Scorecard Background. Key Scorecard Criteria and Subject Areas

Transcription

1 Scorecard Background Scorecard Objectives and Purpose The Los Angeles County Division Board of Directors first established its Legislative Scorecard in 2011 as a means for its members to assess the conduct of Los Angeles-area legislators towards key local government issues; includ ing local control, local revenues and municipal public policy. The scorecard seeks to achieve the following objectives: Influence policy-making in Sacramento. To create a tool to educate and inform our legislators of the important issues facing cites, and provide a clear frame of reference for legislators in crafting and voting on legislation affecting our common constituencies. To encourage legislators to consider the Los Angeles County Division a key constituent, and thus refer to its position on policy when voting for important legislation. Guiding Principles The scorecard is to be guided by the following Principles: The scorecard shall be non-partisan. Provide an opportunity for the Division to gauge local impacts of legislative voting behavior. Be clear, concise, well-defined, and understandable. Use information that is relevant, stable, and reliable. Be viewed as one part of a larger accountability system. Legislative Platform Early this year, the Division s Legislative Committee and Executive Board updated its Legislative Platform to provide a policy framework to the Division to respond to legislation in a timely manner. The 2013 Platform can be found at Notification to Los Angeles Legislative Delegation: When the Division adopts a position on a bill, a letter of support or opposition is sent to all 36 Los Angeles-area legislators Capitol offices. Each letter also indicates that the Legislator s vote is tracked for consistency with the Division s position for consideration into its annual scorecard. Key Scorecard Criteria and Subject Areas Lawmakers are tracked on final substantive floor votes. Committee votes are included in cases where important local government bills died in committee. The scorecard is intended to be an objective enterprise, and is reported without party designation. The Scorecard is built around tracking legislation in the following subject areas: Local Control The concept of local control, or home rule, dates to national reform movements of the 19th Century. Today, local control goes to the heart of cities ability to address issues of concern to their communities. Perpetuating local control means keeping the largest practical measure of government closest to the electorate where they can see it, keeping local decisions local, and allowing room for state and federal policy decisions when we are united as a state and/or nation. The LA Division Scorecard tracks bills critical to cities rights of self-determination and ability to independently meet their obligations to their residents. Local Revenue Despite clear indications from California voters that local revenues should be sacrosanct from State raids, the legislature has, for decades, continued its irresponsible practice of taking and borrowing local taxpayer dollars and dedicated transportation funds, as well as passing unfunded mandates to cities. The LA Division Scorecard tracks bills that place unfunded mandates on cities or propose to restrict, seize, divert or otherwise shift city revenues to the State. It also examines bills that seek to enhance city revenues, promote economic development or otherwise protect jobs. Economic Development Since the passage of AB1X 26 in 2011, which dismantled Redevelopment, cities are seeking to create new economic development opportunities in their communities for job creation, infrastructure, and housing. Additionally, the cumbersome and lengthy redevelopment dissolution process, administered by the Department of Finance, has handicapped cities from seizing new opportunities. Bills dealing with streamlining the dissolution process and increasing opportunities for economic development have become a key priority for cities in the Division.

2 What Were the Key Issues in 2013? Considerations for 2013 Legislative Year Approximately 30% of the Division s Legislative Delegation are Freshman members, elected in November 2012 under the top-two primary in new citizen-drawn districts. These Legislators have an opportunity to serve up to 12 years in one house. Unlike previous Legislative sessions, dominated by grueling budget battles, the 2013 budget session was cushioned by voter-approved Prop 30 revenues for education, an improving economy, and a Democratic supermajority. In 2013, the Legislature produced over 2,000 bills sending close to 896 to the Governor. Of those, the Governor vetoed only 96. The session was steered by many of the Governor s proposals including CEQA reform, tackling a court-ordered mandate to relieve prison overcrowding, and resisting calls for increased program spending. The Division tracked over 30 local-government related bills, adding 24 for consideration in the scorecard. Bills considered dead, good or bad, on the Division s tracking list may revive in January as the second year of the sessions begins. Legislators will need to be reminded of the Division s positions though advocacy efforts like Legislative meetings, coalition building, and direct member communication. Legislature is generally supportive of providing new economic development tools for cities; Governor had his own agenda The overall tone of the Legislature was to promote economic development where possible, particularly in the Assembly where many of these bills were generated by Los Angeles County members. Both the Senate and Assembly scored overwhelmingly high on bills to promote economic development, including: SB 470 (Wright- Long Beach), allowing former RDA properties to be sold at fair reuse value ; AB 1080 (Alejo-Watsonville), restoring a form of redevelopment authority to local agencies focused on deteriorated and poor urban areas; SB 33 (Wolk-Davis) allowing for Infrastructure Finance Districts without voter-approval; and AB 440 (Gatto-Los Angeles), allowing cities to continue Polanco Act powers for brownfield remediation. Members of both houses were also strongly supportive of legislation aimed at easing and streamlining the burdens of the redevelopment dissolution process: AB 981(Bloom-Santa Monica) would have authorized the expenditure of post issued redevelopment bonds; And AB 564 (Mullin-So. San Francisco) would have prohibited the Department of Finance from taking further actions after a Finding of Completion. In the Assembly, members voted with the Division on over 2/3rds of bills that promoted economic development. The Senate scored relatively high on some of the same bills, however Division-opposed SB 673 (De Saulnier), which would have created unnecessary delays and litigation with the requirements of new analysis of commercial developments garnered support from some members, lowering some vote scores. Unfortunately, a majority of the Economic Development related bills were held in the Legislature this year because the Governor indicated early in the session that he wanted the full dissolution of redevelopment by all agencies before he would have a dialogue about next steps. The Governor also won his 2011 proposal to eliminate the state s Enterprise Zone Program, the last job creation resource for economically disadvantaged cities. With the passage of AB 93 by a 2/3rd vote of the Legislature, eight Enterprise Zones in Los Angeles County were eliminated and replaced with a new program called the Office of Business and Economic Development (GO-Biz) intended be California s single point of contact for economic development and job creation efforts. Go-Biz has begun to roll-out some programs this summer including sales tax exemptions and targeted hiring tax credits, but it remains to be seen if the economic development progress will spread through more communities, as intended.

3 Key Trends Assembly More Hostile on Local Control Since the inception of the Division s scorecard, the Assembly has opposed the Division s positions on local control bills almost 2/3rd of the time. This year, 62% of the 24 Assembly Members of the LA County Delegation registered zero support for the Division s position on 6 key bills. Only Assembly Members Hagman, Bloom, Wilk, and Gorell scored above 50% for the Division. The Senate faired slightly better this year but voted on only two local control related bills opposed by the Division. Two clear attacks on local control included SB 7 (Steinberg) and SB 594 (Hill). SB 7, which made it to the floor of both houses, blatantly undercut the 100-year-old constitutional doctrine of municipal affairs. The only Assembly members who abstained or opposed the measure were Assembly Members Hagman, Mitchell, Muratsuchi and Wilk. Senators Knight, Huff, Torres and Calderon opposed SB 7. Senator s Correa and DeLeon abstained. SB 7 was signed by the Governor into law. The other, SB 594 was a disingenuous late-session gut-and-amend that would have severely handicapped local governments from ballot measure advocacy. Ultimately, this bill was amended back to a version that was acceptable to the Division, however of the 11 local Assembly Members that the bill came before only Assembly Member Muratsuchi abstained. How often did the Assembly vote consistent with the Division s positions? 43% against the Division 57% with the Division 100% 90% 70% 50% 40% 30% 10% Support for Local Revenue Needs Improvement Of the local revenue related bills before the Assembly 12 members scored 50%, while a large majority of the Senate scored better at 67% in support of the Division s positions. On a positive note, both houses carried strong support for AB 443 (Lowenthal), which was eventually signed by the Governor. AB 443, sponsored by the City of Long Beach and strongly supported by the Division, strengthened cities abilities to collect delinquent parking citation revenue. On the flip side, another bill eventually signed by the Governor, AB 792 (Mullin), creates a dangerous precedent for exemptions on voter-approved User Utility Taxes (UUT). With the exception of abstentions from Assembly Members Garcia, Assembly Member Lowenthal, and Senator Wright, all of the Los Angeles County Legislative Delegation voted in support of this erosion of a voter-approved local revenue source. How did the Assembly Vote on Division Positions? 0% Econ Dev Local Revenue Local Control Looking Ahead to 2014 As we enter the later half of the two-year session, some of the bills considered dead in 2013 may resurrect. Those include some positive bills on economic development, like AB 690 (Campos)which creates the Jobs and Economic Development Districts, bills lowering the voter threshold, and Cap and Trade funds for cities. On the other end of the spectrum attacks on local control like AB 5 (Ammiano) and further attempts to loosen medical marijuana regulation will likely return. We will also see a change of Legislative leadership next year, which may steer new political and policy priorities. Since 2014 is an election year, the political dynamics in Sacramento will also intensify as the Governor positions himself for reelection and the voters are presented with decisions on a Water Bond among other policy decisions.

4 2013 Scorecard Bills Bill No. Author Title Division Position Last Action Status Bill Category AB 5 Ammiano Homelessness Oppose 4/23/2013 DEAD Local Control AB 294 Holden Local-State Joint Investment Partnership Pilot Program Support 5/16/2013 DEAD Economic Development AB 305 V.Manuel Perez New Markets Tax Credits Support 5/24/2013 DEAD Economic Development AB 325 Alejo Land Use and Planning: Cause of Actions: Time Limitations Opposed until 9/6/13 10/12/2013 CHAPTERED Local Control AB 371 Salas Kern County: Biosolids Oppose 5/31/2013 DEAD Key LA Impact AB 416 Gordon State Air Resources Board: Local Emission Reduction Program Support 4/24/2013 DEAD Local Revenue AB 440 Gatto Hazardous Substances: Local Agency Cleanup Support 10/5/2013 CHAPTERED Economic Development AB 443 Lowenthal Delinquent Parking Citation Collections Support 8/13/2013 CHAPTERED Local Revenue AB 564 Mullin Community Redevelopment: Successor Agencies Support 10/13/2013 VETOED Economic Development AB 574 Lowenthal Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. Sustainable Communities Strategies Support 5/24/2013 DEAD Local Revenue AB 690 Campos Jobs for California Act Support 9/11/2013 DEAD Economic Development AB 792 Mullin UUT Exemption: Distributed Generation Systems Oppose 10/4/2013 CHAPTERED Local Revenue AB 93 Budget Comm Economic Development: Taxation: Enterpise Zones Oppose 7/11/2013 CHAPTERED Economic Development AB 981 Bloom Authorization for Expenditure of Post 2011 Issued Redevelopment Bonds Support 5/24/2013 DEAD Economic Development AB 1080 Alejo Community Revitalization and Investment Authorities Support 8/30/2013 DEAD Economic Development AB 1333 Hernandez Local Government. Contracts Oppose 7/12/2013 DEAD Local Control SB 7 Steinberg Public Works. Charter Cities Oppose 10/13/2013 CHAPTERED Local Control SB 33 Wolk Infrastructure Financing Districts. Voter Approval: repeal Support 8/26/2013 DEAD Economic Development SB 64 Corbett Prop 39. Clean Technology Investment Account Support 8/16/2013 DEAD Local Revenue SB 391 DeSaulnier California Homes and Jobs Act of 2013 Support 8/8/2013 DEAD Economic Development SB 470 Wright Community Development. Economic Opportunity Support 10/8/2013 CHAPTERED Economic Development SB 556 Corbett Public Sector Contracting. Liability. Oppose 9/13/2013 DEAD Local Control SB 594 Hill Use of Public Resources Opposed until 9/6/13 10/12/2013 CHAPTERED Local Control SB 673 DeSaulnier Land Use. Development Project Review Oppose 5/21/2013 DEAD Economic Development SB 715 Lara Waste to Energy Facilities: Los Angeles County Support 6/25/2013 DEAD Key LA Impact

5 2013 Legislative Scorecard: Senate District Senator 2013 Overall % % Econ. Dev. % Local Revenue %Local Control 20 Alex Padilla 50% 71% 33% 0% 67% 45% 21 Steve Knight 54% 50% 33% 100% NA NA 22 Kevin de León 58% 57% 67% 50% 73% 45% 24 Ed Hernandez 69% 88% 67% 0% 40% 25 Carol Liu 62% 75% 67% 0% 73% 35% 26 Holly Mitchell* 100% 100% No Senate Votes No Senate Votes NA NA 27 Fran Pavley 69% 88% 67% 0% 45% 28 Ted Lieu 58% 71% 67% 0% 59% 45% 29 Bob Huff 67% 57% 33% 100% 73% 75% 30 Ron Calderon 83% 86% 67% 100% 67% 40% 32 Norma Torres* 82% 83% 67% 100% NA NA 33 Ricardo Lara 54% 63% 67% 0% NA NA 34 Lou Correa 73% 57% 67% 100% NA NA 35 Roderick D. Wright 73% 71% 67% 0% 67% 50% * Only voted for one bill due to mid-term election to Senate. ** Limited votes due to mid-term election to Senate Vote Record How did the Senate Vote on Division Positions? How often did the Senate vote consistent with the Division s positions? 35% against the Division 65% with the Division How consistent was the Senate with the Division on key issues? 100% 90% 70% 50% 40% 30% 10% 0% Econ Dev Local Revenue Local Control

6 2013 Legislative Scorecard: Assembly 2013 Vote Record District Assembly Member 2013 Overall % % Econ Dev %Local Revenue %Local Control 36 Steve Fox (f) 55% 83% 50% 0% NA NA 38 Scott Wilk (f) 82% 67% 100% NA NA 39 Raul Bocanegra (f) 54% 86% 50% 0% NA NA 41 Chris R. Holden (f) 54% 67% 33% 50% NA NA 43 Mike Gatto 62% 83% 67% 25% 57% 28% 44 Jeff Gorell 62% 50% 50% 67% NA NA 45 Bob Blumenfield** 25% 50% 0% 0% NA NA 46 Adrin Nazarian (f) 67% 75% 33% NA NA 48 Roger Hernández 40% 50% 0% 48% 22% 49 Ed Chau (f) 50% 86% 67% 0% NA NA 50 Richard Bloom (f) 70% 50% 67% NA NA 51 Jimmy Gomez (f) 50% 83% 50% 0% NA NA 52 Norma Torres* 100% 100% 100% 0% 57% 28% 53 John A. Pérez 50% 50% 0% 54% 28% 54 Holly Mitchell* 50% 33% 54% 33% 55 Curt Hagman 75% 75% 100% 58% 78% 57 Ian C. Calderon (f) 50% 83% 50% 0% NA NA 58 Cristina Garcia (f) 50% 100% 0% NA NA 59 Reginald B. Jones-Sawyer (f) 50% 50% 0% NA NA 62 Steven Bradford 53% 75% 100% 0% 57% 28% 63 Anthony Rendon (f) 55% 83% 50% 0% NA NA 64 Isadore Hall III 50% 83% 50% 0% 57% 28% 66 Al Muratsuchi (f) 64% 67% 50% NA NA 70 Bonnie Lowenthal 64% 83% 100% 0% 46% 28% * Only voted for one bill in each category due to election to Senate ** Limited votes owing to election to LA City Council (f) Freshman Legislator

7 2013 Legislative Scorecard: Freshman Class Under newly drawn legislative lines and a "Top Two" Primary, the California Legislature welcomed its largest freshman class since 1966 this year. Nearly half of the legislature was comprised of Freshman, with 38 such members. These legislators will also serve as many as 12 years in the Assembly, under revised term limits enacted by voters in June While only a snapshot of their first year in office, as a class, this group of legislators does score comparably with Division positions as the full Los Angeles Delegation. 90% 70% 50% 40% 30% 10% 0% 58% 58% 81% 58% 23% Overall Econ Dev Local Revenue Local Control Full LA Delegation Freshman District Assembly Member Overall Econ Dev Local Revenue Local Control 36 Steve Fox (f) 55% 83% 50% 0% 38 Scott Wilk (f) 82% 67% 100% 39 Raul Bocanegra (f) 54% 86% 50% 0% 41 Chris R. Holden (f) 54% 67% 33% 50% 46 Adrin Nazarian (f) 67% 75% 33% 49 Ed Chau (f) 50% 86% 67% 0% 50 Richard Bloom (f) 70% 50% 67% 51 Jimmy Gomez (f) 50% 83% 50% 0% 57 Ian C. Calderon (f) 50% 83% 50% 0% 58 Cristina Garcia (f) 50% 100% 0% 59 Reginald B. Jones-Sawyer (f) 50% 50% 0% 63 Anthony Rendon (f) 55% 83% 50% 0% 66 Al Muratsuchi (f) 64% 67% 50% What About Governor Brown? Follow the Division s Advocacy Efforts at: Governor Brown s veto rate has been among the lowest in recent history. Of the 805 bills that were sent to his desk this year, the Governor Brown vetoed only 96. Just six Division bills made it to the Governor s desk. Of these, the Governor was consistent with Division sign/veto requests in half of these. Division Position Governor's Action AB 443 Support Signed AB 440 Support Signed AB 564 Support Veto AB 792 Oppose Signed SB 7 Oppose Signed SB 470 Support Signed