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

Transcription

1 29 A Publication of the County Executive Office/Legislative Affairs DRAFT April 12, 2016 Item No. 29 Vol.XV, No. VIII 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 25, On April 12, 2016, the Board of Supervisors will consider the following actions: RECOMMENDED ACTIONS 1. SUPPORT AB 2078 (Kim): Protective Orders 2. SUPPORT AB 2772 (Chang): Drug Treatment Programs 3. WATCH AB 2121 (Gonzalez): Alcoholic Beverage Control; AB 2255 (Melendez): Sober living homes; AB 2403 (Bloom): Alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment centers; SB 1283 (Bates): Adult recovery maintenance facilities 4. Receive and File Legislative Bulletin INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 1. Legislative Update: CEO-LA 2. Sacramento Legislative Report 3. Washington Legislative Report JMP040716

2 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS 1. SUPPORT AB 2078 (Kim): Protective Orders CEO/Office of Legislative Affairs Bill Analysis BILL NUMBER: Assembly Bill (AB) 2078 INTRODUCED/AMENDED DATE: Introduced: 02/17/16 AUTHOR: SUBJECT: BILL SPONSOR: STATUS: Assemblymember Young Kim (R-Fullerton) Criminal Protective Orders The bill was approved by the Assembly Public Safety Committee and has been referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. REQUESTING DEPARTMENT/AGENCY: Orange County Sheriff s Department DEPARTMENT/AGENCY RECOMMENDED POSITION: SUPPORT CEO RECOMMENDED POSITION: SUPPORT Current Law and Background: Under current law, courts may issue a protective order to potential victims of domestic violence if the judge finds that there is good cause to believe that harm, intimidation, or dissuasion of a victim or witness has occurred or is likely to occur. Due to a drafting error in current law, however, if violators of restraining orders pursuant to PC 273.5(j) are not also listed in PC 166, the defense could argue that the perpetrator cannot be rightly charged under PC 166, which provides for stronger penalties for violations of court restraining and protective orders relating to sexual assault, elder abuse, and domestic violence-related crimes. By making appropriate cross-references in the Penal Code, AB 2078 closes a loophole ensuring that all those who violate domestic violence restraining orders are held accountable. Page 2 of 12

3 Proposed Law: Prior Legislative Votes: Vote Threshold: State Mandated Local Program: Support and Opposition: Impact on Orange County: AB 2078 would add domestic violence criminal protective order violations under the PC (j), to a list of specified protective orders which have more fitting sentencing guidelines than the general contempt of court parameters that it currently falls under. Existing law allows courts to issue criminal protective orders for up to ten years when a defendant is convicted of domestic violence under section AB 2078 simply updates California's Penal Code in order to provide the appropriate cross reference so that the willful violation of a domestic violence restraining order may be considered contempt of court under PC 166. Approved by Assembly Public Safety Committee on 3/29/16 with a 7-0 vote. Majority; Fiscal Committee: Yes. This bill would impose a state mandated local program. Support: CA District Attorneys Association; CA State Sheriffs Association Oppose: CA Legal Services for Prisoners with Children; California Attorneys for Criminal Justice This bill would improve the safety of victims of domestic violence by strengthening protective orders. Mandates: This bill would not create a burdensome mandate. Operations: The legislation would not result in any negative impacts to OCSD operations Costs: No cost estimates at this time. Revenues: No impact on revenue. Impact on Department Area of Responsibility: Policy Platform References: The legislation would not result in any negative impacts to OCSD operations Page 12 of the platform states: Public Safety Support a public safety system that promotes local law enforcement services, crime prevention, prosecution of crime, and confinement of high-risk adults, Evidence Based practice programs aimed at rehabilitation and lowering the recidivism rate. The proposed legislation promotes public safety by providing additional protections for victims of domestic violence. Page 3 of 12

4 2. SUPPORT AB 2772 (Chang): Drug Treatment Programs CEO/Office of Legislative Affairs Bill Analysis BILL NUMBER: Assembly Bill (AB) 2772 INTRODUCED/AMENDED DATE: Introduced: 2/19/16 AUTHOR: Introduced by Assemblymember Ling-Ling Chang (R-Diamond Bar) Principal coauthor: Assemblymember William Brough (R-Dana Point) Principal coauthor: Senator Patricia Bates (R-Laguna Niguel) Coauthor: Assemblymember Donald Wagner (R-Irvine) SUBJECT: BILL SPONSOR: STATUS: Drug Treatment Programs Association of California Cities Orange County Assembly Public Safety REQUESTING DEPARTMENT/AGENCY: OC Probation Department DEPARTMENT/AGENCY RECOMMENDED POSITION: SUPPORT CEO RECOMMENDED POSITION: SUPPORT Existing law requires certain defendants to participate in a drug treatment program as a condition of probation, and as a condition of parole, or among other things, under a deferred entry of judgment program. Current Law and Background: Existing law requires most facilities to provide recovery, treatment, or detoxification services within this state to obtain a current valid license from the State Department of Health Care Services. The California Department of Health Care Services has authority to license and investigate facilities providing 24- hour residential nonmedical services to eligible adults who Page 4 of 12

5 are recovering from problems related to alcohol or other drug misuse or abuse. Proposed Law: Prior Legislative Votes: Vote Threshold: State Mandated Local Program: Support and Opposition: AB 2772 will require a person seeking treatment at an alcohol and drug abuse recovery or treatment facility, as defined in in Section of the Health and Safety Code, because he or she has been ordered to participate in a drug treatment program pursuant to this code shall seek treatment from an alcoholism and drug abuse recovery or treatment facility that meets both of the following requirements: (a) The facility is licensed by the State Department of Health Care Services pursuant to Chapter 7.5 (commencing with Section ) and is listed on the department s Internet Web site. (b) The facility is in compliance with the local laws where the facility is located. None Majority; Fiscal Committee: No This bill would not impose a state mandated local program. Support: City of Fountain Valley; City of Huntington Beach; City of Mission Viejo; California Narcotics Officers Association Opposition: Cliffside Malibu Rehab Center Impact on Orange County: Local jurisdictions may change their city codes regarding permits, clearances, business taxes or local fees that may be required by the cities in which the facilities are located. Mandates: None Operations: Probation officers would ensure that those offenders within their jurisdiction are only enrolled in facilities licensed by the State Department of Health Care Services, and have a valid business license from their municipality. Costs: Minimal cost to the County Revenues: No additional revenue Impact on Department Area of Responsibility: Probation officers would be required to verify that those offenders within their jurisdiction are only enrolled in residential treatment facilities licensed by the State Page 5 of 12

6 Department of Health Care Services, and have a valid business license from the immediate municipality. Policy Platform References: Page 12 of the platform states: Treatment Capacity Support opportunities to enhance Non-Governmental Organization/Community Based Organization relationships for recidivism reduction efforts in both the adult and juvenile offender arena. 3. WATCH AB 2121 (Gonzalez): Alcoholic Beverage Control; AB 2255 (Melendez): Sober living homes; AB 2403 (Bloom): Alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment centers; SB 1283 (Bates): Adult recovery maintenance facilities CEO-LA staff may update its recommended positions in a future Legislative Bulletin for Board consideration once amendments and additional information are analyzed, per the 2016 Legislative Guidelines. Bill Number AB 2121 AB 2255 AB 2403 Author Subject Description Position Gonzalez (D-San Diego) Melendez (R-Lake Elsinore) Bloom (D-Santa Monica) Alcoholic Beverage Control Sober living homes Alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment centers Would, in addition to the LEAD program, WATCH establish the Responsible Interventions for Beverage Servers (RIBS) Training Act of 2016, beginning July 1, 2020, that would require a person who sells or serves alcoholic beverages, or who manages persons who sell or serve, in an on-sale retail licensed premises to successfully complete an approved RIBS training course within 3 months of employment and every 3 years thereafter. The bill would provide that an approved RIBS training course include information on, among other things, state laws and regulations relating to alcoholic beverage control and the impact of alcohol on the body. Current law provides for the licensure and WATCH regulation of community care facilities by the State Department of Social Services. Current law also provides for the licensure and regulation by the State Department of Health Care Services of alcoholism and drug abuse recovery and treatment facilities for adults. This bill would define a "sober living home" as a residential property that meets specified requirements. Would require the State Department of WATCH Health Care Services, if certain criteria are met, to issue a single license to a residential facility or integral facilities and would define "integral facilities" to mean Page 6 of 12

7 SB 1283 Bates (R-Laguna Niguel) Adult recovery maintenance facilities any combination of 2 or more facilities located on the same or different parcels that collectively serve 7 or more persons, as specified, and that are under the control or management of the same entity, as specified, or which together comprise one operation or enterprise. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws. Would authorize a city, county, or city and county to enact an ordinance to register structured sober living homes, consistent with specified state and federal law, and with specified exclusions. The bill would define a structured sober living home as any premises, place, or building that provides groups of unrelated adults recovering from drug or alcohol addiction with alcohol-free and drug-free housing, promotes independent living and life skill development, and provides structured activities that are directed primarily toward recovery from substance use disorders in a supervised setting. WATCH INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 1. Legislative Update: CEO-LA Active Orange County-Sponsored/Position 2-Year Bills The tables below summarize active bills the County has taken positions on throughout State Legislation As of Thursday, April 7, 2016 Bill Number Author Subject Position Date of Board Action AB 45 Mullin D Household hazardous waste. Status Oppose 4/21/15 Senate Environmental Quality AB 783 Daly D County Auditor Oppose 7/14/15 Senate Floor Inactive File AB 806 Dodd D Planning and zoning: permits: strand-mounted antenna. AB 1500 Maienschein R California Environmental Quality Act: Watch 7/21/15 Senate Government and Finance Support 4/14/15 Senate Transportation and Housing NOTES CEO-LA does not believe this bill will move CEO-LA is having ongoing conversations with stakeholders Page 7 of 12

8 priority housing projects: exemption. AB 1546 Olsen R Vital Records Support 1/12/16 Senate Health no hearing date set AB 1699 Kim Homeless youth emergency service projects SB 1182 Galgiani D Controlled Substances SB 1273 Moorlach R Crisis stabilization units: funding SB 1315 Bates R Counties: budgets SB 1323 Bates R Controlled substances: fentanyl SCA 8 Mendoza D Charter counties: board of supervisors: redistricting. Support 3/15/16 Assembly Appropriations - no hearing date set Support 3/22/16 Senate Appropriations set for hearing on 4/11/16 Support 3/1/16 Senate Health set for hearing on 4/13/16 Sponsor/ Support 3/1/16 Senate Floor Support 3/22/16 Senate Appropriations Oppose 6/16/15 Senate Floor 3 rd Reading Federal Legislation Bill Number HR4233 Author Subject Position Date of Board Action Rohrabacher R Preservation of Rocks and Small Islands Along the Coast of Orange County, California Status Support 3/1/2016 House Committee on Natural Resources - Subcommittee on Federal Lands NOTES - Highlighted sections symbolize a status change Update on Senate s Homelessness Proposal As originally reported in the January 26, 2016 Legislative Bulletin, the Senate introduced its No Place Like Home initiative, which seeks to divert between $ million in MHSA funds annually, over 20 to 30 years to service a $2 billion housing bond to construct permanent supportive housing for chronically Page 8 of 12

9 homeless persons with mental illness. A press release from Senate President pro Tempore Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles) provides the following summary: A $2 billion bond to construct permanent supportive housing for chronically homeless persons with mental illness. $200 million, over 4 years, to provide supportive housing in the shorter-term, rent subsidies, while the permanent housing is constructed or rehabilitated. This will help tens of thousands of people afford a place to live. Support for two special housing programs that will assist families: - The Bringing Families Home pilot project, a county matching grant program to reduce homelessness among families that are part of the child welfare system. - The CalWORKs Housing Support Program, which provides housing and support services for CalWORKs families in danger of homelessness. The State will additionally work to stop homelessness before it starts by targeting an increase in Supplemental Security Income/State Supplementary Payment (SSI/SSP) grants to 1.3 million Californians who are considered at risk of becoming homeless. These grants provide income support for the aged, blind, and disabled poor who cannot work. Rates of homelessness are higher for persons with disabilities who cannot work; SSI/SSP is intended to help them make ends meet, and a large portion of grants usually goes toward rent. There will be one-time investment to incentivize local governments to boost outreach efforts and advocacy to get more eligible poor people enrolled in the SSI/SSP program. The federal government covers 72% of the total costs of the SSI/SSP program, so state and local benefits are multiplied significantly for each newly eligible recipient. At its February Board Meeting, the Urban Counties of California (UCC) was briefed on the initiative by Craig Cornett from the pro Tem s office. CEO-LA staff notes summarizing his presentation are as follows: Senate Leadership intends to introduce the package as part of the budget and move it through the budget process, not through policy committees. They expect to release language in May. Pro Tem staff are conducting stakeholder outreach, and strongly encouraged input from individual counties. There will be public hearings throughout the state in the coming months; to date only one hearing was held in Los Angeles in March. Counties would take the lead in applying for the grants and would need to coordinate with impacted cities, and the idea of incentivizing cities to work with counties was generally referenced but nothing specific. The $2 billion would be distributed on a competitive basis; grants to be judged on whether they are good projects, and how much in matching funds can be brought to the table. The $200 million would also be distributed on a competitive basis. The bonds to repay the $2 billion would be sold on an incremental basis in order to keep the debt service ratio low, but the goal is to maintain a consistent revenue stream. In response to initial concerns from rural counties that the majority of the funds would go to larger urban counties, the proposal would establish separate funding buckets so that proportionally sized counties would have an equal chance for winning grants. Senate Leadership does not believe the proposal requires a vote of the people, even though there is language in Proposition 63 that may require such an action. At issue is whether using $2 billion in bonds for the construction or rehabilitation of housing for mentally ill homeless people violates the voters intent when they approved Proposition 63 in The Department of Finance Director recently said that the funding could be used in furtherance of the initiative, without a vote of the people. However, a 2006 Attorney General advice letter to the Department of Health and Human Page 9 of 12

10 Services raises questions as to the proposal s viability. Staff reviewed the letter and referred to language from Prop 63 indicating changes could be made by a 2/3 vote of the Legislature, and ultimately they would file an Authorization Lawsuit if necessary. CSAC continues to engage in discussions with Senate staff in an effort to provide counties priorities and concerns. CSAC believes the grants process should be all inclusive and not awarded on a competitive basis since all counties are trying to address the issue. CSAC is also encouraging flexibility for how construction monies may be used. CEO has asked Orange County Health Care Agency Director Mark Refowitz to travel to Sacramento in the next two weeks on a fact finding mission and receive a briefing from Senate staff on the latest information, and CEO-LA staff and Platinum will participate in the meeting. We will provide a summary of the meeting in an upcoming Legislative Bulletin. 2. Sacramento Legislative Report Prepared by Amy Jenkins & Nicole Wordelman, Platinum Advisors Governor Brown signs minimum wage increase. On Monday Governor Brown signed SB 3 (Leno), the legislation we reported last week that will increase California s minimum wage incrementally to $15.00 per hour by January 1, 2022 for businesses with 26 or more employees and January 1, 2023 for businesses with 25 or fewer employees. Although the governor had previously opposed the proposal, he announced his support based on the 5-year timeline and the inclusion of off-ramps that allow the governor to extend the timeline in the case of economic or budgetary downturns. SB 3 also implements paid sick leave for IHSS workers beginning January 1, The paid sick leave increases incrementally from one day in to three days in CSAC sent a reminder to counties Tuesday afternoon noting that although SB 3 may impact collective bargaining negotiations, the California constitution exempts counties from mandatory compliance with SB 3. SB 1315 (Bates) County budget adoption. SB 1315, sponsored by the County, unanimously passed the Senate Governance & Finance Committee on Wednesday. The measure would eliminate the requirement that a county board of supervisors formally adopt the recommended budget if the board directs publication of a recommended budget, conducts the required budget hearing and adopts its final budget on or before June 30 th. The bill now goes to the Senate Floor. SCA 8 (Mendoza) Board of Supervisors. SCA 8, opposed by the County, was amended on March 30 th to apply only to Orange, Los Angeles and San Diego counties. The bill now only requires counties with three million or more residents, as of the 2020 Census, to have seven members on their boards of supervisors. L.A. County continues to oppose SCA 8, while San Diego County is currently neutral; Riverside County strongly opposes the measure simply on principle even though they would not be impacted. Senator Mendoza s impetus for introducing SCA 8 is that he believes supervisorial districts in some counties are too large resulting in lack of diversity, political alienation, and lack of political responsiveness. Some of the County s objections to SCA 8 include cost, the fact that voters already have the ability to increase the number of representatives if they so choose, and an unusual provision that appears to require the Legislature to vote on the County s charter after the County submits the ordinance laying out compensation for Board members to voters for a referendum vote. SCA 8 failed passage on the Senate Floor last September. With the new amendments, it is assumed that the author will pick up a few additional votes on the Senate Floor. Platinum staff is actively working with L.A. County, CSAC and the Urban Counties of California on an opposition strategy, though with fewer counties impacted, it will be a difficult fight. The measure may be taken up for a floor vote in the Senate as soon as April 7 th. SB 1323 (Bates) Controlled substances: fentanyl. SB 1323, supported by the County, passed unanimously in the Senate Public Safety Committee on Tuesday. The measure is a sentence enhancement for distributors of fentanyl, a drug much more potent than heroin that resulted in more than 5,000 deaths in The Orange County Sheriff s Department, San Diego County Sheriff s Department, California State Sheriffs Association, Page 10 of 12

11 California Police Chiefs Association, and Crime Victims United of California also support the measure. It will next be heard in the Senate Appropriations Committee. State budget. Both the Senate and Assembly Budget Subcommittees on Health and Human Services discussed a $15 million augmentation to the CalWORKs Housing Support program as well as $5 million for the training of social workers in the Adult Protective Services program, but did not take action. The program was enacted as part of the budget and assists homeless CalWORKs families by moving them directly out of homelessness and into permanent housing. Across the State, the program is expected to serve 4,500 families in the current fiscal year. A $15 million augmentation would enable the program to house 1,900 additional families. Cases of elder abuse are increasing, while funding for Adult Protective Services workers across the State is only $176,000. A $5 million infusion into the program for training would be a critical investment in the quality and effectiveness of services to ensure that victims of abuse are served. The proposal was heard in the Assembly Budget Subcommittee on March 9 and will be heard in the Senate Budget Subcommittee on April Washington DC Legislative Report Prepared by James F. McConnell With the House of Representatives in recess until April 12 th, the Senate returned to session this week. The Fiscal Year 2017 (FY 2017) budget and appropriations process remains the first order of business for both Houses. The continuing impasse in the House over adoption of a budget resolution for FY 2017 has led leading members of the Senate Appropriations Committee to propose moving ahead on 2017 appropriations work regardless of budget deliberations. To do so, the Republican leadership of the Appropriations Committee may use a rare procedural maneuver to bring up four FY 2016 House-passed appropriations bills that never became law. The bills would be used as "shells" for FY 2017 spending measures, in order to get around the constitutional requirement that spending bills originate in the lower House. A prelude to such a maneuver would be the release of spending allocations, or totals, (known as 302(b)s, because of their section in the Budget Act of 1974) to each of the 12 Appropriations subcommittees. That allocation could occur as early as the end of this week. Giving allocations to the subcommittees early falls in line with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R- KY)'s goal to devote significant floor time to appropriations this spring. According to committee staff, the Appropriations Committee may move bills to the floor as early as the week of April 18 th. The Senate's move to give Appropriations leaders direction on the discretionary spending breakdown without a budget agreement would follow similar action from the House. Before the recess, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-KY), gave the Military Construction-VA Subcommittee a "notional" spending allocation that adheres to the $1.07 trillion discretionary topline agreed to in last year's two-year budget deal (P.L ). This was conducted to mark up a FY 2017 measure in subcommittee before the recess. Senators may also consider using the same shell maneuver, since republicans in the House did not get a budget resolution to the floor before leaving for recess. However, a FY 2017 resolution had been approved in the Budget Committee (H Con Res 125). Likewise, while the Senate has yet to adopt a budget resolution, a provision in last year's two-year budget agreement (P.L ) allows Senate Budget Chairman Michael Enzi (R-WY) to file the defense and non-defense spending topline amounts in statute between April 15 th and May 15 th in the absence of a FY 2017 budget resolution. Page 11 of 12

12 Chairman Enzi can simply file the spending top lines under the agreement, which includes an overall discretionary spending level of $1.07 trillion, and give appropriators the go-ahead to craft spending bills that reflect the higher budget caps. Similar provisions are not available to the House Budget Committee Chairman. Several Senate Democratic appropriators have not heard of the shell maneuver and would need to examine it more closely before weighing in. On March 30 th, President Obama signed the "Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2016" (H.R. 4721) into law. The legislation extends authorization and tax authority for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) through July 15 th ; FAA funding was set to expire on March 31 st. The Senate previously passed H.R by unanimous consent on March 17 th and the House passed it by voice vote on March 21 st. House and Senate Members of the authorizing committees are still trying to find consensus on a long-term FAA reauthorization bill. However, the authorization for aviation programs would have lapsed if Congress had not passed a legislative patch in the meantime. The Senate Commerce Committee approved the "Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 2016" (S. 2658) on March 16 th to renew FAA programs through September 30, The version advanced by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on February 11 th, the "Aviation Innovation, Reform and Reauthorization (AIRR) Act of 2016" (H.R. 4441), would extend programs through FY Although, House leadership ultimately opted against bringing the House measure up for a floor vote, because of controversy over a proposal that would allow anew non-governmental organization to run air traffic control instead of the FAA. Under the latest short-term extension Congress will have until the scheduled last day in session before they break for the Republican and Democratic presidential conventions and the annual August recess to agree on a new FAA bill. After recessing in mid-july neither the House nor Senate will be back in session until after Labor Day. During the Senate's consideration of S. 2658, Senate Democrats will seek several changes to S Specifically, they will be focusing on three areas: counterterrorism training for Transport Security Administration officers, oversight of aviation workers, and funding for airports. If you or your staff have any questions or require additional information on any of the items in this bulletin, please contact Peter DeMarco at Page 12 of 12