IN THIS ISSUE: July 11, 2008
Issue #27-2008
Page 4: Future Funding for Local Streets and Roads Pending Additional Survey Data
Cities Would Gain Park Funding With the Passage of AB 31
Find a Bill, Legislators, Leg Committee, or Ask League Leg Staff
BUDGET COMMITTEE ACTS ON LOCAL PUBLIC SAFETY FUNDS
The Budget Conference Committee concluded its work during several late night sessions this week and
adopted – on party line vote (Democrats supporting-Republicans opposed) – a package of tax increases
as well as additional cuts to state-funded local public safety programs.
For more, see Page 2.
•••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• ••
U.S. SENATE TAKES ACTION ON HOUSING CRISIS, ENERGY, WATER CONSERVATION
The Senate is expected to approve HR 3221, the Housing and Economic Recovery Act on Friday, July
11. In addition to containing $3.9 billion of funding for state and local governments for foreclosed property
acquisition and rehabilitation, the measure also provides for a regulatory overhaul of mortgage finance
giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, a plan to help borrowers avoid foreclosure by refinancing through
the Federal Housing Administration and a $14.5 billion package of housing-focused tax breaks. For more,
see Page 3.
•••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• ••
LETTERS OF OPPOSITION NEEDED ON PAID SICK LEAVE BILL
The League continues to oppose AB 2716 (Ma), a bill that mandates all California employers (including
cities) to provide paid sick leave for any employee who works seven or more days in a calendar year.
With major concerns regarding the additional costs this bill will cause cities to incur, and the fact that it
can be seen as an unfunded mandate, it’s critical that the bill is defeated. For more, see Page 3. 2
‘Budget’ Continued from Page 1…
Citizens Options for Public Safety (COPS)/Juvenile Justice Grant Program: The committee voted to
approve funding for these programs at the FY 2005-06 funding level of $100 million for each program
($200 million total). This is less than the FY 2007-08 amount of $119 million each ($238 million total) and
the Governor’s proposed funding levels for FY 2008-09 of $107 million each ($214.2 million total).
Booking Fees: The committee members voted to eliminate funding for Booking Fees ($35 million). They
also voted to eliminate state funding for Rural Sheriffs ($18.5 million). After the vote, a Department of
Finance representative reminded the committee that the Governor supported Booking Fees funding and
later told League staff that retaining local public safety funding remains a high priority for the Governor in
the final budget negotiations.
League, CSAC and CSDA Ask Legislature and Governor Not to Borrow Local Property Tax or
Transportation Funds
The League, California State Association of Counties (CSAC) and Special Districts Association sent a
joint letter to the Governor and Legislature this week. The letter expressed appreciation for the fact that
neither the Governor’s proposed budget nor the Conference Committee approved budget contains
provisions suspending Propositions 1A (local property taxes) or 42 (transportation funds).
The letter reminded recipients that the suspension of constitutional protection of local revenues is an
inappropriate means to accomplish a short-term goal at the expense of much-needed long-term stability.
The letter is posted on the League’s Web site.
(http://www.cacities.org/resource_files/27006.JointAssnLetter-7-10-08FINAL.pdf).
Democrats Introduce Major Tax Proposal to Close Budget Gap
The fireworks began soon after the Democrats introduced their $8.7 billion tax proposal to help close the
$15.2 billion budget shortfall this year. Republican legislators were quick to criticize the proposal as
unworkable and dangerous given the current economic strain Californians are suffering with high gas
prices, rising food costs and more.
Republicans said that this tax raise will just raise expenditures and the state needs to cut spending, not
increase it. Democrats countered that these revenues would restore stability to the state budget over the
long term and protect education and other vital state programs.
The Democrat revenue-generating proposal includes:
$5.6 billion: Raise tax rates for wealthiest Californians by creating new tax brackets (10 and 11 percent)
for the highest earnings. The current highest bracket is 9.3 percent.
$1.1 billion: Suspend the corporate loss deduction for three years.
$470 million: Restore the franchise tax rate from the current amount of 8.8 percent to the 1997 level of 9.3
percent.
$215 million: Reduce the dependant income tax exemption for households with an annual adjusted gross
income of more than $150,000.
$815 million: Suspend tax adjustments in specific categories across all income brackets, which would
raise income taxes for everyone.
$1.5 billion: Waive penalties for late tax payments so individuals and corporations behind on taxes can
pay without penalties.
Where Things Go From Here
As of now, no vote is scheduled for the budget package. It is expected that discussions will increase
between legislative leadership and the Governor. It is also not clear whether or not the Republicans will 3
unveil a proposed package of additional cuts. The League will issue budget updates through alerts and
Priority Focus.
____________________________________________________________________________
‘Federal’ Continued from Page 1…
Once the Senate passes the measure, it will go back to the House. House Financial Services Committee
Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) says that he intends to make adjustments to the measure before
House and Senate housing committee leaders can finalize a package to send to the White House for
signature.
Chairman Frank is considering removing the $3.9 billion that would be directed to state and local
governments for neighborhood stabilization. The White House issued a threat to veto HR 3221 if the
funding is not removed.
The League has prepared a sample letter for city officials to contact their congressional representative to
urge them to support inclusion of the neighborhood stabilization funding. This letter is posted on the
League’s Web site. (http://www.cacities.org/resource_files/27007.6ForeclosureStabilizationCitiesSample-
2-08.doc).
Funding for Local Energy Conservation Initiatives
The House Appropriations Committee on July 10 approved its version of the FY 2009 Energy and Water
Appropriations bill. The bill includes $40 million in funding for competitive grants to local governments for
a Renewable Energy/Zero Energy Demonstration Projects program in place of funding for the Energy
Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) program.
The House Appropriations Committee-passed version of the measure includes $295 million for EECBG,
which was authorized at $2 billion annually for five years in the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007 (PL 110-140). Both the House and Senate need to schedule floor time to consider their respective
versions of the measure before the House and Senate can begin discussions on a final FY 2009 Energy
and Water Appropriations package.
_____________________________________________________________________________
‘AB 2716’ Continued from Page 1…
The League’s opposition letter can be found online at www.cacities.org/billsearch. Type AB 2716 into the
search function to access the letter.
Opposition letters should be sent to:
Assembly Member Fiona Ma (D-San Francisco)
California State Capitol, Room 2176
Sacramento, CA 95814
Please also include a cc to the following legislators:
• Your assembly member
• Your senator
• Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Tom Torkalson (D-Antioch)
• P. Anthony Thomas, legislative representative, League of California Cities
The League urges cities to send opposition letters to the Senate Appropriations Committee before Aug. 4
when the bill will likely be heard. Human resource and finance directors should collaborate to calculate
the costs that AB 2716 would generate for their city and include the information in the letter.
The League also thanks all of the cities who have responded to the opposition letter request.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Future Funding for Local Streets and Roads Pending Additional Survey Data
Cities are encouraged to complete the Local Streets and Roads Statewide Needs Assessment Project
survey. This survey will ensure that accurate and complete reports are provided to the Gov. Arnold 4
Schwarzenegger the Legislature. This information will be important as the League and local government
and transportation partners seek additional funding for local streets and roads, as well as non-pavement
assets including sidewalks, lighting, and traffic signals, in future budget years.
The survey is available online at http://www.savecaliforniastreets.org/participate_study.aspx and should
be completed no later than Friday, July 18.
The League acknowledges that each city records data in different ways and may not have well defined
pavement and non-pavement management, asset, and funding data. The project consultants ask that
cities simply provide as much information as possible, to the best of their knowledge. The League and our
partners are grateful to those cities that have already completed their surveys.
This project is an opportunity to give the Governor and Legislature a clear understanding of local street
and road funding needs. It is vital that the survey includes data reports from as many cities as possible to
accurately represent all areas of the state.
As of last month, more than 150 agencies had not yet recorded information.
Find additional information about the goals of this project, status of data collection, and consultant contact
information online at www.SaveCaliforniaStreets.org.
Contact League Staff Dorothy Johnson (djohnson@cacities.org) to receive a hard copy of the survey.
Please provide your full contact information, including fax number and email.
Note: This survey does not pertain to the Proposition 1B Local Streets and Roads funding.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Cities Would Gain Park Funding With the Passage of AB 31
The League supports AB 31 (De Leon), a bill that would allocate $400 million of Proposition 84 funds to
award competitive grants to park poor communities.
AB 31 would require the California Department of Park and Recreation (DPR) to establish a local
assistance program to distribute grants to the most park needy communities across the state. These
grants would be used to fund the acquisition and development of parks, recreation areas, and facilities in
“critically underserved communities.” Communities defined as “critically underserved” are those with less
then three acres of usable parkland per 1,000 residents and/or can demonstrate insufficient or lack of
park and recreation facilities.
In addition, this measure would direct DPR to encourage joint partnership programs between two or more
applicants to enhance investment of public resources.
The League supports AB 31 because it would be an important step in helping communities that suffer
from higher rates of crime, unemployment, poverty, school drop-outs, and health ailments by modifying
current criteria to ensure that underserved communities are able to develop and improve neighborhood
parks.
Currently before the Senate, AB 31 is expected to go to the Governor’s desk for signing. The League is
optimistic that this bill will be signed and will provide an update through Priory Focus.
____________________________________________________________________________
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: July 18, 2008
Issue #28-2008
Page 6: Supreme Court Finds Open Space Assessment Violates Proposition 218
Page 7: Cities Should Voice Comments on Climate Change Scoping Plan
Water Boards Take Action on Minimum Mandatory Penalty Violation Enforcement
Page 8: Sustainability Feature Story: Riverside Blankets City with Trees
Page 9: Find a Bill, Legislators, Leg Committee, or Ask League Leg Staff
GOVERNOR SAYS BORROWING LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND TRANSPORTATION
MONEY IS NOT A BUDGET SOLUTION
What is Your Legislator Saying?
While rumors of legislators offering up borrowing local property taxes and transportation funds
continue to swirl like smoke out of the Capitol dome, city officials should remember that at least one
person in Sacramento has pledged not to take local government and transportation revenue. For
more, see Page 2.
•••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• ••
U.S. HOUSE AGREES TO INCLUDE NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION FUNDING
House leaders reached agreement this week on a plan to include $3.9 billion in funding for state and
local governments for foreclosed property acquisition and rehabilitation in the House version of a
foreclosure crisis response package. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House
Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity Chair Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) were
instrumental in working with House Financial Services Committee Chair Barney Frank (D-Mass.) to
retain the funding in the measure. For more, see Page 4.
•••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• ••
CITIES ENCOURAGED TO TAKE POSITIONS ON MAJOR
BILLS AFFECTING CITIES
As the Legislative Session winds down, it is important that city officials submit letters of support or
opposition to their legislators on these bills. These letters are valuable and help with city lobbying
efforts, not only in the Legislature but in helping make the case for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to
sign or veto legislation that may reach his desk. For more, see Page 4. 2
‘Budget’ Continued from Page 1…
In both his January budget and May revise budget, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger stood by local
government, promising to maintain Proposition 1A protections of local revenues. Since early 2008, he
has made numerous comments about the state’s responsibility to close the state budget deficit without
taking from local government to make up the shortfall.
Here are a few recent quotes from the Governor:
State of the State Address, Jan. 8: “It used to be that Sacramento plugged its deficits by just
grabbing money anywhere it could; pension funds, local government, bonds, gas taxes that were
meant for transportation. But we tightened that noose by taking away those options. We passed
Proposition 1A, Proposition 58, and Proposition 42. We now have no way out except to face our
budget demons.”
Charlie Rose, Television Program, April 17: “So we can’t steal any more money from local
government if we run out of money.”
State Capitol, Sacramento News Conference, July 16: “What message is it that that you go
and you have spent too much and then you don’t have a rainy day fund to cover yourself and
then you go to the cities and counties where they do have a rainy day fund set aside for
emergencies and now grab their money. See that’s what you are talking about when you talk
about borrowing. They’re saying we didn’t have a rainy day fund set aside to cover ourselves
from the decline, they did. But let’s grab their money now because we made a mistake.”
What City Officials Can Do: With these quotes in mind, city officials should thank the Governor for
his leadership on this issue and also ask your own legislators about where they stand on this matter.
Most Assembly and Senate members have returned to their home districts or are on vacation with
instructions from their leadership to be available to return to Sacramento on short notice. A majority of
each house of the legislature is made up of former city council members and county supervisors. But
some tough questions need to be asked: Where are they on this issue? Do they agree with the
Governor’s position? Where does protecting local revenues and transportation funds rank in their
priorities?
Urgent League Action Alert: Earlier this week, the League distributed the alert below to city officials
through the League’s regional public affairs managers, listservs, and blast fax.
Keep Local Dollars Local: Tell the State To Cut Up Its Local Government Credit Card!
Executive Summary: Refusing to compromise on budget cuts, taxes and budget reform, state leaders
may be headed toward Prop. 1A property tax and/or transportation sales tax “loans” from local
government unless city officials call it what it is: fiscally irresponsible, dishonest and a clear violation
of the voters’ mandate on the 2004 and 2006 revenue protection measures. This memo explains how
we can stop the state from using its city credit card again, worsening its own structural deficit and
harming local services.
Background: The Legislative Budget Conference Committee concluded its work last week, adopting a
budget on a party line vote because it included substantial tax increases and restored most of the
budget cuts in the Governor’s May Revise. Neither the Governor’s budget nor the Budget Conference
Committee supported any Prop. 1A “loans.” That may be about to change…at least in the Legislature.
Both Prop. 1A in 2004 (property tax protection) and Prop. 1A in 2006 (transportation funding
protection) contain provisions for “loans” from local government and transportation if the Governor
declares a “severe state fiscal hardship,” but not because the legislature fails to act responsibly. Two 3
balanced budgets have now been produced without raiding local property tax and transportation
revenues, showing it can be done.
Despite your calls to legislators over the last few weeks, we have picked up reliable rumors that the
legislative leadership may be near agreement on a budget package that would rely on these loans,
diversion of other revenues and other provisions. If this is true, it could be brought to the floors of the
Senate and Assembly as early as next week.
What We Are Asking of You. We are asking you to help us implement our “Cut up the Local
Government Credit Card” strategy, starting today, by doing the following:
1. Call the Governor Today or Tomorrow. Thank him for his responsible budget and his
commitment not to support any budget that depends on local government or transportation
“loans.” Governor’s Office Phone No: (916) 445-2841.
2. Call the Legislative Leadership Today or Tomorrow. Tell them to leave local funds local,
to balance the state budget with state revenues and that local government and transportation
“loans” to the state would be fiscally irresponsible.
Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata: (916) 651-4009
Senate Republican Leader Dave Cogdill: (916) 651-4014
Assembly Speaker Karen Bass: (916) 319-2047
Assembly Republican Leader Michael Villines: (916) 319-2029
3. Respond Immediately When Called. Respond immediately when your League Regional
Public Affairs Manager calls in the next week and asks you to attend a news conference,
author an op-ed piece or letter to the editor, or go to a meeting with a legislator(s) or the news
media.
4. Come to Sacramento When Called! Be prepared to fly or drive to Sacramento to fight this if
it ever gets to the floor of the legislature.
You will be hearing from us shortly. Thanks for your help. We can stop this fiscally irresponsible idea if
we ACT NOW.
Budget Talking Points
Borrowing is Fiscally Irresponsible—Cut Up The Credit Card! Borrowing local and
transportation funds if fiscally irresponsible. It deepens the structural deficit and is
dishonest. The legislature needs to cut up its local government and transportation
credit card!
Voters Oppose More Raids. The voters made it clear in both 2004 (84 percent mandate)
and 2006 (77 percent mandate) that they oppose taking local and transportation funds
again!
Solutions Are At Hand—They Require Compromise. The current situation is not a
“severe state fiscal hardship”—state leaders already have two balanced budgets to
consider that do not raid local or transportation funds.
Be Honest With the Public. State leaders need to be honest with the voters that a
solution to the budget crisis requires sacrifice from everyone.
Keep Local Funds Local. The state should balance its budget with state funds—no more
and no less.
4
What’s Next
The League continues to monitor all budget developments very closely and will provide updates
through alerts, Priority Focus and at www.cacities.org. City officials should pay close attention to the
budget and be ready to act on short notice to help protect local funds from once again being taken by
the state to fix its mistake.
_____________________________________________________________________________
‘House’ Continued from Page 1…
The neighborhood stabilization funding was originally included in the housing package (HR 3221 —
the Housing and Economic Recovery Act). The bill was approved by the Senate on July 11. However,
House leaders considered removing it to appease the White House, which had threatened last week to
veto the measure if it contained those funds.
Take Action
The full House is scheduled to vote on HR 3221 on Wednesday, July 23. The League asks officials to
contact congressional representatives immediately in support of the legislation. A sample letter is
available on the League’s Web site.
(http://www.cacities.org/resource_files/27015.7ForeclosureStabilizationCitiesSample3-08.rtf)
It is extremely crucial that all members of the California congressional delegation be contacted before
next Wednesday to secure passage of this important legislation which contains critical funding for local
governments. A complete list of California’s delegation can be found at www.alllaw.com.
(http://www.alllaw.com/state_resources/california/congressional_delegation/)
_____________________________________________________________________________
‘Major Legislation’ Continued from Page 1…
Bills noted as in “Senate or Assembly Third Reading” will be going to the floor of that house for a vote
in the coming weeks.
Community Services
AB 31 (De Leon): Would allocate $400 million of Proposition 84 funds to award competitive grants to
park poor communities. (Support)
Bill location: Senate Appropriations Committee
AB 2427 (Eng): Prohibits a city or county from incidentally regulating a local business that is licensed
or certified by the State Department of Consumer Affairs. (Oppose)
Bill location: Senate Third Reading
AB 2610 (Davis): Pre-empts local regulation of organizations that are soliciting donations through
unattended collection boxes. (Oppose)
Bill location: Senate Third Reading
Employee Relations
AB 2716 (Ma): Mandates that all workers who work seven or more days in a calendar year are entitled
to paid sick days. (Oppose)
Bill location: Senate Appropriations Committee
AB 2754 (Bass): Expands the scope of presumptions to include any methicillin-resistant
Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) skin infection. (Oppose)
Bill location: Senate Appropriations Committee
5
SB 1296 (Corbett): Makes declarations and findings relating to the jurisdiction of the Public
Employment Relations Board to bolster firefighter rights. (Oppose)
Bill location: Assembly Third Reading
SB 1338 (Migden): Deletes the Dec. 31, 2009 repeal date pertaining to an employee’s pre-designation
of a personal physician. (Oppose)
Bill location: Assembly Third Reading
Environmental Quality
AB 2176 (Caballero): Establishes a mechanism through which the federal Energy Efficiency Block
Grant (EEBG) funds received by the state would then be passed on to cities and counties in a cost
efficient and expedited manner. (Support/Sponsor)
Bill location: At the Governor’s desk
SB 1357 (Padilla): Authorizes the Department of Conservation to expend up to $20 million to fund
grants for beverage container recycling and litter reduction programs or focused, regional community
beverage container recycling and litter reduction programs. (Support)
Bill location: Assembly Appropriation – Suspense File
Housing/Land Use
AB 2000 (Mendoza): Provides an incentive to approve housing units by allowing local agencies to
credit any excess of housing units that are actually constructed over the RHNA category allocation to
the next planning period. (Support)
Bill location: Senate Inactive File
AB 2280 (Saldana): Makes changes to the Density Bonus Law to assure that developers make clear
what concessions they are seeking at the beginning of the review process and makes several other
technical fixes. (Support)
Bill location: Senate Third Reading
AB 2594 (Mullin): Addresses some issues related to high foreclosure rates by allowing redevelopment
agencies to use tax increment funds (but not low and moderate income funds) to retain or purchase
foreclosed units as a source of affordable housing. (Support)
Bill location: Senate Third Reading
SB 375 (Steinberg): Provides a detailed process for identifying resource areas and designating growth
areas within the regional transportation plan in order to guide investment of transportation funds to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Also provides for limited California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) relief in infill and areas where development pattern is consistent with designations in the
regional transportation plan. (Oppose, Unless Amended)
Bill location: Assembly Appropriations Committee
SB 1103 (Cedillo): Requires local agencies to provide ongoing reporting of costs and expenditures
related to economic development; costs made or incurred for the purpose of stimulating economic
development are reportable (except for expenses related to affordable housing). (Oppose)
Bill location: Assembly Third Reading
Public Safety
AB 38 (Nava): Consolidates the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services and Office of Homeland
Security into a single state Department of Emergency Services and Homeland Security to streamline
disaster response and emergency assistance for local government agencies. (Support)
Bill location: Senate Appropriations Committee
6
AB 1033 (Caballero): Provides cities an additional tool to stem gang violence by creating a
misdemeanor charge for any persons whose actions, or lack there of, contribute to a minor becoming
part of a criminal street gang. (Support)
Bill location: Senate Third Reading
AB 2262 (Torrico): Allows cities to designate fire agencies as child safe surrender sites for children
seven days old or younger. (Support)
Bill location: Senate Appropriations Committee - Suspense File
AB 2151 (Jones): Increases city authority in the transfer or renewal request process, under the
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, of an alcoholic beverage license if it will contribute to blight
or if the request is for a license within a redevelopment area. (Support)
Bill location: Senate Third Reading
SB 1519 (Yee): Provides cities the authority to terminate telephone services used to promote or
conduct business of unlicensed taxi cabs within their jurisdiction. (Support)
Bill location: Assembly Third Reading
Transportation
AB 642 (Wolk): Allows cities to use design-build contracting for building construction projects as well
as wastewater facilities, solid waste management facilities, or water recycling facilities for more
efficient, cost-effective public works projects. (Support)
Bill location: Senate Appropriations Committee
AB 983 (Ma): Requires cities to provide full, complete, and accurate plans, including cost-estimates on
all public works projects, which would reduce incentives for contractors to report errors in plans during
bidding because additional expenses could be recouped through change-order claims against the
public agency. (Oppose)
Bill location: Assembly Judiciary Committee
_____________________________________________________________________________
Supreme Court Finds Open Space Assessment Violates Proposition 218
The California Supreme Court earlier this week struck down an assessment to fund future open space
acquisitions. In doing so, the court found that the Santa Clara County Open Space Authority (OSA)
had not demonstrated a special benefit to the assessed property, and the amounts assessed were not
proportional to any special benefits that the assessed property may receive.
There are potentially far-reaching impacts with this decision. This case demonstrates the importance
of a properly drafted assessment engineer’s report that accurately specifies the special benefit to each
assessed property, and correctly assesses each property in proportion to the special benefit to each
property.
The court emphasized that a general enhancement of property values in the community is by definition
not a special benefit. It also criticized Santa Clara’s OSA for determining the amount of the
assessment based on what property owners would likely be willing to pay, and then determining an
annual spending budget based on what the likely assessment would generate in revenues.
As one commentator on this case notes: “Thus, great care will now be required in drafting engineers’
reports for such assessments and legal review of those reports is essential.”
The case is Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association v. San Clara County Open Space Authority.
____________________________________________________________________________
7
Cities Should Voice Comments on Climate Change Scoping Plan
The California State Air Resources Board (ARB) recently released its Draft Scoping Plan. Responsible
for the implementation of California’s climate change law (AB 32), the draft represents ARB’s proposal
on how to reach California’s climate change goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) to
1990 levels by 2020.
A copy of ARB’s Plan can be found online at the State’s Climate Change Web portal.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/draftscopingplan.htm
The League encourages cities to comment on the draft which represents California’s plan on how to
reduce GHG in the state. League staff will be drafting comments for review by the League’s Climate
Change Working Group and other interested city officials. A copy of that draft will be available as early
as Tuesday, July 22.
City officials who wish to share comments or review the proposed League comments should contact
League Legislative Representative Kyra Ross (kross@cacities.org) by July 28.
Although the ARB Web site indicates that Aug. 1 is the final day for comments on the draft, it appears
from conversations with ARB staff that they indicated to accept comments well beyond the Aug. 1
deadline.
Comments can be submitted on the State’s Draft Scoping Plan Web
site.http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/spcomment.htm. Submitted organizational and individual
comments are also available for viewing on this Web site.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Water Boards Take Action on Minimum Mandatory Penalty Violation Enforcement
The State Water Resources Control Board recently sent a letter to the California State Legislature to
inform members that state and regional water boards are undertaking a significant enforcement
initiative to eliminate their backlog of Mandatory Minimum Penalty (MMP) violations. State law
mandates the imposition of minimum penalties of $3,000 per occurrence for specific violations of the
federal Clean Water Act permits issued by the water boards.
The letter, dated July 3, explained that historically water boards have not consistently taken action to
enforce MMP violations primarily due to resource constraints and other competing priorities.
Consequently, there is a sizable backlog of MMP violations for which formal enforcement action has
not been taken.
Current data from the water boards shows that action has not been taken on more than 7,200 MMP
violations at 477 separate facilities which occurred between Jan. 1, 2000, and Dec. 31, 2007. These
violations represent over $21 million in potentially uncollected administrative civil liability.
The water boards intend to substantially reduce this backlog by the end of 2008. The water boards
plan to use a phased approach of first resolving uncontested MMP violations by sending letters to all
facilities with MMPs and offering them the opportunity to resolve their violation(s) by acknowledging
them, and providing full payment of any accrued penalties. Based on the response to the initial contact
correspondence to facilities subject to the MMPs, the water boards will review and process the
remaining contested MMPs through formal enforcement hearings.
The water boards are also implementing controls to ensure that new violations subject to MMPs are
addressed promptly.
8
If your city faces MMPs and requests assistance scheduling meetings with the water boards or have
questions about the MMPs, please contact League Legislative Representative Kyra Ross at (916) 658-
8252.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Sustainability Feature Story: Riverside Blankets City with Trees
In the city of Riverside, an urban forest isn’t so far from reality thanks to the city’s Clean and Green
Sustainable Riverside Action Plan. Called the ‘100,000 Trees by 2010 Initiative,’ it was adopted after
the success of the city’s Tree Power program.
One of the reasons the city chose 100,000 as its target is because it’s the approximate number of
electric meters that Riverside Public Utilities serves. The goal is that there will be one tree per electric
meter for every home or business in Riverside. Since 2000, more than 67,000 trees have been planted
and the city is well on its way to meeting and possibly exceeding its 2010 goal.
Through the Riverside Public Utilities Tree Power program, customers can get a rebate for planting
selected shade trees in certain locations around their home to help save on summer cooling costs.
The city’s utility estimates that well-placed trees around a structure can reduce air conditioning or
cooling costs by as much as 20 percent. As part of the initiative, trees are also being planted in parks,
on trails and paths and in city right-of-ways and easements.
Trees benefit the environment by improving air quality, reducing noise, providing privacy, adding
aesthetic and economic value to our public and private landscape, preventing soil erosion and
beautifying our surroundings. Non-dwarf citrus and other fruit trees are the most commonly planted
trees through the program. The city is also planting other species including: Chinese Fringe, Golden
Rain, Fern pine, Chinese Flame and camphor.
Riverside Mayor Ron Loveridge is a huge proponent of the city’s green initiatives and was an early
advocate of the tree program.
“The ‘100,000 Trees by 2010 Initiative’ is important because it sets a benchmark, it commits us to a
specific goal. Measuring the greening of our community by number of trees planted reflects our strong
commitment to a cleaner and greener urban environment for all residents,” said Loveridge.
Some areas of Riverside now have over 80 percent canopy coverage. According to the city’s
Sustainability Manager, Mike Bacich, Riverside has been formally designated as a “Tree City, USA” for
the importance placed on its urban forest. The Tree City USA® program is sponsored by the Arbor
Day Foundation in cooperation with the USDA Forest Service and the National Association of State
Foresters. It provides direction, technical assistance, public attention, and national recognition for
urban and community forestry programs in 3,216 communities across the country.
Tree maintenance depends on ownership. Residential customers are responsible for trees on their
property, where as city trees are maintained by the city. For example the Parks and Recreation
Department takes care of park trees and trees planted in the city right-of-ways are maintained by the
Public Works Department’s Urban Forestry and Landscape division. All city trees are on a city wide
four-year trimming cycle.
For more information about the Green Riverside Action Plan visit www.GreenRiverside.com. To learn
more about the benefits of Riverside’s Tree Power Program visit
http://www.riversideca.gov/utilities/resi-treepower.asp.
_____________________________________________________________________________
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.
_____________________________________________________________________________