BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE COMMITTEE ON VETERANS AFFAIRS Senator Jim Nielsen, Chair 2015 - 2016 Regular Bill No: AB 442 Hearing Date: 6/23/15 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Author: |Irwin | |-----------+-----------------------------------------------------| |Version: |3/16/15 | ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes | ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Consultant:|Wade Cooper Teasdale | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Governor's Military Council DESCRIPTION Summary: Codifies the Governor's Military Council, under the direction of the California Military Department (CMD) and provides for appointment to the Council by the Governor. The bill would require that the appointments shall include, but not be limited to, bipartisan representatives from both houses of the Legislature. The provisions of this bill would be repealed on January 1, 2021. Existing law: 1)Establishes the State's active militia, which consists of the California National Guard, State Military Reserve, and Naval Militia. 2)Authorizes a state active duty (SAD) program, which provides full-time uniformed state military personnel serving full-time on active duty at the Governor' call. 3)Provides for the CMD, which, among other things, manages the active militia and SAD program. AB 442 (Irwin) Page 2 of ? This bill: 1)Codifies the Governor's Military Council, under the direction of the CMD. 2)Provides for appointment to the Council by the Governor. 3)Requires the appointments to include, but not be limited to, bipartisan representatives from both houses of the Legislature 4)Self-repeals on January 1, 2021. BACKGROUND According to the website for the Governor's Military Council: On March 28, 2013, the Governor announced the creation of the Governor's Military Council. This Council will position California to maintain and grow military operations in the state. The Department of Defense has announced several strategic shifts, including increasing force strength in the Pacific theater and prioritizing cyber-security, which provide California opportunities to increase military investment in our state. The Council will provide insight to state leaders who are developing a strategy to support and grow military operations in the Golden State. As a major investor and landholder in the state, the military provides many economic and environmental benefits to the state as it provides for our nation's security. Similarly, California offers unique geographical, operational and technological benefits to the military installations that call it home. Ensuring that the two continue to support each other is a key focus of this Council. The Council will also articulate the military value of California bases and operations as federal leaders consider cuts and realignment to federal military operations. The Secretary of Defense recently explained that coming military cuts "will impact all 50 states and many districts across AB 442 (Irwin) Page 3 of ? America." Recognizing these threats to military operations, the Council will highlight the ongoing military value of California installations, and of the Californians and businesses that support them. Governor Brown selected a formidable first Council. The Honorable Ellen O. Tauscher is the current Chair of the Council. She represented California's 10th Congressional District for more than 12 years in the U.S. House of Representatives, where she chaired the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces. Current Council membership includes many retired flag officers, high-ranking military leaders from all the branches of service, civic and state leaders and includes bipartisan representation from both houses of the Legislature. The purpose of this bill is to codify the Governor's Military Council, under the direction of the California Military Department and provide for appointment to the Council by the Governor. This bill requires that the appointments shall include, but not be limited to, bipartisan representatives from both houses of the Legislature. The statute this bill would create contains a sunset provision for January 1, 2021. Codification of the Council ensures that even if there is leadership change in the Executive Branch, the Council will remain for at least a reasonable period into the future and then its utility will be reevaluated. A consistent theme and lesson-learned that staff has heard from the defense community in California is that vigilance, active early engagement, and a unified message are vital when it comes to BRAC. These strategies ensure that the value of California's defense community and unique installations is well-articulated and heard by decision makers in both the pre-BRAC phase as well as during BRAC itself. Base Realignment and Closure California has a strategic location, unique landscape and valuable resources that help further U.S. military readiness for actions around the globe. As a result, the DoD has made many economic and technological investments in the state, including large investments in land and military installations. The AB 442 (Irwin) Page 4 of ? state's unique resources and the military's investments have fostered a strong partnership, and the ensuing collaboration is vital for economic, resource management, and military readiness reasons. State and local economies are influenced by the military's presence. The burden of maintaining this partnership often falls on the shoulders of cities and counties. In addition to juggling the competing demands of expanding development, promoting economic development and upholding environmental quality standards, local governments must also consider the needs of local military installations in their land use planning. Traditionally, military installations were strategically located in underdeveloped areas so as to avoid land use conflicts. As the population of the state continues to grow and the land use needs of communities continue to expand outward, the need for stronger relationships and communication between local governments and the military developed. Without adequate communication and coordinated land use efforts, military missions, quality of life and public safety are increasingly jeopardized. Growth encroaching on a military installation so as to hinder its mission can contribute to the installation's closure. The federal government worked its way through four initial iterations of the BRAC process between late 1988 and 1993. Nationally, that process led to the closing of 350 large and small military bases and 55 major realignments. Reportedly, this saved federal taxpayers more than $16 billion through 2001 and six billion dollars more each subsequent year. Prior to 1988, California had, by far, the largest military presence of any state, and was home to 335,979 (14.7%) of the Department of Defense's (DoD) total 2,275,264 personnel and 91 (18.3%) of the 495 major military bases then scattered around the nation. Not surprisingly, the BRAC cuts fell heavily on California. Through the first four rounds (1988, 1991, 1993, 1995), the state suffered the loss of 93,546 uniformed and civilian DoD jobs, which represented 53.8% of the net cuts nationally. California lost nearly 28 percent of its military personnel, while the rest of the nation saw a reduction of just 3.6 percent. AB 442 (Irwin) Page 5 of ? In terms of major base closures, California lost 24 installations; Texas, seven; Pennsylvania, six; Illinois and New York, five each; and Florida, Indiana, Maryland and Virginia, four each. Prior to the mid 1990's, California's response to BRAC was primarily focused on assisting local communities in the reuse of shuttered military bases. In 1994, then-Governor Wilson issued an Executive Order (W-87-94) which directed the Governor's Office of Planning and Research to coordinate the state's effort to assist local communities in developing strategies to protect California bases from further closings, as a means of focusing on the importance military bases have on the state's economy. Subsequent legislation (AB 639, Alby, 1998 and SB 1099, Knight, 1999) codified an Office of Military Base Retention and Reuse (OMBRR), placing it within the Technology, Trade and Commerce Agency (TTCA) and outlining the responsibilities of the office, including the creation of a Defense Retention Grant Program. The grant program aided local communities in preparing for future BRAC rounds. SB 926 (Knight and Ashburn, 2004) then renamed OMBRR to the Office of Military and Aerospace Support (OMAS), signifying the close relationship between military and aerospace activities. OMAS exited through the 2005 BRAC round and subsequently sunsetted in January of 2007. Unlike previous rounds, the fifth BRAC round (2005) focused more on realignment than closure. Along with saving money, a top priority was military force readiness, consolidating assets onto centralized installations from which they can be deployed rapidly and flexibly in support of an evolving global situation, and joint service missions. Implementation of the 2005 BRAC recommendations was completed in 2011. When a military installation is closed or its tenant units merely downsized, the communities in the area are adversely affected, particularly in the short-term. Military and civilian personnel face the loss or relocation of jobs. The uniformed personnel expect to be transferred regularly, but civilian workers on base usually are long-term local residents. Local retailers who support the bases directly or indirectly suffer serious revenue decreases and may even be forced to AB 442 (Irwin) Page 6 of ? close. Area governments lose revenues needed to maintain services and infrastructure. In addition, the negotiation and execution of land transfer, environmental cleanup, and redevelopment of the properties can be a challenging, alien process to communities. The enabling BRAC statute typically provides a variety of mechanisms for disposing of property at closed or realigned military installations. In the past, some federal real property has been made available by public benefit conveyances for airport, education, and homeless assistance. Some have been converted to military reserve component bases. Others have been transferred to native American tribes. For some properties, economic development conveyances have been awarded to local redevelopment authorities. Some have been put up for public sale. The 2005 BRAC Commission recommended that Congress authorize another BRAC round in 2015, and then every 8 years thereafter. In 2012 then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta called for two BRAC rounds for 2013 and 2015, but Congress rejected Panetta's requests and also declined to fund a Pentagon request in 2014 to fund another BRAC round. COMMENT Related legislation - current year SB 506 (Fuller, 2015) among other things. (1) establishes a process for the designation of a local retention authority to serve as the lead local government entity responsible for efforts to retain local military installations. (2) Creates the Military and Aerospace (MA) Program under the Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development (GO-Biz) to address concerns relating to state and local defense retention, base conversion and base reuse activities. (Pending, Senate Committee on Appropriations) SB 121 (Fuller, 2015) requires that school construction projects on military installations that are eligible for specified federal grants are given priority for funding under the State School Facility program. (Pending, Senate Committee on Education) AB 442 (Irwin) Page 7 of ? AB 1080 (Obernolte, 2015) authorizes the Department of Finance to find that an agreement between a former redevelopment agency and a joint powers authority that was created to exercise the powers provided by the Military Base Reuse Authority Act is an enforceable obligation. (Pending, Assembly Committee on Local Government) AJR 11 (Burke and Atkins, 2015) memorializes the President and the Congress of the United States to recognize the unique military value of California's defense installations and the disproportionate sacrifices California has endured in previous BRAC rounds. (Pending, Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs) Related legislation - prior years SB 245 (Rubio, 2011) would have re-established the Office of Military Support within the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) for the purpose of serving as a clearinghouse for state activities related to the military, including base closures.(Held, suspense, Assembly Committee on Appropriations) AB 2565 (Parra, Chapter 763, Statutes of 2004) requires that the strategic plan originally prepared by the California Defense Retention and Conversion Council as it existed in 1998 be updated. AB 1202 (Laird, Chapter 330, Statues of 2005) replaced obsolete references to the Defense Conversion Council with OMAS and revised the definition of military bases, required the Director of OPR to select a mediator, in consultation with the federal Office of Economic Adjustment, to reach agreement among different jurisdictions on a local reuse entity in the event that the multiple local governments cannot agree on a single reuse entity for each base. SB 926 (Knight and Ashburn, Chapter 907, Statutes of 2004) consolidated the defense retention and conversion efforts in the state. The bill changed the name of OMBRR to OMAS, transferred its functions to BTH, and set forth its duties and authority with respect to state and local defense retention and conversion, consolidating all such programs under a single office within state government. The bill also provided for the use of state Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank funds AB 442 (Irwin) Page 8 of ? by local governments to develop projects on or near a military base that enhance the base's mission. SB 296 (Soto, 2001) would have enacted the Department of Defense Operational Effectiveness Preparedness Act to help prevent any further base closures in the state. (Referred, but not heard in Senate Committee on Governmental Organization) SB 1468 (Knight, Chapter 971, Statutes of 2002) required cities and counties to include military installations, aviation routes, airspace, and readiness activities in their state-mandated general plans, and requires OPR to provide guidance to local officials as part of its advisory General Plan Guidelines. SB 1099 (Knight, Chapter 425, Statutes of 1999), the California Defense Retention and Conversion Act, reconstituted the defunct Defense Conversion Council as the California Defense and Retention and Conversion Council as well as required the establishment of a Defense Retention Grant Program. AB 639 (Alby Chapter 952, Statutes of 1998) enacted the Defense Conversion, Reuse and Retention Omnibus Act which was designed to assist communities in both closure and retention efforts. POSITIONS Sponsor: Author Support: American Legion - Department of California AMVETS - Department of California California Association of County Veterans Service Officers California State Commanders Veteran Council Military Officers Association of America - California Council of Chapters Veterans of Foreign Wars - Department of California Vietnam Veterans of American - California State Council Oppose: None received AB 442 (Irwin) Page 9 of ? -- END --