BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1745
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 15, 2016
Counsel: David Billingsley
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair
AB
1745 (Hadley) - As Introduced February 1, 2016
SUMMARY: Appropriates $85,000,000 from the General Fund in the
State Treasury to be allocated by the State Controller to each
city's and city and county's Supplemental Law Enforcement
Services Account (SLESA) for local agencies to use for
front-line law enforcement activities, including drug
interdiction, antigang, community crime prevention, and juvenile
justice programs. Specifically, this bill:
1)Specifies that the sum of eighty-five million dollars
($85,000,000) is appropriated from the General Fund in the
State Treasury for allocation by the State Controller to the
counties for law enforcement purposes.
2)Requires the Controller to allocate those moneys to each
SLESA, established by each county and city and county,
consistent with the percentage schedule developed by the
Department of Finance.
3)Mandates that in any fiscal year in which a county receives
moneys to be expended, as specified, the county auditor shall
allocate the moneys received as specified and deposited in the
AB 1745
Page 2
county's SLESA within 30 days of the deposit of those moneys
into the fund.
4)Requires the specified SLESA related money to be allocated to
the county and the cities within the county, as specified.
5)Requires moneys allocated to the county, as specified, to be
retained in the county SLESA, and moneys allocated to a city,
as specified to be deposited an SLESA established in the city
treasury.
6)Mandates that funds received, as specified, shall be expended
or encumbered, as specified, no later than June 30 of the
following fiscal year.
7)Requires money allocated from a SLESA to a recipient entity to
be expended exclusively to provide front-line law enforcement
services and those moneys shall not be used by a local agency
to supplant other funding for Public Safety Services, as
defined.
8)Allows funding received as specified, is to be used for any of
the following:
a) Drug interdiction programs;
b) Acquisition, maintenance, and training related to the
use of body-worn cameras;
c) Costs, including personnel costs, related to peace
officer training, including training relating to the
instruction in the handling of persons with developmental
disabilities or mental illness, or both; and
AB 1745
Page 3
d) Other front-line law enforcement services.
9)States that in no event shall any moneys allocated from the
county's SLESA, as specified, be expended by a recipient
agency to fund administrative overhead costs in excess of 0.5
percent of a recipient entity's SLESA allocation, as
specified, for that year.
10)Specifies that "front-line law enforcement services" includes
antigang, community crime prevention, and juvenile justice
programs.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Specifies that there shall be established in each county
treasury a Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Account
(SLESA), to receive all amounts allocated to specified law
enforcement purposes. (Gov. Code, § 30061, subd. (a).)
2)States that in any fiscal year for which a county receives
moneys to be expended for the implementation of this chapter,
the county auditor shall allocate the moneys in the county's
SLESA within 30 days of the deposit of those moneys into the
fund and allocated as follows:
a) Five and fifteen-hundredths percent to the county
sheriff for county jail construction and operation. (Gov.
Code, § 30061, subd. (b)(1).)
b) Five and fifteen-hundredths percent to the district
attorney for criminal prosecution. (Gov. Code, § 30061,
subd. (b)(2).)
c) Thirty-nine and seven-tenths percent to the county and
the cities within the county, and, other agencies and
AB 1745
Page 4
jurisdictions, as specified. (Gov. Code, § 30061, subd.
(b)(3).)
d) Moneys allocated to the county, as specified, shall be
retained in the county SLESA, and moneys allocated to a
city, as specified, shall be deposited in an SLESA
established in the city treasury. (Gov. Code, § 30061,
subd. (b)(3).)
e) Fifty percent to the county or city and county to
implement a comprehensive multiagency juvenile justice
plan, as specified. The juvenile justice plan shall be
developed by the local juvenile justice coordinating
council in each county and city and county with the
membership, as specified. If a plan has been previously
approved by the Corrections Standards Authority or,
commencing July 1, 2012, by the Board of State and
Community Corrections, the plan shall be reviewed and
modified annually by the council. The plan or modified
plan shall be approved by the county board of supervisors,
and in the case of a city and county, the plan shall also
be approved by the mayor. The plan or modified plan shall
be submitted to the Board of State and Community
Corrections by May 1 of each year. (Gov. Code, § 30061,
subd. (b)(4).)
3)Specifies that for each fiscal year in which the county, each
city, and specified agencies and jurisdictions receive money
for SLESA, the county, each city, and each district specified
in this subdivision shall appropriate those moneys in
accordance with the following procedures:
a) In the case of the county, the county board of
supervisors shall appropriate existing and anticipated
moneys exclusively to provide frontline law enforcement
services, as specified; (Gov. Code, § 30061, subd. (c)(1).)
AB 1745
Page 5
b) In the case of a city, the city council shall
appropriate existing and anticipated moneys exclusively to
fund frontline municipal police services, in accordance
with written requests submitted by the chief of police of
that city or the chief administrator of the law enforcement
agency that provides police services for that city; and
(Gov. Code, § 30061, subd. (c)(2).)
c) In the case of specified districts, the legislative body
of that special district shall appropriate existing and
anticipated moneys exclusively to fund frontline municipal
police services, in accordance with written requests
submitted by the chief administrator of the law enforcement
agency that provides police services for that special
district. (Gov. Code, § 30061, subd. (c)(3).)
4)States that for each fiscal year in which the county, a city,
or specified district receives any money, as specified, in no
event shall the governing body of any of those recipient
agencies subsequently alter any previous, valid appropriation
by that body, for that same fiscal year, of moneys allocated
to the county or city, as specified. (Gov. Code, § 30061,
subd. (d).)
5)Specifies that commencing with the 2013-14 fiscal year,
subsequent to the allocation as specified, the Controller
shall allocate 23.54363596 percent the remaining amount
deposited in the Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities
Subaccount in the Local Revenue Fund 2011 for the specified
purposes, and, subsequent to the allocation, as specified,
shall allocate 23.54363596 percent of the remaining amount for
specified purposes. (Gov. Code, § 30061, subd. (g).)
6)Provides that the Controller shall allocate the specified
funds in monthly installments to local jurisdictions for
public safety in accordance with this section as annually
calculated by the Director of Finance. (Gov. Code, § 30061,
AB 1745
Page 6
subd. (g).)
7)Orders the county auditor to redirect unspent funds that were
remitted after July 1, 2012, by a local agency to the County
Enhancing Law Enforcement Activities Subaccount to the local
agency that remitted the unspent funds in an amount equal to
the amount remitted. (Gov. Code, § 30061, subd. (j).)
8)States that except as specified, moneys allocated from a
Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Account (SLESA) to a
recipient entity shall be expended exclusively to provide
front line law enforcement services. (Gov. Code, § 30062,
subd. (a).)
9)Specifies that moneys from SLESA shall not be transferred to,
or intermingled with, the moneys in any other fund in the
county or city treasury, except that moneys may be transferred
from the SLESA to the county's or city's general fund to the
extent necessary to facilitate the appropriation and
expenditure of those transferred moneys in the manner
required. (Gov. Code, § 30063.)
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS:
1)Author's Statement: According to the author, "Law enforcement
officers put their lives on the line to protect our
communities; AB 1745 is the first step to protect them and our
community from the budget stress we and the recent U.S. DOJ
decision have placed upon them."
2)Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Account (SLESA):
Assembly Bill 3229 (Lockyer), Chapter 134, Statutes of 1996,
established the Citizen's Option for Public Safety (COPS)
Program. Compliant cities are allocated a proportionate share
of COPS funds by the State, for the exclusive purpose of
funding supplemental law enforcement services. Proportionate
shares are based on population estimates determined by the
AB 1745
Page 7
California Department of Finance.
3)Loss of Federal Equitable Sharing Funds: In December of
2015, The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that it was
suspending its equitable sharing program. Equitable sharing
was a program in which local law enforcement agencies received
money from the federal forfeiture actions of property seized
from individuals. The program sent a portion of the money (up
to 80%) from forfeitures directly to local law enforcement
agencies that had been involved in the seizure.
The Washington Post had an article on the Federal DOJ's
suspension of the equitable sharing program, shortly after the
decision was made.
"The Department of Justice announced this week that it's
suspending a controversial program that allows local police
departments to keep a large portion of assets seized from
citizens under federal law and funnel it into their own
coffers.
"The 'equitable-sharing' program gives police the option of
prosecuting asset forfeiture cases under federal instead of
state law. Federal forfeiture policies are more permissive
than many state policies, allowing police to keep up to 80
percent of assets they seize -- even if the people they
took from are never charged with a crime.
"The DOJ is suspending payments under this program due to
budget cuts included in the recent spending bill."
( www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/23/the-feds-jus
t-shut-down-a-huge-program-that-lets-cops-take-your-stuff-an
d-keep-it/)
It is unclear if, or when, DOJ will return to equitable
sharing with local law enforcement agencies. The author
estimates that the suspension of equitable sharing will result
in approximately $85 million in lost revenue for California
law enforcement agencies, based on 2014 receipts.
AB 1745
Page 8
4)Law Enforcement Primarily Funded at the Local Level: Police
protection constitutes less than 1% of direct expenditures by
the state but accounts for 6.6% and 14.1%, at the county and
city levels, respectively. Local police protection is funded
by property, business, and sales taxes; federal and state
grants; local fees and fines; and voter-approved increases in
general and special sales taxes. For example, voters recently
approved a three-quarter cent sales tax increase in the city
of Stockton, with most of that money going toward hiring 120
police officers over the next three years. In 2010,
California law enforcement agencies spent $15.6 billion for
police protection, slightly more than the $14.8 billion the
state and the counties spent on corrections. PPIC (2013),
Policing in California
( http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=1081)
5)Investing in Law Enforcement: A review of academic research by
the Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Law and Policy led
to a conclusion that channeling resources to law enforcement
as opposed to corrections was an effective allocation of
resources. (Fact Sheet: Police, Prisons, and Public Safety in
California, April, 2013, The Chief Justice Earl Warren Law
Institute on Law and Social Policy, University of California,
Berkeley School of Law.)
"There is mounting research that suggests that investing in
police rather than expanding corrections is a more effective
public safety strategy - a matter of prevention rather than
reaction." (Id.)
The Institute noted that police departments across the state
had been shrinking and that a review of the literature
suggested that larger numbers of police officers corresponded
with lower levels of crime. (Id.)
6)Argument in Support: According to the City of Torrance,
"Funding for local law enforcement programs has not kept pace
with statewide growth in population or inflation. What was
once funding of $489.9 million has increased to $549.1
million. However, based on increases in the State
Appropriations Limit since 2006-07, funding should be 28.82%
AB 1745
Page 9
higher, or $85 million above current levels.
"Additionally, a letter dated December 21, 2015 from the U.S.
Department of Justice stated that, for the foreseeable future,
the Department would be halting equitable funding payments to
state, local and tribal law enforcement partners. For
California law enforcement agencies, this will result in
approximately $85 million in lost revenue based on 2014
receipts.
"AB 1745, the BADGE Funding bill will appropriate $85 million
from the State's General Fund to fully fund law enforcement.
The State's policy of shifting offenders into the jurisdiction
of local law enforcement under Realignment to reduce State
costs, coupled with recent federal DOJ decision to halt
equitable funding from asset forfeitures, will result in the
lack of adequate funding for recidivism reduction programs,
drug and gang enforcement, training of officers, and
purchasing necessary equipment or new technology like body
cameras."
7)Prior Legislation:
a) SB 144 (Cannella), of the 2012-2013 Legislative Session,
would have appropriated $819,857,000 from the General Fund
to the Realignment Reinvestment Fund. SB 144 was held in
the Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review.
b) SB 1023 (Budget Committee), Chapter 43, Statutes of
2012, removed the reporting requirement to the State
Controller for Supplemental Law Enforcement Oversight
Committees.
c) AB 3229 (Brulte), Chapter 134, Statutes of 1996,
established the Citizen's Option for Public Safety (COPS)
Program.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
AB 1745
Page 10
City of Torrance
Opposition
None
Analysis Prepared
by: David Billingsley / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744