IN THIS ISSUE: June 22, 2007
Issue #24-2007
Page 3: Infrastructure Bond Implementation Update
Page 5: Workers’ Compensation Legislation: League-Opposed Measures
Page 6: Transient Occupancy Tax – Is Your City Owed Unpaid Past Taxes?
Page 7: Annual Conference Resolutions Introduction Deadline Approaching
Page 8: Leadership Applications for Mayors and Council Members Dept. Due Next Week
Flood Conference Planned for Sacramento
Summit on Municipal Financial Stability to be Held in San Francisco
Page 9: Find a Bill, Legislators, Leg Committee, or Ask League Leg Staff
SB 303 UPDATE
SB 303 (Ducheny), a bill that would impose significant land use hardships on California cities, is
currently held at the State Assembly desk, awaiting assignment to a committee.
At press time, word around the capitol was that the bill would first be heard in the Assembly
Committee on Local Government, followed by the Assembly Committee on Housing and
Community Development. Cities are encouraged to write Sen. Ducheny opposing this measure.
For more, see Page 2.
•••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• ••
PROP. 1B NEWS CONFERENCES A SUCCESS
Officials Get the Word Out: Cities Have Infrastructure Projects ‘Ready to Go’
Two news conferences were held in California last week to encourage state officials to allocate
the $1 billion in Proposition 1B funds in this year’s budget to improve local streets and roads.
For more, see Page 2.
•••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• ••
FEDERAL GANG BILL APPROVED BY SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
On Thursday, June 14, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee approved S. 456, the Gang
Abatement and Prevention Act of 2007. The bill is a product of nearly a decade of bipartisan
negotiations and has been a priority for California Sen. Dianne Feinstein. For more, see Page 3.
2
‘SB 303’ Continued from Page 1…
The League of California Cities stands opposed to SB 303 on several grounds. As it is currently
written, the bill is a recipe for sprawl; doesn’t take into account other planning issues such as air
quality, climate change, or infill; doesn’t guarantee the building of more housing; and currently
lacks a plan to pay for the mandates it will impose.
For detailed information on SB 303’s impact on cities, see “SB 303 Moves to Assembly: Time to
Look at this Bill Again” and "SB 303 Amended, League Still Opposed" at www.cacities.org/hced.
Since the bill has been significantly amended, cities should read the above-referenced articles,
and send new opposition letters to Sen. Ducheny with a “cc” to your Assembly Member. A
sample letter is available by looking up SB 303 using the League of California Cities Web site's
bill search program, located at www.cacities.org/billsearch.
______________________________________________________________________
‘Prop. 1B’ Continued from Page 1…
The conferences were held in Elk Grove and
Fresno, on June 12 and June 15, respectively.
In Elk Grove, mayors and council members from
Colusa, Davis, Elk Grove, Lincoln and Rancho
Cordova gathered at the interchange of Sheldon
Road and Route 99, where a $70.5 million
regional facility project is ready to get underway.
The group of city officials encouraged the
Legislature to “complete the work the people of
California started last November by passing Prop.
1B.”
City officials attending the Elk Grove press conference included:
• Council Member Kay Hosmer, Colusa
• Council Member Don Saylor, Davis
• Mayor James Cooper, Elk Grove
• Police Chief Robert Simmons, Elk Grove
• Council Member Sophia Scherman, Elk Grove
• Mayor Kent Nakata, Lincoln
• Mayor David Sander, Rancho Cordova
• Council Member Ken Cooley, Rancho Cordova
The Elk Grove event was covered by a number of media outlets, including television stations
KCRA, KQCA, KOVR, KXTV and KUVS and radio stations KXJZ and KFBK. A story was also
published in the Elk Grove Citizen.
Central Valley Cities Rally to Encourage Prop. 1B Funding
The Clovis press conference was equally well-
attended by representatives from cities in the Central
Valley and members of the media. The event took
place at the intersection of Shaw and Fowler avenues
in Clovis, where more than $1 million in infrastructure
work is needed.
Clovis Mayor Bob Whalen was adamant that Clovis
roadways need to be repaired in a timely fashion, in
order to extend the life of roads – something the
immediate $1 billion allocation of Prop. 1B funds in the
budget would help do. 3
Clovis Mayor Pro Tem Harry Armstrong agreed, adding that by having the full amount of Prop. 1B
funds immediately, projects can be planned quickly, instead of waiting around for years as roads
crack and deteriorate.
Joining Whalen and Armstrong at the conference were the following city officials:
• City Manager Kathy Milison, Clovis
• Public Utilities Director Mike Leonardo, Clovis
• Motor Officer Chuck Wages, Clovis
• Mayor Terry McKittrick, Dinuba
• Mayor Jim Simonian, Fowler
• Mayor Leland Bergstrom, Kingsburg
The Clovis news conference got quite a bit of media coverage. The Fresno Bee published a story
and TV stations KMPH, KFSN and KGPE all covered the event.
For more on Prop. 1B allocation and a sample letter of supporting the immediate $1 billion
funding in this year’s budget, visit www.cacities.org/infrastructure.
_____________________________________________________________________________
‘Gang Bill’ Continued from Page 1…
If signed into law, the bill would authorize $100 million over five years to expand crime control
grants to state and local governments, for the purpose of hiring additional prosecutors, staff and
technology to bring more cases against gangs and violent criminals. Additionally, the bill would
authorize at least $411.5 million in funding over five years for gang prevention and intervention
efforts, which would be directed to High Intensity Gang Activity Areas (HIGAAs) created in the bill.
Sen. Feinstein's efforts to find common ground among her colleagues on the contents of S. 456
were crucial in guiding the bill to Judiciary Committee approval last week.
The text of the measure (as agreed to by the Judiciary Committee) is available at
www.cacities.org/federalresources. Sen. Feinstein's press release on committee passage of the
bill is available at www.feinstein.senate.gov.
What’s Next
S. 456’s next stop is a full hearing on the Senate Floor. At press time, a date for the hearing had
not been set.
Companion Measure
California Reps. Adam Schiff, D-Pasadena, and Mary Bono, R-Palm Springs, have introduced
companion legislation to S. 456 in the House of Representatives. No date has been set for its
consideration. The text of the House measure, H.R. 1582, is available at
www.cacities.org/federalresources.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Infrastructure Bond Implementation Update
Below is an update on the implementation of each of the infrastructure bonds passed in
November 2006. This update will be run periodically in Priority Focus as new developments with
each bond occur.
Proposition 1B: This measure provides $19.92 billion for various transportation projects to
rebuild California. Of the total amount, $1 billion is allocated for cities and $1 billion for counties
for streets and road projects. The development of the $1 billion State-Local Partnership Program
and $3.1 billion “goods movement” and air quality programs are underway. In addition, the
allocation schedule of the $4 billion for public transit, intercity, commuter rail and waterborne
transit still needs to be established. 4
Related Legislation and Current Status:
The allocation of the Prop. 1B local street and road funds is being held as an open item in the
Joint Senate-Assembly Budget Conference Committee and will require further debate. The
League of California Cities continues to advocate for the allocation of the full $1 billion for cities in
FY 2007-08. The League is also sponsoring SB 286 (Lowenthal) to provide a framework for the
program and establish accountability and oversight for use of the bond money.
SB 286 passed off the Senate floor with bipartisan support and is being held at the Assembly
Desk due to current budget negotiations and its potential incorporation into budget trailer bill
language.
There are two measures in the Legislature that attempt to define the $1 billion State-Local
Partnership Program which requires a local match to access bond funds – AB 1351 (Levine) and
SB 748 (Corbett). These bills differ in the criteria for eligible matching funds. AB 1351 includes
only sales tax dedicated to transportation as a match, thus limiting the program only to “self-help”
counties. SB 748 broadens the local match to also include all voter approved taxes and fees,
bridge tolls and Uniform Developer fees.
The $3.1 billion "goods movement" and air quality program are encompassed in Sen. Lowenthal’s
SB 9 and SB 19. Both measures passed out of the Senate and are with the Assembly
Transportation Committee. It has yet to be determined if they will be incorporated into budget
trailer language or debated further to define the “goods movement” program under Prop. 1B.
Proposition 1C: This measure allocates $2.85 billion for housing projects. Approximately half of
the bond, $1.45 billion, will fund existing programs including the Multifamily Housing Program
(MHP), Emergency Housing Assistance Program (EHAP), and Building Equity and Growth in
Neighborhoods (BEGIN) program. The remaining $1.4 billion is designated for infill infrastructure
($850 million), parks ($200 million), transit-oriented development ($300 million), and innovative
programs ($100 million).
Related Legislation and Current Status:
Who is eligible to apply for infill infrastructure funding is one of the outstanding issues of
significance. The infill infrastructure fund has attracted the most legislative attention with two bills
emerging as the frontrunners.
AB 1053 (Núñez) would distribute $450 million to a competitive infrastructure program
administered by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The
remaining $400 million would be divided evenly between the Infrastructure Bank, a workforce
housing program administered by HCD, MHP, and the Cal-Reuse Brownfields program. As a
result, a total of $750 million will go directly to local agencies for infrastructure related to housing.
SB 46 (Perata) would create a single competitive grant program for infill infrastructure and
affordable housing that can be applied for by local governments and nonprofit housing
developers.
Proposition 84: This measure allocates $5.4 billion for improving natural resources and water
programs including state projects and flood control, safe drinking water, water quality
improvement, integrated water management, water planning and sustainable communities.
Related Legislation and Current Status:
Before the funds can be released, the elements that fall under $580 million for climate change
must be defined further. This includes $90 million for incentives for planning, how to spend the
$1 billion allocated to local agencies to meet local water needs, as well as a potential effort to
redirect $400 million in park funds to create a per capita grant program.
There are several legislative proposals to further refine the allocation of dollars under Prop. 84.
5
SB 732 (Steinberg) the most significant of bills on Prop. 84, provides a comprehensive statutory
framework to implement new programs under Prop. 84. Included in SB 732, are requirements for
implementing agencies to develop project guidelines by March 2008, language for the
development of a competitive local park program and the creation of a “Sustainable Communities
Council” to coordinate the activities of various state agencies that aim to improve air and water
quality, natural resource protection, affordable housing, and transportation through land use
planning.
AB 31 (De Leon) expands the definition of “heavily urbanized county” for the purposes of park
funding under Prop. 84. The bill is part of the ongoing discussions among legislative leadership
on how to allocate park bond dollars from the ballot measure.
Proposition 1E: This measure allocates $4.09 billion in bond funding for critical river levee
repair and construction, flood control projects and the updating and repair of old water mains and
sewer systems. It also includes $290 million to create flood protection corridors and floodplain
mapping.
Related Legislation and Current Status:
The Joint Senate-Assembly Budget Conference Committee has created a Water Working Group
that will address most, if not all of the Prop. 1E and Prop. 84 flood and water issues in the budget
process. This group may also address flood management issues. Also, there is an effort to
include water storage into funding categories as well as the addition of liability to link to allocation
of levee improvement funds.
Proposition 1D: This bond establishes $10.5 billion for performing school building repairs and
providing innovative learning facilities for California students, including seismic retrofitting and
classroom repairs.
Related Legislation and Current Status:
One of the open issues is the allocation of $29 million to fund joint-use projects for construction of
K-12 school facilities. SB 35 (Torkalson) proposes to expand expands the definition of projects
and what is considered local contributions under the school facilities joint use program. The bill is
now with the Assembly Education Committee.
There are a large number of other bills that could adjust the manner in which school districts are
eligible for Prop. 1D money. Assembly Member Mullin is authoring AB 100, the Kindergarten-
University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2008. If approved it would provide $ 9.08 billion
of bonds to provide aid to the public education system.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Workers’ Compensation Legislation: League-Opposed Measures
An Update on Bills that Would Adversely Impact California Cities
The area of workers’ compensation is abuzz with activity during the current legislative session.
The League of California Cities opposes a number of bills this year due to the potential extreme
costs to cities if the legislation is passed.
Below is a brief summary on some of the workers’ compensation bills the League opposes.
Cities are encouraged to review the measures and send letters of opposition to the bills’ authors
and your respective senator/assembly member.
• AB 419 (Lieber). This measure would provide extended temporary disability workers’
compensation benefits to specified public safety employees for 100 percent of salary for
up to one year of disability. The un-reimbursed state mandate costs resulting from
expansion of Labor Code 4850 benefits would be substantial to cities.
6
• AB 807 (Hancock). This bill would limit an employer’s ability to effectively apply the cap
of 24 treatment visits for post-surgical workers’ comp. claims that currently exists for
chiropractic, occupation and physical therapy.
• AB 1636 (Mendoza). AB 1636 would require the provision of a voucher 74 days after
temporary disability is terminated, although not all injuries would need to have reached a
permanent and stationary level. Employers would be required to provide vouchers for
numerous injured workers whose injuries may not warrant retraining skills for which the
voucher is designated. The minimum voucher is $4,000 with some upwards to $10,000.
• AB 1073 (Nava). This legislation would remove the cap of 24 chiropractic, occupational,
and physical therapy visits per industrial injury, when applied to visits for post-surgical
physical medicine and rehabilitative services.
• SB 942 (Migden). This measure would require an employer to reinstate an employee to
their pre-injury job within five working days upon release of the treating physician or
reimburse the worker for the lost wages and work benefits. SB 942 would prohibit
additional physical duty assignments not performed prior to injuries condition of return to
work.
For more information on these bills, look up the measures at www.cacities.org/billsearch,
www.assembly.ca.gov or www.senate.ca.gov. If you have questions, please contact League
Legislative Representative P. Anthony Thomas at (916) 658-8279.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Transient Occupancy Tax – Is Your City Owed Unpaid Past Taxes?
A growing portion of hotel bookings are now being conducted through online booking services
such as Hotels.com, Expedia.com and Travelocity.com. As rooms are booked, transient
occupancy taxes (TOT) are collected by the online booking services, transmitted to hotels and
are ultimately passed on to the respective city and county.
Some online hotel booking services are withholding millions of dollars of TOT collections and the
matter is currently being litigated in Los Angeles v. Hotels.com, Inc. et al. City officials are
encouraged to bring this matter to the attention of their city attorney and TOT auditor, as
attorneys representing Los Angeles in the case have petitioned the court to grant class action
status - with the class including all California cities that have TOT ordinances.
If the court declines to grant class action status, individual cities may need to act very quickly to
preserve their rights to recover all past unpaid taxes, and to avoid the four-year statute of
limitations in Revenue and Taxation Code section 7283.51.
For background information on how TOT works, visit www.cacities.org/tot.
Details on the Case
In Los Angeles, the city charges that 16 named online booking agencies violated the Uniform
Transient Occupancy Tax Ordinance of the city of Los Angeles. Specifically, the lawsuit states
that the defendants violated the Los Angeles TOT Ordinance and similar ordinances of other
California cities with respect to the charges to and remittance of amounts to cover taxes under
such ordinances.
The complaint also alleges that such violations also constitute acts of unfair competition under
California Business and Professions Codes Section 17200, et seq.
The named defendants in the suit are:
• Hotels.com L.P.
• Hotel.com GP, LLC
• Hotwire, Inc.
• Cheaptickets, Inc.
• Cendant Travel Distribution Services Group, Inc. 7
• Expedia, Inc.
• Internet Publishing Corp. (d/b/a Lodging.com)
• Lowestfare.com
• Maupintour Holding LLC
• Orbitz, Inc.
• Orbitz, LLC
• Site59.com LLC
• Travelocity.com LP
• Travelweb, LLC
• Travelnow.com, Inc.
Los Angeles is being represented by Paul Kiesel of Kiesel, Boucher, & Larson LLP, of Beverly
Hills. A copy of the complaint is available at www.kbla.com/files/LA%20city.pdf.
A National Issue
Similar lawsuits have been filed by the cities of San Antonio, Texas; Chicago, Ill.; San Diego,
Calif.; Philadelphia, Pa.; Atlanta, Ga.; and others. In addition, a class action consumer fraud
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of travelers who have booked hotels with such companies (Bush
et al v Cheaptickets, Inc. et al). Sabrina S. Kim and Jeff S. Westerman of Milberg Weiss Bershad
and Schulman, LLP of Los Angeles are representing the plaintiffs.
The loss is substantial to cities which rely on TOT as a significant source of revenue. We
estimate that TOT losses to California cities are nearly $100 million and that past losses
statewide through FY 2006-07 exceed $500 million.
Legal Procedures
As mentioned previously, the attorneys for the city of Los Angeles are seeking class action status
on behalf of California cities. If the court denies class action status, individual cities will need to
decide whether to bring their own court action against these companies.
To do so, a city may first need to exhaust the administrative collection procedure contained in its
TOT ordinance. The attorneys for the city of Los Angeles have informed the League of California
Cities that if cities want to avoid falling within the four-year statute of limitations on unpaid TOT
(i.e., the city may collect back taxes as far back as can be documented), cities will need to submit
demand letters to the companies within five days of the court’s decision on class action status.
Paul Kiesel, the attorney for the city of Los Angeles, has drafted a sample demand letter that
cities may be interested in using. Kiesel is also available to discuss the particular legal issues
involved in the litigation. He may be reach at Kiesel@kbla.com.
The League is also monitoring this litigation, and will provide an update as additional information
is available.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Annual Conference Resolutions Introduction Deadline Approaching
The deadline to introduce a League of California Cities Annual Conference Resolution is quickly
drawing near. The deadline is Friday, July 6, at 5 p.m. for submittals by mail and Saturday, July 7
at midnight for submittals by e-mail or fax.
Policy development is a key part of the League’s legislative effectiveness and the League’s
Annual Conference Resolutions process is one way that city officials can directly participate in the
development of League policy. Any elected or appointed city official, individual city, division,
department, policy committee, or the board of directors may submit a resolution for consideration
at the conference.
Resolutions submitted by the deadline will be distributed to cities in mid-to-late July and
considered at the Annual Conference. More information about the resolutions process, including
key deadlines and an explanation of the review process at the Annual Conference is available on
the League Web site at www.cacities.org/resolutions.
_____________________________________________________________________________ 8
Leadership Applications for Mayors and Council Members Dept. Due Next Week
The Mayors and Council Members Department of the League of California Cities is seeking
enthusiastic, committed elected officials who are interested in becoming Second Vice President
of the Department. Due to a vacancy, two second vice president positions are currently open.
One will be filled at the department’s business meeting at the Mayors and Council Members
Executive Forum in Monterey in July. The second vacancy will be filled the Annual Conference in
Sacramento in September.
Applications can be found at the League’s Web site at www.cacities.org/mc.
All applications must be received in the League Offices by 5 p.m. on Friday, June 29. Please
direct all applications to Amy O’Gorman at aogorman@cacities.org.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Flood Conference Planned for Sacramento
A flood conference entitled “California’s Flood Policy: How Safe is Safe?” is planned for July 27 in
Sacramento at the Sacramento Holiday Inn. This free conference is aimed at stakeholders and
policy makers to discuss the appropriate level of flood protection for communities in the Central
Valley.
Check-in begins promptly at 8 a.m. with a continental breakfast. During the course of the forum,
attendees will hear case study presentations regarding the Katrina disaster in New Orleans, La.,
learn the concerns of policy makers in California, take part in discussions of flood management
choices in California, and much more.
The conference is free and sponsored by The Water Education Foundation and co-sponsored by
the California Department of Water Resources. Prospective attendees are encouraged to
register prior to the event, in order to guarantee a seat.
For more information and to register, visit www.watereducation.org.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Summit on Municipal Financial Stability to be Held in San Francisco
The EITC and Beyond: 2007 Leadership Summit is set for July 11-13 at the Westin St. Francis
Hotel in San Francisco. The event is an opportunity to exchange ideas, promising practices, and
develop strong partnerships in the area of financial stability. Participants will learn how to
transform communities through targeted financial stability initiatives, beginning with the Earned
Income Tax Credit (EITC).
Mayors, council members and city staff members are encouraged to attend the event, which is
co-sponsored by the National League of Cities (NLC) and the United Way of America (UWA).
Other goals of the summit include:
• Developing a deeper understanding of the critical role that financial stability plays in the
long-term success of low- to moderate-income individuals, families, and communities
nationwide
• Building new local, regional, and national networks between elected officials, United Way
leaders, and other strategic partners
NLC is offering a limited number of competitive scholarships for elected officials
to cover registration costs. Visit www.unitedway.org/eitc for additional details and to download an
application form.
_____________________________________________________________________________
9
Find a Bill, Legislators, Leg Committee, or Ask League Leg Staff
Visit (and bookmark!) the League’s Legislative Resources Web page
(www.cacities.org/legresources). You’ll find a roster and contact information for the League’s
legislative staff; the online Bill Search program, background materials on lobbying your
legislators, and more.
_____________________________________________________________________________
IN THIS ISSUE: June 29, 2007
Issue #25-2007
Page 4: SSO Waste Discharge Requirement Collection System Training Coming Up
Public Employee Post-Employment Benefits Commission Meeting in July
Page 5: Annual Conference Resolutions Introduction Deadline Approaching
Find a Bill, Legislators, Leg Committee, or Ask League Leg Staff
SB 303 UPDATE: BILL DOUBLE-REFERRED, WILL BE HEARD ON JULY 3
SB 303 (Ducheny), a bill that would change the housing element process to give more certainty to
developers at the expense of local discretion, is set to be heard in the Assembly Committee on
Local Government on Tuesday, July 3, at 9 a.m. The League-opposed bill was double-referred
and will also be heard in the Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development at a
later date. For more, see Page 2.
•••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• ••
STORM WATER FEE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PASSES OUT OF
SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE
On Wednesday, June 27, Senate Constitutional Amendment (SCA) 12 passed out of the Senate
Local Government Committee. If signed into law, this League-supported measure would allow
fees for storm water and urban runoff management to work in the same way as fees for garbage
collection, sewer treatment, and water. For more, see Page 2.
•••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• ••
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ENCOURAGED TO PARTICIPATE IN
‘COMMUNITIES FOR HEALTHY KIDS’
Communities for Healthy Kids (CHK), a new three-year effort to develop innovative strategies for
cities and counties to identify and enroll kids who are eligible for no and low-cost health
insurance, is inviting cities and counties to take part in its efforts. For more, see Page 3.
2
‘SB 303’ Continued from Page 1…
Why the League Opposes SB 303
SB 303 assumes there is something broken in the planning process at a time when local agency
compliance with housing laws are at an all time high—88 percent of Californians live in a
community determined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD) to be “in compliance” with the state housing element law. Nevertheless, SB 303 seeks to
require local agencies to zone for their entire Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)
during their first year of the planning period.
This “up front” zoning requirement does not make sense, particularly for infill development and
built-out cities where it is difficult to know which parcels may become available during the
planning period. As a result, SB 303 is a recipe for sprawl because it is easier to do this kind of
advance planning on vacant land and greenfields than it is in urban infill areas. In addition, the
bill doesn't take into account other planning issues such as air quality or climate change.
Most ironic, perhaps, is that SB 303 does not actually guarantee that more housing gets built. As
the current “down” housing market demonstrates, just because a local agency plans for housing
to get built does not mean that an application is actually submitted. Several other market factors,
such as interest rates and the economy, have a more significant effect on the market.
A recent amendment of SB 303 attempted to address another criticism of the bill - that it lacks a
sufficient plan to pay for the mandate. The amendment taps Proposition 84 planning money for a
revolving fund to offset local planning costs. The idea is that the fund would front the money to
local government for the zoning costs. Local governments would pay back the fund by imposing
fees on developers.
There are at least three problems with this approach, however. First, the voters intended that
more be done with the Prop. 84 funds than housing element compliance. Second, because in
most cases what actually gets built falls short of what is planned for, the amount collected will
always fall short of what it cost to do the planning. Finally, other legislative vehicles—such as AB
1253 (Caballero) and SB 732 (Steinberg)—have made different designations for the Prop. 84
funds.
Take Action!
Cities are encouraged to write Sen. Ducheny opposing this measure, with a "cc" to your
Assembly Member, and League Legislative Representative Bill Higgins. A sample letter is
available by looking up SB 303 using the League of California Cities Web site's bill search
program, located at www.cacities.org/billsearch.
______________________________________________________________________
‘SCA 12’ Continued from Page 1…
Authored by Sen. Tom Torlakson, SCA 12 was introduced on May 21. The amendment would be
helpful for cities, as over the years, cities have grappled with how to fund storm water programs in
order to meet the requirements of new National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permits issued by regional water quality control boards.
Some cities are faced with using scarce general fund money to support these important water
quality programs in light of the restrictions placed upon them by Proposition 218. Existing law,
established by approval of the voters of Proposition 218, requires local voter approval of certain
property related fees. Proposition 218 exempts certain types of fees, such as those for water,
sewer and garbage, from the voter approval requirement of Proposition 218.
3
The League co-sponsored a similar measure in 2002 (ACA 10 [Harman]) and has recently sent a
letter of support on SCA 12. To view the League’s letter of support, look up SCA 12 at
www.cacities.org/billsearch.
What’s Next
SCA 12’s next stop is a hearing in the Senate Elections, Reapportionment & Constitutional
Amendments Committee. At press time, no date was set for the hearing. For more information
on SCA 12, contact League Legislative Representative Kyra Ross a kross@cacities.org.
_____________________________________________________________________________
‘CHK’ Continued from Page 1…
By participating in CHK, cities will be able to be part of something very special – helping to
improve the health of the children in their community. The city would not become a health care
provider, but instead would use the network of community connections city officials have to link
residents with available, affordable health care for children.
Three Levels of Participation
CHK offers three levels of participation to meet different levels of interest and need. CHK will help
provide connections to local health insurance providers, including county-based programs.
• Level 1: An effort in at least six to 10 communities involving intensive program
development and implementation activities. CHK staff will provide program design and
implementation assistance. Priority will be given to areas with high concentrations of
eligible children, although applications for potentially successful projects with pockets of
eligible children are also welcome.
• Level 2: A less intensive approach that provides interested cities and counties that are
eager to get started sooner with initial organizational and technical assistance.
• Level 3: CHK’s web-based resource materials are available to any city or county, along
with some coaching and assistance from CHK staff.
The Importance of Health Care for Children
Few things are more important to families than the health care of their children. Here are a few
reasons why:
• Kids with health insurance are more likely to get the care they need to be healthy and
become productive members of the community.
• Healthy kids do better in school – and when they are in school, they are less likely to get
into trouble.
• Investment in children’s health insurance saves taxpayers money, since kids get
preventative health care like vaccinations and check ups, and avoid much more costly
emergency or hospital care. Why wait until a child is so sick that he or she needs to go to
the emergency room? Why risk having sick, uninsured kids spreading illness to their
classmates, teachers or others in the community?
• Helping children get health insurance is a great way to build trust with your residents.
Participating in CHK can build bridges with your residents and can underscore that you
care about your residents and their children. And it can create a positive image for your
local agency.
Further Information
For more information on CHK and the ways your city can get involved (including sample outreach
strategies), visit www.ca-ilg.org/chk. Questions can be directed to CHK Program Director Yvonne 4
Hunter at (916) 658-8242 or yhunter@ca-ilg.org, or CHK Program Coordinator Jennifer Lewis, at
(916) 658-8226 or jlewis@ca-ilg.org. CHK is a program of the Institute for Local Government, the
non-profit research arm of the League of California Cities and the California State Association of
Counties.
_____________________________________________________________________________
SSO Waste Discharge Requirement Collection System Training Coming Up
The State Water Resources Control Board and the California Water Environment Association
(CWEA) have scheduled three upcoming training sessions in July. The training is about the
general waste discharge requirements for publicly-owned sanitary sewer collection systems that
were adopted in 2006.
The three training sessions currently scheduled are:
• Thursday, July 12, Sunnyvale
• Tuesday, July 19, Oakland
• Thursday, July 19, Sacramento
City officials with responsibilities in this area can learn more about the sessions and the
requirements at www.cwea.org/sso. The training will assist attendees with how to develop a
Sewer System Management Plan, the 12 components needed in such a plan, and the compliance
schedule that is required for the components.
Registration for the training sessions is available online at www.cwea.org.
The requirements will be phased in based on population on the following dates:
• Aug. 2, 2007 - Population of more than 100,000
• Nov. 2, 2007 - Population 10,000 - 100,000
• Feb. 2, 2008 - Population 2,500 - 10,000
• May 2, 2008 - Population of less than 2,500
The League of California Cities and the California Association of Sanitation Agencies are working
closely with CWEA on this issue and will provide more information about future training sessions
as it becomes available.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Public Employee Post-Employment Benefits Commission Meeting in July
The next meeting of the Public Employee Post-Employment Benefits Commission will take place
on Thursday, July 12, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the California Teachers Association State
Headquarters in Burlingame. City officials interested in following the commission’s work on post-
employment benefits are encouraged to attend.
The commission was established by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s signing of Executive Order
S-25-06. Its goal is to propose ways to address unfunded post-employment benefits. By Jan. 1,
2008, the commission must send a report to the Governor and Legislature that will:
• Identify the full amount of post-employment health care and dental benefits for which
California governments are liable and which remain unfunded.
• Evaluate and compare various approaches for addressing governments' unfunded
retirement health care and pension obligations.
• Propose a plan to address governments' unfunded retirement health care and pension
obligations.
The commission includes 12 members. Six, including the chairperson, were appointed by the
Governor, three were appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly Fabian Núñez, and three were 5
appointed by the Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata. A full listing of the commissioners is
located at www.pebc.ca.gov/commissioners.html
_____________________________________________________________________________
Annual Conference Resolutions Introduction Deadline Approaching
The deadline to introduce a League of California Cities Annual Conference Resolution is quickly
drawing near. The deadline is Friday, July 6, at 5 p.m. for submittals by mail and Saturday, July 7
at midnight for submittals by e-mail or fax.
Policy development is a key part of the League’s legislative effectiveness and the League’s
Annual Conference Resolutions process is one way that city officials can directly participate in the
development of League policy. Any elected or appointed city official, individual city, division,
department, policy committee, or the board of directors may submit a resolution for consideration
at the conference.
Resolutions submitted by the deadline will be distributed to cities in mid-to-late July and
considered at the Annual Conference. More information about the resolutions process, including
key deadlines and an explanation of the review process at the Annual Conference is available on
the League Web site at www.cacities.org/resolutions.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Find a Bill, Legislators, Leg Committee, or Ask League Leg Staff
Visit (and bookmark!) the League’s Legislative Resources Web page
(www.cacities.org/legresources). You’ll find a roster and contact information for the League’s
legislative staff; the online Bill Search program, background materials on lobbying your
legislators, and more.
_____________________________________________________________________________