HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04232013 - C.20RECOMMENDATION(S):
ADOPT advocacy positions on various state bills as specified in the report, as recommended by the Legislation
Committee.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Assembly Bill 741 proposes to shift property taxes from counties to cities via a new Tax Equity Allocation (TEA)
formula that establishes minimum property tax shares for certain cities. Counties are extremely concerned about the
consequences of AB 741 in light of counties’ ongoing and significant service responsibilities to all Californians.
No fiscal impact projected for Senate Bill 199.
BACKGROUND:
At their April 4, 2013 meeting, the Legislation Committee of the Board of Supervisors considered the following bills
and accepted staff's recommendations to forward the bills to the Board of Supervisors for the adoption of a position
of "oppose."
a)
APPROVE OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
Action of Board On: 04/23/2013 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor
Candace Andersen, District II
Supervisor
Mary N. Piepho, District III
Supervisor
Karen Mitchoff, District IV
Supervisor
Federal D. Glover, District V
Supervisor
Contact: L. DeLaney,
925-335-1097
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board
of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: April 23, 2013
David Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: June McHuen, Deputy
cc:
C. 20
To:Board of Supervisors
From:Legislation Committee
Date:April 23, 2013
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:Advocacy Positions on Various Bills
BACKGROUND: (CONT'D)
AB 741 (Brown): Local Government Finance: Tax Equity Formula. This bill increases the allocation of
property tax revenues under a new Tax Equity Allocation formula that establishes minimum property tax shares
for qualifying cities.
The bill attempts to alleviate financial difficulties some cities with relatively low property tax shares are
experiencing, in particular those cities that relied on redevelopment funds to support city operations. The author’s
office estimates that the bill would affect about 200 cities, or about 40 percent of all cities in California. If true,
this bill would represent a monumental shift of property taxes from counties to cities.
CSAC has taken an “oppose” position on AB 741. Counties are extremely concerned about the consequences of
AB 741 in light of counties’ ongoing and significant service responsibilities to all Californians. Counties have
taken on substantial new service responsibilities over the past few years and cannot consider the revenue transfer
proposed by AB 741 for a number of reasons.
CSAC has encouraged counties to oppose AB 741 and communicate their concerns to the author and their own
legislative delegations. Assembly Member Brown’s staff has let CSAC know that they do not intend to pursue the
bill this year, but remain concerned about the lack of property tax revenue received by certain cities and will be
looking to alternatives to resolve their concerns. CSAC will continue to share its perspective on local government
revenues and service responsibilities to the Legislature to help facilitate an understanding of the complex system
of state and local revenues and responsibilities.
DISPOSITION: Pending in Assembly Local Government Committee. (Will not move out of Committee this year
but may return next year, in some fashion .)
b) SB 199 (De Leon): Probation: Community Corrections (Attachment): This bill relates to local community
corrections partnerships. Adds a rank-and-file deputy sheriff or a rank-and-file police officer and a rank-and-file
probation officer or a deputy probation officer to the membership of a community corrections partnership.
SB 199, by Senator Kevin De Leon, seeks to expand membership to the Community Corrections Partnership
(CCP) and its executive committee.
SB 199 is similar, but not identical to, a measure CSAC opposed last year that sought to make changes to the CCP
membership. Last year’s measure, AB 2031 by Assembly Member Felipe Fuentes, was ultimately vetoed by the
Governor. Unlike AB 2031, which sought to add membership to both the CCP and Board of State and
Community Corrections, SB 199 focuses solely on the CCP. As currently drafted, SB 199 would add a
rank-and-file deputy sheriff or police offer and a rank-and-file probation officer or deputy probation officer to
both the CCP and its executive committee.
CSAC, along with a number of county public safety stakeholders, opposed efforts last year to change the
composition of the CCP, maintaining that it is too early into realignment – counties only having one year of
implementation – to make changes to the CCP.
COMMITTEE: Senate Public Safety Committee
HEARING: 04/23/2013 9:00 am, Room 3191
The Legislation Committee also considered the following bill and recommended a position of "Support and
Request Amendment":
c) AB 59 (Bonta): School Districts: Parcel Taxes (Attachment) This bill would authorize school districts to
impose different parcel tax rates on different properties based on rational classifications of properties.
Existing law authorizes any school district to impose qualified special taxes within the district pursuant to
specified procedures. Existing law defines qualified special taxes as special taxes that apply uniformly to all
specified procedures. Existing law defines qualified special taxes as special taxes that apply uniformly to all
taxpayers or all real property within the school district, as specified. AB 59 would specify that the provisions
requiring uniform application of taxes shall not be construed as limiting a school district from assessing taxes in
accordance with rational classifications among taxpayers or types of property within the school district. The bill
would specify that the provision is declaratory of existing law. The bill would also express the Legislature's intent
to clarify, and not change, existing law, and to abrogate the holding in Borikas v. Alameda Unified School
District, as specified.
Background: In Borikas v. Alameda Unified School District, the Court of Appeals invalidated a school district’s
parcel tax measure because it violated the statutory requirement that school district taxes be imposed uniformly on
all property or persons within the district. The case struck down the school district’s tax measure because it
imposed different tax rates on different types of property.
On January 7, 2013, the Court of Appeals granted the school district’s request for rehearing. On March 6, 2013,
the California Court of Appeals upheld its December 6, 2012 ruling in the case Borikas v. Alameda USD. The
decision invalidates parts of Alameda USD's parcel tax, Measure H, which voters passed in 2008. The court struck
down Measure H's differential rate structure for residential and commercial property owners. The case could have
far reaching consequences for school districts throughout the state as similar lawsuits over parcel tax structures
have been filed in Yolo, Contra Costa and Los Angeles counties.
If left unchanged, the decision in Borikas would only apply to qualified special tax measures enacted by school
districts. However, the rationale underlying the decision could be applied in legal challenges to other local
governments’ special tax measures, if those measures are enacted under similar statutes.
DISPOSITION: Pending
LOCATION: Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee (The Author intends to hear the bill in Committee on
May 6 .)
Subsequent to the meeting of the Legislation Committee, a bill came to the attention of staff from Supervisor
Gioia, who requested a letter of support from Chair of the Board. Protocol approved by the Board of Supervisors
allows, in such cases when there is no established Board policy related to a bill and the matter is time-sensitive,
that the Board Chair may send a letter indicating his position on the bill, and the bill must be forwarded to the
Board of Supervisors at the next possible Board meeting.
d) SB 279 (Hancock): San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority (Attachment) This bill specifies procedures
for conducting a multi-county election to approve a special tax measure proposed by the San Francisco Bay
Restoration Authority (SFBRA).
The SFBRA is responsible for helping to restore 36,000 acres of San Francisco Bay shoreline into tidal wetlands,
an endeavor that may cost more than $1.4 billion over 50 years. To cover some of these costs, and leverage
additional state and federal funding, SFBRA officials anticipate the need to seek 2/3-voter approval for special
taxes, as authorized by current law. To ensure that the special tax election is conducted in a uniform manner, SB
279 adds language to SFBRA's authorizing statute clarifying some of the rules that would apply to an election on a
special tax proposed by the Authority.
SB 279 requires that any multi-county special tax measure proposed by the SFBRA must appear on the ballot in
each county before all other local measures. There is no apparent uniform approach to determining the order in
which multi-county ballot measures appear on a ballot. Regional Measure 2, a 2004 ballot measure in which
voters in seven Bay Area counties voted on a toll increase to pay for regional traffic relief projects, appeared on
ballots before other local measures.
By contrast, Measure WW, a 2008 ballot measure in which Alameda County and Contra Costa County voters
were asked to approve bonds proposed by the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD), appeared at the end of
the ballot. Some elections experts suggest that appearing earlier on a ballot improves a measure's chances of
passing. Should state law grant the SFBRA an electoral advantage that is not available to other multi-county
special districts, like the EBRPD? The Committee may wish to consider amending SB 279 to delete the
requirement that SFBRA's special tax proposals must appear on ballots before other local measures.
SB 279 requires that when more than one county must translate ballot materials into a particular language other
than English, the translation must be prepared by the county that contains the largest population, as determined by
the most recent federal census, among the counties in which the measure will be submitted to the voters. It is
unclear whether this language assigns the translation responsibilities to the most populous county among all
counties that participate in the election or to the most populous county among those that must translate the ballot
materials into a particular language. As a hypothetical example, although Santa Clara County has the largest
population among all Bay Area counties, perhaps only San Francisco and Alameda Counties would be required to
translate ballot materials into Esperanto.
Support and Opposition (4/11/13)
Support: San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority; Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Chair Federal
Glover; Napa County Supervisor Keith Caldwell; San Mateo County Supervisor Dave Pine; Santa Clara County
Supervisor Dave Cortese; East Bay Regional Parks District Director John Sutter; San Francisco Bay Restoration
Authority Board Member Rosanne Foust; San Francisco Estuary Partnership; Save The Bay.
Opposition: Unknown.
ATTACHMENTS
SB 199 Bill Text
SB 279 Bill Text
AB 59 Bill Text
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 9, 2013
AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 21, 2013
SENATE BILL No. 279
Introduced by Senator Hancock
February 14, 2013
An act to amend Section 66704.05 of the Government Code, relating
to the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority.
legislative counsel’s digest
SB 279, as amended, Hancock. San Francisco Bay Restoration
Authority.
Existing law establishes the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority
to raise and allocate resources for the restoration, enhancement,
protection, and enjoyment of wetlands and wildlife habitat in the San
Francisco Bay and along its shoreline. Existing law authorizes the
authority to levy a benefit assessment, special tax, or property-related
fee consistent with the California Constitution, as specified. Existing
law requires the board of supervisors of each affected county, when the
authority proposes a measure to levy a benefit assessment, special tax,
or property-related fee for submission to the voters, to call a special
election on the measure and place the measure on the ballot of the next
regularly scheduled statewide election.
This bill would specify that a measure proposed by the authority must
be submitted to the voters of the authority in accordance with the
provisions of the Elections Code applicable to districts, as specified.
This bill would require the authority to file with the board of supervisors
of each affected county a resolution requesting consolidation. This bill
would require the legal counsel for the authority to prepare, subject to
review and revision by a specified county counsel, an impartial analysis
97
of the measure. This bill would require the elections officials of those
affected counties to mutually agree to use the same letter designation
for the measure and would require the measure to appear on the ballot
before all county, city, and other local measures.
By imposing new duties or higher levels of service on local elections
officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.
Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates
determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state,
reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory
provisions.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. Section 66704.05 of the Government Code is
line 2 amended to read:
line 3 66704.05. (a) If the authority proposes to levy a benefit
line 4 assessment, special tax, or property-related fee pursuant to
line 5 subdivision (a) of Section 66704, the board of supervisors of the
line 6 county or counties in which the assessment, tax, or fee special tax
line 7 is proposed to be levied shall call a special election on the measure.
line 8 The special election shall be consolidated with the next regularly
line 9 scheduled statewide election and the measure shall be submitted
line 10 to the voters in the appropriate counties, consistent with the
line 11 requirements of Article XIII C or XIII D of the California
line 12 Constitution, as applicable.
line 13 (b) The authority is a district for purposes district, as defined
line 14 in Section 317 of the Elections Code. Except as otherwise provided
line 15 in this section, a measure proposed by the authority that requires
line 16 voter approval shall be submitted to the voters of the authority in
line 17 accordance with the provisions of the Elections Code applicable
line 18 to districts, including the provisions of Chapter 4 (commencing
line 19 with Section 9300) of Division 9 of the Elections Code.
line 20 (c) The authority shall file with the board of supervisors of each
line 21 county in which the measure shall appear on the ballot a resolution
line 22 of the authority requesting consolidation, and setting forth the
97
— 2 —SB 279
line 1 exact form of the ballot question, in accordance with Section 10403
line 2 of the Elections Code.
line 3 (d) The authority shall transmit a copy of the measure to the
line 4 legal counsel for the authority, who shall prepare, subject to review
line 5 and revision by the county counsel of the county that contains the
line 6 largest number of registered voters of the authority, an impartial
line 7 analysis of the measure in accordance with Section 9313 of the
line 8 Elections Code. The impartial analysis prepared by the legal
line 9 counsel for the authority shall be subject to review and revision
line 10 by the county counsel of the county that contains the largest
line 11 population, as determined by the most recent federal decennial
line 12 census, among those counties in which the measure will be
line 13 submitted to the voters. If there is no legal counsel for the authority,
line 14 the authority shall transmit a copy of the measure to the county
line 15 counsel of the county that contains the largest number of registered
line 16 voters of the authority population, as determined by the most recent
line 17 federal decennial census, among those counties in which the
line 18 measure will be submitted to the voters, and the county counsel
line 19 shall prepare the impartial analysis.
line 20 (e) Each county included in the measure shall use the exact
line 21 ballot question, impartial analysis, and ballot language provided
line 22 by the authority. If two or more counties included in the measure
line 23 are required to prepare a translation of ballot materials into the
line 24 same language other than English, the county that contains the
line 25 largest number of registered voters population, as determined by
line 26 the most recent federal decennial census, among those counties
line 27 in which the measure will be submitted to the voters shall prepare
line 28 the translation and that translation shall be used by the other county
line 29 or counties, as applicable.
line 30 (f) Notwithstanding Section 13116 of the Elections Code, if a
line 31 measure proposed by the authority pursuant to this article is
line 32 submitted to the voters of the authority in two or more counties,
line 33 the elections officials of those counties shall mutually agree to use
line 34 the same letter designation for the measure and the measure shall
line 35 appear on the ballot before all county, city, and other local
line 36 measures.
line 37 (g) The county clerk of each county shall report the results of
line 38 the special election to the authority.
line 39 (h) If a voter files a petition for a writ of mandate or an
line 40 injunction regarding a measure proposed by the authority, venue
97
SB 279— 3 —
line 1 for the proceeding shall be exclusively in the county that contains
line 2 the largest number of registered voters of the authority.
line 3 SEC. 2. If the Commission on State Mandates determines that
line 4 this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to
line 5 local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made
line 6 pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division
line 7 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
O
97
— 4 —SB 279
california legislature—2013–14 regular session
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 59
Introduced by Assembly Member Bonta
January 7, 2013
An act to amend Section 50079 of the Government Code, relating to
taxation.
legislative counsel’s digest
AB 59, as introduced, Bonta. School districts: parcel taxes.
Existing law authorizes any school district to impose qualified special
taxes within the district pursuant to specified procedures. Existing law
defines qualified special taxes as special taxes that apply uniformly to
all taxpayers or all real property within the school district, as specified.
This bill would specify that the provisions requiring uniform
application of taxes shall not be construed as limiting a school district
from assessing taxes in accordance with rational classifications among
taxpayers or types of property within the school district. The bill would
specify that the provision is declaratory of existing law. The bill would
also express the Legislature’s intent to clarify, and not change, existing
law, and to abrogate the holding in Borikas v. Alameda Unified School
District, as specified.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. Section 50079 of the Government Code, as
line 2 amended by Section 1 of Chapter 791 of Statutes of 2012, is
line 3 amended to read:
99
Item #4--Attachment A
line 1 50079. (a) Subject to Section 4 of Article XIIIA of the
line 2 California Constitution, any school district may impose qualified
line 3 special taxes within the district pursuant to the procedures
line 4 established in Article 3.5 (commencing with Section 50075) and
line 5 any other applicable procedures provided by law.
line 6 (b) (1) As used in this section, “qualified special taxes” means
line 7 special taxes that apply uniformly to all taxpayers or all real
line 8 property within the school district, except that “qualified special
line 9 taxes” may include taxes that provide for an exemption from those
line 10 taxes for all of the following taxpayers:
line 11 (A) Persons who are 65 years of age or older.
line 12 (B) Persons receiving Supplemental Security Income for a
line 13 disability, regardless of age.
line 14 (C) Persons receiving Social Security Disability Insurance
line 15 benefits, regardless of age, whose yearly income does not exceed
line 16 250 percent of the 2012 federal poverty guidelines issued by the
line 17 United States Department of Health and Human Services.
line 18 (2) “Qualified special taxes” do not include special taxes
line 19 imposed on a particular class of property or taxpayers.
line 20 (c) The provisions in this section requiring uniform application
line 21 of taxes shall not be construed as limiting a school district from
line 22 assessing taxes in accordance with rational classifications among
line 23 taxpayers or types of property within the school district. This
line 24 subdivision is declaratory of existing law, and shall apply to
line 25 transactions predating its enactment.
line 26 SEC. 2. It is the intent of the Legislature, in enacting Section
line 27 1 of this act, to clarify, and not change, existing law, by confirming
line 28 that a school district may assess taxes in accordance with rational
line 29 classifications among taxpayers or types of property, and
line 30 nevertheless satisfy the requirement that the taxes apply uniformly
line 31 to all taxpayers or all real property within the school district, so
line 32 long as the taxes are applied uniformly within those classifications.
line 33 It is further the intent of the Legislature to abrogate the holding in
line 34 Borikas v. Alameda Unified School District 2012 WL 6084027 to
line 35 the extent that the court’s holding restricts the right of the Alameda
line 36 Unified School District to retain any of the qualified special taxes
line 37 imposed pursuant to Measure H, as approved by the district’s
line 38 voters on June 3, 2008.
O
99
— 2 —AB 59
Item #4--Attachment A
SENATE BILL No. 199
Introduced by Senator De León
February 7, 2013
An act to amend Sections 1230 and 1230.1 of the Penal Code, relating
to community corrections.
legislative counsel’s digest
SB 199, as introduced, De León. Probation: community corrections
community corrections.
Existing law authorizes each county to establish a Community
Corrections Performance Incentives Fund to receive state moneys to
implement a community corrections program consisting of a system of
felony probation supervision services to, among other things, manage
and reduce offender risk while under felony probation supervision and
upon reentry from jail into the community. Existing law requires a
community corrections program to be implemented by probation and
advised by a local Community Corrections Partnership, consisting of
specified members, including, but not limited to, the sheriff and a chief
of police. Existing law requires a Community Corrections Partnership
to recommend a local plan to the county board of supervisors for the
implementation of public safety realignment.
This bill would add a rank-and-file deputy sheriff or a rank-and-file
police officer, and a rank-and-file probation officer or a deputy probation
officer, each to be appointed by a local labor organization, to the
membership of a Community Corrections Partnership. The bill would
require the vote of the rank-and-file deputy sheriff or rank-and-file
police officer, and the rank-and-file probation officer or a deputy
probation officer, on the local plan.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
State-mandated local program: no.
99
Item #4--Attachment F
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. Section 1230 of the Penal Code is amended to
line 2 read:
line 3 1230. (a) Each county is hereby authorized to establish in each
line 4 county treasury a Community Corrections Performance Incentives
line 5 Fund (CCPIF), to receive all amounts allocated to that county for
line 6 purposes of implementing this chapter.
line 7 (b) In any fiscal year for which a county receives moneys to be
line 8 expended for the implementation of this chapter, the moneys,
line 9 including any interest, shall be made available to the CPO of that
line 10 county, within 30 days of the deposit of those moneys into the
line 11 fund, for the implementation of the community corrections program
line 12 authorized by this chapter.
line 13 (1) The community corrections program shall be developed and
line 14 implemented by probation and advised by a local Community
line 15 Corrections Partnership.
line 16 (2) The local Community Corrections Partnership shall be
line 17 chaired by the CPO and comprised of the following membership:
line 18 (A) The presiding judge of the superior court, or his or her
line 19 designee.
line 20 (B) A county supervisor or the chief administrative officer for
line 21 the county or a designee of the board of supervisors.
line 22 (C) The district attorney.
line 23 (D) The public defender.
line 24 (E) The sheriff.
line 25 (F) A rank-and-file deputy sheriff or a rank and file police
line 26 officer, appointed by the local labor organization.
line 27 (F)
line 28 (G) A chief of police.
line 29 (H) A rank-and-file probation officer or a deputy probation
line 30 officer, appointed by the local labor organization.
line 31 (G)
line 32 (I) The head of the county department of social services.
line 33 (H)
line 34 (J) The head of the county department of mental health.
line 35 (I)
line 36 (K) The head of the county department of employment.
line 37 (J)
99
— 2 —SB 199
Item #4--Attachment F
line 1 (L) The head of the county alcohol and substance abuse
line 2 programs.
line 3 (K)
line 4 (M) The head of the county office of education.
line 5 (L)
line 6 (N) A representative from a community-based organization
line 7 with experience in successfully providing rehabilitative services
line 8 to persons who have been convicted of a criminal offense.
line 9 (M)
line 10 (O) An individual who represents the interests of victims.
line 11 (3) Funds allocated to probation pursuant to this act shall be
line 12 used to provide supervision and rehabilitative services for adult
line 13 felony offenders subject to probation, and shall be spent on
line 14 evidence-based community corrections practices and programs,
line 15 as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 1229, which may include,
line 16 but are not limited to, the following:
line 17 (A) Implementing and expanding evidence-based risk and needs
line 18 assessments.
line 19 (B) Implementing and expanding intermediate sanctions that
line 20 include, but are not limited to, electronic monitoring, mandatory
line 21 community service, home detention, day reporting, restorative
line 22 justice programs, work furlough programs, and incarceration in
line 23 county jail for up to 90 days.
line 24 (C) Providing more intensive probation supervision.
line 25 (D) Expanding the availability of evidence-based rehabilitation
line 26 programs programs, including, but not limited to, drug and alcohol
line 27 treatment, mental health treatment, anger management, cognitive
line 28 behavior programs, and job training and employment services.
line 29 (E) Evaluating the effectiveness of rehabilitation and supervision
line 30 programs and ensuring program fidelity.
line 31 (4) The CPO shall have discretion to spend funds on any of the
line 32 above practices and programs consistent with this act but, at a
line 33 minimum, shall devote at least 5 percent of all funding received
line 34 to evaluate the effectiveness of those programs and practices
line 35 implemented with the funds provided pursuant to this chapter. A
line 36 CPO may petition the Administrative Office of the Courts to have
line 37 this restriction waived, and the Administrative Office of the Courts
line 38 shall have the authority to grant such a that petition, if the CPO
line 39 can demonstrate that the department is already devoting sufficient
line 40 funds to the evaluation of these programs and practices.
99
SB 199— 3 — Item #4--Attachment F
line 1 (5) Each probation department receiving funds under this chapter
line 2 shall maintain a complete and accurate accounting of all funds
line 3 received pursuant to this chapter.
line 4 SEC. 2. Section 1230.1 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
line 5 1230.1. (a) Each county local Community Corrections
line 6 Partnership established pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 1230
line 7 shall recommend a local plan to the county board of supervisors
line 8 for the implementation of the 2011 public safety realignment.
line 9 (b) The plan shall be voted on by an executive committee of
line 10 each county’s Community Corrections Partnership consisting of
line 11 the chief probation officer of the county as chair, a chief of police,
line 12 the sheriff, a rank-and-file deputy sheriff or a rank-and-file police
line 13 officer, the District Attorney, district attorney, the Public Defender,
line 14 public defender, the presiding judge of the superior court, or his
line 15 or her designee, a rank-and-file probation officer or a deputy
line 16 probation officer, and one department representative listed in either
line 17 subparagraph (G), (H), (I), (J), or (J) (L) of paragraph (2) of
line 18 subdivision (b) of Section 1230, as designated by the county board
line 19 of supervisors for purposes related to the development and
line 20 presentation of the plan.
line 21 (c) The plan shall be deemed accepted by the county board of
line 22 supervisors unless the board rejects the plan by a vote of four-fifths
line 23 of the board, in which case the plan goes back to the Community
line 24 Corrections Partnership for further consideration.
line 25 (d) Consistent with local needs and resources, the plan may
line 26 include recommendations to maximize the effective investment
line 27 of criminal justice resources in evidence-based correctional
line 28 sanctions and programs, including, but not limited to, day reporting
line 29 centers, drug courts, residential multiservice centers, mental health
line 30 treatment programs, electronic and GPS monitoring programs,
line 31 victim restitution programs, counseling programs, community
line 32 service programs, educational programs, and work training
line 33 programs.
O
99
— 4 —SB 199
Item #4--Attachment F