BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE
Senator Robert M. Hertzberg, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Bill No: |AB 2444 |Hearing |6/29/16 |
| | |Date: | |
|----------+---------------------------------+-----------+---------|
|Author: |Eduardo Garcia |Tax Levy: |No |
|----------+---------------------------------+-----------+---------|
|Version: |6/23/16 |Fiscal: |Yes |
------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant|Grinnell |
|: | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
California Parks, Water, Climate, and Coastal Protection and
Outdoor Access For All Act of 2016 (Urgency)
Enacts the California Parks, Water, Climate, and Coastal
Protection and Outdoor Access for All Act of 2016, which places
a $3.12 billion bond before voters at the November, 2016
election.
Background
When public agencies issue bonds, they essentially borrow money
from investors, who provide cash in exchange for the agencies'
commitment to repay the principal amount of the bond plus
interest. Bonds are usually either revenue bonds, which repay
investors out of revenue generated from the project the agency
buys with bond proceeds, or general obligation bonds, which the
public agency pays out of general revenues and are guaranteed by
its full faith and credit.
Section One of Article XVI of the California Constitution and
the state's General Obligation Bond Law guide the issuance of
the state's general obligation debt. The Constitution allows
the Legislature to place general obligation bonds on the ballot
for specific purposes with a two-thirds vote of the Assembly and
Senate. Voters also can place bonds on the ballot by
initiative, as they have for parks, water projects, high-speed
rail, and stem cell research, among others. Either way, general
AB 2444 (Eduardo Garcia) 6/23/16
PageB of?
obligation bonds must be ratified by majority vote of the
state's electorate. Unlike local general obligation bonds, the
state's electorate doesn't automatically trigger an increased
tax to repay the bonds when they approve a state general
obligation bond. Article XVI of the California Constitution
commits the state to repay investors from general revenues above
all other claims, except payments to public education.
California voters approved $38.4 billion of general obligation
bonds between 1974 and 1999, but approximately $95 billion since
2000. Additionally, the Legislature enacted and voters approved
Proposition 1, which authorized $7.1 billion in bonds for water
quality and supply infrastructure (AB 1471, Rendon, 2014).
Bond acts have standard provisions that authorize the Treasurer
to sell a specified amount of bonds, and generally include
several uniform provisions that:
Establish the state's obligation to repay them, and
pledge its full faith and credit to repayment,
Set forth issuance procedures, and link the bond act to
the state's General Obligation Bond Law,
Create a finance committee with specified membership,
chaired by the State Treasurer,
Charge the committee to determine whether it is
"necessary or desirable" to issue the bonds,
Add other mechanisms necessary for the Treasurer and the
Department of Finance to implement the bond act, including
allowing the board to request a loan from the Pooled Money
Investment Board to advance funds for bond-funded programs
prior to the bond sale, among others.
In bond acts, the Legislature generally:
Sets forth categories of projects eligible for bond
funds, such as library construction or school facility
modernization,
Chooses an administrative agency to award the funds,
such as the State Librarian or the State Allocation Board,
AB 2444 (Eduardo Garcia) 6/23/16
PageC of?
Details the criteria to guide the administrative
agency's funding in each category,
Enacts enforcement and audit provisions, and
Provides for an election to approve the bond act.
Should the voters approve the bond act, the Legislature then
appropriates funds to the chosen agencies to fund projects
consistent with the criteria, generally as part of the Budget
Act. The Department of Finance then surveys agencies to
determine need for bond funds based on a project's readiness,
and then asks the Treasurer to sell bonds in a specified amount.
After the bond sale, the Department of Finance determines which
bond acts and agencies receive bond proceeds.
In recent years, the Legislature has enacted, and voters
approved the following bonds for parks:
Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and
Coastal Protection Act of 2000 of $2.1 billion (AB 18,
Villaraigosa), and
California Clean Water, Clean air, Safe neighborhood
parks, and Coastal Protection Act of 2002 of $2.6 billion
(AB 1602, Keeley).
The following bond act was placed on the ballot by initiative:
The Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood
Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006 of
$5.4 billion (Proposition 84).
Proposed Law
Assembly Bill 2444 enacts the California Parks, Water, Climate,
and Coastal Protection and Outdoor Access for All Act of 2016,
which places a $3.12 billion bond on the November, 2016, ballot.
After bonds are issued and sold, the measure allows the
Legislature to appropriate funds according to the following
schedule
AB 2444 (Eduardo Garcia) 6/23/16
PageD of?
$995 million to the Department of Parks and Recreation
(DPR) to create and expand safe neighborhood parks in
park-poor communities, in accordance with the competitive
grant program in the Statewide Park Development and
Community Revitalization Act of 2008 (AB 31, De León,
2008).
$1.055 billion for other park purposes, upon
appropriation by the Legislature, as follows:
o $450 million to DPR for local park
rehabilitation and improvement grants to local
governments on a per capita basis. 60% of this
allocation goes to cities and park districts using a
formula provided in the bill, while 40% flows to
counties, regional park and open space districts, open
space districts or authorities, and regional open
space districts, pursuant to a formula set in the
bill. The Director of DPR must prepare and adopt
criteria and procedures for evaluating applications,
which must contain a certification stating that the
grant-funded project is consistent with the park and
recreation element of the applicable city or county
general plan.
o $35 million for grants to cities and districts
providing park and recreation services with
populations of 200,000 or less, but in a county with a
population of 500,000 or more. Requires a 20% local
match unless the entity is a disadvantaged community.
o $120 million for competitive grants to
regional park districts, counties, open space
districts, open space authorities, and nonprofit
organizations to expand, rehabilitate, or restore
parks and park facilities, including trails, that
facilitate new or enhanced use.
o $50 million to the Natural Resources Agency
for competitive grants to local agencies,
conservancies, tribes, and nonprofit organizations to
promote new or alternate access to parks, waterways,
outdoor recreational pursuits, and forested or other
AB 2444 (Eduardo Garcia) 6/23/16
PageE of?
natural environments to encourage health-related
commuting and opportunities for Californians to
reconnect with nature. Authorizes up to 25% of funds
for innovative transportation programs for
disadvantaged youth. Requires a 20% match unless the
entity is a disadvantaged community.
o $50 million for competitive grants to cities,
counties and districts in non-urbanized areas, as
defined, and subject to specified criteria. Requires
a 20% local share match, unless the entity is a
disadvantaged community.
o $350 million to DPR to restore of existing
state park facilities to preserve and increase public
access, and to protect natural, cultural and historic
resources in the parks. At least 80% of the amount
allocated must be used for capital improvements to
address the DPR's deferred maintenance backlog.
Further requires that of this total amount:
§ $20 million for enterprise projects
that facilitate new or enhanced park use and user
experiences that generate revenue.
§ $20 million for grants to local
agencies that manage state parks to address
urgent infrastructure needs. A 25% local match
is required unless the local entity is a
disadvantaged community.
§ $50 million for direct distribution
to the 12 districts within the DPR to address
historic underinvestment in state park units.
§ $70 million to address major
infrastructure rehabilitation, improve tourism
and visitor experiences, and promote health and
safety in state parks, according to the following
schedule:
1. $10 million to implement a
Central Valley State Park program, only for
eligible parks in counties within the
central valley from Sacramento County south
to the Tehachapi Mountain Range.
AB 2444 (Eduardo Garcia) 6/23/16
PageF of?
2. $10 million to implement a
Central Coast State Park Program, with parks
limited to those in Ventura County.
3. $15 million to implement
an East Bay State Park Program.
4. $10 million to implement a
High Desert-Coachella Valley State Park
Program.
5. $10 million to implement
an Inland Empire State Park Program.
6. $15 million to implement a
San Diego State Park Program.
$1.070 billion for water, land conservation, climate
preparedness and habitat resilience, upon appropriation by
the Legislature, as follows:
o $210 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, that 50% of the amount made
available for projects to protect and enhance the
upper and lower Los Angeles River and its tributaries,
and not less than 5% of funds for the Santa Ana River
program of the State Coastal Conservancy.
o $245 million in the following amounts to:
§ Baldwin Hills Conservancy: $5
million
§ California Tahoe Conservancy: $17.5
million
§ Coachella Conservancy: $10 million
§ Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
Conservancy: $15 million
§ Salton Sea Authority: $25 million
AB 2444 (Eduardo Garcia) 6/23/16
PageG of?
§ San Diego River Conservancy: $15
million
§ San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles
Rivers and Mountains Conservancy: $25 million
§ San Joaquin River Conservancy: $10
million
§ Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy:
$20 million
§ Sierra Nevada Conservancy: $22.5
million
§ State Coastal Conservancy: $80
million, of which 40% must be allocated to the
San Francisco Bay Area program.
o $615 million for climate adaptation and
resiliency projects to 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:
§ $340 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. Of this amount,
$55 million must be available for implementation
of Natural Community Conservation Plans, and $10
million to the Department of Fish and Wildlife
for competitive grants for wildlife and animal
rehabilitation facilities operated by
nongovernmental entities.
§ $80 million to the California
Climate Resilience Account, for projects to
assist coastal communities with climate change
adaptation, including sea level rise and ocean
AB 2444 (Eduardo Garcia) 6/23/16
PageH of?
acidification, and the Pacific Flyway.
§ $15 million for projects that
improve agricultural and open-space soil health,
improve carbon soil sequestration, erosion
control, water quality, and water retention.
§ $60 million for projects that reduce
fire risk, improve forest health, and provide
feedstock for compost, energy, or alternative
fuels facilities, of which $5 million must be
allocated from the Department of Forestry and
Fire Protection to the California Tahoe
Conservancy.
§ $40 million to the California
Conservation Corps for park and watershed
projects, of which 50% must be allocated to local
certified conservation corps.
§ $80 million to the Natural Resources
Agency for projects identified by local agencies,
nongovernmental land conservation organizations,
and tribes for:
1. Projects for restoration,
protection and acquisition of natural,
cultural, and historic resources.
2. Projects that convert or
repurpose coastal zone properties formerly
operating as fossil fuel power plants to
permanently protected open space and parks.
3. Projects that enhance
water and natural resources or promote
economic activity through improved
recreation, tourism, or natural resource
investment in areas of the state not within
the jurisdiction of a state conservancy.
Requires project applicants to provide a 20%
match and to seek to leverage other
available local, federal and nongovernmental
AB 2444 (Eduardo Garcia) 6/23/16
PageI of?
fund sources.
Wherever feasible, the bill grants a preference for grant
projects whose application includes the use of the California
Conservation Corps, and a priority to projects that include
water efficiencies, stormwater capture, or carbon sequestration
features.
The bill allows 5% of grant funds to be spent on administration,
and up to 10% for planning and monitoring necessary for the
successful design, selection, and implementation of a project,
but does not restrict funds ordinarily used by an agency for
preliminary plans, working drawings, and construction as defined
in the annual Budget Act for a capital outlay project or grant
project. Planning may include feasibility studies for
environmental site cleanup that would further the purpose of a
project.
The measure requires at least 20% of bond funds to be allocated
for projects in severely disadvantaged communities, and allows
up to 10% of funds of each funding category to be allocated for
technical assistance to disadvantaged communities. Agencies
must operate a multidisciplinary technical assistance program
for disadvantaged communities. Funds used for planning projects
or technical assistance to disadvantaged communities may exceed
the 10% cap if the state agency administering the programs
demonstrates a need for the additional funding. AB 2444 defines
a "disadvantaged community" as a community with median household
income of 80% statewide average, and a "severely disadvantaged"
as one with 60%, using the same definitions from Proposition 84.
Each state agency receiving funding from the Bond must:
Develop and adopt project solicitation and evaluation
guidelines, which include monitoring and reporting
requirements, unless they've previously developed and
adopted them,
Conduct three public meetings, one each in Northern,
Central, and Southern California, to consider public
comments before finalizing the guidelines. The agency must
publish the draft solicitation and evaluation guidelines on
AB 2444 (Eduardo Garcia) 6/23/16
PageJ of?
its Internet Web site at least 30 days before the public
meetings.
Submit the guidelines to the Secretary of the Natural
Resources Agency,
The Secretary must verify that the guidelines are consistent
with applicable statutes and purposes enumerated in this bill,
and post an electronic form of the guidelines submitted by state
agencies and the subsequent verifications on the Natural
Resources Agency's Internet Web site. Upon adoption, the bill
requires the Secretary to transmit copies of the guidelines to
the fiscal committees and the appropriate policy committees of
the Legislature. The Secretary must also publish a list of all
bond-funded program and project expenditures pursuant at least
annually, in written form, and electronically on the agency's
Internet Web site.
Additionally, the measure requires the Department of Finance to
provide for an independent audit of bond expenditures. The
California State Auditor or the Controller may conduct a full
audit of any or all of the activities of that entity if an audit
required above reveals any impropriety. Any state agency
issuing a bond-funded grant must require adequate reporting of
the expenditures of the funding from the grant.
The measure incorporates standard provisions in general
obligation bond law either explicitly or by reference, including
charging the finance committee with determining whether it's
necessary and desirable to issue the bonds. The bill creates
the California Parks, Water, Climate, and Coastal Protection and
Outdoor Access for All Act Finance Committee, comprised of the
Director of Finance, the Controller, and the Treasurer, who
serves as Chair.
Additionally, AB 2444 directs the Secretary of State to submit
the Act to voters at the November 8, 2016, general election
notwithstanding several sections of the Elections Code. The
measure makes legislative findings and declarations supporting
its provisions, and defines many of its terms.
State Revenue Impact
AB 2444 (Eduardo Garcia) 6/23/16
PageK of?
No estimate.
Comments
1. Purpose of the bill . According to the author, "Investments
to improve and to further create parks and recreation areas, as
well as to create trail networks that provide access from
neighborhoods to parks and recreational opportunities, will help
ensure all Californians have access to safe places to exercise
and enjoy recreational activities. Not only do parks and
natural spaces provide a memorable outdoor experience, they also
have numerous public safety, educational, and health benefits.
Additionally, continued investment in the state's parks, trails,
natural resources, and greening our urban areas will mitigate
the effects of climate change, providing California access to
its bountiful natural resources for future generations to come"
2. Sixteen tons . Debt is an essential part of almost every
government, business, and personal balance sheet, as borrowers
seek funds from lenders in exchange for a future commitment to
repay them. However, evaluating the State's general obligation
debt is difficult; both the State Treasurer and the Legislative
Analyst's Office suggest there's no correct amount. Instead,
experts suggest that states should look at three criteria:
affordability, comparability, and optimality:<1>
California currently has $75 billion of general obligation and
$9.8 billion of lease revenue debt outstanding, which is
affordable. The Governor's 2016 Five-Year Infrastructure Plan
states that the General Fund spent $5.2 billion on debt service
in 2014-15, which the plan estimates will grow to $5.6 billion
by 2019-20, not including special funds. The Plan calculates
the Debt Service Ratio, or the ratio between debt service and
general fund revenues, as 4.69% in 2014-15, which falls slightly
to 4.3% in 2019-2020. These totals increase to $7.2 billion in
2014-15 and $8.5 billion in 2019-20 when non-General Fund debt
service is included, but the ratio doesn't change significantly,
as the Plan estimates General Fund revenues to grow, and assumes
no new general obligation bond authorizations. The State
---------------------------
<1> Robert Wassmer and Ronald Fisher "Debt Burdens of California
State and Local Governments: Past, Present and Future." As
requested and supported by the California Debt and Investment
Advisory Commission. July 2011.
AB 2444 (Eduardo Garcia) 6/23/16
PageL of?
Treasurer calculates a debt service ratio of 6.84% in 2014-15,
and 6.79% in 2015-16; the percentages differ because the
Treasurer does not reflect offsets of federal government
subsidies or transfers from special funds. While debt service
percentages are reasonable, every dollar spent on debt service
reduces the funding that is available for other priorities, and
debt service is one of the fastest growing state costs in recent
years, according to the Governor's Five-Year Infrastructure
Plan. The Plan proposes only $350 million in new general
obligation bonds.
California's comparability to other states is less favorable,
but improving. The State Treasurer's 2015 Debt Affordability
Report, issued last October, contains the following chart:
----------------------------------------------------------------
|Debt Ratios Of 10 Most Populous States, Ranked By Ratio Of Debt |
|To Personal Income |
| |
----------------------------------------------------------------
|-----------------+------------+---------+---------+------------|
| State | Moody's/ | Debt to |Debt per |Debt as a % |
| | S&P/ |personal |capita(b)| |
| | Fitch(a) |income(b)| | of state |
| | | | |GDP(b)(c) |
|-----------------+------------+---------+---------+------------|
|Texas |Aaa/AAA/AAA | 1.0% | $406 |.71% |
| | | | | |
|-----------------+------------+---------+---------+------------|
|North Carolina |Aaa/AAA/AAA | 1.9% | $739 | 1.56% |
| | | | | |
|-----------------+------------+---------+---------+------------|
|Michigan |Aa2/AA-/AA | 1.9% | $758 | 1.74% |
|-----------------+------------+---------+---------+------------|
|Florida |Aa1/AAA/AAA | 2.4% | $973 | 2.42% |
|-----------------+------------+---------+---------+------------|
|Pennsylvania |Aa3/AA-/AA- | 2.4% | $1,117 | 2.21% |
|-----------------+------------+---------+---------+------------|
|Ohio |Aa1/AA+/AA+ | 2.7% | $1,109 | 2.27% |
| | | | | |
|-----------------+------------+---------+---------+------------|
|Georgia |Aaa/AAA/AAA | 2.8% | $1,043 | 2.32% |
|-----------------+------------+---------+---------+------------|
|California | Aa3/AA-/A+ | 5.1% | $2,407 | 4.24% |
AB 2444 (Eduardo Garcia) 6/23/16
PageM of?
|-----------------+------------+---------+---------+------------|
|New York |Aa1/AA+/AA+ | 5.7% | $3,092 | 4.66% |
| | | | | |
|-----------------+------------+---------+---------+------------|
|Illinois | A3/A-/A- | 5.7% | $2,681 | 4.79% |
|-----------------+------------+---------+---------+------------|
| | | | | |
|-----------------+------------+---------+---------+------------|
|Moody's Median | | 2.5% | $1,012 | 2.21% |
|All States | | | | |
|-----------------+------------+---------+---------+------------|
|Median For The | | 2.55% | $1,076 | 2.3% |
|10 Most Populous | | | | |
|States | | | | |
|-----------------+------------+---------+---------+------------|
| | | | | |
|(a) Moody's, | | | | |
|Standard & | | | | |
|Poor's, and | | | | |
|Fitch Ratings as | | | | |
|of September, | | | | |
|2015. | | | | |
| | | | | |
|(b) Figures as | | | | |
|reported by | | | | |
|Moody's in its | | | | |
|2015 State Debt | | | | |
|Medians Report | | | | |
|released June | | | | |
|2015. As of | | | | |
|calendar year | | | | |
|end 2013. | | | | |
| | | | | |
|(c) State GDP | | | | |
|numbers have a | | | | |
|one-year lag. | | | | |
---------------------------------------------------------------
Determining optimality or whether government is investing in the
quantity and quality of public capital desired by residents, and
financing the appropriate share with debt, is more difficult.
LAO recommends that the Legislature consider the Five-Year
Infrastructure Plan as a starting point to developing a
coordinated approach to infrastructure funding, and establish a
AB 2444 (Eduardo Garcia) 6/23/16
PageN of?
committee to focus on statewide infrastructure.
3. The good news . Investors ultimately determine the interest
rate paid on a bond when they buy one. However, ratings issued
from the three major credit ratings agencies often inform
investors and the public regarding the state's creditworthiness,
and assess any investment risk from investing in California
general obligation bonds. These ratings change over time in
response to a state's fiscal situation and economy, among other
factors. In 2014, ratings agencies Standard and Poor's and
Moody's both raised their ratings on California bonds, and
ratings agency Fitch has increased the state's rating twice
between 2012 and 2014. Agencies identified improving revenues
and fiscal discipline when making the upgrade. Additionally,
California sold $2.95 billion in general obligation bonds in
March, about which the Treasurer cited "extremely high demand"
with "the lowest borrowing costs on 30-year bonds in the last
three decades." The Treasurer added:
"The spread between the state's new general obligation
bonds and a widely used municipal bond market benchmark was
the most favorable since 2005, and these low yields allowed
the state to refinance $1.96 billion in
higher-interest-paying bonds, saving California taxpayers
$398.5 million over the remaining life of the bonds. Both
retail and institutional investors showed extremely strong
interest in the bond offerings. Retail investors placed
$1.3 billion in orders, the most retail orders in a single
offering since 2010. Overall demand was so positive that
the Treasurer's Office increased the amount of refunding
bonds by more than $500 million. Yields on the bonds
ranged from 2.17% for 10-year maturities to 3.05% for the
longest maturity, in 2045."
4. The bad news . California has a distinct problem: of the $135
billion that voters have authorized, almost $27 billion hasn't
been issued yet. The state hasn't yet sold several billion in
transportation and resources bonds and almost $9 billion in high
speed rail bonds, plus $7.5 billion from the recently enacted
water bond. While the state has made progress reducing the
amount of unaissued bonds in recent years, many bond-funded
projects have not yet received required approvals. The
Treasurer generally sells about $1 billion in new money bonds
twice per year, so even if the Legislature enacts and the voters
AB 2444 (Eduardo Garcia) 6/23/16
PageO of?
approve this measure, many of its purposes may have to wait
several years for funding as projects funded by previously
authorized bonds get up and running.
5. Related legislation . Last year, the Committee approved SB
317 (De León), which enacted the Safe Neighborhood Parks,
Rivers, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2016, which placed a
$2.45 billion bond on the November, 2016, ballot. However, the
measure did not advance from the Senate Floor before the
Constitutional deadline.
6. Incoming ! On Tuesday, June 28th, the Committee on Natural
Resources and Wildlife approved AB 2444. This Committee is
hearing the measure as the Committee of second reference.
7. Urgency . To enable a housing bond appearing on the
November, 2016, ballot, AB 2444 contains an urgency clause
providing that its provisions take effect immediately upon
enactment.
Assembly Actions
Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife 11-1
Assembly Appropriations 14-2
Assembly Floor 56-18
Support and
Opposition (6/28/16)
Support : Association of California Water Agencies; Audubon
California; Azul; Bay Area Open Space Council; Big Sur Land
Trust; Bolsa Chica Land Trust; Bronzan Consulting; Calcoast;
California Association of Local Conservation Corps; California
Association of Museum; California Association of Park &
Recreation Commissioners & Board Membersl California Association
of Recreation and Park Districts; California Council of Land
Trusts; California Center for Public Health Advocacy;
California Coastal Protection Network; California League of
Conservation Voters; California Native Plant Society; California
Park & Recreation Society; California ReLeaf; California
AB 2444 (Eduardo Garcia) 6/23/16
PageP of?
Special Districts Association; California State Parks
Foundation; California Tahoe Alliance; California Urban Streams
Partnership; California Wilderness Coalition; Carmichael
Recreation and Park District; City of American Canyon Parks and
Recreation Department; Children's Defense Fund; City of Chino;
Consumnes Community Services District Park & Recreation
Department; Defenders of Wildlife; Desert Recreation District;
Desert Valley Builders Association; City of Dublin, East Bay
Regional Park District; El Cerrito Recreation; El Dorado
Irrigation District; Fathers & Families of San Joaquin; City of
Fountain Valley; Friends of Harbors, Beaches, and Parks;
Fulton-El Camino Recreation & Park District; Golden Gate
National Parks Conservancy; Greater Vallejo Recreation District;
The Greenlining Institute; Hesperia Recreation & Park District;
Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System; Hills for Everyone; City of
Imperial, John Muir Land Trust; City of Lafayette; Laguna
Greenbelt, Inc; Land Paths; Land Trust of Santa Cruz County;
Latino Outdoors; Livermore Area Recreation and Park District;
Mammoth Lakes California; Marin Agricultural Land Trust; Marin
County Parks; Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District; City of
Milpitas; Mono Lake Community; City of Montebello; City of
Morgan Hill, Napa County Regional Park and Open Space District;
The Nature Conservancy; Orangevale Recreation & Park District;
Pacific Forest Trust; Paradise Recreation & Park District;
Pathways for Wildlife., Peninsula Open Space Trust, Placer
County; Pleasant Hill Recreation and Park District; Policy Link;
City of Portola; City of Poway, Rails to Trails Conservancy;
Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District; San Francisco Parks
Alliance; Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors; Santa Clara
Valley Open Space Authority; Save Mount Diablo; Save the
Redwoods League; City of Selma; Sierra Business Council; Sierra
Club California; Sierra Institute for Community and Environment;
Sierra Nevada Alliance; Sierra Water Workgroup; Solano Land
Trust; Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space
District; Sonoma County Regional Parks; Sonoma County Water
Agency; Sonoma Land Trust; State Park Partners Coalition; Tahoe
Mountain Sports ; City of Torrance; The Trust for Public Land;
TODEC Legal Center; TreePeople; City of Tustin Parks &
Recreation Department; United Ways of California; City of
Victorville; Watershed Conservation Authority; City of
Westminster.
Opposition : Howard Jarvis TRa
AB 2444 (Eduardo Garcia) 6/23/16
PageQ of?
-- END --