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 The provisions of this bill would be repealed on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 --