San Mateo County Board of Supervisors to study Measure K expenditures

“If you look at the kinds of monies that have been authorized, there’s some redundancy,” Speier said. “It’s a sales tax that’s countywide in nature, I think the actual project should be countywide in application.”

Since seated at the dais, Speier has voted against every district request for grant approval using discretionary funds, including three requests made by Supervisor Noelia Corzo at the board’s meeting Jan. 28. 

One request by Corzo was to authorize a one-time grant of $50,000 toward health screenings and education from the Bay Area Community Health Advisory Council. The service would be countywide, aside from a dedication of 60%-70% of 350 mammograms to be conducted especially in Corzo’s District 2. 

Speier reiterated with each request that she would not support using Measure K funding for district-specific allocations, adding to this request specifically that she would appreciate mammograms made available throughout the county.

“The taxpayers of the county are picking up the tab and they should be countywide in nature,” Speier said. “As a survivor of breast cancer, I value mammograms. I don’t want them to be specified only for one area.” 

The district discretionary request would “take services to where people are at,” Corzo said, stating the benefit is supplemental to already existing similar countywide support systems. 

Currently, each supervisor spends $500,000 per year of Measure K funds at their discretion, though the expenditure must be approved by the full board.

District-discretionary funds are described by board President David Canepa as “super personalized” ways of injecting resources into a specific community. As district representatives, Canepa said supervisors hold weight in knowing what their residents need. 

“If we’re engaged in our communities, we should know where the need is because we hear directly from our community members,” Canepa said. 

During his time on the Daly City Council, Canepa said he felt the county could have done more for the northern part of the county and appreciates the money he has been able to funnel directly into his community since joining the board. 

The vast differences in district compositions also present rationale to sustain district-discretionary spending, Canepa said. 

“The county is so diverse,” Canepa said. “When you look at Ray Mueller’s district, he has 45 miles of coastline, his needs are different than my district. They’re not all uniform.” 

Although Mueller said at the meeting Jan. 14, that he admits the discretionary process is “clunky,” but felt his district benefits from the funding he can dedicate to the unincorporated areas. 

“Representing an unincorporated area of the county, I have no city backstops for my areas,” Mueller said previously.  

Although Speier voted against district discretionary funds at the previous Jan. 14, board meeting as well, her consistent “nay” was further emboldened by the short-lived but panic-inducing federal spending freeze initiated by President Donald Trump earlier this week. 

“We are in for a profound dissociation with the kind of funds that we have been accustomed to having,” Speier said at the meeting Jan. 28. “I think it’s only my interest in wanting to make sure we move carefully and prudently and with eyes wide open as to the impacts it’s going to have on those that we care so deeply about.” 

Acknowledging the need to understand the implications of what the loss of federal funding would mean for the county, supervisors Lisa Gauthier and Mueller suggested the need for a larger conversation on Measure K spending. 

Although the federal spending freeze has since been rescinded, questions remain over the possible impact on what Chief Financial Officer Robert Manchia estimated to be the county’s $800-$900 million estimated budget that comes from the federal government. 

A routine study session on Measure K is slated for the regular Feb. 25 board meeting.