A Publication of the County Executive Office/Legislative Affairs. County of Orange Positions on Proposed Legislation

Transcription

1 A Publication of the County Executive Office/Legislative Affairs DRAFT May 23, 2017 Item No. 69 Vol. Xl, No. 21 County of Orange Positions on Proposed Legislation The Legislative Bulletin provides the Board of Supervisors with analyses of measures pending in Sacramento and Washington that are of interest to the County. Staff provides recommended positions that fall within the range of policies established by the Board. According to the County of Orange Legislative Affairs Procedures adopted by the Board of Supervisors on November 25, 2014, staff recommendations for formal County positions on legislation will be agendized and presented in this document for Board action at regular Board of Supervisors meetings. When the Board takes formal action on a piece of legislation, the CEO will direct the County s legislative advocates to promote the individual bills as approved by the Board. The Legislative Bulletin also provides the Board of Supervisors with informative updates on State and Federal issues. The Legislative Platform was adopted by Board of Supervisors Minute Order dated November 22, On May 23, 2017, the Board of Supervisors will consider the following actions: RECOMMENDED ACTIONS 1. OPPOSE AB 42 (Bonta): Bail: pretrial release 2. OPPOSE AB 1397 (Low): Local Planning/Housing Element: Inventory of Land for Residential Development 3. OPPOSE SB 10 (Hertzberg): Bail: pretrial release 4. OPPOSE SB 166 (Skinner) : Residential Density and Housing Affordability 5. OPPOSE SB 167 (Skinner): Housing Accountability Act 6. Receive and File Legislative Bulletin INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 1. Legislative Update: CEO-LA 2. Sacramento Legislative Report 3. Washington Legislative Report CCS

2 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS 1. OPPOSE AB 42 (Bonta): Bail: pretrial release CEO/Office of Legislative Affairs Bill Analysis BILL NUMBER: Assembly Bill (AB) 42 INTRODUCED/AMENDED DATE: Amended 3/27/17 AUTHOR: Assemblyman Rob Bonta (D-Alameda) SUBJECT: BILL SPONSOR: Bail: Pretrial Release ACLU; Anti-Recidivism Coalition; Californians for Safety & Justice; California Public Defenders Association; Ella Baker Center for Human Rights; Silicon Valley De-Bug; Western Center on Law & Poverty STATUS: Assembly Appropriations Committee: 5/17/17 REQUESTING DEPARTMENT/AGENCY: CEO-Legislative Affairs DEPARTMENT/AGENCY RECOMMENDED POSITION: OPPOSE CEO RECOMMENDED POSITION: OPPOSE Current Law and Background: Existing law provides for the procedure of approving and accepting bail, and issuing an order for the appearance and release of an arrested person. Existing law requires that bail be set in a fixed amount, as specified, and requires, in setting, reducing, or denying bail, a judge or magistrate to take into consideration the protection of the public, the seriousness of the offense charged, the previous criminal record of the defendant, and the probability of his or her appearing at trial or at a hearing of the case. Under existing law, the magistrate or commissioner to whom the application is made is authorized to set bail in an Page 2 of 37

3 amount that he or she deems sufficient to ensure the defendant s appearance or to ensure the protection of a victim, or family member of a victim, of domestic violence, and to set bail on the terms and conditions that he or she, in his or her discretion, deems appropriate, or he or she may authorize the defendant s release on his or her own recognizance. Existing law provides that a defendant being held for a misdemeanor offense is entitled to be released on his or her own recognizance, unless the court makes a finding on the record that his or her release would compromise public safety or would not reasonably ensure the appearance of the defendant as required. This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to safely reduce the number of people detained pretrial, while addressing racial and economic disparities in the pretrial system, to ensure that people are not held in pretrial detention simply because of their inability to afford money bail. Proposed Law: This bill would implement a revised pretrial release procedure. The bill would require, except when a person is arrested for certain felonies, that a pretrial services agency conduct a pretrial risk assessment on an arrested person and prepare a pretrial services report that includes the results of the pretrial risk assessment and recommendations on conditions of release for the person immediately upon booking. The bill would require the pretrial services agency to transmit the report to a magistrate, judge, or court commissioner and the magistrate, judge, or court commissioner, within an unspecified number of hours, to issue an oral or written order to release the person, with or without release conditions, subject to the person signing a specified release agreement. The bill would require, if a person is in custody at the time of his or her arraignment, the judge or magistrate to consider the pretrial services report and any relevant information provided by the prosecuting attorney or the defendant and to order the pretrial release of the person, with or without conditions, subject to the person signing a specified release agreement. If the judge or magistrate determines that pretrial release, with or without conditions, will not reasonably assure the appearance of the person in court as required, the bill would require the judge or magistrate to set monetary bail at the least restrictive level necessary to assure the appearance of the defendant in court as required. The bill would authorize, if the judge or magistrate has set monetary bail, the person to execute an unsecured appearance bond, execute a secured appearance bond, or deposit a percentage of the sum mentioned in the order setting monetary bail. Page 3 of 37

4 The bill would authorize a prosecuting attorney to file a motion seeking the pretrial detention of a person in certain circumstances, including when the person has been charged with a capital crime and the prosecuting attorney alleges that the facts are evident or the presumption great. The bill would require, if this motion has been filed, a hearing to be held to determine whether to release the person pending trial, unless the person waives the hearing. The bill would authorize the person to be detained pretrial only if the court makes one of several specified findings. The bill would require each county to establish a pretrial services agency that would be responsible for gathering information about newly arrested persons, conducting pretrial risk assessments, preparing individually tailored recommendations to the court regarding release options and conditions, and providing pretrial services and supervision to persons on pretrial release. The bill would require an unspecified agency to take certain actions relating to the implementation of the revised pretrial release procedure, including, among others, selecting a pretrial risk assessment tool to be used in conducting pretrial risk assessments that meets specified requirements and reviewing collected data to monitor compliance with state law and guidelines relating to pretrial release. The bill would also authorize that agency to take certain actions relating to the implementation of the revised pretrial release procedure, including, among other things, providing training and assistance to judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, pretrial services agencies, jail staff, and law enforcement agencies. The bill would require the Board of State and Community Corrections, in consultation with that unspecified agency, to develop a plan that establishes statewide requirements for counties relating to annual reporting of pretrial release and detention information. Prior Legislative Votes: Vote Threshold: State Mandated Local Program: Fiscal Committee: Support and Opposition: Assembly Public Safety Committee: 4/18/17 AYES: 4; NOES: 2; ABSENT: 1 Majority Vote Bill Yes Yes SUPPORT: A New Path; A New Way of Life Reentry Project; All Saint s Church; Alliance for Boys and Men of Color; American Academy of Pediatrics; American Friends Service Committee; Amity Foundation; Asian Americans Advancing Justice; Asian Law Alliance; Avokids; Bend the Arc; Black Women for Wellness; California Association of Alcohol and Drug Program Executives; California Attorneys Page 4 of 37

5 for Criminal Justice; California Catholic Conference; California Coalition for Mental Health; California Coalition for Women Prisoners; California Federation of Teachers; California Immigrant Policy Center; California Labor Federation; California Latinas for Reproductive Justice; California Women s Law Center; California Youth Empowerment Network; Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice; Children s Defense Fund; City and County of San Francisco; Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights; Communities United for Restorative Community Oriented Correctional Health Services; Contra Costa County Defenders Association; Contra Costa County Democratic Party; Contra Costa County Public Defender s Office; Council on American-Islamic Relations, California; Courage Campaign; Didi Hirsch Mental Health Services; Disability Rights California; Drug Policy Alliance; El Groupo; Essie Justice Group; Fair Chance Project; Financial Justice Project, City and County of San Francisco; Friends Committee on Legislation of California; Homeboy Industries; Housing and Economic Rights Advocates; Human Impact Partners; Human Rights Watch; Hunger Action Los Angeles; John Burton Advocates for Youth; Los Angeles Regional Reentry Partnership; Marin County Public Defender s Office; Mental Health America of California; Mental Health America of Los Angeles; Monterey County Public Defender s Office; Napa County Public Defender s Office; National Alliance on Mental Illness, Los Angeles County Council; National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, San Jose/Silicon Valley; National Association of Social Worker s, California Chapter; National Council of La Raza; National Immigration Law Center; Oakland Privacy; Pangea Legal Services; Peace United Church of Christ; People s Life Fund; Root and Rebound; Rubicon Programs; San Francisco Coalition on Homelessness; San Francisco Public Defender s Office; San Francisco Senior and Disability Action; San Jose State University Human Rights Institute; Santa Barbara County Public Defender s Office; Solano County Public Defender s Office; Sonoma County Public Defender s Office; Strike Debt Bay Area; Tarzana Treatment Centers; Temple Beth El; The Advocacy Fund; The Kitchen; T ruah; United Advocates for Children and Families; United Domestic Workers of America, AFSCME Local 3930; United Food and Commercial Workers, Western States Council; Urban Peace Institute; Voices for Progress Education Fund; W. Haywood Burns Institute ; Western Regional Advocacy Project; Women s Foundation of California; Youth for Environmental Sanity; Youth Justice Coalition; 9 to 5 Working Women. OPPOSITION: Albert Ramirez Bail Bonds; All-Pro Bail Bonds; American Bail Coalition; California Bail Agents Association; California District Attorneys Association; Golden State Bail Agents; Fresno County Sheriff-Coroner; Page 5 of 37

6 Impact on Orange County: Los Angeles County District Attorney; Orange County District Attorney; Peace Officers Research Association of California; Professional Bail Agents of the United States; Sacramento County District Attorney; San Diego County District Attorney; Speedy Bail Bonds; Surety and Fidelity Association of America; Urban Game Changer. Mandates: According to the bill this is a State Mandated program. Operations: The Public Defender s operations would not be impacted. Orange County has already instituted a very similar program. (see below) Impacts to the District Attorney s office is listed below. Costs: There can be cost savings based on the information we presently have on the PARS system. (see below) Revenues: Any cost savings would generate revenue for the County Impact on Department Area of Responsibility: District Attorney s Impacts: The existing bail schedule system allows judges to exercise discretion to raise or lower bail for violent felons, in a sensible period of time. It would be unwise to implement changes to our system particularly with regard to more serious and sophisticated felonies where supervised pretrial release programs would have little effect. AB 42 and SB 10 make it particularly burdensome to achieve pretrial detention for dangerous offenders. The Office of the District Attorney must file a written motion at arraignment, containing numerous required allegations, and be expected to prove those allegations in a contested hearing within 48 hours of the arrest. The failure to meet these difficult requirements could result in the undesirable release of dangerous persons back into our community. This will require the hiring and deployment of additional personnel to meet these mandates in order to preserve public safety. Although it is hard to accurately predict the exact cost for these additional personnel resources, the cost will quickly exceed the $100,000 mark and could potentially exceed $1,000,000 on an ongoing annual basis. This calculation does not take into account the impact of compromising public safety and the potential increase in victimization which is immeasurable. Based on the history of the current bail system as it has operated for decades in Orange County, it operates effectively and accomplishes the goal of preserving public safety while at the same time ensuring that people who are bailed out tend to return to court to make their Page 6 of 37

7 appearances. When a defendant does not have to post bail and fails to appear at the next court date, the case is taken off calendar and a warrant is issued. Law enforcement doesn t necessarily have the resources to locate that defendant unless there is a particular interest in that specific case. On the other hand, if the defendant is bailed out then the bail agent/company, at their own cost, is incentivized to locate the defendant and return that person to court without any government expenditures. Bail agents and surety insurance companies today provide a free benefit to the citizens of the State of California and this proposed legislation would largely eliminate such benefit. The impact would be a tremendous burden to law enforcement to locate, apprehend and transport such individuals to court. The cost for these necessary additional law enforcement resources is hard to accurately predict, but certainly could reach into millions of dollars each year in order to attempt to maintain and preserve public safety under this proposed legislation. California s privately run bail system is working properly with no additional taxpayer cost. Alternatively, the measures proposed by AB 42 and SB 10 including pretrial release monitoring and risk assessment will have significant cost impacts to the State of California. The American Bail Coalition conservatively estimates an annual cash outlay in the half a billion dollar range to put into place the judges, technology, risk assessments, monitoring services, staff at county level, training, etc. that would be required to implement this legislation. For all of these reasons, the Office of the Orange County District Attorney opposes this legislation as it will negatively impact public safety and victims rights while increasing public expenditures. Public Defender s Impacts: It is important to recognize that Orange County Court have already implemented almost an identical program. It began in February, 2016 with a grant from the Judicial Council and continues today. The pretrial services program here in Orange County is called the Pretrial Assessment Release and Supervision Program (PARS). A Project Management Team (PMT) was convened to provide guidance for the successful development and implementation of the PARS program. The PMT consists of sponsors from: Orange County Superior Court, Orange County Sheriff Department, Orange County District Attorney, Orange County Public Defender, Orange County Probation and Orange County Health Care Agency. Orange County Probation provides the screening and monitoring of our PARS participants. Probation created the Pretrial Supervision Officer (PSO) position to support the PARS program. The PSO s are responsible for PARS participant Page 7 of 37

8 recommendations, and participant support and intake. Supervision for program participants is provided by probation staff. The Orange County PARS Program utilizes the VPRAI risk assessment tool. VPRAI stands for Virginia Pretrial Risk Assessment Instrument. The VPRAI is an established and validated risk assessment tool that makes evidence based release recommendations to the court. The pretrial release screening review is limited to those defendants who have been charged with felony crimes punishable pursuant to Penal Code section 1170(h) absent a few exclusions. Our pretrial release program target population is limited to those clients who have been charged with felony crimes punishable pursuant to Peal Code section 1170 (h)) (with some exceptions to that rule.) Since the projects implementation on February 3, 2016 there have been a total of 4837 clients eligible for PARS. Of that 2066 have been referred to the court. (the others either declined, bailed out or were OR by the PSO. ). The potential cost savings is in the form of both attorneys assigned to CJ1 and investigative assistants assigned to do the interviews. The new bill specifically notes that Counties that are already using pretrial assessment tools may continue to use them as long as they meet specifications. The tool that Orange County presently uses will likely meet those requirements. Therefore, we will not require a new pretrial assessment tool. In addition, the bill requires Counties to report certain data to state. Orange County has been collecting data for the Judicial Council since February, Policy Platform References: Staff Contact: Date Submitted: May 16, 2017 PUBLIC PROTECTION: Public Safety: Support a public safety system that promotes local law enforcement services, crime prevention, prosecution of crime, confinement of high-risk adults and evidence-based programs aimed at rehabilitation and lowering the recidivism rate. Page 14 Todd Hart, District Attorney s Office Sharon Petrosino, Public Defender s Office Page 8 of 37

9 2. OPPOSE AB 1397 (Low): Local Planning/Housing Element: Inventory of Land for Residential Development CEO/Office of Legislative Affairs Bill Analysis BILL NUMBER: Assembly Bill (AB) 1397 INTRODUCED/AMENDED DATE: Amended in Assembly April 20, 2017 AUTHOR: SUBJECT: BILL SPONSOR: Assemblymember Evan Low (D-Campbell) (Author), Assemblymember Richard Bloom (D-Santa Monica), and David Chiu (D-San Francisco), and Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) (coauthors) Local Planning/Housing Element: Inventory of Land for Residential Development California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Public Advocates, Western Center on Law & Poverty STATUS: Committee on Appropriations, Assembly (referred on April 27, 2017) REQUESTING DEPARTMENT/AGENCY: OC Public Works DEPARTMENT/AGENCY RECOMMENDED POSITION: OPPOSE CEO RECOMMENDED POSITION: OPPOSE Current Law and Background: Existing law requires a locality s general plan housing element to identify and analyze existing and projected housing needs for all income segments. Requires a locality to inventory of all land suitable for residential development. The inventory is used to identify sites that can be used to meet the locality s regional housing needs assessment (RHNA) for all income levels. Under current law, land suitable for residential development includes: vacant sites zoned for residential use, vacant sites zoned for nonresidential use that allows residential development, residentially zoned sites that are capable of being developed at a higher density (including airspace above sites owned or leased by the locality), sites zoned for Page 9 of 37

10 nonresidential use that can be redeveloped for, and rezoned for, residential use (including above the sites). According to the author of AB 1397, California remains one of the most expensive housing markets in the United States and has a well-documented shortage of affordable units available to lower-income families. The loss of redevelopment agencies and reductions in state and federal housing funding have dramatically exacerbated this shortage, but money is only one part of the equation. One of the greatest barriers to addressing California s affordable housing crisis is the lack of appropriate sites on which new multifamily housing can be built in many communities. AB 1397 helps address this by tightening the standards for what constitutes an adequate site under Housing Element Law for purposes of meeting some portion of a jurisdiction s RHNA. Proposed Law: This bill would amend RNA Adopts more detailed requirements for sites listed in the inventory of land suitable for residential development in the locality s housing element. Each locality must determine whether each site in the inventory of land suitable for residential development has a realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment that can meet a portion of the locality's share RHNA by income level during the planning period. Specifically, would require that the inventory specify the number of units at each income level that can be realistically accommodated on the site, but this number shall be adjusted as necessary based on, among other things, the realistic development capacity for the site, and on the availability and accessibility of sufficient water, sewer and dry utilities within 3 years of the beginning of the planning period. Sites smaller than one acre and larger than 10 acres shall not be deemed realistic for development to accommodate lower-income housing unless the locality can demonstrate that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed of for lower-income housing during the prior planning period. In addition, nonvacant sites shall not be deemed realistic for development for lower-income housing unless subject to a program in the housing element requiring the site to be rezoned at default densities and to allow 100% affordable housing by right. A residential or nonresidential zoned site identified in a prior housing element that was not developed to accommodate a portion of the locality s housing need shall not be deemed adequate to accommodate a portion of the housing need for lower-income households in the current housing element planning period unless: (1) the site had been zoned at densities deemed appropriate to accommodate the lower income regional housing need and (2) the site is subject to a program in the element requiring rezoning to allow residential use by right for development that are Page 10 of 37

11 100% affordable to lower-income households within 2 years of the beginning of the planning period. The proposal also removes the ability to list the airspace above sites of publicly owned or leased buildings on the inventory. Prior Legislative Votes: Vote Threshold: State Mandated Local Program: Fiscal Committee: Support and Opposition: Impact on Orange County: Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee passed by a 5-2 vote on April 19, 2017 Assembly Local Government Committee passed by a 6-0 vote on April 26, 2017 Majority Yes Yes Oppose: League of California Cities, City of Thousand Oaks Support: California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation Public Advocates Western Center on Law & Poverty California Apartment Association California Housing Consortium Housing California Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California SV@Home Provide information regarding the impact of the bill on Orange County. Specific information may include: Mandates: Requires significant changes to the County s housing element inventory of sites that can be used to meet the County s portion of the RHNA for all income levels. Operations: The development of future Housing Element updates could be greatly affected by this legislation. The requirement to demonstrate the realistic development capacity of each site in the Housing Element s Land Inventory would require much more analysis than has been previously conducted on sites in the Land Inventory. The requirement that there be sufficient utility capacity (water, sewer, etc.) would require the County to get commitments from utilities to provide service to a site without any proposed project. The utilities may or may not agree to provide this information and the County would have no recourse since it has no jurisdiction over these utilities. Currently, sites that have been identified in the Housing Element s Land Inventory and not developed with affordable housing during the planning period can be included again in the Land Inventory for the following planning period. In contrast, this legislation would only allow the inclusion of a site that appeared in a previous Land Inventory if that site is rezoned for by-right affordable housing Page 11 of 37

12 development within the first two years of the next planning period. This could result in the County having to rezone many sites within a short period of time in order to accommodate the need for lower income housing and to allow the inclusion of these previously identified sites in the Land Inventory. The rezoning of properties may also require a General Plan amendment as well to modify the site s General Plan designation. The County may also be required to eliminate sites smaller than one acre that could be consolidated and for which the County provides an incentive. The elimination of sites larger than 10 acres would not recognize the potential for a type of project not built in conventionally zoned areas before such as a mixeduse project. There are a limited number of viable sites for the development of affordable housing in the unincorporated area. If the County is unable to rezone sites included in the previous Land Inventory and/or is required to eliminate small or large sites, the County may not be able to identify enough sites to accommodate its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) and its Housing Element may not quality for certification from State Housing and Community Development (HCD). Costs: There would be approximate cost of $150, associated with General Plan Amendment/Housing Element (GPA) and Zone Changes (ZC). Anticipated costs for Planning staff and consultant resources processing the GPA/ZC include but not limited to document preparation, staff review and coordination, review and public community outreach, public hearings for Planning Commission and Board of Supervisor approvals. Increased costs associated with Housing Element related to new land inventory. Additional initial and ongoing training for staff as necessary. Revenues: No significant change related to revenue is anticipated, unless take into account the cost associated with processing the GPA/ZC is an additional expenditure that results in an indirect loss of revenue for staff not working on development project that are funded by applicants. Impact on Department Area of Responsibility: Policy Platform References: Will require General Plan Amendment/Housing Element update. OCPW/Development Services impact on area of responsibility would remain the same. General Government-State & Federal Mandates, Local Control GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES: State and Federal Mandates: Support full funding to ensure that state and federal mandates are cost neutral to the County and pursue revisions to streamline the process for local government. Page 12. Local Control: Oppose legislation that does not recognize California s diversity and the need for local government s autonomy in addressing the problems and services of our residents. Page 11. Page 12 of 37

13 Staff Contact: Colby Cataldi, OCPW/Development Services Date Submitted: May 10, OPPOSE SB 10 (Hertzberg): Bail: pretrial release CEO/Office of Legislative Affairs Bill Analysis BILL NUMBER: Senate Bill (SB) 10 INTRODUCED/AMENDED DATE: Amended 3/27/17 AUTHOR: Senator Bob Hertzberg (D-Van Nuys) SUBJECT: BILL SPONSOR: Bail: Pretrial Release American Civil Liberties Union of California; Anti-Recidivism Coalition; California Public Defenders Association; Californians for Safety and Justice; Ella Baker Center for Human Rights; Essie Justice Group; SEIU California; Silicon Valley De-Bug; Western Center on Law & Poverty. STATUS: Senate Appropriations Committee: 5/15/17 REQUESTING DEPARTMENT/AGENCY: CEO-Legislative Affairs DEPARTMENT/AGENCY RECOMMENDED POSITION: OPPOSE CEO RECOMMENDED POSITION: OPPOSE Current Law and Background: Existing law provides for the procedure of approving and accepting bail, and issuing an order for the appearance and release of an arrested person. Existing law requires that bail be set in a fixed amount, as specified, and requires, in setting, reducing, or denying bail, a judge or magistrate to take into consideration the protection of the public, the seriousness of the offense charged, the previous criminal record of the defendant, and the probability of his or her Page 13 of 37

14 appearing at trial or at a hearing of the case. Under existing law, the magistrate or commissioner to whom the application is made is authorized to set bail in an amount that he or she deems sufficient to ensure the defendant s appearance or to ensure the protection of a victim, or family member of a victim, of domestic violence, and to set bail on the terms and conditions that he or she, in his or her discretion, deems appropriate, or he or she may authorize the defendant s release on his or her own recognizance. Existing law provides that a defendant being held for a misdemeanor offense is entitled to be released on his or her own recognizance, unless the court makes a finding on the record that an own recognizance release would compromise public safety or would not reasonably ensure the appearance of the defendant as required. This bill would declare the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would safely reduce the number of people detained pretrial, while addressing racial and economic disparities in the pretrial system, and to ensure that people are not held in pretrial detention simply because of their inability to afford money bail. Proposed Law: This bill would implement a revised pretrial release procedure. The bill would require, except when a person is arrested for certain felonies, that a pretrial services agency conduct a pretrial risk assessment on an arrested person and prepare a pretrial services report that includes the results of the pretrial risk assessment and recommendations on conditions of release for the person immediately upon booking. The bill would require the pretrial services agency to transmit the report to a magistrate, judge, or court commissioner and the magistrate, judge, or court commissioner, within an unspecified number of hours, to issue an oral or written order to release the person, with or without release conditions, subject to the person signing a specified release agreement. The bill would require, if a person is in custody at the time of his or her arraignment, the judge or magistrate to consider the pretrial services report and any relevant information provided by the prosecuting attorney or the defendant and to order the pretrial release of the person, with or without conditions, subject to the person signing a specified release agreement. If the judge or magistrate determines that pretrial release, with or without conditions, will not reasonably assure the appearance of the person in court as required, the bill would require the judge or magistrate to set monetary bail at the least restrictive level necessary to assure the appearance of the defendant in court as required. The bill would authorize, if the judge or magistrate has set monetary bail, the person to execute an unsecured appearance bond, execute a secured Page 14 of 37

15 appearance bond, or deposit a percentage of the sum mentioned in the order setting monetary bail. The bill would authorize a prosecuting attorney to file a motion seeking the pretrial detention of a person in certain circumstances, including when the person has been charged with a capital crime and the prosecuting attorney alleges that the facts are evident or the presumption great. The bill would require, if this motion has been filed, a hearing to be held to determine whether to release the person pending trial, unless the person waives the hearing. The bill would authorize the person to be detained pretrial only if the court makes one of several specified findings. The bill would require each county to establish a pretrial services agency that would be responsible for gathering information about newly arrested persons, conducting pretrial risk assessments, preparing individually tailored recommendations to the court regarding release options and conditions, and providing pretrial services and supervision to persons on pretrial release. The bill would require an unspecified agency to take certain actions relating to the implementation of the revised pretrial release procedure, including, among others, selecting a pretrial risk assessment tool to be used in conducting pretrial risk assessments that meets specified requirements and reviewing collected data to monitor compliance with state law and guidelines relating to pretrial release. The bill would also authorize that agency to take certain actions relating to the implementation of the revised pretrial release procedure, including, among other things, providing training and assistance to judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, pretrial services agencies, jail staff, and law enforcement agencies. The bill would require the Board of State and Community Corrections, in consultation with that unspecified agency, to develop a plan that establishes statewide requirements for counties relating to annual reporting of pretrial release and detention information. Senate Public Safety Committee: 4/4/17 AYES 5; NOES 1; ABSTAIN 1 Prior Legislative Votes: SB 163 (Hertzberg), amended but not referred to Committee (2016) SB 210 (Hancock), failed passage on the Assembly Floor (2014) AB 805 (Jones-Sawyer), Ch. 17, Stats SB 210 (Hancock), failed passage on the Assembly Floor (2012) SB 1180 (Hancock), failed passage on the Senate Floor (2012) Page 15 of 37

16 Vote Threshold: State Mandated Local Program: Fiscal Committee: Support and Opposition: Majority Vote Bill Yes Yes SUPPORT: American Academy of Pediatrics, California; American Friends Service Committee; Asian Law Alliance; Bend the Arc: A Jewish Partnership for Justice; Black Women for Wellness; California Attorneys for Criminal Justice; California Catholic Conference; California Coalition for Mental Health; California Latinas for Reproductive Justice; Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice; Children s Defense Fund-California; Community Oriented Correctional Health Services; Contra Costa County Democratic Party; Contra Costa County Office of the Public Defender; Courage Campaign; Drug Policy Alliance; El Grupo; Fathers and Families of San Joaquin; Financial Justice Project in the City and County of San Francisco Office of the Treasurer & Tax Collector; Friends Committee on Legislation of California; Human Impact Partners; Hunger Action Los Angeles; John Burton Advocates for Youth; Marin County Office of the Public Defender; Monterey County Office of the Public Defender; Napa County Public Defender; National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter; Oakland Privacy; Peace United Church of Christ; People s Life Fund; Root & Rebound; Rubicon Programs; San Francisco Public Defender; San Francisco Senior & Disability Action; San Jose/Silicon Valley NAACP; Santa Barbara County Public Defender; Santa Clara County Public Defender; Solano County Public Defender s Office; Sonoma County Public Defender; Steinberg Institute; Tulare County Public Defender; Temple Beth El; UDW/AFSCME Local 3930; United Food & Commercial Workers Union; Urban Peace Institute; Voices for Progress Education Fund; Western Regional Advocacy Project; Women s Foundation of California; Youth for Environmental Sanity; 9to5 Working Women. OPPOSITION: Albert Ramirez Bail Bonds; All-Pro Bail Bonds; American Bail Coalition; California Bail Agents Association; California District Attorneys Association; Golden State Bail Agents; Fresno County Sheriff-Coroner; Los Angeles County District Attorney; Orange County District Attorney; Peace Officers Research Association of California; Professional Bail Agents of the United States; Sacramento County District Attorney; San Diego County District Attorney; Speedy Bail Bonds; Surety and Fidelity Association of America; Urban Game Changer. Impact on Orange County: Mandates: According to the bill this is a State Mandated program. Page 16 of 37

17 Operations: The Public Defender s operations would not be impacted. Orange County has already instituted a very similar program. (see below) Costs: There can be cost savings based on the information we presently have on PARS system. (see below) Revenues: Any cost savings would generate revenue for the County Impact on Department Area of Responsibility: District Attorney s Impacts: The existing bail schedule system allows judges to exercise discretion to raise or lower bail for violent felons, in a sensible period of time. It would be unwise to implement changes to our system particularly with regard to more serious and sophisticated felonies where supervised pretrial release programs would have little effect. AB 42 and SB 10 make it particularly burdensome to achieve pretrial detention for dangerous offenders. The Office of the District Attorney must file a written motion at arraignment, containing numerous required allegations, and be expected to prove those allegations in a contested hearing within 48 hours of the arrest. The failure to meet these difficult requirements could result in the undesirable release of dangerous persons back into our community. This will require the hiring and deployment of additional personnel to meet these mandates in order to preserve public safety. Although it is hard to accurately predict the exact cost for these additional personnel resources, the cost will quickly exceed the $100,000 mark and could potentially exceed $1,000,000 on an ongoing annual basis. This calculation does not take into account the impact of compromising public safety and the potential increase in victimization which is immeasurable. Based on the history of the current bail system as it has operated for decades in Orange County, it operates effectively and accomplishes the goal of preserving public safety while at the same time ensuring that people who are bailed out tend to return to court to make their appearances. When a defendant does not have to post bail and fails to appear at the next court date, the case is taken off calendar and a warrant is issued. Law enforcement doesn t necessarily have the resources to locate that defendant unless there is a particular interest in that specific case. On the other hand, if the defendant is bailed out then the bail agent/company, at their own cost, is incentivized to locate the defendant and return that person to court without any government expenditures. Bail agents and surety insurance companies today provide a free benefit to the citizens of the State of California and this proposed legislation would largely eliminate such benefit. Page 17 of 37

18 The impact would be a tremendous burden to law enforcement to locate, apprehend and transport such individuals to court. The cost for these necessary additional law enforcement resources is hard to accurately predict, but certainly could reach into millions of dollars each year in order to attempt to maintain and preserve public safety under this proposed legislation. California s privately run bail system is working properly with no additional taxpayer cost. Alternatively, the measures proposed by AB 42 and SB 10 including pretrial release monitoring and risk assessment will have significant cost impacts to the State of California. The American Bail Coalition conservatively estimates an annual cash outlay in the half a billion dollar range to put into place the judges, technology, risk assessments, monitoring services, staff at county level, training, etc. that would be required to implement this legislation. For all of these reasons, the Office of the Orange County District Attorney opposes this legislation as it will negatively impact public safety and victims rights while increasing public expenditures. Public Defender s Impacts: It is important to recognize that Orange County Court have already implemented almost an identical program. It began in February, 2016 with a grant from the Judicial Council and continues today. The pretrial services program here in Orange County is called the Pretrial Assessment Release and Supervision Program (PARS). A Project Management Team (PMT) was convened to provide guidance for the successful development and implementation of the PARS program. The PMT consists of sponsors from: Orange County Superior Court, Orange County Sheriff Department, Orange County District Attorney, Orange County Public Defender, Orange County Probation and Orange County Health Care Agency. Orange County Probation provides the screening and monitoring of our PARS participants. Probation created the Pretrial Supervision Officer (PSO) position to support the PARS program. The PSO s are responsible for PARS participant recommendations, and participant support and intake. Supervision for program participants is provided by probation staff. The Orange County PARS Program utilizes the VPRAI risk assessment tool. VPRAI stands for Virginia Pretrial Risk Assessment Instrument. The VPRAI is an established and validated risk assessment tool that makes evidence based release recommendations to the court. The pretrial release screening review is limited to those defendants who have been charged with felony crimes punishable pursuant to Penal Code section 1170(h) absent a few exclusions. Page 18 of 37

19 Our pretrial release program target population is limited to those clients who have been charged with felony crimes punishable pursuant to Peal Code section 1170 (h)) (with some exceptions to that rule.) Since the projects implementation on February 3, 2016 there have been a total of 4837 clients eligible for PARS. Of that 2066 have been referred to the court. (the others either declined, bailed out or were OR by the PSO. ). The potential cost savings is in the form of both attorneys assigned to CJ1 and investigative assistants assigned to do the interviews. The new bill specifically notes that Counties that are already using pretrial assessment tools may continue to use them as long as they meet specifications. The tool that Orange County presently uses will likely meet those requirements. Therefore, we will not require a new pretrial assessment tool. In addition, the bill requires Counties to report certain data to state. Orange County has been collecting data for the Judicial Council since February, Policy Platform References: Staff Contact: Date Submitted: May 16, 2017 PUBLIC PROTECTION: Public Safety: Support a public safety system that promotes local law enforcement services, crime prevention, prosecution of crime, confinement of high-risk adults and evidence-based programs aimed at rehabilitation and lowering the recidivism rate. Page 14 Todd Hart, District Attorney s Office Sharon Petrosino, Public Defender s Office 4. OPPOSE SB 166 (Skinner): Residential Density and Housing Affordability CEO/Office of Legislative Affairs Bill Analysis BILL NUMBER: Senate Bill (SB) 166 INTRODUCED/AMENDED DATE: Amended in Senate on April 19, 2017 AUTHOR: SUBJECT: Senator Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley) Residential Density and Housing Affordability Page 19 of 37

20 BILL SPONSOR: STATUS: California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Public Advocates, Western Center on Law and Poverty Senate Appropriations REQUESTING DEPARTMENT/AGENCY: OC Public Works DEPARTMENT/AGENCY RECOMMENDED POSITION: OPPOSE CEO RECOMMENDED POSITION: OPPOSE Current Law and Background: Proposed Law: Current law requires a city or county s general plan housing element to identify adequate sites for housing for all income levels. Each local jurisdiction must ensure that its housing element makes enough sites available to accommodate its share of the regional housing need assessment (RHNA). The housing element of the general plan must be updated every eight years, and the city or county must identify an adequate number of sites throughout the entire planning period. Current law, known as No Net Loss, prohibits a local jurisdiction from reducing or permitting the reduction of the residential density or allowing development at a lower density for any parcel unless the jurisdiction makes written findings supported by substantial evidence that the reduction is consistent with the adopted general plan and the remaining sites identified in the housing element are adequate to accommodate the jurisdiction s share of the regional housing need. A local jurisdiction can also reduce the density on a parcel if it identifies sufficient additional, adequate, and available sites with an equal or greater residential density in the jurisdiction so that there is no net loss of residential unit capacity. California faces a severe housing shortage. In its most recent statewide housing assessment, the Department of Housing and Community Development estimated that California needs to build an additional 100,000 units per year over recent averages of 80,000 units per year to meet the projected need for housing in the state. This bill would amend Government Code section Senate Bill 166 modifies the No Net Loss law to require local governments to maintain adequate housing sites at all times throughout its planning period, for all levels of income. Specifically, SB 166 prohibits a city or county from permitting or causing its inventory of sites identified in the housing element to be insufficient to meet its remaining unmet share of the regional housing need for lower and moderate-income households. The bill also prohibits a city Page 20 of 37

21 Prior Legislative Votes: Vote Threshold: State Mandated Local Program: Fiscal Committee: Support and Opposition: or county from allowing development of any parcel with fewer units by income category than identified in its housing element unless the city or county makes the findings required under current law to permit development at a lower density. A city or county that wants to permit a development at a lower density must also make an additional finding that the sites in the housing element are adequate to meet the requirements of the housing site inventory developed under existing law and must include a quantification of: (1) the remaining unmet need for the jurisdiction s share of the regional housing need at each income level, and (2) the remaining capacity of sites identified in the housing element to accommodate that need by income level. If approval of a development results in fewer units by income category than identified in the jurisdiction s housing element for that parcel, and the jurisdiction finds that the remaining sites are not adequate to accommodate its share of regional housing needs by income level, SB 166 requires the city or county to identify and make available enough sites to ensure that the jurisdiction can meet its unmet need at each income level. Senate Transportation and Housing Committed passed 9 to 1 on March 7, 2017; Senate Governance and Finance Committee passed 5 to 1 on April 26, Majority Yes. Yes Opposition: none received as of April 21, 2017 Support: California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Public Advocates, Western Center on Law and Poverty, California Housing Consortium, California State Association of Electrical Workers, California State Pipe Trades Council, Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers. Impact on Orange County: Mandates: The bill requires that the County identify and make available adequate sites for the jurisdiction s share of regional housing need by income level whenever it approves a housing development at a lower density that than previously identified in the general plan housing element. Thus, the County must maintain the inventory of available housing sites for all income levels at all times during the eight-year general plan planning period. This bill will require detailed tracking and restricts the County s ability to approve lower density projects to those instances where the County can identify other housing sites to accommodate the lost inventory. It may be difficult for the County to comply with the inventory requirements because residentially zoned land is at a premium and the available inventory is mostly built out. Page 21 of 37

22 Operations: This bill would not allow jurisdictions to approve projects on sites with a density less than what has been identified in the Land Inventory in the Housing Element unless it can make specific findings and identifies other housing sites that will accommodate the lost number of units. Due to the limited number of sites in the County s Land Inventory this may be very difficult. This could result in the County denying a much needed housing project because other sites could not be found to accommodate the lost number of units. If another site is found, the County may be required to complete a General Plan Amendment to update its Land Inventory in the Housing Element. Costs: There will be an approximate cost of $25,000 of general funding associated with a General Plan Amendment. Anticipated costs Planning staff and consultant resources processing GPA include but not limited to document preparation, staff review and coordination, review and public community outreach, public hearings for Planning Commission and Board of Supervisor approvals. Increased cost due to analysis and studies necessary to determine the realistic development associated with each property. Revenues: No significant change related to revenue is anticipated; unless take into account the cost associated with processing the GPA is an additional expenditure that results in loss of revenue and staff working on development project that are funded by applicants. Impact on Department Area of Responsibility: Policy Platform References: Staff Contact: Will require General Plan Amendment. OCPW/Development Services impact on area of responsibility would remain the same. GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES: Local Control: Oppose legislation that does not recognize California s diversity and the need for local government s autonomy in addressing the problems and services of our residents. Page 11. COMMUNITY SERVICES: Low and Moderate Income Housing: Support efforts to improve funding and construction and land use of regulations, which enhance the development of low and moderate income housing units and allow local governments to adequately plan to meet the housing needs of all economic segments of the community and reduce barriers to job retention and creation. Page 16. Colby Cataldi, OCPW/Development Services colby.catladi@ocpw.ocgov.com Date Submitted: May 10, 2017 Page 22 of 37

23 5. OPPOSE SB 167 (Skinner): Housing Accountability Act CEO/Office of Legislative Affairs Bill Analysis BILL NUMBER: Senate Bill (SB) 167 INTRODUCED/AMENDED DATE: Amended in Senate April 17, 2017 AUTHOR: SUBJECT: BILL SPONSOR: Senator Nancy Skinner ( D- Berkeley) and Assemblymember Raul Bocanegra (D-Pacoima) Housing Accountability Act STATUS: Senate Judiciary, set for hearing May 2 REQUESTING DEPARTMENT/AGENCY: OC Public Works DEPARTMENT/AGENCY RECOMMENDED POSITION: Oppose CEO RECOMMENDED POSITION: Oppose Current Law and Background: The Housing Accountability Act (HAA), Government Code section , currently prohibits a local agency from disapproving a housing project containing units affordable to very low-, low- or moderate income renters, or conditioning the approval in a manner that renders the housing project infeasible, unless it makes make one of the following findings, based upon substantial evidence in the record: a) The jurisdiction has adopted an updated housing element in substantial compliance with the law, and the jurisdiction met its share of the regional housing need for that income category; b)the project will have a specific, adverse impact on the public health or safety and there is no feasible method to mitigate or avoid the impact without rendering the housing development unaffordable to very low-, low- or moderate income renters; c) The denial or imposition of conditions is required to comply with state or Page 23 of 37

24 federal law; d) The project is located on agricultural or resource preservation land that does not have adequate water or wastewater facilities; e) The jurisdiction has identified sufficient and adequate sites to accommodate its share of the regional housing need and the project is inconsistent with both the general plan land use designation and the zoning ordinance. According the bill s author, California s housing crisis demands that courts take a critical look at the approval process for affordable housing developments. Proposed Law: The bill would amend the HAA, Government Code section The bill proposed a major shift in standard of proof necessary to support disapproval of an affordable housing project. Under the bill, a local jurisdiction could only disapprove an affordable housing project with written findings based upon clear and convincing evidence vs. the current substantial evidence standard. This is a high bar for disapproval, and represents a shift from a deferential standard of proof to a non-deferential standard. The bill provides that a change in a zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation subsequent to the date the application was deemed complete shall not constitute a valid basis to disapprove or condition approval of the housing development project or emergency shelter. The bill also contains numerous new onerous remedies for violation of the HAA including: (1) fine in the minimum amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) per housing unit in the housing development project on the date the application was deemed complete pursuant to Section 65943; (2) court may directly vacate local jurisdiction action and approve project on its own if the Court orders are not acted upon within 60 days of the order or judgment; (3) housing organization may now obtain attorney s fees if it prevails in an action to enforce this section; and (4) if the local agency acted in bad faith, could be liable for punitive damages. Prior Legislative Votes: Vote Threshold: State Mandated Local Program: Fiscal Committee: Support and Opposition: Senate Transportation and Housing Committee passed 9 to 2 on April 18, Majority No No Opposition: American Planning Association California Chapter, California Leagues of Cities, California State Association of Counties, Rural County Representatives of California, Urban Counties of California Page 24 of 37

25 Impact on Orange County: Support: Abundant Housing LA, Bay Area Council California Apartment Association, California Building Industry Association, California Chamber of Commerce, California Housing Consortium, California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund, East Bay Forward North Bay Leadership Council, Liveable Berkeley, Southwest California Legislative Council, San Francisco Housing Action Coalition, Terner Center for Housing Innovation, YIMBY Action Provide information regarding the impact of the bill on Orange County. Specific information may include: Mandates: No mandates, but steep penalties for non-compliance with the HAA, that could impact OC Public Works to a degree that is unspecified because the courts have the discretion to impose penalties. Operations: The County would be restricted from changing the zoning or General Plan land use designation of a parcel (site) on which an application for an affordable housing project or emergency shelter has been deemed complete. It also raises the bar for evidence that supports findings which must be made in order to deny approval of an affordable housing project. The County would be required to ensure a preponderance of the evidence, instead of clear and convincing evidence, supports the denial. If the County denies an affordable housing project or applies conditions to the project so that it is no longer financially feasible, the applicant may choose to take the County to court. If the court finds in the applicant s favor, the County could be subject to remedies including (1) fine in the minimum amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($1,000) per housing unit in the housing development project on the date the application was deemed complete pursuant to Section 65943; (2) court may directly vacate local jurisdiction action and approve project on its own if the Court orders are not acted upon within 60 days of the order or judgment; (3) housing organization may now obtain attorney s fees if it prevails in an action to enforce this section; and (4) if the local agency acted in bad faith, could be liable for punitive damages. Costs: None, unless the County has to defend itself in court and receives any fines. Revenues: No significant change related to revenue is anticipated, unless take into account the penalties for non-compliance with HAA, which is unspecified at this time. Impact on Department Area of Responsibility: Policy Platform References: OCPW/Development Services impact on area of responsibility would remain the same. GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES: County Revenue: Oppose efforts to decrease, restrict, eliminate, divert, Page 25 of 37

26 supplant or otherwise restrict local autonomy of local revenues. Local Control: Oppose legislation that does not recognize California s diversity and the need for local government s autonomy in addressing the problems and services of our residents. Page 11. Staff Contact: Colby Cataldi, OCPW/Development Services colby.catladi@ocpw.ocgov.com Date Submitted: May 10, 2017 INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 1. Legislative Update: CEO-LA The tables below summarizes bills the County has taken positions on throughout State Legislation As of Friday, May 18, 2017 Bill Number Author Subject Position Date of Board Action Status Oppose 5/9/2017 Bill has been dropped by Employment the author. AB 22 Bonta D State AB 90 Weber D Criminal Gangs Oppose 5/9/2017 Assembly Appropriations- Suspense File. Notes AB 285 Melendez R Drug and alcohol free residences. AB 346 Daly D Redevelopm ent: housing Brough R successor: Low and Moderate Income Housing AB 572 Quirk-Silva D Asset Fund Sober Living Homes: Pilot Project: Orange County AB 596 Choi R Diversion: Victim s Right to Restitution AB 777 Harper R Vote by Mail Ballots: Fraudulent Signatures Support 4/25/2017 Assembly Appropriations- Suspense File. Support 3/28/2017 Senate Desk Watch 3/28/2017 Assembly Appropriations- Suspense File. Support 3/14/2017 Assembly Public Safety Committee: Hearing Date: March 21 st Canceled Support 3/14/2017 Assembly Elections and Redistricting Committee Failed Passage Page 26 of 37

27 AB 851 Caballero D Local agency design-build projects. AB 1095 Harper R Alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities AB 1207 Brough R Radioactive material: transportation AB 1372 Levine D Crisis Stabilization units: psychiatric patients AB 1459 Quirk-Silva D Murder: Punishment AB 1479 Bonta D Public records: supervisor of records: fines SB 2 Atkins D Building Homes and Jobs Act SB 34 Bates R Residential Treatment Facilities SB 67 Bates R Sentencing: Driving Under the Influence SB 69 Bates R Sex Offenders: GPS Monitoring: Removal SB 75 Bates R Violent Felonies SB 176 Bates R Controlled Substances: Fentanyl and Carfentanil SB 205 Local Government Omnibus Act of 2017 SB 264 Nguyen R Highoccupancy toll lanes: Interstate 405 Improvement Project highoccupancy toll lanes. Support 4/25/2017 Assembly Appropriations Support 3/28/2017 Assembly Health Committee-Failed Passage Support 4/25/2017 Assembly Appropriations- Suspense File Support 4/25/2017 Assembly Floor-Second Reading File Hearing Date: May 18 th Support 3/14/2017 Senate Public Safety Committee Oppose 4/25/2017 Assembly Appropriations Suspense File. Oppose 4/11/2017 Senate Appropriations Suspense File. Support 5/9/2017 Senate Appropriations Hearing Date: May 22 nd Support 3/14/2017 Senate Appropriations Suspense File. Support 2/28/2017 Senate Public Safety Committee: Failed Passage Support 3/14/2017 Senate Public Safety Committee: Failed Passage Support 2/28/2017 Senate Public Safety Committee: Failed Passage Support 5/9/2017 Assembly Desk Oppose 4/25/2017 Senate Transportation and Housing Committee: Failed Deadline Page 27 of 37

28 SB 284 Nguyen R Criminal Procedure: Misdemeanor Citations SB 367* Bates R Tidelands and Submerged Lands: County of Orange SB 409 Nguyen R Veterans Homes: Resident with Complex Mental Behavioral Health needs SB 610 Nguyen R Wrongful Concealment : Statue of Limitation SB 649 Hueso D Wireless Communicati on facilities Support 2/28/2017 Senate Public Safety Committee Failed Deadline Sponsor/ Support 2/28/2017 Assembly Desk Support 3/28/2017 Senate Appropriations Suspense File Support 3/28/2017 Assembly Desk Oppose 5/9/2017 Senate Appropriations- Suspense File SB 665* Moorlach R Elections: Ballot Measures Sponsor/ Support 3/28/2017 Assembly Desk Federal Legislation Bill Number Author Subject Position Date of Board Action Status HR 472 Issa R Safe Recovery Support 3/28/2017 House Committee on and Natural Resources Community Notes - Highlighted sections symbolize a status change *Orange County Sponsored Legislation 2. Sacramento Legislative Report Prepared by Amy Jenkins, Nicole Wordelman, & Steve Wallauch Governor Jerry Brown released his revisions to the proposed Budget May 11 th, continuing his call to prepare for the next recession. While the revenue outlook perked up a little over his January estimates, California s economic recovery is stretching into its 8 th year, which is two years shy of the record, but also two years longer than the average span between recessions. The updated revenue outlook reduced the expected revenue shortfall from $5.8 billion in January to $3.3 billion, primarily due to the strong stock market and the resulting increase in capital gains tax Page 28 of 37

29 revenue. This increased revenue has allowed the governor to direct an additional $1.6 billion to schools, utilize $400 million to ease the impact on counties for the discontinuation of IHSS as part of the Coordinated Care Initiative (CCI), and reverse his January proposal to pause $500 million for child care programs. HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Discontinuation of the CCI and the IHSS MOE: A large preoccupation of counties and CSAC this budget cycle has been dismantling the CCI without eviscerating county general funds. The primary financial issue has been moving from the 2012 maintenance of effort (MOE) with a 3.5% annual inflator, back to the historical sharing ratio of the IHSS program of 35% counties, 65% state. In January, the estimated cost to counties of this maneuver was $623 million, now adjusted down to $592.2 million. Pieces of the May Revise deal include the following: To help mitigate the high cost to counties, state General Fund assistance will be provided as follows: o $400 million in o $330 million in o $200 million in o $150 million in and ongoing Instead of returning to the historical sharing ratio, the proposal establishes a new MOE with a sliding scale maintenance factor aligned with the performance of realignment revenues. Beginning in year 2, if revenue growth is negative, there would be no inflation factor. If it s less than 2%, then the factor would be 3.5%, and if it s above 2%, the inflation factor would be 7%. o = 0 o = 5% o = 7% Redirects VLF growth funding for three years from the health, County Medical Services program, and mental health subaccounts to fund IHSS. In years four and five, 50% of the VLF growth will be redirected. Redirects sales tax growth after it has funded caseload growth. Moves collective bargaining back to counties, however, allows a union to appeal to the Public Employees Relations Board, if collective bargaining at the county level doesn t conclude within 9 months. Increases state participation in wages and benefits to always be $1.10 an hour above minimum wage. Estimated county costs not covered: o $141 million o $129 million o $230 million o $251 million Under current law, counties are obligated to provide a 3.5% rate increase annually to the Institutions for Mental Disease. In any year the mental health subaccount does not receive its full growth allocation; this rate increase will be suspended. Counties in financial hardship can apply to the Department of Finance for a low-interest loan. Any funds counties owe the state through due to the Board of Equalization miscalculations of sales tax revenues will be forgiven. The estimated amount of this debt is between $100 and $300 million. The May Revise does continue the Administration s proposal to, in essence, continue the CCI without the IHSS component. It proposes to reinstate an extension of Cal MediConnect, continue mandatory enrollment of dual eligibles, and continue the integration of long-term services and supports into managed care except for IHSS. Savings estimates were revised down from $20 million to $8 million, due to reduced participation. Page 29 of 37

30 Medi-Cal: Due to drug rebates, managed care rate adjustments and slower caseload growth, the Administration s estimated Medi-Cal shortfall decreased by $620 million GF. $495,000 ($248,000 GF) is included in the May Revise to upgrade the system used to produce Medi-Cal estimates. Prop 56 (tobacco tax): Revenue estimate increased by $23.3 million, with $19.8 million going to Medi-Cal. Specialty Mental Health Services: $6.2 million is added for the implementation of functional assessment tools for specialty mental health services through county mental health plans to operate a performance outcomes system. Opioid State Targeted Response Grant: $44.7 million in federal funding to reflect the award of the federal Opioid State Targeted Response Grant to be used to treat substance use disorders. Immigrants: Instead of transitioning immigrants as part of the Newly Qualified Immigrant Benefits and Affordability Program from Medi-Cal to the Exchange as of January 1, 2018, saving $48 million GF, the May Revise eliminates the program due to operational and programmatic uncertainties. The Revise also proposes an additional $15 million GF ($30 million GF total) for legal services for immigrants seeking naturalization services, deportation defense, or assistance in securing other legal immigration status. CalWORKs: The May Revision includes a decrease in the single allocation by $19.1 million in and $35.5 million in This is in addition to the proposed $198 million cut. Although the reduction is based on updated caseloads, it is problematic as it will necessitate service and staffing reductions. Continuum of Care Reform: The May Revise increases funding for CCR by $11.2 million GF to implement a higher hourly rate for county social worker and probation staff, and to provide foster youth placed with relative caregivers the same infant supplement grant and dual agency rate as federally eligible foster youth State-Local Realignment Health Account Redirection: In 2013, AB 85 modified the 1991 realignment formula to capture county savings attributable to the ACA. The May Revise increases the estimate of county savings by $143 million. County savings are now estimated to be $255.6 million in , $585.9 million in , and $688.8 million in TRANSPORTATION While the fiscal outlook for the General Fund is lukewarm, the passage of SB 1 results in several new funding programs slated to begin in The governor s May Revise for transportation funding focuses on implementing these programs. Several of the programs below will require budget trailer bill language, also outlined below. In addition, the California Transportation Commission will adopt a schedule for developing the guidelines for the Local Partnership Program, the Active Transportation Program, Congested Corridors, and oversight of local street & road funds and SHOPP funds at its meeting next week. The next several months will be filled with workshops on developing these guidelines. With the gas and diesel taxes scheduled to start on November 1 st, there will be eight months of revenue in the fiscal year, with May Revise estimates projecting $2.8 billion in revenue for state and local programs. The budget adjustments outlined in the May Revise Summary include the following: Page 30 of 37

31 State Transit Assistance (STA): STA allocations are increased by $305 million, for a total STA allocation of $694 million. This amount includes the SB 1 increase of $305 million, $294 million in base STA formula allocations, $75 million Cap & Trade auction revenue for the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP), and a lingering $25 million in Prop 1B funds that remains available for transit operators. Active Transportation Program (ATP): $100 million will be available for ATP projects in The current cycle for ATP includes funding through , and the next ATP program is not scheduled to be adopted until April Therefore, the CTC is considering adopting a 2018 ATP that will program the SB 1 funds available in and The CTC plans to hold workshops and begin developing guidelines in June. CTC staff is recommending that projects already programmed in the current ATP be advanced into the proposed 2018 ATP, and then issue a call for projects for the remaining funds. Transit & Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP): An additional $330 million is available for this program in , which includes $85 million in loan repayment funds. This is in addition to the anticipated $150 million in Cap & Trade auction revenue. CalSTA plans to update its guidelines for the existing program and anticipates awarding funds in the spring of With this next round of funding, CalSTA expects to adopt a multi-year allocation that would program TIRCP funds for up to 5 years, which could result in awarding over $1 billion. Intercity & Commuter Rail Program: $25 million will be allocated by CalSTA to intercity and commuter rail operators in Local Partnership Program: $200 million for the Local Partnership Program, which would be used to match local transportation sales tax revenue, and voter approved developer fees. The CTC is in charge of developing the guidelines for this program. CTC staff has suggested that the new Partnership Program should allocate 75% of these funds through a competitive process and 25% by formula. The State and Local Partnership Program in Prop 1B allocated 95% of the funds by formula. Congested Corridors Program: $250 million is appropriated to the Congested Corridors Program. The CTC does not shed any light on its plans for this program, other than that they will begin the guideline development process in June. Trade Corridor Enhancement Program: $200 million for projects improving major trade corridors will be available in CalSTA has proposed budget trailer bill language that provides greater detail and direction on how this program will be implemented. Local Streets & Roads Funds: $445 million in new SB 1 revenue is expected to be allocated to cities and counties for local street and road maintenance projects. This revenue is expected to begin flowing to cities and counties in January SB 1 does include a new oversight role for the CTC on the expenditure of these funds. The CTC is expected to develop guidelines in June and July governing its role and the responsibilities for cities and counties in order to receive this funding, adopting final guidelines in October. Below is a chart prepared by the Department of Finance outlining the allocation of all SB 1 revenue in Some of these amounts appear to be full fiscal year amounts, but the new taxes do not take effect until November 1 st. Therefore, amounts will be prorated for the eight months that the tax revenue is collected. This adjustment is reflected in the changes included in the proposed SB 1 clean-up trailer bill. Page 31 of 37

32 Proposed Trailer Bills: There are currently four trailer bills proposed as part of the May Revise. These include a measure to make technical and clarifying changes to provisions in SB 1, a measure aimed at accelerating the delivery of transportation projects, a measure to implement the Trade Corridors Enhancement Program, and a measure to implement the Advanced Mitigation Program. Please contact our office if you would like copies of the draft bills. SB 1 Clean-up: This proposed trailer bill makes mainly clarifying and technical changes to provisions within SB 1. The primary change adds language to various sections clarifying the amount of revenue that will be allocated to programs in the fiscal year, as fuel tax revenue will only be collected for 8 months. The changes also allow the Controller to adjust the amounts allocated in order to trueup the allocations during the final months of the fiscal year. The only change that raises questions relates to the Local Partnership Program. SB 1 specified that the funds would be for counties that have received voter approval for transportation taxes. The proposed amendment would replace the word counties with a local or regional transportation agency. Page 32 of 37