County of Orange Positions on Proposed Legislation



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 21, 2015, the Board of Supervisors will consider the following actions:

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

1. OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED: AB 403 (Stone): Public social services: foster care placement: funding.

2. OPPOSE: AB 45 (Mullin): Household hazardous waste.

3. Receive and File Legislative Bulletin

INFORMATIONAL ITEMS

• Washington Legislative Report

• Sacramento Legislative Report

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:

1. AB 403 (Stone): Public social services: foster care placement: funding. OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED

Author: Assemblyman Stone

Status: Assembly Committee on Human Services

Hearing Date: April 28, 1:30 p.m.

Position Requested By: Social Services Agency

Summary

This bill would provide for the reclassification of treatment facilities and the transition away from the use of group homes for children in foster care, requiring instead the use of short-term residential treatment centers (STRTCs), as defined. Of particular concern is how the bill’s requirements would affect the Orangewood Children & Family Center, which is Orange County’s only emergency center for neglected and sexually, physically or emotionally abused children. Orangewood provides protective custody for children delivered by police officers or child protective services workers. Under this bill, Orangewood as currently operated would not be able to continue providing services.

AB 403 impacts a total of 75 sections in the Family Code, Government Code, Health and Safety Code, Penal Code and Welfare and Institutions Code. The majority of amendments are to the Health and Safety Code and Welfare and Institutions Code. They include the addition of two new sections to the Health and Safety Code, the repeal and replacement of two sections in the Health and Safety Code, the addition of seven new sections to the WIC, and the repeal and replacement of nine sections in the WIC.

Of particular concern to the Social Services Agency is addition of one new code section, the amendment of three code sections, and the repeal and replacement of six sections.

Existing Law

Existing law, the California Community Care Facilities Act, requires the State Department of Social Services to license and regulate various out-of-home facilities and entities responsible for children and non-minor dependents in foster care, including foster family homes, group homes, and out-of-state group homes, and imposes training requirements on foster parents. Existing law also provides for the placement of certain children in foster care under the supervision of the department and county welfare departments. Existing law further establishes the Aid to Families with Dependent Children-Foster Care (AFDC-FC) program, under which counties provide payments to foster care providers on behalf of qualified children in foster care.

Discussion Points

AB 403 would transform the continuum of care for foster youth by eliminating the practice of long-term group home placements. Among other things, the bill would require county-operated foster family agencies and group homes to be phased out by January 1, 2017 unless they meet the bill’s newly defined requirements for foster family agencies or short-term residential treatment centers (STRTCs). This mandate directly impacts the Orangewood Children and Family Center, as well as two Sibling Cottages at the Tustin Family Campus, which are operated by the county and licensed as group homes.

Specifically:

• The phase out of Orangewood as a placement resource would be detrimental to foster children and burdensome to the County due to a dearth of community resources available for the placement and care of the youth who are now placed at Orangewood.

• Transitioning to a STRTC would detrimentally impact the ability to care and serve Orange County’s high-need foster youth by restricting the population that could be placed in Orangewood to only foster children who are assessed as “seriously emotionally disturbed.”

• Though licensed as a group home, Orangewood does not operate in the same manner as the traditional long-term group home placements that the bill seeks to eliminate.

o The implementation of a myriad of reforms, as well as the provision of a comprehensive array of services at Orangewood to support children and families, are consistent with the below-listed goals of the California Child Welfare Continuum of Care Reform (CCR).

▪ Priority in placing children with their families or in family-based setting

▪ Reduction in the use of group homes

▪ Transitional support services

▪ Establishing permanent connections

▪ Health care support

▪ Educational support

▪ Community services and support

o In 2014, the average length of stay at Orangewood was 36 days.

o At just more than 700 for 2014, Orangewood admissions have drastically declined since the late 1980s when daily populations occasionally exceeded 300.

Finally, Orangewood operational costs are not funded by the same federal funding stream that supports typical group home placements. In its current version, there appears to be no fiscal impact resulting from the enactment of AB 403 if Orangewood does not transition to a STRTC. Unlike many facilities licensed as group homes, Orangewood receives federal funding from the Emergency Assistance Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (EA-TANF) program.

The cost of transitioning to a STRTC is difficult to determine. The current rate classification system used to determine payment to group homes and treatment facilities would be repealed on January 1, 2018 and replaced with a mandate that the State Department of Social Services (CDSS) develop a new payment structure for STRTCs that includes the consideration of specified factors. Any discrepancy in funding under the new system compared to the current level of federal funding is unknown at this time. However, it is very likely that transitioning to a STRTC would increase other costs due the impact on operations as described above. By limiting the population served at OCFC to only youth who are assessed as seriously emotionally disturbed, additional costs would be incurred due to the need to increase the availability of placement resources for difficult-to-place foster youth who may have challenging behaviors, placement disruptions, and/ or are members of large sibling sets. Increased resources would be needed to support recruitment, training and retention efforts for additional foster family and emergency shelter home placements. Net County Cost would increase should available placement resources be inadequate to meet the need.

Proposed Amendment

The Social Services Agency is recommending an Oppose Unless Amended position. The department has been in communication with the state regarding the challenges imposed by AB 403, should it become law. A process needs to be amended into the bill to allow counties with established emergency shelters to work with the state toward providing a wider range of short-term accommodations for foster youth beyond those deemed seriously emotionally disabled. For example, some foster youth are dealing with drug and alcohol dependencies that make home placements challenging. Likewise, large sibling groups present a challenge to place together given the short turnaround (less than 24 hours) required by AB 403, particularly when such group placements are ordered by the court.

At the same time, Assembly Member Eggman has introduced a similar bill, AB 878, which reflects a slightly different approach intended to fulfill the goals of the CCR. Like AB 403, this bill would make group home placements ineligible for AFDC-FC funding while adding STRTCs to the list of AFDC-FC eligible placements. Both bills would require STRTCs to be accredited by a national accrediting body approved by the state; however, AB 878 does not include a requirement for mental health certification. Further, the bill would impose approximately eight conditions regarding the placement of children in STRTCs, but presently those conditions do not include the requirement that children be assessed as seriously emotionally disturbed, as mandated by AB 403. These provisions would commence January 1, 2018. Additionally, AB 878 would require the state to establish a working group no later than December 31, 2016 to develop and implement the standardized Child and Adolescent Needs and Strengths Plus assessment tool to be used statewide to determine the placement needs of each child.

Impact on Orange County

For Orange County, the enactment of AB 403 would result in the loss of a vital resource as currently operated. Orangewood, which serves as an emergency shelter and multi-service center for abused and neglected children and their families, would either transition to a STRTC, as defined by the bill, or be phased out by January 1, 2017. The state has communicated its willingness to work with counties to develop gradual phase-out plans taking into account the unique needs of county shelters and to extend the deadline for transitioning to a STRTC beyond 2017. In a letter to County Social Services directors dated March 20, 2015, CDSS reported that this change would be reflected in a future amendment to the bill.

In 2014, the average daily population at Orangewood was 59, with children admitted falling under three general categories:

(1) Sibling sets that are kept together until an appropriate long-term placement is located,

(2) Children with severe behavioral and mental health needs, and

(3) Foster youth who run away or experience a placement disruption.

OCFC provides care and a myriad of support services to foster youth with severe and challenging needs; the facility’s closure would detrimentally impact these children because there are not acceptable options or other resources available. Additionally, transitioning to a STRTC would constrain the County’s ability to serve foster youth by limiting the population to only youth assessed as seriously emotionally disturbed. This limitation would prohibit the facility from serving children in sibling sets, as well as youth who runaway and/or experience a disruption in placement. While the population of youth served at OCFC is very fluid, these excluded cohorts can exceed 50% of the total population at OCFC.

The mandates contained in AB 403 would detrimentally impact the operational efficiency of the County in providing high quality care and services to Orange County’s highest-need foster children. The mandate requiring Orangewood to be phased out or transitioned to a STRTC runs contrary to the statement in the Legislative Platform that calls for supporting measures that allow for flexibility and local control over the protection and care of youth in foster care. Further, as the bill requires the development of a new payment structure for STRTCs, it is not known if the bill will be cost-neutral or if it will result in an increase in net county costs.

2. AB 45 (Mullin): Household hazardous waste. OPPOSE

Author: Assemblyman Mullin

Status: Assembly Committee on Local Government

Hearing Date: April 22, 1:30 p.m.

Position Requested By: OC Waste & Recycling

Summary

This bill would establish “a comprehensive program for the collection of household hazardous waste,” including door-to-door household hazardous waste collection and household hazardous waste residential pickup services as the principal means of collecting household hazardous waste and diverting it from California’s landfills and waterways. The bill also allows the Department of Resources, Recycling and Recovery (Cal Recycle) to create a model ordinance for a comprehensive program for the collection of household hazardous waste which includes door-to-door collection as well as other components already in use by local jurisdictions today. It would require jurisdictions to create a household hazardous waste (HHW) baseline and to meet an unspecified diversion requirement for HHW collection. Further, the bill provides for no reimbursement for costs.

Existing Law

Existing law requires each county to prepare a household hazardous waste (HHW) element which identifies a program for the safe collection, recycling, treatment, and disposal of hazardous wastes that are generated by households. As part of its HHW element, the County of Orange operates four permanent Household Hazardous Waste Collection Centers (HHWCCs) in addition to various community pickup events.

OC Waste & Recycling (OCWR) currently contracts with Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc. to provide a household hazardous waste collection program (HHWCP). The goals of the HHWCP are:

(1) Provide a more consistent opportunity to all Orange County residents for accessible, safe and legal disposal of hazardous wastes through the establishment of the HHWCCs;

(2) Properly dispose of hazardous waste found abandoned and illegally dumped at landfills; (3) Provide education to increase public awareness of both environmentally safe alternatives to HHW, and proper disposal, recycling and reuse options.

As part of the HHWCP, OCWR also has a Material Reuse Program, Latex Paint Recycling, door-to-door collections for the elderly and disabled and a Load Check Program.

Discussion Points

The bill as introduced mandated a door-to-door HHW collection program. It was amended this past week to change the reference of “door-to-door” to a “comprehensive program for the collection of household hazardous waste.” This is a much broader mandate but still includes the door-to-door component.  The expressed intent remains the establishment of door-to-door and residential pickup as the principal means of collection. The broader intent can also be interpreted as requiring all components including the door-to-door (i.e. everything we’re doing now plus more). The amendments also leave local jurisdictions responsible for funding.

Based on analysis by industry experts (Solid Waste Association of North America, CSAC, Los Angeles Sanitary District), door-to-door collection and diversion programs will cost substantially more than current practice. Options to fund a new program may result in disposal gate fee increases which may require Board of Supervisors’ approval. Local jurisdictions such as the County currently do not have the funding or infrastructure in place to develop door-to-door HHW programs. Locally developed programs may differ substantially in scope between cities and may result in confusion by end users. This may put pressure on the County to develop and provide this service at the regional level. Another potential concern is that County may be liable for any environmental hazardous or contamination that may result from accidental spills while picking up or transporting the hazardous materials. The risk of potential scavenging of hazardous materials left on the curb for pick up may pose additional legal and safety concerns.

The bill’s recent amendment reflects the willingness of the author to back away from a blanket mandate for door-to-door collection of household hazardous waste, however, such a program remains a part of the comprehensive program that would be required.

Impact on Orange County

AB 45 would have substantial operational and financial impacts to the County and local jurisdictions. Although OCWR offers limited HHW pick up for the disabled and elderly, the staffing, infrastructure and funding are not available for a more comprehensive door-to-door collection program. Currently, OCWR’s HHWCP has been successful at increasing participation and awareness to the four (4) permanent HHWCC with concerted education, outreach, partnerships and communication strategies. The program consists of four regional HHWCCs strategically located across the County in Anaheim, Huntington Beach, Irvine, and San Juan Capistrano. These full-time centers are opened five days a week and services are free of charge to Orange County residents.

Since FY 2005-06, there has been an 18% increase in participation. In FY 2013-14, a total of 118,921 households visited the collection centers and participated in the community events. OCWR collected over 6.93 million pounds (or approx. 3,484 tons) of HHW. Should AB 45 pass, an assessment of the HHWCP program will be required and analysis on the viability of all current program elements will need to be performed.

HHW is an element defined within the current Waste Disposal Agreements with all cities and certain sanitary districts. Disposal fees are currently being used to support the current HHWCP. Higher program requirements and associated costs may result in higher rates to residents and businesses.

Also, in the event that permanent HHWCCs are no longer viable options to meet regulatory and/or statutory requirements, costs will be associated with the closure and decontamination of these sites. The estimates are:

|SITE |EST. CLOSURE COSTS |

|ANAHEIM |$ 240,364 |

|IRVINE |$ 318,616 |

|HUNTINGTON BEACH |$ 273,833 |

|SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO |$ 318,616 |

|TOTAL |$ 1,151,430 |

SACRAMENTO LEGISLATIVE REPORT

Policy Committee deliberations are in full swing as the state lawmakers work to meet the May 1 deadline to hear and report fiscal bills in their house. The deadline to hear and report non-fiscal bills is May 15. Highlighted below is an update on legislation of interest to the County.

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, was amended on April 13 and is expected to be referred to the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee.

Restrictions on Registered Sex Offenders. 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.

Special Elections Reimbursement and FPPC Enforcement. AB 971 by Assembly Member Ling Ling Chang was heard in the Assembly Elections and Redistricting Committee on April 15 and approved on a 5-1 vote. AB 971 would reimburse counties for expenses incurred to prepare for and conduct special elections. The bill now goes to the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

AB 910 by Assemblymember Harper, was pulled from the Assembly Elections and Redistricting Committee hearing file at the request of the author, following last minute concerns raised by the Committee Chairman. This bill would authorize the County to contract with the Fair Political Practices Commission for the administration and enforcement of the County’s campaign finance ordinance. This authorization was approved by more than 56 percent Orange County voters in November 2014 with the passage of Measure E. The Assembly member, CEO/Legislative Affairs and Platinum staff will be working in Sacramento and Orange County to address the concerns and will be providing additional updates in a future report.

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 and will be heard on April 28.

Other bills of interest:

Plastic Bag Ban Repeal. 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, failed passage in the Assembly Natural Resources Committee on April 13.

Senate Unveils Plan to Improve Transportation Infrastructure: Senate Transportation Chairman Jim Beall (D-San Jose), unveiled SB 16 at a press conference held on April 15 to improve California’s crumbling transportation infrastructure. According to Beall’s press release, California faces a $59 billion backlog in deferred maintenance, a local government backlog of $40 billion. SB 16 seeks to provide more transportation resources by requiring everyone who uses the roads to share in paying for the cost of needed repairs.

As of now, Platinum staff has not had the opportunity to analyze the bill. However, reports suggest that the bill is projected to raise $3 billion or more annually over 5 years. The bill proposes to take the truck weight fee, which raises about $1 billion a year, from the general fund and return it to its intended purpose: mitigating the damage to roads caused by heavy commercial trucks. The per gallon excise fuel tax would be increased by 10 cents. The vehicle license fee would be increased by 0.07 percent annually over five years. The vehicle registration fee would be increased by $35. Zero-emission vehicles would be subject to an annual $100 fee. The bill also includes provisions to guarantees that the revenue will be used exclusively for road, street, bridge repairs, and improving freight mobility at ports.

Besides funding repairs for state roads, the bill also sets aside money for counties and cities to each get a share for local street and road repairs. According to Senator Beall’s press release, the County would receive $41 million and Orange County cities would receive $62.5 million, including $7.2 million for Santa Ana as part of the first-year distribution. A more thorough analysis will be provided in a subsequent report.

High Profile Issues Bring Hundreds to the Capitol: Several controversial bills were discussed in committee hearings over the last two weeks including SB 277 by Senator Richard Pan (D-Sacramento) which was heard in the Senate Health Committee on April 8 and the Senate Education Committee on April 15. Hundreds of parents and children descended on the Capitol, taking several hours to complete testimony on the bill, which would eliminate the personal belief exemption for children’s vaccinations.

As anticipated, opponents were quite emotional and two had to be escorted from the Senate Health Committee hearing as they refused to stop shouting. Senator Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles) noted that she and other lawmakers had been receiving threats in the Capitol and in their districts from opponents of the bill and asked that the threats stop. Ultimately, the bill was passed on a 6-2 vote, with Chair Ed Hernandez abstaining, bipartisan support, and bipartisan opposition. SB 277 was heard in the Senate Education Committee on April 15. While the crowd was less contentious, the bill ultimately stalled after Committee Members raised concerns about children being denied equal access to an education if their parents refused to vaccinate them.

In Senate Judiciary, Senators Lois Wolk (D-Davis) and Bill Monning (D-Carmel) presented SB 128, the End of Life Option Act. This bill would allow terminally ill patients to be prescribed with life ending medication under some circumstances. The outcome was predictable in the committee as four of the seven committee members are authors or co-authors on the bill. Opponents including health care advocates, religious organizations, disability advocates, and pro-life groups attended in large numbers to express their concerns. Primarily, concerns center on whether health care practitioners should participate in helping to end the life of their patients and the possibility that vulnerable individuals will end their lives under duress. SB 128 is now headed to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Lastly, a vote was not taken on SB 608, by Senator Carol Liu (D-La Canada Flintridge) in the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee. The bill would enact the Right to Rest Act for homeless individuals to use public space without discrimination. Under the bill’s provisions, residents would be allowed to rest, eat, and move freely in public spaces as well as live in a vehicle in a public space. Although the list of supporters was long, including the Western Center on Law and Poverty, opponents were also plentiful, including the California Sheriff’s Association and the League of California Cities. Opponents argued that SB 608 may incentivize homelessness, create unsanitary conditions, and impede business. SB 608 has been double-referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. To date, it is unclear whether the bill will move forward.

California Controller’s March Estimate Shows Receipts $547 Million over Projections: State Controller Betty T. Yee released the state’s estimated receipts for March showing continued gains over the budget estimate. Total receipts were $547 million above the January budget projections for March. Personal income tax receipts beat projections by $498 million, and corporation taxes were $77 million higher. Sales tax receipts dropped below estimates, missing projections by $96 million. For the fiscal year-to-date, general fund receipts are running at $75 billion, or 2.1 percent above January projections.

With April being the most critical revenue month of the year, the Controller has posted a daily tracker showing income tax revenue received. Collections in April are expected to come in at $12.2 billion. As of April 9, income tax receipts totaled $1.97 billion. The Controller’s daily tally can be found here: .

Proposition 47: The Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) announced last Thursday that it plans to hold a series of meetings around the State to help fulfill its responsibilities under Proposition 47. Meetings will begin later this year and will include a report on expected state savings as a result of fewer incarcerations in state correctional facilities and how those savings might be reinvested in programs and efforts to reduce recidivism among the state’s low-level offenders.

Proposition 47 allocates to the BSCC 65 percent of the annual state savings to fund grants that provide mental health, diversion and drug-abuse treatment services. The funding will be administered by public agencies and must be directed toward programs to help reduce recidivism.

Proposition 47 requires the Department of Finance (DOF) to calculate the anticipated savings by July of 2016. By August 1, 2016, the DOF must certify its results to the State Controller.

On a related note, Senator Jim Beall has introduced SB 205, a measure that would require the DOF to select a public or private university, through a competitive process, to conduct a four year evaluation assessing the process, outcomes, and costs of Proposition 47, including the number and characteristics of participants served by programs funded with grant moneys from the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Fund. The bill would require the selected university to report to the Legislature, no later than January 1, 2017, and annually by that date for the following three years. The bill would further require that all data collected for the report be available to the public.

In addition to its study-related provisions, the bill would require the Department of Justice to gather and compile information regarding the number of people released from state prisons and county jails pursuant to the provisions of Proposition 47 and the number of people released who are rearrested within three years as compared to similar populations in the criminal justice system.

WASHINGTON LEGISLATIVE REPORT

The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (H.R. 2) passed the Senate on April 14, thus clearing the measure for the President. The White House indicated that President Obama is expected to sign the bill soon. The legislation will have an impact beyond physicians, including the insurance industry and senior citizens, and the broader delivery of health care services in the United States.

The bill replaces Medicare's Sustainable Growth Rate formula (SGR—known colloquially as the “doc fix”) and establishes new payment systems from 2016 through 2019. The bill puts the Medicare system on a four-year track to convert away from fee-for-service. Those involved in the development of the legislation say an unanswered question, as the new legislation is implemented, is “Who is going to run the Medicare market—physicians’ organizations or hospitals?”

Insurance companies will also play a major role, as they contract with both physicians’ organizations and hospitals, and in some cases compete with them. While the Affordable Care Act marked a major change in the American health care system, it is about reforming the individual health insurance market, which is a relatively small part of the overall market. H.R. 2, according to congressional committee staff, is about changing the financing system for the entire American health-care delivery system.

Congress and the Administration, therefore, are signaling that they want to see people in accountable care organizations (ACOs) and other types of new payment and delivery models.  Those familiar with the system say individual solo-practice physicians will not be able to meet that challenge, and the new payment system will continue the push for doctors to sell their practices to hospitals. While this may not be the specific intent of H.R. 2, it could well be its practical outcome.

Health insurers representatives in Washington have said that industry consolidation could lead to less negotiating power for insurers and higher health care costs. The legislation gives physicians and insurers the same incentives to control costs. Thus the belief that doctors will be more likely to seek alternative arrangements and to align themselves with delivery systems and insurers.

The Medicare SGR formula was originally meant to work as a budget control tool, but Congress found it too hard to live with. The “doc fix” began with the 1997 deficit reduction law (P.L. 105-33) as a way to help curb the growth rate of Medicare spending. The formula called for automatic cuts in Medicare’s reimbursement rates for doctors when provider costs grew at a faster rate than the economy. However, soon after the formula began calling for those spending reductions in 2002, Congress began regularly jumping in to avert the drop in physicians’ payments, using short-term patches whose costs compounded year after year.

While the formula managed to reduce Medicare spending, it was not in the way Congress intended. Congress almost always offset the cost of the temporary payment patches with cuts to other parts of the budget, typically from other aspects of Medicare or other health programs. While the SGR did push Congress and various Administrations to cut spending and achieve some deficit reduction, the history of the formula shows the difficulty in making the government live under strict budget control rules when there is no requirement to balance the budget annually.

In this case, the ten year cost of H.R. 2 is estimated at $213 billion, of which some $70 billion is paid for with spending reductions elsewhere in the budget. The remaining $143 billion will be added to the National Debt.

Will the same fate await the spending caps set in the Budget Control Act (P.L. 112-25)? Members of Congress have already found ways around the spending restrictions set in the 2011 debt limit law and will continue to search for more. Although the caps have achieved part of the goal of tightening federal spending, they have not done it as originally envisioned. And, as with the SGR, sufficient pressure on Members from powerful constituencies—and enough time to come up with a more popular long-term replacement—may result in an eventual repeal of budget caps, as well.

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.

-----------------------

April 21, 2015

Item No. 36

Vol. IX, No. 9

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download