Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
City Council Position on Legislation pending as recommended (25)
Council/Agency Meeting Held: ff&or Deferred/Continued to: )6App ve ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied Cle s Sign re Council Meeting Date: 09/15/08 Department ID Number: AD 08-14 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members SUBMITTED BY: Jill Hardy, Council Member, Chair on behalf of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Members Mayor Pro Tern Keith Bohr, and Councilman Don Hansen YI/ - PREPARED BY: Patricia Dapkus, Department Analyst, Senio* SUBJECT: APPROVE A CITY COUNCIL POSITION ON LEGISLATION PENDING BEFORE THE FEDERAL, STATE, OR REGIONAL GOVERNMENTS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE (IRC) Statemegt of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Approval of City Council positions as recommended by the City Council Intergovernmental Relations Committee (IRC) on legislation or budget issues pending before a federal, state, or regional government; and approval of the city's federal funding agenda for this year. Funding Source: N/A Recommended Action: Motion to: 1. Authorize a Letter to our State Legislators and the Governor Opposing Potential Cuts In Local Funding and/or Redevelopment Funds 2. OPPOSE AB 2427 (Eng)—Business & Professions Codes -As Enrolled 8/22/08 3. SUPPORT Proposition 6—Criminal Penalties & Laws—Public Safety Funding —on the November Ballot Alternative Action(s): Do not take the recommended action on one or all of the above and provide direction to staff on a possible city position. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 09/15/08 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: AD 08-14 Analysis: 1. Authorize a Letter to our State Legislators and the Governor Opposing Potential Cuts In Local Funding and/or Redevelopment Funds The State Legislators are once again looking at local revenues as way of meeting the $15 billion shortfall in the State's 08/09 budget. Economic Development staff recently learned from the California Redevelopment Association that discussions have now turned to taking redevelopment funds. The loss to the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency would be approximately$739,500. The Intergovernmental Relations Committee is recommending that a letter be sent to our legislators and the Governor opposing these cuts. Due to the urgency of this issue the Committee authorized that a letter be sent under the fast track method. 2. OPPOSE AB 2427 (Eng) — — Business & Professions Codes --As Enrolled 8/22/08 AB 2427 would make it unlawful for a city or county or city and county to prohibit a healing arts licensee from engaging in any act or performing any procedure that falls within the professionally recognized scope of practice of that licensee, but would prohibit construing this provision to prohibit the enforcement of a local ordinance effective prior to January 1, 2009, as specified. Under current law, this section imposes certain restrictions on local agencies' authority to limit businesses and occupations that are licensed through the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA). AB 2427 would further ban cities and counties from prohibiting a person or"group of persons" within the healing arts profession that is licensed through the DCA"from engaging in any act or performing any procedure that falls within the professionally recognized scope of practice of that licensee." On the Senate floor, the bill was narrowed to protect a local government's ability to regulate "time, manner, and place." However, because the bill does not define this term, the bill in its present form would leave local governments with a very ambiguous term that would open local governments to expensive lawsuits as courts struggle to interpret the Legislature's intent. The concern is that this measure inappropriately and broadly preempts the enforcement of local police powers. There is no disagreement with the authority of the DCA to confer licenses on individuals deemed fit and qualified to engage in certain professions and occupations. This authority should not, however, be unassailable. The authority and responsibility to regulate the operation of business and professions to address local concerns is a necessary function of local government. The Intergovernmental Relations Committee is recommending that the City Council take a position opposing AB 2427. Because this bill is already enrolled to the Governor, the Committee authorized that a letter be sent under the fast track method. 3. SUPPORT Proposition 6 -Criminal Penalties & Laws— Public Safety Funding—on the November Ballot This measure makes several changes to current laws relating to California's criminal justice system. These include: setting required spending levels for certain new and existing criminal justice programs; increasing penalties for certain crimes; making various changes to state parole policies; and making various other changes related to gang databases, hearsay evidence, gang injunction procedures, criminal background checks for public housing residents, temporary housing for offenders, release of undocumented persons,juvenile justice coordinating council membership, and juveniles in adult court. .2. 8/28/2008 2:13 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 09/15/08 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: AD 08-14 Proposition 6: • Imposes a 10-year penalty increase on gang offenders who commit violent felonies • Requires convicted gang offenders to register with local law enforcement each year for five years following conviction or their release from custody. • Increases penalties for possession, possession for sale, and sale of methamphetamine to the same level as cocaine. • Streamlines civil gang injunction process and increases penalties for violations. • Increases penalties for multiple acts of gang-related graffiti. • Requires that gang offenders previously convicted of car theft or joy riding be subject to a felony penalty for any subsequent car theft or joy riding offense. The Intergovernmental Relations Committee is recommending the City Council take a position in support of Proposition 6. Strateaic Goal: Action on this legislation meets the strategic goal under City Services of providing quality public services with the highest professional standards to meet community expectations and needs, assuring that the city is sufficiently staffed and equipped overall. Environmental Status: NA Attachment(s)- City Clerk's Page Number No. Description 1. Information from the California Redevelopment Association on proposed budget cuts 2. A copy of the Mayors letter dated August 11, 2008 on the proposed cuts 3. AB 2427 as enrolled to the Governor on August 22, 2008 4. A copy of the League of California Cities letter regarding AB 2427 dated August 22 5. Information from the League Public Safety Policy Committee on Pro osition 6 6. The Legislative Analyst's Office Analysis on Proposition 6 -3- 8128/2008 2:13 PM NO ; y ,< � z . - �»( �y* .a CRA Executive Director's Legislative Update -August 22, 2008 Page 1 of 1 HOME CONTACT US I SITEMAP I MY ACCOUNT I LOGIN I LOGOUT I HELP WITH THIS SITE I LINKS Search i ABOUT US MEMBERSHIP LEGISLATION STORE EVENTS JOBS/RFPS/RFQS COMMUNITIES INFO TOOLS overnor's Proposal Would Curtail Agency Activities If Payments Not Made Earlier this week, the Governor proposed taking a minimum of$675 million of redevelopment tax increment revenues over three ears as part of a new proposal to break the current impasse over the State budget. CRA has learned that the proposed cuts to individual agencies would be based on the same methodology used for ERAF shifts in past years with a new penalty provision orcing agencies to cease activities if the payments are not made. he Governor's proposal calls for agencies to pay the greater of 5%, or $225 million total statewide, in tax increment funds to he respective county Educational Revenue Augmentation Funds(ERAF). Each agency's payment would be based one-half on ross receipts of tax increment and one-half on receipts net of contractual and statutory pass-through payments. For an stimate of the payment each agency would have to make under this formula for this year, click here. Payments would be due by May 10 of each year. Agencies unable to make their full payments because of existing indebtedness ould be required to adopt resolutions by December 31 declaring their inability to pay. "Existing indebtedness" includes bonds, notes, loans, contractual obligations that if breached would subject the agency to damages or other liabilities, obligations to onstruct or pay for the construction of public facilities incurred under H&S Section 33445, indebtedness of the housing fund, nd an amount for administration of the agency not exceeding 90% of the amount spent for that purpose in FY 2005-06. gencies unable to make their payments could elect to have their host city or county governments make up any deficit. In order o do this, the agency and the host government would need to enter into a contract by February 15 and report it to the county uditor by March 1. Payments cannot be made from money held in Low and Moderate Income Housing Funds as of July 1. However, an agency may borrow up to 50% of the current year's allocation to LMIHF if a finding is made that there are insufficient other funds to meet the obligation. Amounts borrowed from LMIHF must be repaid within 10 years. mounts paid by an agency into ERAF would not be counted against the agency's tax increment revenue limit. However, there re no extensions of time limits for plan effectiveness or receipt of tax increment as there have been in past ERAF shifts. f a redevelopment agency, or its host government, cannot or does not make its full payment by the deadline, it is subject to hat we refer to as the "death penalty" until those payments are made. (This applies even to agencies that cannot make payments because of existing indebtedness or other legal obligations.) Specifically: (a) The agency cannot adopt new redevelopment plans or amend plans to add new territory. (b)The agency cannot issue bonds. (c)The agency cannot encumber funds or expend money derived from any source except to pay previously issued bonds or ther financial obligations, make contractual (though not statutory, i.e.,AB 1290) pass-through payments, and expend an mount on administration not exceeding 75% of the average monthly amount spent for that purpose in the preceding fiscal ear. Help Us Help You Defeat This Proposal o demonstrate how this loss of local government revenue will be harmful to communities and unterproductive to helping California rebound from the current economic downturn,CRA needs specific information from agencies that would be unable to make payments under the Governor's proposal because of x!sting indebtedness or other legal obligations. We also need information from agencies which might be able to make the payments but would have little left for making new economic development investments. In addition, e can use information about what important economic development investments or community projects will have to be eliminated,delayed,or cut back as a result of having to make ERAF payments. Please send your information electronically as soon as possible to Then.__ ar calredev.elop org. http://www.calredevelop.org/AM/Template.cfin?Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CNVContentDisplay.cfm... 8/26/2008 California Redevelopment Association's Estimate of each Agency's ERAF Payment Individual Agency's Payment=Agency's Net Tax Increment X[(225 mill or 5%total TI which ever is greater/2)/Total Net Tax Increment] + Agencys Gross Tax Increment X[(225 mill or 5%of total TI which ever is greater/2)/Total Gross Tax Increment] For 2006-07, 5 percent of the total Gross Tax Increment is$228,033,517 which is larger than$225,000,000. Individual Agencys Total Payment= Agency's Net Tax Increment X[(228,033,517/2)/3,610,560,266]+Agency's Gross Tax Increment X[(228,033,517/2)/4,710,569,261] Multiplier to Determine an Individual Agencys Payment from Net Tax Increment=(228,033,517/2)/3,610,560,266 or 0.031578689 Multiplier to Determine an Individual Agency's Payment from Gross Tax Increment=(228,033,517/2)/4,710,569,261 or 0.024204454 Alameda Alameda County Redevelopment Agency $826,124 Alameda Albany Community Reinvestment Agency $20,108 Alameda Berkeley Redevelopment Agency $89,304 Alameda City of Livermore Redevelopment Agency $214,584 Alameda Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda $609,073 Alameda Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Union City $1,063,121 Alameda Emeryville Redevelopment Agency $1,551,375 Alameda Redevelopment Agency of the City of Fremont $1,498,031 Alameda Redevelopment Agency of the City of Hayward $607,752 Alameda Redevelopment Agency of the City of Oakland $5,648,971 Alameda Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Leandro $861,440 Butte Chico Redevelopment Agency $1,269,038 Butte Gridley Redevelopment Agency $30,924 Butte Oroville Redevelopment Agency $327,945 Butte Paradise Redevelopment Agency $18,938 Contra Costa Antioch Development Agency $371,710 Contra Costa Brentwood Redevelopment Agency $360,656 Contra Costa City of Clayton Redevelopment Agency $270,269 Contra Costa City of El Cerrito Redevelopment Agency $242,755 Contra Costa City of Walnut Creek Redevelopment Agency $190,116 Contra Costa. Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency $863,995 Contra Costa Danville Community Development Agency $103,115 Contra Costa Hercules Redevelopment Agency $685,933 Contra Costa Lafayette Redevelopment Agency $153,166 Contra Costa Oakley Redevelopment Agency $208,113 Contra Costa Pinole Redevelopment Agency $489,317 Contra Costa Pleasant Hill Redevelopment Agency $262,042 Contra Costa Redevelopment Agency of the City of Concord $828,332 Contra Costa Redevelopment Agency of the City of Pittsburg $2,385,562 Contra Costa Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Pablo $816,820 Contra Costa Richmond Redevelopment Agency $1,392,002 Contra Costa San Ramon Redevelopment Agency $396,412 Del Norte Crescent City Redevelopment Agency $42,080 El Dorado Redevelopment Agency of the City of South Lake Tahoe $284,674 Fresno Clovis Community Development Agency $237,949 Fresno Coalinga Redevelopment Agency $146,123 Fresno Fowler Redevelopment Agency $46,322 Fresno Fresno County Redevelopment Agency $8,808 Fresno Huron Redevelopment Agency $28,768 Fresno Kerman Redevelopment Agency $20,781 Fresno Kingsburg Redevelopment Agency $28,086 Fresno Mendota Redevelopment Agency $42,746 Fresno Orange Cove Redevelopment Agency $46,818 Fresno Parlier Redevelopment Agency $76,307 Fresno Redevelopment Agency of the City of Firebaugh $56,099 Fresno Redevelopment Agency of the City of Fresno $925,876 Fresno Reedley Redevelopment Agency $85,964 Fresno San Joaquin Redevelopment Agency $24,194 Fresno Sanger Redevelopment Agency $57,473 Fresno Selma Redevelopment Agency $53,429 Glenn Willows Community Redevelopment Agency $- Humboldt Arcata Community Development Agency $154,130 Humboldt Eureka Redevelopment Agency $226,159 Humboldt Fortuna Redevelopment Agency $62,968 Imperial Brawley Community Redevelopment Agency $91,781 Imperial Calipatria Redevelopment Agency $18,948 Imperial City of Westmorland Redevelopment Agency $4,687 Imperial Holtville Redevelopment Agency $35,115 Imperial Redevelopment Agency of the City of El Centro $278,545 Kern Arvin Redevelopment Agency $42,082 Kern Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency $381,944 Kern California City Redevelopment Agency $289,037 Kern Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Delano $145,118 Kern Redevelopment Agency of the City of Tehachapi $50,476 Kern Ridgecrest Redevelopment Agency $356,743 Kern Shafter Community Development Agency $122,153 Kern Taft Redevelopment Agency $17,601 Kern Wasco Redevelopment Agency $55,770 Kings Kings County Redevelopment Agency $5,150 Kings Lemoore Redevelopment Agency $325,437 Kings Redevelopment Agency of the City of Avenal $46,962 Kings Redevelopment Agency of the City of Corcoran $52,792 Kings Redevelopment Agency of the City of Hanford $95,511 Lake Lake County Redevelopment Agency $104,994 Lake Lakeport Redevelopment Agency $42,974 Lassen Lassen County Redevelopment Agency $- Lassen Susanville Redevelopment Agency $- Los Angeles Agoura Hills Redevelopment Agency $137,042 Los Angeles Alhambra Redevelopment Agency $572,462 Los Angeles Arcadia Redevelopment Agency $213,054 Los Angeles Artesia Redevelopment Agency $74,370 Los Angeles Avalon Community Improvement Agency $202,097 Los Angeles Baldwin Park Redevelopment Agency $245,946 Los Angeles Bell Community Redevelopment Agency $196,260 Los Angeles Bell Gardens Redevelopment Agency $174,893 Los Angeles Bellflower Redevelopment Agency $112,075 Los Angeles Burbank Redevelopment Agency $2,216,599 Los Angeles Carson Redevelopment Agency $1,393,064 Los Angeles Cerritos Redevelopment Agency $1,624,305 Los Angeles City of Azusa Redevelopment Agency $341,607 Los Angeles City of San Fernando Redevelopment Agency $283,471 Los Angeles City of Vernon Redevelopment Agency $496,671 Los Angeles Claremont Redevelopment Agency $163,702 Los Angeles Commerce Community Development Commission $908,080 Los Angeles Community Development Commission of Los Angeles County $204,087 Los Angeles Community Development Commission of the City of Huntington Part $529,912 Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles $9,739,043 Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Monterey Park $356,475 Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Sierra Madre $74,631 Los Angeles Covina Redevelopment Agency $349,101 Los Angeles Cudahy Redevelopment Agency $186,858 Los Angeles Culver City Redevelopment Agency $1,504,587 Los Angeles Downey Community Development Commission $196,343 Los Angeles El Monte Redevelopment Agency $281,188 Los Angeles Glendale Redevelopment Agency $1,512,987 Los Angeles Glendora Community Redevelopment Agency $337,091 Los Angeles Hawaiian Gardens Redevelopment Agency $336,538 Los Angeles Hawthorne Community Redevelopment Agency $435,352 Los Angeles Industry Urban-Development Agency $4,549,265 Los Angeles Inglewood Redevelopment Agency $844,612 Los Angeles Irwindale Community Redevelopment Agency $822,121 Los Angeles La Mirada Redevelopment Agency $664,089 Los Angeles La Puente Redevelopment Agency $24,292 Los Angeles La Verne Redevelopment Agency $329,358 Los Angeles Lakewood Redevelopment Agency $441,699 Los Angeles Lancaster Redevelopment Agency $2,382,101 Los Angeles Lawndale Redevelopment Agency $200,532 Los Angeles Lynwood Redevelopment Agency $274;086 Los Angeles Maywood Redevelopment Agency $177,636 Los Angeles Monrovia Redevelopment Agency $350,439 Los Angeles Montebello Community Redevelopment Agency $761,171 Los Angeles Norwalk Redevelopment Agency $324,976 Los Angeles Palmdale Redevelopment Agency $1,585,424 Los Angeles Paramount Redevelopment Agency $564,662 Los Angeles Pasadena Community Development Commission $1,493,153 Los Angeles Pico Rivera Redevelopment Agency $227,400 Los Angeles Rancho Palos Verdes Redevelopment Agency $45,342 Los Angeles Redevelopment Agency of the City of Duarte $373,221 Los Angeles Redevelopment Agency of the City of Long Beach $4,054,918 Los Angeles Redevelopment Agency of the City of Pomona $1,131,756 Los Angeles Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Fe Springs $1,463,879 Los Angeles Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Monica $2,867,184 Los Angeles Redevelopment Agency of the City of South Gate $503,613 Los Angeles Redevelopment Agency of the City of Torrance $291,174 Los Angeles Redondo Beach Redevelopment Agency $192,329 Los Angeles Rosemead Redevelopment Agency $197,389 Los Angeles San Dimas Redevelopment Agency $286,243 Los Angeles San Gabriel Redevelopment Agency $49,427 Los Angeles Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency $155,653 Los Angeles Signal Hill Redevelopment Project Area $711,072 Los Angeles South El Monte Redevelopment Agency $219,829 Los Angeles South Pasadena Community Redevelopment Agency $29,729 Los.Angeles Temple City Community Redevelopment Agency $45,419 Los Angeles Walnut Improvement Agency $657,627 Los Angeles West Covina Redevelopment Agency $896,738 Los Angeles West Hollywood Redevelopment Agency $252,248 Los Angeles Whittier Redevelopment Agency $415,663 Madera Chowchilla Redevelopment Agency $60,704 Madera Madera Redevelopment Agency $350,601 Marin Marin County Redevelopment Agency $94,033 Marin Redevelopment Agency of the City of Novato $364,940 Marin San Rafael Redevelopment Agency $187,745 Marin Tiburon Redevelopment Agency $- Mendocino Fort Bragg Redevelopment Agency $73,282 Mendocino Mendocino County Redevelopment Agency $31,307 Mendocino Ukiah Redevelopment Agency $240,123 Mendocino Willits Community Development Agency $51,342 Merced Atwater Redevelopment Agency $82,849 Merced Dos Palos Redevelopment Agency $- Merced Livingston Redevelopment Agency $20,954 Merced Los Banos Redevelopment Agency $186,761 Merced Merced County Redevelopment Agency $- Merced Redevelopment Agency of the City of Merced $385,999 Monterey Gonzales Redevelopment Agency $68,089 Monterey Greenfield Redevelopment Agency $180,724 Monterey Marina Redevelopment Agency $66,446 Monterey Monterey County Redevelopment Agency $298,165 Monterey Redevelopment Agency of the City of Del Rey Oaks $- Monterey Redevelopment Agency of the City of King $93,699 Monterey Redevelopment Agency of the City of Monterey $300,012 Monterey Redevelopment Agency of the City of Seaside $545,866 Monterey Salinas Redevelopment Agency $306,432 Monterey Sand City Redevelopment Agency .$78,007 Monterey Soledad Redevelopment Agency $116,737 Napa Napa Community Redevelopment Agency $188,340 Nevada Redevelopment Agency of the City of Grass Valley $84,971 Nevada Town of Truckee Redevelopment Agency $85,621 Orange Anaheim Redevelopment Agency $2,184,754 Orange Brea Redevelopment Agency $1,234,716 Orange City of Orange Redevelopment Agency $1,119,576 Orange City of Santa Ana Community Redevelopment Agency $2,456,791 Orange City of Yorba Linda Redevelopment Agency $782,531 Orange Community Development Agency of the City of Mission Viejo $242,925 Orange Costa Mesa Redevelopment Agency $195,770 Orange Fountain Valley Agency For Community Development $462,558 Orange Fullerton Redevelopment Agency $917,455 Orange Garden Grove Agency for Community Development $1,085,404 Orange Irvine Redevelopment Agency $731,711 Orange La Habra Redevelopment Agency $122,665 Orange La Palma Community Development Commission $137,486 Orange Lake Forest Redevelopment Agency $165,840 Orange Orange County Development Agency $1,207,240 Orange Placentia Redevelopment Agency $115,833 Orange Redevelopment Agency of the City of Buena Park $1,215,428 Orange Redevelopment Agency of the.City of Cypress $258,597 Orange Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach $739,500 Orange San Clemente Redevelopment Agency $120,310 Orange San Juan Capistrano Community Redevelopment Agency $271,710 Orange Seal Beach Redevelopment Agency $169,390 Orange Stanton Redevelopment Agency $561,073 Orange Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency $851,765 Orange Westminster Redevelopment Agency $1,667,872 Placer Auburn Redevelopment Agency $37,957 Placer Lincoln Redevelopment Agency $119,877 Placer Redevelopment Agency of Placer County $438,328 Placer Redevelopment Agency of the City of Roseville $317,468 Placer Rocklin Redevelopment Agency $229,549 Riverside Beaumont Redevelopment Agency $180,432 Riverside Blythe Redevelopment Agency $223,520 Riverside City of Calimesa Redevelopment Agency $30,861 Riverside City of Cathedral City Redevelopment Agency $1,304,775 Riverside City of Desert Hot Springs Redevelopment Agency $473,066 Riverside City of Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency $3,494,639 Riverside Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Banning $261,831 Riverside Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Palm Springs $574,497 Riverside Hemet Redevelopment.Agency $606,193 Riverside La Quints Redevelopment Agency $3,226,864 Riverside Lake Elsinore Redevelopment Agency $956,462 Riverside March Joint Powers Redevelopment Agency $91,541 Riverside Moreno Valley Redevelopment Agency $719,113 Riverside Murrieta Redevelopment Agency $350,256 Riverside Norco Community Redevelopment Agency $672,398 Riverside Redevelopment Agency for the County of Riverside $3,814,558 Riverside Redevelopment Agency of Temecula $594,871 Riverside Redevelopment Agency of the City of Coachella $426,452 Riverside Redevelopment Agency of the City of Corona $1,216,302 Riverside Redevelopment Agency of the City of Indian Wells $1,304,399 Riverside Redevelopment Agency of the City of Indio $626,192 Riverside Redevelopment Agency of the City of Perris $517,889 Riverside Redevelopment Agency of the City of Rancho Mirage $1,719,477 Riverside Redevelopment Agency of the City of Riverside $2,340,594 Riverside Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Jacinto $258,921 Sacramento Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Citrus Heights $103,708 Sacramento Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Rancho Cordova $- Sacramento Isleton Redevelopment Agency $14,615 Sacramento Redevelopment Agency of the City of Folsom $370,230 Sacramento Redevelopment Agency of the City of Galt $155,284 Sacramento Redevelopment Agency of the City of Sacramento $2,321,820 Sacramento Redevelopment Agency of the County of Sacramento $378,669 San Benito Hollister Redevelopment Agency $612,433 San Bernardino Adelanto Redevelopment Agency $379,227 San Bernardino Apple Valley Redevelopment Agency $250,425 San Bernardino City of Loma Linda Redevelopment Agency $397,568 San Bernardino City of Montclair Redevelopment Agency $576,849 San Bernardino City of San Bernardino Economic Development Agency $1,640,267 San Bernardino Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Grand Terrace $298,781 San Bernardino Fontana Redevelopment Agency $4,597,184 San Bernardino Hesperia Redevelopment Agency $1,116,964 San Bernardino Highland Redevelopment Agency $436,796 San Bernardino Improvement Agency of the City of Big Bear Lake $297,589 San Bernardino Inland Valley Development Agency $1,385,214 San Bernardino Needles Redevelopment Agency $23,482 San Bernardino Ontario Redevelopment Agency $2;253,294 San Bernardino Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency $4,409,516 San Bernardino Redevelopment Agency For the City of Colton $523,099 San Bernardino Redevelopment Agency of the City of Barstow $184,456 San Bernardino Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chino $910,986 San Bernardino Redevelopment Agency of the City of Redlands $328,640 San Bernardino Redevelopment Agency of the City of Rialto $917,771 San Bernardino Redevelopment Agency of the County of San Bernardino $531,506 San Bernardino Town of Yucca Valley Redevelopment Agency $87,367 San Bernardino Twentynine Palms Redevelopment Agency $65,717 San Bernardino Upland Community Redevelopment Agency $406,458 San Bernardino Victor Valley Economic Development Authority $1,672,820 San Bernardino Victorville Redevelopment Agency $414,412 San Bernardino Yucaipa Redevelopment Agency $60,321 San Diego Barrio Logan $12,904 San Diego Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency $185,787 San Diego Center City $2,319,993 San Diego Central Imperial $51,393 San Diego City Heights $308,139 San Diego City of Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency $570,948 San Diego College Community $17,658 San Diego College Grove $16,300 San Diego Community Development Agency of the City of Coronado $700,093 San Diego Community Development Commission of the City of Escondido $1,175,491 San Diego Community Development Commission of the City of National City $709,621 San Diego Cross Roads $91,631 San Diego El Cajon Redevelopment Agency $686,308 San Diego Gateway Center West $6,748 San Diego Grantville $- San Diego Horton Plaza $206,545 San Diego Imperial Beach Redevelopment Agency $366,255 San Diego La Mesa Community Redevelopment Agency $148,829 San Diego Lemon Grove Redevelopment Agency $140,905 San Diego Lindavista $2,157 San Diego Mt. Hope $34,984 San Diego Naval Training Center $99,728 San Diego North Bay $175,527 San Diego North Park $142,500 San Diego Oceanside Community Development Commission $500,281 San Diego Poway Redevelopment Agency $1,882,883 San Diego San Diego County Redevelopment Agency $109,106 San Diego San Marcos Redevelopment Agency $2,772,682 San Diego San Ysidro $92,976 San Diego Santee Community Development Commission $448,518 San Diego Solana Beach Redevelopment Agency $28,800 San Diego South Crest $49,048 San Diego Vista Community Development Commission $745,558 San Francisco Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San.Francisco $3,949,777 San Joaquin Community Development Agency of the City of Tracy $477,793 San Joaquin Manteca Redevelopment Agency $915,538 San Joaquin Redevelopment Agency of the City of Ripon $216,386 San Joaquin Redevelopment Agency of the City of Stockton $1,260,410 San Luis Obispo Arroyo Grande Redevelopment Agency $59,230 San Luis Obispo Atascadero Community Redevelopment Agency $183,293 San Luis Obispo City of Grover Beach Redevelopment Agency $52,055 San Luis Obispo El Paso De Robles Redevelopment Agency $163,098 San Luis Obispo Pismo Beach Redevelopment Agency $43,340 San Mateo Belmont Redevelopment Agency $317,475 San Mateo Brisbane Redevelopment Agency $236,133 San Mateo City of San Mateo Redevelopment Agency $569,470 San Mateo Community Development Agency of the City of Menlo Park $471,156 San Mateo Daly City Redevelopment Agency $334,285 San Mateo East Palo Alto Redevelopment Agency $448,460 San Mateo Millbrae Redevelopment Agency $164,838 San Mateo Pacifica Redevelopment Agency $15,790 San Mateo Redevelopment Agency of the City of Redwood City $489,457 San Mateo Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bruno $272,795 San Mateo Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco $1,171,501 San Mateo San Carlos Redevelopment Agency $219,568 San Mateo The Community Development Agency of the City of Foster City $773,274 Santa Barbara Goleta Redevelopment Agency . $111,436 Santa Barbara Guadalupe Redevelopment Agency $55,783 Santa Barbara Lompoc Redevelopment Agency $132,251 Santa Barbara Redevelopment Agency of the City of Buellton $26,990 Santa Barbara Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Barbara $938,873 Santa Barbara Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Maria $63,284 Santa Barbara Santa Barbara County Redevelopment Agency $210,605 Santa Clara Campbell Redevelopment Agency $287,647 Santa Clara City of Mountain View Revitalization Authority $229,715 Santa Clara Cupertino Redevelopment Agency $8,601 Santa Clara Milpitas Redevelopment Agency $1,619,414 Santa Clara Redevelopment Agency of the City of Morgan Hill $1,442,445 Santa Clara Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Jose $8,556,067 Santa Clara Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Clara $1,352,850 Santa Clara Redevelopment Agency of the City of Sunnyvale $278,448 Santa Clara Redevelopment Agency of the Town of Los Gatos $303,928 Santa Cruz Redevelopment Agency of the City of Capitola $96,286 Santa Cruz Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Cruz $513,769 Santa Cruz Redevelopment Agency of the City of Watsonville $420,006 Santa Cruz Santa Cruz County Redevelopment Agency $1,495,700 Santa Cruz Scotts Valley Redevelopment Agency $203,070 Shasta Anderson Redevelopment Agency $33,064 Shasta City of Shasta Lake Redevelopment Agency $160,474 Shasta Redding Redevelopment Agency $706,295 Solano Dixon Redevelopment Agency $105,472 Solano Fairfield Redevelopment Agency $1,665,517 Solano Redevelopment Agency of the City of Vacaville $1,302,523 Solano Redevelopment Agency of the City of Vallejo $166,241 Solano Rio Vista Redevelopment Agency $38,673 Solano Suisun City Redevelopment Agency $785,433 Sonoma Cloverdale Community Development Agency $107,564 Sonoma Community Development Agency of the City of Rohnert Park $562,537 Sonoma Cotati Redevelopment Agency $180,001 Sonoma Healdsburg Community Redevelopment Agency $377,464 Sonoma Petaluma Community Development Commission $696,542 Sonoma Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Rosa $412,737 Sonoma Sebastopol Redevelopment Agency $109,548 Sonoma Sonoma Community Development Agency $263,660 Sonoma Sonoma County Community Development Commission $304,935 Sonoma Town of Windsor Redevelopment Agency $192,200 Stanislaus Ceres Redevelopment Agency $313,300 Stanislaus Hughson Redevelopment Agency $28,879 Stanislaus Modesto Redevelopment Agency $276,959 Stanislaus Newman Redevelopment Agency $55,399 Stanislaus Oakdale Redevelopment Agency $158,949 Stanislaus Patterson Redevelopment Agency $20,198 Stanislaus Redevelopment Agency of the County of Stanislaus $386,140 Stanislaus Riverbank Redevelopment Agency $65,692 Stanislaus Stanislaus/Ceres Redevelopment Commission $51,502 Stanislaus Turlock Redevelopment Agency $458,227 Stanislaus Waterford Redevelopment Agency $20,536 Sutter Redevelopment Agency of the City of Yuba City $185,319 Tulare Dinuba Redevelopment Agency $217,053 Tulare Exeter Redevelopment Agency $39,739 Tulare Farmersville Redevelopment Agency $33,780 Tulare Lindsay Redevelopment Agency $71,957 Tulare Porterville Redevelopment Agency $51,254 Tulare Redevelopment Agency of the City of Visalia $297,292 Tulare Tulare County Redevelopment Agency $186,242 Tulare Tulare Redevelopment Agency $246,489 Tulare Woodlake Redevelopment Agency $28,947 Tuolumne Sonora Redevelopment Agency $52,596 Ventura California State University Channel Island Site Authority(RDA) $55,486 Ventura Camarillo Community Development Commission $239,763 Ventura Fillmore Redevelopment Agency $327,349 Ventura Oxnard Community Development Commission $857,120 Ventura Port Hueneme Redevelopment Agency $339,102 Ventura Redevelopment Agency of the City of Moorpark $263,471 Ventura Redevelopment Agency of the City of Ojai $81,529 Ventura Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Buenaventura $158,354 Ventura Santa Paula Redevelopment Agency $106,115 Ventura Simi Valley Community Development Agency $859,132 Ventura Thousand Oaks Redevelopment Agency $838,522 Ventura Ventura County Redevelopment Agency $29,068 Yolo Davis Redevelopment Agency $439,484 Yolo West Sacramento Redevelopment Agency $891,361 Yolo Winters Community Development Agency $107,353 Yolo Woodland Redevelopment Agency $94,566 Yuba Marysville Community Development Agency $26,481 Yuba Yuba County Redevelopment Agency $977 Total $228,033,517 0 Ty�Ayo' -A-A city Of Hlulatuagtola D"Aeack"k !Oeb5ic Cook P.O.SOX ISO 2000MAW STREST CALIFORNIA 23-7r� Tr Joe Carchio August ll, 2008 Q1 coerper cothy Grem Don lansca The Honorable Jim Silva California State Assembly State Capitol Building,Room 3147 Sacramento,CA 95814 RE: Proposats to Balance the State Budget Using Redevelopment Agency Funds Dear Assemblyman Sba: I write today to eVress my opposition to recent proposals that would taW redevelopment funds to help balance the California State BudgeL Cutting funding for redevelopment during a time of economic downturn is short-sighted. In a typical year, redevelopment Inw%ftents in California generate about$32 billion in total economic activity,nearly$1.6 billion In state and local tam,and support 310,000 Jobs,mostly in construction, Redevelopment projects in Huntington Beach that have had a dramatic[Mp2Ct on our local economy,created jobs,and provided for future sustainability of the city are projects such w. • the Waterfront development that Includes the Hilton, Hyatt and at future hotel; • the Strand and Pacific City projects that add additional commercial umm In the downtown; and • the Bella Tom prqJW In the northern part of our city. Though a specift formula proposed for calculating each redevelopment agency's share of the $200 million annual is isn't currently available.a calculation prepared by the California Redevelopment Association gives us an idea of what It would cost Huntington Beach in terms of redevelopment projects and plans. For the City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency, it would mean appiroximately$60.000 would be taken each year. An annual t*6 of this magnitude translates Into very real consequences to the vitality of our community and your constituitnts'quality of fife. For example,the ability of the Agency to issue bonds will be Impacted due to the reduction of funds made available for debt service over the long-term. TELEPHONE(714)536-5553 X%aitakerr. 'kew Zealand FAX(714)53&d= State"at Z 8/112009 Because,of concerns that cut in redevelopment apncles revenue vA have a:negate erect on the s 's memo",,I strorely urge you to oppose any pmposat to,take#ws a tuni#s, Pleaw. helpp uss�rretit nodevelopment apnolss can continue to use ftir ources ft the ent of#mdir comm tunbo tough vbI community kftsbuckwa.nit ,and. housing Sinceney, Debbie+Cry Mayer CL y Couna7. Paul Enemy,kftdm Cyr Administivor !.segue of Caithrnm Con Chuck G©%,Advoce#lon, J'A City of Himmulagtorl ne�ELOIR P.0.BOX f9O ZOOO MAIN STRSET CALIFORNIA 92660 T<eith Joe Carchio August 11, 2008 (lit caemcr Cathy C3%vn "on 141irser. Jill Hart-Ty Senator Tom Harman Senate District 35 State Capitol, Room 2052 Sacramento,CA 95814 RE: Proposals to Balama the State Budget Using Red rvtopment AGOVICY Ftmds Dear Senator Harman: I write today to express my opposition to recent proposals that would take redevelopment funds to help balance the California State Budget. Cutting funding for redevelopment during a time of economic downturn is short-sighted. In a typical year, redevelopment Investments In California generate about$32 billion In total economic activity,rtearly$1.6 billion in state and local tans,and support 310,000 jobs,mostly in construction. Redevelopment projects In Huntington Beach that have had a dramatic impact on our kxml economy,created jobs,and provided for future sustainability of the city are projects such as: • the Waterfront developmerit that Includes the Hilton. Hyatt, and a future hotel; • the Strand and Pacific City projects that add additional commercial uses in to downtown: alnd • the Belle Terra proJW In the northern part of our city. Though a specft formula proposed for calculating each redevelopment agency's share of the $200 million annual take lsnl currently available,a calculation prepared by the California Redevftpmerd Association gives us an Idea of what it would cost Huntington Beach In terms of redevelowent projects and plans. For the City of Huntington Beach PAxWelopment Agency,it would mean approximately$6W,000 would be taken each year. An annual take of this magnitude banslates Oft very real consequences to the vitality of our community and your constituents'qwft of We. For example,the ability of the Agency to Issue bonds vAH be Impacted due to the reduction of funds made available for debt service over the long-term. TELEPHONE(7141536-5593 Wailjl,err. New Zraldild VAX(7t4) Shme Budge 2 &q3r2OO& Beeauee of ommms that oLds in re�ntent sgency n r?srrerwa�n�_isw� etiue on #0 y,1� urn you to oppow any,proposel.to theseltinft Pose help us enum that tedeivelopy agendes can conhimto u for the bettermat of their m mu n es ftaugh vital+comtemr*Wrastructme.mvitaftatiom and icing prCdects. Sint, CMK,Mayw xO: city Coundl Paaul Emery, Int flm City Admin trator Leaguemcin Cities Chuck Admmfti,Inc. �. ,< s,,ks 1 � '.) ; - "" AB 2427 Assembly Bill -ENROLLED Page 1 of 2 BILL NUMBER: AB 2427 ENROLLED BILL TEXT PASSED THE SENATE AUGUST 18, 2008 PASSED THE ASSEMBLY AUGUST 19, 2008 AMENDED IN SENATE AUGUST 11, 2008 AMENDED IN SENATE JULY 1, 2008 INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Eng FEBRUARY 21, 2008 An act to amend Section 460 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to professions and vocations. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 2427, Eng. Professions and vocations. Existing law makes it unlawful for a city or county to prohibit a person, authorized by one of the agencies of the Department of Consumer Affairs to engage in a particular business, from engaging in that business, occupation, or profession or any portion thereof. This bill would also make it unlawful for a city or county or city and county to prohibit a healing arts licensee from engaging in any act or performing any procedure that falls within the professionally recognized scope of practice of that licensee, but would prohibit construing this provision to prohibit the enforcement of a local ordinance effective prior to January 1, 2009, as specified, or to prohibit local time, manner, or place of business operations regulations. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 460 of the Business and Professions Code is amended to read: 460. (a) No city or county shall prohibit a person or group of persons, authorized by one of the agencies in the Department of Consumer Affairs by a license, certificate, or other such means to engage in a particular business, from engaging in that business, occupation, or profession or any portion thereof. (b) No city or county or city and county shall prohibit a healing arts professional licensed with the state under Division 2 (commencing with Section 500) from engaging in any act or performing any procedure that falls within the professionally recognized scope of practice of that licensee. (1) Nothing in this subdivision shall prohibit any city, county, or city and county from regulating the time, manner, or place of business operations of a healing arts professional licensed under Division 2 (commencing with Section 500) . (2) Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to prohibit the enforcement of a local ordinance effective prior to January 1, 2009, related to any act or procedure that falls within the professionally recognized scope of practice of a healing arts professional licensed under Division 2 (commencing with Section 500) . (c) Nothing in this section shall prohibit any city or county or city and county from levying a business license tax solely for revenue purposes, nor any city or county from levying a license tax solely for the purpose of covering the cost of regulation. http://info.sen.ca.goy/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_2401-2450/ab_2427 bill 20080822 enrolled.html 8/27/2008 AB 2427 Assembly Bill - ENROLLED Page 2 of 2 http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_2401-2450/ab 2427 bill_20080822_enrolled.html 8/27/2008 � <�y.w«. 22_c . >��� : � � :«« � «- w% ° �.:�. <�������� � �\ \��� ƒ. ° \ / \ ` � � � � \\�\ ��� A& , « » : , � ` ^ -�k �.. , . , y , A�� �/ � ƒ < » . � \ ` , \ �[� \ � ^ ��\ : . \ . �\� » . \ %: a . . . :>� . . . . w . � � � . . g }�r . + 3 � >y y��> �: � �y\�� .� » .y§ < \� . \2 �y a. �. �. � . �+�, . . � . .:. . . �» �y . . �. , . . . . < � : . . �, . � . . .�:..d� . »��< � xy. ,y� L E` ` U E 1400 K Street, Suite 400 • Sacramento, California 95814 OF CALIFORNIA T Z T Phone: 916.658.8200 Fax: 916.658.8240 CITIESJ www.cacities.org August 22, 2008 The Honorable Arnold Schwarzenegger Governor, State of California State Capitol, First Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: AB 2427 (Eng)—Professions and Vocations Request for Veto Dear Governor Schwarzenegger: The League of California Cities strongly opposes AB 2427 and requests your veto of this measure. AB 2427 would amend Section 460 of the Business and Professions Code. Under current law, this section imposes certain restrictions on local agencies' authority to limit businesses and occupations that are licensed through the Department of Consumer Affairs(DCA).AB 2427 would further ban cities and counties from prohibiting a person or"group of persons"within the healing arts profession that is licensed through the DCA"from engaging in any act or performing any procedure that falls within the professionally recognized scope of practice of that licensee." On the Senate floor, the bill was narrowed to protect a local government's ability to regulate "time, manner and place". However, because the bill does not define this term, the bill in its present form would leave local governments with a very ambiguous term that would open local governments to expensive lawsuits as courts struggle to interpret the Legislature's intent. The League is concerned that this measure inappropriately and broadly preempts the enforcement of local police powers. While we respect the authority of the DCA to confer licenses on individuals deemed fit and qualified to engage in certain professions and occupations, we do not believe the authority to determine fitness and qualifications through a licensing process should be unassailable. We regard the authority and responsibility to regulate the operation of business and professions, where appropriate to address local concerns, as necessary functions of local government. For these reasons, the League respectfully requests your veto of AB 2427. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at(916)658-8252. Sincerely, 4r, f 0&r� Kyra Ross Legislative Representative League of CA Cities cc: Govemor's Office of Planning and Research Paul Navarro, Office of the Governor s. 3 ; SUMMARY The Safe Neighborhoods Act is a comprehensive criminal penalty and public safety funding initiative that targets criminal street gangs, felons with guns, and drug dealers with focused penalties, and provides sustainable funding to our local police, sheriffs, and prosecutors. It also increases public accountability for gang intervention and prevention programs. Public Accountability: ■ Creates an early intervention accountability commission to evaluate early intervention and rehabilitation programs for gangs to emphasize what programs are effectively spending public funds, and what programs are wasting tax dollars so that they can be eliminated. Taxpayers deserve this type of accountability. Dangerous Illegal Immigrants: • Prohibits illegal immigrants, who are arrested for violent felonies or gang crimes, from being released on bail or on their own recognizance without a judicial hearing. Criminal Penalties on Gangs: ■ Imposes a 10-year penalty increase on gang offenders who commit violent felonies. ■ Requires convicted gang offenders to register with local law enforcement each year for five years following conviction or their release from custody. ■ Increases penalties for possession, possession for sale, and sale of methamphetamine to the same level as cocaine. ■ Streamlines civil gang injunction process and increases penalties for violations. ■ Increases penalties for multiple acts of gang-related graffiti. ■ Requires that gang offenders previously convicted of car theft or joy riding be subject to a felony penalty for any subsequent car theft or joy riding offense. ■ Enhances penalties for individuals providing contraband to gang members in prison. Section 8 Housing Compliance: ■ The Safe Neighborhoods Act ensures that anyone receiving public housing benefits (Section 8)who is'caught buying or selling drugs, who is involved in gang activity, or illegally in possession of firearms will lose their public housing benefits. It requires an annual criminal background check as a condition of housing benefits. Intervention and Rehabilitation ■ The measure provides funding for local law enforcement-run after school programs. ■ Creates a mentoring and job training program to help parolees succeed upon release. Criminal Penalties for llle_aal Guns: • Strengthens the 10-20-Life law to penalize not only offenders who personally use firearms in the commission of certain felonies but their accomplices as well. ■ Goes after cop-killers by adding 10 years to dangerous felons who carry loaded or concealed firearms in public. ■ Adopts "Use a gun and lose a-car"—when car is used in crime, gun is in the car, and registered owner is involved. Victim Protection: • Protects children from gang predators by increasing penalties for gang recruitment of juveniles. ■ Authorizes admission of sworn statements by witnesses to gang crimes who die or are unavailable to testify at the time of prosecution because of flight or intimidation. ■ Protects victims by strengthening Department of Justice Witness Protection Program. ■ Establishes statewide reimbursement program for information leading to arrest or conviction of criminal offenders. ■ Creates a victim services website. Community Policin_g ■ The Safe Neighborhoods Act provides the programs and resources essential to community-based policing. . ■ Expands Neighborhoods Watch programs statewide. • Informs and involves citizens in public safety through multi-media education. Safe Neighborhood Public Safety Funding: • Provides funding for GPS tracking equipment for monitoring gang offenders, sex offenders, and violent offenders. • Adds resources to violent gang prosecution programs at the local level. ■ Funding for county sheriffs for jails and gang enforcement. ■ Enhanced city police enforcement targeting gangs and violent crime. ■ Multi-agency gang taskforces and gang enforcement training for peace officers. ■ Resources to county probation targeting high-risk probationers with weapons and caseload ratios. ■ Multi-agency narcotic taskforces with an emphasis on border interdiction. i, fil r' 3j�3j'SL,�.� Y3i'3,l�l3� Y � Y p «r �, ,. ry� „.a 1 ,,,: ..wmc ;;, :�r r1. ;1�1,�L; �! ! ! y 3 ,. psi,, 4 G � ���� .��.. 9 y rk�c � r ,,k�. ,,, r� - a �. :.. � m �.,, � v �s � �, _- , Legislative Analyst's Office 7/11/20081:00 PM FINAL Proposition 6 Criminal Penalties and Laws. Public Safety Funding. Statute. Background Criminal Justice Programs and Funds. State and local governments share responsi- bility for operating and funding various parts of California's criminal justice system. Generally,the state funds and operates prisons,parole,and the courts while local gov- ernments are responsible for community law enforcement,such as police, sheriff,and criminal prosecutions. The state supports some criminal justice activities that have traditionally been a local responsibility. In 2007-08,the state allocated hundreds of millions of dollars for local criminal justice programs. This includes$439 million for three such programs,the Citi= zens'Option for Public Safety,the Juvenile justice Crime Prevention Act,and Juvenile Probation and Camps Funding. The state also administers the State Penalty Fund which collects revenues from fees assessed to some criminal offenders.These funds are disbursed for various purposes, including restitution to crime victims and peace officer training.Also,a portion is trans- ferred to the state General Fund. Criminal Sentencing Laws.State laws define three kinds of crimes: felonies,misde- meanors,and infractions.A felony is the most serious type of crime. State laws specify the penalty options available for each crime,such as the maximum sentence of impris- onment in county jail or state prison. About 18 percent of persons convicted of a felony are sent to state prison. Other felons are supervised on probation in the community, sentenced to county jail,pay a fine,or have some combination of these punishments. The state operates 33 state prisons and other facilities that had a combined adult in- mate population of about 171,000 as of May 2008. The costs to operate the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation in 2008-09 are estimated to be approxi- mately$10 billion. The average annual cost to incarcerate an inmate is estimated to be about$46,000.The state prison system is currently experiencing overcrowding because there are not enough permanent beds available for all inmates. As a result,gymnasiums and other rooms in state prisons have been converted to house some inmates. Supervision of Parolees and Sex Offenders. Offenders who have been convicted of a felony and serve their time in state prison are supervised on parole by the state after their release. State policies determine the number of parole agents and other staff neces- sary to supervise these parolees. Proposition 83 (commonly referred to as"Jessica's Law")was approved by the vot- ers in November 2006.Among other changes relating to sex offenders,the proposition requires that certain persons who have been convicted of a felony sex offense be moni- Page 1 of 7 Legislative Analyst's Office 7/11/20081:00 PM FINAL tored by a Global Positioning System (GPS)device while on parole and for the remain- der of their lives. The proposition did not specify whether state or local governments would be responsible for paying for the GPS supervision costs after these offenders are discharged from state parole supervision. Proposal This measure makes several changes to current laws relating to California's criminal justice system. The most significant of these changes are described below. Required Spending Levels for Certain New and Existing Criminal Justice Programs. The proposal creates new state-funded criminal justice programs.The measure also re- quires that funding for certain existing programs be at least continued at their 2007-08 levels. In total,the measure requires state spending of at least$965 million for specified criminal justice programs beginning in 2009-10. This amount reflects an increase in funding of$365 million compared to the amount provided in the 2007-08 Budget Act. Figure 1 summarizes the increase in state spending required by this measure,generally beginning in 2009-10. Figure 1 Proposition 6 Required Spending Levels for New and Existing Criminal Justice Programs Affected by This Measure (In Millions) Current Spending ' Lovel Proposition 8 'Chattige , Local law enforcementa $187 $406 $219 Local juvenile programs 413b 479 66 New offender rehabilitation programs — 23 23 and evaluations New crime victim assistance programs — 13 13 Other new state programs — 45 45 Totals $600 $965 $365 a Local law enforcement includes funding directed to police,sheriffs,district attorneys,adult probation, and jails. b Includes$93 million for the Youthful Offender Block Grant as authorized by current law for 2009-10. Detail may not total due to rounding. Most of the new state spending required by this measure would be for local law en- forcement activities,directed primarily to police,sheriffs,district attorneys,jails,and probation offices. The remaining new state spending would be provided for local juve- nile programs,offender rehabilitation,crime victim assistance,and other state criminal Page 2 of 7 Legislative Analyst's Office 7/11/20081:00 PM FINAL justice programs. Specifically,the measure requires new state spending for such pur- poses as: • Increased supervision of adult probationers by counties ($65 million); • Juvenile facility repair and renovation and the operation of county probation programs for youth($50 million); • City law enforcement efforts to target various crimes,including violent,gang, and gun crimes ($30 million); • Prosecution of violent,gang,and vehicle theft crimes ($25 million); • The construction and operation of county jails ($25 million); • Assisting county sheriff and mid-size city police agencies to participate in county,regional,and statewide enforcement activities and programs ($20 million); • Programs to assist parolees in their reentry into communities ($20 million). The measure prohibits the state or local governments from using the new funding to replace funds now used for the same purposes.In addition,the measure requires that future funding for most of these new and existing programs be adjusted annually for inflation. In addition,this measure redistributes the State Penalty Fund in a way that increases training support for peace officers,corrections staff,prosecutors,and public defenders, as well as various crime victims'services programs,while eliminating the existing transfer of the money to the state General Fund. About$14 million was transferred from the State Penalty Fund to the General Fund in 2007-08. The measure also requires that Youthful Offender Block Grant funds—provided by the state to house,supervise,and provide various types of treatment services to juveniles—be distributed to county pro- bation offices and eliminates existing provisions that permit these funds to be provided directly to drug treatment,mental health,or other county departments. This measure also creates a new state office in part to distribute public service an- nouncements about crime rates and criminal justice statutes,such as the"Three Strikes and You're Out"law,and establishes a commission to evaluate publicly funded early intervention and rehabilitation programs designed to reduce crime. Increased Penalties for Certain Crimes.The measure increases criminal penalties for certain crimes,as well as creates some new felonies and misdemeanors.These changes to penalties include crimes related to gang participation and recruitment,intimidation of individuals involved in court proceedings,possession and sale of methampheta- mines,vehicle theft,removing or disabling a GPS device,and firearms possession. These and other proposed increases in penalties would likely result in more offenders being sentenced to state prison or jail for a longer period of time for the crimes specified Page 3 of 7 Legislative Analyst's Office 7/11/20081:00 PM FINAL in the measure. Figure 2 lists some examples of increased penalties and new crimes cre- ated by this measure. Figure 2 Proposition 6 Examples of Increased Penalties and New Crimes Created by This Measure agog IPctpt�n": • Gang membersa convicted of home robbery,carjacking,extortion,or threats to witnesses would be subject to life terms in prison. • Adds additional five years in prison for gang recruitment if the person recruited was under the age of 14. • Doubles penalties for inmates who commit a felony as part of a gang. • Ten-year additional penalty for gang members who attempt to commit violent crimes. • Failure to register as a gang member with local law enforcement would be a felony or misdemeanor,depending on the underlying conviction. Wp in At • Defines possession of methamphetamines as a felony.(This crime currently can be prosecuted as a misdemeanor or a felony.)b • Increases prison term for sale,possession for sale,and transportation of methamphetamines generally by one year. ,,, a ......, ,.,,,,,..2 .., .,...].v,� .� ,fi;..w ✓,�„ .. .. ...,._ • Adds additional year in prison for car theft if theft was for purpose of selling the stolen car. • Allows law enforcement authorities to impound vehicles for up to 60 days when a gun used in a clime is found in one. • Generally prohibits probation for a conviction of car theft if the offender has multiple prior convictions for car theft. n r '.33 5 yy '� f'y�ff / Tin�v. 'Si� 3 ''u� �n k»• l� 3 fW + }73J7 4,u ... • Up to four-year prison term for intimidating a witness,judge,or other person for participating in a court proceeding. • Unauthorized removal of an offender's GPS device that is required under exist- ing law or worn as a condition of probation or parole would be a misdemeanor or felony,depending on the underlying conviction. • Ten additional years in prison for possession of a concealed weapon by certain convicted felons. a Generally as defined in Penal Code 186.22. b Measure does not change eligibility for some offenders for drug treatment diversion under Proposi- tion 36. Various Changes to State Parole Policies.The measure makes several changes to state parole policies. Among the most significant changes to state parole is a reduction in the average parolee caseload of parole agents from about 70 parolees per parole agent to 50 parolees per parole agent. The measure also requires the state to pay the cost of GPS monitoring of sex offenders after their discharge from parole supervision. Page 4 of 7 Legislative Analyst's Office 7/11/20081:00 PM FINAL Other Criminal Justice Changes.The measure makes several other changes to state laws affecting the criminal justice system.The more significant changes are summarized below: • Gang Databases. The measure requires the state to develop two databases related to gang information for the use of law enforcement agencies. • Hearsay Evidence. In general,the testimony of a witness is considered hearsay when it repeats someone's previous statement for the purpose of proving that the content of that statement is true. Hearsay evidence is not admissible in court except under limited circumstances. The measure would expand the circumstances in which hearsay evidence is admissible in court,especially in cases where someone has intimidated or otherwise tampered with a witness. • Gang Injunction Procedures.The measure changes legal procedures to make it easier for local law enforcement agencies to bring lawsuits against members of street gangs to prevent them from engaging in criminal activi- ties and makes violation of such court-ordered injunctions a new and separate crime punishable by fines,prison,or jail. • Criminal Background Checks for Public Housing Residents.Among other state expenditures,this measure provides$10 million annually for grants to governmental agencies responsible for enforcing compliance with pub- lic housing occupancy requirements.Agencies that accepted these funds would be required to conduct criminal background checks of all public housing residents at least once per year. • Temporary Housing for Offenders.The measure permits counties with overcrowded jails to operate temporary jail and treatment facilities to house offenders.These temporary facilities would be required to meet lo- cal health and safety codes that apply to residences. • Release of Undocumented Persons.This measure prohibits a person charged with a violent or gang-related felony from being released on bail or his or her own recognizance pending trial if he or she is illegally in the United States. • Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council Membership.Each county that re- ceives state funds for certain juvenile crime prevention grant programs currently must have a juvenile justice coordinating council that develops a comprehensive plan on how to provide services and supervision to juve- nile offenders. This measure changes who may participate on the council. For example,counties would no longer be required to include representa- tives of community-based substance abuse treatment programs. Page 5 of 7 Legislative Analyst's Office 7/11/20081:00 PM FINAL • Juveniles in Adult Court.The measure would expand the circumstances under which juveniles would be eligible for trial in an adult criminal court,rather than the juvenile court system,for certain gang-related of- fenses. Fiscal Effects This measure would have significant fiscal effects on both the state and local gov- ernments. The most significant fiscal effects are summarized in Figure 3 and discussed in more detail below. These fiscal estimates could change due to pending federal court litigation or budget actions. Figure 3 Proposition 6 Summary of Fiscal Effects on State and Local Governments Fiscal Effects Amount Increase in net annual state costs More than$500 million within first few years, primarily for the following: which would grow by tens of millions of dol- • Required spending of lars annually in subsequent years. $965 million for certain new and existing criminal justice pro- grams,an increase of $365 million. • Requirement that certain crimi- nal justice program spending in- crease annually with inflation. • Increased penalties for certain crimes resulting in higher prison population. • Increased parole costs due to reduced caseload requirements. Additional one-time state capital Potentially more than$500 million. outlay costs for prison facilities. Costs and savings to state trial Unknown net fiscal impact. courts,county jails,and other criminal justice agencies. Required Spending Levels for Certain New and Existing Criminal Justice Programs. The measure requires state spending for various state and local criminal justice pro- grams totaling about$965 million beginning in 2009-10,an increase of$365 million compared to 2007-08. We estimate that this amount will increase by about$100 million in about five years due to the measure's provisions that require that state funding for certain programs be adjusted each year for inflation. In addition,the redistribution of Page 6 of 7 Legislative Analyst's Office 7/11/20081:00 PM FINAL the State Penalty Fund could result in about a$14 million loss in state General Fund revenues compared to the 2007-08 budget. Increased Penalties for Certain Crimes;Parole Policy Changes.Various provisions of this measure would result in additional state costs to operate the prison and parole system.These costs are likely to grow to at least a couple hundred million dollars annu- ally after a number of years.These increased costs are mainly due to provisions that in- crease penalties for gang,methamphetamines,vehicle theft,and other crimes,as well as provisions that decrease parole agent caseloads and require the state to pay for the cost of GPS monitoring for sex offenders discharged from parole supervision. State Capital Outlay Costs.The provisions increasing criminal penalties for certain crimes could also result in additional one-time capital outlay costs,primarily related to prison construction and renovation. The magnitude of these one-time costs is unknown but potentially could exceed$500 million. State Trial Courts, County jails,and Other Criminal Justice Agencies. This measure could have significant fiscal effects on state trial courts,county jails,and other criminal justice agencies,potentially resulting in both new costs and savings. The net fiscal effect of its various provisions is unknown as discussed further below. On the one hand,the measure could result in increased costs to the extent that the additional funding provided for local law enforcement activities results in more offend- ers being arrested,prosecuted,and incarcerated in local jails or state prisons.There could also be additional jail costs for holding undocumented offenders arrested for vio- lent or gang-related crimes who would no longer be eligible for bail or release on their own recognizance.The measure's provision permitting the use of temporary jail and treatment facilities could result in additional costs to counties to purchase,renovate, and operate such temporary facilities. The magnitude of these costs would depend pri- marily on the number and size of new temporary facilities utilized by counties. On the other hand,the measure provides some additional funding for prevention and intervention programs designed to reduce the likelihood that individuals will commit new crimes. To the degree that these programs are successful,they could result in fewer offenders being arrested,prosecuted,and incarcerated in local jails or state prisons than would otherwise occur. Additionally,the measure's provisions increasing criminal penalties for specified crimes could reduce costs related to courts and other criminal justice agencies by deterring some offenders from committing new crimes. Other Impacts on State and Local Governments.Other savings to the state and local government agencies could result to the extent that offenders imprisoned for longer pe- riods under the measure's provisions require fewer government services,or commit fewer crimes that result in victim-related government costs.Alternatively,there could be an offsetting loss of revenue to the extent that offenders serving longer prison terms would no longer become taxpayers under current law. The extent and magnitude of these impacts are unknown. Page 7 of 7 RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Administration SUBJECT: Intergovernmental Relations Recommendations COUNCIL MEETING DATE: Sept. 15, 2008 RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Attached Not Applicable Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) Attached ❑ (Signed in full by the City Attome Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. Attached El (Approved as to form by City Attome Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Attached Not Applicable Fiscal Impact Statement (Unbudgeted, over$5,000) Attached Not Ap licable Bonds (If applicable) Attached El Not Applicable Staff Report (If applicable) Attached ❑ Not Ap licable Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Attached El Not Applicable Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Attached Not Applicable EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS REVIEWED RETURNED FOR A DED Administrative Staff Assistant City Administrator Initial City Administrator Initial City Clerk EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM: (BelowOnly) RCA Author: Dapkus