Hot Bills, Get Your Hot Bills Here
March 18,, 2016
As the Legislature Takes a Break, Big Issues Loom
The Legislature now heads into a week of Spring Recess, and when members return on March 28, they’ll jump right in to thorny issues and quick bill deadlines. Over the past two and a half months CSAC staff analyzed the Governor’s budget proposal, reviewed hundreds of bills introduced by the February 19 deadline, and bid adieu to two-year bills that stalled.
As reported last week, the Assembly experienced a major transition in the form of new Assembly Speaker Rendon, new leadership, and new committee chairs. The swap out of committee chairs resulted in several hearings being cancelled and rescheduled for post-recess, adding extra pressure to the upcoming house of origin policy deadlines. This will make for packed agendas and longer hearings.
While this list highlights CSAC’s top-priority bills that will be heard following the Spring Recess, there are numerous budget issues and legislative proposals that will continue to remain the focus of CSAC staff as we approach the May Revision and further legislative action. We will update counties on these issues in upcoming CSAC Bulletins and Budget Action Bulletins. To view CSAC’s 2016 State and Federal Advocacy Priorities recently adopted by the CSAC Board of Directors, click here.
Limitations on County Contracts for Counsel
AB 2804 (Brown) creates barriers for counties to enter into contingency fee contracts with outside counsel by imposing new request for proposal (RFP) requirements. Counties turn to this type of contract when they need specialized legal counsel to address complex or time intensive matters in the public interest, such as public nuisance abatement cases.
CSAC has joined with Urban Counties Caucus (UCC), Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC), and the CSAC Excess Insurance Authority (CSAC-EIA) in opposing AB 2804. The new requirement would impose a mandate on counties and would also create new disclosure requirements and other administrative burdens. For example, the bill would require all of these contracts to be approved by the Board of Supervisors, while current practice for many counties is to allow such contracts to be executed by the department head or contracting officer. The language also fails to recognize unique situations where contingency agreements are made without Board approval, such as the need for Public Guardians and Public Administrators to hire attorneys on a contingency fee basis on behalf of a conservatee or decedent’s estate. There is not a sufficient rationale provided to justify this level of intrusion into local contracting policies.
AB 2804 is in the Assembly Local Government Committee awaiting hearing.
Cost Recovery for Prosecutors and County Counsel Offices
AB 1854 (Bloom) would restore the ability for prosecutorial agencies and county counsel offices to recover their costs incurred in successfully opposing a motion to vacate the forfeiture of bail.
CSAC is co-sponsoring this bill. Since the early 1990s, California law provided that prosecutorial agencies and county counsel offices are entitled to recover their costs associated with successfully opposing bail forfeiture requests. However, in a 2012 Court of Appeal’s decision (People v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1423) the court found that the provision in section 1305.3, allowing recovery of “costs” was vague and thus did not include attorney fees. The court did state in the ruling that clarification of this issue should be left to the Legislature. AB 1854 specifically seeks to reinsert attorney fees into statute as suggested by the Court of Appeal and was the acceptable process prior to 2012.
AB 1854 is currently awaiting a vote on the Assembly Floor.
Conditional Use Permits for Groundwater
SB 1317 (Wolk) specifies that by July 1, 2017, cities and counties that have overly high and medium priority basins would be required to establish a process for the issuance of conditional use permits for new wells. It further specifies that all new well permits shall include conditions to avoid undesirable impacts to aquifers. The bill would also prohibit new well permits in basins of critical overdraft and basins that are in probationary status. The conditional use permit requirement would not apply to areas that have already adopted measures to protect aquifers. In addition, small yield wells and replacement wells would be exempted from the above requirements.
CSAC has joined with RCRC and the League of California Cities in opposing SB 1317. Together we have asserted that the bill’s requirements would get ahead of the process provided under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) and would intervene in the local agency decision-making process which is a key element and foundation of SGMA. Some of our specific concerns with SB 1317 include that out of the 127 high and medium priority basins only 21 have been designated as being in critical overdraft and the legislation would impose requirements in areas that do not have a groundwater problem. Second, for areas that may be experiencing a groundwater problem SB 1317 provides a prescriptive solution that may not be in the local interest or the best approach to address the issue. SGMA was premised on local control and the “one size fits all” approach as outlined in SB 1317 would undermine both the premise and spirit of SGMA.
SB 1317 is scheduled to be heard by the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee on Tuesday, March 29.
Additional Public Records Act Burdens
AB 1707 (Linder) would require that local agencies subject to the California Public Records Act (PRA) include in their responses to requests for public records the name of documents withheld, and the exemption that applies to each document. The bill would additionally require these agencies to respond to all requests via written response, regardless of how the request is made.
CSAC opposes AB 1707 on the basis that it would essentially require public agencies to, in response to a PRA request, maintain a version of a “privilege log,” – a document describing those documents or other items withheld from production in a civil lawsuit due to the claim that the documents are privileged from disclosure because of the attorney-client privilege or some other privilege. Currently, public agencies cannot simply state that a record does not exist; they must state that there is something that cannot be disclosed and must justify withholding any record by demonstrating that, on the facts of the particular case, the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record (California Government Code §6255).
AB 1707 would require that the written responses include the title or any other identification of the document being withheld, and the exemption that applies to each record exempted. Requiring a list of specific documents would, in many cases, create a potential conflict with statutory confidentiality provisions, including, among many others, Revenue and Taxation Code §408, Welfare and Institutions Code §827, and Penal Code §832.7.
Further, Government Code currently requires that, “A response to a written request for inspection or copies of public records that includes a determination that the request is denied, in whole or in part, shall be in writing.” AB 1707 removes the written response requirement in GC§6255(b) and applies it to denials (including redactions of records as well as total withholdings) of oral requests as well as written requests; it additionally contains no provision that would nullify the obligation to provide a written response in the instance where the requester is willing to forego the written response.
The costs and administrative burdens imposed by AB 1707 have prompted a CSAC position of opposition. CSAC has been advised by the author’s office that amendments to narrow the bill are forthcoming – we will keep counties apprised of this issue as the bill moves forward.
AB 1707 will be heard in the Assembly Judiciary Committee on March 29.
Better Access to Vital Records
AB 2636 (Linder) would authorize registrars to accept electronic acknowledgements, sworn under penalty of perjury, that the requestor of a vital record is an authorized person. Current law requires requestors to provide a notarized statement that they are authorized, or to appear in person.
CSAC is sponsoring AB 2636. The current process presents challenges for persons who do not have easy access to a notary, lack formal identification, or reside elsewhere and cannot readily travel to request documents in person. The existing process is also cumbersome and time consuming for county staff. Streamlining the process and allowing counties the option to accept electronic requests will benefit both citizens and counties.
AB 2636 will be heard in the Assembly Health Committee on March 29.
Broadband Funding
AB 1758 (Stone) allocates $50 million for seven years through the California Advanced Services Fund for broadband deployment and reaffirms state access and adoption goals for high speed internet service.
CSAC strongly supports policy that seeks to enhance digital inclusion and overcome the digital divide that persists in California, and supports this measure as way to promote both broadband access and adoption. The modest investment will create great returns for residents, businesses, visitors, and local service providers.
AB 1758 is scheduled to be heard in the Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee on March 28.
Conservatorships
AB 1836 (Maienschein) would authorize the Probate Court to recommend a Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS) conservatorship to a county conservatorship officer and compel that officer to conduct an investigation and submit a report to the Probate Court.
CSAC opposes AB 1836, which is identical to a bill opposed by CSAC last year (AB 193, 2015, Maienschein) that was vetoed by Governor Brown. CSAC is concerned that the bill compels the conservatorship officer to conduct a conservatorship investigation and report back to the Probate Court on its findings, which will increase the number of LPS conservatorship referrals and significantly increase county general fund costs. AB 1836 also bypasses the established mental health system and gives probate judges the same authority over mental health evaluations as mental health practitioners.
AB 1836 was passed by the Assembly Health Committee this week, with three legislators declining to vote based on our concerns, and will be heard next by the Assembly Judiciary Committee on March 29.
Adoptive Placements
SB 1201 (Mitchell) would prohibit adoptive placements in a home in which the prospective adoptive parents or other adults living in the home have been convicted of a violent felony.
CSAC supports this bill. It recognizes the need to change California statute to better ensure the safety of children in the counties’ care and under state protection. Existing law already requires that a criminal record be taken into account and places a prohibition on giving final approval for an adoptive placement in a home in which the prospective adoptive parent or another adult living in that home has been convicted of certain specific felony offenses. SB 1201 would provide further protection for children by expanding this prohibition to crimes that are classified as violent felonies.
SB 1201 is sponsored by CSAC Affiliate, the County Welfare Directors Association, and will be heard by the Senate Human Services Committee on March 29.
General Plans
SB 1000 (Leyva) will require the development of an Environmental Justice element when a General Plan is adopted or revised. Specifically, the new element would identify and appraise the burdens of undesirable land uses within disadvantaged communities, as identified by CalEnviroScreen, or that disproportionately impact a particular population on the basis of race, national origin, ethnic group identification, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, color, or disability in order to reduce pollution exposure, improve air quality and promote food access, healthier homes, and physical activity. In 2003, the updated edition of the General Plan Guidelines from OPR recommended that local governments integrate environmental justice into their General Plans.
CSAC knows this bill will have great impact on counties, and is currently researching the issue with plans to a position. CSAC is interested to know how counties have incorporated the 2003 guidance into their plans since that time, or any other actions taken to incorporate environmental justice into your planning processes. We are also interested in any other general comments or concerns you may have with this legislation.
SB 1000 has been referred to the Senate Governance and Finance Committee.
CSAC looks forward to hearing from counties on the aforementioned legislation. Please direct comments to CSAC staff and visit our website to see what other bills CSAC is monitoring for the 2015-2016 legislative session.