HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD STANDING COMMITTEES - 07112016 - Legislation Cte Agenda Pkt
LEGISLATION COMMITTEE
July 11, 2016
10:30 A.M.
651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez
Supervisor Federal D. Glover, Chair
Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, Vice Chair
Agenda
Items:
Items may be taken out of order based on the business of the day and preference
of the Committee
1.Introductions
2.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this
agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes).
3. APPROVE the Record of Action from the June 13, 2016 meeting with any
necessary corrections.
4. CONSIDER recommending to the Board of Supervisors a position of "Oppose
Unless Amended" on AB 1550 (Gomez): Greenhouse Gases: Investment Plan:
Communities, as recommended by Supervisor Mitchoff.
5. CONSIDER recommending to the Board of Supervisors a position of "Support" on
AB 2121 (Gonzalez) Alcoholic Beverage Control: Beverage Service Training, as
recommended by the Alcohol and Other Drugs Advisory Board.
6. CONSIDER recommending to the Board of Supervisors a position of "Support" on
SB 1107 (Hancock, Chiu): Political Reform Act of 1974, a bill that allows state and
local governments to offer public campaign financing programs and limits the uses
of campaign funds that are held by public officials who have been convicted of
various public trust crimes.
7. CONSIDER recommending to the Board of Supervisors an amendment to the
County's adopted Federal Platform to include support for creating a new category
of private activity bonds for governments to join with private parties to help
finance government buildings, as recommended by CAO staff.
8.The next meeting is currently scheduled for August 8, 2016.
9.Adjourn
1 of 68
The Legislation Committee will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities
planning to attend Legislation Committee meetings. Contact the staff person listed below at least
72 hours before the meeting.
Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and
distributed by the County to a majority of members of the Legislation Committee less than 96
hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at 651 Pine Street, 10th floor,
during normal business hours.
Public comment may be submitted via electronic mail on agenda items at least one full work day
prior to the published meeting time.
For Additional Information Contact:
Lara DeLaney, Committee Staff
Phone (925) 335-1097, Fax (925) 646-1353
lara.delaney@cao.cccounty.us
2 of 68
LEGISLATION COMMITTEE 3.
Meeting Date:07/11/2016
Subject:Record of Action
Submitted For: LEGISLATION COMMITTEE,
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: 2016-22
Referral Name: Record of Action
Presenter: Lara DeLaney Contact: L. DeLaney, 925-335-1097
Referral History:
County Ordinance requires that each County body keep a record of its meetings. Though the
record need not be verbatim, it must accurately reflect the agenda and the decisions made in the
meeting. Any handouts or printed copies of testimony distributed at the meeting will be attached
to this meeting record.
Referral Update:
Attached for the Committee's consideration is the Record of Action for its June 13, 2016 meeting.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
APPROVE the Record of Action from the June 13, 2016 meeting with any necessary corrections.
Attachments
Attachment A: Record of Action -June 13, 2016
Attachment B: Sign-in sheet
3 of 68
LEGISLATION COMMITTEE
RECORD OF ACTION
June 13, 2016
10:30 A.M.
651 Pine Street, Room 101, Martinez
Supervisor Federal D. Glover, Chair
Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, Vice Chair
Agenda Items:Items may be taken out of order based on the business of the day and preference of the Committee
Present: Federal D. Glover, Chair
Karen Mitchoff, Vice Chair
Staff Present:Lara DeLaney, Senior Deputy County Administrator
Aruna Bhat, Department of Conservation & Development
Kara Douglas, Department of Conservation & Development
Susan Jeong, Employment & Human Services
Sean Casey, First 5/Early Learning Leadership
Allison Picard, Chief Assistant County Administrator
Ed Diokno, District V Office
Erica Hickey, District V Office
Eliacin Velazquez, District V Office
1.Introductions
Chair Glover called the meeting to order. Vice Chair Mitchoff in attendance. Staff
introduced themselves. See attached sign-in sheet.
AYE: Chair Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair Karen Mitchoff
Passed
2.Public comment on any item under the jurisdiction of the Committee and not on this
agenda (speakers may be limited to three minutes).
Sean Casey indicated that he was in attendance to represent First 5 and the Contra
Costa Early Care and Education Leadership Group. He noted that either he or
another person associated with these groups would continue to attend the meetings
of the Legislation Committee, to ensure the Board members’ information needs
were met and that the issues of importance were addressed.
AYE: Chair Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair Karen Mitchoff
Passed
4 of 68
3.APPROVE the Record of Action from the May 9, 2016 meeting with any necessary
corrections.
The Committee accepted the Record as presented.
AYE: Chair Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair Karen Mitchoff
Passed
4.CONSIDER recommending to the Board of Supervisors a position on the Governor's
Affordable Housing By-Right Proposal or providing direction to staff on input on the
proposal to be communicated with the California State Association of Counties
(CSAC).
The Committee indicated they had ongoing concerns with the proposal’s impact on
local land use control. Given the fluidity of the proposal, with amendments still
being proposed and trailer bill language not anticipated to be finalized until August,
the Committee requested that the item return for further consideration at a
subsequent meeting.
AYE: Chair Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair Karen Mitchoff
Passed
5.CONSIDER recommending to the Board of Supervisors a position of "Support" on AB
2263 (Baker): Protect Victims and Reproductive Health Care Providers.
The Committee voted unanimously to recommend adopting a Support position on
AB 2263 to the Board of Supervisors. The Committee recommended this be placed
on the Consent calendar.
AYE: Chair Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair Karen Mitchoff
Passed
6.CONSIDER providing direction to staff on developing a position for Board of
Supervisors' consideration regarding various ballot initiatives in development for the
November 2016 election.
a. The Committee voted unanimously to recommend adopting an oppose position on
the Referendum to Overturn Ban on Single-Use Plastic Bags to the Board of
Supervisors.
b. If it qualifies for the November 8, 2016 ballot, the Committee voted unanimously
to recommend adopting a support position on the measure related to State
Prescription Drug Purchases to the Board of Supervisors.
c. If it qualifies for the November 8, 2016 ballot, the Committee voted unanimously
to recommend adopting a support position on the legislative proceedings initiative
(prohibiting Legislature from passing any bill unless it has been in print and
published on the Internet for at least 72 hours before the vote, except in cases of
public emergency) to the Board of Supervisors.
d. If it qualifies for the November 8, 2016 ballot, the Committee voted unanimously
to recommend adopting a support position on the initiative to increase the cigarette
5 of 68
tax to fund health care, to the Board of Supervisors.
e. If qualified for the November 8, 2016 ballot, the Committee voted unanimously to
refer the measures related to the extension of the Proposition 30 personal income
tax increases, the Governor’s criminal sentencing reform, the repeal of the death
penalty, and the legalization of marijuana for recreational purposes to the Board of
Supervisors for discussion.
AYE: Chair Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair Karen Mitchoff
Passed
7.ACCEPT the reports on the state budget and federal issues and provide direction to
staff, as needed, on bills of interest to the County.
The Committee accepted the report and provided no further direction to staff.
AYE: Chair Federal D. Glover, Vice Chair Karen Mitchoff
Passed
8.The next meeting is currently scheduled for July 11, 2016.
9.Adjourn
The Legislation Committee will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to attend Legislation Committee
meetings. Contact the staff person listed below at least 72 hours before the meeting.
Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and distributed by the County to a majority of
members of the Legislation Committee less than 96 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at 651 Pine Street, 10th
floor, during normal business hours.
Public comment may be submitted via electronic mail on agenda items at least one full work day prior to the published meeting time.
For Additional Information Contact:
Lara DeLaney, Committee Staff
Phone (925) 335-1097, Fax (925) 646-1353
lara.delaney@cao.cccounty.us
6 of 68
7 of 68
LEGISLATION COMMITTEE 4.
Meeting Date:07/11/2016
Subject:AB 1550 (Gomez) Greenhouse Gases: Investment Plan: Communities
Submitted For: LEGISLATION COMMITTEE,
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: 2016-25
Referral Name: AB 1550 (Gomez) Greenhouse Gases: Investment Plan: Communities
Presenter: Lara DeLaney Contact: L. DeLaney, 925-335-1097
Referral History:
This bill was referred to the Legislation Committee by its Vice Chair, Supervisor Karen Mitchoff.
Referral Update:
Assembly Bill (AB) 1550 relates to greenhouse gases and investments in communities and would
require the Greenhouse Investment Fund plan to allocate a minimum percentage of the available
moneys in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to projects located within disadvantaged
communities and a minimum percentage to projects that benefit low-income households, with a
fair share of the moneys targeting households with incomes below a percentage of the federal
poverty level.
Status: 06/09/2016 To SENATE Committee on ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission has taken an "Oppose Unless Amended" position
on AB 1550 due to its concerns about the definition of "Disadvantaged communities" (DACs),
which presently excludes many communities characterized by poor socio-economic conditions.
The position letter is attached (Attachment B), as are the requested amendments (Attachment C).
Bill Analysis - 06/01/2016
SUMMARY: Requires that 25% of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) be spent on
projects located within disadvantaged communities, and requires that an additional 25% be
spent on projects that benefit low-income households. Specifically, this bill:
1) Revises the requirement that 25% of the GGRF be expended to benefit disadvantaged
communities to require that the funding be allocated for projects located within the
boundaries of, and benefiting individuals in, disadvantaged communities.
2) Requires that an additional 20% of the GGRF be allocated for projects that benefit
low-income households.
8 of 68
3) Requires that, to the extent feasible, a "fair share" of the moneys allocated to benefit
low-income households target households with incomes at or below 200% of the federal
poverty level.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, this bill has the
following state costs:
1) Increased GGRF expenditures in disadvantaged and low-income communities. The
Governor's budget proposes appropriating $3.1 billion GGRF funds this year.
2) Increased annual ongoing costs of approximately $600,000 (GGRF) for the California Air
Resources Board (ARB) to modify existing guidelines and tracking systems, provide
guidance to state agencies, and conduct outreach.
COMMENTS: According to the author, the best greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction strategies
are those that benefit low-income households, whether they lie inside or outside
CalEnviroScreen-designated disadvantaged communities. Low-income Californians often
lack adequate transportation choices, spend a significant percentage of their budgets on
necessities like energy, and are least able to relocate or afford energy-saving appliances,
vehicles, and household improvements to adapt to our changing climate. This bill is
intended to ensure that the state takes advantage of every opportunity to lift poor and
working Californians out of poverty, while reducing GHG emissions.
The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32 (Nunez), Chapter 488,
Statutes of 2006) requires ARB to adopt a statewide GHG emissions limit equivalent to
1990 levels by 2020 and adopt regulations, including market-based compliance
mechanisms, to achieve maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emission
reductions. As part of the implementation of AB 32 market-based compliance measures,
ARB adopted a cap-and-trade program that caps the allowable statewide emissions and
provides for the auctioning of emission credits, the proceeds of which are quarterly
deposited into the GGRF available for appropriation by the Legislature.
The Budget continuously appropriates 35% of cap-and-trade funds for investments in
transit, affordable housing, and sustainable communities. Twenty-five percent of the
revenues are continuously appropriated to continue the construction of high-speed rail. The
remaining 40% are to be appropriated annually by the Legislature for investments in
programs that include low-carbon transportation, energy efficiency and renewable energy,
and natural resources and waste diversion. An expenditure plan for the 40% was not
included in the 2015-16 Budget Act, with the exception of $227 million appropriated to
continue funding for specified existing programs. The remaining 2015-16 revenues, along
with 2016-17 revenues, totaling $3.1 billion are available for appropriation this year.
SB 535 (De Leon), Chapter 830, Statutes of 2012, requires no less than 10% of
cap-and-trade revenues fund projects located within disadvantaged communities (DACs),
and that 25% of available revenues fund projects that benefit those communities. In
October 2014, CalEPA released its list of disadvantaged communities for the purpose of SB
535. CalEPA relied on CalEnviroScreen to identify the areas disproportionately burdened by
and vulnerable to multiple sources of pollution. CalEnviroScreen is a tool that assesses all
census tracts in California to identify the areas disproportionally affected and vulnerable to
multiple sources of pollution.
Areas (census tracts) identified as disadvantaged for SB 535's purposes by CalEnviroScreen
include: the majority of the San Joaquin Valley; much of Los Angeles and the Inland
Empire; pockets of other communities near ports, freeways, and major industrial facilities
such as refineries and power plants; and large swaths of the Coachella Valley, Imperial
Valley and Mojave Desert.
9 of 68
Valley and Mojave Desert.
This bill modifies SB 535 by requiring the entire 25% allocated to benefit DACs is used to
fund projects located within the communities and establishes a new allocation category to
target low-income households located outside DACs such as rural communities in northern
and southeastern California as well as urban districts in places like the Bay Area and San
Diego regions. Under this proposal, 50% (rather than 75% under current law) of all funds
would be available for communities and households other than low-income and those not
located in DACs.
Analysis Prepared by: Elizabeth MacMillan / NAT. RES. / (916) 319-2092 FN: 0003333
Attachment A includes the bill text.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
CONSIDER recommending to the Board of Supervisors a position of "Oppose Unless Amended"
on AB 1550 (Gomez): Greenhouse Gases: Investment Plan: Communities, as recommended by
Supervisor Mitchoff.
Attachments
Attachment A: AB 1550 bill text
Attachment B: MTC Letter
Attachment C: amendments
10 of 68
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 31, 2016
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 11, 2016
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 28, 2016
california legislature—2015–16 regular session
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 1550
Introduced by Assembly Member Gomez
January 4, 2016
An act to amend Section 39713 of the Health and Safety Code,
relating to greenhouse gases.
legislative counsel’s digest
AB 1550, as amended, Gomez. Greenhouse gases: investment plan:
disadvantaged communities.
The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 designates
the State Air Resources Board as the state agency charged with
monitoring and regulating sources of emissions of greenhouse gases.
The act requires the board to adopt greenhouse gas emission limits and
emission reduction measures by regulation, and authorizes the state
board to include the use of market-based compliance mechanisms to
comply with the regulations. mechanisms. Existing law requires all
moneys, except for fines and penalties, collected by the state board as
part of a market-based compliance mechanism to be deposited in the
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and to be available upon appropriation.
Existing law requires the Department of Finance, in consultation with
the state board and any other relevant state agency, to develop, as
specified, a 3-year investment plan for the moneys deposited in the
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. Existing law requires the investment
plan to allocate a minimum of 25% of the available moneys in the fund
96
11 of 68
to projects that provide benefits to disadvantaged communities
communities, as defined, and a minimum of 10% to projects located in
disadvantaged communities. Existing law provides that authorizes the
allocation of 10% for projects located in disadvantaged communities
may to be used for projects included in the minimum allocation of 25%
for projects that provide benefits to disadvantaged communities.
This bill would instead require the investment plan to allocate a
minimum of 25% of the available moneys in the fund to projects located
within, and benefitting individuals living in, disadvantaged communities
and a separate and additional unspecified percentage a minimum of 20%
to projects that benefit low-income households, as specified, with a fair
share of those moneys targeting households with incomes at or below
200% of the federal poverty level.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. Section 39713 of the Health and Safety Code is
line 2 amended to read:
line 3 39713. (a) The investment plan developed and submitted to
line 4 the Legislature, Legislature pursuant to Section 39716, 39716 shall
line 5 allocate a minimum of 25 percent of the available moneys in the
line 6 fund to projects located within the boundaries of, and benefitting
line 7 individuals living in, communities described in Section 39711.
line 8 (b) The investment plan shall allocate a minimum of_____ 20
line 9 percent of the available moneys in the fund to projects that benefit
line 10 low-income households.
line 11 (1) For purposes of this subdivision, “low-income households”
line 12 are those with household incomes at or below 80 percent of the
line 13 statewide median income or with median household incomes at
line 14 or below the threshold designated as low income by the Department
line 15 of Housing and Community Development’s list of state income
line 16 limits adopted pursuant to Section 50093.
line 17 (2) To the extent feasible, a fair share of the moneys allocated
line 18 pursuant to this subdivision shall target households with incomes
line 19 at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty level.
line 20 (c) Moneys spent pursuant to subdivision (a) shall not count
line 21 toward the minimum requirement described in subdivision (b),
96
— 2 —AB 1550
12 of 68
line 1 and moneys spent pursuant to subdivision (b) shall not count
line 2 toward the minimum requirement described in subdivision (a).
O
96
AB 1550— 3 — 13 of 68
Attachment B14 of 68
Attachment C
15 of 68
LEGISLATION COMMITTEE 5.
Meeting Date:07/11/2016
Subject:AB 2121 (Gonzalez) Alcoholic Beverage Control: Beverage Service Training
Submitted For: LEGISLATION COMMITTEE,
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: 2016-23
Referral Name: AB 2121 (Gonzalez) Alcoholic Beverage Control: Beverage Service Training
Presenter: Lara DeLaney Contact: L. DeLaney, 925-335-1097
Referral History:
This bill was referred to the Legislation Committee by the Alcohol and Other Drugs Advisory
Board.
Referral Update:
Assembly Bill (AB) 2121 would require that, starting in July 1, 2020, a person who is affiliated with selling or
serving alcoholic beverages successfully complete an approved Responsible Interventions for Beverage Servers
(RIBS) Training Course within 3 months of employment and every 3 years thereafter.
Status: 06/21/2016 From SENATE Committee on GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION with author's
amendments.
Bill Analysis - 06/01/2016
SUMMARY: This bill establishes the Responsible Beverage Service (RBS) Training Program,
beginning July 1, 2020. Specifically, this bill:
1) Provides beginning July 1, 2020, an alcohol server shall successfully complete a certified
RBS training course within three months of employment and every three years thereafter.
2) Provides a nonprofit organization that has obtained a temporary daily on-sale license or
a temporary daily on-sale license from ABC shall designate a person or persons to receive
RBS training prior to the event and that designated person or those designated persons
shall remain on site for the duration of the event.
3) Provides the licensee shall ensure that those persons required to successfully complete a
certified RBS training course do so. A current certificate or card provided by any approved
training course provider shall be sufficient documentation of successful completion and shall
be accepted throughout the state.
4) Specifies on or before January 1, 2020, Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) shall establish
a list, published on the department's Internet Web site, of certified RBS training courses
that may be used to fulfill the requirements, as defined.
5) Provides a certified RBS training course shall consist of at least four hours of instruction
16 of 68
and cover certain information, including the impact of alcohol on the body and state laws
and regulations related to alcoholic beverage control. The RBS training course may be
offered through a trainer-led class and assessment or self-training and assessment.
6) Provides an RBS certificate or card shall be issued only upon successful completion of a
certified RBS training course and assessment. A minimum score of 70% on the assessment
shall be required to successfully complete the course. A certified RBS training course shall
issue a certificate or card to individuals who successfully complete a course. The certificate
or card shall be valid for three years from the original date of issuance, regardless of
whether the alcohol server changes employers during that period.
7) Provides ABC may, by regulation, establish additional training standards and curricula to
be included in a certified RBS training course.
8) Provides ABC shall establish minimum standards and promulgate regulations for the
training and scope of practice by January 1, 2018, for a person who sells or serves alcoholic
beverages.
9) Requires at least one RBS course to be offered for less than $15 and at least one RBS
course to be offered in Spanish. Provides ABC shall review a certified RBS training course at
least once every three years after the course is approved. ABC may collect fees as part of
the certification or recertification process to cover the reasonable costs associated with the
certification and recertification of RBS training courses.
10) Specifies beginning January 1, 2019, ABC shall include information on the RBS training
course requirement, as defined, including information on documentation requirements, on
the application for an authorized license and with the license renewal notices sent to
authorized licensees.
11) Provides beginning July 1, 2020, all authorized licensees shall maintain, and provide
upon request by ABC, all records necessary to establish compliance, as specified.
12) Specifies beginning July 1, 2020, an authorized licensee, or agent or employee of such
licensee, who permits any alcoholic beverage to be consumed by any person on the
premises without possessing a valid training certificate or card is guilty of a misdemeanor.
13) Defines "Alcohol server" means a person who sells or serves alcoholic beverages, or a
person who manages or supervises a person who sells or serves alcoholic beverages,
including the onsite establishment owner of a licensed facility, for consumption on the
premises of a licensed facility that includes, but is not limited to, one-day events, fairs,
festivals, sporting events, and other special events.
EXISTING LAW:
1) The Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, administered by ABC, regulates the granting of
licenses for the manufacture, distribution, and sale of alcoholic beverages within the state.
2) Defines an "On-sale" license as authorizing the sale of all types of alcoholic beverages
namely, beer, wine and distilled spirits, for consumption on the premises (such as at a
restaurant or bar).
3) Provides that every person who sells, furnishes, gives, or causes to be sold, furnished,
or given away, any alcoholic beverage to any habitual or common drunkard or to any
obviously intoxicated person is guilty of a misdemeanor.
4) States no person who sells, furnishes, gives, or causes to be sold, furnished, or given
away, any alcoholic beverage shall be civilly liable to any injured person or the estate of
17 of 68
away, any alcoholic beverage shall be civilly liable to any injured person or the estate of
such person for injuries inflicted on that person as a result of intoxication by the consumer
of such alcoholic beverage.
5) Allows ABC to issue licenses and authorizations for the retail sale of beer, wine and
distilled spirits on a temporary basis for special events (Special Daily Beer and/or Wine
License, Daily On Sale General License).
6) States a cause of action may be brought by or on behalf of any person who has suffered
injury or death against any person licensed, or required to be licensed, as specified, or any
person authorized by the federal government to sell alcoholic beverages on a military base
or other federal enclave, who sells, furnishes, gives or causes to be sold, furnished or given
away any alcoholic beverage, and any other person who sells, or causes to be sold, any
alcoholic beverage, to any obviously intoxicated minor where the furnishing, sale or giving
of that beverage to the minor is the proximate cause of the personal injury or death
sustained by that person.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee: 1) Moderate costs
to ABC in the range of $250,000 annually in the first three years of the program to
develop, evaluate, and implement this program. This includes two additional positions to
assist with the rulemaking process as well as the additional overhead required to
accommodate additional certification processes (Alcohol Beverage Control Fund); and 2)
ABC will continue to incur additional costs to maintain the program and review courses, but
those costs are expected to decrease over time. Moreover, ABC may require a fee for
certification and recertification, helping offset costs.
Purpose of the bill: According to the information provided by the author, the Licensee
Education on Alcohol and Drugs (LEAD) program and RBS are not required in California,
meaning many bartenders and servers are not prepared to recognize patrons who have
been over-served and to safely intervene to prevent tragedy. Excessive alcohol
consumption can impair an individual's mental and physical abilities, which creates a public
safety risk when an individual operates a motor vehicle while intoxicated. When individuals
drive under the influence, it not only puts the driver at risk -- it threatens the lives of
passengers and all others who share the road. The social cost is clear, as drunk driving
causes the deaths of 10,000 of our loved ones every year.
The author states by requiring a beverage server be trained to intervene before patrons
become over-served alcohol can play an important role in ensuring that the public is
protected. This bill can follow the lead of 18 other states and the District of Columbia by
making this training a requirement of those serving alcoholic beverages to patrons.
The author additionally notes according to "the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, more than 10,000 people die on our streets every year - the equivalent of
one fatality every 51 minutes due to drunk driving. While we cannot entirely stop every
individual from making bad decisions that put innocent people at risk, we do have a
responsibility to intervene when we can."
The author notes, "While law enforcement does its best with checkpoints and other
enforcement, these approaches only help after someone has already made the choice to
get behind the wheel when they should not. Bottom line, this is not good enough. By
establishing a uniform, standard education requirement for all servers, California can
improve the likelihood that a server will intervene upfront before a patron become a danger
or commit a crime. And that saves lives."
The author contends this bill "will ensure that all servers learn the necessary skills to
protect the patron, public, server and business. We know drunk driving ruins lives and kills
too many innocent people. That is why we need to make sure those on the front line are
18 of 68
too many innocent people. That is why we need to make sure those on the front line are
equipped to help."
Background: RBS is not mandatory in California. However, some cities and counties do
require RBS training to sell or serve alcoholic beverages at establishments within those
jurisdictions. For instance, the City of Solana Beach requires training within 30 days of
being hired - certification is valid for three years. The City of Berkeley requires training
within 90 days of being hired - certification is valid for two years. The City of Rohnert Park
mandates training within 60 days of being hired. The City of Petaluma requires training
within 90 days of being hired - certification is valid for three years.
ABC offers a free and voluntary four-hour class, called Licensee Education on Alcohol and
Drugs, or LEAD, for retail licensees, their employees and applicants. In 1991, the program
began due to a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety. The LEAD Program
provides the licensee and applicant with practical information on serving alcoholic
beverages safely, responsibly, and legally, and preventing illicit drug activity at the licensed
establishment. At the conclusion of the class, an exam is given on the material that was
covered. Each person that fulfills all of the training requirements receives a certificate, via
email, certifying that they successfully completed a LEAD training course.
The LEAD Program is one of several training programs that offer responsible beverage
service training. ABC provides a list of other RBS training providers on its web site. ABC
encourages its licensees to participate in these classes as a means to minimize the risk of
liability for criminal, civil and ABC regulatory actions, to potentially lower liability insurance
premiums, and to develop strategies for addressing challenging situations associated with
the sale of alcohol. ABC does not offer the LEAD Program in languages other than English.
California Dram Shop Law: Under current state law, owners of bars, restaurants and liquor
stores can face criminal misdemeanor charges (which carry penalties of six to 12 months in
county jail, a minimum $1,000 fine, or both) and be held liable for civil damages to an
injured third party where such owners serve a minor who is visibly intoxicated. A vendor
who provides alcohol to a person 21 years of age or older cannot be held liable for
damages if the person then injures someone else, even if the person was obviously
intoxicated at the time. The law states that the consumption of alcohol, not the furnishing
of the beverages, is the proximate cause of injuries that an intoxicated person inflicts on
another individual, a position that largely eliminates dram shop liability.
In Support: According to the Federal Centers for Disease Prevention and Control,
representing local health departments throughout our state, "Excessive alcohol use can
lead to increased risk of health problems including injuries, violence, liver disease, and
cancer. AB 2121 seeks to mitigate these risks by requiring responsible beverage service
training programs. These training programs would educate servers on the impact of
alcohol, current laws and regulations, and intervention techniques to prevent sales to
underage and intoxicated persons. Local health departments support efforts that promote
public health of our communities and reduce the risks associated with alcoholic beverage
consumption."
According to the California Medical Association, binge drinking, defined as consuming five
or more drinks for men and four or more drinks for women, is strongly associated with
alcohol-impaired driving. An analysis of the Behavioral Risk Factors Surveillance System
survey found that over 10% of binge drinkers drove during or within two hours of binge
drinking. Of those, over 50% reported that they had been drinking at a licensed
establishment. RBS training provides bartenders and servers with tools to effectively
identify when a patron has had too much to drink, and how to safely intervene if the patron
attempts to get into their car. RBS has been found to increase appropriate server practices,
increase refusal to serve obviously intoxicated patrons, and decrease the percentage of
intoxicated patrons leaving an establishment. Three years after Oregon mandated
19 of 68
intoxicated patrons leaving an establishment. Three years after Oregon mandated
responsible beverage service training, fatal single vehicle nighttime crashes decreased by
an estimated 23%.
Analysis Prepared by: Eric Johnson / G.O. / (916) 319-2531 FN: 0003386
Attachment A includes the bill text.
Attachment B includes a letter from the Alcohol and Other Drugs Advisory Board.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
CONSIDER recommending to the Board of Supervisors a position of "Support" on AB 2121
(Gonzalez) Alcoholic Beverage Control: Beverage Service Training, as recommended by the
Alcohol and Other Drugs Advisory Board.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
No immediate fiscal impact.
Attachments
Attachment A: AB 2121 bill text
Attachment B: Alcohol and Other Drugs Advisory Board letter
20 of 68
AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 21, 2016
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 31, 2016
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 11, 2016
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 12, 2016
california legislature—2015–16 regular session
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 2121
Introduced by Assembly Member Gonzalez
(Coauthor: Assembly Member Eduardo Garcia)
(Coauthor: Senator Pan)
February 17, 2016
An act to add Article 4 (commencing with Section 25680) to Chapter
16 of Division 9 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to
alcoholic beverages.
legislative counsel’s digest
AB 2121, as amended, Gonzalez. Alcoholic beverage control:
Responsible Beverage Service Training Program Act of 2016.
The Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, administered by the Department
of Alcoholic Beverage Control, regulates the granting of licenses for
the manufacture, distribution, and sale of alcoholic beverages within
the state. Under existing law, any on-sale license authorizes the sale of
the alcoholic beverage specified in the license for consumption on the
premises where sold and applications for the issuance or renewal of
that license are signed under the penalty of perjury. Currently, the
Licensee Education on Alcohol and Drugs (LEAD) program is a
voluntary prevention and education program for retail licensees, their
95
21 of 68
employees, and applicants, regarding alcohol responsibility and the
law.
This bill would, in addition to the LEAD program, establish the
Responsible Beverage Service (RBS) Training Program Act of 2016,
beginning July 1, 2020, that would require an alcohol server, as defined,
to successfully complete a certified an RBS training course offered by
an accredited training provider within 3 months of employment and
every 3 years thereafter. The bill would require a nonprofit organization
that obtained a temporary daily on-sale or off-sale license to designate
a person or persons to receive RBS training before the event and would
require that person or those persons to remain on site for the duration
of the event. The bill would provide that a certified an RBS 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. The bill would require the Department of Alcoholic
Beverage Control, on or before January 1, 2020, to establish a list
published on the department’s Internet Web site of certified RBS training
courses and would authorize the department to collect fees to cover the
reasonable costs of certification and recertification of RBS training
courses. review and approval of accreditation agencies. The bill,
beginning January 1, 2019, would require the department to provide
information on RBS training requirements on applications for, and
renewals of, authorized licenses. The bill, beginning July 1, 2020, would
require all authorized licensees to maintain, and provide upon request
by the department, all records necessary to establish compliance with
these provisions and would make it a misdemeanor for an authorized
licensee, or that licensee’s agent or employee, to permit any alcoholic
beverage to be consumed on the premises without possessing a valid
training certificate or card. By creating a new provide that alcohol
servers are subject to specified criminal and civil penalties. By
expanding the scope of an existing crime, 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 no reimbursement is required by this act
for a specified reason.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.
95
— 2 —AB 2121
22 of 68
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. This act shall be known, and may be cited, as the
line 2 Responsible Beverage Service Training Program Act of 2016.
line 3 SEC. 2. Article 4 (commencing with Section 25680) is added
line 4 to Chapter 16 of Division 9 of the Business and Professions Code,
line 5 to read:
line 6
line 7 Article 4. Responsible Beverage Service (RBS) Training
line 8 Program Act of 2016
line 9
line 10 25680. For purposes of this article:
line 11 (a) “Accredited training provider” means either of the
line 12 following:
line 13 (1) A training provider accredited by the American National
line 14 Standards Institute (ANSI) that meets ASTM International
line 15 E2659-15 Standard Practice for Certificate Programs.
line 16 (2) A training provider accredited by an accreditation agency
line 17 other than ANSI, provided the accreditation agency is authorized
line 18 by the department to accredit training providers offering RBS
line 19 training courses.
line 20 (a)
line 21 (b) “Alcohol server” means a person who sells or serves
line 22 alcoholic beverages, beverages directly to consumers, or a person
line 23 who manages or supervises a person who sells or serves alcoholic
line 24 beverages, beverages directly to consumers, including the onsite
line 25 establishment owner of a licensed facility, for consumption on the
line 26 premises of a licensed facility that includes, but is not limited to,
line 27 one-day events, fairs, festivals, sporting events, and other special
line 28 events.
line 29 (b)
line 30 (c) “RBS training course” means a Responsible Beverage
line 31 Service training course certified by the department pursuant to
line 32 that meets the requirements of subdivision (b) of Section 25682.
line 33 (c)
line 34 (d) “Self-training and assessment” means a process where the
line 35 individual trains, and takes an assessment, without the presence
line 36 or intervention of a trainer or instructor, instructor and includes,
line 37 but is not limited to, training and assessment through the use of a
line 38 computer program or the Internet.
95
AB 2121— 3 — 23 of 68
line 1 25681. (a) Notwithstanding any laws to the contrary, beginning
line 2 July 1, 2020, an alcohol server shall successfully complete a
line 3 certified an RBS training course from an accredited training
line 4 provider within three months of employment and every three years
line 5 thereafter.
line 6 (b) The licensee shall ensure that those persons required to
line 7 successfully complete a certified an RBS training course do so. A
line 8 current certificate or card provided by any approved training course
line 9 accredited training provider shall be sufficient documentation of
line 10 successful completion and shall be accepted throughout the state.
line 11 (c) A nonprofit organization that has obtained a temporary daily
line 12 on-sale license or a temporary daily off-sale license from the
line 13 department shall designate a person or persons to receive RBS
line 14 training prior to the event and that designated person or those
line 15 designated persons shall remain on site for the duration of the
line 16 event.
line 17 (d) An alcohol server shall be subject to the provisions of
line 18 subdivisions (b) and (c) of Section 25602.
line 19 25682. (a) On or before January 1, 2020, the department shall
line 20 establish a list, published on the department’s Internet Web site,
line 21 of certified RBS training courses offered by accredited training
line 22 providers that may be used to fulfill the requirements of Section
line 23 25681.
line 24 (b) (1) A certified An RBS training course shall consist of at
line 25 least four hours of instruction and include, but shall not be limited
line 26 to, the following information:
line 27 (A) The social impact of alcohol.
line 28 (B) The impact of alcohol on the body.
line 29 (C) State laws and regulations relating to alcoholic beverage
line 30 control, including laws and regulations related to driving under
line 31 the influence.
line 32 (D) Intervention techniques to prevent the service or sale of
line 33 alcoholic beverages to underage persons or intoxicated patrons.
line 34 (E) The development of management policies that support the
line 35 prevention of service or sale of alcoholic beverages to underage
line 36 persons or intoxicated patrons.
line 37 (F) The course shall provide basic, introductory instruction on
line 38 the elements described in subparagraphs (A) to (E), inclusive.
line 39 (2) An RBS training course may be offered through a trainer-led
line 40 class and assessment or self-training and assessment.
95
— 4 —AB 2121
24 of 68
line 1 (3) An RBS certificate or card shall be issued only upon
line 2 successful completion of a certified an RBS training course and
line 3 assessment. A minimum score of 70 percent on the assessment
line 4 shall be required to successfully complete the course.
line 5 (4) A certified An RBS training course shall issue a certificate
line 6 or card to individuals who successfully complete a course. The
line 7 certificate or card shall be valid for three years from the original
line 8 date of issuance, regardless of whether the alcohol server changes
line 9 employers during that period.
line 10 (5) The department may, by regulation, establish additional
line 11 training standards and curricula to be included in a certified an
line 12 RBS training course.
line 13 (c) The department shall establish minimum standards and
line 14 promulgate regulations for the training and scope of practice by
line 15 January 1, 2018, for a person who sells or serves alcoholic
line 16 beverages.
line 17 (d)
line 18 (c) At least one certified RBS training course shall cost a
line 19 participant no more than fifteen dollars ($15), inclusive of the
line 20 certificate or card provided upon successful completion of the
line 21 training course. At least one certified RBS training course shall
line 22 be offered in Spanish. If no RBS training courses meet these
line 23 requirements, Section 25681 shall not apply.
line 24 (e) The department shall review a certified RBS training course
line 25 at least once every three years after the course is approved.
line 26 (f) The department may collect fees as part of the certification
line 27 or recertification process to cover the reasonable costs associated
line 28 with the certification and recertification of RBS training courses.
line 29 (d) The department may authorize an accreditation agency, in
line 30 addition to ANSI, to accredit training providers to offer RBS
line 31 training courses and may collect fees to cover the reasonable costs
line 32 associated with the review and approval of that accreditation
line 33 agency.
line 34 25683. (a) Beginning January 1, 2019, the department shall
line 35 include information on the RBS training course requirement
line 36 pursuant to Section 25681, including information on documentation
line 37 requirements, on the application for an authorized license and with
line 38 the license renewal notices sent to authorized licensees.
95
AB 2121— 5 — 25 of 68
line 1 (b) Beginning July 1, 2020, all authorized licensees shall
line 2 maintain, and provide upon request by the department, all records
line 3 necessary to establish compliance with this section.
line 4 (c) Beginning July 1, 2020, an authorized licensee, or agent or
line 5 employee of such that licensee, who permits any alcoholic beverage
line 6 to be consumed by any person on the premises without possessing
line 7 a valid training certificate or card is guilty of a misdemeanor.
line 8 knowingly and intentionally employs an alcohol server that has
line 9 not completed an RBS training course shall only be subject to the
line 10 civil and administrative penalties authorized by this division.
line 11 SEC. 3. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
line 12 Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because
line 13 the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school
line 14 district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or
line 15 infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty
line 16 for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of
line 17 the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within
line 18 the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California
line 19 Constitution.
O
95
— 6 —AB 2121
26 of 68
27 of 68
LEGISLATION COMMITTEE 6.
Meeting Date:07/11/2016
Subject:
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.:
Referral Name:
Presenter: Contact:
Referral History:
A request for support of SB 1107 was received by Supervisor Andersen's office from Northern
California Common Cause. There is no policy in the Board's adopted Platform that relates to this
bill, so the bill was referred to the Legislation Committee for consideration.
Referral Update:
SB 1107 was amended on 6/30/16 (Attachment A). The bill is pending in the Assembly
Appropriations Committee. A "Fact Sheet" prepared by Common Cause is also attached
(Attachment B), as is a letter of support template provided by them (Attachment C).
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING
Shirley Weber, Chair
SB 1107
(Allen) - As Amended Ver:March 28, 2016
SENATE VOTE: 26-12
SUBJECT: Political Reform Act of 1974: public moneys: definition.
SUMMARY: Allows state and local governments to offer public campaign financing programs.
Prohibits, under state law, foreign governments and foreign principals from making contributions
and expenditures in connection with candidate elections. Increases the maximum monetary
penalties for unlawful foreign contributions and expenditures. Limits the uses of campaign funds
that are held by public officials who have been convicted of various public trust crimes.
Specifically, this bill:
1) Permits state and local governmental entities to establish programs that provide for public
campaign financing for candidates for elective office, if all of the following criteria have been met:
a) The state or local governmental entity has established a dedicated fund for the purpose of
28 of 68
providing public campaign financing for candidates for elective office;
b) Public moneys held in the fund are available to all qualified, voluntarily participating
candidates of the same office without regard to incumbency or political party preference; and,
c) The state or local governmental entity has established criteria for determining a candidate's
qualification by statute, ordinance, resolution, or charter.
2) Prohibits a foreign government or foreign principal, as defined, from making, directly or
through any other person, a contribution, expenditure, or independent expenditure in connection
with a state or local candidate.
3) Prohibits a person or a committee from soliciting or accepting a contribution from a foreign
government or a foreign principal, as defined, in connection with a state or local candidate.
4) Increases the potential monetary penalties available for a violation of state law restricting
contributions and expenditures by foreign governments and foreign principals as follows:
a) Increases the maximum fine available in a criminal enforcement proceeding from an amount
equal to the amount contributed or expended to an amount that is the greater of the following:
i) $10,000; or,
ii) An amount equal to the amount contributed or expended.
b) Increases the maximum fine available in a civil enforcement proceeding from an amount up to
$5,000 per violation to an amount that is the greater of the following:
i) $10,000; or,
ii) An amount equal to the amount contributed or expended.
5) Provides that an officeholder who is convicted of a felony involving accepting or giving, or
offering to give, any bribe, the embezzlement of public money, extortion or theft of public money,
perjury, or conspiracy to commit any of those crimes, and whose conviction has become final,
may use funds held by the officeholder's candidate controlled committee only for the payment of
outstanding campaign debts or expenses and the repayment of contributions. Requires the
officeholder, six months after conviction for one of the aforementioned felonies becomes final, to
forfeit any remaining funds and requires the funds to be deposited in the general fund. Provides
that these provisions do not apply to funds held by a ballot measure committee or in a legal
defense fund.
6) Requires the Secretary of State (SOS) to submit the provisions of this bill to the voters for
approval at a statewide election, as specified.
7) Contains a severability clause.
8) Makes corresponding and technical changes.
EXISTING STATE LAW:
29 of 68
1) Creates the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), and makes it responsible for the
impartial, effective administration and implementation of the Political Reform Act (PRA).
2) Prohibits public officers from expending, and candidates from accepting, public moneys for
the purpose of seeking elective office.
3) Prohibits a foreign government or foreign principal from making, directly or through any other
person, a contribution, expenditure, or independent expenditure in connection with the
qualification or support of, or opposition to, a state or local ballot measure. Prohibits a person or a
committee from soliciting or accepting a contribution from a foreign government or a foreign
principal in connection with the qualification or support of, or opposition to, any state or local
ballot measure.
a) Defines "foreign principal," for the purposes of these restrictions, to include the following:
i) A foreign political party;
ii) A person outside the United States (US), unless either of the following is established:
(1) The person is an individual and a citizen of the US; or,
(2) The person is not an individual, and is organized under or created by the laws of the US or of
any state or other place subject to the jurisdiction of the US and has its principal place of business
within the US;
iii) A partnership, association, corporation, organization, or other combination of persons
organized under the laws of or having its principal place of business in a foreign country; or,
iv) A domestic subsidiary of a foreign corporation if the decision to contribute or expend funds is
made by an officer, director, or management employee of the foreign corporation who is neither a
citizen of the US nor a lawfully admitted permanent resident of the US.
b) Provides that these restrictions do not prohibit a contribution, expenditure, or independent
expenditure made by a lawfully admitted permanent resident.
c) Provides that a person who violates these provisions is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be
fined an amount equal to the amount contributed or expended.
4) Provides that contributions deposited into a candidate's campaign account are deemed to be
held in trust for expenses associated with the election of the candidate or for expenses associated
with holding office. Provides that an expenditure of campaign funds is within the lawful
execution of this trust if the expenditure is reasonably related to a political, legislative or
governmental purpose, as specified. Requires an expenditure that confers a substantial personal
benefit on anyone with authority to approve the expenditure to be directly related to a political,
legislative, or governmental purpose.
5) Prohibits a person from being a candidate for, or being elected to, an elective office if the
person has been convicted of a felony involving accepting or giving, or offering to give, any
bribe, the embezzlement of public money, extortion or theft of public money, perjury, or
conspiracy to commit any of those crimes.
30 of 68
6) Provides that a person who violates any provision of the PRA, except as specified, for which
no specific civil penalty is provided, shall be liable in a civil action for an amount of up to $5,000
per violation.
7) Permits the FPPC to impose administrative penalties of up to $5,000 per violation of the PRA.
8) Requires every constitutional amendment, bond measure, or other legislative measure
submitted to the people by the Legislature to appear on the ballot of the first statewide election
occurring at least 131 days after the adoption of the proposal by the Legislature.
EXISTING FEDERAL LAW:
1) Prohibits a foreign national, directly or indirectly, from doing either of the following in
connection with a federal, state, or local election:
a) Making a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or an express or implied
promise to make a contribution or donation; or,
b) Making an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering
communication.
2) Prohibits a person from soliciting, accepting, or receiving a contribution or donation made by a
foreign national in connection with a federal, state, or local election.
3) Defines "foreign national," for the purposes of the prohibitions described above, as either of the
following:
a) A government of a foreign country; a foreign political party; or a partnership, association,
corporation, organization, or other combination of persons organized under the laws of or having
its principal place of business in a foreign country; or,
a)
b) An individual who is not a citizen or a national of the US and who is not lawfully admitted for
permanent residence in the US.
4) Establishes the Federal Election Commission (FEC), and makes it responsible for the
administration and enforcement of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), including the
restrictions on contributions and expenditures by foreign nationals described above.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee analysis:
1) The FPPC indicates that it would incur first-year costs of $167,000 and ongoing annual costs of
$160,000 to implement the provisions of the bill (General Fund).
2) One-time costs in the range of $414,000 to $552,000 to the SOS for printing and mailing costs
to place the measure on the ballot in the next statewide election (General Fund).
COMMENTS:
1) Purpose of the Bill: According to the author:
31 of 68
In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, local governments are
increasingly reviewing their campaign finance ordinances in order to ensure the accountability of
their elections. However, most California local governments do not have the option to offer any
public funding to electoral campaigns, under an existing statewide ban.
Currently, six charter cities provide limited public funding to match small campaign
contributions. These programs provide candidates with an alternative to relying on large campaign
contributions and amplify the voices of everyday Californians who make small donations.
Unfortunately, other local governments are prohibited from offering public campaign funding,
due to a provision adopted nearly 30 years ago as part of Proposition 73 in 1988. While charter
cities such as [Los Angeles] are exempt under the state Constitution, general law cities, counties,
districts, and the state government are covered by the current state ban. In fact, after voters in
Sacramento County enacted public financing, the courts struck it down under Proposition 73.
SB 1107 would remove the ban on voluntary public campaign financing programs, subject to
voter approval. Programs would have to meet basic criteria for fairness and accountability. SB
1107 does not create, or require any government to create, any public campaign financing
program - it simply restores the option for local governments and the state.
Additionally, SB 1107 includes two other commonsense provisions to increase election
accountability. The bill would require elected officials, who under current law are banned from
running for office due to conviction of a specified felony such as bribery, to forfeit their campaign
funds within six months, after paying debts or returning contributions, other than legal defense
funds.
SB 1107 also would extend the current prohibition against foreign corporations or governments
contributing to ballot measure campaigns to also include candidate campaigns, and would
increase the maximum fine for violating that prohibition.
2) Public Financing and Proposition 73: In 1988, voters approved two separate campaign finance
reform initiatives, Proposition 68 and Proposition 73. Proposition 68 proposed a system of public
funding and expenditure limits for state legislative races, and passed with 53% of the vote.
Proposition 73 prohibited public funding of campaigns and set contribution limits for state and
local elections, and passed with 58% of the vote. The California State Supreme Court
subsequently ruled in Taxpayers to Limit Campaign Spending v. FPPC (1990) 51 Cal. 3d 744,
that because the two measures contained conflicting comprehensive regulatory schemes they
could not be merged and only one could be implemented. As such, since Proposition 73 received
more affirmative votes than Proposition 68, the Court ordered the implementation of Proposition
73 and proclaimed all provisions of Proposition 68 invalid.
In 1990, all state and local elections were conducted under the provisions of Proposition 73.
Many of the provisions of Proposition 73 were ultimately ruled unconstitutional by the federal
courts. The only provisions of Proposition 73 to survive legal challenge were contribution limits
for special elections, restrictions on certain mass mailings by officeholders, and the prohibition on
the use of public money for campaign purposes. The contribution limits for special elections that
were included in Proposition 73 subsequently were repealed and replaced in another ballot
measure.
32 of 68
Because of the public funding ban contained in Proposition 73, the state and most local
governments in California do not have the option to offer public financing programs for electoral
campaigns. While the California Supreme Court ruled that the public financing ban does not
apply to charter cities (Johnson v. Bradley (1992) 4 Cal. 4th 389), a state appellate court has held
that the public financing ban does apply to charter counties (County of Sacramento v. Fair
Political Practices Commission (1990) 222 Cal. App. 3d 687). The California Constitution
generally grants charter cities a greater degree of autonomy over local affairs than charter
counties have, particularly with respect to local elections.
As a result, while charter cities in California can enact public campaign financing programs,
general law cities, all counties, all districts, and the state government are covered by the current
ban. According to information provided by the author's office, six charter cities currently provide
limited public funding to match small campaign contributions (Los Angeles, Long Beach,
Oakland, Richmond, Sacramento, and San Francisco).
3) Previous Measures to Permit Public Financing: On three previous occasions, California voters
have rejected ballot measures that would have repealed the prohibition against public funding of
campaigns that was included in Proposition 73. In all three cases, however, the ballot measures
also proposed to enact specific public financing programs for state elections--something that this
bill does not propose.
Proposition 25--an initiative measure that appeared on the March 2000 statewide primary election
ballot--would have provided for public financing of campaign media advertisements and voter
information packets for qualifying candidates and ballot measure committees that agreed to abide
by spending limits and would have repealed the PRA's prohibition against public financing
systems, among other provisions. Proposition 25 failed passage, receiving 34.7% of the vote
statewide.
Proposition 89--an initiative measure that appeared on the November 2006 statewide general
election ballot--would have created a public financing system for candidates for elective state
office, and would have repealed the PRA's prohibition against public financing systems.
Proposition 89 was defeated by the voters, receiving 25.7% of the vote statewide.
Proposition 15--a measure that was placed on the June 2010 statewide primary election ballot by
the Legislature--would have created a public financing pilot project for candidates for SOS, and
would have repealed the PRA's prohibition against public financing systems. Proposition 15 was
defeated by the voters, receiving 42.7% of the vote statewide.
4) Foreign Campaign Spending, Federal Law, and Previous Legislation: As detailed above,
federal law prohibits foreign nationals from making contributions in connection with federal,
state, and local elections. According to information from the FEC, "[t]he ban on political
contributions and expenditures by foreign nationals was first enacted in 1966 as part of the
amendments to the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), an 'internal security' statute. The
goal of the FARA was to minimize foreign intervention in US elections by establishing a series of
limitations on foreign nationals. These included registration requirements for the agents of foreign
principals and a general prohibition on political contributions by foreign nationals. In 1974, the
prohibition was incorporated into [FECA], giving the [FEC] jurisdiction over its enforcement and
interpretation."
Until 2002, the restriction on contributions by foreign nationals specifically applied to
33 of 68
contributions made "in connection with an election to any political office." Because that language
was limited to elections for office, it was the position of the FEC that contributions from foreign
nationals relating exclusively to ballot measures were not restricted by federal law. (In 2002, the
restriction on foreign contributions was amended to make it applicable to any contribution made
"in connection with a Federal, State, or local election," though it is unclear whether that change
was intended to cover ballot measure elections.)
In 1997, the Legislature approved and Governor Wilson signed SB 109 (Kopp), Chapter 67,
Statutes of 1997, to prohibit foreign governments or foreign principals from making
contributions, expenditures, or independent expenditures in connection with state or local ballot
measures. The legislative history suggests that SB 109 did not seek to regulate foreign
contributions made in connection with elections for office because such contributions were
already restricted by federal law. Instead, SB 109 was limited to foreign spending in connection
with ballot measure elections, thereby restricting foreign spending that was not covered by federal
law.
Aside from the fact that state law is limited to foreign spending made in connection with ballot
measures, state and federal law differ in one other important respect. While federal law restricts
contributions and expenditures by foreign nationals, state law does not restrict contributions or
expenditures by a foreign national who is an individual and who is legally present in the US. The
initial version of SB 109 (and an unsuccessful bill from the prior legislative session) would have
restricted contributions by foreign nationals who were legally present in the US, but that
restriction was amended out of the bill to address opposition arguments that the restriction could
be unconstitutional.
5) Recent Enforcement Action Related to Foreign Contributions: The FPPC recently brought an
enforcement action for the first time in a case involving foreign contributions made in connection
with a ballot measure. That enforcement action was initiated after the FEC considered an
enforcement action of its own, and declined to take action in that case.
Measure B was a Los Angeles County initiative dealing with adult film production that appeared
on the ballot at the November 2012 statewide general election. In October 2012, one of the
proponents of Measure B filed a complaint with the FEC alleging that the committee opposing
Measure B had received contributions made by a foreign national, and further alleging that those
contributions violated FECA. In August 2014, the Associate General Counsel of the FEC
recommended dismissing the complaint due in part to a "lack of clear legal guidance" on whether
federal law restricts contributions made by foreign nationals in connection with ballot measures.
The FEC was equally divided on whether to dismiss the complaint, and in March 2015, it
ultimately closed the file on the complaint without taking further action.
In July 2015, after the FEC's action to close its file, the FPPC received a sworn complaint in
connection with the same matter. Last December, the FPPC reached a stipulated settlement in that
case. As detailed in that settlement, Manwin USA, a Delaware-based subsidiary of Manwin
International, a Luxembourg-based corporation, made contributions totaling more than $268,000
to the committee opposing Measure B. In addition, Froytal, a Cyprus-based subsidiary of Manwin
International, made a contribution of $75,000 to the committee opposing Measure B, although
that contribution subsequently was returned by the committee. Even though Manwin USA was
incorporated under Delaware-law, its contributions violated California law because it was a
subsidiary of a foreign corporation and the decision to contribute funds was made by an officer of
the foreign corporation who was neither a US citizen nor a lawfully admitted permanent resident
34 of 68
the foreign corporation who was neither a US citizen nor a lawfully admitted permanent resident
of the US.
The FPPC fined Manwin USA a total of $20,000 for the unlawful contributions that it made, fined
Froytal $5,000 for the unlawful contribution that it made, and fined the committee opposing
Measure B and its treasurer a total of $20,000 for accepting unlawful contributions made by
foreign principals. The FPPC also imposed an additional $16,500 in fines for violations of
reporting and disclosure laws that occurred in connection with the unlawful foreign contributions.
6) Suggested Amendments: As detailed above, this bill requires the SOS to submit its provisions
to the voters for approval at a statewide election. According to the author's office, it is the author's
desire for this bill to appear on the ballot at the November 2018 statewide general election.
Existing law, however, requires measures submitted to the people by the Legislature to appear on
the ballot of the first statewide election occurring at least 131 days after the adoption of the
proposal by the Legislature. Legislative measures that are chaptered on or before June 30, 2016,
will appear on the ballot at the November 8, 2016, statewide election. Any legislative measure
that is chaptered during the current legislative session, but after June 30, likely will appear on the
ballot at the 2018 statewide primary election, unless the measure provides otherwise. (If the
Governor called a statewide special election to be held prior to the June 2018 primary election,
legislative measures could also appear on the ballot at that election.)
In order to ensure that this measure appears on the ballot at the November 2018 statewide general
election, in accordance with the author's intent, committee staff recommends that this bill be
amended to require the SOS to submit it to the voters at that election.
Furthermore, in order to clarify the method by which a dedicated fund may be established for the
purposes of creating a public financing program, committee staff recommends the following
technical amendment:
On page 3, line 8, after "purpose" insert: by statute, ordinance, resolution, or charter,
7) Related Legislation: AB 2250 (Ridley-Thomas), which is pending reconsideration on the
Assembly Floor, is similar to the section of this bill that prohibits, under state law, foreign
governments and foreign principals from making contributions or expenditures in connection with
candidate elections. AB 2250 was approved by this committee on a 5-1 vote, but failed passage
on the Assembly Floor on a 51-0 vote (54 votes were required for passage).
8) Political Reform Act of 1974: California voters passed an initiative, Proposition 9, in 1974 that
created the FPPC and codified significant restrictions and prohibitions on candidates,
officeholders and lobbyists. That initiative is commonly known as the PRA. Amendments to the
PRA by the Legislature must further the purposes of the proposition and require a two-thirds vote
of each house of the Legislature, or the Legislature may propose amendments to the proposition
that do not further the purposes of the act by a majority vote, but such amendments must be
approved by the voters to take effect. This bill would only take effect if approved by the voters.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
35 of 68
California Clean Money Campaign (co-sponsor)
California Common Cause (co-sponsor)
AARP
Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment Action
American Civil Liberties Union of California
American Sustainable Business Council
Asian Americans Advancing Justice--California
Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law
California Alliance for Retired Americans
California Church IMPACT
California Forward Action Fund
California League of Conservation Voters
California OneCare
California School Employees Association, AFL-CIO
CALPIRG
Campaign Legal Center
City and County of San Francisco
Courage Campaign
Franciscan Action Network
League of Women Voters of California
Los Angeles County Federation of Labor
Lutheran Office of Public Policy--California
MapLight
MOVI, Money Out Voters In
National Council of Jewish Women--California
Represent California
36 of 68
Represent.Us
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
Sierra Club California
Southwest Voter Registration Education Project
UFCW Western States Council
Voices for Progress
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by: Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
CONSIDER recommending a position of "Support" on SB 1107 (Hancock, Chiu), as amended on
6/30/16, to the Board of Supervisors.
Attachments
Attachment A: Bill Text
Attachment B: Fact Sheet
Attachment C: Letter of support template
37 of 68
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JUNE 30, 2016
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JUNE 21, 2016
AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 28, 2016
SENATE BILL No. 1107
Introduced by Senator Allen
(Principal coauthor: Senator Hancock)
(Principal coauthor: Assembly Member Chiu)
February 17, 2016
An act to amend Sections 85300 and 85320 Section 85300 of, and
to add Sections 89519.5 and 91004.5 Section 89519.5 to, the
Government Code, relating to the Political Reform Act of 1974.
legislative counsel’s digest
SB 1107, as amended, Allen. Political Reform Act of 1974.
Existing law prohibits a person who has been convicted of a felony
involving bribery, embezzlement of public money, extortion or theft of
public money, perjury, or conspiracy to commit any of those crimes,
from being considered a candidate for, or elected to, a state or local
elective office. Existing law, the Political Reform Act of 1974, provides
that campaign funds under the control of a former candidate or elected
officer are considered surplus campaign funds at a prescribed time, and
it prohibits the use of surplus campaign funds except for specified
purposes.
This bill would prohibit an officeholder who is convicted of one of
those enumerated felonies from using funds held by that officeholder’s
candidate controlled committee for purposes other than certain purposes
permitted for the use of surplus campaign funds. The bill would also
require the officeholder to forfeit any remaining funds held 6 months
96
Attachment A
38 of 68
after the conviction became final, and it would direct those funds to be
deposited in the General Fund.
The Political Reform Act of 1974 prohibits a public officer from
expending, and a candidate from accepting, public moneys for the
purpose of seeking elective office.
This bill would permit a public officer or candidate to expend or
accept public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office if the
state or a local governmental entity established a dedicated fund for
this purpose, as specified.
The act prohibits a foreign government or principal, as defined, from
making a contribution or expenditure in connection with a state or local
ballot measure, and it also sets forth civil and criminal penalties for
violations of the act’s provisions.
This bill would expand the scope of the prohibitions relating to foreign
governments and principals by also prohibiting a foreign government
or principal from making a contribution in support of, or opposition to,
a state or local candidate. It would also permit a greater criminal penalty
to be imposed for a violation of that prohibition, and it would establish
the amount of a civil penalty for a violation of the prohibition.
A violation of the act’s provisions is punishable as a misdemeanor.
By expanding the scope of an existing crime, 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 no reimbursement is required by this act
for a specified reason.
The Political Reform Act of 1974, an initiative measure, provides
that the act may be amended by a statute that becomes effective upon
approval of the voters.
This bill would require the Secretary of State to submit the bill to the
voters for approval at the November 6, 2018, statewide general election.
The Political Reform Act of 1974, an initiative measure, provides that
the Legislature may amend the act to further the act’s purposes upon
a 2⁄3 vote of each house and compliance with specified procedural
requirements.
This bill would declare that it furthers the purposes of the act.
Vote: majority 2⁄3. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.
96
— 2 —SB 1107
Attachment A
39 of 68
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the
line 2 following:
line 3 (a) All citizens should be able to make their voices heard in the
line 4 political process and hold their elected officials accountable.
line 5 (b) Elections for local or state elective office should be fair,
line 6 open, and competitive.
line 7 (c) The increasing costs of political campaigns can force
line 8 candidates to rely on large contributions from wealthy donors and
line 9 special interests, which can give those wealthy donors and special
line 10 interests disproportionate influence over governmental decisions.
line 11 (d) Such disproportionate influence can undermine the public’s
line 12 trust that public officials are performing their duties in an impartial
line 13 manner and that government is serving the needs and responding
line 14 to the wishes of all citizens equally, without regard to their wealth.
line 15 (e) Special interests contribute more to incumbents than
line 16 challengers because they seek access to elected officials, and such
line 17 contributions account for a large portion of the financial
line 18 incumbency advantage, as confirmed by recent studies such as
line 19 those published in the Journal of Politics in 2014 and Political
line 20 Research Quarterly in 2016.
line 21 (f) Citizen-funded election programs, in which qualified
line 22 candidates can receive public funds for the purpose of
line 23 communicating with voters rather than relying exclusively on
line 24 private donors, have been enacted in six charter cities in
line 25 California, as well as numerous other local and state jurisdictions.
line 26 (g) Citizen-funded election programs encourage competition
line 27 by reducing the financial advantages of incumbency and making
line 28 it possible for citizens from all walks of life, not only those with
line 29 connections to wealthy donors or special interests, to run for office,
line 30 as confirmed by recent studies such as those published in State
line 31 Politics and Policy Quarterly in 2008, and by the Campaign
line 32 Finance Institute in 2015 and the National Institute of Money in
line 33 State Politics in 2016.
line 34 (h) By reducing reliance on wealthy donors and special interests,
line 35 citizen-funded election programs inhibit improper practices,
line 36 protect against corruption or the appearance of corruption, and
line 37 protect the political integrity of our governmental institutions.
96
SB 1107— 3 — Attachment A
40 of 68
line 1 (i) In Johnson v. Bradley (1992) 4 Cal.4th 389, the California
line 2 Supreme Court commented that “it seems obvious that public
line 3 money reduces rather than increases the fund raising pressures
line 4 on public office seekers and thereby reduces the undue influence
line 5 of special interest groups.”
line 6 (j) In Buckley v. Valeo (1976) 424 U.S. 1, the United States
line 7 Supreme Court recognized that “public financing as a means of
line 8 eliminating improper influence of large private contributions
line 9 furthers a significant governmental interest.”
line 10 (k) In Arizona Free Enterprise v. Bennett (2011) 564 U.S. 721,
line 11 the United States Supreme Court acknowledged that public
line 12 financing of elections “can further ‘significant governmental
line 13 interest[s]’ such as the state interest in preventing corruption,”
line 14 quoting Buckley v. Valeo.
line 15 (l) In Buckley v. Valeo, the United States Supreme Court further
line 16 noted that citizen-funded elections programs “facilitate and
line 17 enlarge public discussion and participation in the electoral
line 18 process, goals vital to a self-governing people.”
line 19 (m) The absolute prohibition on public campaign financing
line 20 allows special interests to gain disproportionate influence and
line 21 unfairly favors incumbents. An exception should be created to
line 22 permit citizen-funded election programs so that elections may be
line 23 conducted more fairly.
line 24 SECTION 1.
line 25 SEC. 2. Section 85300 of the Government Code is amended
line 26 to read:
line 27 85300. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), a public
line 28 officer shall not expend, and a candidate shall not accept, any
line 29 public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office.
line 30 (b) A public officer or candidate may expend or accept public
line 31 moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office if the state or a
line 32 local governmental entity establishes a dedicated fund for this
line 33 purpose by statute, ordinance, resolution, or charter, and both of
line 34 the following are true:
line 35 (1) Public moneys held in the fund are available to all qualified,
line 36 voluntarily participating candidates for the same office without
line 37 regard to incumbency or political party preference.
line 38 (2) The state or local governmental entity has established criteria
line 39 for determining a candidate’s qualification by statute, ordinance,
line 40 resolution, or charter.
96
— 4 —SB 1107
Attachment A
41 of 68
line 1 SEC. 2. Section 85320 of the Government Code is amended
line 2 to read:
line 3 85320. (a) A foreign government or foreign principal shall
line 4 not make, directly or through any other person, any contribution,
line 5 expenditure, or independent expenditure in connection with the
line 6 qualification or support of, or opposition to, a state or local
line 7 candidate or ballot measure.
line 8 (b) A person or a committee shall not solicit or accept a
line 9 contribution from a foreign government or foreign principal in
line 10 connection with the qualification or support of, or opposition to,
line 11 a state or local candidate or ballot measure.
line 12 (c) For the purposes of this section, a “foreign principal”
line 13 includes the following:
line 14 (1) A foreign political party.
line 15 (2) A person outside the United States, unless either of the
line 16 following is established:
line 17 (A) The person is an individual and a citizen of the United
line 18 States.
line 19 (B) The person is not an individual and is organized under or
line 20 created by the laws of the United States or of any state or other
line 21 place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and has its
line 22 principal place of business within the United States.
line 23 (3) A partnership, association, corporation, organization, or
line 24 other combination of persons organized under the laws of or having
line 25 its principal place of business in a foreign country.
line 26 (4) A domestic subsidiary of a foreign corporation if the decision
line 27 to contribute or expend funds is made by an officer, director, or
line 28 management employee of the foreign corporation who is neither
line 29 a citizen of the United States nor a lawfully admitted permanent
line 30 resident of the United States.
line 31 (d) This section does not prohibit a contribution, expenditure,
line 32 or independent expenditure made by a lawfully admitted permanent
line 33 resident.
line 34 (e) A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor
line 35 and shall be fined the greater of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or
line 36 an amount equal to the amount contributed or expended.
line 37 SEC. 3. Section 89519.5 is added to the Government Code, to
line 38 read:
line 39 89519.5. (a) An officeholder who is convicted of a felony
line 40 enumerated in Section 20 of the Elections Code, and whose
96
SB 1107— 5 — Attachment A
42 of 68
line 1 conviction has become final, shall use funds held by the
line 2 officeholder’s candidate controlled committee only for the
line 3 following purposes:
line 4 (1) The payment of outstanding campaign debts or elected
line 5 officer’s expenses.
line 6 (2) The repayment of contributions.
line 7 (b) Six months after the conviction becomes final, the
line 8 officeholder shall forfeit any remaining funds subject to subdivision
line 9 (a), and these funds shall be deposited in the General Fund.
line 10 (c) This section does not apply to funds held by a ballot measure
line 11 committee or in a legal defense fund formed pursuant to Section
line 12 85304.
line 13 SEC. 4. Section 91004.5 is added to the Government Code, to
line 14 read:
line 15 91004.5. (a) A person who intentionally violates Section 85320
line 16 is liable in a civil action brought by the civil prosecutor, for each
line 17 violation, for the greater of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or an
line 18 amount equal to the amount contributed or expended.
line 19 (b) The civil prosecutor may not bring an action pursuant to this
line 20 section against a person being criminally prosecuted for a violation
line 21 of Section 85320 pursuant to Section 91000.
line 22 (c) This section is applicable only to violations occurring after
line 23 the effective date of this section.
line 24 SEC. 5.
line 25 SEC. 4. The provisions of this bill are severable. If any
line 26 provision of this bill or its application is held invalid, that invalidity
line 27 shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given
line 28 effect without the invalid provision or application.
line 29 SEC. 6. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
line 30 Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because
line 31 the duties imposed on a local agency or school district by this act
line 32 were expressly included in a ballot measure approved by the voters
line 33 in a statewide election, within the meaning of Section 17556 of
line 34 the Government Code.
line 35 SEC. 7. Notwithstanding Section 9040 of the Elections Code,
line 36 the Secretary of State shall, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section
line 37 81012 of the Government Code, submit this act to the voters for
line 38 approval at the November 6, 2018, statewide general election.
line 39 SEC. 5. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
line 40 Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because
96
— 6 —SB 1107
Attachment A
43 of 68
line 1 the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school
line 2 district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or
line 3 infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty
line 4 for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of
line 5 the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within
line 6 the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California
line 7 Constitution.
line 8 SEC. 6. The Legislature finds and declares that this bill furthers
line 9 the purposes of the Political Reform Act of 1974 within the meaning
line 10 of subdivision (a) of Section 81012 of the Government Code.
O
96
SB 1107— 7 — Attachment A
44 of 68
California Common Cause
1005 12th Street | Suite C | Sacramento, CA 95814
Sacramento | Los Angeles | San Francisco | San Diego
/CommonCauseCA | @CommonCauseCA
SB 1107: Strengthen Election Accountability
Voters are increasingly concerned about the influence of money in politics. According to recent polls by
the Pew Research Center and The New York Times:
84% of Americans say that money has too much influence in political campaigns today.
76% say money has a greater influence on politics and elected officials than in the past.
85% believe that we need to make fundamental changes or completely rebuild the system for
funding political campaigns.
SB 1107 would provide local options to strengthen election accountability
SB 1107 (Allen) would restore local control over campaign finance policies.
SB 1107 would permit counties, districts, general law cities, or the state to enact citizen-funded election
programs, like those already in place in six charter cities. The bill would update a 28-year-old state law,
which caused courts to strike down a locally-enacted county ordinance, to restore local control.
SB 1107 would not create a public financing program, would not require any government to offer public
financing, and would not raise any taxes or fees. It would simply permit local governments or the state
the option to enact their own citizen-funded election programs, tailored to their local community.
Studies of existing citizen-funded election programs have found benefits including reducing candidates’
reliance on wealthy donors and special interests, increasing the diversity of candidates and donors,
encouraging greater competition, reducing the pressure for candidates to fundraise, strengthening the
connections between elected officials and constituents, and fostering broader electoral participation.
SB 1107 includes protections for public accountability and political fairness. The bill would ensure that
any public funds may not be used to advantage any political party or to advantage challengers or
incumbents. And any system would be voluntary: SB 1107 would allow local governments to decide.
SB 1107 is supported by organizations including the League of Women Voters of California, Southwest
Voter Registration Education Project, Asian Americans Advancing Justice – California, PICO California,
Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, ACLU of California, and the UFCW Western States
Council. As of July 5, 2016, the bill has no organizations registered in opposition.
Attachment B
45 of 68
July _____, 2016
The Honorable Ben Allen
State Capitol, Room 2054
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Senate Bill 1107 – accountable elections – SUPPORT
Dear Senator Allen,
On behalf of _______________, I am writing with a letter of support for Senate Bill 1107, which
would restore control to local governments and the state to enact new options for election
campaign funding. Thank you for your leadership on this bill.
In response to voters’ rising concern about money in politics, we believe that governments
should act to strengthen the public’s trust. SB 1107 would restore a crucial election
accountability option to local governments by removing the ban on public campaign funds.
Citizen-funded election programs can amplify the voices of everyday Californians who donate
small amounts, encourage more diverse participation, and give candidates an alternative to
relying on large contributions. Although six charter cities offer limited public funds to match
small campaign donations, current state law bans counties, districts, general law cities, and the
state from enacted citizen-funded election programs.
SB 1107 would remove the ban on voluntary citizen-funded election programs. SB 1107 would
not enact public financing, but would simply remove the ban and permit local governments or
the state, if they so choose, to create public financing programs.
Voters in 1988 could have not envisioned the multi-million dollar SuperPACs that exist in 2016.
It is time for the Legislature to bring our campaign finance laws into the 21st century.
_______________ strongly supports SB 1107 and we urge its expeditious passage.
Sincerely,
_______________
Attachment C
46 of 68
LEGISLATION COMMITTEE 7.
Meeting Date:07/11/2016
Subject:Private Activity Bonds for Government Buildings
Submitted For: LEGISLATION COMMITTEE,
Department:County Administrator
Referral No.: 2016-24
Referral Name: Private Activity Bonds for Government Buildings
Presenter: Lara DeLaney Contact: L. DeLaney, 925-335-1097
Referral History:
H.R.5361 was introduced in House on May 26, 2016 and would amend the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 to provide for the tax-exempt financing of certain government-owned buildings.
The County Administrator has recommended that the Committee consider including support for
legislation that would create a new category of private activity bonds for governments to join with
private parties to help finance government buildings. This would require an amendment to the
adopted 2016 Federal Platform by the Board of Supervisors.
Referral Update:
Proposed policy amendment for the Federal Platform:
Private Activity Bonds for Government Buildings – The County will support legislation that
would create a new category of private activity bonds for governments to join with private parties
to help finance government buildings. The tax-exempt bonding mechanism would allow state and
local governments to issue private activity bonds to finance the construction and upkeep of certain
publicly owned buildings. The County will support amending the federal tax code to provide
another layer of tax-exempt financing that would encourage the use of public-private
partnerships.
Attachment A includes the text of H.R. 5361.
Attachment B includes a redlined version of the the amended Federal Platform.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
RECOMMEND to the Board of Supervisors an amendment to the County's adopted Federal
Platform to include support for creating a new category of private activity bonds for governments
to join with private parties to help finance government buildings, as recommended by CAO staff.
Attachments
Attachment A: H.R. 5361 bill text
47 of 68
Attachment A: H.R. 5361 bill text
Attachment B: Adopted Federal Platform, redlined revision
48 of 68
I
114TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION H. R. 5361
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the tax-exempt
financing of certain government-owned buildings.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MAY 26, 2016
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania (for himself, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. NOLAN, Mr.
HASTINGS, Mr. KIND, and Mr. ZELDIN) introduced the following bill;
which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means
A BILL
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
for the tax-exempt financing of certain government-
owned buildings.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-1
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 2
SECTION 1. TAX-EXEMPT FINANCING OF QUALIFIED GOV-3
ERNMENT BUILDINGS. 4
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 142(a) of the Internal 5
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘or’’ at the 6
end of paragraph (14), by striking the period at the end 7
of paragraph (15) and inserting ‘‘, or’’, and by adding at 8
the end the following new paragraph: 9
VerDate Sep 11 2014 23:35 Jun 01, 2016 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5361.IH H5361sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with BILLS49 of 68
2
•HR 5361 IH
‘‘(16) qualified government buildings.’’. 1
(b) QUALIFIED GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS.—Section 2
142 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the 3
following new subsection: 4
‘‘(n) QUALIFIED GOVERNMENTAL BUILDINGS.— 5
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of subsection 6
(a)(16), the term ‘qualified governmental buildings’ 7
means any building or facility that consists of one 8
or more of the following: 9
‘‘(A) An elementary school or a secondary 10
school (within the meanings given such terms 11
by section 14101 of the Elementary and Sec-12
ondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 13
8801), as in effect on the date of the enactment 14
of this subsection). 15
‘‘(B) Facilities of a State college or univer-16
sity used for educational purposes. 17
‘‘(C) A library maintained for, and open 18
to, the general public. 19
‘‘(D) A Court of law. 20
‘‘(E) A hospital, health care facilities, lab-21
oratory facilities or research facilities. 22
‘‘(F) Public safety facilities (including po-23
lice, fire, enhanced 911, emergency or disaster 24
management, and ambulance or emergency 25
VerDate Sep 11 2014 23:35 Jun 01, 2016 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5361.IH H5361sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with BILLS50 of 68
3
•HR 5361 IH
medical service facilities and jails and correc-1
tional facilities). 2
‘‘(G) Offices for employees of a govern-3
mental unit. 4
Such term shall include any equipment, functionally 5
related and subordinate facility, or land (and any 6
real property rights appurtenant thereto) with re-7
spect to any such building or facility. 8
‘‘(2) SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED FACILITIES.— 9
Such term shall not include— 10
‘‘(A) a building or facility the primary pur-11
pose of which is one of the following: retail food 12
and beverage services, or the provision of recre-13
ation or entertainment, or 14
‘‘(B) any building or facility that includes 15
any of the following: any private or commercial 16
golf course, country club, massage parlor, ten-17
nis club, skating facility (including roller skat-18
ing, skateboard, and ice skating), racquet 19
sports facility (including any handball or 20
racquetball court), hot tub facility, suntan facil-21
ity, racetrack, convention center, or sports sta-22
dium or arena. 23
VerDate Sep 11 2014 23:35 Jun 01, 2016 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5361.IH H5361sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with BILLS51 of 68
4
•HR 5361 IH
‘‘(3) NATIONAL LIMITATION ON AMOUNT OF 1
TAX-EXEMPT FINANCING FOR QUALIFIED GOVERN-2
MENTAL BUILDING.— 3
‘‘(A) NATIONAL LIMITATION.—The aggre-4
gate amount allocated by the Secretary under 5
subparagraph (C) shall not exceed 6
$5,000,000,000. 7
‘‘(B) ENFORCEMENT OF NATIONAL LIMI-8
TATION.—An issue shall not be treated as an 9
issue described in subsection (a)(16) if the ag-10
gregate face amount of bonds issued pursuant 11
to such issue for any qualified governmental 12
building (when added to the aggregate face 13
amount of bonds previously so issued for such 14
facility) exceeds the amount allocated to such 15
qualified governmental building under subpara-16
graph (C). 17
‘‘(C) ALLOCATION BY THE SECRETARY.— 18
The Secretary shall allocate a portion of the 19
amount described in subparagraph (A) to a 20
qualified governmental building if the Secretary 21
determines that— 22
‘‘(i) the application for financing of 23
such qualified governmental building meets 24
VerDate Sep 11 2014 23:35 Jun 01, 2016 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5361.IH H5361sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with BILLS52 of 68
5
•HR 5361 IH
the requirements set forth in subparagraph 1
(D), and 2
‘‘(ii) the amount of the allocation re-3
quested, if allocated by the Secretary, 4
would not cause the national limitation set 5
forth in subparagraph (A) to be exceeded. 6
‘‘(D) APPLICATIONS FOR FINANCING.—An 7
application for financing a qualified govern-8
mental building meets the requirements of this 9
subparagraph if such application includes— 10
‘‘(i) the amount of the allocation re-11
quested, 12
‘‘(ii) the name of the governmental 13
unit that will own the project, together 14
with complete contact information, 15
‘‘(iii) a description of the project as a 16
whole and the proposed organizational and 17
legal structure of the project, 18
‘‘(iv) a timeline showing the estimated 19
start and completion dates for each major 20
phase or milestone of project development 21
and an indication of the current status of 22
milestones on this timeline, including all 23
necessary permits and environmental ap-24
provals, 25
VerDate Sep 11 2014 23:35 Jun 01, 2016 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5361.IH H5361sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with BILLS53 of 68
6
•HR 5361 IH
‘‘(v) a statement of anticipated 1
sources and uses of funds for the project, 2
and 3
‘‘(vi) the following declaration signed 4
by an individual who has personal knowl-5
edge of the relevant facts and cir-6
cumstances: ‘‘Under penalties of perjury, I 7
declare that I have examined this docu-8
ment and, to the best of my knowledge and 9
belief, the document contains all the rel-10
evant facts relating to the document, and 11
such facts are true, correct, and complete.’’ 12
‘‘(E) USE OF ALLOCATION IN A TIMELY 13
MANNER.—If, following an allocation by the 14
Secretary under subparagraph (C), bonds are 15
not issued in the amount of such allocation 16
after the date that is 2 years after the date of 17
such allocation, then the unused portion of the 18
allocation shall be withdrawn, unless the Sec-19
retary, upon a showing of good cause by the ap-20
plicant, grants an extension of such date. 21
‘‘(4) EXCEPTION FOR CURRENT REFUNDING 22
BONDS.—Paragraph (4) shall not apply to any bond 23
(or series of bonds) issued to refund a bond issued 24
under subsection (a)(16) if— 25
VerDate Sep 11 2014 23:35 Jun 01, 2016 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5361.IH H5361sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with BILLS54 of 68
7
•HR 5361 IH
‘‘(A) the average maturity date of the issue 1
of which the refunding bond is a part is not 2
later than the average maturity date of the 3
bonds to be refunded by such issue, 4
‘‘(B) the amount of the refunding bond 5
does not exceed the outstanding amount of the 6
refunded bond, and 7
‘‘(C) the refunded bond is redeemed not 8
later than 90 days after the date of the 9
issuance of the refunding bond. 10
For purposes of subparagraph (A), average maturity 11
shall be determined in accordance with section 12
147(b)(2)(A). 13
‘‘(5) OFFICE SPACE.—Subsection (b)(2) shall 14
not apply with respect to any qualified governmental 15
building. 16
‘‘(6) NO DEPRECIATION OR INVESTMENT CRED-17
IT.—No depreciation, amortization, or business cred-18
it under section 38 shall be allowed with respect to 19
any facility described in subsection (a)(16) which 20
has been financed by the net proceeds of the issue 21
for so long as such bonds are outstanding.’’. 22
(c) GOVERNMENTALLY OWNED REQUIREMENT.— 23
Section 142(b)(1)(A) of such Code is amended by striking 24
‘‘or (12)’’ and inserting ‘‘(12), or (16)’’. 25
VerDate Sep 11 2014 23:35 Jun 01, 2016 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5361.IH H5361sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with BILLS55 of 68
8
•HR 5361 IH
(d) EXEMPTION FROM VOLUME CAP ON PRIVATE 1
ACTIVITY BONDS.—Section 146(g)(3) of such Code is 2
amended by striking ‘‘or (15)’’ and inserting ‘‘(15), or 3
(16)’’. 4
(e) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 5
this section shall apply to bonds issued after the date of 6
the enactment of this Act. 7
Æ
VerDate Sep 11 2014 23:35 Jun 01, 2016 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6301 E:\BILLS\H5361.IH H5361sradovich on DSK3TPTVN1PROD with BILLS56 of 68
2016 Federal Legislative Platform Contra Costa County
9
2016 FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM POLICY POSITIONS
The following support positions are listed in alphabetic order and do not reflect priority order. Please
note that new and revised policy positions are highlighted.
Affordable Housing and Homeless Programs –For Housing and Urban Development (HUD)’s
Homeless Assistance Grants, the County will support funding that does not include set-asides or
other requirements that limit local communities’ ability to respond to the particular needs in their
areas. For the Housing Assistance for People with AIDS (HOPWA) program, the County will
support legislation to update the formula used to allocate HOPWA grants to reflect local housing
costs as well as the number of AIDS cases.
The County supports full funding for HUD homeless assistance programs and funding for full
implementation of the Homeless Emergency and Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH) Act of
2009.
The County supports funding the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Resources made
available through the Trust Fund should be accessible to local housing and community
development agencies, including public housing authorities. The Housing Trust Fund should be
used to complement and not supplant either the HOME or CDBG programs.
Agricultural Pest and Disease Control – Agriculture and native environments in Contra Costa
County continue to be threatened by a variety of invasive/exotic pests, diseases and non-native
weeds. The Federal government provides funding for research, regulation, pest exclusion
activities, survey and detection, pest management, weed control, public education and outreach.
The County will support funding in all these areas for protection of our agricultural industry and
open space. Consistent with the policy position, the County will also support legislation which
would authorize and direct the USDA to provide state and local funding for High Risk
Prevention programs (also called Pest Detection Funding).
Beneficial Use of Dredged Materials – As the beneficial reuse of dredged materials has a clear
public benefit, particularly in the Delta, the County will continue to support beneficial reuse in
general and also continue to advocate for funding for a federal study to determine the feasibility
of beneficial reuse, considering the benefits and impacts to water quality and water supply in the
Delta, navigation, flood control damage, ecosystem restoration, and recreation. The study would
include the feasibility of using Sherman Island as a rehandling site for the dredged material, for
levee maintenance and/or ecosystem restoration. Language to authorize the study was included
in the Water Resources and Development Act (WRDA) which was passed into law on November
8, 2007.
Broadband – Consistent with CSAC policy, Contra Costa County will support the expansion of
broadband (high speed internet service) to drive economic development and job opportunities,
support county service delivery, and improve health, education and public safety outcomes for
residents. For communities to realize these full benefits of broadband it must be capable of
supporting current technology.
57 of 68
10
Access and adoption are both necessary elements that should be supported in state and federal
legislative or regulatory proposals. This entails the following:
• Establishing and maintaining reliable broadband in unserved or underserved
communities;
• Promoting the knowledge, skills and behaviors that comprise digital literacy;
• Making broadband affordable for all households;
• Maximizing funding for infrastructure; and
• Reducing infrastructure deployment barriers.
Child Care – Research continues to show that quality, affordable childcare is a necessity to
ensuring a family’s stability and economic success. Currently in Contra Costa County, there are
over 10,000 low-income children eligible for affordable childcare services, yet only 29% of that
need is met. Research also shows that in addition to a child’s long-term success with school and
employment, investing in high-quality early care and education results in a higher than average
return on investments in the areas of crime reduction and positive health, education and
economic outcomes.
With regards to childcare, the County will support the President’s “Preschool for All” Initiative
meant to close America’s school readiness gap and ensure all children have access to quality care
by expanding high quality learning opportunities for children 0-5. This proposal includes:
An increase of over 100,000 new childcare slots and $12 billion over the next 10 years;
A focus on children and their families who are at or below 200% of poverty;
Financing through a new cost-sharing partnership with states, already a proven successful
model with Head Start in Contra Costa County.
The County will also advocate for the following federal actions:
Increase funding to support employment of low-income families through greater access
to child care subsidies, and increase the access of children from eligible families to high-
quality care that supports positive child development outcomes.
Provide flexibility at the state and local levels so that quality care can be balanced with
access and parental choice.
Child Support –The County will advocate for the following federal actions:
Eliminate the $25 fee for non-IV-A families.
Restore the incentive match payments that were prohibited in the Deficit Reduction Act.
Allow the automatic use of cash medical support to reimburse Medicaid expenditures.
Allow IV-D agencies to access Health Insurance records for the purposes of Medical
Support.
58 of 68
2016 Federal Legislative Platform Contra Costa County
11
Child Welfare and Well-being –The County will advocate for the following federal actions:
Provide states with financial incentives, as opposed to monetary penalties, under the
Child and Family Services Reviews and minimize the significant administrative burden
associated with the review process.
End Title IV-E disallowances from federal audits that take away funds from an already
resource-strapped child welfare system. Allow states to reinvest these funds in preventing
child abuse and neglect.
Increase prevention dollars to help maintain children safely in their own homes. Federal
funding currently gives disproportional support to out-of-home care rather than to
preventing children from coming into care.
Any increase in Federal Medical Assistance Percentage should include an associated
increase in the Title IV-E matching rate to help support children in foster care.
Community Development Block Grant and HOME Programs – The County’s ability to
continue funding to a variety of nonprofit agencies that provide critical safety net services to
lower income residents, including financing the development of affordable housing is threatened
by further cuts as part of the Budget Control Act (Act) passed by Congress in July 2011. The Act
established mandatory spending caps on most federal programs through 2021, and arranged
additional across-the-board annual spending cuts to federal defense and non-defense
discretionary (NDD) programs over this same period.
Included in non-defense discretionary programs are critical local government oriented programs
including the CDBG and HOME programs. These programs are successful and productive,
leveraging significant funding from non-federal sources to help spur economic development. The
County agrees that reducing the federal deficit is an important component of achieving long-term
national economic stability, but targeting solely NDD programs like the CDBG and HOME
programs will not achieve significant reductions and will hinder the County’s ability to provide
critical services to its most vulnerable populations. The County will continue to oppose any
further reductions in the CDBG and HOME programs as part of the Budget Control Act or any
other means.
Cost Shifts to Local and State Government – Contra Costa County performs many of its
services and programs pursuant to federal direction and funding. Other services and programs
are performed at the behest of the state, which receives funding through the federal government.
In the past, the Administration’s budget has contained significant cuts to entitlement programs
and/or caps on entitlements. Such actions could shift cost of services from the federal
government to the state and/or local governments (and to the extent that costs would shift to the
state, it is highly likely that these would be passed on to the County). The County will oppose
any actions that would result in cost shifts on federal entitlement programs or which would result
on greater dependency on county funded programs. In addition, the County will support federal
and state financial assistance to aid county and local government efforts to meet unfunded
59 of 68
12
federal mandates, such as those contained in the National Response Plan (NRP), the National
Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP), and the National Incident Management System.
Criminal Debt Collection – Nonpayment of court-ordered victim restitution, fines and fees is a
problem of epidemic proportions for all jurisdictions. Literally billions of dollars go uncollected
each year across the country, resulting not only in financial suffering of victims, but also the loss
of public revenue. Many states already allow for the offset of State Tax Refunds, and these
programs are successful in achieving revenue recovery. Federal Tax Refunds are already being
successfully offset to pay for delinquent child support. The County will support amendments to
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow an offset against income tax refunds to pay for
court-ordered debts that are past-due.
Delta Water Platform
To protect the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta from various detrimental forces that are affecting
its health and resources, it is the policy of Contra Costa County to support implementation of
projects and actions that will help improve the Delta ecosystem and the economic conditions of
the Delta. Contra Costa County has developed a Delta Water Platform to identify and promote
activities and policy positions that support the creation of a healthy Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta. Contra Costa County will use this Platform to guide its own actions and advocacy in other
public venues regarding the future of the Delta.
Designation of Indian Tribal Lands and Indian Gaming – The Board of Supervisors has
endorsed the California State Association of Counties’ (CSAC) policy documents regarding
development on tribal land and prerequisites to Indian gaming. These policy statements address
local government concerns for such issues as the federal government’s ability to take lands into
trust and thus remove them from local land use jurisdiction, absent the consent of the state and
the affected county; the need for tribes to be responsible for all off-reservation
impacts of their actions; and assurance that local government will be able to continue to meet
its governmental responsibilities for the health, safety, environment, infrastructure and general
welfare of all members of its communities. The County will continue to advocate for federal
legislation and regulation that supports the CSAC policy documents.
The County will also advocate for limitations on reservation shopping; tightening the definition
of Class II gaming machines; assuring protection of the environment and public health and
safety; and full mitigation of the off-reservation impacts of the trust land and its operations,
including the increased cost of services and lost revenues to the County.
The County will also advocate for greater transparency, accountability and appeal opportunities
for local government in the decision-making processes that permit the establishment of Indian
gaming facilities. This includes sequencing the processes so that the Indian Lands
Determination comes first, prior to initiation of a trust land request and associated environmental
review.
The County will also consider support for federal action and/or legislation that allows Class III
gaming at the existing gaming facility only if it can be shown that any change would result in a
60 of 68
2016 Federal Legislative Platform Contra Costa County
13
facility that would be unique in nature and the facility can demonstrate significant community
benefits above and beyond the costs associated with mitigating community impacts.
Economic Development Programs – Congress should fund all the complementary programs
within HUD’s community and economic development toolkit, ensuring that HUD does not lose
sight of the development component of its mission. To that end, the County will support
continued funding for the Section 108 loan guarantee program, the Brownfields Economic
Development Initiative and the Rural Housing and Economic Development program. Each of
these programs plays a unique role in building stronger, more economically viable communities,
while enabling communities to leverage external financing in a way the CDBG program alone
cannot do.
Federal “Statewideness” Requirements – For many federally funded programs, there is a
“statewideness” requirement; i.e., all counties must operate the specific program under the same
rules and regulations. This can hamper the County’s ability to meet local needs, to be cost
effective and to leverage the funding of one program to reduce costs in another program. Contra
Costa County cannot negotiate for federal waivers or do things differently because it is not a
state, yet its population is greater than seven states. Recognizing this is a very long-term effort,
the County will advocate for relaxation of the “statewideness” rule to allow individual counties
or a consortium of counties to receive direct waivers from the federal government and/or adopt
the rules and regulations currently in use in another state for specific programs.
Habitat Conservation Planning – The County will advocate for elevating the profile of Habitat
Conservation Plans (HCPs) such as the East Contra Costa County HCP within Congress and
Administration so that these critical federal/state/local partnerships can receive necessary
attention and support. HCPs are flagship programs for the federal government and supporting
effective implementation of approved HCPs should be a top priority for the U.S. Department of
the Interior and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and HCPs should be a key tool in any federal
climate change or economic stimulus legislation.
Health – The County will advocate for the following actions by the federal government: a)
provide enhanced Medicaid FMAP (the "Federal Medical Assistance Percentage" for Medicaid.
It is the federal matching rate for state Medicaid expenditures.); b) suspend the Medicare
“clawback” rule; c) suspend the “60-day rule” that requires states to repay the federal
government overpayments identified by the state prior to collection, and even in instances where
the state can never collect; d) ease the ability to cover those eligible for Medicaid by making
documentation requirements less stringent; and e) prevent the implementation of the following
seven federal regulations:
Outpatient hospital
Case Management
School Based Administration & Transportation
Public Provider Cost Limit
Graduate Medical Education
Rehabilitation Services Option
Provider Tax
61 of 68
14
SUPPORT full funding of the Federal Medicaid program by the federal government. Medicaid
provides access to health care for people whose income and resources are insufficient to pay for
health care. It is jointly funded by Federal and State governments. The Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act (also known as the ACA) significantly expanded both eligibility for and
federal funding of Medicaid. OPPOSE amendments to the ACA that would reduce support for
Medicaid/Medi-Cal payments to providers.
Levee Restoration and Repair – The County will support legislation such as H.R. 6484, the
SAFE Levee Act (Garamendi) in 2012, which will authorize the U.S. Department of the Interior
to invest in Delta levee repairs, for all levees that are publicly owned or publicly maintained.
The bill also requires a cost-benefit analysis for the tunnel project being planned as part of the
Bay-Delta Conservation Plan.
Pension – The County will support legislation that would modify the Internal Revenue Code and
corresponding regulations to permit public employees to make an irrevocable election between
their current pension formula and a less rich pension formula.
In 2006, Contra Costa County and the Deputy Sheriff’s Association jointly obtained state
legislation that would allow members of the Association to make a one-time irrevocable election
between their current pension formula and a less rich pension formula, called Tier C. Orange
County and its labor organizations obtained similar legislation in 2009. However, neither
County has been able to implement this state legislation because such elections currently have
negative tax consequences for employees and for retirement plans under federal tax law as
interpreted by the Internal Revenue Service.
Like many local government entities nationwide, the County’s fiscal position would benefit
greatly from reduced pension costs. Allowing local government entities to implement collective
bargaining agreements and state legislation that permits employees to elect less rich pension
formulas would be a significant step in reducing pension costs.
Private Activity Bonds for Government Buildings – The County will support legislation that
would create a new category of private activity bonds for governments to join with private
parties to help finance government buildings. The tax-exempt bonding mechanism would allow
state and local governments to issue private activity bonds to finance the construction and
upkeep of certain publically owned buildings. The County will support amending the federal tax
code to provide another layer of tax-exempt financing that would encourage the use of public-
private partnerships.
Public Housing Programs – The County will support legislation that results in the
transformation of existing programs to improve their effectiveness and efficiency, in tandem
with the design of new and innovative responses, both to build upon recent progress and address
outstanding issues.
The County will support legislation to protect the nation’s investment in Public Housing:
62 of 68
2016 Federal Legislative Platform Contra Costa County
15
Enact affordable housing industry proposal to allow public housing agencies (PHAs)
to voluntarily convert public housing units to Section 8 project-based rental assistance
in order to preserve this vital component of the national infrastructure.
Oppose the Administration’s proposal to impose a $1 billion offset against the
operating reserves of responsible, entrepreneurial PHAs.
Support the revitalization of severely distressed public housing units.
Address safety and security concerns connected to drug-related crime.
The County will support legislation to preserve vital community and economic development
programs:
Fully fund the Community Development Block Grant Program in order to create and
save jobs, revitalize local economies, and support critical services for vulnerable
populations.
Maintain funding for HUD’s cost-effective economic development tools.
The County will support legislation to strengthen and simplify the Section 8 Rental Assistance
programs:
Provide adequate funding for Housing Assistance Payment contract renewals and
ongoing administrative fees.
Enact the Section Eight Voucher Reform Act (SEVRA).
Implement overdue regulatory and administrative revisions that ensure the efficient
use of program funds.
The County will support legislation to expand Affordable Housing Opportunities and combat
homelessness:
Fully fund the Home Investment Partnerships Program and HUD’s homeless
assistance programs.
Capitalize the Housing Trust Fund through a revenue-neutral approach.
Preserve and strengthen the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program.
The County will support legislation to foster innovation, increase efficiency, and streamline the
regulatory environment:
Promote reasonable and flexible federal oversight.
Incentivize green building and increased Energy Efficiency.
63 of 68
16
Support HUD’s ongoing transformation efforts.
Ensure that HUD releases and distributes federal funding in a timely manner.
Eliminate statutory and regulatory barriers that prevent PHAs and redevelopment
authorities from accessing federal programs they are qualified to administer.
Rail Safety – Contra Costa County is home to a substantial oil refinery industry with four
refineries located in the County. The County supports Senator Heitkamp’s Railroad Emergency
Services Preparedness, Operational Needs, and Safety Evaluation (RESPONSE) Act, S. 2547,
which would establish a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) panel focused on
railroad incident first responders. By bringing together under FEMA’s National Advisory
Council all relevant agencies, emergency responders, technical experts, and the private sector for
a review of training, resources, best practices, and unmet needs related to emergency responders
to railroad hazmat incidents, the RESPONSE Act will begin the process of addressing
shortcomings in existing emergency response practices and procedures. It will also address the
effectiveness of funding levels related to training local emergency responders for rail hazardous
materials incidents.
The County also supports FEMA funding for the training of first responders, regulations that
increase tank car safety standards for cars transporting crude oil and other hazardous materials,
and regulations that require railroads to share data with state emergency managers and local
responders.
Retiree and Retiree Health Care Costs – The County operates many programs on behalf of the
federal government. While federal funding is available for on-going program operations,
including employee salaries, the allocation is usually capped, regardless of actual costs. For
retiree and retiree health care, the County’s ability to contain costs is extremely limited. The
County will advocate for full federal financial participation in funding the County’s retiree and
retiree health obligations.
State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) – On May 23, 2012, the Department of
Justice (DOJ) announced a change in the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) that
will prohibit SCAAP funds from being used to reimburse localities for foreign-born criminal
aliens housed in jails that have been classified as “unknown inmates” by the Department of
Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency. This is a significant
change to the SCAAP reimbursement formula and will heavily impact counties across the nation.
The County will support the rescinding of this decision and a reinstatement of the previous
reimbursement practice, which would more equitably reimburse jurisdictions for the costs of
housing undocumented individuals, including those inmates whose status may be unknown to the
Department of Homeland Security.
Second Chance Act – The County will support funding for the Second Chance Act, which helps
counties address the growing population of individuals returning from prisons and jails. Despite
massive increases in corrections spending in states and jails nationwide, recidivism rates remain
high: half of all individuals released from state prison are re-incarcerated within three years.
Here in California, unfortunately, the recidivism rate is even higher. Yet there is reason for
64 of 68
2016 Federal Legislative Platform Contra Costa County
17
hope: research shows that when individuals returning from prison or jail have access to key
treatments, education, and housing services, recidivism rates go down and the families and
communities they return to are stronger and safer.
The Second Chance Act ensures that the tax dollars on corrections are better spent, and provides
a much-needed response to the "revolving door" of people entering and leaving prison and jail.
SparkPoint, Service Integration – The County will support federal funding for the establishment
and operation of SparkPoint and Service Integration models. SparkPoint Centers are one-stop,
financial-education centers that help individuals and families who are struggling to make ends
meet. SparkPoint helps clients address immediate financial crises, get them back on their feet,
and build financial security. Each center brings together a full range of services at one
convenient location, including job training, career development and financial coaching, as well
as access to higher education and savings accounts. The Contra Costa County Service Integration
Program co-locates county and non-profit agency service providers and community residents in
neighborhood-based family service centers to provide accessible, coordinated public services
tailored to meet the specific needs and goals of low-income families, while also engaging
families in resident-driven efforts to revitalize their communities.
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) – The County will advocate for the
following federal actions:
Increase SNAP benefits as a major and immediately available element of economic
stimulus.
Suspend the restrictions applying to ABAWDs. ("ABAWDs" stands for "Able-Bodied
Adults without Dependents" and pertains to adults receiving food stamps who are
considered employable.) They are subject to strict time limits on how long they can
receive food stamps. It is difficult administratively to track this, and when unemployment
is high, it can result in more adults going hungry.
Remove the current federal barriers that prevent some nutrition programs from
employing EBT technology.
Streamlining Permitting for Critical Infrastructure, Economic Stimulus, and Alternative
Energy Projects –“Green” Job Creation – Request that Congress and the Administration
recognize the value of Habitat Conversation Plans (HCPs) as a reliable way of streamlining
critical infrastructure, economic stimulus, and alternative energy project permitting in a manner
that is consistent with federal environmental regulations. HCPs not only facilitate such projects
through permit streamlining, but the planning, implementation, management, and monitoring
needs associated with regional HCPs plans also create many quality “green” jobs.
Telecommunications Act of 1996 Revisions – The Telecommunications Act of 1996 governs
local government’s role in telecommunications, primarily broadband cable that uses the County’s
right-of-way as well as consumer protections. As Congress works to update the Act, the County
will continue to advocate for strengthening consumer protections and local government oversight
65 of 68
18
of critical communications technologies; local access to affordable and reliable high speed
broadband infrastructures to support the local economy; the right of local municipalities and
communities to offer high-speed broadband access: coordination and integration of private
communication resources for governmental emergency communication systems; preservation of
local government’s franchise fees; preservation of the local community benefits, including but
not limited to public, education and governmental (PEG) access channels; authority for provision
of municipal telecommunication services; preservation of local police powers essential for
health, safety and welfare of the citizenry; preservation of local government ownership and
control of the local public rights-of-way; and support for ensuring that communication policy
promotes affordable services for all Americans.
The Community Broadband Act of 2007, S.1853, encourages the deployment of high speed
networks by preserving the authority of local governments to offer community broadband
infrastructure and services. The County will oppose all bills that do not address the County’s
concerns unless appropriately amended. In addition, the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) has proposed rule-making (FCC Second Report and Order Docket 05-311 “Franchising
Rules for Incumbents”) that, in the opinion of local government, goes beyond the scope of their
authority in this area. The County will oppose all such rule making efforts.
Telecommunications Issues – Support the Community Access Preservation (CAP) Act
introduced in 2009 by Wisconsin Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin. The CAP Act addresses the
challenges faced by public, educational and government (PEG) TV channels and community
access television stations. The CAP Act addresses four immediate issues facing PEG channels.
The CAP Act would: Allow PEG fees to be used for any PEG-related purpose; require PEG
channels to be carried in the same manner as local broadcast channels; require the FCC to study
the effect state video franchise laws have had on PEG; require operators in states that adopted
statewide franchising to provide support equal to the greater of the support required under the
state law or the support historically provided for PEG; and make cable television-related laws
and regulations applicable to all landline video providers.
In addition, the County should support the widespread deployment and adoption of broadband,
especially as it serves to connect the educational community and libraries.
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families – The County will advocate for the following federal
actions:
Relieve states of work participation rate and work verification plan penalties for fiscal
years 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 in recognition of the serious downturn in the national
economy and the succession of more “process-based” regulations issued in the last few
years.
Permanently withdraw the August 8, 2008, proposal that would have repealed the
regulation that enables states to claim caseload reduction credit for excess MOE
expenditures.
66 of 68
2016 Federal Legislative Platform Contra Costa County
19
Rescind the May 22, 2008, HHS guidance that effectively eliminated the ability of states
to offer pre-assistance programs to new TANF applicants for up to four months.
Rescind the final Deficit Reduction Act regulation restricting allowable state
maintenance-of-effort expenditures under TANF purposes 3 and 4.
End federal efforts to impose a national TANF error rate.
Veterans Benefits – The County will support legislation to increase availability, accessibility,
and utilization of Veterans Benefits.
Within Contra Costa County, Veterans’ health care is provided by the VA Martinez Clinic, a
division of the VA Northern California Healthcare System. Currently, access to enrollment in the
VA healthcare system is limited to Veterans with a Service Connected disability of greater than
10%, special eligibility criteria (Purple Heart, former POW, Iraq & Afghanistan Vets within 5
years of discharge, etc.), and to Veterans with an annual gross income less than a geographically
based threshold. Currently, VA emergency services are not available after hours or during
weekends. The nearest VA emergency room is nearly 34 miles away from the VA Martinez
Clinic.
The County will support legislation that would expand enrollment eligibility (such as removing
the income limit criteria) to all Veterans with an honorable discharge. Furthermore, the County
will support legislation that would establish 24 hour VA emergency services at the VA Martinez
clinic.
In addition, the County will support legislation that will improve the timeliness and quality of
both VA benefits claim decisions and VA healthcare services. Specifically, legislation that works
toward improving on the expedited processing of claims and administering of benefits to
populations with unique needs, such as homeless Veterans, Women Veterans, and Veterans
experiencing service related Posttraumatic Stress Disorder.
Veterans Halls – The County will support legislation to provide America’s veterans
organizations with resources to make necessary repairs to or replacement of their meeting halls
and facilities.
Across America, the meeting halls and posts of Veterans Service Organizations such as the
American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars serve as unofficial community centers.
Unfortunately, many of these facilities are not compliant with Americans with Disabilities Act
accessibility standards, are not earthquake retrofitted, or have deteriorated in recent years due to
declining membership and reduced rental revenues as a result of the economic downturn.
The County will support legislation that would create a competitive grant program for veterans’
organizations, classified by the IRS as 501c19 non-profit organizations and comprised primarily
of past or present members of the United States Armed Forces and their family members, to use
for repairs and improvements to their existing facilities.
67 of 68
20
Volume Pricing – The National Association of Counties supports greater access for local
governments to General Services Administration (GSA) contract schedules. These schedules
provide volume pricing for state and local governments and make public sector procurement
more cost effective. However, current law does not provide full access to state and local
governments for GSA schedules. The County will support legislation that gives local
governments access to these schedules and provides the option of purchasing law enforcement,
security, and other related items at favorable GSA reduced pricing.
Water Quality, Quantity and Delta Outflow – Congress may consider legislation that could
adversely affect water quality, quantity and flows in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to the
detriment of the County residents, economy and resources. The Board of Supervisors will rely
on its adopted Delta Water Platform and its adopted resolution on Water, Ecosystem Health and
other Issues Related to the San Francisco Bay and the Sacramento –San Joaquin River Delta (No.
2012-46) to determine the appropriate response to federal legislative issues brought to the
Board’s attention.
Workforce Development – Contra Costa County supports policies that meet the needs of serving
businesses, workers, job seekers, and youth. The County further supports policies under the
Workforce Innovation & Opportunity Act (WIOA) that preserve local decision-making relative
to spending, direction of work, and other functions of local workforce boards. The County also
supports policies that increase employment and the creation of jobs in both the public and private
sector and that enhance business’ access to a qualified talent pool, and promote business growth
through the development of a skilled workforce. The County also favors policies that provide
increased funding to support job seeker services, as well as policies that make strategic
investments to leverage existing funding in the workforce development arena.
68 of 68