” Pat Flynn, President of the San Bruno Education Foundation, pointed out that there is no guarantee that the state will fund class size reduction in 2015, the year after the plan ends. “If your not going to save class size reduction, don’t do it,” said Flynn. Even San Bruno Park School District Board president Kevin Martinez expressed concern. Said Martinez, “The plan is budgeting to use reserves before you know about uncertainties.”

The resolution passed on a vote of 3 to 2, with board members Sanchez, Henderson and Martinez voting yes, board members Prescott and Blanco voting no.

The plan will be reworked in order to offer the best chance of approval by the State Allocation Board. It will then be submitted back to the board for approval in the April board meeting. The next San Bruno Park school district board meeting is scheduled for April 14th, 2010 at the district board office.

UPDATE 03/25/2010:

The San Bruno Park School District board did not pass resolution aimed at keeping class size reduction during the special meeting on 03/17/2010. The resolution in the board packet based on the presentation of Dr. Sanchez was not considered by the board and no motion to move forward on this specific plan was made.

What was passed by the board was a motion to form an ad-hoc committee  to consider a range of one-time uses for consideration at the next meeting.  Depending on action at that meeting, the board has already determined that an application would fall within the Ed. Code statutes.  Also, counsel and the superintendent have advised that the timeframe for consideration of any application to OPSC and SAB may fall beyond budgetary deadlines for adopting a 2010-11 budget.

It has not been established that a one-time use would be either eligible for or sufficient to save the Class Size Reduction program for one or more years.

Eligible one-time uses will be presented to the board at the next board meeting on April 14th, 2010.