BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2444
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB
2444 (Eduardo Garcia)
As Amended June 1, 2016
2/3 vote. Urgency
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Water |11-1 |Levine, Dodd, Eggman, |Harper |
| | |Cristina Garcia, | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | |Eduardo Garcia, | |
| | |Gomez, Lopez, Medina, | |
| | |Olsen, Salas, | |
| | |Williams | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Appropriations |14-2 |Gonzalez, Bloom, |Chang, Obernolte |
| | |Bonilla, Bonta, | |
| | |Calderon, Daly, | |
| | |Eggman, Eduardo | |
| | |Garcia, Roger | |
| | |Hernández, Holden, | |
| | |Quirk, Santiago, | |
| | |Weber, Wood | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
AB 2444
Page 2
------------------------------------------------------------------
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
$2.985 billion in State General Obligation bonds 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;
b) Priority be given to projects that leverage other
funding sources;
c) Projects receiving funding include signage informing the
public of the bond investments;
d) Administering entities be encouraged 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
AB 2444
Page 3
authorizes entities to pool funding for such purposes.
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.
f) Requires projects that use California Conservation Corps
services or certified community conservation corps to be
given preference for grants where feasible.
g) Authorizes projects that include water efficiencies,
stormwater capture, or carbon sequestration features in the
project design to be given priority for grant funding.
h) Authorizes the Legislature to enact legislation
necessary to implement programs funded by the bond.
AB 2444
Page 4
1)Authorizes funds to be available, upon appropriation of the
Legislature, for all of the following programs and purposes:
a) $995 million 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) $995 million for other park purposes as follows:
i) $570 million 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
used to allocate the per capita funds between cities,
districts, counties, and regional park districts, based
on population.
ii) $120 million 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.
iii) $325 million 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. Requires that $20 million shall be
available for state parks managed by local agencies, $20
million for state park enterprise projects that generate
revenue, and $5 million for climate change adaptation
projects in state parks.
AB 2444
Page 5
iv) $50 million to the Natural Resources Agency for
competitive grants to local agencies, conservancies,
tribes, and nonprofit organizations for trails and
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.
v) $50 million 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.
c) $995 million for water, land conservation, climate
preparedness and habitat resilience as follows:
i) $200 million to the Natural Resources Agency for
grants for river parkways and urban creeks. Requires a
20% match unless the entity is a disadvantaged community.
Requires that 50% 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.
ii) $250 million to the following state entities:
(1) Baldwin Hills Conservancy, $5 million
(2) California Tahoe Conservancy, $20 million
(3) Coachella Conservancy, $10 million
(4) Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Conservancy, $15
million
AB 2444
Page 6
(5) Salton Sea Authority, $25 million
(6) San Diego River Conservancy, $15 million
(7) San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and
Mountains Conservancy, $20 million
(8) San Joaquin River Conservancy, $15 million
(9) Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, $20
million
(10) State Coastal Conservancy, $80 million.
Requires that 40% of this amount be allocated to the
Bay Area program.
d) $545 million 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, recreational opportunities,
or drought tolerance and water retention, as follows:
i) $300 million to the Wildlife Conservation Board
(WCB) for wildlife corridors and open space, for climate
change adaptation, for species habitat, and for existing
open space corridors and trail linkages.
ii) $100 million 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.
AB 2444
Page 7
iii) $25 million for projects that improve agricultural
and open-space soil health, improve carbon soil
sequestration, erosion control, water quality, and water
retention.
iv) $50 million for projects that reduce fire risk,
improve forest health, and provide feedstock for compost,
energy, or alternative fuels facilities.
v) $30 million for park and watershed projects of the
California Conservation Corps, with 50% of that amount
allocated to local certified conservation corps.
vi) $40 million to the Natural Resources Agency for
tribal cultural resources, conversion of blighted
properties in coastal areas, and resource conservation
projects in areas of the state not covered by
conservancies.
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
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.
3)Includes an urgency clause providing that it is necessary that
this bill take effect immediately in order to fund a
California parks, water, climate, and coastal protection and
AB 2444
Page 8
outdoor access for all program at the earliest possible date.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Authorizes the Legislature to pass legislation, by a 2/3 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 park lands, open space, and
wildlife areas; water conservation 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 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
approximately $875 million was for parks.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee analysis:
1)Annual General Fund (GF) principal and interest payments of
approximately $194 million. The state pays principal and
interest during the repayment period. Cost will depend on
factors such as the actual interest rate paid, the timing of
the bond sales (bonds are often sold over a number of years),
AB 2444
Page 9
and the time period over which the bonds are repaid. Assuming
a 5% flat interest rate with a 30-year repayment period, the
state would pay about $65 million annually in principal and
interest costs for each $1 billion borrowed.
2)One-time GF costs of around $220,000 to include the text and
analysis of the proposal and arguments for and against the
measure in the statewide voter information guide.
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 regions not covered
by conservancies; and 8) habitat needs, including wildlife
corridors, climate change adaptation, and healthy soils and
forests.
The author notes that 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. According to the author, 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 evidenced by the 8-1
ratio of grant application requests vs. available grant dollars
for park grants awarded under the AB 31 (De León) Statewide
Parks Program. Demand has been particularly high in both urban
and rural disadvantaged communities where many still lack access
AB 2444
Page 10
to safe parks, trails, and recreation areas.
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.
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
restoration projects.
Since 2000, California voters have approved six park and/or
water bonds. The last legislatively crafted park bond was
Proposition 40, the California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe
Neighborhood Parks, and Coastal Protection Act which was
approved by the voters fourteen years ago in 2002. Proposition
40 provided a total of $2.6 billion, including $964 million for
local and regional parks through both block grants and
AB 2444
Page 11
competitive grant awards, and $250 million for state park
deferred maintenance and acquisition.
Proposition 84, the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and
Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act,
was a voter approved initiative that provided a total of $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. 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.
Most recently the Legislature passed and the voters approved
Proposition 1, the Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure
Improvement Act of 2014. Proposition 1 authorized a total of
$7.12 billion but was primarily a water bond and did not include
funding for parks, though it did include some funding for
watersheds and ecosystem restoration.
The total estimate of unfunded park and natural resource needs
in California is significant and in the billions of dollars.
Recent estimates of the unmet need for parks alone, not
including other natural resource conservation needs, is close to
$5 billion. Please see the Assembly Water, Parks & Wildlife
Committee policy analysis for further details on estimates of
investment needs for various categories of funding included in
this measure.
SB 317 (De León) of 2015 proposed to authorize $2.45 billion in
AB 2444
Page 12
bond expenditures, including $1.45 billion for parks. SB 317
failed passage on the Senate floor.
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 for 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.
There is no formal opposition to this bill.
Analysis Prepared by:
Diane Colborn / W., P., & W. / (916) 319-2096
FN:
0003358
AB 2444
Page 13