HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Position on Legislation -League of California Cities An I / X�177'1�11—,- /nAiy ram/
Dept. ID AD-13-025 Page 1 of 3
Meeting Date: 9/16/2013
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
�= n REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: 9/16/2013
SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY: Fred A. Wilson, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Teri Baker, Assistant to the City Manager
SUBJECT: Approve City Position on Certain Legislation for League of California Cities
Resolution #1 -Water Bond Funds and Resolution #2 - Public Safety
Realignment, AB 1102, SB211, and SB 594 as recommended by the
Intergovernmental Relations Committee (IRC)
Statement of Issue:
On September 4, 2013, the Intergovernmental Relations Committee (IRC) recommended City
positions on certain legislation as follows:
League of California Cities Annual Conference Resolutions:
Resolution #1 —Water Bond Funds
Resolution #2— Public Safety Realignment
IRC Recommendation: Authorize the City's voting delegates to vote at the League of
California Cities Conference in September in support of the League's Resolutions #1
and #2.
AB 1102 (Allen and Quirk Silva) — South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) —
Beach Burning. IRC Recommendation: Support
SB 211 (Price)— Franchise Tax Board and Cities— Disclosure of information.
IRC Recommendation: Support
SB 594 (Hill) - Limiting Ballot Advocacy by Local Government Organizations. (As amended
8/7/2013): IRC Recommendation: Support the League of California Cities position on the bill
Financial Impact: N/A
Recommended Action:
A) Authorize the City's Voting Delegates (Mayor Pro Tern Matthew Harper and Council
Member Joe Carchio and Council Member Joe Shaw as alternates 2 and 3,
respectively) to vote at the League of California Cities Annual Conference in September
in support of the League's Resolution #1 — Water Bond Funds and Resolution #2 —
Public Safety Realignment; and,
B) Authorize the Mayor to sign letters of support as necessary on behalf of the City for
Item 2. - 1 HB -20-
Dept.ID AD-13-025 Page 2 of 3
Meeting Date:9/16/2013
AB 1102 (Allen and Quirk Silva) — South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) — Beach Burning; and,
C) Authorize the Mayor to sign letters of support as necessary on behalf of the City for
SB 211 (Price) — Franchise Tax Board and Cities— Disclosure of information; and,
D) Authorize the Mayor to sign letters on behalf of the City which support the League of
California Cities position on SB 594 (Hill) - Limiting Ballot Advocacy by Local
Government Organizations (As amended 91412013).
Alternative Action(s):
Do not authorize the voting delegates to vote in support of one or more of the League of California
Cities Resolutions or authorize the Mayor to sign one or more of letters of support/opposition and
direct staff accordingly.
Analysis:
1. League of California Cities Resolutions. At their Annual Conference in September, the
League of California Cities will consider two resolutions. The League is encouraging each
city council to determine a city position so the city's voting delegate can represent the city
on each of the following resolutions (Attachment 1):
Resolution #1 —Water Bond Funds — Environmental Quality Policy Committee
Resolution calling upon the Governor and Legislature to work with the League in
providing adequate funding and to prioritize water bonds to assist local governments
in water conservation, ground water recharge, and re-use of storm water and urban
runoff programs.
Resolution #2 — Public Safety Realignment— Public Safety Policy Committee
Resolution calling upon Governor and Legislature to enter into discussions with the
League and Police Chief's Association Representatives to identify and enact
strategies that will ensure the success of public safety realignment from a local
municipal law enforcement perspective.
2. AB 1102 (Allen and Quirk Silva) — South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
— Beach Burning. (Attachment 2)
In July, the SCAQMD Board approved a rule amendment restricting the distance of wood
burning fire rings on the beach from residential properties. This bill would prohibit the
AQMD from enacting a rule that prohibits a person from engaging in a beach burning for
recreational, ceremonial, or open burring conducted in a public coastal area marked by an
accumulation of sand.
Assembly Member Allen's Office has requested the City's support on this bill.
3. SB 211 (Price) — Franchise Tax Board and Cities— Disclosure of information.
(Attachment 3)
This measure will eliminate the sunset on a provision of law authorizing reciprocal
agreements between cities and the Franchise Tax Board (FTB) thus allowing the disclosure
of limited confidential tax information for the specific purpose of enhancing local and state
tax enforcement agencies. The bill also clarifies that cites may contract with third party
agent in pursuing such activities.
xB -21- Item 2. - 2
Dept.ID AD-13-025 Page 3 of 3
Meeting Date:9/16/2013
The City of Huntington Beach has participated in the FTB data exchange program since
2006. Though we currently process this data in-house, we recognize the importance of
having the option of utilizing a third party for revenue recovery in the future. Support of this
bill will allow the City of Huntington Beach to work with a consultant for revenue recovery
purposes.
4. SIB 594 (Hill) .- Limiting Ballot Advocacy by Local Government Organizations. (As amended
812112013) (Attachment 4)
The League of California Cities is recently set out to build a strong coalition opposing SIB
594 as amended on August 7, 2013, which would have prohibited nonprofit organizations
from using, or permitting another to use, public resources from a local agency for campaign
activities. The measure also significantly restricted nonprofit organization's ability to
sponsor, support/oppose, or participate in a ballot measure collation or support candidates if
it received public resources for operating expenses or services. Senator Hill amended the
bill further on August 21 to include school districts, superintendents and community college
districts under its provisions.
Because of the urgency of the matter being heard by the Assembly Appropriations
Committee on Friday, August 30, Mayor Boardman was asked to sign a letter of
opposition on behalf of herself as Mayor of Huntington Beach. Fortunately, as a
result of overwhelming opposition, the Assembly Appropriations Committee
approved a substantially amended version of SB 594. The bill no longer redefines
"public funds" in a broad way that captures currently nonpublic revenues that many
associations use for ballot campaign advocacy. The amendments reflect the
League's commitment to transparency and disclosure while retaining the ability to be
active in state ballot measures campaigns to protect local funds and services.
SIB 594 will now be heard on the Assembly floor. Although the League and its
coalition partners have been satisfied with the amendments, they will not remove
their opposition until the bill is in print. The League is encouraging cities to do the
same.
Environmental Status: N/A
Strategic Plan Goal:
Improve long-term financial sustainability
Attachment(s):
1. League of California Cities Resolution #1 — Water Bond Funds — Environmental Quality
Policy Committee and Resolution #2 — Public Safety Realignment — Public Safety Policy
Committee
2. AB 1102 (Allen and Quirk Silva) — South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) — Beach Burning.
3. SIB 211 (Price) — Franchise Tax Board and Cities— Disclosure of information.
4. SIB 594 (Hill) - Limiting Ballot Advocacy by Local Government Organizations. (As
amended 91412013)
Item 2. - 3 xB -22-
ATTACHMENT # 1
Hd 2 ,temz 4
2013 ANNUAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION REFERRED TO ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY POLICY COMMITTEE
1. RESOLUTION CALLING UPON THE GOVERNOR AND THE LEGISLATURE TO WORK
WITH THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES IN PROVIDING ADEQUATE FUNDING
AND TO PRIORITIZE WATER BONDS TO ASSIST LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN WATER
CONSERVATION, GROUND WATER RECHARGE AND REUSE OF STORMWATER AND
URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAMS.
Source: Los Angeles County Division
Concurrence of five or more cities/city officials: Cities of Alhambra; Cerritos; Claremont; Glendora;
Lakewood;La Mirada; La Verne;Norwalk; Signal Hill;Mary Ann Lutz,Mayor,city of Monrovia.
Referred to: Environmental Quality Policy Committee
Recommendations to General Resolutions Committee: Approve
WHEREAS,local governments play a critical role in providing water conservation, ground water
recharge and reuse of stormwater infrastructure,including capture and reuse of stormwater for their citizens,
businesses and institutions; and
WHEREAS,local governments support the goals of the Clean Water Act to ensure safe, clean
water supply for all and the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency has encouraged local governments to
implement programs to capture, infiltrate and treat stormwater and urban runoff with the use of low impact
development ordinances, green street policies and programs to increase the local ground water supply
through stormwater capture and infiltration programs; and
WHEREAS, local governments also support the State's water quality objectives,specifically
Section 13241of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, on the need to maximize the use of
reclaimed and water reuse and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards and the State Water Resources
Board encourage rainwater capture efforts; and
WHEREAS,the State's actions working through the water boards, supported by substantial
Federal, State and local investments,have led to a dramatic decrease in water pollution from wastewater
treatment plants and other so-called"point sources"since 1972. However,the current threats to the State's
water quality are far more difficult to solve, even as the demand for clean water increases from a growing
population and an economically important agricultural industry; and
WHEREAS,the State's Little Hoover Commission found in 2009 that more than 30,000 stormwater
discharges are subject to permits regulating large and small cities, counties, construction sites and industry.
The Commission found that a diverse group of water users—the military, small and large businesses,home
builders and local governments and more—face enormous costs as they try to control and limit stormwater
pollution. The Commission concluded that the costs of stormwater clean up are enormous and that the costs
of stormwater pollution are greater, as beach closures impact the State's economy and environmental
damage threatens to impair wildlife;and
WHEREAS, at the same time that new programs and projects to improve water quality are
currently being required by the U.S. EPA and the State under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System(NPDES)permits and the Total Daily Maximum Load(TMDL)programs, many local governments
find that they lack the basic infrastructure to capture, infiltrate and reuse stormwater and cities are facing
difficult economic challenges while Federal and State financial assistance has been reduced due to the
impacts of the recession and slow economic recovery; and
6
Item 2. - 5 HB -24-
WHEREAS,cities have seen their costs with the new NPDES permit requirements double and
triple in size in the past year, with additional costs anticipated in future years. Additionally,many local
businesses have grown increasingly concerned about the costs of retrofitting their properties to meet
stormwater and runoff requirements required under the NPDES permits and TMDL programs;and
WHEREAS,the League of California Cities adopted water polices in March of 2012, recognizing
that the development and operation of water supply,flood control and storm water management, among
other water functions, is frequently beyond the capacity of local areas to finance and the League found that
since most facilities have widespread benefits, it has become the tradition for Federal,State and local
governments to share their costs(XIV, Financial Considerations); and the League supports legislation
providing funding for stormwater and other water programs; and
WHEREAS,the Governor and the Legislature are currently contemplating projects for a water
bond and a portion of the bond could be directed to assist local government in funding and implementing the
goals of the Clean Water Act and the State's water objectives of conserving and reusing stormwater in order
to improve the supply and reliability of water supply; and now therefore let it be
RESOLVED by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities, assembled in Sacramento
on September 20, 20I3,that the League calls for the Governor and the Legislature to work with the League
and other stakeholders to provide adequate funding for water conservation, ground water recharge and
capture and reuse of stormwater and runoff in the water bond issue and to prioritize future water bonds to
assist local governments in funding these programs. The League will work with its member cities to educate
federal and state officials to the challenges facing local governments in providing for programs to capture,
infiltrate and reuse stormwater and urban runoff.
llllllllll
Background Information on Resolution No. 1
Source: Los Angeles County Division
Background:
In order to meet the goals of both the Federal Clean Water Act and the State's Porter-Cologne Water
Quality Control Act, which seek to ensure safe clean water supplies, cities provide critical water
conservation,ground water recharge and reuse of stormwater infrastructure, including capture and reuse of
stormwater for their citizens, businesses and institutions.
Working with the State's Regional Water Quality Control Boards and the State Water Resources Board
through the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)permitting process and Total
Maximum Daily Load(TMDL) Programs, California's cities implement programs to capture, infiltrate and
treat stormwater and urban runoff with the use of low impact development ordinances,green streets policies
and other programs to increase the local ground water supply.
These actions have led to a dramatic decrease in water pollution from wastewater treatment plants and other
so-called"point sources"since the adoption of the Clean Water Act in 1972. However,current threats to the
State's"non-point sources"of pollution, such as stormwater and urban runoff are far more difficult to solve,
even as the demand for clean water increases from a growing population and an economically important
agricultural industry.
7
HB -25- Item 2. - 6
Current Problem Facing California's Cities
The Little Hoover Commission found in 2009 that more than 30,000 stormwater discharges are subject to
permits regulating large and small cities, counties,construction sites and industry. The Commission found
that a diverse group of water users—the military,small and large businesses,home builders and local
governments and more—face enormous costs as they try and control and limit stormwater pollution. The
Commission concluded that the costs of stormwater clean up are enormous and that the costs of stormwater
pollution are greater as beach closures impact the state's economy and environmental damage threatens to
impair wildlife.
Additionally, new programs and projects to improve water quality are currently being required by the U.S.
EPA and the State under the NPDES permits and the TMDL programs. Many local governments find that
they lack the basic infrastructure to capture,infiltrate and reuse stormwater and the cities are facing difficult
economic challenges while Federal and State financial assistance has been reduced due to the impacts of the
recession and slow economic recovery.
Cities have seen their costs with the new NPDES permit requirements triple in size in the past year,with
additional costs anticipated in future years. Additionally,many local businesses have grown increasingly
concerned about the costs of retrofitting their properties to meet stormwater and runoff requirements
required under the NPDES permits and TMDL programs.
In Los Angeles County alone,reports commissioned by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District
estimate the costs of achieving region-wide compliance for implementing TMDL programs in the NPDES
permits required by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board(LARWQCB)will be in the
tens of billions of dollars over the next twenty years.Additionally, failure to comply with the LARWQCB's
terms could result in significant Clean Water Act fines, state fines and federal penalties anywhere from
$3,000-$37,500 per day.Violations can also result in third-party litigation. Such costs are not confined to
Los Angeles County and are being realized statewide.
Clearly,compliance with the NPDES permit and TMDL programs will be expensive for 1 ocal governments
over a long period of time and cities lack a stable, long-term, dedicated local funding source to address this
need. Many cities are faced with the choice of either cutting existing services or fording new sources of
revenue to fund the NPDES and TMDL programs.
Los Angeles County Division Resolution
The Division supports strong League education and advocacy at both the State and Federal levels to help
cities face the challenges in providing prograins to capture,infiltrate and reuse stormwater and urban runoff.
While Los Angeles County cities and other regions seek to secure local funding sources to meet the Clean
Water Act and the State's water objectives, it will simply not be enough to meet the enormous costs of
compliance. The Los Angeles County Division strongly believes that State and Federal cooperation are
necessary to fund programs to secure and reuse stormwater in order to improve water supply and reliability
throughout the state.
The Division calls for the League to engage in discussions on 2014 State Water Bond to assist cities in
funding and implementing the goals of the Clean Water Act and the State's Water objectives. This
resolution does not support the 2014 bond issue, since the League and individual cities will need to make
this decision at a later time upon review of the final language. However,the Governor and Legislature have
reopened discussions for the 2014 water bond and funding of urban runoff and stormwater programs has
taken a back seat in past bond issues, such as Proposition 84. In May,Assembly Speaker John Perez
appointed a Water Bond Working Group which recently outlined a new set of Priorities and Accountability
Measures for developing a water bond that would gain the support of 2/3 of the Legislature and voters. One
of the priorities identified by the committee included,"Regional Self Reliance/Integrated Regional Water
8
Item 2. - 7 HB -26-
Management,"posing the question if stormwater capture should be included in any future bonds. The
Division believes the opportunity to advocate for funding in the bond is now.
llllllllll
League of California Cities Staff Analysis on Resolution No. I
Staff: Jason Rhine; (916)658-8264
Committee: Environmental Quality
Summary
This resolution seeks to call upon the Governor and the Legislature to work with the League of California
Cities in providing adequate funding and to prioritize water bonds to assist local governments in water
conservation, ground water recharge and reuse of stormwater and urban runoff programs.
Background:
In 2009, the State Legislature passed and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a package of legislation
that included four policy bills and an$11.1 billion water bond(The Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water
Supply Act). The water bond included the following major spending proposals:
$455 million for drought relief projects, disadvantaged communities, small community wastewater
treatment improvements and safe drinking water revolving fund
$1.4 billion for"integrated regional water management projects"
• $2.25 billion for projects that "support delta sustainability options"
• $3 billion for water storage projects
• $1.7 billion for ecosystem and watershed protection and restoration projects in 21 watersheds
$1 billion for groundwater protection and cleanup
• $1.25 billion for"water recycling and advanced treatment technology projects"
The$11.1 billion bond also included nearly$2 billion in earmarks. Projects slated for funding included:
• $40 million to educate the public about California's water
• $100 million for a Lake Tahoe Environmental Improvement Program for watershed restoration, bike
trails and public access and recreation projects
• $75 million for the Sierra Nevada Conservancy, for public access,education and interpretive
proj ects
• $20 million for the Baldwin Hills Conservancy to be used to buy more land
• $20 million for the Bolsa Chica Wetlands for interpretive projects for visitors
The water bond was originally scheduled to appear on the 2010 ballot as Proposition 18. However,due to
significant criticism over the size of the bond, the amount of earmarked projects, and a lack of public
support, the Legislature has voted twice to postpone the ballot vote. The water bond is now slated for the
November 4, 2014 ballot.
It is unclear whether or not the water bond will actually appear on the November 2014 ballot. In recent
months, pressure has been mounting to postpone the water bond yet again or significantly rewrite the water
bond to drastically reduce the overall size of the bond and remove all earmarks. The Legislature has until
the summer of 2014 to act.
Fiscal Impact:
Unknown. This resolution does not seek a specified appropriation from a water bond.
9
HB -27- Item 2. - 8
Existing League Policy:
In 2008,the League formed a new Water Task Force to consider updates and revision to the Water
Guidelines the League drafted and adopted 20 years earlier. These new Guidelines were formally approved
by the League board of directors in Feb. 2010. Below are the most pertinent policy and guiding principles
related to the proposed resolution. To view the entire water policy guidelines,go to
vrwvv.cacities.org/waterpol icV;uidelines.
General Principles
• The League supports the development of additional groundwater and surface water storage,
including proposed surface storage projects now under study if they are determined to be feasible,
including but not limited to: environmentally, economically,and geographically relating to point of
origin.Appropriate funding sources could include, but are not limited to user fees, bonds and federal
funding.
• The League supports state water policy that allows undertaking aggressive water conservation and
water use efficiency while preserving, and not diminishing,public and constitutional water rights.
Water Conservation
• The League supports the development of a statewide goal to reduce water use by 20%by 2020
through the implementation of fair and equitable measures consistent with these principles. ,
• Accomplishing water conservation and water use efficiency goals will require statewide action by
all water users, including residential,commercial, industrial and agricultural water users,local and
regional planning agencies, state and federal agencies, chambers of commerce, and business,
commercial and industrial professional and trade associations.
Water Recycling
• Wherever feasible,water recycling should be practiced in urban, industrial and agricultural sectors.
This includes increasing the use of recycled water over 2002 levels by at least one million acre-
feet/year(afy)by 2020 and by at least two million afy by 2030.
• Increased recycling,reuse and other refinements in water management practices should be included
in all water supply programs.
Water Storage
• The development of additional surface facilities and use of groundwater basins to store surface
water that is surplus to that needed to maintain State Water Resource Control Board(SWRCB)Bay-
Delta estuary water quality standards should be supported.
Groundwater
• The principle that local entities within groundwater basins (i.e., cities, counties, special districts,and
the regional water quality control boards)working cooperatively should be responsible for and
involved in developing and implementing basin wide groundwater, basin management plans should
be supported.The plans should include, but not be Iimited to: a)protecting groundwater quality;b)
identifying means to correct groundwater overdraft; c)implementing better irrigation techniques; d)
increasing water reclamation and reuse; and e) refining water conservation and other management
practices.
• Financial assistance from state and federal governments should be made available to requesting
I ocal agencies to develop and implement their groundwater management plans.
Financial Considerations
• It is recognized that the development and operation of water supply, water conveyance, flood control
and stonnwater management, water storage, and wastewater treatment facilities is frequently beyond
the capability of local areas to finance;
10
Item 2. - 9 xB -28-
• The League supports legislation to provide funding for stormwater, water and wastewater programs,
including a constitutional amendment which would place stormwater fees in the category of water
and wastewater fees, for the purposes of Proposition 218 compliance.
Support:
New this year,any resolutions submitted to the General Assembly must be concurred in by five cities or by
city officials from at least five or more cities.Those submitting resolutions were asked to provide written
documentation of concurrence.The following letters of concurrence were received: cities of Alhambra;
Cerritos; Claremont; Glendora; Lakewood; La Mirada; La Verne;Norwalk; Signal Hill;and Mary Ann Lutz,
Mayor, city of Monrovia. A letter of support was also received from the California Contract Cities
Association.
RESOLUTION REFERRED TO PUBLIC SAFETY POLICY COMMITTEE
2. RESOLUTION CALLING UPON THE GOVERNOR AND LEGISLATURE TO ENTER INTO
DISCUSSIONS WITH THE LEAGUE AND CALIFORNIA POLICE CHIEFS' ASSOCIATION
REPRESENTATIVES TO IDENTIFY AND ENACT STRATEGIES THAT WILL ENSURE THE
SUCCESS OF PUBLIC SAFETY REALIGNMENT FROM A LOCAL MUNICIPAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT PERSPECTIVE.
Source: Public Safety Policy Committee
Concurrence of five or more cities/city officials; Cities of Arroyo Grande, Covina;Fontana;Glendora;
Monrovia; Ontario; Pismo Beach; and Santa Barbara
Referred to: Public Safety Policy Committee
Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee: Approve
WHEREAS, in October 2011 the Governor proposed the realignment of public safety responsibilities
from state prisons to local government as a way to address recent court orders in response to litigation
related to state prison overcrowding, and to reduce state expenditures;and
WHEREAS,the Governor stated that realignment needed to be fully funded with a constitutionally
protected source of funds if it were to succeed; and
WHEREAS, the Legislature enacted the realignment measures,AB 109 and AB 117,and the
Governor signed them into law without full constitutionally protected funding and liability protection for
stakeholders; and
WHEREAS, California currently has insufficient jail space,probation officers, housing and job
placement programs,medical and mental health facilities, lacks a uniform definition of recidivism; and
utilizes inappropriate convictions used to determine inmate eligibility for participation in the realignment
program; and
WHEREAS, since the implementation of realignment there have been numerous issues identified that
have not been properly addressed that significantly impact municipal police departments' efforts to
successfully implement realignment;and
WHEREAS, ultimately many of these probationers who have severe mental illness are released into
communities where they continue to commit crimes that impact the safety of community members and drain
the resources of probation departments and police departments throughout the state;and
Il
HB -29- Item 2. - 10
WHEREAS,an estimated 30 counties were operating under court-ordered or self-imposed population
caps before realignment,and the current lack of bed space in county jails has since led to many convicted
probationers being released early after serving a fraction of their time;with inadequate to no subsequent
supervision,leaving them free to engage in further criminal offenses in our local cities; and
WHEREAS,there is increasing knowledge among the offender population which offenses will and
will not result in a sentence to state prison, and many offenders, if held in custody pending trial,that would
be sentenced to county jail are ultimately sentenced to time served due to overcrowding in county facilities;
and
WHEREAS,there are inadequate databases allowing local police departments to share critical
offender information among themselves, with county probation departments, and with other county and state
law enforcement entities; and
WHEREAS, local police departments have not received adequate funding to properly address this new
population of offenders who are victimizing California communities; and now therefore let it be
RESOLVED by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities, assembled in Sacramento
on September 20,2013,to request the Governor and State Legislature to immediately enter into discussions
with League representatives and the California Police Chiefs' Association to address the following issues:
1. The need to fully fund municipal police departments with constitutionally protected funding to
appropriately address realignment issues facing front-line law enforcement;
2. Amend appropriate sections of AB 109 to change the criteria justifying the release of non-violent,
non-serious, non-sex offender inmates(N3) inmates to include their total criminal and mental
history instead of only their last criminal conviction;
3. Establish a uniform definition of recidivism with the input of all criminal justice stakeholders
throughout the state;
4. Enact legislation that will accommodate the option for city police officers to make ten(10) day flash
incarcerations in city jails for probationers who violate the conditions of their probation;
. 5. Establish oversight procedures to encourage transparency and accountability over the use of
realignment funding;
6. Implement the recommendations identified in the California Little Hoover Commission Report#216
dated May 30,2013;
7. Provide for greater representation of city.officials on the local Community Corrections Partnerships.
Currently AB 117 provides for only one city official (a police chief)on the seven-member body,six
of which are aligned with the county in which the partnership has been established. As a result,the
counties dominate the committees and the subsequent distribution of realignment funds.
8. Provide, either administratively or by legislation, an effective statewide data sharing mechanism
allowing state and local law enforcement agencies to rapidly and efficiently share offender
information to assist in tracking and monitoring the activities of AB 109 and other offenders.
I///llllll
12
Item 2. - 11 HB -30-
Background Information on Resolution No.2
Source: Public Safety Policy Committee
Background:
In October 2011 the Governor proposed the realignment of public safety tasks from State Prisons to local
government as away to address certain judicial orders dealing with State prison overcrowding and to reduce
State expenditures.This program shifts the prisoner burden from State prisons to local counties and cities.
When the Governor signed into law realignment he stated that realignment needed to be fully funded with
constitutionally protected source of funds to succeed.Nonetheless,the law was implemented without full
constitutional protected funding for counties and cities; insufficient liability protections to local agencies;
jail space; probation officers; housing and job placement programs; medical and mental health facilities; and
with an inappropriate definition of N3 (non-serious, non-sexual, non-violent)criminal convictions used to
screen inmates for participation in the program.
Two-thirds of California's 58 counties are already under some form of mandated early release. Currently, 20
counties have to comply with maximum population capacity limits enforced by court order,while another 12
counties have self-imposed population caps to avoid lawsuits.
At this time no one knows what the full impact of realignment will ultimately be on crime. We hope that
crime will continue to drop, but with the current experience of the 40,000 offenders realigned since October
2011,and an estimated additional 12,000 offenders being shifted from State prison to local jails and
community supervision by the end of fiscal year 2013-14, it will be very difficult to realize lower crime rates
in the future.
Beginning in October 2011, California State prisons began moving N3 offenders into county jails,the
county probation and court systems,and ultimately funneled them into community supervision or alternative
sentencing prod ain in cities where they will live, work,and commit crime.
Note: There is currently no uniform definition of recidivism throughout the state and no database that can
deliver statistical information on the overall impact realignment has had on all cities in California. Because
of this problem we have used data from Los Angeles County.
The March 4, 2013 report to the Los Angeles County Criminal Justice Coordination Committee(CCJCC)
shows a strong effort and progress in addressing the realignment mandate. However, there is insufficient
funding_
The report also states the jail population continues to be heavily influenced by participants housed locally.
On September 30, 2012, the inmate count in the Los Angeles County Jail was 15,463-1 on January 31, 2013,
the count was 18,864. The realignment population accounted for 32%of the Jail population;5,743 offenders
sentenced per Penal Code Section 1170(h)and 408 parole violations.
By the end.of January 2013, 13,535 offenders were released on Post Release Community Supervision
(PRCS)to Los Angeles County including prisoners with the highest maintenance costs because of medical
and drug problems and mental health issues costing counties and local cities millions of dollars in unfunded
mandates since the beginning of the program. Prisoners with prior histories of violent crimes are also being
released without proper supervision.That is why sections of AB 109 must be amended to change the
criteria used to justify the release of N3 inmates to include an offender's total criminal and mental
history instead of only their last criminal conviction. Using the latter as the key criteria does not provide
13
xB -31- Item 2. - 12
an accurate risk assessment of the threat these offenders pose to society if they are realigned to county
facilities, or placed on Post Release Community Supervision.
Chief Jerry Powers from the Los Angeles County Probation Department recently stated the release criteria
for N3 offenders"has nothing to do with reality."He said initially the State estimated the population of
released PRCS offenders would be 50%High Risk, 25%Medium Risk and 25%Low Risk.The reality is
3%are Very High Risk, 55%are High Risk,40%are Medium Risk and only 2%are Low Risk offenders.He
said the High Risk and serious mentally ill offenders being released"are a very scary population."One of
the special needs offenders takes the resources of 20-30 other offenders.
Assistant Sheriff Terri McDonald who is the county Jail Administrator recently stated the Jail has only 30
beds for mentally ill offenders being released—when in fact she actually needs 300 beds to accommodate
the volume of serious mentally ill offenders being released that require beds.
Los Angeles County data shows 7,200 released offenders have had some sort of revocation.This number is
expected to increase because of a significant increase in the first four months of year two of realignment that
totals 83%of the entire first year of the program;4,300 warrants were issued for offenders; 6,200 offenders
have been rearrested; and 1,400 prosecuted.Data reveals one in I0 offenders will test positive for drugs
during the first 72 hours after being released knowing they are required to report to a probation officer
during that time. Only one in three offenders will successfully complete probation.
There are more than 500 felony crimes that qualify State prison inmates for release under realignment. They
will be spending their time in cities with little, if any,supervision.
llll/lllll
League of California Cities Staff Analysis on Resolution No. 2
Staff. Tim Cromartie(916)658-8252
Committee: Public Safety Policy Committee
Summary:
This Resolution seeks to outline the deficiencies in the State's current public safety realignment policy, as
implemented in 2011 by AB 109, and to identify policy changes that will assist State, county and municipal
law enforcement entities to cope with the expanded universe of offenders that are now being directed to
county facilities,resulting in increased related impacts on both local communities and municipal law
enforcement.
Background:
This resolution was brought to the Public Safety Policy Committee by individual members of that committee
who are increasingly concerned about municipal public safety impacts resulting from county jail
overcrowding, a problem that has intensified with realignment,resulting in certain categories of offenders
doing no jail time or being sentenced to time served. This has created a climate in which some offenses
receive little or no jail time, accompanied by a growing body of anecdotal evidence that property crimes
have correspondingly increased,with some,such as auto theft,being committed in serial fashion. Increased
criminal activity has strained the resources of many local police departments already struggling to more
closely coordinate information sharing with county probation offices to effectively monitor offenders on
post-community release supervision.
In addition, there is growing concern about the criteria established for determining which offenders are
eligible for post-release community supervision(the non-violent,non-serious,non-sex offenders). There is
so much concern that a May 2013 report of California's Little Hoover Commission recommended adjusting
14
Item 2. - 13 HB -32-
the criteria to examine an offender's total criminal history rather than merely his or her Iast known offense,
as a means of more accurately assessing the risk he or she might pose to the community.
Implementation of the realignment policy is handled in part by the Community Corrections Partnerships
established by AB 109,which currently have only one city representative, compared to at least four county-
level representatives.
Fiscal Impact:
Unknown impact on the State General Fund. This resolution seeks to establish increased and
constitutionally protected funding for city police departments(and county sheriff's departments,to the
degree they are contracted to provide police services for cities),but does not specify a dollar amount for the
revenue stream. At a minimum, it would entail an annual revenue stream of at least the amount provided for
cities for front-line law enforcement in the State's 2013-14 Budget,$27.5 million, indefinitely—although
that revenue stream has never been formally identified by the Brown Administration as having any direct
connection to realignment.
Existing League Policy:
Related to this resolution,existing policy provides:
• The League supports policies establishing restrictions on the early release of state inmates for the
purpose of alleviating overcrowding,and limiting parole hearing opportunities for state inmates
serving a life sentence, or paroled inmates with a violation.
• The League supports increasing municipal representation on and participation in the Community
Corrections Partnerships, which are charged with developing local corrections plans.
• In addition,the Strategic Priorities for 20I2, as adopted by the League Board of Directors,included
the promotion of local control for strong cities. The resolution's objectives of locking in ongoing
funding for front-line municipal law enforcement, and increasing city participation in the
Community Corrections Partnerships, are consistent with promoting local control.
S Pore:
New this year,any resolutions submitted to the General Assembly must be concurred in by five cities or by
city officials from at least five or more cities. Those submitting resolutions were asked to provide written
documentation of concurrence. The following cities/city officials have concurred: cities of Arroyo Grande;
Covina; Fontana;Glendora;Monrovia;Ontario; Pismo Beach; and Santa Barbara.
15
HB -33- Item 2. - 14
ATTACHMENT # 2
Item z _ 1, Ha ,
Pagel of 2
AB 1102 (Allen R) South Coast Air Quality Management
District: beach burning.
Status: 8/15/2013- Re-referred to Com.on NAT. RES.
Location: 8/15/2013-A. NAT. RES.
2Year I Deskj Policy I Fiscal Floorl Desk I Policy Fiscal Floor Conf. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered
Dead 1st House 2nd House jConc.1
Summary
Existing law establishes the South Coast Air Quality Management District vested with the
authority to regulate air emissions from stationary sources located in the South Coast Air Basin
and establishes a district board to govern the district. Existing regulations of the district prohibit a
person from engaging in a recreational, ceremonial, or open burning conducted in a public
coastal area marked by an accumulation of sand, as specified. This bill would prohibit the district
from enacting a rule that prohibits a person from engaging in a beach burning for a recreational,
ceremonial, or open burning conducted in a public coastal area marked by an accumulation of
sand.This bill contains other related provisions. (Based on text date 8/142013)
Bill Text
Amended 8/142013 html Pdf
Amended 3/21/2013 html pdf
Introduced 2/222013 html pdf
Analyses
Votes
Bills Affecting Same Code
SB South Coast Air Quality Management District:electric Health and 40440.1500
389 generating facilities:emissions offsets. Safety Code
PEOPLE WHO TRACK AB 1102 ALSO TRACK:
88%731 Environment: California Environmental Quality Act. tracking
86%6B California Environmental Quality Act. w tracking
85%AB State Air Resources Board: Local Emission Reduction Program_ tracking
4165
HB -35- Item 2. - 16
hnn://ctweb.caDitoltrack.com/public/T)ublishbiIlinfo.aspx"!bi=naHNra9i6ZFHM8uziChP76H... 9/5/Lu 1.5
Page 2 of 2
84% AB 26 California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Greenhouse Gas tracking
Reduction Fund.
84%AB California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2005: offsets. tracking
History
8/15/2013 Aug. 15 Re-referred to Com. on NAT. RES.
8/14/2013 Aug. 14 From committee chair,with authors amendments:Amend, and re-refer to
Com. on NAT. RES. Read second time and amended.
4/1/2013 Apr. 1 Re-referred to Com.on NAT. RES.
3/21/2013 Mar. 21 Referred to Com. on NAT. RES. From committee chair,with authors
amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on NAT. RES. Read second time and amended..
2/25/2013 Feb. 25 Read first time.
2/24/2013 Feb.24 From printer. May be heard in committee March 25.
2/22/2013 Feb.22 Introduced. To print.
915i2013 1:35 42 Piss
Item 2. - 17 xB -36-
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY AUGUST 14, 2013
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 21, 2013
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE-2013-14 REGULAR SESSION
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 1102
Introduced by Assembly Member GrEkwo Members Allen and
Quirk4ilva
(Principal coauthors:Assembly Members Donnelly and Mansoor)
(Coauthors:Assembly Members Beth Gaines and Hagman)
(Coauthors:Senators Nielsen, Walters, and Wyland)
February 22, 2013
An act to add Section 3857-2 40440.1 S to the Health and Safety Code,
relating to .nonvehicular air pollution.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 1102, as amended, Greve Allen. Air reseufees. greemliettse gas
emissions. South Coast Air Quality Management District: beach
burning.
Existing law establishes the South Coast Air Quality Management
District vested with the authority to regulate air emissions from
stationary sources located in the South Coast Air Basin and establishes
a district board to govern the district.Existing regulations of the district
prohibit a person from engaging in a recreational, ceremonial, or open
burning conducted in apublic coastal area marked by an accumulation
of sand, as specified.
This bill wouldprohibit the district.from enacting a rule that prohibits
a person from engaging in a beach burning for a recreational,
ceremonial, or open burning conducted in apublic coastal area marked
by an accumulation of sand.
97
HB -37- Item 2. - 18
AB 1102 —2—
This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the
necessity of a special statute for the south coast district.
This bill wotild Fequire the .—, .'F the" R 13-adopts a mat:ket base
attetjoritnstatewide greenhouse gas emissi6ns limill.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes-no.
State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
I SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the
2 following.-
3 (a) As the Legislature confirmed with Assembly Concurrent
4 Resolution 52(Chapter 52 of the Statutes of 2013), beach bonfires
5 contained in /ire rings should be allowed on all beaches in
6 California.
7 (h) Beach bor!ftres are an inexpensive recreational activity.and
8 are enjoyed by all the intembers of our communilY regardless of
9 socioeconomic class.
10 (c) Fire rings are usttalli% large cement rings in the sand used
1 1 to build your veri,own botnftre on the beach.
12 (d) The California Coastal Commission staff report of'October
13 22, 2012, stated, "Beach,fire rings are a unique recreational
14 facility for which theve is no substitution."
15 (e) Amendments to Rule 444 by the South Coast Air Quality
16 Management District were voted on at a hearing on Julv 12, 2013,
17 and anj, actions by that vote on regulatory language and an-y
18 subsequent action resultingfi•on it need to be nullified.
19
20 SEC. 2. Section 40440.15 is added to the Health and Safety
21 Code, to read:
22 40440.15. The south coast district shall not prohibit a person
23 ,iron? engaging in a beach burning for a recreational, ceremonial.
97
Item 2. - 19 HB -38-
-3— AB 1102
1 or open burning conducted in a public coastal area marked by an
2 accumulation ofsand.
3 SEC. 3. The Legislature.finds and declares that a special law
4 is necessary and that a general law cannot be made applicable
S within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California
6 Constitution because of the need to protect visitor-generated
7 revenues that are used to fund essential programs, such as those
8 for the protection ofpublic safety and parks, within the jurisdiction
9 of the South Coast Air Quality Management District.
10
11 Code, d'
12
13 meehanism ptirsuant to this paft that provides for the auetioning
14 of gt=eemhottse gas allowanees,the state board shall aue
15
16
17 all
O
97
xB -39- Item 2. - 20
TACHMENT # 3
Page 1 of l
Search Results
Thursday, September 05, 2013
SB 711 (Hernandez D) Tax administration: disclosure of information: Franchise Tax
Board and cities. (Amended: 9/3/2013)
Status: 9/4/2013-Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
Location: 9/4/2013-A. THIRD READING
2Yearr22klpolicylFiscaliFloodDesWpolicylFiscalI Conf. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered
Dead 1st House n
2nd HouseConc.
Calendar: 9/6/2013 #183 ASSEMBLY SENATE THIRD READING FILE
Summary: Existing law authorizes, until December 31, 2013, a city that has entered into a
reciprocal agreement, as defined, with the Franchise Tax Board, to exchange tax
information, as provided. Existing law limits the use of the tax data received from the
Franchise Tax Board to business tax administration purposes and provides that any other
use or disclosure of the information is punishable as a misdemeanor. This bill would extend
the authorization until January 1, 2019, and extend the repeal date of the provisions
relating to the reciprocal agreements between the Franchise Tax Board and cities. This bill
would add an additional limitation on the use of the tax data to require the data to be
utilized in a form and manner to safeguard the tax information, as prescribed. This bill
contains other related provisions and other existing laws.
Attachments:
SB 211 (Price) Support Letter
Policy Committee Primary Lobbyist 2nd Lobbyist
(primary)
Revenue_and_TaxationCarrigg, Dan
League Position Position Taken Policy Committee Policy Analyst
(secondary)
Support
Total Measures: 1
Total Tracking Forms: 1
9l5/2013 1:34:22 PM
HB -41- Item 2. - 22
http://ct3 k l.capitoltrack.com/public/search.aspx?ia=aa48--)199-3 7cd-42cd-8217-d l 9b4d257... 9/5izu i
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY SEPTEMBER 3, 2013
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY AUGUST 13,2013
AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 8, 2013
SENATE BILL No. 211
Introduced by Senator Hernandez
February 11, 2013
An act to amend Sections 19551, 19551.1, and 19551.5 of, the
Revenue and Taxation Code, relating to taxation.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 211, as amended, Hernandez. Tax administration: disclosure of
information: Franchise Tax Board and cities.
Existing law authorizes, until December 31, 2013, a city that has
entered into a reciprocal agreement,as defined, with the Franchise Tax
Board, to exchange tax information, as provided. Existing law limits
the use of the tax data received from the Franchise Tax Boarder to
business tax administration purposes and provides that any other use
or disclosure of the information is punishable as a misdemeanor.
This bill would extend the authorization until January 1,2019, and
extend the repeal date of the provisions relating to the reciprocal
agreements between the Franchise Tax Board and cities.This bill would
add an additional limitation on the use of the tax data to require the data
to be utilized in a fonn and manner to safeguard the tax information,
as prescribed.
Because this bill would continue the operation of the reciprocal
agreement exchange, and the unauthorized use of such information
would be a crime,it would impose a state-mandated local program.
96
Item 2. - 23 HB -42-
SB 211 —z—
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.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 19551 of the Revenue and Taxation Code,
2 as amended by Section I of Chapter 345 of the Statutes of 2008,
3 is arnended to read.-
4 19551. (a) The Franchise Tax Board may permit the
5 Commissioner of Internal Revenue of the United States, other tax
6 officials of this state, the Multistate Tax Commission, the proper
7 officer of any state imposing an income tax or a tax measured by
8 incorne or the authorized representative of that officer, or the tax
9 officials of Mexico,if reciprocal agreement exists,to inspect the
10 income tax returns of any taxpayer, or may furnish to the
l 1 commission,or the officeror the authorized representative thereof
12 an abstract of the return or supply thereto infonnation concerning
13 any item of income contained in any return or disclosed by the
14 report of any investigation ofthe income or return.The information
15 shall be furnished to the Multistate Tax Commission, the federal
16 or state officer or his or her representative, or the officials of
17 Mexico for tax purposes only. If furnished pursuant to a written
18 agreement, information furnished pursuant to this section shall be
19 furnished only if the request is in the fonn of an affidavit under
20 penalty of perjury stating that the purpose for the request relates
21 to an investigation of the tax specified in the request and that the
22 information will be used in the ordinary performance of the
23 applicant's official duties.
24 (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a) and except as otherwise
25 provided in Section 19551.1,tax officials of political subdivisions
26 of this state shall request information from the Franchise Tax Board
27 by affidavit only. At the tirne a tax official makes the request, he
28 or she shall provide the affected person with a copy of the affidavit
29 and, upon request,make the information obtained available to that
30 person.
96
xB -43- Item 2. - 24
-3— SB 211
1 (c) For purposes of this section,"reciprocal agreement"means
2 a formal agreement to exchange information between national
3 taxing officials of Mexico and taxing authorities ofthe State Board
4 of Equalization, the Franchise Tax Board, and the Employment
5 Development Department.Furthermore,the reciprocal agreement
6 shall be limited to the exchange of information that is essential for
7 tax administration purposes only. Taxing authorities of the State
8 of California shall be granted tax information only on California
9 residents. Taxing authorities of Mexico shall be granted tax
10 information only on Mexican nationals.
11 (d) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1,2019,
12 and as of that date, is repealed.
13 SEC. 2. Section 19551 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, as
14 added by Section 2 of Chapter 345 of the Statutes of 2008, is
15 amended to read:
16 19551. (a) The Franchise Tax Board may permit the
17 Commissioner of internal Revenue of the United States,other tax
18 officials of this state, the Multistate Tax Commission, the proper
19 officer of any state imposing an income tax or a tax measured by
20 income or the authorized representative of that officer, or the tax
21 officials of Mexico,if reciprocal agreement exists,to inspect the
22 income tax returns of any taxpayer, or may furnish to the
23 corn mission,or the officer or the authorized representative thereof
24 an abstract of the return or supply thereto information concerning
25 any item of income contained in any return or disclosed by the
26 report of any investigation of the income or return.The information
27 shall be furnished to the Multistate Tax Commission, the federal
28 or state officer or his or her representative, or the officials of
29 Mexico for tax purposes only. Except when furnished pursuant to
30 a written agreement,information furnished pursuant to this section
31 shall be furnished only if the request is in the form of an affidavit
32 under penalty of perjury stating that the purpose for the request
33 relates to an investigation of the tax specified in the request and
34 that the information will be used in the ordinary performance of
35 the applicant's official duties.
36 (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), tax officials of political
37 subdivisions of this state shall request information from the
38 Franchise Tax Board by affidavit only. At the time a tax official
39 makes the request,he or she shall provide the affected person with
96
Item 2. - 25 xB -44-
SB211 -4-
1 a copy of the affidavit and, upon request, make the information
2 obtained available to that person.
. 3 (c) For purposes of this section,"reciprocal agreement"means
4 a formal agreement to exchange information between national
5 taxing officials of Mexico and taxing authorities ofthe State Board
6 of Equalization, the Franchise Tax Board, and the Employment
7 Development Department. Furthermore,the reciprocal agreement
8 shall be limited to the exchange of information that is essential for
9 tax administration purposes only. Taxing authorities of the State
10 of California shall be granted tax information only on California
I I residents. Taxing authorities of Mexico shall be granted tax
12 information only on Mexican nationals.
13 (d) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2019.
14 SEC. 3. Section 19551.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code
15 is amended to read:
16 19551.1. (a) (1) The Franchise Tax Board may permit the tax
17 officials of any city to enter into a reciprocal agreement with the
18 Franchise Tax Board to obtain tax information from the Franchise
19 Tax Board,as specified in subdivision (b).
20 (2) For purposes of this section, "reciprocal agreement"means
21 a formal agreement to exchange infonttation for tax administration
22 purposes between tax officials of a city and the Franchise Tax
23 Board.
24 (b) The information furnished to tax officials of a city under
25 this section shall be limited as follows:
26 (1) The tax officials of a city are authorized to receive
27 information only with respect to taxpayers with an address as
28 reflected on the Franchise Tax Board's records within the
29 jurisdictional boundaries of the city who report income frorn a
30 trade or business to the Franchise Tax Board.
31 (2) The tax information that may be provided by the Franchise
32 Tax Board to a city is limited to a taxpayer's name,address,social
33 security or taxpayer identification number, and business activity
34 code.
35 (3) Tax information provided to the taxing authority of a city
36 may not be furnished to, or used by, any person other than an
37 employee or agen of that taxing authority and shall be utilized in
38 a fonrt and manner to safeguard the tax infornation as required
39 by the Franchise Tax Board, including, but not limited to:
96
xB -45- Item 2. - 26
-5— SB 211
1 (A) The completion of a data exchange security questionnaire
2 provided by the Franchise Tax Board prior to approval of a data
3 exchange by the Franchise Tax Board.
4 (B) The tax official of agent of a city shall allow for an onsite
5 safeguard review conducted by the Franchise Tax Board.
6 (C) The completion of disclosure training provided by the
7 Franchise Tax Board and a confidentiality statement signed by all
8 employees-erigerrts with access to information provided by the
9 Franchise Tax Board confirming the requirement of data security
10 with respect to that information and acknowledging awareness of
11 penalties for unauthorized access or disclosure under Sections
12 19542 and 19552 of this code and Section 502 of the Penal Code.
13 (D) The tax official ot:agen of a city shall notify the Franchise
14 Tax Board within 24 hours upon discovery of any incident of
15 unauthorized or suspected unauthorized access or disclosure of
16 the tax information and provide a detailed report of the incident
17 and the parties involved.
18 (E) All records received by the tax officials of a city
19 shall be destroyed in a manner to make them unusable or
20 unreadable so an individual record may no longer be ascertained
21 in a timeframe specified by the Franchise Tax Board.
22 (4) The information provided to the tax officials of the city by
23 the Franchise Tax Board under this section is subject to Section
24 19542, and may not he used for any purpose other than the city's
25 tax enforcement, or as otherwise authorized by state or federal
26 law.
27 (5) Section 19542.1 applies to this section.
28 (c) The Franchise Tax Board may not provide any information
29 pursuant to this section until all of the following have occurred:
30 (1) An agreement has been executed between a city and the
31 Franchise Tax Board, that provides that an amount equal to all
32 first year costs necessary to furnish the city information pursuant
33 to this section shall be received by the Franchise Tax Board before
34 the Franchise Tax Board incurs any costs associated with the
35 activity permitted by this section.For purposes of this section,first
36 year costs include costs associated with, but not limited to, the
37 purchasing of equipment,the development of processes, and labor.
38 (2) An agreement has been executed between a city and the
39 Franchise Tax Board, that provides that the annual costs incurred
40 by the Franchise Tax Board, as a result of the activity permitted
96
Item 2. - 27 xB -46-
SB 211 —b-
1 by this section, shall be reimbursed by the city to the Franchise
2 Tax Board. `
3 (3) Pursuant to the agreement described in paragraph (1), the ,
4 Franchise Tax Board has received an amount equal to the first year
5 costs.
6 (d) Any information, other than the type of tax information
7 specified in subdivision (b), may be requested by the tax officials
8 of a city from the Franchise Tax Board by affidavit.At the time a
9 tax official makes the request, he or she shall provide the person
10 whose information is the subject of the request,with a copy of the
I affidavit and, upon request, make the information obtained
12 available to that person.
13 (e) This section does not invalidate any other law. This section
14 does not preclude any city or county from obtaining information
15 about individual taxpayers, including those taxpayers not subject
16 to this section, by any other means permitted by state or federal
17 law.
18 (f) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect any
19 obligations, rights, or remedies regarding personal information
20 provided under state or federal law.
21 (g) Notwithstanding subdivision (c). the Franchise Tax Board
22 shall waive a city's reimbursement of the Franchise Tax Board's
23 cost if a city enters into a reciprocal agreement as defined in
24 paragraph (2) of subdivision (a). The.reciprocal agreement shall
25 specify that each party shall bear its own costs to furnish the data
26 involved in the exchange authorized by this section and Section
27 19551.5, and a city shall be precluded from obtaining
28 reimbursement as specified under Section 5 of the act adding this
29 subdivision.
30 (h) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1,2019,
31 and as of that date, is repealed.
32 SEC. 4. Section 1955 l_5 of the Revenue and Taxation Code
33 is amended to read:
34 19551.5. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, each city that
35 assesses a city business tax or requires a city business license shall,
36 upon the request of the Franchise Tax Board, annually submit to
37 the Franchise Tax Board the information that is collected in the
38 course of administration of the city's business tax program, as
39 described in subdivision (b).
96
HB _47_ Item 2. - 28
-7— SB 211
1 (b) Information,collected in the course of administration of the
2 city's business tax program, shall be limited to the following:
3 (1) Name of the business, if the business is a corporation,
4 partnership, or limited liability company, or the owner's name if
5 the business is a sole proprietorship.
6 (2) Business mailing address.
7 (3) Federal employer identification number, if applicable, or
8 the business owner's social security number.
9 (4) Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code or North
10 American Industry Classification System(NAICS) Code.
11 (5) Business start date.
12 (6) Business cease date.
13 (7) City number.
14 (8) Ownership type.
15 (c) The reports required under this section shall be filed on
16 magnetic media such as tapes or compact discs, through a secure
17 electronic process, or in other machine-readable form, according
18 to standards prescribed by regulations promulgated by the
19 Franchise Tax. Board.
20 (d) Cities that receive a request from the Franchise Tax Board
21 shall begin providing to the Franchise Tax Board the information
22 required by this section as soon as economically feasible, but no
23 later than December 31,2009.The information shall be furnished
24 annually at a time and in the form that the Franchise Tax Board
25 may prescribe by regulation.
26 (e) The city data provided to the Franchise Tax Board under
27 this section is subject to Section 19542, and may not be used for
28 any purpose other than state tax enforcement or as otherwise
29 authorized by law.
30 (f) if a city enters into a reciprocal agreement with the Franchise
31 Tax Board pursuant to subdivision(a)of Section 19551.1,the city
32 shall also waive reimbursement for costs incurred to provide
33 information required under this section and shall be precluded
34 from obtaining reimbursement as specified under Section 5 of
35 Chapter 345 of the Statutes of 2008. The reciprocal agreement
36 shall specify that each party shall bear its own costs to furnish the
37 data involved in the exchange authorized by Section 19551.1 and
38 this section, and the Franchise Tax Board shall be precluded from
39 obtaining reimbursement as specified under subdivision (c) of
40 Section 19551.1.
96
Item 2. - 29 xB -48-
SB211 —8-
1 (g) A city shall not be required to provide information to the
2 Franchise Tax Board pursuant to this section if the Franchise Tax
3 Board fails to provide tax information to the city pursuant to a
4 reciprocal agreement entered into pursuant to subdivision (a) of
5 Section 19551.1 for reasons other than concerns related to
6 confidentiality of tax information provided to the city.
7 (h) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1,2019,
8 and as of that date, is repealed.
9 SEC. 5. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
10 Section 6 of Article Xlll B of the California Constitution because
I 1 the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school
12 district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or
13 infraction,eliminates a crime or infraction,or changes the penalty
14 for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of
15 the Government Code,or changes the definition of a crime within
16 the meaning of Section 6 of Article X111 B of the California
17 Constitution.
O
vb
xB -49- Item 2. - 30
ATTACH..M..............
ENT # 4
Page 1 of 1
Search Results
Thursday, September 05, 2013
SB 594 (Hill D) Use of public resources. (Amended: 9/4/2013)
Status: 9/4/2013-Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.
Location: 9/4/2 1 -A. SECOND READING
2Year Desk Policy Fiscal Floo Des Poli Fiscal Floo Conf. Enrolled Vetoed Chaptered
Dead I 1st House I 2nd House lConc.
Calendar: 9/6/2013 #6 ASSEMBLY SENATE SECOND READING FILE
Summary: Existing law prohibits the use of public funds for campaign activities. This bill
would prohibit a nonprofit organization or an officer, employee, or agent of a nonprofit
organization from using, or permitting another to use public resources received from a local
agency for campaign activity, as defined , and not authorized by law. This bill would define,
among other terms, "public resources" to mean any property or asset owned by a local
agency and funds received by a nonprofit organization which have been generated from
any activities related to conduit bond financing by those entities subject to specified conduit
financing and transparency and accountability provisions , and "nonprofit organization" to
mean an entity incorporated under the Nonprofit Corporation Law or a nonprofit
organization that qualifies for exempt status under the federal Internal Revenue Code of
1986, except as specified. This bill would authorize a civil cause of action for a violation of
these prohibitions and damages that include, but are not limited to, 3 times the value of
the unlawful use of the public resources. This bill would authorize the Attorney Gerferal, a-
district attorney, and a city attorney of a city having a population in excess of 750,000 to
seek these civil remedies. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.
Attachments:
SB-594 (Hill) Oppose, Asm Appro , 8- 2-13
SB 594 (Hill) SAMPLE Oppose Letter 8.15.13
SB 594 (Hill) Oppose, Author, 8-13-13
Policy Committee Primary Lobbyist 2nd Lobbyist
(primary)
Revenue_and_TaxationCarrigg, Dan
League Position Position Taken Policy Committee Policy Analyst
(secondary)
Oppose Hot
Total Measures: 1
Total Tracking Forms: 1
915/2013 1:35:15 PtA
HB -51- Item 2. - 32
http://ct3k l.capitoltrack.com/public/search.aspx?ia=aa4s:)i 99-37cd-42cd-8217-d 19b4d257... 9/5ILV 1 J
AMENDED 1N ASSEMBLY SEPTEMBER 4, 2013
AMENDED 1N ASSEMBLY AUGUST 21, 2013
AMENDED 1N ASSEMBLY AUGUST 7,2013
AMENDED 1N SENATE MAY 24,2013
AMENDED 1N SENATE APRIL 18, 2013
SENATE BILL No. 594
Introduced by Senator Hill
February 22, 2013
An act to add Sections 54964.5 and 54964.6 to the Government Code,
relating to campaign activity.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 594, as amended, Hill. Use of public resources.
(1) Existing law prohibits the use of public funds for campaign
activities.
This bill would prohibit a nonprofit organization or an officer,
employee,or agent of a nonprofit organization from using,or permitting
another t , publie
use public resources
received from a local agency for campaign activity, as defined, and not
authorized by law. This bill would define, among other terms, "public
resources"to ineltide,bet not be limited to,eash, ,
mean any property or asset
owned by a local agency and funds received by a nonprofit organization
which have been generated from any activities related to conduit bond
financing by those entities subject to specified conduit financing and
transparency and accountability provisions, and "nonprofit
94
Item 2. - 33 HB -52-
SB594 —2—
organization" to mean an entity incorporated under the Nonprofit
Corporation Law or a nonprofit organization that qualifies for exempt
status under the federal Internal Revenue Code of 1986, except as
specified.This bill would authorize a civil cause of action for a violation
of these prohibitions and damages that include, but are not limited to,
3 times the value of the unlawful use of the public resources.This bill
would authorize the Attorney General, a district attorney, and a city
attorney of a city having a population in excess of 750,000 to seek these
civil remedies.
(2) Existing law requires qualifying individuals and political
organizations to report specified information,including,but not limited
to, political contributions, in statements filed with the Fair Political
Practices Commission.
This bill would require-an-aadi= a reporting nonprofit organization
that engages in campaign activity to deposit into a separate bank account
all "specific source or sources of funds- it receives and to pay for all
campaign activity from that separate bank account. This bill would
define,among other tenrrs,-AIL "reporting nonprofit organization"
to mean a nonprofit organization for which public resources from one
or more local agencies account for more than 20%of the organization's
annual gross revenue, as specified, and "specific source or sources of
funds"to mean any funds received by the-a�e reporting nonprofit
organization that have been designated for campaign activity use or any
other funds received by the nonprofit organization,
as specified.
This bill would further require an auditable a reporting nonprofit
organization that engages in campaign activity of specified amounts or
more to periodically disclose to the-t tto ftey� Franchise Tax
Board,and post on its Internet Web site in acertain manner,the identity
and amount of each specific source or sources of funds it receives for
campaign activity, a description of the campaign activity, and the
identity and amount of payments the organization makes from the
required separate bank account, as specified. This bill would-rtti�e
authorize the
Franchise Tax Board to conduct an audit g1'a1w reporting nonprofit
organization, require the board to conduct an audit of any reporting
nonprofit organization that engages in campaign activity in excess of
,S500,000 in a calendar vear; issue a written audit report, and transmit
the report to the Attorney General and the district attorney for the county
in which the-au4ita+k reporting nonprofit organization is domiciled.
94
I
i
xB -53- Item 2. - 34
—3— SS 594
This bill would authorize the Attorney General or the district attorney
for the county in which the reporting nonprofit organization is domiciled
to assess a monetary civil penalty of up to$10,000 against able
a reporting nonprofit organization for each violation of these disclosure
requirements, as specified.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
I SECTION 1. Section 54964.5 is added to the Government
2 Code,to read:
3 54964.5. (a) A nonprofit organization or an officer,employee,
4 or agent of a nonprofit organization shall not use,or permit another
5 to use, public resources, ineltiding, btit not limited to, publie
6
7 nsideration, received from any local agency for any campaign
8 activity not authorized by law.
9 (b) As used in this section and Section 54964.6, the following
I0 terms shall have the following meanings:
11 (1) "Ballot measure' means a state or local initiative,
12 referendum, or recall measure certified to appear on a regular or
13 special election ballot or other measure submitted to the voters by
14 the Legislature or the governing body of a local agency at a regular
15 or special election.
16 (2) "Campaign activity" means a payment that is used for
17 communications that expressly advocate for or against the
I8 qualification of a clearly identified ballot measure, the approval
19 or rejection of a clearly identified ballot measure, or the election
20 or defeat of a clearly identified candidate by the voters, or that
21 constitutes a campaign contribution.
22 (A) , " "Campaign
23 activity"does not include the costs of
24 identified ballot measure or eandidate by a nonprefit
25 thfough the adeption of adopting a position or a resolution
26 supporting or opposing-the a clearly identified ballot measure or
27 candidate, including, but not liinited to, posting the z ersement
28 position or resolution on the nonprofit organization's Internet Web
29 site, communicating the eftd...fser.,._t position or resolution to
30 members of the nonprofit organization,or issuing a press statement.
94
Item 2. - 35 HB -54-
S B 594 —4-
1 (B) "Campaign
2 activity" does not include incidental or minimal =doe use
3 of public resources.
4 (C) Fof puMoses afdiis seetjon,..ea "Campaign activity"
5 does not include incidental costs related to the establishment or
6 administration of a sponsored committee as defined in Section
7 82048.
8 eosi. 82048.7. A reasonable accounting method may be used to
9 determine the use of nonpublic resources to pay for that cost.
10 "Establishment and administration"means the cost of office space,
11 telephones, salaries, utilities, supplies, legal and accounting fees,
12 and other expenses incurred in establishing and operating a
13 sponsored committee.
14 (3) "Candidate"means an individual who has qualified to have
15 his or her name listed on the ballot, or who has qualified to have
16 write-in votes on his or her behalf counted by elections officials,
17 for nomination or election to an elective office at any regular or
18 special primary or general election,and includes any officeholder
19 who is the subject of a recall election.
20 (4) "Expenditure" means a payment used for communications
21 that expressly advocate the approval or rejection of a clearly
22 identified ballot measure, or the election or defeat of a clearly
23 identified candidate, by the voters or that constitutes a campaign
24 contribution.
25 (5) "Local agency" shall have the sane meaning as that term
26 is defined in paragraph t4) of stthdivisionn (h) of Section 54964
27 and shall also include Histed in cetion ` 951 u,.0 a
28 public entity created pursuant to the Joint Exercise of Powers Act
29 (Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 6500)of Division 7 of Title
30 1) by one or more entities listed in Seetion 54951 described in
31 Section 54964.
32 (6) "Nonprofit organization" means any entity incorporated
33 under the Nonprofit Corporation Law (Division 2 (commencing
34 with Section 5000) of Title i of the Corporations Code) or a
35 nonprofit organization that qualifies for exempt status under
36 Section 115 or 501(c) of the Internal Revenue "
37 Code,provided, however; that "nonprofit organization"-sha}1 does
38 not include-a anv nonprofit organ]zat*1on-ex t that quakes fir
39 tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3)of the Internal Revenue
40 Code.
94
xB -55- Item 2. - 36
—5— SB 594
1 ,>fneans afty property of asset owned by
2 a loeal ageney-, ,eash, land,bttildings,
3 , ,
4 vehieles, tfavel,
5 pfovided to a nonprofit organization.
6 (7) "Public resources"means the following:
7 (A) Any property or asset owned by a local agency, including,
8 but not limited to, cash, land, buildings,facilities,funds, equipment,
9 supplies, telephones, computers, vehicles, travel, and local
10 government compensated work time that is provided to a nonprofit
11 organization, except funds received in exchange for consideration
12 for goods or services.
13 (B) Funds received by a nonprofit organization which have been
14 generated from any activities related to conduit bond financing
15 by those entities subject to the conduit financing and transparency
16 and accountability provisions of Chapter 10.7 (commencing with
17 Section 5870) ofDivision 6 of 7-itle 1, whether or not those funds
18 are received by the nonprofit in exchange for consideration for
19 goods or services.
20 (8) "Use" means a use of public resources frown one or more
21 local agencies that is substantial enough to result in a gain or
22 advantage to the user or a loss to any local agency for which any
23 monetary value may be estimated.
24 (c) This section does not prohibit the use of public resources
25 for providing information to the public about the possible effects
26 of any ballot measure on the activities, operations, or policies of
27 the state or a local agency,provided that the infonnational activities
28 meet both of the following conditions:
29 (1) The infonnational activities are not otherwise prohibited by
30 the California Constitution or the laws of this state.
31 (2) The information provided constitutes an accurate, fair, and
32 impartial presentation of relevant facts to aid the electorate in
33 reaching an informed judgment regarding the ballot measure.
34 (d) (1) Any person who intentionally or negligently violates
35 this section is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed one thousand
36 dollars (S1,000) for each day on which a violation occurs, plus
37 three times the value of the unlawful use of public resources. The
38 penalty shall be assessed and recovered in a civil action brought
39 in the name of the people of the State of California by the Attorney
40 General or by any district attorney or any city attorney of a city
94
Item 2. - 37 xB -56-
SB 594 —6—
1 having a population in excess of 750,000. If two or more persons
2 are responsible for any violation,they shall be jointly and severally
3 liable for the penalty. If the action is brought by the Attorney
4 General,the moneys recovered shall be paid into the General Fund.
5 if the action is brought by a district attorney,the moneys recovered
6 shall be paid to the treasurer of the county in which the judgment
7 was entered. If the action is brought by a city attomey,the moneys
8 recovered shall be paid to the treasury of that city.
9 (2) A civil action alleging a violation of this section shall not
10 be commenced more than four years after the date of the alleged
11 violation.
12 SEC. 2. Section 54964.6 is added to the Government Code, to
13 read:
14 54964.6. (a) An audit able A reporting nonprofit organization
15 that engages in campaign activity, either directly or through the
16 control of another entity, shall deposit into a separate bank account
17 all specific source or sources of funds received and shall pay for
18 a]I campaign activity from that separate bank account_
19 (b) As used in this section, the following terms shall have the
20 following meanings:
21 (1) 'Audit e"Reporting nonprofit organization" means a
22 nonprofit organization for which public resources from one or
23 more local agencies account for more than 20 percent of the
24 nonprofit organization's annual gross revenue in the current fiscal
25 year or either of the previous two fiscal
26
27 Years. A
28 reporting nonprofit organization shall not include a nonprofit
29 organization that sponsors a committee, as defined in Section
30 82048.7 of the Government Code, if the nonprofit organization
31 reports all contributions it received and all expenditures it made
32 on campaign disclosure statements filed by the sponsored
33 committee and the nonprofit organization makes no payments from
34 its general treasury to the sponsored committee other than payments
35 for contributions by donors earmarked for the sponsored
36 committee. For purposes of this subdivision, "earmarked" means
37 a payment by a donor to a nonprofit organization subject to a
38 condition, agreement, or understanding that the payment will be
39 used for making contributions or independent expenditures by the
40 sponsored committee of the sponsoring nonprofit organization.
94
xB -57- Item 2. - 38
—7— SB 594
1 (2) "Specific source or sources of funds" shall mean any funds
2 received by the auditable reporting nonprofit organization that
3 have been designated for campaign activity use or any other funds
4 received by the nonprofi ineluding, btit not limited
5 ,
6 organization that are used,in whole or in part, within a two-year
7 period from receipt for campaign activity.
8 (3) Unless otherwise defined herein, the definitions found in
9 subdivision (b) of Section 54964.5 shall apply to this section.
10 (c) Fifteen Thirty days after the end of each qua.rter,-a�al3le
11 a reporting nonprofit organization that engages in campaign
12 activity of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) or more related to
13 statewide candidates or ballot measures or engages in campaign
14 activity of two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) or more
15 related to local candidates or ballot measures, either directly or
16 through the control of another entity, at any point during that
17 quarter shall disclose the following information for that quarter:
18 (1) The name and amount of each specific source or sources of
19 funds used for campaign activity, provided that the aggregate
20 amount of funds received since January 1 of the most recent odd
21 year bye a reporting nonprofit organization from that
22 specific source or sources of funds is at least two hundred fifty
23 dollars ($250).
24 (2) The name of the payee and amount of all payments
25 aggregating two hundred fifty dollars ($250) or more made from
26 the single bank account required under subdivision (a).
27 (3) A description of each campaign activity.
28 (d) Fifteen Thirty days after the end of each even year,—art
29 attditable a reporting nonprofit organization that engages in
30 campaign activity of one hundred thousand($100,000) or more
31 related to statewide candidates or ballot measures or engages in
32 campaign activity of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or more
33 related to local candidates or ballot measures, either directly or
34 through the control of another entity,at any point during that even
35 year or the prior odd year shall disclose all the following
36 information for those two calendar years:
37 (1) The name and amount of any specific source or sources of
38 funds used for campaign activity, provided that the aggregate
39 amount of funds received since January 1 of the most recent odd
40 year by an audible a reporting nonprofit organization from that
94
Item 2. - 39 HB -58-
SB 594 —S—
specific source or sources of funds is at least two hundred fifty
2 dollars ($250).
3 (2) The name of the payee and amount of all payments made
4 from the single bank account required under subdivision (a).
5 (3) A description of each campaign activity-
6 (e) Each auditable reporting nonprofit organization that engages
7 in campaign activity, either directly or through the control of
8 another entity, shall provide to the Franchise Tax Board and
9 display on its Internet Web site the information it is required to
10 disclose under this section. The information shalt be clearly
I I described and identified on a separate Internet Web page, which
12 shall be linked from the homepage of the organization's Internet
t 3 Web site. The link to this Internet Web page from the homepage
14 shall be as visible as all similar links.
15 (f) The Franchise Tax Board rrrcry
16 conduct�nial an audit of _aeh ftdita F any reporting
17 nonprofit organization that Efteh
18 aud-i-table is required to provide records to the board pursuant to
19 this section. The Franchise Tax Board shall conduct an audit of
20 any reporting nonprofit organization that engages in campaign
21 activity in excess of five hundred thousand dollars (S500.000) in
22 a calendaryear. The reporting nonprofit organization shall provide
23 records to the Franchise Tax Board that
24 substantiate the information required to be disclosed by this section.
25 The Atterney General Franchise Tax Board shall determine
26 whether the organization complied with the requirements of Section
27 54964.5 and this section, issue a written audit report, and transmit
28 the written audit report to the Attorney General and the district
29 attorney for the county in which the auditable reporting nonprofit
30 organization is domiciled.
31 (g) If theAtterney General Franchise Tax Board detennines at
32 the conclusion of an audit that an-auditablc a reporting nonprofit
33 organization has violated Section 54964.5 or this section, the
34 Attorney General or the district attornev.for the county in which
35 the reporting nonprofit organization is domiciled may impose a
36 civil fine upon thearid+table reporting nonprofit organization in
37 an amount up to ten thousand dollars($10,000)for each violation.
O
94
i
i
HB -59- Item 2. - 40