BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON VETERANS AFFAIRS
JEFF DENHAM, CHAIRMAN
Bill No: AB 1757
Author: Monning
Version: As amended May 28, 2010
Hearing Date: June 22, 2010
Fiscal: Yes
SUBJECT OF BILL
Central Coast Veterans Cemetery
PROPOSED LAW
1. Removes the requirement that the Central Coast
Veterans Cemetery Endowment Fund must have 100% of its
underlying assets accumulating interest at a rate that
the interest will cover all the cemetery's yearly
expenses before construction of the cemetery can
begin.
2. Allows the corpus to accumulate funds phase by
phase and then proceed with the planning and building
of the cemetery phase by phase.
EXISTING LAW AND BACKGROUND
1. The United States Army base at Ford Ord was closed
in a previous round of the Base Realignment and
Closure Commission (BRAC).
2. Part of the Base Reuse Plan includes building a
veterans cemetery.
3. Traditionally, veterans cemeteries are a federal
responsibility, but as the last century came to a
close the federal government enacted a cost-saving
measure by offering to build cemeteries, but let
states pay the maintenance costs in perpetuity as was
done with the now-completed Redding cemetery -
California's first under the new arrangement.
4. The federal government is proposing the same
agreement for the Fort Ord cemetery, saying the
veterans' cemetery at Gustine in the Central Valley is
close enough -and has enough room- to relieve
Washington, D.C. of any obligation to build and
maintain a federal veterans cemetery on the central
coast.
5. As a result of Washington, D.C.'s cost saving
stance, SB 2078 of 1998 (McPherson) offered to conduct
a feasibility study of building the veterans' cemetery
at Fort Ord, but the legislation was vetoed by
Governor Wilson.
6. SB 1815 of 1999 (McPherson) ordered the development
of the Central Coast Veterans Cemetery Master Plan and
appropriated $140,000 for the creation of a Central
Coast Veterans Cemetery Master Development Fund.
7. SB 480 of 2005 (Denham) sought to add to the
Military and Veterans Code language creating the
Central Coast Cemetery Maintenance Fund within the
State Treasury. Funding would be provided by the
annual budget act. Realizing the budget constraints
that both state and federal governments are facing, SB
480 sought to use inmate work crews made available
under the Penal Code for maintenance of the cemetery.
8. AB 922 of 2005 (Salinas) sought to build the
Central Coast Veterans Cemetery.
9. Both SB 480 and AB 922 of 2005 failed to get out of
their respective houses in spite of one being a
cost-saving measure.
10. This committee held a special hearing on
January 12, 2006 at Fort Ord to discuss the options
available for a state veterans cemetery at Fort Ord.
Page 2
11. AB 3035 of 2006 (Laird) established an
endowment fund that would enable the cemetery to be
built when enough underlying assets were accumulated
into the trust that ongoing cemetery operations could
be paid for from the interest generated by the
underlying assets within the endowment fund.
12. The federal government's practice of
building, but not operating veterans' facilities,
became very expensive for the state as it learned when
it started building its system of what will be eight
veterans homes.
The great expense being incurred with the building of
veterans homes resulted in the enactment of AB 1725 of
2006 (La Malfa), a bill to contain construction costs
by making the new homes design-build projects.
COMMENT
1. There has been an on-going rift between the people
of Monterey County and the Federal Government over the
difficult travel route to the Gustine Veterans
Cemetery in the Central Valley and the Federal
Government's guidelines that will not allow another
federal veterans cemetery to be built in the proximity
until the first cemetery is full.
2. AB 1757 allows endowment funds to cover all costs
of building a cemetery from design to construction.
3. This bill requires the phases to be built with "the
usual phases of a capital outlay project". The
original draft of the bill read "the usual phases of a
design-bid-build capital outlay project." (Committee
members should be aware that this reverses the votes
they have taken to save costs in the design-build
delivery method with the veterans' homes.) There
really is no difference between "design-bid-build" and
"the usual phases of a capital outlay project".
According to CDVA, if Senators want to speed up the
process of building the cemetery, then design-build
Page 3
will need to be bypassed ipso facto because
design-build cannot be divided into the number of
phases that would allow the foundation to pay for the
project piecemeal. The design-build delivery method
will simply not be able to be used on this project if
the shortened time frame is to be used.
4. According to the California Department of Veterans'
Affairs (CDVA) the intent of this legislation is to
move the process forward by breaking it down into
phases. One of the problems is that the up-front
costs cannot be reimbursed until later when the
Federal Government pays its share.
5. Will CDVA be able to administer this bill? This
committee authored SB 1386 this year for CDVA to
conduct an inventory of assets. According to the
Department of Finance (DOF) the cost of that bill
would be $100,000 since there is not a single spare
person within CDVA, and therefore, a $100,000
appropriation would be required for the new hire.
Considering that those within the department qualified
to do this project will spend the next couple of years
on the construction of the Fresno and Redding homes
certainly more staff will need to be hired for a
project as large as this one. This bill declares that
that CDVA shall volunteer on the project, but as this
committee and DOF know, CDVA does not have the
personnel to volunteer.
6. If this project ends up being paid for out of the
general fund instead of its endowment fund, then
members should be aware of the potential problem of
proliferating state veterans cemeteries.
Originally California had only the original veterans'
home in Yountville. Eventually legislators from
southern California complained that no home existed
down south. Once a southern California home was
authorized, the scramble to acquire a home in a
district where it "should be" ended with homes in
Barstow, Chula Vista, Lancaster, Ventura, and Los
Angeles. The state will soon be administering an
Page 4
eight-home system after the completion of the Fresno
and Redding homes.
PRIOR ACTIONS
Assembly Veterans' Affairs 7-0
Assembly Appropriations 17-0
Assembly Floor 76-0
AB 3035 (Laird)
Senator Cedillo "Aye" 8/29/2005
Senator Denham "Aye" 8/29/2005
Assemblywoman Negrete McLeod "Aye" 8/30/2005
Assemblyman Wyland "Aye" 8/30/2005
AB 1725 (La Malfa)
Senator Cedillo "Aye" 8/22/2005
Senator Denham "Aye" 8/22/2005
Assemblywoman Negrete McLeod "Aye" 8/29/2005
Assemblyman Wyland "Aye" 8/29/2005
SUPPORT
California Association of County Veteran Service Officers
(CVSO)
OPPOSE
None received
Page 5