title
Receive an update from County Administrator’s Office staff and the County’s State Legislative Advocate on the Governor’s State Budget May Revision and other items of interest to the County; Consider positions on Probation related legislation, AB 901 and SB 284, and Veteran Services related legislation, AB 55, that were discussed at the May 6, 2019 Legislative Committee and on AB 1356 related to Cannabis that was discussed at the May 22, 2019 Legislative Committee, and referred to the full Board for consideration; and Consider support for S. 923 at the request of Senator Feinstein
body
Published Notice Required? Yes _____ No ___X__
Public Hearing Required? Yes _____ No ___X__
DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Board receive an update from County Administrator’s Office staff and the County’s State Legislative Advocate on the Governor’s State Budget May Revision and other items of interest to the County; Consider positions on Probation related legislation, AB 901 and SB 284, and Veteran Services related legislation, AB 55, that were discussed at the May 6, 2019 Legislative Committee and on AB 1356 related to Cannabis that was discussed at the May 22, 2019 Legislative Committee, and referred to the full Board for consideration; and Consider support for S. 923 at the request of Senator Feinstein.
SUMMARY:
Staff will provide an overview of legislation considered by the Board’s Legislative Committee on May 6, 2019, May 22, 2019, and a request from Senator Feinstein to support her “Fighting Homelessness through Services and Housing Act” bill. The County’s Legislative Advocate, Karen Lange of Shaw/Yoder/Antwih, Inc., will provide a verbal update on the Governor’s State Budget May Revision and other developments at the Capitol. Senator As noted, the action items before the Board were reviewed by the County’s Legislative Committee and are discussed individually in the discussion section below.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The legislative program is designed to result in additional funding and cost avoidance relative to Solano County. The cost of preparing this report and compiling the information is a General Fund cost covered in the County Administrator’s administration budget.
DISCUSSION:
The County’s Legislative Committee has met twice since the last report to the Board. They first met on May 6, 2019 however Supervisor John Vasquez was unable to attend the meeting which resulted in no recommendation for AB 901, SB 284, and AB 55, being forwarded to the full Board as part of this staff report. Karen Lange of Shaw/Yoder/Antwih Inc., the County’s state legislative advocate and Joe Krahn of Paragon Government Relations, the County’s federal legislative advocacy team, participated in the meeting as well.
Included in the May 6, 2019 Legislative Committee agenda was three bills, two related to Probation and the third related to Veterans Services. All three bills are discussed separately below. The County’s May 6, 2019 Legislative Committee agenda packet can be accessed at the following link:
May 6 agenda:
<http://www.solanocounty.com/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30308>
The County’s Legislative Committee Members, Supervisor Erin Hannigan and Supervisor John Vasquez met on May 22, 2019 to discuss Federal and State issues. Karen Lange of Shaw/Yoder/Antwih Inc., the County’s state legislative advocate and Joe Krahn and Tom Joseph of Paragon Government Relations, the County’s federal legislative advocacy team, participated in the meeting as well.
Included in the May 22, 2019 Legislative Committee agenda was one bill relating to cannabis. The County’s May 22, 2019 Legislative Committee agenda packet can be accessed at the following link:
May 22 agenda:
<https://admin.solanocounty.com:4433/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=30385>
At the meeting, staff requested the Legislative Committee add two urgency items relate to State funding in the Governor’s May Revision, one relating to homelessness funding for counties and the other relating to the Governor’s proposal to terminate realignment funding to County Medical Services Program (CMSP). Both are discussed separately at the end of this report.
Senator Feinstein Request for Support for S. 923
The County recently received a written request from Senator Feinstein to support newly introduced legislation, S. 923 - Fighting Homelessness Through Services and Housing Act of 2019. This legislation was not heard by the Legislative Committee as it was received after the committee last met however, the County’s federal legislative advocacy team has previously advised the County of the Senator’s intention to introduce this legislation. The legislation is discussed separately in more detail at the end of this report.
Bills discussed at the Legislative Committee meeting on May 6, 2019 for Full Board Consideration.
Probation related Legislation:
1. AB 901 (Gipson) Juveniles <http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB901>
Current law permits a probation department to engage in activities designed to prevent juvenile delinquency, including rendering direct and indirect services to persons in the community. Under current law, a probation department is not limited to providing services only to those persons who are on probation and under supervision but is authorized to provide these services to any juveniles in the community.
This bill would only authorize a probation department to render direct and indirect services to those persons in the community who are on probation and subject to supervision under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court system, as specified.
This bill would delete the authority of the juvenile court to adjudge a person who is between 12 and 17 years of age as a ward of the court based on truancy, and the authority of a school administrator to issue a notice to appear to a minor under these provisions. Prior to issuing notices to appear under these provisions, the bill would instead require peace officers to refer any minor under their jurisdiction to community-based diversion, if reasonably available. To the extent the bill would impose new duties on peace officers, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would make conforming changes to related provisions.
This bill would delete the authority of a probation officer to take the above-described actions when the probation officer concludes that a minor is probably within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, and would instead authorize a probation officer, in lieu of requesting that a petition be filed by the prosecuting attorney to declare a minor a ward of the court, as specified, to delineate specific programs of supervision for the minor, not to exceed 6 months, and attempt to adjust the situation that brings the minor within the jurisdiction of the court. The bill would instead require the program of supervision to encourage the parents or guardians of the minor to participate with the minor in counseling or education programs.
According to the author, AB 901 would ensure that youth receive appropriate interventions and are not criminalized for academic reasons or typical child/adolescent behavior by: limiting probation departments’ overbroad discretion to provide services to any youth in the state they deem ‘at-risk,’ as well as ensuring that truancy or disobeying a teacher alone is not a reason to place a child under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court system.
The Legislative Committee heard a presentation on AB 901 from Chief Probation Officer, Chris Hansen who noted that it limits Probation’s role in diversion for youth that are under supervision. For example, youth that are in diversion programs in the cities (Fairfield, Vacaville, and Benicia) currently come to the County if they fail out of the city program. Vallejo does not have a diversion program, so they all come to the County. The County also contracts out diversion services because children do better in life if they don’t touch the juvenile justice system. This bill would limit the County providing or contracting out diversion services. In addition, the bill aims to direct these children to Community Based Organizations (CBO) which are prevalent in the large urban counties like LA and Alameda however Solano County is not CBO rich and therefore the concern is which agency will provide the services under this bill. Probation alone diverts a few hundred youth each year. There is also a fiscal impact to the County for State funds supporting these programs being reduced.
Probation staff requested the Legislative Committee OPPOSE the bill and noted the Chief Probation Officers of California (CPOC) also oppose the bill.
Currently Opposed by:
• California District Attorneys Association
• California State Sheriffs' Association
• Chief Probation Officers of California (CPOC)
• State Coalition of Probation Organizations of California (SCOPO)
• Sacramento County Probation Association
• San Joaquin County Probation Officers Association
• Del Norte County Probation
• Fraternal Order of Police, Northern California Probation, Lodge 19
2. SB 284 (Beall) Juvenile justice: county support of wards <http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB284>
Existing law generally requires a county from which a person is committed to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice, to pay to the state an annual rate of $24,000 while the person remains under the direct supervision of the division or remains cared for and supported at the expense of the division. This bill would increase that annual rate to $125,000 if the offense on which the commitment is based, had it been filed in a court of criminal jurisdiction at the time of adjudication, had a maximum aggregate sentence of fewer than 7 years or if the offense on which the commitment is based occurred when the person was 15 years of age or younger.
The Legislative Committee heard a presentation on SB 284 from Assistant Chief Probation Officer, Donna Robinson who noted that Probation does not control the number of youth committed, it is up to the Juvenile Court. Also, this is an unfunded mandate and Probation has not accounted for this potential increase in the Recommended budget. Supporters of this bill believe that the increased costs will deter counties from sending their youth and will serve them locally. Solano County currently has 12 children under the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice care.
Probation staff requested the Legislative Committee OPPOSE the bill and noted the Chief Probation Officers of California (CPOC) also oppose the bill.
Currently Opposed by:
• California State Association of Counties (CSAC)
• Chief Probation Officers of California (CPOC)
Veteran Services Related Legislation:
3. ’AB 55 (Eduardo Garcia) Department of Veterans Affairs: veterans services <http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB55>
Current law requires the Department of Veterans Affairs to disburse funds, appropriated to the department for the purpose of supporting county veterans service officers pursuant to the annual Budget Act, on a pro rata basis, to counties that have established and maintain a county veterans service officer in accordance with the staffing level and workload of each county veterans service officer under a formula based upon performance developed by the department. This bill would define a workload unit for purposes of these provisions to mean a specific claim activity that is used to allocate subvention funds to counties, which is approved by the department, and performed by county veterans service officers.
The Legislative Committee heard a presentation on AB 55 from Ted Puntillo, Solano County’s Veteran’s Services Officer who noted
Items discussed at the Legislative Committee meeting on May 22, 2019 for Full Board Consideration.
Cannabis related legislation
1. AB 1356 (Ting) Cannabis: local jurisdictions: retail commercial cannabis activity <http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB1356>
The Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA), an initiative measure approved as Proposition 64 at the November 8, 2016, statewide general election, authorizes a person who obtains a state license under AUMA to engage in commercial adult-use cannabis activity pursuant to that license and applicable local ordinances. The Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA), among other things, consolidates the licensure and regulation of commercial medicinal and adult-use cannabis activities, including retail commercial cannabis activity. MAUCRSA gives the Bureau of Cannabis Control in the Department of Consumer Affairs the power, duty, purpose, responsibility, and jurisdiction to regulate commercial cannabis activity in the state as provided by the act. MAUCRSA does not supersede or limit the authority of a local jurisdiction to adopt and enforce local ordinances to regulate commercial cannabis businesses within that local jurisdiction. This bill, if more than 50% of the electorate of a local jurisdiction voted in favor of AUMA, would require a local jurisdiction to issue a minimum number of local licenses authorizing specified retail cannabis commercial activity within that jurisdiction that would be permitted by a retailer license issued under MAUCRSA. The bill would require the minimum number of those local licenses required to be issued in that jurisdiction to be1/6 of the number of currently active on-sale general licenses for alcoholic beverage sales in that jurisdiction, as specified, unless the minimum number would result in a ratio greater than one local license for retail cannabis commercial activity for every 15,000 residents of the local jurisdiction, in which case the bill would require the minimum number to be determined by dividing the number of residents in the local jurisdiction by 15,000 and rounding down to the nearest whole number. The bill would authorize a local jurisdiction to impose a fee on licensees to cover the regulatory costs of issuing those local licenses. The bill would exempt from these provisions a local jurisdiction that, on or after January 1, 2017, and until January 1, 2020, submitted to the electorate of the local jurisdiction a specified local ordinance or resolution relating to retail cannabis commercial activity that received a specified vote of the electorate. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.
The Legislative Committee heard a presentation on AB 1356 from Resource Management and County Counsel. AB 1356 would mandate that the counties or cities where Prop 64 passed with at least 50% of the vote of the electorate have a certain number of cannabis retailers. This number of cannabis retailers would be tied to the numbers of bars and restaurants that have received ABC licenses to serve alcohol in the local jurisdiction. If a local jurisdiction did not want to comply with the bill, it would have to place the question before the voters before the end of 2020 to determine if cannabis retailers would be allowed.
Resource Management staff noted that AB 1356 takes away land use control from the local jurisdiction to decide if commercial cannabis businesses are an appropriate use and how many such retailers are appropriate. Proposition 64 laid out a system of dual permitting for commercial cannabis operations to ensure that there was both local and state approval. This dual system was a part of what the voters approved. AB 1356 would take away that dual system and affirmatively require cities or counties to allow cannabis retailers, regardless of whether the local jurisdiction is agricultural such as Solano with little commercial development outside of its cities. This bill would not even give discretion to allow a local jurisdiction to pick a different type of commercial cannabis operation, such as cultivation or manufacturing, that would be better suited to local land use policies. Instead it takes a “one-size-fits-all” approach and assumes that cannabis retailer facilities are appropriate for all cities and counties, which is simply correct.
In addition, AB 1356 doesn’t solve the problem that it claims it does. The author of AB 1356 asserts that it will help end the black market for cannabis in California. However, mandating that a majority of the cities and counties in California allow at least one cannabis retail establishment will not even insure that there is a cannabis retailer who will open and operate in that jurisdiction. Resource Management is concerned that it won’t address any of the issues at the root of the black market, such as the massive oversupply of black market cannabis grown outside of the track and trace program, or the disparity in prices obtained for regulated cannabis in California compared to the prices for black market California cannabis in other parts of the country, or the high state and local taxes on regulated cannabis that encourage purchases of cheaper black market cannabis, or the lack of any meaningful deterrence to those who participate in the black market, either as a producer or a consumer. The vast majority of people in California, regardless of whether they have a cannabis retail operation in their jurisdiction or not, can choose to obtain regulated cannabis and cannabis products by licensed mobile retailers (delivery), by traveling to or having their caretaker travel to a jurisdiction that has a licensed cannabis retail operation, or by growing their own cannabis. This bill does not change that and in fact, does nothing to eliminate the black market.
The Legislative Committee discussed this bill and for the reasons stated above, recommended an OPPOSE position.
Currently Opposed by:
• League of California Cities
• California State Association of Counties (CSAC)
• Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC)
• Smart Approaches to Marijuana California
State Budget related Items added to the agenda during the May 22 Legislative Committee meeting.
1. State funding for homelessness allocated to counties
On May 21, 2019 CSAC sent out a last-minute request to all counties asking them to support the Governor’s FY 2019/20 May Revision homelessness proposal to provide $275 million directly to counties. The proposal also includes $100 million to Continuums of Care (CoCs) and $275 million to the Big 13 cities. CSAC noted that the Legislature is expected to convene Budget Conference Committee the following week the to work out differences between the versions of the budget approved by each house. The reason for the last-minute request is the Budget subcommittees in both the Senate and Assembly approved funding to go directly to the Big 13 Cities, but not directly to counties.
The Legislative Committee discussed the request and recommends supporting the Governor’s FY 2019/20 May Revision homelessness proposal. Due to the timing of the State Budget Conference Committee’s meeting schedule, the Support letter contained in Attachment F of this report was sent to the State Budget Conference Committee supporting the Governor’s FY 2019/20 May Revision proposal to be approved over the Senate and Assembly versions.
2. Termination for realignment funding to the County Medical Services Program (CMSP)
Solano County is one of 35 counties that belong to CMSP which provides health coverage for indigent adults between the ages of 21 and 64. The CMSP Board recently approved an expansion to its current programs which would increase its cost significantly once implemented. Attachment E provides more in-depth information on CMSP.
Currently, CMSP has a large reserve that is being targeted in Governor’s FY 2019/20 May Revision Budget. The Governor’s FY 2019/20 May Revision Budget proposal redirects all Health Realignment funding for CMSP until the Board reaches a two-year (total expenditure) operating reserve. When the CMSP Board reduces its reserve amount to the two-year limit, the Governor’s proposed change to the Health Realignment allocation formula - changing to 75% (state)/25% (county) - would result in the permanent loss of annual funding to CMSP beginning this new fiscal year. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) concurred with this determination.
Solano County staff are concerned that funding may not get reinstated in the out years and prefers CMSP’s ask to instead adopt a compromise that would annually redirect to the State $20 million from Realignment funding that CMSP would otherwise receive. Additionally, staff supports the State adopting a reserve spend-down plan for CMSP, in collaboration with its Board, that takes into consideration current and proposed expansion programs that improve health care delivery in California’s rural counties.
The Legislative Committee discussed the request and recommends opposing the FY 2019/20 May Revision proposal to eliminate Health Realignment funding to the CMSP Board. Due to the timing of the State Budget Conference Committee’s meeting schedule, the letter contained in Attachment G of this report was sent to the State Budget Conference Committee opposing the Governor’s May Revision proposal.
3. S. 923 (Feinstein) Fighting Homelessness Through Services and Housing Act of 2019
Contained in Attachment H of this report is a written request from Senator Feinstein to support her newly introduced legislation, S. 923 - Fighting Homelessness Through Services and Housing Act of 2019.
The intent of the legislation is to authorize a new funding stream for supportive housing models that provide comprehensive services and intensive care case management to homeless populations. It will authorize $750 million per year subject to annual appropriations. Up to $5 million would be available for planning grands (not to exceed $100,000 per grant), and the remaining balance would be available for housing and services. Grants for housing and services would require a 25% match from non-federal funds. Grants may be used for any combination of operations and capital building costs, if the housing and services requirements are met. Reporting on the housing stability and improvements in health and wellbeing would be a requirement of receiving funds. Below is a link to the full language for S. 923.
<https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/923/text>
Staff recommends the Board Support S. 923, the Fighting Homelessness Through Services and Housing Act of 2019.