Board Legislative Committee Meeting Minutes
Friday, June 20, 2008

The Legislative Committee met at the Trudeau Center on Friday, June 20, 2008.

Board of Directors: Ted Radke (Chair), Doug Siden, John Sutter

Staff: Pat O’Brien, Erich Pfuehler, Rosemary Cameron, Dave Collins, Bob Doyle, Neal Fujita, Carol Johnson, Carol Victor

Consultants: Dr. George Manross, Strategic Research Institute; Steve Melikian, Jones Hall

Public: Dennis Cuff, Rich Guarenti, Hulet Hornbeck

1. STATE LEGISLATION/ISSUES UPDATE

          A. NEW

a. Proposed Legislation

                 The Committee unanimously recommended a SUPPORT position on the following:

AB 844 (Berryhill) Junk dealers and recyclers: nonferrous material. (5/29/08)

AB 844 attempts to address the increasing statewide problem of metal theft.  According to the author, law enforcement agencies around the state have concluded the common denominator among metal thieves is they are drug users looking for quick, easy money.  This bill would require all junk dealers and recyclers to purchase metal by check with a three-day holding period before the checks can be cleared.  This would provide an accountability paper trail and make metal theft less appealing to those looking to obtain quick cash.  Also, requiring junk dealer purchasers to keep a copy of the seller’s identification and address will act as a deterrent and assist law enforcement in their investigations.  The bill defines “nonferrous materials” as copper, copper alloys, stainless steel and non-beverage container aluminum.  Copper prices have increased 400% and aluminum prices have more than doubled in the last five years.

As stewards of important open space habitats, including Bay shoreline, the District is impacted when theft occurs at facilities near our properties.  For example, a toluene chemical spill in Richmond caused by the theft of a nearby tank valve impacted Point Pinole Regional Shoreline.  Theft of copper wire cut power to the lights on Eckley Pier at Carquinez Strait Regional Shoreline.  Electronic gates for one of our Iron Horse Trail undercrossings became inoperable when the copper wire powering them was stolen.  The District has also been a direct victim of metal theft as evidenced by the stolen memorial plaque at Martinez Regional Shoreline placed by Director Ted Radke in honor of his parents.
Staff Recommendation:  Support

Pfuehler commented that the bill’s author noted the people stealing this metal are mainly interested in quick cash primarily for drug purchasing purposes.  This bill would diminish the ability of thieves to receive quick cash.  The bill is moving and there is a hearing scheduled in the Senate.

AB 2989 (Fuentes) Outdoor Environmental Education and Recreation (2/22/08)
AB 2989 essentially follows up on legislation authored Joe Simitian in 2004 which established the Outdoor Environmental Education Program (OEEP) as a pilot project.  The pilot studied the impact of these programs on 255 sixth-grade students.  The study, administered by the Department of Education and released in 2005, found that children who participated in these programs improved their science test scores by 27%, improved their conflict resolution and problem-solving skills, and experienced better self-esteem and motivation to learn.  Since the pilot program ended, the Office of Education and the Environment in the Integrated Waste Management Board are charged with providing environmental education programs.  AB 2989 would make permanent the OEEP and place it under the jurisdiction of the Director of Parks and Recreation.  The bill creates the Outdoor Environmental Education and Recreation Fund in the State Treasury that, upon appropriation by the Legislature, would be used for awarding grants.  Grants will be awarded to pubic entities or nonprofit organizations.  The bill recommends using the Environmental License Plate Fund to help capitalize the grant program.  The bill also requires that priority be given to programs which:

• Serve at-risk youth and underserved demographic groups
• Involve public/private partnerships
• Contribute to healthy lifestyles
• Maximize the number of participants
• Commit in-kind resources
• Have a curriculum with serious scientific content
• Include community outreach components to build partnerships with local communities

While funding to actually implement this program in light of the current budget crisis is unlikely, supporting the legislation is consistent with the District’s mission to promote outdoor education programs.  It is also consistent with the District’s expressed intent to serve our entire community including at-risk youth.  Should funding be made available, the District would have an interest in applying for grants.  The bill is supported by organizations of interest to the District, including its sponsor the Sierra Club, as well as Audubon California, California League of Conservation Voters, California State Park Rangers Association, Latino Coalition for a Healthy Community and the Planning and Conservation League.  It passed the Assembly on May 28th 49-29 and is pending in the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water.

                  Staff Recommendation:  Support

There was no discussion about this bill.  Director Radke moved to support and the Committee did so unanimously.

B. ISSUES                                                                                

a. State Parks Plan— “State Park Access Pass” (Laird)
On May 28, 2008, the Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Resources approved Assemblymember John Laird’s State Park Access Pass proposal.  Under the proposal, Californians would receive free year-round access to parks in exchange for a once-a-year vehicle registration surcharge of $10.  The $10 annual surcharge, called the “State Park Access Pass,” would be assessed on all vehicles except trailers and those commercial vehicles subject to the CVRA fee.  In return for the fee, entrance to state parks would be free to all cars with California plates.  Admission to state parks now is charged per car, not per person, so any driver who goes to a state park twice a year will come out ahead.  Admission to the system’s 278 beaches, forests and historic sites now ranges from $6 to $10 a car.  This proposal would raise approximately $282 million in revenue and would provide funds for the following:

• $40 million to backfill loss of entrance fees at gate receipts,
• $120 million increase for maintenance,
• $60 million increase for operations and public safety,
• $62 million to reduce deferred maintenance deficit which may be bonded against.

This would go a long way toward addressing the needs of the State Park system – dilapidated buildings, too few rangers and $1.2 billion in backlogged repairs.  Republican leaders have, predictably, labeled the proposal a “tax.”  The proposal raises some questions for the District, which operates several state parks.  For example, the $10 fee appears to supersede the District’s ability to charge parking fees for facilities like Crown Memorial State Beach.  The proposal is likely to have an economic impact on the District if adopted.

Pfuehler noted the proposal is currently tied up in the budget negotiations.  Presently there is no mechanism included in the proposal for the District to be compensated for the State Parks it manages.  Staff, along with Consultant Doug Houston, is exploring an amendment to ensure the District secures funding directly from State Parks or for the District to be exempt from the “access pass” and allowed to continue to charge fees at Del Valle and Crown Beach.

C. UPDATE

a. State Budget
O’Brien and Pfuehler gave a brief update about the state budget.  There is a $15.2 billion deficit.  The Governor has proposed borrowing $8.4 billion against future lottery profits and a $5 billion dollar loan to close the gap to about $2 billion.  The Governor proposed putting his lottery proposal on the November ballot.  If the ballot measure fails, a one cent sales tax increase would go into effect.  In either case, it would require a two-thirds vote by the legislature to put the proposal on the ballot.  Traditionally, Republicans do not support tax increases and Democrats do not have two-thirds majorities in either the Assembly or Senate.  There is no unified Democratic budget proposal at this time.  The Senate is a little more receptive to the Governor’s proposal than the Assembly.  The Assembly is being more aggressive about raising taxes, including taxes on currently exempt services. 

O’Brien remarked that the 1988 Proposition 98 requires a minimum percentage (around 40%) of the state budget to be spent on K-14 education.  This requirement makes finding additional revenue in lean fiscal years extremely difficult. 

O’Brien added the lack of a budget will impact the District.  Booking fees the District collects for incarcerating criminals for state crimes will no longer be paid.  O’Brien also noted that when the state cuts back, counties increase their charges for services and, as a result, the District will incur additional operational expenses.

Pfuehler added that there are some in Republican caucus who want to use the budget process to leverage changes in the implantation of AB 32 (the climate change legislation of 2006).

b.Water Drought Declaration
On Wednesday, June 4th, Governor Schwarzenegger proclaimed California is in a drought – the first such declaration in 17 years.  Along with the proclamation, the Governor issued an Executive Order intended to speed transfers of water to areas experiencing the most severe shortages, help local water districts boost conservation efforts, identify risks to the state’s water supply and assist farmers.  While the Governor stopped short of declaring a water emergency, he called for a 20% reduction in water use statewide and urged local agencies to bolster conservation programs.  The Governor made his proclamation based on the driest spring on record, two years of below normal precipitation, the Sierra Nevada snow pack being down to 67% of normal in May and the federal court order aimed at protecting the endangered smelt in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta which has put a substantial share of the state’s water supply off limits.  The Governor lacks the authority to impose statewide rationing and there are no official guidelines for what constitutes a statewide drought. 

Some have called his proclamation political posturing in order to build support for an $11.9 billion water bond for new projects such as dams, reservoirs, a diversionary peripheral canal, river restoration and water quality improvement – a measure opposed by most environmental groups who point out the state is sitting on $5.9 billion from a 2006 water bond.  Environmentalists specifically support two water bills, AB 2153 (Krekorian) and AB 2175 (Laird).  AB 2153, sponsored by the Planning and Conservation League, would require new residential and commercial developments subject to CEQA to incorporate cost-effective water efficiency measures – including recycled water and storm water capture.  AB 2175, sponsored by the Natural Resources Defense Council, requires the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to establish a statewide target to achieve a 20% reduction in urban per capita water use on or before December 31, 2020.

Locally, East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) has implemented mandatory water rationing and is threatening to fine or reduce water supply to customers who violate the restrictions.  They are seeking a 15% overall reduction in water use.  Adoption of a new drought rate structure will be considered by EBMUD’s Board of Directors for approval at its July 8 meeting and public hearing.  Under the proposal, water volume charges for most EBMUD single family residential water customers will increase by 10% and customers will be asked to cut their water use by 19%.  Contra Costa Water District has called for voluntary conservation.  Zone 7 is asking for a 10% water use reduction.  Santa Clara Valley Water District is urging customers to cut water use by 10%. 

The District could be impacted by EBMUD’s rate increase and water reduction requirement.  Recreation along the Delta shoreline would be impacted by any serious diversion efforts.  The District would likely be impacted by AB 2175, but probably not so much by AB 2153.

O’Brien commented that EBMUD’s decision might have an impact on our facilities and irrigation abilities.  Operations is reviewing how the reductions in water use will be handled.

c. AB 2954-San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority –
(Please see Attachment 1Ac – Letter to Save the Bay, dated April 10, 2008.)

District staff (O’Brien, Doyle and Pfuehler) met with Save the Bay’s Executive Director, David Lewis, and Political Director, Stephen Knight, to ask for an amendment to AB 2954.  District staff requested two representatives from open space districts be added to the proposed Authority’s Board.  Staff suggested two ways that could be accomplished:  through vote or by appointment of the Board’s chair.  The additional Board Members would be restricted to open space agencies within the Bay Area.  District staff and Consultant Doug Houston have advocated this amendment with Senator Tom Torlakson, Chair of Senate Appropriations Committee, as well as Appropriations Committee Member Senator Ellen Corbett.  AB 2954 passed the Assembly and is under consideration in the Senate.

O’Brien reminded Committee Members that the District has taken a position of support on this bill, but only with amendments.  The District may withdraw support if the amendments are not included. 

Doyle added that this is about local representation.  There is concern that cities and/or county agencies would dominant the decision making.   Neither of them are operators of restored wetlands.  The District wants someone on the Authority’s Board with experience in owning, managing and restoring Bay shoreline property.

Pfuehler added that a hearing is set for the Senate Local Government Committee.  Traditionally, the Local Government Committee has not generally been interested in expanding government.  If the bill gets through Local Government, it will then go to Senate Appropriations.

2. FEDERAL LEGISLATION/ISSUES UPDATE

Pfuehler mentioned there was a markup of the No Child Left Inside environmental education bill in George Miller’s Education and Labor Committee.  District staff is working with Miller’s office to try and make sure park districts are eligible for grants under the Act.  Currently, the bill only provides grant opportunities to educational facilities. 

Pfuehler also noted that the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee added $25 million to the stateside portion of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

3. EXTENSION OF THE REGIONAL PARK BOND MEASURE

a. Review of Bond Extension Survey, Project List and Ordinance

This June 20th meeting is the last Legislative Committee meeting prior to the scheduled first reading of the Ordinance Ordering the Submission of the Proposition (Ordinance) at the July 1, 2008 Board Meeting.

To date the following actions have been taken or are in process:

• Resolution of Determination:

The Board, on June 3, 2008 adopted the Resolution of Determination as required by state law precedent to initiating the process of placing the bond measure on the ballot.

• Project List:

Also on June 3, 2008 the Board acted to accept the District’s Project List, as amended to include an additional 3%, or $11.255 million, reducing the 10% reserve to 7%.  Per Board direction, these funds were distributed to projects, balanced by Metro Area, to priorities directed by the Board on that date.  This list was distributed to the Board at the June 18, 2008 Board Meeting.

• Ordinance:

The draft Ordinance was reviewed by the Board on June 3, 2008 and, pending the results of the survey as discussed below, has been scheduled for a first reading on July 1, 2008 and a second hearing and adoption on July 15th. 

Once the first reading is held, the language of the Ordinance may not be changed; therefore, this Legislative Committee meeting, and the July 1, Board Meeting will be the only opportunities to adjust the draft Ordinance to reflect any changes suggested by the survey findings. Modifications or potential modifications to the Draft Ordinance that are under discussion include:

• The modification of the draft Ordinance as directed by the Board on June 3, 2008 to reduce the reserve amount from 10% to 7%.
• Inclusion or removal of the Zoo as a direct recipient of funding. The General Manager has requested that the Zoo provide notice, in writing, by the end of the day of this meeting, June 20, 2008 if they wish the Zoo allocation to be withdrawn from the measure.  If so requested, the language providing funding for the Zoo will be removed from the Ordinance prior to the Board’s first reading at the July 1 meeting.
• The final recommended language on the 75-word question awaits the findings of the survey, as discussed below.

A revised copy of the draft Ordinance is attached to this material for the Committee’s review and information.

Recommendation:  The Committee is requested to make a recommendation to the full Board regarding the Ordinance.

• Survey:

Dr. Manross has fielded the final survey to provide information critical to the Board’s deliberations.  The data gathering was initiated immediately following the June 3, 2008 General Election.  Preliminary results are expected to be available at this Legislative Committee meeting, and a full report at the July 1, 2008 Board meeting.   The key information that is being sought by this process is an assessment of overall community support, changes in this level of support over time, and final information on a preferred option for wording the ballot question.  

Dr. Manross will be in attendance at this meeting to present the preliminary findings of the survey.  Due to the large sample size and the short timeline, the full report and analysis may not be completed by this date; however, it is anticipated that there will be sufficient information available to enable the Committee to develop a recommendation to the full Board.  Dr. Manross will also be asked to present his full report at the July 1, 2008 Board Meeting.

The testing standard by which staff generally recommends proceeding with the measure is the go/no-go threshold of 2/3 plus margin of error of the survey. Based on the results of the survey as they will be presented this meeting, the Committee will be requested to discuss and make a recommendation on proceeding with the measure.

Recommendation: The Committee is requested to review the available information and make a go-no-go recommendation to the full Board regarding  placement of the 2008 Regional Park Bond Extension on the November 2008 Election.

Dr. George Manross made a presentation about SRI’s June survey.  He pointed out that he only had results for 451 out of the 600 people surveyed.  He identified that 72% likely support is a “go” in SRI’s go/no go model.  In the first survey in January, the bond extension was at 76.5% approval.  In March, it dipped to 72% approval on account of the economy, but the overall number has held in this final survey.  Opinion Leaders, which are 13.5% of the electorate, softened by 6.5% from 77% to 70.5%.  This number, however, holds across all six geographic areas (the recent data set does not include Livermore, only actual voters covered by the original Measure AA).

Dr. Manross pointed out that in the January survey, 18% of the electorate said the country was in a recession.  In the June survey, 33% believed the country is in a recession.  46% say they will spend less on both essentials and non-essentials.  Softening in the bond extension’s support is directly attributable to increased concerns about the economy.

One of the surprises from the survey was how supportive the electorate is of restoring urban creeks – 77%.  Other issues which surveyed well are:  Bay Trail (71%); Eastshore (71%); Concord Naval Weapons Station (67%); protecting wildlife; purchasing and saving open space, wetlands and Bay shore lands; acquiring, developing and improving local and regional parks, trails and recreational facilities.  Noting that cities get 25% of the bond money pushes overall approval up 4%. 

For the Ordinance, the version with the urban creek language bumped support for the resolution up several percentage points.  Dr. Manross highly recommends using the “urban creek” language in the Ordinance. 

Collins noted that the Ordinance would also reflect the contingency set aside at 7% not 10%.  Manross pointed out that there was 76% approval for the 7% contingency.  Collins also noted the Ordinance would include the project list and the Oakland Zoo. 

Dr. Manross believes there is sufficient data to go forward with the bond extension and recommend it to the full Board.

Director Sutter asked about the Oakland Zoo.  Collins explained the District sent a letter to the Oakland Zoo informing them that $4 million in funding for the zoo is in the bond extension.  It is still possible the Zoo could notify the District and ask to be excluded from the bond extension.  It was suggested that two versions of the Ordinance be prepared for the Board meeting:  One with the Oakland Zoo included in the Ordinance and one without.  Manross noted that including the Zoo pushes approval 2%.

Director Siden asked what would be done with the $4 million if the Zoo was left out.  Staff speculated it would just be evenly distributed amongst projects or added to the contingency, but ultimately it would be up to the Board.

Consultant Melikian made a comment regarding the Ordinance language.  He expressed concern that there needed to be a floor as well as a ceiling for the tax rate.  For example, if lots of growth and construction occurred in a year the District issues some bonds, the rate could dip below $10 per $100,000.  The District would not want to be locked into the lower rate in future years.  Melikian and Victor suggested a potential change to the language could read:  “Provided that when issued, the payment projections verified by independent auditors demonstrate that property tax rates will not increase above the present rate of $10 per year per $100,000 of assessed valuation.”

The Committee recommended unanimously that the Ordinance with the urban creek language be brought forward to the full Board.

4. PUBLIC COMMENTS

None

Back to top