Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-05-28 - AGENDA REPORTS - LEGISLATION (2)AGENDA REPORT City Manager Approval CONSENTED CALENDAR Item to be presented by: Michael P. Murphy DATE: 47"1 1-143106 DEPARTMENT: Background May 28, 1991 Legislation City Manager There are four pending pieces of Legislation, three state measures and one federal measure, which may have potential impact on the City of Santa Clarita. The. state bills are 1) AB 315 (Friedman), 2) AB 940 (Katz), and 3) SB 358 (Davis). The federal bill is H.R. 2071 (Moorhead). A summary analysis and Legislative Counsel Digest or bill copy is provided in the attachments.for each measure. All four bills were reviewed by the City Council Legislative Committee (Mayor Boyer, Mayor Pro Tem Klajic) at their May 20, 1991 meeting. Recommendation Adopt the recommendation of the City Council Legislative Committee on each bill. Attachments Bill Analyses (4) Bill Summaries/Copies (4) MPM:jjm 285 APPROVED Agenda Item: CITY OF SANTA CLARITA I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Michael P. Murphy Intergovernmental Relations Officer M pM DATE: May 28, 1991 SUBJECT: Assembly'Bill 315 Backaround At the May 1, 1991 City Council Study Session, a discussion took place relative to the issue.of Redevelopment. The City Council indicated the importance of retaining maximum flexibility for local governments in addressing this subject area. Assembly Member Terry Friedman (D -Sherman Oaks) has introduced AB 315 which makes specified state requirements relative to redevelopment agencies. The bill is sponsored by the Western Center on Law and Poverty in response to charges that local agencies have violated the spirit of redevelopment. Critics have alleged that some local redevelopment agencies in California have removed low and moderate income housing as part of agency activities and have failed to adequately replace those income.target units. The Legislation has been substantially amended as a result of negotiation between Assembly Member Friedman, housing advocates and local government representatives. The League of California Cities and the Redevelopment Agency Association remain opposed to the bill but are continuing to negotiate with Assembly Member Friedman. The negotiations have focused upon two primary areas: 1) "findings" as expressed in current law, and 2) development of affordable housing. The findings in current law are as follows: 1. No need exists in the community for low or moderate income housing. This finding must be consistent with the locality's housing element. 2. Some percentage less than 20 percent of the agency's tax increment allocation is sufficient to meet the housing needs of the community. The community's housing needs must be consistent with the locality's fair share of the regional housing need and this finding must be consistent with the locality's housing element. 3. The community is making a substantial effort to meet its existing and projected housing need, including its regional housing needs, as identified by the locality's housing element. No finding under this provision of law is to be made until the community has provided replacement units for all the low and moderate income units which were removed by a redevelopment agency's activities. AB 315 would do the following with respect to findings: 1. Prohibit a redevelopment agency from adopting Findings Number 1 or 2, listed above, unless the community has a valid housing element. A valid housing element for the purposes of making Findings 1 or 2, is a housing element which has been approved -by the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). 2. Requires an agency which makes Finding 1 or 2 to include in its mandated report to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), the specific provisions in the locality's housing element which demonstrate the community does not need to alter the supply of affordable housing or a percentage allocation of 20% or less is sufficient to meet local affordable housing needs. 3. Specify that if it is found by a court that the agency has misrepresented information in its mandatory report to HCD, the.redevelopment agency's low and moderate income housing fund deposit responsibility shall be increased to 25 percent. 4. Eliminate Finding Number 3 above relative to substantial community effort after January 1, 1993. An agency could, however, continue to be exempted from making deposits if the moneys were needed to pay for contractual obligations incurred prior May 1, 1991 and the agreement was entered into with the understanding that the agency would continue to make Finding Number 3. In addition to the language relating to the "findings", the bill has been amended to deal with the current law requirements for the development of affordable housing. Under existing law, is a requirement that: The.redevelopment agency ensures that at least 30 percent of all new or substantially rehabilitated dwelling units developed by the agency are made available to persons and families of low and moderate income. Fifty percent of these units are to be available to very low income residents; and, 2. At least.15 percent of all nonredevelopment agency developed units, new and rehabilitated, within a project area are available to low and moderate income people. Forty percent of these units must be available to very low income residents. The amendments to the bill do the following as it relates to the above affordable housing development requirements: 1. Requires every agency with a post -1977 project area to adopt a plan to implement these requirements by January 1, 1993. 2. Requires that the plan be reviewed every five years. 3. Requires the targets to be met by the agency every ten years. 4. Requires an agency which does not meet these requirements at the end of the ten-year period to meet those requirements annually until the ten year targets are met. Although Santa Clarita has not yet undertaken any formal redevelopment activities, Council concurred in the Community Development Department's concern over AB 315 and its potential restrictions on local agencies. To date, over 100 cities have expressed opposition to this bill. The City Council Legislative Committee reviewed AB 315 at their May 20, 1991 meeting. While supportive of the bill's general intent to provide adequate low and moderate income housing in communities, the Committee felt the legislation, as currently written, is still too burdensome to local entities. The Committee also noted the need for new cities, such as Santa Clarita, which have not engaged in redevelopment activities to have the opportunity to retain maximum flexibility in undertaking redevelopment programs." Recommendation Adopt recommendation of City Council Legislative Committee to oppose Assembly Bill 315, as amended May 15,:1991. Letters of opposition should be transmitted to Assembly Member Friedman, Santa Clarita's Legislative Delegation, appropriate Legislative Committees and ,the League of California Cities. MPM:jjm 242 Qb9i� CA AB 315 05/20/91 Page 1 Amended AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 15, 1991 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 21, 1991 ASSE14BLY BILL No. 315 Introduced by Assembly Member Friedman (Coauthors: Assembly Members Burton, Eastin, Farr, Hannigan, Hughes, Katz, Margolin, and Roybal-Allard) (Coauthors: Senators Marks, Torres, and Watson) January 24, 1991 An act to amend Sections 33334.2, [A> 33334.3, <A] 33334.6, and 33413 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to redevelopment. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 315, as amended, Friedman. Redevelopment: [6> 13t5w and Mederete 1----m Q1 [A> Low and Moderate Income <A] Housing Fund. (1) Under the existing Community Redevelopment Law, not less than 20% of all tax increment revenues which are allocated to a redevelopment agency are required to be [A> held in a separate Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund and <A] used by the agency for the purposes of increasing, improving, and preserving the community's supply of low- and moderate -income housing available at affordable housing cost to persons and families of specified income levels unless the agency makes certain annual findings. [A> This bill would substantially revise the criteria for, and ability of, a redevelopment agency to make those annual findings. This bill would also authorize agencies that have more than one project area to satisfy the requirement of allocating not less than 20% of all tax increment revenues by instead allocating the difference between the amount allocated and the 20% required to the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund from tax increment revenues from another project area. <A] heae a -r i" S`de�tei"opE�`b}`�n-agenE'}F be a%.a4lahl- at as ferd_bie housing c4o-� persons d fami-I es of.—lv-.v-or-moderate ince h=phi :et to-,—ae ver -Y l n w i n n n m P h n ti c a h n l rl a Ey1st1n, law-al.S0-r6.C}W LAST-der-iB36t.-�5%--6f-g��. new or eh=bill-tatea d elling �,nit de ei, ed .i+ti3z�, the pro' ct area y other than the y to he ayai 1 ahlva.t affordable 98t to a«oderate-i-�►come-r.of--zsbi.ch.--aLhan- f}e - _ _-- _'- to be etvailable-tinr,nd accavied by, CA AB 315 05/20/91 Page 2 increment -revenues.. Additionally, , fer these ..._mm-.,�.n t _- ._LJ _.L hetye net their _�rV€'-'l Zxr'ilvlt9'i"'R�"E1cvv"v a9--'$ eC-r-i'rvcTT•- 1. .. bill _ . i d IICC I.. � .Fe 4+ire 50% €. t` -a�;e o:� reue�ues to -be used -€a k�ase purpose u*t4-1---the -fa-i r --s ha re ---re qu i-reme nts a re- met--Zhe-b 4.1-1- _ .pro-rz�+l-ef--a*r-•age.ey-te-ee-r-ta-ifl••-€ir�d4ngs-wh-ich--make--Lhesa-.raquixaments rlxapglica3rle. iii] aw y____ from _ 60% the affistint of new o-r 'i'YTftJ-UTY2.4.--�eVC'itlPl--�3j+---a-"•ici2�ic sv¢N1Eiit--ageR@y--w�3--Ch At v-bc-avfri-1_ _FF a b hng * *„ F60n9-aft -fanri�iTr-c+f-torr or-madereet-income- and- would--ine-rea9e-€rOtR-15%-tom+-38$ t}K-ametrttc€-new-er-rahai�ilated dwe�lay-units-deu�a�4r_a.Lhe-r- «L_.. the .._._---�--- ; =.c, 1S ti—G e�ui-r-ed--•to-be-avail-ab-l�-a•L--af-€o•rAab4a•-#aus}.ng. eest amyl#�V= low-fTr�iR©E}Er3if--iFiE*Amer m�: v=Ti- fl9t{�� a1•se-pi-ev da t-ha.L-,- .i€ -a# -fie -S-Tea=a-€ - :�bt�i #tag -o€ oe rueLion of tile hou--i— units, those pereentages are ..t et the ageney shall promulgate n -to meet -these-9oe4-s-ion est -annual mftlting up the de€ini-t.—A] [A> Existing law requires, whenever dwelling units housing persons and families of low and moderate income are destroyed or removed from that housing market, as specified, the redevelopment agency to rehabilitate, develop, or construct for rental or sale to those persons and families an equal number of replacement dwelling units within the territorial jurisdiction of the agency. <A] [A> This bill would require each redevelopment agency, prior to January 1, 1993, to adopt a prescribed plan to comply with these requirements for each project area adopted on or after January 1, 1976. <A] Because this bill would impose new duties on redevelopment agencies relating to the allocation of tax increment revenues, the bill would impose a state -mandated local program. (2) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement, including the creation of a State Mandates Claims Fund to pay the costs of mandates which do not exceed $1,000,000 statewide and other procedures for claims whose statewide costs exceed $1,000,000. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that this bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to those statutory procedures and, if the statewide cost does not exceed $1,000,000, shall be made from the State Mandates Claims Fund. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State -mandated local program: yes. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Michael P. Murphy �A Intergovernmental.Relations Officer N`' DATE: May 28, 1991 SUBJECT: Assembly Bill 940 Background Assembly Member Richard Katz (D=Panorama City) has introduced AB 940 relating to a proposed Hume Canyon Off -Highway Vehicle Park. The bill would appropriate $175,000 from the California Off -Highway Vehicle Fund to the Division of Off=Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation of the Department of Parks and Recreation. This money would, in turn, be forwarded as a grant to the County of Los Angeles pursuant to the Off -Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Act of 1988. Los Angeles County would use the $175,000 for completion of a master plan and an environmental impact report, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, for a proposed Hume Canyon Off -Highway Vehicle Park. In 1988, the Legislature appropriated $201,000 for the master plan and environmental reports for a Whitney Canyon Off -Highway Vehicle Park in the Santa Clarita Valley. Subsequent controversy surrounding the Whitney Canyon site, including City of Santa Clarita opposition and conflicting noise studies, has resulted in Los Angeles County attempting to expand the master plan and environmental impact efforts to include Hume Canyon as an alternate site. Hume Canyon was previously reviewed in a preliminary fashion as the county sought to identify one primary site for the facility. Existing funds will be used to complete the Whitney Canyon study. Funds appropriated under AB 940 can only be spent on Hume Canyon Studies. As currently understood by staff, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors is seeking to amend the agreement with their consultant conducting the Whitney Canyon study to include the appropriate studies for Hume Canyon. The expanded contract would then be funded by Los Angeles County with a reimbursement from the state to occur upon AB 940 becoming effective. Los Angeles County intends to take both sites through appropriate environmental reviews and public hearings prior to selection of an ultimate site for the Off -Highway Vehicle Park. The Legislative Committee at their May 20, 1991 meeting expressed concern that in spite of the controversy surrounding Whitney Canyon, it would appear this location is still the preferred location. The Committee further noted that in light of a significant state budget shortfall, coupled with the large amount of funds already spent on Whitney Canyon, it seems inappropriate to allocate funds to a Hume Canyon environmental study until the Whitney Canyon issue is formally resolved. The Legislative Committee also affirmed its opposition to Whitney Canyon as a location for an Off -Highway Vehicle Park. Recommendation Adopt recommendation of City Council Legislative Committee to oppose Assembly Bill 940, reaffirm opposition to Whitney Canyon OHV Park proposal and continue dialogue with Los Angeles County on the overall issue of the need for new Off -Highway Vehicle Parks in the Santa Clarita Valley. Transmit letters of Council position to Assembly Member Katz, Santa Clarita Legislative delegation, appropriate Legislative Committees, Supervisor Antonovich and League of California Cities. MPM:jjm 241 CA AB 940 05/14/91 Page 1 Introduced ASSEMBLY BILL No. 940 Introduced by Assembly Member Katz March 4, 1991 n=a===x====as===ce An act relating to off-highway motor vehicle recreation, and making an appropriation therefor. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 940, as introduced, Katz. Hume Canyon Off -Highway Vehicle Park. Existing provisions of the Off -Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Act of 1988 provide for making grants to cities, counties, and appropriate districts for the planning, acquisition, development, construction, maintenance, administration, operation, and conservation of trails, trailheads, areas, and other facilities for the use of off-highway motor vehicles from the Off -Highway Vehicle Fund, as prescribed. This bill would appropriate $175,000 from that fund to the Division of Off -Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation of the Department of Parks and Recreation for a grant pursuant to the Off -Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Act of 1988 to the County of Los Angeles for completion of a master plan and an environmental impact report, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, for the proposed Hume Canyon Off -Highway Vehicle Park. Vote: 2/3. Appropriation: yes. Fiscal committee: yes. State -mandated local program: no. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: SECTION 1 ($175,000) is the Division of Parks and with Section County of Los environmental Quality Act, The sum of one hundred seventy-five thousand dollars hereby appropriated from the Off -Highway Vehicle Fund to of Off -Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation of the Department Recreation for a grant pursuant to Chapter 1.25 (commencing 5090.01) of Division 5 of the Public Resources Code to the Angeles for completion of a master plan and an impact report, pursuant to the California Environmental for the proposed Hume Canyon Off -Highway Vehicle Park. END OF REPORT CITY OF SANTA CLARITA I N T.E R 0 F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Michael P. Murphy Intergovernmental Relations Office M PM DATE: May 28, 1991 SUBJECT: Senate Bill 358 Background Senator Ed Davis (R -Valencia) has introduced Senate Bill 358 which would expand the highway business logo sign program. The City of Palmdale is interested in participating in the expanded program and has requested the City of Santa Clarita's support - for the Legislation. Existing law provides for a business logo sign program near freeway exits in rural areas along Interstate 5. The program, administered by the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans), allows for signs identifying specific roadside businesses offering gas, food, lodging or camping services. This bill would extend the business logo sign program throughout the state at freeway locations where requested by city or county resolution with the following exceptions: 1) Within any urbanized area having a population of more than 50,000 (specifically exempting Agoura Hills, Palmdale and San Clemente). 2) Within 800 feet of any other informational, directional or safety sign. 3) Between two freeway exits which are less than one mile apart. The program was established in rural areas of Interstate 5 where motorists might be less familiar with available roadside services or where the number of businesses was limited or motorist services infrequent. Proponents argue that passage of the bill will allow for enhancement of local commerce and provide benefits to motorists unfamiliar with services. available in a specific community. . They further argue that signs can only.be placed in a community as a result of specific resolution action by a local jurisdiction and payment of a cost plus 25% premium to CalTrans for sign installation. The City of Agoura Hills, in particular, views the program as an opportunity to reduce the number of billboards.in their City by offering an alternative form of business service-advertisement. Opponents argue that additional signage along freeways creates a cluttered look and creates confusion. The program favors well known chains over local independent businesses. Furthermore, all prospective program participants in a given area may not be able to be accommodated. The billboard industry, in particular, is the major opponent of this Legislation. The bill as currently written would not be applicable to the City of Santa Clarita due to the urban area exclusion clause. The League of California Cities, in addition to the cities of Palmdale and Agoura Hills, supports SB 358. The City Council Legislative Committee reviewed the measure at their meeting on May 20, 1991. While the committee supports SB 358, staff was directed to also pursue with Senator Davis inclusion of Santa Clarita in the bill through specific exemption. Recommendation Adopt City Council Legislative Committee recommendation of support for Senate Bill 358 and request specific inclusion of Santa Clarita in bill. Transmit statement of City Council position to Senator Davis, Santa Clarita Legislative Delegation, appropriate legislative committees and League of California Cities. MPM:jjm 251 CA SB 358 05/14/91 Page 1 Amended AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 25, 1991 AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 8, 1991 SENATE BILL No. 358 sxssasaaaaaxexssxxxxaaasaaasssaaaasxssssxxxxxssxaaaasssaxmxxssssxassssxssx-=xse Introduced by.Senator Davis [A> (Principal coauthor: Assembly Member Chandler) <A] February 14, 1991 ssssssssmaaxxxssxssaaasxxaaassssaxssssssssxsassxaasaamaaxssxxsxsxssxxsxsasxxxsv An act to amend Section 101.7 of the Streets and Highways Code, relating to highways. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST SB 358, as amended, Davis. Highways: freeway business services signs. Existing law requires the Department of Transportation to adopt rules and regulations permitting the placement of signs near exits on rural portions of State Highway Route 5 giving information to motorists of specific roadside businesses offering gas, food, lodging, or camping services. This bill would expand those provisions to include freeways in any city or county where the city council or board of supervisors so requests, and would change the reference from "gas" to "fuel." The bill would specifically require the department to establish color standards to assure safety, clarity, and uniformity, and to consider matters of safety related to the placement of the signs. The bill would prohibit the placement of these signs within [D> eities o94 [A> urbanized areas <A] of more than 50,000 population, [A>.except as specified, <A] within 800 feet of any other informational, directional, or safety sign, and between 2 freeway exits less than one mile apart. The bill would also state the intent of the Legislature in enacting these provisions. Vote: majority. -Appropriations. no. Fiscal committee: yes. State -mandated local program: no. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: SECTION 1. (a) The Legislature finds and declares that the current program of providing information signs identifying specific roadside businesses offering services of interest to motorists along rural portions of State Highway Route 5 has been effective in its intended purpose. CA SB 358 05/14/91 Page 2 (b) It is., therefore, the intent of the Legislature, in enacting amendments to Section 101.7 of the Streets and Highways Code, to provide motorists on freeways in all areas of the state with information on the availability of specific roadside businesses offering fuel, food, lodging, and camping services, when the city council or board of supervisors, as the case.may be, requests the Department of Transportation to implement this program within the city or county. It is not the intent of the Legislature, in enacting these amendments, to limit or restrict outdoor advertising structures and signs along the highways, but to supplement existing privately erected structures and signs. SEC. 2. Section 101.7 of the Streets and Highways Code is amended to read: 101.7. (a) The department shall adopt rules and regulations to allow, in any city or county which adopts a resolution so requesting, the placement, near exits on freeways, of information signs identifying specific roadside businesses offering fuel, food, lodging, or camping services and which prescribe the standards for these signs. In adopting the rules and regulations, the department shall establish color standards to assure safety, clarity, and uniformity, and shall give consideration to matters of safety related to the placement of the signs. The information signs may be placed near the freeway exits in addition to, or in lieu of, other highway signs of the department, but not in lieu of on -premises highway oriented business signs and directional signs. (b) The department shall.establish and charge a fee to place and maintain information signs in an amount not less than 25 percent above its estimated cost in placing and maintaining the information signs. Funds derived from the imposition of.the fee, after deduction of the cost to the department for the placement and maintenance of the information signs, shall be available, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for safety roadside rest purposes. (c) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the department shall not place information signs pursuant to this section in any of the following locations: [A> (1) Within any urbanized area having a population of more than 50,000, as designated by the most recent census of the United States Bureau of the Census, except that the City of Agoura Hills, Palmdale, or San Clemente may, by resolution transmitted by the city council to the department, elect to include the city within the information sign program, notwithstanding this population limitation. <A] (2) Within 800 feet of any other informational, directional, or safety sign. (3) Between two freeway exits which are less than one mile apart. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Michael P. Murphy, M Intergovernmental Relations Office DATE: May 28, 1991 SUBJECT: House Resolution 2071 Background At the April 23, 1991, City Council meeting, Council directed staff to work with Santa Clarita's federal legislative delegation in addressing specified elements of the day laborer• issue. One of the points raised at the meeting was the failure of the 1986 Immigration and Naturalization Act in stopping the flow of _illegal aliens into the country and subsequent impact on local jurisdictions. Congressman Carlos Moorhead (R -Glendale), in conjunction with Congressman Elton Gallegly (R -Chatsworth) and others, has introduced H.R. 2071, which will increase border patrol personnel to 6,600 by 1994. This represents an increase by more than 2,000 positions over current levels. An anticipated benefit of this legislation, beyond reducing the number of illegal entries into the United States, is to attack a major point of entry for illegal drugs. Over 4,000 drug seizures were made along the four -state southwestern international border.in 1990, a six -fold increase over 1985 levels. The Border Patrol personnel increase will be funded through the Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund. This money comes strictly from asset seizures as the direct result of Border Patrol drug enforcement action. Direct benefits to Santa Clarita may be difficult to quantify. This legislation, however, is consistent with previous Council direction to staff to work with the congressional delegation in encouraging the implementation of programs which will provide some relief to local governments impacted by illegal alien populations in their communities. Recommendation Adopt City Council Legislative Committee recommendation of support for H.R. 2071 and transmit statement of position to Santa Clarita Federal Legislative Delegation and League of California Cities. MPM/spk 2354 05/14/:5 12:41 MOORHEAD WASH. D.C. 002 102D CONGUSS IST SESSION H• R• 2071 I To authorize additional appropriations to increase border patrol personnel to 6,500 by the end of fiscal year 1994 and to make available amounts in the Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund for tho additional border patrol personnel. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ApR:L 24, 1991 Mr. MooltHFAD (for.himselfi Mr. I,owEatr of California, Mr. PnCKAftD, and Mr. GnLl N.ULY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary A BILL To authorize additional appropriations to increase border patrol personnel to 6,600 by the end of fiscal year 1994 and to make available amounts in the Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund for the additional border patrol personnel. 1 Be it enacted by the Senate and Hawe of Representa- 2 tines of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 3 SECTION 1. INCREASE IN BORDER PATROL PERSONNEL TO 4 8,600• 5 There are authorized to be appropriated such addi- 6 tional sums as may be necessary to provide for an author - 7 ized personnel level of 6,600 for the border patrol of the I I 05i14i:5 12:42 MOORHEAD WASH. D.C. 2 1 Immigration and Naturalization Service by not later than 2 October 1, 1994. 3 SEC. 2. AVAII.ARTLrrY OF AMOUNTS IN -n= DEPARTMENT 4 OF JUSTICE ASSETS FORFErrURE FUND TO 5 pROVIDE FOR ADMIONAL BORDER PATROL 6 PERSONNEL. 7 Section 524(c) of title 28, United States Codc, is 8 amended by adding at the end the following new para - 9. graph. 10 11(11) In addition to the purposes specified in para - 11 graph (1), the Fund shall be' available to the extent re - 12 quired to provide for an .authorized personnellevel of 13 6,600 for the border patrol of the Immigration and Natu- 14 ralization Service.". O .un well M