BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
AB 2444 (Eduardo Garcia) - California Parks, Water, Climate, and
Coastal Protection and Outdoor Access For All Act of 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Version: August 1, 2016 |Policy Vote: N.R. & W. 6 - 2, |
| | GOV. & F. 4 - 1 |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Urgency: Yes |Mandate: No |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Hearing Date: August 1, 2016 |Consultant: Narisha Bonakdar |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill
Summary: AB 2444 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 an
unspecified amount in State General Obligation bonds to finance
parks, water, climate adaptation, coastal protection, and
outdoor access programs.
Fiscal
Impact: Unknown significant costs, in the low billions of
dollars.
A total of approximately $735,000,000 in interest per billion
in bonds issued, assuming 30-year maturity at 4 percent
interest rate. (General Fund)
Unknown, but potentially significant, costs to the State
Treasurers Office and administering agencies (bond funds).
Nearly $3 million (General Fund) to the Secretary of State for
printing and postage for a supplemental ballot in the 2016
AB 2444 (Eduardo Garcia) Page 1 of
?
election. This bill missed the deadline for printing for this
election.
Background: Existing law 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.
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.
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.
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.
Proposed Law:
This bill 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
$3.12 billion in State General Obligation bonds to finance
parks, water, climate adaptation, coastal protection, and
AB 2444 (Eduardo Garcia) Page 2 of
?
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. It contains 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 is 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 authorizes
entities to pool funding for such purposes.
3) 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.
AB 2444 (Eduardo Garcia) Page 3 of
?
b) Requires at least 20% 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.
4) Authorizes funds to be available, upon appropriation of the
Legislature, for all of the following programs and purpose as
identified in each article of the bill:
a) Article 2 which would make available $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].
AB 2444 (Eduardo Garcia) Page 4 of
?
b) Article 3 would provide $1.070 billion for local and
regional outdoor spaces as follows:
i) $450 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) $35 million for grants to cities and districts of
less than 200,000 population in urbanized counties of
less than 500,000 total population. A 20% match is
required except for disadvantaged communities.
iii) 60% of the $450 million is to go to cities and
districts that are not regional park districts on a per
capita basis except each jurisdiction receives a minimum
of $250,000.
iv) 40% of the $450 million is to go to counties and
regional park districts on a per capita basis.
There is a prohibition on recipients reducing their local
expenditures after receiving bond funding. Grants must be
consistent with local general plans or parks plans. There
is a three year provision on encumbering a grant.
c) Article 4 contains $350 million in funding for state
parks, as follows:
i) These funds are limited to existing parks for
restoration and preservation, and to increase public
access. No less than 80% of these funds must be directed
to capital improvements that address deferred
AB 2444 (Eduardo Garcia) Page 5 of
?
maintenance.
ii) $20 million for enterprise projects for new user
experiences and revenue generation projects.
iii) $20 million for grants to local agencies that
operate state parks for deferred maintenance. A 25% match
is required except for disadvantaged communities.
iv) $70 million for infrastructure repairs at state parks
through new regional programs at state parks with $10
million in the Central Valley, $10 million on the Central
Coast in Ventura County, $15 million in the East Bay, $10
for the Inland Empire, and $15 million for San Diego.
v) $50 million for direct distribution by the department
to its existing 12 districts to address historic
underinvestment.
d) Article 5 contains $50 million for the California Natural
Resources Agency for Trails and Waterfront Greenway
investments. These funds would be 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.
e) Article 6 contains $50 million for competitive grants for
rural recreation and tourism to rural entities eligible for
under criteria established in the Roberti, Z-Berg, Harris
grants program.
f) Article 7 contains $210 million for clean water and
coastal programs including urban creeks. Designates
unspecified amounts to the following: the Lower American
AB 2444 (Eduardo Garcia) Page 6 of
?
River Conservancy Program or the American River Parkway
Plan; the Santa Ana River program of the Coastal
Conservancy; and the Urban Streams Restoration program. The
bill specifies that projects serving disadvantaged
communities must be given funding priority.
g) Article 7.5 contains proposed funding for state
conservancies, as follows:
i) Baldwin Hills Conservancy, $5 million
ii) California Tahoe Conservancy, $17.5 million
ii) Coachella Conservancy, $10 million
iv) Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Conservancy, $15 million
v) Salton Sea Authority, $25 million. These moneys must
be used for capital outlay projects that provide air
quality and habitat benefits that implement Natural
resources Agency projects
vi) San Diego River Conservancy, $15 million
vii) San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and
Mountains Conservancy, $25 million
viii) San Joaquin River Conservancy, $10 million
ix) Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, $25 million
x) Sierra Nevada Conservancy, $22.5 million
AB 2444 (Eduardo Garcia) Page 7 of
?
xi) State Coastal Conservancy, $80 million of which 40%
of this amount would be allocated to the Bay Area
program.
xii) States legislative intent to increase funding for
this purpose to above $250,000,000.
(h) Article 8 contains proposed expenditures for climate
preparedness and habitat resiliency, as follows:
i) An unspecified amount 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:
ii) An unspecified amount 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 which
an unspecified amount above would go to the
implementation of natural community conservation plans
and $10 million would go to nonprofit wildlife
rehabilitation facilities.
iii) $80 million would go to the Climate Resilience
Account to assist local communities and commercial
fisheries adapt to climate change, address ocean
acidification, sea level rise, or habitat protection
along the Pacific flyway.
iv) $15 million for projects that improve agricultural
and open-space soil health, to improve carbon soil
sequestration, erosion control, water quality, and water
retention.
v) $60 million for forest projects to reduce fuel
loading, and to invest in forest management practices
that increase the resilience of forests to wildlife and
climate change. These funds would be administered jointly
AB 2444 (Eduardo Garcia) Page 8 of
?
by the Department of Forestry and the Sierra Nevada
Conservancy, with $5 million available to the Tahoe
Conservancy.
vi) An unspecified amount to the Department of Fire and
Forestry for existing urban forestry programs
vii) $40 million would be available to the California
Conservation Corps, with half of that available as grants
to local conservation corps, for projects in parks,
forests, and stream and river restoration.
viii) $80 million would be available to the California
Natural Resources Agency for grants to local agencies,
tribes, and others for restoration protection and
acquisition of natural, cultural, and historic sites.
Also eligible are projects to repurpose former fossil
fuel power plants as permanent open space and projects
that enhance natural resource protections in those areas
of the state not within the jurisdiction of a state
conservancy. A match of 20 percent is required.
ix) An unspecified amount to the Ocean Protection
Council.
x) States legislative intent to increase funding for this
purpose to above $340,000,000.
5) 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.
6) 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.
7) Includes an urgency clause providing that it is necessary
that this bill take effect immediately in order to fund a
AB 2444 (Eduardo Garcia) Page 9 of
?
California parks, water, climate, and coastal protection and
outdoor access for all program at the earliest possible date.
Staff
Comments: This bill is a work in progress. The current version
does not include the allocation amounts necessary to analyze
fiscal impacts of the bill.
Staff notes that ballot costs are significantly higher when a
supplemental ballot is required. If this bond measure were
placed on the 2018, or subsequent, ballot, costs associated with
placing the bond on the ballot would reduce to approximately
$500,000.
-- END --