BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



          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 The provisions of this bill would be repealed on  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 --