DRAFT A Publication of the County Executive Office/Legislative Affairs October 20, 2020 Item No. 12 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 December 10, 2019, 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 2019-2020 Legislative Platform was adopted by the Board of Supervisors’ on December 4, 2018. On October 20, 2020, the Board of Supervisors will consider the following actions: RECOMMENDED ACTIONS 1. Receive and File Legislative Bulletin INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 1. County Position Matrix: CEO-LA 2. Sacramento Legislative Report 3. Washington DC Legislative Report JMP101420 INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 1. County Position Matrix: CEO-LA The matrix below summarizes active bills the County has taken positions on in 2019-20. State Legislation As of Thursday, October 15, 2020 Bill Author Subject Position Date of Status Notes Number Board Action AB 434 Daly Housing Financing Support 7.28.20 Chaptered #192 Programs: Uniform Procedures AB 2265 Quirk- Mental Health Support 5.19.20 Chaptered #144 Silva Services Act: Use of funds for substance use disorder treatment SB 555 Mitchell Jails and Juvenile Oppose 6.25.19 Vetoed Facilities: Telephone Services: Store SB 803 Beall Mental Health Support 3.10.20 Chaptered #150 Services: peer support specialist certification SB 1196 Umberg Price gouging Support 5.19.20 Chaptered #339 Federal Legislation As of Thursday October 15, 2020 Bill Author Subject Position Date of Status Notes Number Board Action HR 2995 Levin Spent Fuel Support 6.25.19 House Energy and Prioritization Act Commerce Committee HR 4004 Bustos The “Social Support 1.14.20 House Energy and Determinants Commerce Committee Accelerator Act of 2019” HR 5516 Levin Commitment to Support 9.15.20 House Veterans Affairs Veteran Support and Committee Outreach S.923 Feinstein Fighting Support 5.7.19 Senate Health, Homelessness Education, Labor and Through Services and Pensions Committee Housing Act S. 3020 Baldwin Commitment to Support 3.10.20 Senate Veterans Affairs Veteran Support and Committee Outreach S. 4431 Feinstein Emergency Wildfire Support 9.29.20 Senate Energy and and Public Safety Act Natural Resources of 2020 Committee Page 2 of 7 2. Sacramento Legislative Report Prepared by Precision Advocacy Group LLC The Administration and Legislature have primarily been occupied with pandemic and election activities over the last week. A few interim hearings focused on COVID-19 response were held and those informational and oversight hearings will continue through the fall. We anticipate that the Capitol will remain relatively quiet over the next couple of weeks. Project Homekey On September 28th, the Department of Finance (DOF) sent a letter to the chairs of both the budget and appropriations committees stating the desire to allocate an additional $200 million in Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF) funding for Project Homekey (Homekey). As part of the 2020-21 Budget Act, $550 million was appropriated to Homekey to allow local governments to acquire hotels, motels, and other properties to support housing for individuals and families experiencing homelessness or who are at risk of homelessness due to COVID-19. Control Section 11.90 of the 2020-21 Budget Act allocated a total of $9.5 billion in federal funds from the CRF, all of which are required to be expended by December 30, 2020. Of that funding, $2.7 billion was set aside to offset state emergency response costs and programs that support vulnerable populations. Section 11.90 grants the Administration unusual latitude as it relates to state appropriations. After September 1, 2020, provided CRF funding has not been spent, it requires the Director of the Department of Finance to notify the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) in writing, of its intent to reallocate funding. The notification must include the purpose and justification for the spending, and be delivered to the JLBC ten days prior to expending CRF funds. It does not require the JLBC to approve the appropriations. Despite that, Governor Newsom announced his request for permission to allocate additional funding in conjunction with revealing a third round of Homekey grants on September 28th. Senator Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles) who chairs the JLBC, responded with frustration to the DOF’s letter. She pointed out that the Legislature is well aware of the need to act quickly and decisively in this time of urgency, however they should be included in the determination of allocations of emergency funding. She listed a number of priorities that could be addressed with a $200 million appropriation, including food insecurity, child care, additional funding for the State Supplementary Payment program, assistance to low- income and unemployed tenants, and funding for the State’s Diaper Bank Program. Ultimately, she concurred to the spending, contingent upon an equal amount of CRF funding being allocated to the priorities above. It is frankly unclear at this point what this means. Our understanding is that the governor can now choose to accede to that request or ignore it. Relations between the Administration and Legislature have been tense during the COVID crisis however, and the governor’s request for permission to allocate funding could be an olive branch that he will continue. Per usual, the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) also weighed in, and recommended that the JLBC reject the request as it doesn’t include legislative input, and doesn’t necessarily align with the Legislature’s vision as it pertains to homelessness. In addition to the recommendation to reject the proposal pending further discussion by the Legislature, the LAO had a few concerns and recommendations including the following: • The proposal is premature. There will likely be increased expenditures for safety net programs through December 30th. If CRF funding has all been expended, the State General Fund (GF) will be forced to make up the difference. According to the LAO, the State has identified $900 million in permissible expenditures so far. Page 3 of 7 • It violates the intent of the Section 11.90 process. The Administration’s reallocation of funds before knowing whether the original allocations can be spent, goes beyond the Legislature’s intent in agreeing to the Section 11.90 process, which was to ensure that CRF money would not revert to the U.S. Treasury. • The proposal sets a concerning precedent. If additional funding is needed for costs that would have been covered by the CRF, State GF will have to backfill the shortfall. This increases state costs, which in essence, means that the Administration is unilaterally appropriating state GF. • The Legislature should establish a process to allocate unused CRF funds in the near future to ensure that funds are fully expended. The Department of Housing and Community Development has now awarded 4 rounds of funding for Project Homekey, including $23 million to Orange County for two projects in partnership with the City of Stanton. Ballot Boxes On October 12th, the Secretary of State’s (SOS) Chief Counsel sent a cease and desist letter to the Chair of the California Republican Party as well as the Chairs of the Fresno, Los Angeles, and Orange County Republican Party, asking that they, “cease and desist the coordination, use and/or false or misleading promotion of unauthorized and non-official vote by mail drop boxes.” The letter stemmed from reports to the Secretary of State’s office regarding unauthorized vote by mail drop boxes. In addition to the cease and desist request, the SOS asked that information be provided to the SOS regarding ballots already submitted to the unofficial drop boxes by October 15, 2020. The letter demanded the immediate return and surrender of vote-by-mail ballots received through the boxes to appropriate county elections officials. In addition to the cease and desist letter, SOS Alex Padilla issued guidance to county elections officials regarding unauthorized, non-official vote-by-mail ballot drop boxes AB 1921 (Gonzalez) Elections: vote by mail ballots, Chapter 820, Statutes of 2016, allows a vote by mail (VBM) voter who is unable to return his or her ballot to designate any person to return the ballot to the proper drop-off location or post office. In addition, it prohibits a designated person from receiving any form of compensation based on the number ballots that person returns. When the law was signed, ballot collecting, commonly called harvesting, required voters to authorize collectors, and the collectors had to sign the envelopes and state their relationship to the voter in order to ensure the ballot was counted. Since 2016, new legislation, AB 306 (Gonzalez) Vote by mail ballots, Chapter 203, Statutes of 2018, specified that a VBM ballot shall not be disqualified solely because the person authorized to return that ballot did not provide his or her name, relationship to the voter, or signature on the VBM ballot identification envelope. The current unresolved argument centers around whether GOP unofficial drop boxes can be considered ballot harvesting. The SOS is arguing that because there is no identified person that is authorized by the voter to take their ballot to be counted, the drop boxes are illegal.