IN THIS ISSUE: Aug. 24, 2007
Issue #33-2007
Page 6: So-Called ‘Eminent Domain Reform Initiative’ Would Threaten Water Projects
Cities Urged to Oppose Senate Bill 619
Page 7: Regional Re-entry Facilities Workshops Scheduled For This Fall
Page 8: Find a Bill, Legislators, Leg Committee, or Ask League Leg Staff
SB 375 GOES TO SUSPENSE FILE: COMMITTEE VOTE EXPECTED NEXT WEEK
SB 375 (Steinberg) was heard Wednesday, Aug. 22, in the Assembly Committee on
Appropriations and is now on the committee’s suspense file. The committee is expected to vote
on it next week. Opposition to the bill has been growing daily as cities and other organizations
begin to understand the implications of this bill in more detail. For more, see Page 2.
•••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• ••
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE APPROVES STATE BUDGET
The California Legislature passed the FY 2007-08 budget and trailer bills on Tuesday, Aug. 21,
after a 52-day delay. Overall, the budget looks positive for cities, with key transportation,
housing, public safety and other local programs being funded.
Work on the budget is not done, however. The budget is now on the desk of Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger, who will “blue pencil” (delete) approximately $700 million, as per a promise
made to Senate Republicans who adamantly fought for a balanced budget.
For more, see Page 2.
•••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• ••
ACA 8 PASSES OUT OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Support for the Eminent Domain Reform Measure Still Needed
Assembly Constitutional Amendment (ACA) 8 (De La Torre), the League of California Cities-
supported constitutional amendment for eminent domain reform, passed out of the Assembly
Committee on Local Government on Wednesday, Aug. 22. The measure was approved on a
straight party line vote of 5-2.
While its passage out of the committee is good news, ACA 8 requires a two-thirds vote of each
house of the Legislature, so it is still important that cities continue to write and call legislators to
urge their support for the measure. For more, see Page 5.
2
‘SB 375’ Continued from Page 1…
While the last amended version of this bill was printed on July 17, a long mock-up with extensive
amendments had also been crafted. Sen. Steinberg may insert these amendments into the bill
next week.
The League of California Cities strongly supports reducing greenhouse gas emissions from cars,
light trucks and other sectors of our economy. However, the League continues to request that SB
375 be made a two-year bill, so that there is adequate time for the various agencies involved in
implementing AB 32 to craft and evaluate possible proposals and solutions.
Rushing SB 375 through the Legislature, when its full implications related to local land use
authority, transportation funding, Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), Local Agency
Formation Commissions (LAFCOs) and other issues are unknown does not make sense.
Moreover, its exclusive focus on land use measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions ignores
many of the types of innovative steps being taken by cities in California to reduce emissions.
AB 32 and SB 375
Last year’s AB 32 (Núñez) establishes emission reduction targets of 25 percent to 1990 levels by
the year 2020. There are a number of variables and moving parts related implementing and
achieving the legislation’s goals.
Other Relevant Developments and Resources for Cities on Emission Reduction Strategies
Cities are encouraged to become familiar with recent actions and other efforts by agencies
involved with greenhouse gas emission reduction. The variety of these activities highlight how
complex and diverse this discussion has become, and that SB 375 represents but one facet of
how greenhouse gas reductions is being approached.
• As part of the budget deal this week, SB 97 (Dutton) requires that the Office of Planning
Research (OPR) develop California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines for
public agencies to address emission reduction issues. A copy of SB 97 can be found on
the Senate Web site at www.senate.ca.gov. Click the Legislation button to do a bill
search.
• On Aug. 21, the California Attorney General reached a settlement agreement with San
Bernardino County regarding its updated general plan CEQA compliance. The settlement
identifies examples of significant local emission reduction mechanisms, including land
use measures. The settlement can be found on the Attorney General’s Web site at
www.ag.ca.gov. Search for the term “San Bernardino” in the upper right hand corner.
• The California Air Resources Board (ARB) is responsible for coordinating AB 32
implementation. Visit www.arb.ca.gov and click on Climate Change to access ARB’s
information on AB 32 and greenhouse gas emission reduction.
• The California Transportation Commission has convened a working group to draft
Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines. Visit www.catc.ca.gov and search the term “AB
32” to be directed to resources related to this working group.
Take Action!
The League urges cities to call their legislators and send letters of opposition on SB 375. For a
sample letter, look up SB 375 using the League’s bill search tool at www.cacities.org/billsearch.
_____________________________________________________________________________
‘State Budget’ Continued from Page 1…
The Governor is expected to sign the budget today (Friday, Aug. 24), but had not done so by
press time.
Current budget highlights for cities include: 3
Transportation
Proposition 1B: SB 88 (Budget Committee), the bond implementation trailer bill, appropriates
$950 million in FY 2007-08 to cities and counties from the Local Street and Road Program
included in Prop. 1B. Budget language contains some technical flaws, however, and does not
specify how these funds are to be divided between cities and counties.
The League of California Cities is working on clean-up legislation to clarify the bond fund
allocation process and to ensure that $550 million would go to cities and $400 million to counties.
These amounts are consistent with the budget requests of both the League and the California
State Association of Counties (CSAC).
A $550 million allocation to cities would guarantee that each city receives minimum of $400,000
or half of their total bond funds, whichever is greater, in FY 2007-08.
Proposition 42: The budget fully funds Prop. 42 at $1.6 billion. According to statute, cities and
counties will not receive Prop. 42 funding in FY 2007-08 for local streets and roads because this
is the second of two Prop. 42 “gap” years; a result of cities and counties receiving funding in FY
2001-02 and FY 2002-03 when other state transportation did not.
On a positive note, however, beginning in FY 2008-09, cities and counties will receive
approximately double their previous allocations if Prop. 42 is funded in the state budget.
Transit: According to the California Transit Association (CTA), the FY 2007-08 budget package
enacts a $1.259 billion shift of Public Transportation Account funds into new, non-transit
expenditure programs.
The 2007-08 State Transit Assistance (STA) Program will be funded at approximately $416
million. However, up to $948 million in Public Transportation Account (PTA) funds are provided
to finance general obligation transportation bond debt service payments that are supposed to be
paid by the General Fund, or that have already been paid.
In addition to the $948 million in bond debt service payments, the package also enacts another
$311 million in PTA shifts to non-transit purposes, including for regional center transportation
costs ($129 million), home-to-school transportation ($99 million), and repayment of debt owed by
the General Fund to Proposition 42 programs ($83 million), for the total of $1.259 billion in non-
transit expenditures.
In addition to the 2007-08 appropriations and PTA funding shifts, SB 79, one of the trailer bills,
also requires that starting in 2008-09 and beyond, all future “spillover” dollars would be divided in
half, with 50 percent going to the General Fund and 50 percent to the PTA. Of the amount going
to the PTA in any given year, two-thirds would flow to the STA Program and one-third would flow
to support transit capital expenditures from the PTA.
Housing, Land Use and Resources
Proposition 1C: SB 86 (Budget Committee) contains the implementing language for $300 million
of the $850 million for the Regional Planning, Housing and Infill Incentive Account program from
Prop. 1C.
The majority of the funding ($240 million) goes to the Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) to administer a competitive grant program for capital improvement projects
in qualifying infill projects.
The League is concerned with the way the grant program language defines “eligible applicants”
as nonprofit or for-profit developers in addition to a city, county, public housing authority or
redevelopment agency. However, other elements of the bill require that the project have the
support of the local government.
4
The grant criteria also include minimum affordability and density requirements. HCD plans to
hold stakeholder meetings within the next few months to establish grant implementation
guidelines.
The remaining $60 million will be allocated to the CALReUSE program for brownfield clean-up in
FY 2007-08. The details for this program are still being developed.
California Environmental Quality Act: One of the key negotiations in the Budget Act of 2007
involved lawsuits over greenhouse gas emissions being addressed in Environmental Impact
Reports (EIRs). SB 97 (Dutton) will require the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to
develop and adopt guidelines for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of
greenhouse gas emissions associated with transportation or energy consumption no later than
Jan. 1, 2010.
In addition, SB 97 will prohibit lawsuits based on the failure of a local government to analyze the
effects of greenhouse gas emissions in local projects that are funded out of either Prop. 1B
(transportation bond) or Proposition 1E (water and flood bond). This is in response to last year’s
landmark legislation, AB 32 (Nunez), which aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Public Safety
Citizen Options for Public Safety (COPS)/ Juvenile Justice Grants: SB 77 (Ducheny)
allocates the same amount of funding as last year, $238 million, for COPS/ Juvenile Justice
grants. Each program receives half of the funding.
COPS provides per-capita grants funding for local law enforcement—police, sheriffs and district
attorneys. The Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act gives per-capita grants to counties to
reduce recidivism in the juvenile justice system.
Anti-Gang Efforts: SB 77 includes various anti-gang and criminal activity funding including:
• $3 million for cities with heavy gang concentration to be distributed to Los Angeles, the
Bay Area, and the Central Valley ($1 million each)
• $6.5 million in competitive grants to cities and community-based organizations (CBO) for
gang prevention, intervention, re-entry, education, job training and skills development and
family and community services (city grants shall not exceed $500,000 and CBO grants
shall not exceed $200,000)
• $1 million to support four Internet Crimes Against Children taskforces (Sacramento, San
Jose, Los Angeles, and San Diego)
• $446,000 to create a statewide anti-gang coordinator position
The budget also includes $4.8 million in federal funds for local assistance grants to supplement
efforts to suppress gang-related violence.
Booking Fees: SB 77 appropriates $35 million for county sheriffs for local detention facilities and
prohibits counties from charging jail booking fees to cities or other local agencies. Counties will
have the authority to charge a new “jail access fee” for bookings in excess of an agency’s three
year average of bookings for low-level offenses.
Debt Repayment and Local Government Finance
Economic Recovery Bond Repayment: The budget includes $2.5 billion for repayment of
Economic Recovery Bonds (ERB). Prop. 57, the Economic Bond Recovery Act, authorized the
state to issue ERBs and established the “triple-flip” mechanism for repayment of those bonds.
The triple-flip uses a quarter-cent of the local sales and use tax for debt service and replaced that
money to cities with additional property tax. By paying down this debt, the “triple flip” will expire
sooner. This is expected to happen in 2009.
Mandate Claims: The FY 2007-08 budget does not include funding for mandate claims incurred
by local governments in this fiscal year. SB 86, the State Government Trailer Bill, requires the 5
Legislature to appropriate the full payable amount in the annual State Budget Act for mandates
for which costs have been determined in a preceding fiscal year.
Thus, claims for FY 2007-08 will be paid in FY 2008-09. Additionally, SB 86 makes a number of
other changes to the mandates process, including:
• Changes annual claims deadlines from Jan. 15 to Feb. 15 and also changes the late
penalty from 10 percent to a maximum of $1,000 to a maximum of $10,000;
• Directs the Controller to report to the Legislature on April 30 of each year detailing the
amount of the claims submitted for the Feb. 15 deadline, but to also include any late
claims filed by April 1; and
• Requires the Controller to pay those claims (estimated costs and actual claim
deficiencies) by Aug. 15, or 45 days after the budget is passed in the next fiscal year or
interest then accrues.
Budget Bills and Trailer Bills
For more information on the budget bill and trailer bills, look up the measures listed below at
www.cacities.org/billsearch.
• SB 77 Main Budget Bill
• SB 78 Appropriations Budget Bill
• SB 79 Transportation Trailer Bill (Spillover)
• SB 80 Higher Education Trailer Bill
• SB 81 Corrections Trailer Bill
• SB 82 Administration of Justice Trailer Bill
• SB 84 Human Services Trailer Bill
• SB 85 Resources Trailer Bill
• SB 86 State Government Trailer Bill
• SB 87 Taxation Trailer Bill
• SB 88 Bond Implementation Trailer Bill (Prop. 1B)
• SB 89 Student Financial Aid and Sale of Education Fund
• AB 199 Amends SB 86, General Government
• AB 201 Amends SB 88, Bond Implementation
• AB 203 Replacement for SB 83; Health Trailer Bill
• SB 97 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) fix
_____________________________________________________________________________
‘ACA 8’ Continued from Page 1…
Ken Willis, president of the League of California Homeowners, and Gary Toebben, president and
CEO of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, each gave formal testimony in support of
ACA 8 at the Assembly Local Government Committee hearing. No amendments were taken to
the measure.
What’s Next for ACA 8 and AB 887
Assembly Member De La Torre is still negotiating with Republicans on amendments to ACA 8
that could address primary places of worship and farmland. The next stop for ACA 8 is a hearing
with the Assembly Committee on Appropriations, at a date yet to be announced.
Meanwhile, Assembly Bill 887, the companion measure dealing with small business protections
under the California Redevelopment Law, will soon be heard on the Senate Floor at a date yet to
be announced. Stay tuned to Priority Focus and the League Web site (www.cacities.org) for
further information as it becomes available.
_____________________________________________________________________________
6
So-Called ‘Eminent Domain Reform Initiative’ Would Threaten Water Projects
Earlier this week, attorneys for Eminent Domain Reform Now—Protect Our Homes Committee (a
broad coalition that includes the League of California Cities) and is backing ACA 8 to reform the
state’s eminent domain reform laws to protect homeowners and small businesses from eminent
domain, released a legal analysis of an initiative that is in the signature gathering stage and is
backed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA) and the California Farm Bureau
Federation.
According to the legal analysis, the initiative, called the California Property Owners and Farmland
Protection Act (CPOFPA), threatens virtually all future public and private water projects up and
down the state intended to preserve clean drinking water, protect existing water resources, and
secure additional water supply.
It does this by including a provision defining as a prohibited “private use” "the transfer of property
rights to a ‘public agency’ for the ‘consumption of natural resources.’" According to the author of
the opinion, former Deputy Attorney General Richard Martland, it is clear that the initiative would
“prohibit the use of eminent domain to construct public water projects.”
Spokespersons in the offices of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sen. Dave Cogdill (the leading
legislative advocate for new water storage investments in the state), expressed serious
reservations about this provision and the effect it could have on meeting the water needs of
California. Their comments appeared in an article in the Sacramento Bee on Wednesday, Aug.
22.
To read the article, visit the “Politics” section of www.sacbee.com and search for: “Governor
Worries Over Bid to Limit Land Seizures,” by Kevin Yamamura.
The Eminent Domain Reform Now—Protect Our Homes Committee continues its efforts to secure
legislative passage of ACA 8 to reform the eminent domain laws of the state. It took another step
in this process earlier this week when the Assembly Committee on Local Government advanced
the amendment to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations from which it is expected to move
to the Assembly floor in short order.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Cities Urged to Oppose Senate Bill 619
Measure Would Create Financial Burdens on Cities and Taxpayers
The League of California Cities urges cities to oppose Senate Bill 619 (Migden), a measure that if
signed into law, would drastically cut the current retention level to just five percent of the total
payment due to contractors, weakening cost-control protections for local agencies. Currently, the
retention level is up to 10 percent of the payment.
Retention, the withholding of money for payments to a contractor, is a common and effective tool
used in public works project contracts that protect against additional expenses and delays. This is
especially important for local agencies to maintain financial control when they must accept the
lowest responsible bidder’s proposal.
The current state retention rate of up to 10 percent keeps costs down and ensures the timely
completion of public construction projects by:
Creating an incentive for a contractor to complete a project
Assuring work is done in compliance with contract, as retentions are not paid until final
inspection is approved
Retaining sufficient funds to complete unfinished work should the contractor abandon the
project
Local agencies commonly reduce retention to five percent once a project is half complete, as an
act of good faith if the contractor is making satisfactory progress. Mandating a reduced retention, 7
as proposed in SB 619, places local agencies unnecessarily at risk for increased costs and
project delays.
A limited retention leaves local governments footing the bill with taxpayer dollars to complete
projects not finished by contractors. The current 10 percent retention rate helps ensure that public
projects are completed in a timely manner without burdening public funds.
The League has opposed previous attempts by legislators to pass similar bills (AB 1949: Conroy,
1996, vetoed; AB 940: Miller, 1997, vetoed; AB 806: Keeley, 1999, vetoed) and continues to
express concerns on the issue, as it has yet to see examples where 10 percent retention is
problematic.
Take Action!
SB 619 passed out of the Assembly Committee on Appropriations and will be heard next on the
Assembly floor.
The League encourages cities to send letters to their legislators requesting a “no” vote on the SB
619. A sample letter is available at www.cacities.org/sb619.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Regional Re-entry Facilities Workshops Scheduled For This Fall
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) continues with its series of
statewide workshops this fall to provide information on the benefits and responsibilities of bringing
re-entry facilities into California’s communities.
Hosted in partnership with local government, public safety and mental health associations, the
workshops help educate community leaders on the impact re-entry facilities may have in cities
and counties.
The re-entry facilities are made possible by the passage of AB 900, the Public Safety and
Offender Rehabilitation Services Act of 2007, earlier this year. AB 900 is a historic prison reform
agreement, representing a major shift in California's correctional system and providing for the
largest prison capital outlay program in decades.
Among the provisions are funding for increased offender programming, 16,000 beds in secure re-
entry facilities, and an appropriation of $1.2 billion in jail construction funding through state lease-
revenue bonds. Re-entry facilities will enable CDCR and local community agencies to create an
unprecedented continuity of care by providing needed support services as parolees reenter their
communities.
The workshop series began in July and will continue through October in regions throughout
California. Future workshop dates and locations include:
• Sept. 10 - Sonoma County (for North Bay Area)
• Sept. 14 - Shasta County (for Northern California)
• Sept. 28 - San Mateo County (for San Francisco/South Bay Area)
• Oct. 5 - Los Angeles County
• TBD - Santa Barbara County
Re-entry facilities will be built in cities, counties or regions willing to collaborate with CDCR, to
achieve the purposes of AB 900. As a partnering association, the League of California Cities is
working with city officials to ensure they have an opportunity to attend the workshops and learn
about the needs of the returning parolee population, funding for facility construction and the types
of programs provided at re-entry facilities.
For more information about this workshop series, please contact Dorothy Johnson at
djohnson@cacities.org or (916) 658-8214.
_____________________________________________________________________________ 8
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: Aug. 31, 2007
Issue #34-2007
Page 4: Flood Protection Proposal Update
California Attorney General Settles CEQA Lawsuit with San Bernardino County
Page 5: Legal Decisions Clarify Questions Regarding the Disclosure of Public Employee and Peace Officer Information
Page 6: ASU Offers Workshop on Immigration and Government - Sept. 26-28
Find a Bill, Legislators, Leg Committee, or Ask League Leg Staff
Editor’s Note: Due to the League of California Cities’ Annual Conference being held next
week, Priority Focus will not publish on its regular day of Friday, Sept. 7. Publication will
resume on Friday, Sept. 14.
ACA 8 AMENDED TO GIVE EMINENT DOMAIN PROTECTION TO CHURCHES
Assembly Constitutional Amendment (ACA) 8, the eminent domain reform measure carried by
Assembly Member Hector De La Torre, D-South Gate, was amended to prohibit the taking of
churches through eminent domain. For more, see Page 2.
•••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• ••
SB 375 BECOMES A TWO-YEAR BILL
On Thursday, Aug. 30, the Assembly Committee on Appropriations met to review suspense bills,
including SB 375 (Steinberg), a measure the League opposed because insufficient time had been
given to a broad discussion of the important local land use authority and transportation funding
issues in the bill.
Sen. Darrel Steinberg requested that the bill be left on the suspense file. This effectively makes
SB 375 a two-year bill, which gives time to address ambiguities and differences the League
raised with bill's author and sponsor. For more, see Page 3.
•••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• ••
LEAGUE ANNUAL CONFERENCE SET FOR NEXT WEEK
The League of California Cities’ 109th annual conference opens next week in Sacramento.
Under the theme “Shaping California’s Future,” more than 2,000 mayors, council members and
city officials are expected to attend to discuss important issues related to cities.
For more, see Page 3.
2
‘ACA 8’ Continued from Page 1…
ACA 8 was heard in the Assembly Committee on Appropriations on Thursday, Aug. 30, where the
amendment was adopted. With this amendment, ACA 8 now contains strong new protections
against the taking of homes, churches and small businesses through eminent domain for transfer
to another private party.
“We’ve been working in earnest with my Republican and Democratic colleagues to find a way to
protect churches and places of worship, said Assembly Member De La Torre in a news release
issued by Californians for Eminent Domain Reform, the coalition backing ACA 8 and its
companion statutory measure, Assembly Bill (AB) 887.
“I am hopeful that these amendments bring us one step closer to garnering the necessary two-
thirds vote in both houses of the Legislature to present this strong reform package to the voters in
2008.”
If ACA 8 becomes law, as amended, it would:
• Prohibit the use of eminent domain to acquire an owner-occupied home (including
townhomes, condos and duplexes) for transfer to another private party
• Prohibit the use of eminent domain to acquire a church/house of worship to transfer to
another private party. Churches/houses of worship are defined as “all real property used
exclusively by the owner for religious worship if the property qualifies for tax exemption
under the California Constitution for houses of religious worship”
• Prohibit government from using eminent domain to acquire a small business to transfer to
another private party, unless the small business owner is first given the opportunity to
participate in the revitalization plan to eliminate blight
• Give the original owner the right to repurchase a home or small business property
acquired by eminent domain if the government doesn’t use the property for a public use
AB 887 Info
AB 887 (De La Torre) would provide enhanced protections for small business owners confronted
with eminent domain. Some key provisions of the bill include:
• If the small business does not participate in the revitalization plan, it can choose between
relocating or receiving the value of the business. If the small business relocates, it will
receive:
o Fair market value of the real property plus all reasonable moving expenses,
expenses to re-establish the business at a new location and compensation for
the increased cost of rent or mortgage payments for up to three years
• If the small business does not elect to relocate or cannot be relocated and remain
economically viable, it will be bought out and compensated:
o Fair market value of the real property (if owned by the small business) and
o 125 percent of the value of the business
What’s Next
ACA 8 will next be heard on the Assembly Floor. If it receives the necessary two-thirds vote, the
measure will be sent to the Senate. AB 887 is awaiting a vote on the Senate floor and if passed,
will be sent back to the Assembly.
3
The League of California Cities will continue to issue updates on this issue through the League
Web site (www.cacities.org) and future issues of Priority Focus.
_____________________________________________________________________________
‘SB 375’ Continued from Page 1…
The League commends Sen. Steinberg for his leadership and his decision to give the process
more time. The League remains committed to further work on the legislation and larger issues of
climate change with Sen. Steinberg, the Legislature and the Schwarzenegger Administration into
the fall. California cities are already working on innovative strategies to help mitigate emissions
and improve environmental quality.
One of SB 375’s major goals is to reduce vehicle miles traveled as part of how California
addresses green house gas (GHG) reduction. Last year’s AB 32 (Núñez) established emission
reduction targets from all sources of 25 percent to 1990 levels by 2020.
The League also thanks the many city officials who helped lobby on SB 375 by sending letters to
Sen. Steinberg, and working with League regional public affairs managers to express their
concerns.
The lobbying effort on SB 375 came together through a broad coalition which included local
government, transportation groups, business and taxpayer groups. The League acknowledges
the work the entire coalition contributed to this lobbying effort.
_____________________________________________________________________________
‘Annual Conference’ Continued from Page 1…
The conference will run Sept. 5-8, and features sessions on a number of hot topics, including
housing and infrastructure, eminent domain, climate change, economic development, and
leadership and government.
Featured general session speakers will include Mark Sanborn, president of Sanborn &
Associates, an idea lab dedicated to developing leaders in business and life; Greg Nickels, mayor
of Seattle, who will present “Climate Change – Protecting Future Generations by Acting Now;”
and Sir Ken Robinson, Ph.D., an internationally recognized leader in the development of
creativity, innovation and human resources.
Diversity Caucuses to Host Various Receptions
The annual conference will also feature a number of receptions hosted by the League’s diversity
caucuses. See below for the details (all held the evening of Friday, Sept. 7):
• The African-American Caucus Inaugural Annual Conference Bash will be held 9 p.m. to 1
a.m. at Chops, located at 11th and L
• The Asian Pacific Islanders Caucus Karaoke Reception takes place from 9 p.m. to 11
p.m. at the Capitol View Room on the 15th Floor of the Hyatt Regency Hotel
• The Gay, Lesbian Bisexual, Transgender Caucus Networking Reception will be held from
7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. at the Hyatt Ballrooms at the Hotel Parlare Euro Lounge on the
2nd Level
• The Latino Caucus will host its 17th Annual Gala Award Reception from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m.
at the California Railroad Museum in Old Sacramento
For more information on the annual conference, visit www.cacities.org/ac.
_____________________________________________________________________________
4
Flood Protection Proposal Update
There are a number of flood control proposals winding their way through the legislative process
this year. Although the final details are still being worked out, the League of California Cities is
leaning towards supporting a package of bills that includes SB 5 (Machado)/AB 5 (Wolk) (note
that SB 5 and AB 5 will be amended over Labor Day weekend to have identical language), SB 17
(Florez) and AB 162 (Wolk).
If this package of bills is signed into law, it would allow continued development of flood prone
areas while also requiring flood management agencies to achieve 200-year flood protection for
those areas.
As of late August, the language in SB 5/AB 5 would only apply to cities with flood hazard areas of
greater than three foot depth in a 200-year flood scenario. This means that in a 200-year flood
the water levels would reach three-foot depth.
Cities the League has identified in these flood hazard areas are Sacramento, West Sacramento,
Yuba City, Marysville, Stockton and Lathrop. The League has been working with these cities to
make sure the language of the bill will work for those cities. In addition, none of the bills assign
liability to cities in case there is a failure of the state system of flood control.
Background on Flood Protection
Over the last several years, members of the Legislature have been pushing legislation to require
flood management agencies (including cities) to upgrade their flood protection surrounding
existing developments and mitigating development on parcels of land where there is not
adequate protection.
This effort is a response to Hurricane Katrina and a desire to protect people who live or will live in
these flood prone areas. The League has invested a significant amount of time developing flood
control policy and working on the best language to allow cities who are affected by the flood
control proposals.
_____________________________________________________________________________
California Attorney General Settles CEQA Lawsuit with San Bernardino County
California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown announced a settlement with San Bernardino
County on Aug. 21, in regard to a lawsuit the attorney general filed contesting the county’s new
general plan under the California Environmental Protection Act (CEQA).
The lawsuit contended that the general plan, which establishes guidelines for land use
development in the county through 2030, did not have sufficient analysis on the development’s
impact on climate change and mechanisms for mitigation.
The settlement includes a greenhouse gas reduction plan for the county which identifies emission
sources and establishes emission reduction targets. With the agreement, San Bernardino starts a
30-month process to engage the public in reducing emissions related to land use decisions and
county government operations.
The plan mandates that the county must conduct an inventory of known emission sources as well
as those which can be reasonably discovered. The county is also responsible for identifying its
emissions levels from the year 1990 and today, and must estimate what the levels will be in 2020.
AB 32 (Núñez), which passed last year, sets emission reduction targets for the state of 25
percent to 1990 levels by the year 2020.
City officials should review the settlement for more information on the local emission reduction
mechanisms. The settlement can be found on the attorney general’s Web site at www.ag.ca.gov.
Search for the term “San Bernardino County” in the upper right hand corner.
_____________________________________________________________________________ 5
Legal Decisions Clarify Questions Regarding the Disclosure of Public Employee
and Peace Officer Information
In companion decisions issued earlier this week, the California Supreme Court clarified the scope
of the California Public Records Act (CPRA) regarding the disclosure of name, salary, and other
personnel information related to public employees and peace officers.
The state Supreme Court ruled in International Federation of Professional and Technical
Engineers, Local 21 v. Superior Court, that the names and salaries of public employees, including
peace officers, can be disclosed under CPRA.
In the second case, Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training v. Superior Court, the
state Supreme Court determined that certain peace officer employee information (names,
employing departments, and hiring and termination dates) that is stored by the commission, may
also be disclosed.
The decisions closed the open legal question of whether this type of information is subject to
disclosure, or whether its disclosure would violate any privacy interest the affected employees
may have.
Litigation Details
In International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 21 v. Superior Court,
newspaper reporters, relying on CPRA, requested that the city of Oakland provide them with the
names, job titles, and gross salaries of all city employees who earned $100,000 or more in a
fiscal year. The city disclosed the salary and overtime information for each job classification, but
did not disclose individual names and corresponding salaries based on the belief that such
disclosure was improper under CPRA.
CPRA’s fundamental precept is that governmental records shall be disclosed to the public, upon
request, unless there is a legal basis not to do so. The employees’ group argued the salary
information was could not be disclosed because it fell within the Act’s exception for “[p]ersonnel,
medical or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy.”
The state Supreme Court ultimately concluded that disclosure of the information would not
constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Although some employees may prefer to keep
their salaries private, this preference does not outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure.
The purpose of CPRA is to give the public access to information that enables them to monitor the
functioning of their government. In its decision, the state Supreme Court said, “It is difficult to
imagine a more critical time for public scrutiny of its governmental decision-making process than
when the latter is determining how it shall spend public funds.” For this and other reasons, the
state Supreme Court concluded the information was subject to disclosure.
Although the specific ruling addressed the disclosure of individuals earning $100,000 or more, the
state Supreme Court’s reasoning would seem to apply broadly to all public employees.
In the second opinion, Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training v. Superior Court, a
newspaper reporter asked the commission for the names, employing departments, and hiring and
termination dates of California peace officers that are listed in the commission’s database.
The newspaper wanted the information in order to determine why and how often peace officers
leave one agency in order to serve in another, whether particular agencies are better able to
retain more experienced officers, and whether officers who are dismissed from one or more
agencies nonetheless are hired by another.
The state Supreme Court concluded, in general, the information is subject to disclosure.
Although it was acknowledged, however, there may be instances in which disclosure is not
proper. In its ruling the state Supreme Court said “If the duties of a particular officer, such as one
who is operating undercover, demand anonymity, the need to protect the officer’s safety and 6
effectiveness would certainly justify the Commission in withholding information identifying him or
her.”
The decisions can be accessed on the California Supreme Court’s Web site at
www.courtinfo.ca.gov.
_____________________________________________________________________________
ASU Offers Workshop on Immigration and Government - Sept. 26-28
Arizona State University is offering a two-day workshop in Phoenix, Ariz., that will examine the
impact of immigration on the Southwest. Set for Sept. 26-28, the workshop is titled “Immigration
and the Public Sector: Your World is Changing...How will You Respond?” The conference will
bring together over 200 public officials, administrators, immigration experts and senior
academics.
The goal of the conference is to feature broad perspective by bridging immigration policy and
practice. Participants will have an opportunity to examine the challenges local government faces
associated with serving immigrants in terms of public health and safety, social welfare,
infrastructure and more. Conference attendees will learn from public policy experts and their
fellow public servants.
Large plenary sessions will feature nationally-recognized immigration experts. During the smaller
break-out sessions, participants will have a chance to talk with their colleagues about how they
face the challenge of serving new residents in their own communities.
Guest speakers include:
• Terry Goddard, attorney general, State of Arizona
• Harold “Bud” Hodgkinson, director, Center for Demographic Policy
• Linda Chavez, author and commentator
• Eliseo Medina, executive vice president, Service Employees International Union
• Alfredo Gutierrez, principal, Tequida & Gutierrez
• Richard De Uriarte, columnist, Arizona Republic
Register Now
The workshop costs $485 and registration can be completed online at
http://ramseyexecutive.asu.edu/ by clicking on Registration and Online Payment Forms. The
conference will take place at the Crowne Plaza Hotel, located at I-17 and Peoria Ave., in Phoenix.
For more information, please call (602) 496-1300.
_____________________________________________________________________________
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.
_____________________________________________________________________________