BILL ANALYSIS Ó ----------------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2444| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- THIRD READING Bill No: AB 2444 Author: Eduardo Garcia (D), et al. Amended: 8/19/16 in Senate Vote: 27 - Urgency SENATE NATURAL RES. & WATER COMMITTEE: 6-2, 6/28/16 AYES: Pavley, Allen, Hertzberg, Hueso, Jackson, Monning NOES: Stone, Vidak NO VOTE RECORDED: Wolk SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 4-1, 6/29/16 AYES: Hertzberg, Beall, Hernandez, Lara NOES: Moorlach NO VOTE RECORDED: Nguyen, Pavley SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 8/11/16 AYES: Lara, Beall, Hill, McGuire, Mendoza NOES: Bates, Nielsen ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 56-18, 6/23/16 - See last page for vote SUBJECT: California Parks, Water, Climate, and Coastal Protection and Outdoor Access For All Act of 2018 SOURCE: Author DIGEST: This bill enacts the California Parks, Water, Climate, and Coastal Protection and Outdoor Access For All Act of 2018, which, if approved by the voters at the June 5, 2018 statewide primary election, authorizes issuance of $3.497 billion in State General Obligation bonds to finance parks, water, climate adaptation, coastal protection, and outdoor access programs. Senate Floor Amendments of 8/19/16 reflect discussions by the AB 2444 Page 2 author, sponsor, and various stakeholders to propose a $3.497 billion parks bond across various categories including per capita funding to local governments, park-poor communities, state parks and conservancies, rivers and streams, and ocean and coastal protection, among others. ANALYSIS: 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) Enacts, by a vote of the people, The California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks and Coastal Protection Act of 2002 (Proposition 40), a legislative ballot measure approved in 2002, which authorized $2.6 billion in bond expenditures for parks and other resource related purposes, which was the last parks-only bond measure. 3) Enacts, by a vote of the people, The Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Act of 2006 (Proposition 84), an initiative measure approved by in 2006, that authorized bond expenditures of $5.4 billion, of which approximately $875 million was for parks. 4) Authorizes general obligation bonds which state pays out of general revenues and that are guaranteed by the state's full faith and credit. This bill: 1) States legislative findings and declarations regarding California's parks, natural resources and outdoor AB 2444 Page 3 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 and definitions 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 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 15% of Articles 8 and 9 to be allocated for projects in severely disadvantaged communities. (Ocean, Bay, and Coastal Protection and Climate Preparedness chapters.) e) 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. These guidelines, where feasible, shall AB 2444 Page 4 encourage, where feasible, efficient use of water, use of recycled water, and capture of storm water, and provision of drinking water to parks and open-space. f) Requires the Department of Finance to provide for an independent audit of expenditures. g) Reverts unexpended funds to the administering entity. h) Requires projects that use California Conservation Corps services or certified community conservation corps to be given preference for grants where feasible. i) Prohibits bond funds from fulfilling mitigation responsibilities. j) Authorizes projects that include water efficiencies, storm water capture, or carbon sequestration features in the project design to be given priority for grant funding. aa) Exempts the provisions regarding wildlife conservation from the provisions regarding disadvantaged communities, regional and local parks, and trails. bb) Requires conservancies to endeavor to fund projects that are complementary and not duplicative of authorized expenditures pursuant to the 2014 water bond. cc) Authorizes the Legislature to enact legislation necessary to implement programs funded by the bond. dd) Authorizes funds to be used by nonprofits to repay financing costs that are consistent with this chapter and allows 25% percent of grant awards as advance payments. ee) Creates the California Parks, Water, Climate, and Coastal Protection and Outdoor Access for All Fund. 4) Proposes $995 million in Article 2 for creation and expansion of safe neighborhood parks pursuant to the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Act of 2008. Additional consideration may be given to projects that incorporate stormwater capture and storage. The department must work with applicants to ensure that projects maximize public benefits in perpetuity, and that the project is implemented in a timely manner. Advance payment of 25% is authorized so that the grant recipient implements the project in a timely manner. Not less than 20% shall be available to rehabilitate or improve existing park infrastructure. Of the $995 million, $48 million is available in the Central Valley, Inland Empire, Gateway, and Desert communities identified as AB 2444 Page 5 park deficient. 5) Proposes $490 million for local and regional outdoor spaces in Article 3. $450 million is for per capital grants to local governments. $40 million is available to the department upon appropriation for grants to cities and districts of less than 200,000 population. A 20% cost share is required by this article except for grants to disadvantaged communities. Provides in Article 3 provisions establishing a minimum of $250,000 per each local government and the formula for allocations to regional park districts. Provides that local governments may not reduce their parks budgets below that that existed on the effective date of this act. There are also provisions related to reporting of grants, and the expectation that recipients complete their projects within 8 years. Allocates, of the amount in Article 3, $120 million for competitive grants to regional park districts, counties, and special districts for regional trails, regional sports complexes, low-cost accommodations in park facilities, and interpretative facilities that serve youth and communities of color. 6) Proposes, in Article 3.5, that $187,500,000 be allocated to multi-benefit urban greening projects. $115 million would be available for grants from the Natural Resources Agency for the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers, to be divided equally. $12.5 million would be available to the Santa Ana River Program of the Coastal Conservancy with a provision that half the funding go to the most park-deficient communities. $60 million would be available to the Strategic Growth Council for competitive grants to public entities and nonprofits for storm water capture projects or green infrastructure projects that provide for at least two of the following: flood control, reduce water pollution, increase wildlife habitat, promote adaptation to sea level rise, or reduce heat island effects. In the event that Los Angeles County's local parks measure passes in November, $10 million from this article may be appropriated to it as a block grant. AB 2444 Page 6 7) Proposes in Article 4, that $370 million be available to various purposes at California state parks. $20 million would be available for enterprise projects, $20 million to local agencies that operate units of state parks, and $12.5 million to nonprofits that operate units of state parks pursuant to operating agreements. Of this latter amount, $5 million shall be available to a nonprofit operating a state park in the Inland Empire. In addition, Article 4 proposes that major infrastructure deficiencies be addresses on a regional basis, with $50 million to be allocated among the regions by the department and each region getting an allocation of either $10 or $15 million. 8) Proposes, in Article 5, the expenditure of $50 million to the Natural Resources Agency for competitive grants to public, tribal, and nonprofit agencies to provide non-motorized infrastructure improvements. Up to 25% may be used for innovative transportation projects to bring disadvantaged youth to the outdoors. Matching funds of 20% are required except for disadvantaged communities. 9) Proposes, in Article 6, that $45 million go to competitive grants to rural cities and counties and districts in non-urbanized areas. A 20% match is required except for disadvantaged communities. Non-urbanized areas are counties of less than 500,000 people. 10)Proposes in Article 7, $115 million to the California Natural Resources Agency, subject to appropriation, for river parkways and urban streams. A 20% match is required except in disadvantaged communities. Not less than $7.5 million shall be available for the Lower American River Conservancy Program if that program is created. Not less than $10million shall be available to the Guadalupe River upon enactment of subsequent legislation that demonstrates a comprehensive restoration approach. $37.5 million would go to the Salton Sea Authority for projects that provide air quality and habitat benefits and $10 million would go to projects that benefit the New River. 11)Proposes $165 million for state conservancies, as follows: AB 2444 Page 7 a) Baldwin Hills, $5 million. b) California Tahoe Conservancy, $20 million. c) Coachella Mountains Conservancy, $10 million. d) Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Conservancy, $15 million. e) San Diego River Conservancy, $15 million. f) San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains, $30 million with the provision that $2.5 million match US Forest Service upper watershed activities and that $22.5 million be made available for improvements along the San Gabriel River. g) San Joaquin River Conservancy, $10 million. h) Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, $30 million i) Sierra Nevada Conservancy, $30 million. The conservancies must all develop a strategic master plan. 12)Proposes in Article 8, that $200 million be available upon appropriation for coastal and ocean resources. $55 million to the Ocean Protection Council, $50 million to the San Francisco Bay Conservancy Program, and $95 million to the Coastal Conservancy for protection of beaches, bays, and coastal watershed and ag resources, including projects that may complete the California Coastal Trail. 13)Proposes in Article 9, that $722,500,000 be available upon appropriation for climate change adaptation and resiliency projects. Of this, $427.5 million would go to the Wildlife Conservation Board for wildlife corridors and open space, habitat acquisitions that would benefit wildlife and endangered species, projects that would provide habitat connectivity and public access. Of the funds in Article 9, $70 million would go to the existing natural community conservation planning programs across the state. $10 million would go to wildlife rehab centers based on competitive grants by the Department of Fish and Wildlife. No less than $40 million would go to wildlife corridors and habitat for the Pacific Flyway and the California Waterfowl Habitat Program. $40 million would go to projects that assist coastal communities, including commercial AB 2444 Page 8 fisheries, to adapt to climate change, including projects that address ocean acidification, sea level rise, or habitat. $80 million would go to forest projects that help reduce fuel risk, adapt forests to climate change, and other disturbances. These funds would be administered equally by the Sierra Nevada Conservancy and the Department of Forestry with $7.5 million of the Department's funds going to is urban forestry program. Of the funds in Article 9, $50 million would go to the state conservation corps for watershed, parks, and fuel reduction projects, with the funds going to local community conservation corps. $110 million shall be available to the Natural Resources Agency for various categories of projects including protection of Native American cultural sites and resources, repurposing fossil fuel plants to create open space, grants to areas not within the boundaries of state conservancies, science centers, community athletic sites, centers that recognize the contributions of California's diverse ethnic communities, and visitor centers to provide education about natural landscapes, aquatic species, or wildlife migratory patterns. 14)Proposes in Article 10 for the advance payment for water projects under specified conditions including completion of integrated regional water management plans where the project proponent is a nonprofit or a disadvantaged community. 15)Proposes, in Article 11, the usual fiscal provisions that accompany a general obligation bond. 16)Provides for the submission of these provisions to the voters at the June 5, 2018, statewide primary direct election. Comments Senate Appropriations amendments limited the bond to $2 billion and had a 60-40% split of the funds going to the Upper and Lower Los Angeles River, respectively. Both amendments are changed by the current version of the bill. AB 2444 Page 9 FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.:YesLocal: No SUPPORT: (Verified 8/22/16) 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 Museums California Association of Park & Recreation Commissioners & Board Members California Association of Park Districts 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 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 City of Chino City of Dublin City of Fountain Valley City of Imperial City of Morgan Hill City of Poway City of Torrance AB 2444 Page 10 City of Tustin Parks & Recreation Department City of Lafayette City of Milpitas City of Montebello City of Portola City of Selma City of Westminster City of Victorville Children's Defense Fund County of Placer Consumnes Community Services District Park & Recreation Department Defenders of Wildlife Desert Recreation District Desert Valley Builders Association East Bay Regional Park District El Cerrito Recreation El Dorado Irrigation District Fathers & Families of San Joaquin Friends of Harbors, Beaches, and parks Fulton-El Camino Recreation & Park District Golden Gate National parks Conservancy Greater Vallejo Recreation District Hesperia Recreation & Park District Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System Hills for Everyone John Muir Land Trust 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 Mono Lake Community Napa County Regional Park and Open Space District Sierra Business Council Orangevale Recreation & Park District Outdoors Access for All Pacific Forest Trust AB 2444 Page 11 Paradise Recreation & Park District Pathways for Wildlife Peninsula Open Space Trust Pleasant Hill Recreation and Park District Policy Link 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 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 The City Project The Greenlining Institute The Nature Conservancy The Trust for Public Land TODEC Legal Center TreePeople United Ways of California Watershed Conservation Authority OPPOSITION: (Verified8/20/16) Howard Jarvis Association ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The author notes that to maintain a high quality of life for California's growing population the state requires a continuing investment in parks, recreation AB 2444 Page 12 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. 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. There is a huge list of supporters of this measure. The general theme is to support public investment in local and state parks and resource protection that has not been able to be achieved because of the recession and because earlier bond funds have largely been depleted. There is also widespread support for the AB 2444 Page 13 emphasis on increasing access to parks by disadvantaged communities and especially disadvantaged youth. ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association opposes increasing the state's indebtedness and questions whether improvements in parks will endure for the life of the bond. ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 56-18, 6/23/16 AYES: Alejo, Arambula, Atkins, Baker, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Hadley, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Lackey, Levine, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, O'Donnell, Quirk, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Weber, Wilk, Williams, Wood, Rendon NOES: Travis Allen, Bigelow, Brough, Dahle, Beth Gaines, Grove, Harper, Jones, Kim, Linder, Mathis, Mayes, Melendez, Obernolte, Patterson, Steinorth, Wagner, Waldron NO VOTE RECORDED: Achadjian, Chang, Chávez, Gallagher, Nazarian, Olsen Prepared by:William Craven / N.R. & W. / (916) 651-4116 8/22/16 21:33:53 **** END ****