1. law, govt and politics
2. government
3. legislative

DRAFT
A Publication of the County Executive Office/Legislative Affairs
April 14, 2015
Item No. 34
Vol. IX, No. 8
County of Orange Positions on Proposed Legislation
The Legislative Bulletin provides the Board of Supervisors with analyses of measures pending in Sacramento
and Washington that are of interest to the County. Staff provides recommended positions that fall within the
range of policies established by the Board. According to the County of Orange Legislative Affairs Procedures
adopted by the Board of Supervisors on November 25, 2014, staff recommendations for formal County
positions on legislation will be agendized and presented in this document for Board action at regular Board of
Supervisors meetings. When the Board takes formal action on a piece of legislation, the CEO will direct the
County’s legislative advocates to promote the individual bills as approved by the Board. The Legislative
Bulletin also provides the Board of Supervisors with informative updates on State and Federal issues.
The 2015-2016 Legislative Platform was adopted by Board of Supervisors’ Minute Order dated
November 25, 2014.
On April 14, 2015, the Board of Supervisors will consider the following actions:
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
1. OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED – AB 361 (Achadjian): California Emergency Services Act:
nuclear powerplants.
2. SUPPORT – AB 24 (Nazarian): Transportation network companies: public safety
requirements.
3. SUPPORT – AB 838 (Brough): Recovery houses.
4. SUPPORT – AB 1500 (Maienschein) California Environmental Quality Act: homeless complex
projects: exemption.
5. SUPPORT – SB 267 (Leyva): Registered sex offenders: local ordinances.
6. SUPPORT – SB 333 (Galgiani): Controlled substances.
7. SUPPORT – SB 722 (Bates): Sex offenders: GPS monitoring: removal.
8. SUPPORT IF AMENDED – AB 851 (Mayes): Local government: organization:
disincorporations.
9. SUPPORT AND AMEND – AB 896 (Wagner): Counties: search or rescue: costs.
10. OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED – SB 355 (Lara): San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers
and Mountains Conservancy.
11. Receive and File Legislative Bulletin.
JP040915
April 14, 2015
Vol. IX, No. 8
Page 2
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS

Washington Legislative Report

Sacramento Legislative Report
ACTION ITEMS:
1. AB 361 (Achadjian): California Emergency Services Act: nuclear powerplants: OPPOSE
UNLESS AMENDED
Author:
Assemblyman Achadjian
Status:
Assembly Committee on Governmental Organization
Hearing Date:
Not yet set
Position Requested By:
Orange County Sheriff’s Department, County Executive Office
Summary
This bill would, after July 1, 2019, replace Government Code Section 8610.5, which currently
provides statutory responsibility for Southern California Edison to fund off-site nuclear emergency
preparedness planning around the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS). The bill would
replace GC 8610.5 with new language, operative July 1, 2019, through July 1, 2024, that would
eliminate Edison’s ongoing funding obligation for plans to respond to nuclear emergencies around
SONGS. The funding would disappear despite Edison’s intention to continue storing spent nuclear
fuel on-site for the foreseeable future. The County has concerns not only about the bill language
eliminating SONGS funding after July 1, 2019, but also about existing language in GC 8610.5 that
may end authorization for the funding as soon as the plant is declared officially decommissioned this
fall.
Existing Law
Existing law, the California Emergency Services Act, authorizes local government entities to create
disaster councils by ordinance and in turn develop disaster plans specific to their jurisdictions.
Existing law, the Radiation Protection Act of 1999, requires local governments to develop and
maintain radiological emergency preparedness and response plans to safeguard the public in the
emergency planning zone around a nuclear powerplant and generally makes the Office of Emergency
Services responsible for the coordination and integration of all emergency planning programs and
response plans created pursuant to the Radiation Protection Act of 1999. The California Emergency
Services Act, until July 1, 2019, prescribes a method for funding state and local costs for carrying out
these activities that are not reimbursed by federal funds, with the costs borne by utilities operating
nuclear powerplants with a generating capacity of 50 megawatts or more.
Discussion Points
JP040915
April 14, 2015
Vol. IX, No. 8
Page 3
The Orange County Sheriff’s Department is responsible for responding to a nuclear emergency in the
urban area surrounding SONGS, which physically is located in San Diego County. The County is the
lead responding agency, with the County of San Diego and the cities of Dana Point, San Juan
Capistrano and San Clemente. Current funding from Edison totals $1.6 million a year distributed
among the two counties and three cities. The County’s funding portion is $853,000 annually. The
funding covers:
o Personnel to manage the emergency plan and nuclear related preparedness and
response activities.
o The ability to provide on-going training for Orange County Sheriff’s Department
Emergency Operations Center personnel.
o Maintaining the response capability of offsite radiation assessment teams.
o Calibration and maintenance of radiological monitoring equipment.
o Purchasing supplies for and re-establishing a Joint Information Center in the event of
an emergency.
The current decommissioning timeline from SCE states the decontamination and dismantlement of
the nuclear power plant will take 10 years starting in 2016. The remaining spent nuclear fuel in the
spent fuel pools will remain in the pools until 2018 at which point it will be removed to the dry cask
storage located on site.
This on-site storage will create renewed interest and enhanced public concerns during radiological
decontamination and the dismantling of the nuclear facility. The County has a responsibility to assure
the public that information from the plant in an emergency can be verified and swiftly responded to in
an appropriate manner, and that information is provided to the surrounding population.
Proposed Amendment
CEO/Legislative Affairs and Sheriff’s emergency management officials have discussed serious
concerns about AB 361 with Edison and the bill’s author. We are proposing amendments that would:
1) Address a question regarding the authorization for SONGS funding now contained in GC 8610.5.
The current code only applies to operating powerplants. Our proposed amendment would add
language to incorporate nuclear powerplants operating at a capacity of 50 megawatts or more that
were decommissioned after June 1, 2013. (Edison announced its intent to decommission SONGS on
June 7, 2013.)
2) Address the issue of ongoing funding at a to-be-determined level after July 1, 2019, and through
July 1, 2024. The proposed amendments to AB 361 add language that the go-forward funding
amount for San Onofre would be based on a cooperative agreement between Edison and a majority
of the existing five municipalities included in the Inter-jurisdictional Planning Committee. In the event
no agreement was reached, the funding would be set at the current level of $1.6 million.
Impact on Orange County
Currently SONGS has four Emergency Classification Levels; the County has response procedures for
each:
Notice of Unusual Event
Off-normal events which indicate a potential degradation in the level of plant safety
resulting in increased monitoring and offsite notifications
JP040915
April 14, 2015
Vol. IX, No. 8
Page 4
Alert
Degradation of the level of plant safety resulting in full activation of all offsite
Emergency Operations Centers and possible closure of state beaches
Site Area Emergency
Failure of plant safety systems resulting in the closure of state beaches and
campgrounds and possible public school relocation to the Orange County Fair & Event
Center
General Emergency
Actual or imminent substantial core degradation with the potential for loss of
containment integrity resulting in the issuance of Protective Action Decisions for the
public which include evacuation or shelter in place and the ingestion of Potassium
Iodide (KI).
Even after SONGS is decommissioned via a Permanently Defueled Emergency Plan submitted to the
Federal Regulatory Commission, a response by the Orange County Sheriff’s Department is required
for a Notice of Unusual Event and Alert emergency. The County must maintain SONGS-specific
emergency response procedures related to each level.
The public expects and deserves that planning for a nuclear emergency will continue after SONGS is
decommissioned. Edison believes the threat will become extremely low for a nuclear event after the
spent nuclear fuel is moved into dry-cask storage. However, the County should not have to bear the
costs of responding to even a hypothetical emergency as long as nuclear material remains stored
onsite.
2. AB 24 (Nazarian): Transportation network companies: public safety requirements:
SUPPORT
Author:
Assemblyman Nazarian
Status:
Assembly Committee on Utilities and Commerce
Hearing Date:
April 13, 3 p.m.
Position Requested By:
Vice Chair Bartlett, County Executive Office
Summary
This bill would prohibit the Public Utilities Commission from issuing or renewing a permit or certificate
to a charter-party carrier of passengers unless the applicant, in addition to existing requirements,
participates in the Department of Motor Vehicles pull-notice system and provides for mandatory
Department of Justice background checks of every driver, except as specified, who is either
employed by, or under contract to, the applicant. This bill would specifically require a transportation
network company (TNC) to comply with these provisions. The bill would also require a TNC to
register any vehicle used in the transportation of passengers for compensation with the commission
and display the identifying decal issued by the commission on the vehicle. Additionally, the bill would
require a driver of a charter-party carrier of passengers or a TNC to submit to the Department of
Justice fingerprint images and related information for the purpose of obtaining information as to the
existence and content of state convictions and state arrests, as specified, and would require the
department to charge a fee sufficient to cover the cost of processing the request described in these
JP040915
April 14, 2015
Vol. IX, No. 8
Page 5
provisions. The bill would require that drivers hired or initially retained by either a charter-party carrier
of passengers or a transportation network company on or after January 1, 2016, be subject to
background checks and mandatory drug and alcohol testing prior to employment or retention and that
drivers hired or initially retained before January 1, 2016, complete a background check and drug and
alcohol test before January 1, 2017.
Existing Law
The Passenger Charter-party Carriers’ Act, with certain exceptions, prohibits a charter-party carrier of
passengers from engaging in transportation services subject to regulation by the Public Utilities
Commission without obtaining a specified certificate or permit, as appropriate, from the commission,
and imposes various other requirements. Existing law defines a transportation network company
(TNC) as an organization, whether a corporation, partnership, sole proprietor, or other form, operating
in California that provides prearranged transportation services for compensation using an onlineenabled platform to connect passengers with drivers using their personal vehicles. There are no
current laws for TNCs to participate in the DMV pull-notice program or the other safety requirements
contained in the bill.
Discussion Points
This bill speaks to your Honorable Board’s concern about the safety of passengers using the services
of TNCs by assuring that their drivers have passed security and background checks. The issue arose
with the discussion regarding providing a permit process for TNCs to operate at John Wayne Airport.
This bill would extend the background checks for drivers for all TNCs regardless of where they
operate in Orange County or elsewhere.
TNC drivers typically use their private vehicles to transport customers. In response to this new
unregulated industry, in September of 2013, the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) began a
rulemaking process to establish minimum safety and insurance requirements. The DMV Employer
Pull Notice Program adds to state oversight of this industry. The program alerts the employer
immediately when an arrest for DUI or a serious driving conviction has occurred. DMV does not
currently permit TNCs to continuously enroll non-employee drivers. Rather, TNCs are required to
enroll drivers on a quarterly basis. The PUC has directed DMV to work on this enrollment problem.
As encouraged by the PUC, this bill gives the statutory clarification needed and ensures that DMV
continuously enrolls a driver of a TNC. Further, a continuous enrollment of drivers simplifies
TNCs ability to promote public safety while, reducing cumbersome re-enrollment paperwork.
The PUC also requires TNCs to obtain driver background checks. The checks required are
performed, not by the California Department of Justice (DOJ), but by private investigation searches
based on drivers’ social security numbers. DOJ fingerprint background checks rely on biometric
verification and as a result, are the most comprehensive checks used to ensure safety and consumer
protection. Finally, under PUC regulations, TNCs are required to implement a zero-tolerance policy.
This policy is flawed as drivers are not tested and accounts of intoxication are based solely on
passenger complaints or are discovered after an incident.
JP040915
April 14, 2015
Vol. IX, No. 8
Page 6
3. AB 838 (Brough): Recovery houses: SUPPORT
Author:
Assemblyman Brough
Status:
Assembly Committee on Human Services
Hearing Date:
April 14, 1:30 p.m.
Position Requested By:
County Executive Office
Summary
This bill would require a recovery house that is owned or operated, as defined, by a community care
facility licensed pursuant to the California Community Facilities Act and that functions as an “integral
component” of that facility to be deemed a facility that provides treatment or services under the
license of the community care facility. The bill would subject a facility under that license to the
inspection and enforcement provisions of the act. The bill intends to address the situation of an
overconcentration of group homes by requiring the licensing of homes separately if they are owned
by operators who provide coordinated services among a number of facilities.
Existing Law
Existing law, the California Community Care Facilities Act, provides for the licensing and regulation of
community care facilities, as defined, by the State Department of Social Services. A violation of the
act is a misdemeanor. Existing law exempts recovery houses providing group living arrangements for
persons recovering from alcoholism or drug addiction from the act.
Discussion Points
Under current law, a licensed recovery or treatment facility, as with any development, must comply
with local land use restrictions. There is, however, a significant restriction in that state law requires
that an alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility which serves six or fewer persons
must be considered a residential use of property for the purposes of state and local laws. As a
residential use, a treatment facility with six or fewer persons must only comply with those local
requirements that apply to persons who reside in other residential uses. For example, under existing
law, a facility of six would require no land use approval in most instances. However, for a facility of
seven or more, a local government could, and often does, require a conditional use permit or other
land use permit.
There are three types of sober-living group homes:


JP040915
Single housekeeping homes: Residents in these homes live like a family and they are not
commercial operations. The residents handle their own money and affairs; they just live under
the same roof.
State licensed facilities: These are residential and residential-detox/non-medical treatment
facilities with services provided on-site to those living there.
April 14, 2015
Vol. IX, No. 8
Page 7

Sober-living homes: These are recovery group homes where people live but do not receive
treatment on site. Under state law, if six or fewer people live there, they must be treated the
same as a regular residence.
Legislation would be needed to change state law to regulate facilities with six or fewer people living
there, to regulate their location or the concentration of such homes within the same neighborhood.
Two previous legislative attempts to allow local regulations, by Orange County’s Sen. Tom Harman,
failed in 2008 and 2009.
A major impediment to the state licensing process is that the state cannot consider overconcentration
of drug- and alcohol-treatment facilities in the area as a reason for denial. With other types of licensed
facilities, the issue of overconcentration is allowed as a factor for denial. Additionally, the regulations
allow additional homes to be licensed “to meet local demand.” The argument of those wishing greater
restrictions is that the “local demand” is far surpassed by profit-based operators who are bringing in
addicts from out-of-county and out-of-state to live in the homes.
AB 838 would add a section to the Health and Safety Code to read that a recovery house that is
owned or operated by a community care facility that functions as an “integral component” of that
community care facility must be deemed a facility that provides treatment or services under the
license of the community care facility and be subject to inspection and enforcement provisions.
“Integral component” is defined as the nature of the services provided by the community care facility
to a recovery house, or the proximity of the recovery house to the community care facility, which
makes the recovery house an integral component of that community care facility in providing recovery
or treatment services, such as outpatient treatment, support meetings, or drug testing.
Impact on Orange County
At the March 24, 2015, Board meeting, Chairman Spitzer directed CEO/LA to investigate sponsoring
a bill to give municipalities some authority over small sober-living group homes that by current state
law must be treated the same as any other residence. He expressed concern about the proliferation
of group homes in unincorporated neighborhoods and the lack of authority for the County to provide
regulation of them. Residential treatment facilities serving six or fewer people are considered
residential for the purpose of state and local laws. The facilities are licensed by the state only if they
provide treatment services on-site. This bill would address the overconcentration of homes in
neighborhoods by requiring separate licensing and would aggregate the services so they cumulatively
would be assisting more than six patients among all facilities.
4. AB 1500 (Maienschein): California Environmental Quality Act: homeless complex
projects: exemption: SUPPORT
Author:
Assemblyman Maienschein
Status:
Assembly Committees on Housing & Community Development and
Natural Resources
Hearing Date:
Not yet set
JP040915
April 14, 2015
Vol. IX, No. 8
Page 8
Position Requested By:
County Executive Office
Summary
This bill would exempt homeless complex projects, as defined, from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Under the bill’s definitions, “homeless complex project” means an
activity or approval necessary for, or incidental to, the development, planning, design, site acquisition,
subdivision, financing, leasing, construction, operation, or maintenance of an emergency shelter,
temporary or transitional housing, supportive housing, low-income housing, or building that provides
services for the homeless, and associated development, including any accessory roadway, utility, or
other improvement to that shelter, housing or building.
Existing Law
Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a lead agency must, for any project that it
proposes to carry out or approve, evaluate potentially significant environmental impacts.
Subsequently, the lead agency must prepare and certify environmental documentation that matches
the project’s anticipated level of impact. An environmental impact report (EIR) would be prepared for
a project that may have a significant effect on the environment, a negative declaration would be
prepared if the project should not have any significant environmental effects, or a mitigated negative
declaration would be prepared for a project that could have a significant effect on the environment,
but which, through the implementation of proposed mitigation measures, would not significantly
impact the environment. Lastly, specified projects are exempt from CEQA requirements.
Discussion Points
The Board of Supervisors has demonstrated support for the development of a year-round emergency
homeless shelter for Orange County and has discussed potential shelter locations several times over
the past few years. Currently, your Honorable Board has been reviewing potential options for such a
shelter. The shelter sites and projects proposed in the past and those which are currently proposed
are located in developed areas where they should pose no threat of significant environmental
impacts. The enactment of this bill would streamline the development of a year-round emergency
shelter and enable project completion and service provision to occur at an earlier date. Traditionally,
the Board of Supervisors has also supported measures to streamline regulatory requirements such as
CEQA. This bill presents such an opportunity to remove regulatory barriers and hurdles to a type of
project that should not negatively impact the environment but would provide many positive impacts.
Impact on Orange County
The net impact of this bill on Orange County would be positive. The bill would provide the County with
the ability to implement homeless complex project(s) faster by reducing the amount of time the
County would spend on regulatory hurdles. Faster project implementation would enable the subject
population to access the services of these homeless complex projects more quickly. This should help
these sensitive populations into stable situations and reduce the number of individuals on the streets
and in need of services.
JP040915
April 14, 2015
Vol. IX, No. 8
Page 9
5. SB 267 (Leyva): Registered sex offenders: local ordinances: SUPPORT
Author:
Senator Leyva
Status:
Senate Committees on Governance & Finance and Public Safety
Hearing Date:
April 15, 9:30 a.m. (Governance & Finance)
Position Requested By:
County Executive Office
Summary
This bill would enable local agencies to enact and enforce more stringent ordinances than what state
law specifies regarding the ability of a sex offender who has to register for an offense committed
against a minor to reside or be present at schools, parks, day care centers, or other locations where
children regularly gather within the local agency’s jurisdiction. This bill is a companion to AB 201
(Brough), for which your Honorable Board approved a Support position on March 3, 2015.
Existing Law
Existing law, the Sex Offender Registration Act, requires persons convicted of specified sex offenses
to register with local authorities for life while residing, located, attending school, or working in
California. Additionally, a person who is required to register as a sex offender is prohibited from living
in specified places, including within 2,000 feet of a school or park where children regularly gather.
Existing law makes it a misdemeanor for a person who is on parole for specified sex offenses to enter
any park where children regularly gather without express permission from the person’s parole agent.
Discussion Points
In January 2014, the state Supreme Court declined to review a lower court ruling that overturned a
local ban on sex offenders in Orange County parks. A state appeals court earlier that month had
struck down an Irvine law that barred sex offenders from city parks without written permission from
police, as well as the Orange County ordinance upon which it was based. Similar ordinances had
been passed by about a dozen other Orange County cities.
The County ordinance made it a misdemeanor for registered sex offenders to enter a county park,
beach or other recreational area without law-enforcement permission. Anyone convicted under the
ordinance faced six months in jail or a $500 fine. The appeals court found that any local ordinances
were pre-empted by state laws that oversee sex-offender registration and regulate their daily lives.
State law currently includes no outright prohibitions on sex-offenders in parks.
SB 267, if approved by the Legislature and signed by the Governor, would enable local agencies to
enact and enforce more rigorous ordinances against sex offenders, in particular those who have
registered for offenses committed against minors.
Impact on Orange County
County officials, city leaders and other proponents of the local sex-offender ordinances have
contended that the tighter rules in the parks help protect children from sex offenders. Opponents,
JP040915
April 14, 2015
Vol. IX, No. 8
Page 10
including organizations focused on reforming sex-offender laws, claimed the ordinances were overly
broad and infringed on civil rights. However, the appellate court did not rule on civil rights issues in its
decision.
This bill would both enact tighter rules against sex offenders in areas, parks and otherwise, that are
frequented by children, and it would also apply these tighter rules specifically to sex offenders who
are registered for offenses committed against minors, which makes those offenders a more direct
threat to children.
6. SB 333 (Galgiani): Controlled substances: SUPPORT
Author:
Senator Galgiani
Status:
Senate Committee on Public Safety
Hearing Date:
Not yet set
Position Requested By:
County Executive Office
Summary
This bill would provide, without regard for a person’s prior convictions, that possession of Ketamine,
an anesthetic also known as “Special K,” and flunitrazepam, a powerful sedative and hypnotic drug
also known as the “date rape drug,” is either a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in a county
jail for not more than one year, or a felony, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for 16 months,
or two or three years. The bill would also provide that the possession of gamma hydroxybutyric acid
(GHB) by a person who does not have a prior conviction for certain crimes is either a misdemeanor,
punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or a felony, punishable in a
county jail for 16 months, or two or three years.
Existing Law
Existing law, as amended by the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, a measure approved by the
voters at the November 4, 2014, statewide general election, generally provides that the possession of
Ketamine, and flunitrazepam is a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not
more than one year. Existing law also provides that when a person has one or more prior convictions
for certain enumerated crimes, his or her possession of GHB is a felony, punishable by imprisonment
in a county jail for 16 months, or two or three years, and his or her possession of Ketamine and
flunitrazepam is either a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more
than one year, or a felony, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for 16 months, or two or three
years.
Discussion Points
SB 333, if approved by the Legislature and signed by the Governor, would reinstate stricter penalties
for the possession of the above-specified drugs. Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and
Schools Act, significantly reduced the penalty for illegal possession of the above-named drugs which
are commonly used to facilitate sexual assaults—hence, they are frequently referred to as “date-rape”
JP040915
April 14, 2015
Vol. IX, No. 8
Page 11
drugs. Prop. 47 provided that its provisions may be amended by a statute consistent with and which
furthers its intent and is passed by a two-thirds vote of each house of the Legislature and is signed by
the Governor. Proposition 47 also provides that the Legislature may, by majority vote, amend, add, or
repeal provisions to further reduce the penalties for offenses it addresses.
Prior to Prop. 47, District Attorneys were able to charge a felony for illegal possession of these drugs
but current law now allows only for minimal punishment. The ability to bring felony charges was a
critical tool for ensuring justice where lack of admissible evidence can allow a perpetrator to evade
punishment even if a serious crime has clearly occurred. Reinstatement of higher penalties for
possession and use of these drugs is appropriate and would reverse an unintended consequence of
Prop. 47.
Impact on Orange County
Restoring higher penalties for possession and use of these drugs will provide greater deterrence for
their use and restore important penalties for prosecutors to seek against convicted perpetrators of
sexual assault and other crimes.
7. SB 722 (Bates): Sex offenders: GPS monitoring: removal. SUPPORT
Author:
Senator Bates
Status:
Senate Committee on Public Safety
Hearing Date:
April 14, 9:30 a.m.
Position Requested By:
County Executive Office
Summary
This bill would make it a felony for a convicted sex offender to willfully remove or disable an
electronic, global positioning system (GPS), or other monitoring device. Such a crime would be
punishable by imprisonment for 16 months, or two or three years.
Existing Law
Existing law, as amended by Proposition 83 in the November 7, 2006, statewide general election,
requires every inmate who has been convicted of an offense that requires him or her to register as a
sex offender or any attempt to commit any of those offenses and who is committed to prison and
released on parole to be monitored by a global positioning system for life.
Discussion Points
As of April 5, 2015, there were 2,191 sex offenders registered in Orange County on the State of
California Department of Justice Megan’s Law database. In Orange County and throughout the US,
some sex offenders who have tampered with or removed their GPS devices have gone on to commit
further violent and sex-related crimes.
JP040915
April 14, 2015
Vol. IX, No. 8
Page 12
While this may not describe all sex offenders who tamper with or remove a device, the situation has
happened locally to tragic result. Two registered sex offenders, Steven Gordon and Franc Cano —
Gordon was on federal probation and Cano was on state parole – had a history of tampering with and
removing their GPS devices, even fleeing to Nevada in April 2012, after removing their GPS devices.
The men stand accused of murdering four women between late 2013 and early 2014 in Orange
County while on probation. In a similar situation in New York, a man on surveillance due to child
pornography charges was convicted of murdering a woman and raping a young girl on March 13,
2014, just shortly after he removed his GPS monitoring unit. He had also previously tampered with
his GPS device.
Impact on Orange County
By making tampering with or removing a GPS tracking device a felony, this should further deter
registered sex offenders from removing or tampering with their assigned GPS monitoring devices. At
a minimum, even if it did not serve to deter offenders from interfering with the devices, it would give
law enforcement the ability to imprison such individuals and protect the public in that way from
potentially deleterious motives of offenders.
8. AB 851 (Mayes): Local government: organization: disincorporations: SUPPORT IF
AMENDED
Author:
Assemblyman Mayes
Status:
Assembly Committee on Local Government
Hearing Date:
April 22, 1:30 p.m.
Position Requested By:
County Executive Office
Summary
This bill would provide that as of the effective date of a disincorporation of a city, the general plan of
the disincorporated city that was in effect immediately prior to the effective date of the
disincorporation constitutes the community plan of the county for the territory of the disincorporated
city. It also provides that the zoning ordinances of the disincorporation that were in effect immediately
prior to the effective date of the disincorporation constitute the zoning ordinances of the county for
that territory, and any conditional use permit or legal nonconforming use that was in place
immediately prior to the effective date of the disincorporation must remain in force pursuant to the
community plan and zoning ordinances. The bill would provide that any use of land that was
authorized under the general plan and zoning ordinances immediately prior to the effective date of the
disincorporation continues to be authorized, consistent with the requirements of that community plan
and those zoning ordinances, for at least 10 years following the effective date of the disincorporation,
as specified. The bill would additionally require the board of supervisors of the affected county to,
within 90 days of the effective date of the disincorporation, adopt an expedited permit process relating
to business, development, and health and safety permits for the territory of the disincorporated city,
as specified. This bill would, in the case of a disincorporation or reorganization that includes a
disincorporation, require the plan for services to include specific provisions, including, among others,
an enumeration and description of the services currently provided by the city proposed for
JP040915
April 14, 2015
Vol. IX, No. 8
Page 13
disincorporation and an outline of current retirement obligations, as specified. Further, the bill would
prohibit the local agency formation commission from approving or conditionally approving a proposal
that includes a disincorporation unless the commission finds, among other things, that the
disincorporation is consistent with the intent of the act, the disincorporation will address necessary
changes to spheres of influence of affected agencies, and the service responsibilities of the city
proposed for disincorporation have been assigned, as specified.
Existing Law
Existing law, the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, provides
the authority and procedures for the initiation, conduct, and completion of changes of organization
and reorganization of cities and districts. The act requires a local agency or school district that
initiates proceedings for a change of local government organization or reorganization, by submitting a
resolution of application to a local agency formation commission, to also submit a plan for providing
services within the affected territory, as specified. This bill would add provisions, amend certain
provisions and eliminate certain provisions of the act, as specified.
Discussion Points
The California Association of LAFCo’s (Local Agency Formation Commissions) developed this
legislative proposal to harmonize the disincorporation process under existing law with constitutional
and statutory requirements. The assumption by the bill authors was that counties would appreciate a
permissive approach that didn’t require them to update the general plan and zoning codes in too short
a timeframe for a disincorporated city. However, the bill as written goes way too far in locking
counties into inheriting potentially undesirable zoning ordinances, conditional use permits (CUP), nonconforming uses and general plan designations. Additionally, the Board of Supervisors would be
further required to create an expedited process for permit review for the affected area(s) within 90
days and would be barred from making general plan, zoning, CUP and other changes for 10 years.
CEO/Legislative Affairs has been in contact with the legislative office of the California State
Association of Counties (CSAC) regarding the bill. CSAC negotiated the following amendments to the
bill that we believe would eliminate the potential harm created by AB 851 and render it worthy of
support:
Proposed Amendment
SEC. 18.
Section 57426 is added to the Government Code, to read: 57426.
(a) As of the effective date of the disincorporation, all of the following apply:
(1) The general plan and zoning of the disincorporated city that was in effect immediately prior to the
effective date of the disincorporation shall constitute the community plan of the county for the territory
of the disincorporated city until the county updates the community plan.
(2) The zoning ordinances of the disincorporated city that were in effect immediately prior to the
effective date of the disincorporation shall constitute the zoning ordinances of the county for that
territory until the county updates the zoning ordinances applicable to that territory.
JP040915
April 14, 2015
Vol. IX, No. 8
Page 14
(3) Any conditional use permit or legal nonconforming use that was in place immediately prior to the
effective date of the disincorporation shall remain in force pursuant to the community plan and zoning
ordinances.
(4) Notwithstanding the foregoing, any use of land that was authorized under the general plan and
zoning ordinances immediately prior to the effective date of the disincorporation shall continue to be
authorized, consistent with the requirements of that community plan and those zoning ordinances, for
at least 10 years following the effective date of the disincorporation, any longer period for as long a
period as may be required by the California Constitution or United States Constitution, or any longer
period to the extent permitted by the general plan and zoning ordinances of the county applicable to
that territory following that 10-year period.
(b) The board of supervisors of the affected county shall, within 90 days of the effective date of
disincorporation, adopt an expedited permit process relating to business, development, and health
and safety permits for the territory of the disincorporated city that is comparable to the permit process
that existing in that city immediately preceding disincorporation.
Impact on Orange County
Though rare, the threat of disincorporation has been circulating in recent years due to a series of
municipal setbacks, including losses in State revenue and growing expenditures for pensions and
other obligations. When the state Legislature in 2011 reorganized how property taxes were to be
distributed in lieu of Vehicle License Fees, four cities in Riverside County – Jurupa Valley, Eastvale,
Wildomar and Menifee – announced they faced disincorporation because of the revenue losses. New
cities are more dependent on vehicle license fees than their older neighbors that benefit from more
diverse revenues. Last year, Governor Brown vetoed a bill that would have restored up to $19 million
in funding for the cities. SB 25 (Roth) as introduced in this session would provide a Vehicle License
Fee Adjustment Amount (VLFAA) for newly incorporated cities, including the four cities in Riverside
County. Jurupa Valley, for example, became a city and immediately lost almost half of its expected
first-year revenue. It has financially struggled since and has said it could run out of money by 2016.
Unraveling cityhood has happened 17 times in California—and even once in Orange County. The city
of Stanton actually became a city twice. The first time was in 1911, when area residents banded
together to keep out a proposed sewage facility that was to be built to provide service for Anaheim.
Stanton remained a city until 1924, when residents voted to disincorporate to allow the State to build
much-needed roads. However, in the years following World War II, the population rose dramatically,
leading the City of Stanton to re-incorporate in 1956.
9. AB 896 (Wagner): Counties: search or rescue: costs: SUPPORT AND AMEND
Author:
Assemblyman Wagner
Status:
Assembly Committee on Local Government
Hearing Date:
Passed out of committee, April 8
Position Requested By:
County Executive Office
Summary
JP040915
April 14, 2015
Vol. IX, No. 8
Page 15
This bill contains the same language as the amended version of AB 2151, which was introduced at
the request of the County in the 2013-14 legislative session but which ultimately was vetoed by
Governor Brown. This bill would provide that whenever a county or city and county either receives a
reimbursement claim from another county or city and county for a search or rescue, or conducts its
own search or rescue of one of its residents who is 16 years of age or older, the county or city and
county may in turn seek reimbursement up to $12,000 for the actual costs incurred from that resident,
if the need for the search or rescue was caused by an intentional act in knowing violation of any
federal or state law, or local ordinance, or by a person showing “wanton and reckless misconduct in
disregard for his or her safety.” The bill would require the resident to pay within 30 days after being
billed but would not levy the charge against those unable to pay. This bill would provide that the
county or city and county may only seek reimbursement if the Board of Supervisors of that county or
city and county passed an ordinance consistent with this bill.
Existing Law
Existing law provides that persons whose specified actions cause an incident resulting in an
appropriate emergency response are liable for the expenses of an emergency response by a public
agency to the incident, up to $12,000 per incident, through the filing of a civil lawsuit. Existing law
provides that the board of supervisors of a county may authorize the sheriff to search for and rescue
persons, and that the expenses incurred by the sheriff in the performance of those duties are a proper
county charge. Existing law also requires the county or city and county of residence of a person,
searched for or rescued by a sheriff, to pay to the county or city and county conducting the search or
rescue all of the reasonable search or rescue expenses in excess of $100 within 30 days after the
submission of a reimbursement claim.
Discussion Points
Governor Brown vetoed AB 2151 last year, saying that he was concerned that the bill’s “vague
language” may create an incentive for counties to abuse their authority by billing those for whose
benefit searches and rescues were performed. He said current law already allows counties to recover
costs incurred by gross negligence through a civil lawsuit. The governor encouraged the author “to
craft a bill that strikes the right balance between appropriate due process and cost recovery for
reckless misconduct.”
Assemblyman Wagner is working on amendments to address the Governor’s concerns. AB 896
would provide for speedier recovery of a portion of costs than a civil lawsuit. It protects from abuse by
specifying that the search or rescue must have been triggered by an intentional act in knowing
violation of any federal or state law, or local ordinance, or by a person showing “wanton and reckless
misconduct in disregard for his or her safety.”
The bill passed out of the Assembly Committee on Local Government on April 8 on a vote of 7-to-1,
with one member not voting. The bill is supported by the California State Sheriffs' Association and
Rural County Representatives of California. There is no reported opposition on file.
California law provides that in limited situations, up to $12,000 of the cost of an emergency response
may be recovered from a person, who by his or her negligent operation of a vehicle, boat or plane
while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or by his or her intentionally wrongful conduct, caused
the emergency response for a particular incident (Government Code Sections 53150 through 53159.).
JP040915
April 14, 2015
Vol. IX, No. 8
Page 16
Government Code Section 53156 defines “intentionally wrongful conduct” narrowly to mean “conduct
intended to injure another person or property.” California law also provides that the county of
residence of a person searched for or rescued while in another county shall pay to the county
conducting such search or rescue all of the reasonable expenses in excess of $100 of such search
and rescue within 30 days after submission of a claim by the county conducting the search or rescue
(Government Code Section 26614.5.).
The proposed legislation is modeled after former Government Code Sections 26614.6 and 26614.7
(Stats. 1995, c. 338 (A.B. 1461) and Stats. 1995, c. 339 (A.B. 867)), which sunset on January 1,
1999.
Impact on Orange County
Ill-equipped and reckless individuals who stray into unsafe environments without thought to the
consequences or those engaged in illegal activities who find themselves in jeopardy put a strain on
the budget of the Orange County Sheriff’s Department and other response organizations. AB 896, as
with AB 2151, was prompted by an extensive four-day search in March 2013, when two hikers got
lost in Trabuco Canyon. Six agencies responded in the search, logging 1,900 hours before the pair
were located at a cost of $160,000. One of the hikers later was charged with possession of
methamphetamine, to which he pled guilty and was ordered to complete a drug-diversion program.
10. SB 355 (Lara): San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy:
OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED
Author:
Senator Lara
Status:
Senate Committee on Natural Resources & Wildlife
Hearing Date:
April 14, 9:30 a.m.
Position Requested By:
County Executive Office, OC Public Works
Summary
This bill would remove one Orange County voting member from the San Gabriel and Lower Los
Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy. Currently, there are two voting members from Orange
County on the board, which includes 13 voting members and seven non-voting members. Both
Orange County members are chosen as specified by the county division of the League of California
Cities. The bill would remove the “at-large” voting Orange County seat, leaving the lone voting
member from Orange County to be a mayor or city council member from a city bordering the San
Gabriel River or a tributary. The bill would instead require a resident of a city bordering the lower Los
Angeles River to be appointed and would also increase the non-voting membership to nine with nonOrange County members chosen as specified.
Existing Law
Existing law establishes the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy,
which is responsible for the preservation and protection of specified lands within the San Gabriel and
JP040915
April 14, 2015
Vol. IX, No. 8
Page 17
Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains area. Existing law prescribes the duties of the
conservancy, and requires that it be comprised of 13 voting members and 7 nonvoting members, as
specified. Existing law requires that the voting members include, among other members, two
members of the Orange County Division of the League of California Cities, both of whom shall be a
mayor or city council member of a city bordering the San Gabriel River or tributary thereof.
Discussion Points The conservancy was created by statute in 1999 to preserve open space and habitat while providing
for low-impact recreation and educational uses, wildlife habitat restoration and protection, and
watershed improvements. The territory includes the watersheds of the San Gabriel River and the
lower Los Angeles River, as well as portions of the Santa Clara River and the lower Santa Ana River.
Only a small portion of the conservancy boundaries includes northwest Orange County. Of the two
county voting seats, the specified city seat is held by Los Alamitos City Councilman Troy Edgar; the
“at-large” seat considered for elimination has been vacant since April 2009 despite recommendations
sent to the Governor’s office. Meanwhile, the conservancy allocates millions of dollars in watershed
improvement grants, for which Orange County has successfully applied. This year, the conservancy
board is in an enhanced position to recommend the award of significant new competitive state bond
funds. CEO and OC Public Works believes it may disadvantage projects in Orange County if the
voting presence of Orange County members on this board is reduced.
Proposed Amendment
We believe this bill should be opposed unless it is amended to retain two voting seats for those
representing Orange County. The seat currently specified in the statute as representing a city on the
San Gabriel River or tributary should remain. We understand the desire of the bill author to include a
representative from a city bordering the lower Los Angeles River because the money recently made
available for projects along that key watershed. Therefore, the second voting seat for Orange County
would be created by re-designating the director of OC Public Works, currently a nonvoting member,
to voting status. (An additional amendment is needed to change the current wording referring to the
director of the Orange County Public Facility and Resource Department as the director of OC Public
Works.) To maintain an odd-number of voting seats, the amendment would also re-designate the
director of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works to voting status.
Clearly, the directors (or designees) from the Orange County and Los Angeles County public works
departments are able to provide a countywide overview for the watershed system as a whole.
Members of both county departments have attended the meetings for years and are familiar with the
conservancy’s mission and operations. The bill contemplates adding two additional nonvoting
members to the board. By re-designating two of the existing nonvoting members to voting status, the
seven-member composition of nonvoting members would be retained. The number of voting
members would increase from 13 to 15.
Impact on Orange County
Losing a voting seat for Orange County could negatively impact the amount of grant funding received
for projects within the county.
JP040915
April 14, 2015
Vol. IX, No. 8
Page 18
SACRAMENTO LEGISLATIVE REPORT
April 6 marked the end of the legislative Spring Recess and the beginning of what will be a busy
month of policy committee deliberations in the State Capitol. Highlighted below is an update on
legislation of interest to the County, as well as other legislation of interest that Platinum Advisors
(Platinum) will be monitoring in various committees.
Update on County-sponsored bills
Affordable Housing Incentives. SB 511 by Senator Janet Nguyen, to incentivize further investment
of County resources towards affordable housing projects in cities, will be amended this week and is
expected to be referred to the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee.
Special Elections Reimbursement and FPPC Enforcement. AB 910 by Assemblymember
Matthew Harper and AB 971 by Assembly Member Ling Ling Chang have both been referred to the
Assembly Elections and Redistricting Committee where they will be heard on April 15. AB 910 would
authorize the County to contract with the Fair Political Practices Commission for the administration
and enforcement of the County’s campaign finance ordinance. AB 971 would reimburse counties for
expenses incurred to prepare for and conduct special elections.
GPS Data Sharing. AB 1213 by Assembly Member Don Wagner to improve data sharing capacity to
better monitor offenders required to wear or carry GPS monitoring units has been referred to the
Senate Public Safety Committee.
Other bills of interest
Plastic Bag Ban Repeal (County Support). AB 190 and 191, both by Assembly Member Matthew
Harper, to repeal existing law related to single-use carry-out bags and the current requirement that a
store charge consumers for the use of recycled paper bags, will be heard in the Assembly Natural
Resources Committee on April 13.
Restrictions on Registered Sex Offenders (County Support). AB 201 by Assembly Member Bill
Brough, which would authorize the County to impose restrictions on registered sex offenders by
adopting an ordinance, rules or regulations relating to a sex offender’s ability to reside or be present
at certain locations, has been double-referred to the Assembly Local Government and Public Safety
committees.
Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (County Support). SB 241 by Assembly Member Pat Bates
would allow additional time for the County to establish a neighborhood electric vehicle transportation
plan for the Ranch Plan Planned Community in South Orange County. SB 241 unanimously passed
the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee on April 7. The bill now goes to the Senate
Appropriations Committee.
Vehicle License Fees. SB 25 by Senator Richard Roth (D-Riverside) unanimously passed the
Senate Governance and Finance Committee on April 8 on a vote of 7-0. The bill would provide a
Vehicle License Fee Adjustment Amount (VLFAA) for newly incorporated cities, including those that
were impacted by SB 89 (2011) formulas and loss of VLF revenues. SB 25 would resume receipt of
revenues anticipated prior to the cities’ incorporations or annexations with property taxes from the
JP040915
April 14, 2015
Vol. IX, No. 8
Page 19
schools’ share to ensure continued viability for four cities in Riverside County. SB 25 now goes to the
Senate Appropriations Committee.
Laura’s Law. Two bills related to assisted outpatient treatment (AOT), commonly referred to as
Laura’s Law, are set to be heard by the Assembly Health Committee on Tuesday, April 14. In addition
to extending the AOT period from six to 12 months, Assembly Member Marie Waldron’s (REscondido) bill - AB 59 - would require all counties to implement Laura’s Law – but would not provide
additional funding to do so. AB 1193 by Assembly Member Susan Eggman (D- Stockton) would
require each county to implement Laura’s Law, unless the county Board of Supervisors opts out of
participating. AB 1193 would also authorize a judge in the Superior Court to request a petition for a
Laura’s Law order to be filed for a person that appears before the judge, whereas currently the county
behavioral health director would investigate the appropriateness of filing a petition. Both bills are
opposed by the California State Association of Counties.
Psychotropic Medications. The Senate Human Services Committee will hear measures related to
psychotropic medications for foster children on Tuesday, April 14 during a Special Order of Business.
SB 253 by Senator Bill Monning (D-Santa Cruz), would require that an order authorizing the
administration of psychotropic medications to a dependent child only be granted upon clear and
convincing evidence that specific criteria is met. SB 319 by Senator Jim Beall (D-San Jose) requires
counties to provide public health nurses to children in foster care. The nurses would monitor each
child who has been administered psychotropic medications. SB 484, also by Senator Beall, would
require the Director of the Department of Social Services, in addition to publishing information about
licensed community care facilities and the services for which they are licensed, to include information
regarding the administration of psychotropic medications to children in those facilities. SB 238,
authored by Senator Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles) and sponsored by the County Welfare Directors
Association, would require the following:
1) Training for child welfare social workers, foster children, caregivers and attorneys and CourtAppointed Special Advocates regarding psychotropic medications;
2) The Department of Social Services and the Department of Health Care Services to develop
monthly data reports that match prescription and claims data with child welfare services records;
3) The development of a system that triggers alerts to child welfare social workers and others
serving the child, such as attorneys and courts, when medications that could have dangerous
interactions with psychotropic medications have been prescribed or when foster youth are
prescribed unusual dosages;
4) An update to the JV-220 court form to allow key stakeholders to provide information, feedback
and details on the overall mental health and treatment plan for the child.
Budget. The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee on State Administration and General
Government will take up a number of items of importance to counties at this hearing on April 9,
including the RDA dissolution trailer bill and budget items related to the Commission on State
Mandates and local government finance. Platinum staff will be monitoring these hearings and
providing an update in a subsequent report.
Governor Brown Signs Emergency Drought Legislation and Issues First Mandatory Water
Restrictions
On April 1, Gov. Jerry Brown directed the State Water Resources Control Board to implement
restrictions that mandate a 25 percent reduction statewide based on 2013 consumption.
JP040915
April 14, 2015
Vol. IX, No. 8
Page 20
The new restrictions will take into consideration the relative per-capita water usage in each
community. According to the Governor’s news release, this equals approximately 1.5 million acrefeet of water over the next nine months. California has the lowest snowpack on record and is in its
fourth year of drought.
The Executive Order also contains a number of provisions to meet the reduction. The Governor wants
50 million square feet of lawn replaced with drought tolerant landscaping in partnership with local
governments. Local governments are prohibited from using potable water to irrigate street medians.
It also requires managers of large landscapes, such as golf courses and cemeteries, to reduce water
usage and establishes a prohibition for new homes and development to irrigate with potable water
unless done through a water-efficient drip system. The order increases enforcement and asks water
agencies to implement conservation pricing.
Gov. Brown also signed emergency drought legislation into law on March 27. AB 92 makes several
statutory changes aimed at increasing the Department of Fish & Wildlife’s authority to notify, cite and
bring actions against illegal water diversions, as well as enhancing penalties for illegal marijuana
growers. The bill also creates the Office of Sustainable Water Solution which will assist small
communities with water supply issues and provide assistance in applying for state and federal grants.
AB 92 also creates a low interest loan program aimed at assisting homeowners with water efficiency
projects, and the bill suspends some contracting provisions for projects related to the Governor’s
declaration of a state of emergency.
Additionally, AB 91 appropriates $1.059 billion from various funds to meet the state’s urgent drought
needs, including:
•
•
$131.7 million (Proposition 1 of 2014) for the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
to build on the existing water recycling grant program. Potential projects include feasibility
studies, demonstration projects, and larger scale water recycling projects.
$135.5 million (Proposition 1 of 2014) for the SWRCB to improve access to clean drinking water
for disadvantaged communities ($69 million) and help small communities pay for wastewater
treatment ($66 million).
•
JP040915
$11.6 million (General Fund) for the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to continue to
assess current surface and groundwater conditions, expedite water transfers, provide
technical guidance to local water agencies, and provide additional public outreach through the
Save Our Water campaign.
•
$4 million (Cleanup and Abatement Account) for the SWRCB to provide emergency safe
drinking water to disadvantaged communities impacted by the drought.
•
$4.4 million (General Fund) to the Office of Emergency Services for the State Operations
Center to continue to provide local communities with technical guidance and disaster
recovery support related to the drought.
•
$3 million (General Fund) for the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE)
to address critical infrastructure deficiencies at remote fire stations that have run out of
water.
April 14, 2015
Vol. IX, No. 8
Page 21
WASHINGTON LEGISLATIVE REPORT
Conferencing House–Senate Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Resolutions
Upon returning from the spring break, Congress faces the immediate task of melding the Senate and
House versions of the Fiscal Year 2016 budget resolution with varying recommendations for defense
and domestic spending, Medicare overhaul, as well as other policy issues.
House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-GA) and Senate Budget Chairman Mike Enzi (RWY) want to complete work on the budget by April 15, the statutory deadline for adopting a
concurrent resolution, though there is no penalty if they fail to do so.
Among the differences to be resolved:
DEFENSE: Both the House and Senate budget would provide $523 billion in the base defense
budget and $96 billion in war funding in the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) account.
Republicans in both Chambers agreed to boost war funding above President Obama’s request to get
around spending caps in the Budget Control Act of 2011, P.L. 112-025.
Senate and House proposals differ when it comes to longer-term defense spending. In FY 2022 and
thereafter, the Senate budget calls for cuts in base defense levels below the Congressional Budget
Office baseline. Base defense spending totals $5.8 trillion over ten years. In the House budget,
defense spending rises $442 billion more than in the Senate budget, totaling $6.2 trillion over the
decade.
NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY: In FY 2017 and thereafter both the House and Senate budgets
call for cuts to domestic discretionary spending. The Senate resolution calls for $5.3 trillion in budget
authority over ten years. The House calls for $4.7 trillion in this category, $523 billion less than the
Senate budget. There are major disparities in a number of areas. In the community and regional
development account, which funds the Community Development Block Grant program, among others,
the House would allocate $100 billion less over ten years than the Senate. In income security, which
funds the administration of housing and nutrition programs and food stamps, the House plan is $54
billion more than the Senate budget over ten years.
MEDICARE: The House and Senate differ both in the levels of Medicare savings and in how such
savings would be achieved. The House budget provides for $7.1 trillion in mandatory Medicare
spending compared to $6.8 trillion in the Senate plan over ten years.
The House plan includes a partial privatization of the program, giving seniors beginning in 2024 the
option to receive limited funds to buy private insurance in lieu of the traditional plan. The Senate
does not specify how it would make the proposed cuts.
Getting the Senate to sign off on the House proposed Medicare changes will be difficult. Republican
Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Dean Heller of Nevada have been skeptical of the plan and
could block any plan that contains the language. The Senate budget resolution was adopted with just
52 votes so if both Senators Collins and Heller defect on the conference report, the majority would not
be assured of having the votes to adopt a unified budget resolution. No Senate Democrats are
expected to vote for the measure.
MANDATORY SPENDING: The Senate budget calls for $3.7 trillion in the health account, which
would be $400 billion more than the $3.3 trillion provided for in the House plan. For income security
welfare programs the Senate figure is $148 billion lower than the House over a decade.
JP040915
April 14, 2015
Vol. IX, No. 8
Page 22
UNSPECIFIED SAVINGS: The House budget counts $405 billion in savings in the unspecified
“allowances” account and creates a new account called “government-wide savings” to claim an
additional $496 billion. The Senate has $678 billion in the “allowances” account and has no
“government-wide savings” account. The allowances account includes proposals that do not fit into
other programs and funding for emergencies and plans based on certain events happening. Budget
Committee leaders hope to use these accounts to capture the effects of rooting out waste, fraud and
duplication across the government.
RECONCILIATION INSTRUCTIONS: The House budget instructs 13 committees to come up with
savings proposals, totaling $5.63 billion, by July 15. The authorizing committees, in coming up with
suggestions, are to “determine the most effective methods” by which the Affordable Care Act (ACA)
can be repealed in its entirety.
The Senate budget resolution instructs just two committees, the Senate Finance and Senate Health,
Education, Labor and Pensions Committees to come up with $2 billion in savings by July 31. The
instructions make no reference to repealing the 2010 ACA.
The committees are free to propose additional savings.
How soon Congress produces a joint budget resolution for FY 2016 remains to be seen.
If you or your staff have any questions or require additional information on any of the items in this
bulletin, please contact Jean Pasco at 714.834.7218.
JP040915