BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2444
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 19, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON WATER, PARKS, AND WILDLIFE
Marc Levine, Chair
AB 2444
(Eduardo Garcia) - As Amended April 13, 2016
SUBJECT: California Parks, Water, Climate, and Coastal
Protection and Outdoor Access For All Act of 2016
SUMMARY: Enacts the California Parks, Water, Climate, and
Coastal Protection and Outdoor Access For All Act of 2016,
which, if approved by the voters, would authorize issuance of
State General Obligation bonds, in an unspecified amount, to
finance parks, water, climate adaptation, coastal protection,
and outdoor access programs. Specifically, this bill:
1)States legislative findings and declarations regarding
California's parks, natural resources and outdoor
opportunities, and the scale of unmet need and demand for, and
lack of equal access to, those resources and activities.
States findings and declarations regarding the benefits of
investments for these purposes to public health, and to state
and local economies.
2)States that it is the intent of the people of the state that:
a) Public investments authorized by this bill provide
public benefits and address the most critical statewide
needs and priorities;
AB 2444
Page 2
b) Priority be given to projects that leverage other
funding sources;
c) The funding support implementation of recommendations of
the Parks Forward Commission;
d) Projects receiving funding include signage informing the
public of the bond investments.
1)Includes a number of general provisions that apply to all of
the articles included in the Act, including:
a) Allows up to 10% of funds in each category to be used
for planning and monitoring. Planning funds for projects
in disadvantaged communities can exceed the 10% if needed.
b) Requires at least 10% of funds in each article to be
allocated to severely disadvantaged communities.
c) Allows up to 10% of funds to go toward technical
assistance. Technical assistance may exceed 10% for
disadvantaged communities if needed.
d) Requires agencies administering the bond to develop
project solicitation and evaluation guidelines, to conduct
3 public meetings, and to publish draft guidelines on the
Internet.
e) Requires the Department of Finance to provide for an
independent audit of expenditures.
AB 2444
Page 3
f) Allows projects that use California Conservation Corps
services or certified community conservation corps to be
given preference for grants.
g) Encourages administering entities when developing
program guidelines for urban recreation and habitat
projects, to give favorable consideration to projects that
both provide urban recreation and protect or restore
natural resources, to the extent practicable, and
authorizes entities to pool funding for such purposes.
h) Authorizes projects that include water efficiencies,
stormwater capture, or carbon sequestration features in the
project design to be given priority for grant funding.
i) Authorizes the Legislature to enact legislation
necessary to implement programs funded by the bond.
1)Authorizes funds to be available, in as yet unspecified
amounts, and upon appropriation of the Legislature, for all of
the following programs and purposes:
a) Article 2. Safe Neighborhood Parks in Park-Poor
Communities . For creation and expansion of safe
neighborhood parks in park-poor communities, in accordance
with the Statewide Park Development and Community
Revitalization Act of 2008 competitive grant program [AB 31
(De León), Chapter 623, Statutes of 2008].
b) Article 3. Local & Regional Parks, Per Capita and
Competitive programs.
(i) For local park rehabilitation and improvement
grants to local governments on a per capita basis.
Requires a 20% local match unless the entity is a
disadvantaged community. Describes the formula to be
AB 2444
Page 4
used to allocate the per capita funds between cities,
districts, counties, and regional park districts,
based on population.
(ii) For grants to regional park districts, counties,
open space districts, open space authorities, and
nonprofit organizations on a competitive basis to
expand, rehabilitate, or restore parks and park
facilities, including trails, that facilitate new or
enhanced use.
a) Article 4. State Parks . To the Department of Parks &
Recreation (DPR) for restoration and preservation of
existing state park facilities and units, to preserve and
increase public access, and to protect natural, cultural
and historic resources in the parks. Requires that at
least 80% of the amount allocated under this article be
used for capital improvements to address DPR's deferred
maintenance backlog. Further specifies that a portion of
the remaining 20% of funds in this article shall be
available to DPR for enterprise projects to increase
revenue generation, and a portion shall be available to DPR
for grants to local agencies that operate state park units.
d) Article 5. Trails and Waterfront Greenway Access. To the
Natural Resources Agency for
competitive grants to local agencies, conservancies,
tribes, and nonprofit organizations
for non-motorized access to parks, waterways, or other
natural environments, to
encourage health-related commuting. Authorizes 25% of the
total for this program to be
made available for innovative transportation programs for
disadvantaged youth.
AB 2444
Page 5
e) Article 6. Rural Parks and Recreation . For competitive
grants to cities, counties and districts in non-urbanized
areas, subject to specified considerations. Requires a 20%
local share match, unless the entity is a disadvantaged
community. Further requires that a specified percentage of
the amount made available under this article shall be
allocated for projects to protect and enhance the upper and
lower Los Angeles River and its tributaries.
f) Article 7. California Clean Water, Coastal and
Watersheds. To the Natural Resource Agency for River
Parkway grants. Requires a 20% match unless the entity is
a disadvantaged community.
g) Article 7.5. State Conservancies . To the following
state conservancies and entities:
i. Baldwin Hills Conservancy
ii. California Tahoe Conservancy
iii. Coachella Conservancy
iv. Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Conservancy
v. Salton Sea Authority
vi. San Diego River Conservancy
vii. San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and
Mountains Conservancy
viii. San Joaquin River Conservancy
ix. Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy
AB 2444
Page 6
x. State Coastal Conservancy
States that the Legislature shall consider population size,
land mass and natural resource significance as factors in
determining the amount of funds to be given to these
entities.
a) Article 8. Climate Preparedness and Habitat Resiliency .
For climate adaptation and resiliency projects that improve
a community's ability to adapt to climate change, including
projects to improve and protect coastal and rural
economies, agricultural viability, wildlife corridors, or
habitat, develop recreational opportunities, or enhance
drought tolerance and water retention, including the
following:
i. To the Wildlife Conservation Board (WCB) for
wildlife corridors, to improve climate change
adaptation, and for existing open space corridors and
trail linkages.
ii. To the California Climate Resilience Account,
for projects to assist coastal communities with
climate change adaptation, including sea level rise
and ocean acidification, and the Pacific Flyway.
iii. For projects that improve agricultural and
open-space soil health, improve carbon soil
sequestration, water quality, and water retention, or
to replace inefficient groundwater pumps.
iv. For projects that reduce fire risk, improve
forest health, and provide feedstock for compost,
energy, or alternative fuels facilities.
1)Includes related fiscal provisions regarding sales of bonds
and implementation of the Act pursuant to the State General
Obligation Bond Law. Establishes a finance committee for the
AB 2444
Page 7
bond composed of the Director of Finance, the Treasurer, and
the Controller
2)Requires the Secretary of State to submit the bond act to the
voters at the November 2016 statewide general election, and
includes related instructions regarding preparing ballot
pamphlets and statements. Provides that this act shall take
effect upon approval by the voters.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Authorizes the Legislature to pass legislation, by a 2/3rds
vote, to place a proposed general obligation bond measure
before the voters on the statewide ballot, to authorize the
sale of bonds to finance various state purposes. General
obligation bonds have been one of the primary methods voters
have used to fund the acquisition and improvement of
parklands, open space, and wildlife areas; water conservation,
recycling and infrastructure projects; and related purposes.
2)The California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks
and Coastal Protection Act of 2002 (Proposition 40), a
legislative ballot measure approved by the voters in 2002,
authorized $2.6 billion in bond expenditures for parks and
other resource related purposes.
3)The Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and
Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000 (Proposition 12), a
legislative ballot measure approved by the voters in 2000,
authorized expenditures of $2.1 billion for parks and other
resource related purposes.
4)The Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood
Control, River and Coastal Protection Act of 2006 (Proposition
84), an initiative measure approved by the voters in 2006,
authorized bond expenditures of $5.4 billion, of which
AB 2444
Page 8
approximately $875 million was for parks.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS: This bill proposes to place a park bond on the
November 2016 statewide ballot, to fund parks, other outdoor
open spaces, waterways, wildlife corridors, climate change
adaptation, and other natural resource projects. A major
priority focus of this bill is addressing the needs of park-poor
and disadvantaged communities. The main categories of funding
proposed in the bond are: 1) safe neighborhood parks in
park-poor communities; 2) local and regional parks, with funds
to be distributed both on a per capita basis (statewide, based
on population ratios) and competitively; 3) state parks, with a
focus on deferred maintenance in existing parks; 4) trails and
waterfront access; 5) rural community recreational needs; 6)
river parkways; 7) state conservancies; and 8) wildlife habitat
needs, including wildlife corridors and climate change
adaptation.
1)Author's Statement: The author notes, to maintain a high
quality of life for California's growing population requires a
continuing investment in parks, recreation facilities, and
protection of the state's natural and historical resources.
It has been 14 years since California last approved a "true
park bond". The 2008 economic downturn had a disproportionate
impact on local, regional and state park infrastructure.
There is a high unmet demand for park investment, as witnessed
by the 8-1 ratio of grant application requests vs. available
grant dollars for park grants awarded under the AB 31
Statewide Parks Program. Demand has been particularly high in
both urban and rural disadvantaged communities where many
still lack access to safe parks, trails, and recreation areas.
AB 2444
Page 9
The author notes that according to the Statewide Comprehensive
Outdoor Plan of 2015 (SCORP), 38% of Californians still live
in areas with less than 3 acres of parkland per 1,000
population, a recognized standard for adequate parks, and 9
million people do not have a park within a half mile of their
home. The SCORP action plan highlights the need for
increasing park access to residents in underserved communities
by encouraging park development within a half mile of park
deficient neighborhoods, creating new trails and greenways to
provide active transportation corridors for commuting, and
expanding transportation opportunities to larger parks.
The author also notes the findings of the Parks Forward
Commission which highlighted the need to prioritize protection
of natural and cultural resources for future generations,
expand access to parks for underserved communities and younger
generations, and to address state park deferred maintenance.
Investing in parks and trails will help ensure all
Californians have access to safe places to exercise and
recreate. Additionally, continued investment in the state's
natural resources and greening of urban areas will help
mitigate the impacts of climate change and provide access to
natural resources for future generations. The author also
emphasizes that a priority throughout the bond will be to
address the needs of park-poor and severely disadvantaged
communities.
2)Background: Park and water bonds have been a primary source
of state funding for the acquisition and improvement of parks,
open space, and wildlife areas in California; and for many
water conservation, water recycling, flood management, and
water supply needs. Past bond acts have funded a variety of
state, regional, and local parks, recreation, conservation,
and water-related projects. Bond acts have included funding
for support of California's 280 unit state park system, for
local and regional parks, for projects to provide public
access to the coast and other public lands, and to fund
wildlife habitat conservation needs. Bonds have also
provided funding for state conservancies and for river
AB 2444
Page 10
restoration projects.
a) Prior Bond Act history: Since 2000, California voters have
approved three park bonds. The last legislatively crafted
park bond was Proposition 40, which was approved by the voters
fourteen years ago in 2002. The six park and/or water-related
bonds approved by the voters since 2000 are:
Proposition 12 (2000-Legislative) Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean
Water, Clean Air and Coastal Protection Act. Total $2.1
billion, including $780 million for local, regional parks
primarily through block grants, and $400 million for state
parks deferred maintenance and acquisition.
Proposition 13 (2000-Legislative) Safe Drinking Water, Clean
Water, Watershed Protection, and Flood Protection Act. Total
$1.97 billion. Prop. 13 was primarily a water bond.
Proposition 40 (2002-Legislative) California Clean Water, Clean
Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks, and Coastal Protection Act.
Total $2.6 billion, including $964 million for local, regional
parks through both block grants and competitive grant awards,
and $250 million for state parks deferred maintenance and
acquisition.
Proposition 50 (2002-Initiative) Water Quality, Supply, and Safe
Drinking Water Projects Act. Total, $3.4 billion.
Proposition 50 was primarily a water bond.
Proposition 84 (2006-Initiative) Safe Drinking Water, Water
Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal
Protection Bond Act. Total, $5.4 billion, including $457
million for safe neighborhood parks in park-poor and
disadvantaged communities and nature centers, and $400 million
for state park deferred maintenance and acquisition.
Proposition 84 was primarily a water and flood control bond,
but also included funding for watershed and ecosystem
restoration, and for habitat conservation.
AB 2444
Page 11
Proposition 1 (2014-Legislative) Water Quality, Supply, and
Infrastructure Improvement Act. Total, $7.12 billion.
Proposition 1 was primarily a water bond but also included
funding for watersheds and ecosystem restoration.
b) Assessing Unmet Needs for park and natural resource
investments: To measure the national need for public outdoor
recreation facilities and parkland acquisitions at the state
and local level, the National Park Service annually, as part
of the Land and Water Conservation Fund program, requests each
state partner to estimate the total cost of desired outdoor
recreation facility development and parklands acquisition
projects that cannot be met with available levels of funding.
The 2012 report found there was a $3.6 billion total in unmet
needs for state and local parks in California in 2011, and
$4.85 billion in 2012.
State Parks: DPR has estimated the state's backlog of
deferred maintenance at state parks alone is over $1.2
billion. The Governor's proposed budget for 2016/17 would
appropriate $60 million for state park deferred maintenance.
Local and Regional Parks: The California Park & Recreation
Society conducted a survey of local and regional park
districts to assess unmet need. 45 out of 500 agencies
responded to the survey (a 15 to 20% sampling) and estimated a
total unmet need of $1.826 billion for local parks.
Park-Poor and Disadvantaged Communities: DPR awarded $360
million in competitive grants for safe neighborhood parks in
park-poor communities through Proposition 84 and the AB 31 (De
León) Statewide Park Program. DPR reported that they received
applications for over $3 billion in funds for the program.
Rural Communities: While many park poor communities are
located in heavily populated urban areas, many rural
communities also are park-poor and economically disadvantaged.
As an example, DPR in 2009 released a report called the
AB 2444
Page 12
Central Valley Vision, which assessed unmet park and
recreation needs in the Central Valley. The report found that
compared to other California regions, the Central Valley lacks
parks for residents and visitors. Major trends, including
population growth projected for the region, pointed to the
need for significant investment in improving park and
recreation access. Projected costs to implement the Central
Valley Vision plan were $272 million over 20 years.
River Parkways, Trails and Active Transportation: The River
Parkways Program, including Proposition 50 and Proposition 84
dollars combined, received applications totaling over $700
million for $151 million in awarded funds, a 5 to 1 ratio.
The Recreation Trails Program in 2015 was able to fund $8.4
million out of $60 million requested. The Active
Transportation Program received grant requests totaling over
$1 billion for their first two rounds of funding, of which
$300 million in available funding was awarded.
State Conservancies, Wildlife Corridors, Climate Change
Adaptation, and other Natural Resource Needs: The total needs
for wildlife habitat conservation, climate change adaptation,
and other natural resource needs is unknown. Restoration of
the Los Angeles River alone is anticipated to be in the
billions of dollars. Proposition 1 provided $100 million for
this purpose. The WCB receives a significant portion of its
funding from state bond funds, in addition to the Habitat
Conservation Fund and the Wildlife Restoration Fund. The
Habitat Conservation Fund is set to expire in 2020 unless
extended. The WCB's strategic plan indicates that available
state bond funds for wildlife habitat from prior bonds are
dwindling, and that future bond funds will be needed.
Existing bond funds will likely be exhausted by the 2019/20
fiscal year. The WCB estimates the state's five year unmet and
unfunded need for prioritized wildlife habitat conservation
for the WCB alone at about $864 million. Proposition 1
provided some funding for watershed and ecosystem restoration,
both within and outside the Delta. The climate change
adaptation needs identified in this bill, such as sea level
AB 2444
Page 13
rise and ocean acidification, are unknown but also
significant.
The funding in Proposition 1 for state conservancies was
limited to water related needs. Other areas of the state not
covered by conservancies also have natural resource
conservation needs. For example, the Cascade Mountains,
including Mount Shasta and Mount Lassen, are not covered by a
conservancy. Another example of such an area is the Salton
Sea, which is facing significant challenges in the very near
future for habitat restoration needs as the Sea recedes.
Estimated costs for restoration at the Salton Sea have ranged
from $2 billion to $8 billion. Forest management needs
throughout the state to reduce wild fire risk and for
watershed restoration and maintenance are also significant.
c) Issues for Consideration:
i. What should the overall dollar amount of this bond be?
As currently drafted, this bill does not specify the total
amount of funding that would be authorized, or how those funds
would be allocated among the various park and resource needs
identified in the bond. The author has indicated his desire
to gather input from the committee, legislative colleagues,
stakeholders, and the administration to help inform what those
dollar levels should be. As the estimates cited above
indicate, the unmet need far exceeds the amount of funding
that can be provided in a single bond measure, particularly in
light of the state's other funding needs and debt obligations.
Suggested Amendment:
While this bill is clearly a work in progress and will be
further fleshed out as it moves through the legislative
process, the committee may wish to consider amending this bill
at this time to identify the total dollar amount for the bond,
and perhaps how those funds would be allocated between the
three major categories of the bond. Most proposals for a
AB 2444
Page 14
statewide 2016 park bond fall in the $2.4 to $3 billion range.
As one option, the committee might consider amending this
bill to provide a total dollar amount of $2.985 billion in
authorized bond funding. In order to implement the author's
and the Legislature's intent in prioritizing the bond funding,
the $2.985 billion could be further allocated between three
major categories in the bond as follows:
1. Park-poor and disadvantaged community parks (Article 2):
$995 million
2. Other state, local, regional, and rural parks, and trails
(Articles 3-6):
$995 million
3. River Parkways, conservancies, wildlife, climate,
resources (Articles 7- 8): $995 million
Total:
$2.985 billion
ii. What types of expenditures should be prioritized in
this bond?
Acquisitions vs. enhancement and maintenance of existing
lands and facilities: Recent bonds have committed substantial
funding to new land acquisition, while existing parks continue
to deteriorate. As stated above, DPR has estimated the total
deferred maintenance backlog at state parks at over $1.2
billion. According to the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor
Plan of 2015, in a survey of 300 local and regional park
directors, 55% cited rehabilitation of existing parks as the
highest priority, versus 19% for new park development, and 17%
for new facilities in existing parks. For these reasons, the
Legislature may want to consider prioritizing deferred
maintenance and rehabilitation or enhancement of existing
AB 2444
Page 15
parks over new acquisitions in this bond.
Disadvantaged communities vs. per capita or block grants:
The author of this bill has identified addressing the park,
recreation and open space needs of park-poor urban and rural
disadvantaged communities as a high priority in this bond.
The Parks Forward Commission also recommended expanding park
access for California's underserved communities and urban
populations, and engaging California's younger generations.
However, local and regional parks throughout the state have
also identified significant unmet park and recreation
investment needs. While this bill includes provisions for
funding both purposes, the relative dollar amounts allocated
to each have not been determined. The Legislature will need
to decide how best to balance the needs of underserved
communities with statewide needs in prioritizing and
allocating funding in this proposal.
California Conservation Corps and Local Conservation
Corps: Prior bonds have included funding for projects of the
California Conservation Corps (CCC) and local conservation
corps. This bill allows but does not require preference to be
given in awarding grants to projects that utilize the services
of the CCC or certified community corps.
Suggested Amendment: The committee and author may wish to
consider an amendment specifically allocating funding to the
CCC and local conservation corps as follows:
"The sum of ________ shall be available to the California
Conservation Corps for projects to rehabilitate or improve
parks and restore watersheds, including regional and community
fuel load reduction projects on public lands, and stream and
river restoration projects. Not less than 50% of these funds
shall be in the form of grants to local conservation corps."
iii. River parkways: This bill includes a category for
funding of river parkways, and specifies that a portion of the
AB 2444
Page 16
funding allocated for this purpose shall be allocated to
restoration efforts on the upper and lower Los Angeles River.
Proposition 1 allocated $100 million for this purpose. How to
allocate appropriation of these funds is an issue that is
currently before the Assembly Budget Subcommittee #3 on
Resources. The Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO), in its
review of the Governor's budget proposal observed that the
overall plan for the Los Angeles River lacked some detail.
The LAO recommended that the Legislature develop a multiyear
plan for allocating funding for Los Angeles River restoration
efforts. The Assembly Budget Subcommittee in materials
prepared for subcommittee hearings this month agrees with the
LAO and recommends that budget trailer bill language be
considered specifying that the Proposition 1 funding for the
Los Angeles River be equally divided between the upper and
lower river and the two conservancies.
Suggested Amendment: In light of the proposed Budget
Committee action regarding the Proposition 1 funding, the
committee and author might wish to consider a similar
amendment to the funding proposed in this bill for the Los
Angeles River, to specify that the grant funds shall be
equally divided between projects in the upper river and lower
river regions.
3)Prior and Related Legislation: SB 317 (De León) of 2015
proposed to authorize $2.45 billion in bond expenditures,
including $1.45 billion for parks. The $1.45 billion was
further divided to provide $800 million for safe neighborhood
parks in park-poor communities, $200 million for local park
rehabilitation, $200 million for regional parks, $200 million
for state parks, and $50 million to DPR for revenue generation
activities. SB 317 also proposed $370 million for rivers,
lakes and streams; $350 million for coastal and ocean
protection; and $280 million for climate resilience. SB 317
also included funding for the Coastal Conservancy, Santa
Monica Mountains Conservancy, and the California Tahoe
Conservancy, but not for the other conservancies or for the
Salton Sea. SB 317 failed passage on the Senate floor.
AB 2444
Page 17
4)Support Arguments: Supporters assert that this bill will
provide an important opportunity for California to invest in
critically needed park and open space programs while providing
climate and habitat resiliency in our natural systems. This
bill provides a framework to infuse much needed financial
resources into all neighborhood, regional and state parks.
Supporters, in general, support the overall framework of the
bond, and emphasize support for particular components. Some
supporters highlight support for funding of local parks and
recreation, including funding for both park-poor communities,
and per capita funding. Several supporters express support
for funding of wildlife corridors, coastal and sierra
resources, state park deferred maintenance, and for the WCB.
With regard to conservancies, some entities support this bill
in concept, but point out large portions of the state fall
outside of the boundaries of the existing state conservancies,
and urge that an allocation be added to the WCB to be used for
projects outside the boundaries of the named conservancies.
Others urge inclusion of a specific funding allocation for
services performed by the California Conservation Corps (CCC)
and local conservation corps.
5)Opposition Arguments: None received.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Audubon California
Big Sur Land Trust
AB 2444
Page 18
Bolsa Chica Land Trust
California Association of Park & Recreation Commissioners &
Board Members
California Association of Park Districts (in concept)
California Association of Recreation and Park Districts
California Council of Land Trusts
California Park & Recreation Society
East Bay Regional Park District
El Dorado Irrigation District
Land Trust of Santa Cruz County
Latino Outdoors
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Napa County Regional Park and Open Space District
Pacific Forest Trust (in concept)
AB 2444
Page 19
Peninsula Open Space Trust
Rails to Trails Conservancy
San Francisco Parks Alliance
Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority
Save the Redwoods League
Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District
Sonoma County Regional Parks
Sonoma County Water Agency
State Park Partners Coalition
The Nature Conservancy
Watershed Conservation Authority
Opposition
None on file
AB 2444
Page 20
Analysis Prepared by:Diane Colborn / W., P., & W. / (916)
319-2096