October 6, 2006
Issue #39-2006
WANT MORE DETAILS
ON BILLS?
Visit the League of
California Cities
website at
www.cacities.org/
billsearch.
LEAGUE TO HOST LEGISLATIVE BRIEFINGS IN NOVEMBER
COMMUNITY MEDIA CONFERENCE SET FOR OCTOBER
EASIER WAY TO FINANCE CAPITAL PROJECTS—FAST
LEGISLATIVE ROUNDUP: ENVIRONMENTAL, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES,
AND PUBLIC WORKS
HOUSING/LAND USE UPDATE: THAT’S A (LEGISLATIVE) WRAP
LEGISLATION UPDATE: GOVERNOR CONCLUDES ACTIONS TO SIGN AND
VETO BILLS
??????????????????????? ???????????????
??????????????????????? ???????????????
Page 2
Page 3
‘No Prop. 90’ Editorials and Coalition Members Continue to Increase
More organizations and news outlets took a stand against Proposition 90,
the “taxpayer trap” measure on the November ballot, this week. It was the San
Francisco Chronicle’s investigative report by Patrick Hoge, however, that
grabbed headlines. For more, see Page 7.
PROP. 90 UPDATE: REPORT EXPOSES
‘DECEPTIVE’ PROP. 90 FUNDING
Earlier this week, Gov. Schwarzengger held a variety of press events
across California in support of the infrastructure bond measures (Propositions
1A-1E) on the November ballot. For more, see Page 9.
GOVERNOR HOLDS PRESS CONFERENCES TO ENCOURAGE
SUPPORT FOR INFRASTRUCTURE BONDS
Below is an update on the federal issues the League is monitoring. The
update includes an outlook on FY 2007 appropriations, homeland security
appropriations, port security, immigration reform, property rights, water
projects and information on the Senate confirmation of Mary E. Peters as
Transportation Secretary. For more, see Page 14.
FEDERAL UPDATE
Page 5
Page 6Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org PAGE 2 - PRIORITY FOCUS
October 6, 2006 - Issue #39
The League of California Cities will be hosting
legislative briefings in both Northern and Southern
California next month, which will give a detailed
overview on the 2006 legislative session.
The Northern California briefing will be held on
November 15, at the Sacramento Convention
Center in Sacramento, while the Southern Califor-
nia briefing will be conducted at the Paradise Pier
Hotel in Anaheim on November 16. The same
program will be held at both locations, with regis-
tration open at 8:30 a.m. The program will con-
clude at 2 p.m.
Registration is $140 per person, and may be
done online at www.cacities.org/events. Contact
the League of California Cities Conference Regis-
tration Desk at (916) 658-8291 for questions
regarding this event.
Below is the schedule of events:
Registration Open - 8:30 a.m.
General Sessions - 9:30 - Noon
• General overview of the 2006 session:
Getting Something Done
• Analysis of Election Results and Voter
Trends, Including the Fate of the Infrastruc-
ture Package and Proposition 90
• The Legislature and The State Budget –
What’s Next?
• Revenue & Taxation Issues
• Telecommunications Issues
• Land Use and Housing Issues
General Luncheon - Noon – 1 p.m.
Commentary on the November Elections and
Prospects for 2007
Northern California Speaker: Pat Wiggins,
Former Assembly Member, State Senate Candi-
date, 2nd District (Invited)
Southern California Speaker: Bob Hertzberg,
Partner, Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, LLP , Former
Speaker, California State Assembly
General Sessions – 1 p.m. – 2 p.m.
• Environmental Issues
• Transportation and Public Works Issues
• Public Safety Issues
• Employment Issues
• Public Records/Open Meetings
Adjourn – 2 p.m.
LEAGUE TO HOST LEGISLATIVE BRIEFINGS IN NOVEMBER
The Alliance for Community Media (ACM)
Western Region Board is hosting “Community
Media: This Way Forward” – a regional conference
focused on community media and technology – on
October 27-28 at the Hilton San Jose.
The conference will feature more than 25
workshops on a variety of subjects, including
telecommunications legislation, emerging digital
media tools, innovative government and educa-
tional channels and much more. The event’s
luncheon keynote speaker will be Norm Soloman,
a renowned media critic and author. The Wave
film festival awards will also be held in conjunction
with the conference on Friday, October 27, at the
new San Jose City Hall and Rotunda.
For more information on the conference, and
to register, visit www.acmwest.org.
??????????? ????????????
COMMUNITY MEDIA CONFERENCE SET
FOR OCTOBER
Restore and protect local control for cities
through education and advocacy to enhance
the quality of life for all Californians.
Our MissionPRIORITY FOCUS - PAGE 3 Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org
October 6, 2006 - Issue #39
California Communities, the joint powers
authority established by the League of California
Cities and the California State Association of
Counties (CSAC), is pleased to introduce the
Funding Assets Statewide (FAST) program – a
new financing option providing California cities and
counties easy, efficient and low-cost financing for
capital projects and equipment.
• Do you have a capital project or major
equipment purchase that needs to be completed
quickly?
• Do you have a financing need that seems
to be just too small to justify all the steps needed
to put together another bond transaction?
• Do you have a project which seems to fall
outside the scope of your traditional bank/vendor
leasing program?
• Does the whole public market financing
process just seem to be too much work with all
the competing priorities facing your city today?
If your answer to any of these questions is
“yes,” California Communities’ FAST program may
be for you!
Developed by the League and CSAC after a
competitive RFP process, FAST can provide
significant cost savings and other benefits versus
traditional COP/Lease Revenue Bonds, Master
Lease programs and vendor leasing alternatives
California Communities will make available up
to $500 million under the FAST program, to be
used by local agencies on a first-come, first-
served basis. Local agencies that foresee the
need to finance capital project expenditures or
major equipment acquisition during the next 12
months are encouraged to apply now
For more information, please contact either of
the following individuals:
Dan Harrison
Director of Admin. Services
League of California Cities
(916) 658-8267
dharrison@cacities.org
James Hamill
Program Manager
California Communities
(925) 933-9229 x216
jhamill@cacommunities.org
T errence Murphy
Program Manager
California Communities
(925) 933-9229 x223
tmurphy@cacommunities.org
EASIER WAY TO FINANCE CAPITAL PROJECTS—FAST
California Communities Introduces the $500 Million Funding Assets Statewide (FAST) Program
It was down to the wire last week for several
key bills followed by the League – as well as
some modest “sleeper” bills. What was the
Governor going to do? There was a mix of sur-
prise, suspense, and no surprise. Here is a
summary of some of the key environmental bills,
as well as a sprinkling of bills in other areas.
Environmental
In the environmental arena, 2006 was quite an
impressive year. The Governor signed AB 32
(Núñez), which dealt with climate change – one of
the most highly publicized bills of the year. The
League was neutral on AB 32. Although the flood
bills stalled, action on a variety of other environ-
mental bills will be of interest to cities.
For small cities, one of the most important
bills is SB 1733 (Aanestad) and its trailer bill, AB
1752 (Levine). SB 1733 makes changes to the
mandatory minimum penalty law for water quality
violations. It provides more flexibility to small cities
LEGISLATIVE ROUNDUP:
ENVIRONMENTAL, ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES, AND PUBLIC WORKS
???????????????????? ????
Continued on Page 4Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org PAGE 4 - PRIORITY FOCUS
October 6, 2006 - Issue #39
so that they may request directing penalties for
waste water violations to fixing the problem that
caused the violation. It redefines the definition of a
small community and “financial hardship” so that
more cities can request to take advantage of this
option.
The following are a few modest “sleeper” bills
signed by the Governor that will be of interest to
cities:
• AB 3056 (Hancock) – makes changes to
the bottle bill that will enhance the recycling of
beverage containers. The League supported AB
3056.
• AB 2211 (Karnette) – illegal dumping
grants; among other items, includes a provision
authorizing partial grant funding for the removal or
abatement of solid waste from a municipal storm
water system. The League supported AB 2211.
• AB 1341 (Ruskin) – California Pollution
Control Financing Authority (CPCFA); extends the
sunset for the CPCFA’s Sustainable Communities
Grant and Loan Program from 2007 to 2012, and
increases the total amount available for grants and
loans to cities and counties from $5 million to $7.5
million; also requires an applicant for funding by
CPCFA to provide documentation that the project
has complied with CEQA or is not a project under
CEQA before the issuance of bonds can be
approved. The League supported AB 1341.
• AB 2746 (Blakeslee) – environmental
mitigation; allows a public agency to authorize a
nonprofit organization to hold title to, monitor, and
manage an interest in real property that the agency
requires a property owner to transfer to the agency
to mitigate any adverse impact upon natural
resources caused by permitting the development
of a project or facility. The League supported AB
2746.
• AB 2449 (Levine) – plastic bag recycling;
requires all stores over a certain size to establish
a program for consumer take back and recycling
of plastic grocery bags; includes limited local pre-
emption. Cities and counties would be prohibited
from enacting fees on plastic bags, but would be
permitted to ban the use of plastic bags and adopt
ordinances requiring stores not covered by the bill
to establish plastic bag recycling programs. The
bill sunsets in six years and the League was
neutral on this end of the session negotiated
measure.
Administrative Services
Perhaps one of the most exciting actions is
the Governor’s signature of AB 2951 (Goldberg), a
bill dealing with capital facilities fees for local
agency utilities. Previous versions of the bill were
vetoed twice by Govs. Davis and
Schwarzenegger - proving the old proverb, “third
time’s a charm.”
AB 2951 clarifies existing law regarding the
obligation of schools and other public agencies to
pay their fair share of capital facilities fees for
municipal utilities such as water and waste water
service. The League thanks Assemblymember
Jackie Goldberg for her leadership on this issue.
Unfortunately, the Governor vetoed SB 1818
(Alarcon), an action not unexpected. SB 1818
would have authorized local agencies that prevail
in court when sued by big-box retailers to be
awarded attorney fees, under certain circum-
stances. But, the Governor did sign SB 1179
(Morrow) several weeks ago, lowering the age
threshold from 14 to 12 and extending the sunset
for limited protection against lawsuits for injuries
to skateboarders at public skateparks.
Public Works
The Governor signed AB 573 (Wolk), restrict-
ing the types of indemnification clauses that may
be included in a public agency contract with a
design or engineering firm and would instead
specify the types of indemnity clauses that may
be included. The League opposed AB 573,
although some cities expressed strong opposi-
tion, while some indicated they can live with the
bill and a few supported it.
???? ?????????????????????????????????????? LEG ROUNDUP from page 3PRIORITY FOCUS - PAGE 5 Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org
October 6, 2006 - Issue #39
The Legislature has adjourned, Gov.
Schwarzenegger has finished signing bills, and
the dust is just settling over the newly adopted
bills. But outside of the redevelopment issue,
2006 will be remembered as rather a ho-hum year
for housing—unless, of course, either Prop. 90 or
the Housing Bond (Prop. 1C) passes in Novem-
ber. Below is a summary of some of the League’s
legislative housing and land use efforts.
The League started this year by sponsoring a
number of bills that would help create incentives
for local agencies to build housing. For example,
SB 1754 (Lowenthal) would have created incre-
ment finance zones for high density housing near
transit; AB 2484 (Hancock) would have capped the
application of the density bonus law where local
agencies have already zoned at high levels; and
AB 2468 (Salinas) would have allowed local
governments to self-certify their housing elements
if they voluntarily designate locations where their
lower income housing allocations can be built “by
right.” Although these bills were held up at various
points in the legislative process, they served an
important purpose: they helped education the
members of the Legislature of how local agencies
are part of the housing solution.
If the League was unsuccessful in getting its
legislation passed however, it was very successful
in stopping several bills that cities opposed—such
as a the creation of “housing opportunity plans”
and a 20-year land supply (SB 1800 [Ducheny]);
increased state oversight over affordable house
(AB 2526 [Arambula]); expand attorney fee provi-
sions for affordable housing litigation (SB 1330
[Dunn]), or to tweak the incentive and waiver
provisions of the density bonus law yet again (SB
1177 [Hollingsworth]).
It would seem, then, that the year was a draw.
Nevertheless, two bills were signed by the Gover-
nor that deserve mention:
• AB 2511 (Jones). Makes several changes
to affordable housing laws: local agencies that do
not file an annual report on progress on their
housing elements will be subject to court sanction;
the Anti-NIMBY Law will now be called the Housing
Accountability Act; affordable housing eligible for
expedited processing under the Permit Streamlin-
ing Act is now specifically defined.
• AB 2634 (Lieber). Clarifies that the very-
low income number assigned under the RHNA
process includes a proportional number of ex-
tremely low-income households based on census
data.
A more complete list of housing bills will be
available at the League’s Legislative Update
Conference to be held on November 15 in Sacra-
mento and November 16 in Anaheim (see
www.cacities.org/events for details).
Bills Vetoed. Also of note, however, were
several bills that the Governor vetoed, not the least
of which was SB 1322 (Cedillo), which limited
local control over the siting and approval of emer-
gency shelters and “super group homes” (seven
or more beds).
The Governor also vetoed AB 2922 (Jones).
This was another bill that started on the League’s
priority list because of the sweeping impacts it
would have to housing and redevelopment law. In
the end, however, it was limited to expanding the
rights of those who could sue to enforce
affordability covenants in redevelopment areas. In
his veto message, however, the governor cited
this expanded standing as the primary problem
with the law.
Visit (and bookmark!) the League’s
Legislative Resources 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.
FIND A BILL, LEGISLATORS, LEG
COMMITTEE - OR ASK LEG STAFF
HOUSING/LAND USE UPDATE: THAT’S A (LEGISLATIVE) WRAPVisit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org PAGE 6 - PRIORITY FOCUS
October 6, 2006 - Issue #39
As city officials know, the deadline for Gov.
Schwarzenegger to sign or veto bills that reached
his desk was midnight on September 30. Below
is an update of the bills mentioned in last week’s
Priority Focus that had been pending at the time
of last week’s publication, but have now been
acted upon by the Governor. A complete list of
the bills the League was monitoring is available
on the League website at www.cacities.org.
Administrative Services
SB 1818 (Alarcon). Attorney Fees. Big Box
Lawsuits. SB 1818 would permit cities to
recover attorney fees under certain circum-
stances when they are sued by big box retailers.
Staff: Yvonne Hunter, Position: Signature
Requested. Status: VETOED
Employee Relations
AB 1368 (Karnette). Workers’ Compensa-
tion. AB 1368 would exempt public safety em-
ployee presumptive injury claims from the
Governor’s 2004 workers’ compensation reforms,
which included requiring physicians who prepare
reports on claimed industrial disability to address
the issue of causation. Staff: P. Anthony Tho-
mas, Position: Veto Requested. Status:
SIGNED – Chapter 836, Statutes of 2006
Environmental
AB 2951 (Goldberg). Capital Facilities
Fees. AB 2951clarifies existing law regarding the
obligation of schools and other public agencies to
pay their fair share of capital facilities fees for
municipal utilities such as water and waste water
service. Staff: Yvonne Hunter, Position: Signa-
ture Requested. Status: SIGNED – Chapter
866, Statutes of 2006
Land Use and Housing
SB 1322 (Cedillo) – Housing. SB 1322
would limit an agency’s discretion on “special
needs facilities” serving seven or more people by
limiting the authority to condition or deny a project
on factors in current law. This limitation would
apply to all special needs facilities regardless of
size: a 150 bed facility must be treated the same
as an eight-bed facility. SB 1322 would extend the
attorney fee provisions to allow awards to anyone
who could occupy a special need facility, social
rehabilitation facility, adult day program facility, or
community care facility. As a result, this provision
unnecessarily encourages lawsuits and litigation in
the land use planning process. Staff: Bill
Higgins, Position: Veto Requested. Status:
VETOED
Public Safety
AB 1873 (Torrico). Child Protection. Safe
Surrender. AB 1873 will allow a local fire agency,
upon approval of the appropriate governing board,
to designate safe-surrender sites for accepting
physical custody of a minor child 30 days old or
younger. Staff: Liisa Lawson Stark, Position:
Signature Requested. Status: VETOED
Revenue & Taxation
SB 1432 (Lowenthal). Mello-Roos Districts.
SB 1432 would expand the authorized use of
Mello-Roos districts to include lighting mainte-
nance, street and road maintenance, plowing and
removal of snow and graffiti management and
removal. The bill also expands Mello-Roos districts
to include programs to create incentives or to
subsidize construction, rehabilitation or acquisition
of housing for lower income households. Staff:
Dan Carrigg; Position: Signature Requested.
Status: VETOED
SB 1374 (Cedillo). Franchise Tax Board.
SB 1374 will extend the sunset date of 2008 on
existing law that allows cities to continue in their
tax discovery efforts by allowing the Franchise Tax
Board (FTB) to share taxpayer information. Staff:
Dan Carrigg; Position: Request Signature.
Status: SIGNED – Chapter 513, Statutes of
2006
Continued on Page 7
LEGISLATION UPDATE: GOVERNOR CONCLUDES
ACTIONS TO SIGN AND VETO BILLSPRIORITY FOCUS - PAGE 7 Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org
October 6, 2006 - Issue #39
SB 1317 (Torlakson). Property Taxes.
Energy Facilities. SB 1317 would allocate new
property tax revenue related to newly constructed
generation, substation facilities and transmission
lines by a location-based method. SB 1317 would
not change the allocation of property taxes for
existing electric generation and transmission line
facilities. Staff: Dan Carrigg; Position: Request
Signature. Status: SIGNED – Chapter 872,
Statutes of 2006
? ? ? ???????? LEG UPDATE from page 6 ???? ?????????? PROP. 90 from page 1
Continued on Page 8
The report, which ran in the Chronicle’s Octo-
ber 5 edition, exposes the complicated and shady
web of out-of-state organizations bankrolling the
campaign in support of Proposition 90. Hardly a
grassroots movement, the Chronicle reveals “Yes
on 90” is funded by a network of tax-exempt
advocacy groups that “operate with varying levels
of openness” and all with ties to New York real
estate mogul Howie Rich, who “is funneling
millions of dollars to the (Prop. 90) campaign … in
a way that cloaks the identity and number of
financial supporters.”
For more, visit www.noprop90.com.
Editorials Against Prop. 90 Continue to
Mount
The San Jose Mercury News ran an editorial
calling Prop. 90 a “serious threat to taxpayers, to
consumers, to the environment.”
Here is a key quote from that editorial:
“[Prop. 90] would require the state or local
government to pay property owners for ‘substan-
tial economic losses’ that result from any new
laws and rules... And it places no limit on lawsuits,
so that even the most frivolous claims will lead to
costly litigation.” – San Jose Mercury News (10/2/
06)
The San Francisco Examiner and Woodland
Daily Democrat also followed suit, publishing their
own editorials against the measure.
“Under Prop. 90, taxpayers would bail out a
class of injured property owners. A taxpayer
Armageddon, anyone?” – San Francisco Exam-
iner (10/5/06)
“Far from protecting property rights, it will
curtail the ability of communities and homeowners
to influence development plans - unless taxpayers
are prepared to pay millions to builders and land
owners whose projects are rejected.” – Woodland
Daily Democrat (10/5/06)
Don’t miss this opportunity to get the
League’s most useful reference tool.
This comprehensive California
directory provides important contact
information for mayors, council
members and city department heads.
The directory also features the
League’s staff directory, League
partners, affiliate organizations and a
wide variety of advertisers.
INFORMATION YOU NEED, RIGHT
AT YOUR FINGERTIPS!
Purchase this publication online at
www.cacities.org/store or call (916)
658-8257 for an order form. City
officials price $30, non-city officials
price $65, plus shipping & handling.
2006 CITY HALL
DIRECTORYVisit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org PAGE 8 - PRIORITY FOCUS
October 6, 2006 - Issue #39
Continued on Page 9
This now brings the total number of editorials
against the measure to 13, which includes:
• Woodland Daily Democrat (10/5/06)
• San Francisco Examiner (10/5/06)
• San Jose Mercury News (10/2/06)
• Pasadena Star News, (9/27/06)
• Whittier Daily News, (9/27/06)
• San Gabriel Valley Tribune, (9/27/06)
• Riverside Press-Enterprise, (9/25/06)
• Sacramento Bee, (9/16/06)
• Napa Valley Register, (9/14/06)
• Mountain View Voice, (9/08/06)
• Santa Rosa Press Democrat, (9/11/06)
• Torrance Daily Breeze, (8/23/06)
• San Diego Union-Tribune, (8/22/06)
Study Finds Prop. 90 Would Cost
Taxpayers ‘Billions’ Annually
A new independent study released by a team
of economists at LECG Consulting, led by former
legislative analyst Dr. William Hamm, has con-
cluded that “the costs imposed on the taxpayers
by Proposition 90 would amount to billions of
dollars annually.”
The report, “The Fiscal Impact of Proposition
90” was released on September 27. Among the
key findings of the report are:
• Proposition 90 would increase the annual
cost of state and local government in California by
billions of dollars.
• By increasing the cost of public works, like
schools, roads, water systems, flood protection
and utility services, Prop. 90 would curtail infra-
structure development. For example, Caltrans is
projecting that Proposition 90 will lead to more
than $180 million in project schedule delay costs
over the next seven years, and another $43 million
per year in added litigation-related expenses —
without even considering the higher property
acquisition costs that the measure will require the
agency to pay for highway improvements.
• By increasing the cost of regulation, Prop
90 would reduce government’s ability to regulate
land use, protect consumers and workers, and
safeguard the environment.
The new report also includes an in-depth
analysis of the measure and its provisions, and
the likely impact on state and local government
actions in California.
According to LECG, two features of Proposi-
tion 90 are mainly responsible for the measure’s
multi-billion-dollar price tag:
• The measure would require government
(and the taxpayers) to pay businesses and indi-
viduals whenever it passes laws or adopts regula-
tions intended to protect the public’s interest (other
than health- and safety-related) that substantially
affect property values.
• Proposition 90 also would significantly
increase the amount that government and state-
regulated, investor-owned utilities are required to
pay owners when their property is acquired
through eminent domain for public uses such as
roads, schools, hospitals, airports, utility transmis-
sion lines, and power plants.
Under current law, government must compen-
sate owners by paying them the fair market value
of their property, taking into consideration existing
limitations on how the property can be used (e.g.,
zoning restrictions). In some cases, Proposition
90 would require government to pay owners more
than the fair market value of their property by
directing courts to ignore these use limitations.
For a copy of the full report, visit
www.noprop90.com.
‘No on Prop. 90’ Coalition Continues to
Grow. More and more organizations and individu-
als are joining the “No on Prop. 90” coalition, as
they become more familiar with the cynical “tax-
payer trap” provisions in this measure. Here is a
list of those individuals and organizations that
have joined this week. For a complete list, visit
www.noprop.90.com.
???????????????????????????? ??????????????????? PROP. 90 from page 7PRIORITY FOCUS - PAGE 9 Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org
October 6, 2006 - Issue #39
Business:
• Ventura County Economic Development
Association
• Salinas Valley Chamber of Commerce
• Greater Concord Chamber of Commerce
• San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce
• Monterey Peninsula Chamber of
Commerce
• Greater Riverside Chambers of
Commerce
Housing Advocates/Providers:
• Council of Community Housing Organiza-
tions
Public Safety:
• National Guard Association of California –
PAC
Organized Labor:
• Professional Engineers in California
Government
Water:
• Yolo County Water Agency
• Western Municipal Water District
• Eastern Municipal Water District
• Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District
• Yolo County Flood Control & Water
Conservation District
Environment:
• Wildlife Corridor Conservation Authority
• Golden Gate Audubon Society
Preservation:
• Los Angeles Conservancy
Government:
• American Planning Association, San Diego
‘No on 90’ Walk Pieces Available Soon
Planning to walk precincts in the next few
weeks?
???????????????????????????? ???????????????????
PROP. 90 from page 8
Held in Sherman Oaks, Bakersfield, San
Pablo and Sacramento, the Governor and local
officials from in and around the cities focused on
the impact the bond measures’ passage would
have on the local area and the state as a whole.
Cities, home to more than 80 percent of
California’s approximate 37 million residents,
would particularly benefit from the increased
funding for infrastructure projects, given the sharp
influx of people into the state.
“Propositions 1A through 1E and 84 are crucial
to the development of cities and communities
throughout California,” said League Executive
Director Chris McKenzie at the Sherman Oaks
event. “With the state’s population increasing by
500,000 each year, cities need to respond with
more housing, schools, improved transportation
systems, flood control and other infrastructure
projects to support California’s growth. The
infrastructure bond package will help provide the
funding do that. Every city and community in
California wins.”
Continued on Page 10
???????? ???????????????
INFRASTRUCTURE from page 1
If so, please consider carrying a “No on 90”
message with you when you do. The campaign is
producing a two-sided color piece that you can
use to help educate voters about this harmful
measure. Similar to the piece that was available at
“No on Prop. 90” information desk at the League’s
Annual Conference, it will outline the impacts of
Prop. 90 to taxpayers, the environment, public
safety, infrastructure and our communities on the
front, and the back will feature a partial list of the
diverse groups who are opposed. Walk pieces
should be available soon. Contact your Regional
Representative to reserve yours today.
Know the Rules for Ballot Measure Advo-
cacy. City officials can participate in ballot mea-
sure advocacy if they do so on their own time,
and without using any public resources. To make
sure you understand the “do’s and don’ts” of ballot
measure advocacy, please review “Working on a
Ballot Measure Campaign: Some Rules for City
Officials,” at www.cacities.org/ballotmeasures.Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org PAGE 10 - PRIORITY FOCUS
October 6, 2006 - Issue #39
These factors make it easy to see why in-
creased funding for infrastructure is so crucial for
California cities, and is a top priority for the
League. It’s why the League worked hard this past
year to encourage the Legislature and Gov.
Schwarzenegger to place the infrastructure
funding measures on the November ballot – and
why we are urging cities to support all six infra-
structure measures: Propositions 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D,
1E (placed on the ballot by the Legislature) and
Proposition 84 (placed on the ballot through the
initiative process).
Your City Wins If Voters Pass These Mea-
sures. The following summarizes these mea-
sures, and why they are so important for cities.
(See also the story on our website: “What Cities
Can Do To Help Rebuild California’s Infrastruc-
ture.”)
Proposition 1A - Transportation Funding
Protection. Legislative Constitutional Amend-
ment. (Prop. 42 Reform)
This measure is not a bond, but a constitu-
tional amendment designed to “fix” Proposition 42
– the 2002 ballot measures that funded transpor-
tation — by permanently dedicating the sales tax
on gasoline to transportation purposes (with
narrow exceptions).
Like the League-sponsored Prop. 1A of 2004,
which protected local tax revenues from further
state takeaways, this measure will restrict the
Legislature’s ability to borrow the Prop. 42 funds
to the following:
• The Governor must declare that the state
faces a severe fiscal hardship, and the Legisla-
ture must enact a statute authorizing the borrow-
ing by two-thirds vote. At the same time, the
Legislature must pass a bill specifying that they
will repay the loan with interest within three years.
• The state can borrow the funds no more
than twice in 10 years, and must repay a prior
loan before borrowing.
• Any Prop. 42 transportation funds that
were borrowed by the state but not repaid as of
July 1, 2007, must be repaid within a 10 year
period (no later than June 30, 2016) at payment of
no less than one-tenth per year of the total amount
owed.
The measure also authorizes the Legislature
to provide for the issuance of bonds by state or
local agencies in accordance with the established
Prop. 42 allocation methodology. (See also: “Prop.
42 Funding: We Need to Pass Both Prop. 1A and
1B”.)
Proposition 1B - Highway Safety, Traffic Re-
duction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act
of 2006.
Specific allocations benefiting cities include the
following:
• $2 billion for the Local Street and Road
Improvement, Congestion Relief, and Traffic
Safety Account, allocated directly to cities and
counties for traffic congestion relief, traffic safety,
transit, storm damage, maintenance, construction
and other projects to improve the local street and
road system. $1 billion will go directly to cities
(minimum $400,000 allocation), and $1 billion
will go directly to counties.
• $4.5 billion to Corridor Mobility Improve-
ment Account to fund performance improvements
on highly congested travel corridors. This includes
major access routes to the state highway system
on the local road systems that relieve congestion.
• $1 billion for improvements to State Route
99 traversing approximately 400 miles of the
Central Valley.
• $3.1 billion for the California Ports Infra-
structure, Security, and Air Quality Improvement
Act. Of the $3.1 billion, $2 billion is to fund im-
provements to trade corridors, $1 billion to State
Air Resources Board for emission reductions
related to goods movement, and $100 million for
the Office of Emergency Services for publicly -
owned port, harbor and ferry terminal improve-
ments.
• $200 million for school bus retrofitting and
Continued on Page 11
INFRASTRUCTURE from page 9 ???????????????????????????????????????PRIORITY FOCUS - PAGE 11 Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org
October 6, 2006 - Issue #39
replacement to reduce air pollution.
• $2 billion for projects in the State Transpor-
tation Improvement Program (STIP).
• $4 billion for the Public Transportation
Modernization Improvement and Service Enhance-
ment Account for improvements to intercity rail and
other transit-related projects and improvements.
Of the $4 billion, $400 million is dedicated to rail
improvements and purchase of railcars and
locomotives.
• $1 billion for the State-Local Partnership
Program Account for transportation projects
nominated by a regional transportation agency.
This program requires a dollar for dollar match of
local funds.
• $1 billion for the Transit System Safety,
Security and Disaster Response Account for
projects that increase protection again security and
safety and develop disaster response for public
transit systems.
• $125 million for the Local Bridge Seismic
Retrofit Account for seismic work on local bridges,
ramps, and overpasses.
• $750 million for the Highway Safety, Reha-
bilitation and Preservation Account (SHOPP) for
safety, rehabilitation and preservation projects on
state highway systems. $250 million of the funds in
this account are for technology-based improve-
ments to improve safety, operations and effective
capacity of local streets and roads.
• $250 million for the Highway-Railroad
Crossing Safety Account for completion of high-
priority grade separation and railroad crossing
safety improvements.
Proposition 1C - Housing and Emergency
Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2006.
Prop. 1C contains $2.85 billion in funding to
address a range of housing needs, including $1.35
billion that helps cities address housing-related
infrastructure issues:
• Infill Housing Construction - $850 million
in grants for development of public infrastructure
projects that facilitate or support infill housing
construction. Projects could include water, sewer
and transportation improvements, traffic mitiga-
tion, brownfield clean up and up to an additional
$200 million for parks
• Urban, Suburban and Rural Parks -
$200 million
• Transit-Oriented Development - $300
million to develop and construct housing and
infrastructure projects within close proximity to
transit stations
Cities also benefit from other funding con-
tained in Prop. 1C:
• Affordable Home Ownership Programs
- $725 million to help over 23,600 families be-
come or remain homeowners
• Affordable Housing Construction
Programs - $345 million for affordable rental
housing for more than 4,000 families
• Housing for Farmworkers - $135 million
to build rental and home ownership oppor- tunities
to help farm workers
• Homeless Permanent Housing Con-
struction - $245 million to build permanent
housing for the homeless, those transitioning out
of homelessness and foster care youth
• Homeless Shelter Housing Construc-
tion - $50 million to construct and expand home-
less shelters of last resort and transitional hous-
ing for the homeless
For the Legislative Analyst’s Office summary
of Prop. 1C and all the November 2006 ballot
measures, visit www.lao.ca.gov.
Proposition 1D - Kindergarten - University
Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2006.
This measure would provide $10.4 billion in
bonds to be deposited into the 2006 State School
Facilities fund, which will be used to meet capital
outlay needs of higher educational facilities, and
finance grants for construction and renovation of
schools, including charter schools and facilities
for career technical education programs, and to
relieve overcrowded schools. This also includes
Continued on Page 12
INFRASTRUCTURE from page 10
???????????????????????????????????????Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org PAGE 12 - PRIORITY FOCUS
October 6, 2006 - Issue #39
$29 million to fund joint-use projects for
construction of K-12 school facilities.
• $1.9 billion for new construction of school
facilities.
• $500 million for providing school facilities
to charter schools.
• $3.3 billion for modernization of school
facilities.
• $500 million for facilities for career techni-
cal education programs.
• $1 billion for new construction to fund
severely overcrowded school sites.
• $1.5 billion for CA Community Colleges.
• $890 million for UC and Hastings College
of Law.
• $690 million for CSU.
Proposition 1E - Disaster Preparedness and
Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006.
This bond would provide a total of $4.09 billion
to prevent flooding by repairing levees and other
flood control infrastructure in the Sacramento-San
Joaquin River Delta and elsewhere. The funds will
be allocated as follows:
• $3 billion to evaluate, repair, rehabilitate,
reconstruct or replace levees, weirs, bypasses
and facilities contained in the state flood control
plan; improve or add facilities to increase levels of
flood prevention; and reduce the risk of levee
failure.
• $500 million to cover the past and future
obligations under the flood control subvention
payments to local governments for qualifying
projects.
• $290 million for the protection, creation,
and enhancement of flood protection corridors and
bypasses, including fund for floodplain mapping.
• $300 million for grants (with local match) to
manage storm water runoff to reduce flood dam-
age and provide benefits such as ground water
recharge, water quality improvement and ecosys-
tem.
Proposition 84 - Water Quality, Safety and
Supply. Flood Control. Natural Resource
Protection. Park Improvements. Bonds. Initia-
tive Statute.
Proposition 84, a $5.4 billion initiative slated for
the November 2006 statewide ballot, provides
funding for all of the major natural resource pro-
tection and water programs at the state level. The
total amount of funding for water programs is
$2.714 billion and includes:
$240 Million for Safe Drinking Water
• $10 million for Emergency Safe Drinking
Water Projects
• $180 million for Small Community Grants
• $50 million for Safe Drinking Water
Revolving Fund
$1.28 Billion for Integrated Water Management and
Water Quality
• $80 million for the Clean Water Revolving
Fund
• $1 billion for Integrated Regional Water
Management Grants (DWR)
• $60 million for Groundwater Cleanup
Loans and Grants (DHS)
• $130 million for Delta Water Quality
Improvement
• $15 million for Agricultural Pollution
Reduction
$800 Million for Flood Control
• $30 million for Floodplain Mapping
• $275 million for Flood Control
• $275 million for Delta Levees
• $180 million for Subventions
• $40 million for Flood Corridors
$65 Million for Statewide Water Planning and
Design
• Surface Water Storage Planning and
Feasibility (CalFed)
Continued on Page 13
??????????????????????????????????????? INFRASTRUCTURE from page 11PRIORITY FOCUS - PAGE 13 Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org
October 6, 2006 - Issue #39
• Evaluation of Climate Change Impacts on
Flood and Water Systems
• Flood Protection Improvement
• Other Studies Related to Integration of
Flood and Water Systems
$928 Million for Protection of Rivers, Lakes and
Streams
• $90 million for Stormwater Cleanup
(TMDLs)
• $180 million for Environmental Conflicts
Related to Water Projects
• $90 million for Colorado River, QSA and
Salton Sea
• $54 million for Public Access to State
Water Projects (State’s obligation)
• $72 million for River Parkways and $18
million for Urban Streams
• $72 million for the LA/San Gabriel Rivers
• $36 million for the San Joaquin River
• $36 million for Coachella/Desert Area
• $45 million for the Santa Ana River
• $90 million for Sierra Nevada Rivers and
Lake T ahoe
• $45 million for Restoration/Conservation
projects (California Conservation Corps)
• $100 million for San Joaquin River
Restoration
$450 Million for Wildlife and Forest Conservation
• $180 million for Forests
• $135 million for Wildlife
• $90 million for Natural Community
Conservation Plans
• $45 million for Working Landscapes
• $15 million for Grazing Land
• $15 million for Oak Woodlands
• $10 million for Farmland Conservancy
Program
• $5 million for Wildlife Stewardship Grants
$540 Million for Beaches, Bays and Coastal
Protection
• $90 million for Clean Beaches (coastal
stormwater/TMDLs)
• $225 million for Bays
• $108 million for the San Francisco Bay
• $45 million for the Monterey Bay
• $45 million for the Santa Monica Bay
Watersheds
• $27 million for the San Diego Bay
• $135 million for the State Coastal
Conservancy
• $90 million for the Ocean Protection Trust
Fund
$500 Million for Parks and Nature Education
Centers
• $400 million for State Parks
• $100 million for Nature Education Centers,
Museums and Aquariums
$580 Million for Sustainable Communities
• $90 million for Urban Greening and Joint
Use Projects
• $400 million for Local and Regional Parks
• $90 million for Planning and Incentives for
Resource Conservation
Note: To view the language of any of these
measures as well as support and opposition
arguments, visit the Secretary of State’s website at
www.ss.ca.gov.
INFRASTRUCTURE from page 12 ???????????????????????????????????????
For more information on this and For more information on this and For more information on this and For more information on this and For more information on this and
other League issues, visit other League issues, visit other League issues, visit other League issues, visit other League issues, visit
www.cacities.org. www.cacities.org. www.cacities.org. www.cacities.org. www.cacities.org.Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org PAGE 14 - PRIORITY FOCUS
October 6, 2006 - Issue #39
Initiative grants (a $5 million increase compared to
the FY 2006 enacted level);
• $375 million for Law Enforcement Terror-
ism Prevention Grant Program (a $65 million
decrease compared to the FY 2006 enacted level);
• $547 million for FIRE Grants (a $108
million decrease compared to the FY 2006 en-
acted level);
• $200 million for Emergency Management
Performance Grant Program (a $15 million in-
crease compared to the FY 2006 enacted level);
• $210 million for port security grants (a $36
million increase over the FY 2006 enacted level);
• $175 million for rail and transit security
grants (a $27 million increase compared to the FY
2006 enacted level);
• $50 million for buffer zone protection plan
grants (a $1.5 million increase compared to the FY
2006 enacted level);
• $50 million for the commercial equipment
direct assistance program (a $1.5 million increase
over the FY 2006 enacted level);
• $145 million for the National Domestic
Preparedness Consortium (a $1.45 million in-
crease over the FY 2006 enacted level);
• $662 million for firefighter assistance
grants, of which $115,000,000 is for SAFER Act
grants (a $13.75 million increase over the FY 2006
enacted level)
Congress also included reforms to the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in the FY
2007 spending bill. The measure contains lan-
guage that will elevate the standing of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) within
the Department of Homeland Security and restore
the nexus between emergency preparedness and
response using an all hazards approach. The
president signed the measure into law on October
4.
Port Security
On September 30, Congress passed the
conference agreement on H.R. 4954, the Security
and Accountability For Every (SAFE) Port Act. The
???????????????????????????? ????????????
Continued on Page 15
FY 2007 Appropriations Outlook
On Friday, September 29, Congress passed
and the president signed into law a continuing
resolution (CR), which will fund all federal pro-
grams that were not enacted through annual
appropriations bills by the October 1 start of FY
2007. Defense and Homeland Security Appro-
priations are not covered under the CR, as Con-
gress passed the FY 2007 spending bills shortly
before adjourning to campaign for the November
elections.
The CR will extend federal funding for the
remaining federal programs through November 17
at the lowest of the House-passed or FY 2006
spending levels. An exception is the Labor-HHS-
Education spending measure (H.R. 5647). Since
the bill has not passed in the House or the Sen-
ate, funding for the programs covered by that bill
will be left at the FY 2006 level.
House and Senate leaders hope to complete
the 10 remaining appropriations bills when Con-
gress returns for a post-election legislative ses-
sion on November 13.
FY 2007 Homeland Security Appropria-
tions
Also on September 29, Congress passed the
conference agreement on H.R. 5441, the FY 2007
Homeland Security Appropriations bill. The
legislation provides $31.9 billion in discretionary
funding and $1.8 billion in emergency appropria-
tions for border security, with $1.2 billion provided
for a border fence that combines physical infra-
structure, vehicle barriers and sensor technology.
The agreement maintains current law for all
formula grants, and provides the following
amounts for domestic homeland security pro-
grams:
• $525 million for the State Homeland
Security Grant Program (a $50 million decrease
compared to FY 2006 enacted levels);
• $770 million for Urban Area Security
FEDERAL UPDATE from page 1PRIORITY FOCUS - PAGE 15 Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org
October 6, 2006 - Issue #39
conference report would authorize $400 million
annually from FY 2007 through 2011 for local port
security grants. It also would authorize $443
million for the container security initiative and $212
million for the Customs-Trade Partnership Against
Terrorism (C-TPAT) over the life of the measure.
C-TPAT is a voluntary supply chain security
program led by U.S. Customs and Border Protec-
tion (CBP) and focused on improving the security
of private companies’ supply chains with respect
to terrorism. The bill would also require the 22
largest U.S. ports to scan all incoming containers
for radiological weapons by the end of 2007.
The Conference report did not include $4.5
billion in rail and mass transit security from the
Senate-passed version of the measure. The bill
has been sent to the president, who is expected to
sign the measure into law.
Immigration Reform
Prior to adjourning last week, the House
passed a series of immigration reform measures
comprised of elements of H.R. 4437, a broader
border security/immigration reform bill passed by
the chamber in November of 2005. Two of those
bills were also adopted by the Senate—H.R. 4830
and H.R. 6061.
The language of H.R. 4830, which would set
new criminal penalties for constructing tunnels
under the U.S. border and double penalties for
smuggling illegal immigrants, drugs, weapons of
mass destruction or other illegal items through an
illegal tunnel, was included in the final House and
Senate-passed FY 2007 Homeland Security
appropriations conference agreement. H.R. 6061
authorizes 700 miles of fencing along the south-
western border with Mexico. President Bush is
expected to sign the bill, which would also autho-
rize a “virtual fence” of sensors, cameras, un-
manned aerial vehicles and other surveillance
technology to be deployed along the border.
House and Senate leaders remain at odds
over major provisions of a more expansive immi-
gration reform package. House Republican
leadership continues to embrace a border-security
first approach to any overhaul of federal immigra-
tion law, and oppose language in the Senate-
passed immigration reform measure (S. 2611)
that would establish a guest worker program and
a path to citizenship for the estimated 12 million
illegal immigrants in the country. Facing a full
legislative calendar when they return for a post-
election session in November, legislators are
unlikely to pass comprehensive immigration
reform this year.
House Passes Local Zoning Pre-Emption
Legislation
On September 29, the House approved H.R.
4772, the Private Property Rights Implementation
Act of 2006 by a vote of 231-181. The measure
failed to gain the requisite number of votes neces-
sary for passage earlier in the week when Repub-
lican leaders brought it to the floor for consider-
ation under suspension of the rules, an expedited
procedure that requires a two-thirds majority (270
votes) for passage. The bill was successful upon
returning to the floor on September 29 under a rule
that required a simple majority to pass.
The bill would impact land-use regulation
nationwide, allowing developers and property
owners to challenge local and state rulings in
federal court, rather than in state court, as current
law dictates. The bill would also enable large
developers with significant financial resources
who are unhappy with unfavorable local zoning
decisions to tie up cities and zoning boards in
costly litigation every zoning decision in federal
courts.
The majority of the California Congressional
delegation opposed the measure. A breakdown of
the delegation’s vote on the measure is below.
The Senate is not expected to act on the bill when
Congress returns for a short legislative session
following the November elections.
FEDERAL UPDATE from page 14
?????????????????????????????????????? ? Continued on Page 16ction ction ction ction ction
Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org PAGE 16 - PRIORITY FOCUS
October 6, 2006 - Issue #39
Conference discussions remain stalled over
how projects are reviewed and approved, and what
oversight should be imposed on the Corps. Similar
disagreements have stalled efforts to pass a water
projects authorization bill for several years. None
has been enacted since 2000 (PL 106-541). Con-
ferees remain hopeful that they will be able to reach
agreement on these outstanding issues and present
a final conference report for House and Senate floor
approval when Members return in November for the
brief post-election session.
Senate Approves New Transportation
Secretary
On September 30, the Senate confirmed Mary
E. Peters as Transportation Secretary. The former
head of the Federal Highway Administration, Peters
helped negotiate last year’s the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy
for Users (SAFETEA-LU; PL 109-59), and will be the
second woman ever to lead the Transportation
Department. Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.) was the
first female Transportation Secretary, and led the
department from 1983 to 1987.
Peters headed the Federal Highway Administra-
tion from 2001 through 2005 and the Arizona Depart-
ment of Transportation from 1998 through 2001.
During her time as highway administrator, she was
an outspoken supporter of increasing private invest-
ment in public roads, an affinity she recently reiter-
ated. Since 2005 she has been the national director
for transportation policy and consulting at the archi-
tectural, engineering and consulting firm HDR Inc.
Peters, a Republican, will replace Norman
Mineta, the nation’s longest-serving Transportation
Secretary and the lone Democrat in President
Bush’s cabinet, who stepped down on July 7.
Although Peters garnered bipartisan praise at her
September 20 nomination hearing, senators did
seek assurances that she would support transporta-
tion policies important to each of them. Sen.Frank
Lautenberg (D-N.J.), urged Peters to ensure that the
administration adequately supports all forms of
transportation, particularly rail.
?????????????????????????????????????? ? FEDERAL UPDATE from page 15
Yeas (24)
Baca
Bilbray
Bono
Calvert
Campbell
Cardoza
Costa
Doolittle
Dreier
Filner
Gallegly
Herger
Hunter
Issa
Lewis
Lungren
McKeon
Gary Miller
Nunes
Pombo
Radanovich
Rohrabacher
Royce
Thomas
Water Projects Bill Awaits Action in
Post-Election Session
House and Senate conferees failed to reach
agreement on the long-awaited re-authorization of
the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA)
prior to adjourning for the October recess. The bill in
conference would authorize the Army Corps of
Engineers to undertake hundreds of navigation, flood
control, dredging and other water projects. The
White House has raised concerns over the cost of
the legislation, though it has not threatened to veto
the bill.
Nays (29)
Becerra
Berman
Capps
Davis
Eshoo
Farr
Harman
Honda
Lantos
Lee
Lofgren
Matsui
Millender-McDonald
George Miller
Napolitano
Pelosi
Roybal-Allard
Loretta Sanchez
Linda Sanchez
Schiff
Sherman
Solis
Stark
Tauscher
Thompson
Waters
Watson
Waxman
Woolsey
October 13, 2006
Issue #40-2006
WANT MORE DETAILS
ON BILLS?
Visit the League of
California Cities
website at
www.cacities.org/
billsearch.
2006 LEAGUE FIRE CHIEFS LEADERSHIP SEMINAR COMING UP!
??????????????????????? ???????????????
??????????????????????? ???????????????
Page 2
The TV advertisement campaign against Proposition 90, the “taxpayer
trap” measure on the November ballot, began this past Wednesday, October
11. Two commercials - a 30-second spot and a 15-second spot - are airing
on major networks in select cities throughout California, beginning with Sacra-
mento and Los Angeles and expanding to other markets shortly.
For more, see Page 4.
PROP. 90 UPDATE: PUSH AGAINST PROP. 90 STRENGTHENS,
ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN BEGINS
Are you interested in working to help form policy direction for the League of
California Cities? If so, now is the time for city officials who wish to serve on
a League policy committee in 2007 to request an appointment from their
division or department president, or from League President Maria Alegria.
For more, see Page 3.
WANT TO HELP FORM LEAGUE POLICY?
APPLY NOW TO SERVE ON A POLICY COMMITTEE IN 2007
The League of California Cities Fiscal Officers Department is hosting the
Financial Management Seminar and Mini Expo in La Jolla on November 29
through December 1. Sessions will cover a wide range of financial topics,
including the future of the state’s economy and a legislative and ballot election
update by League staff. For more, see Page 2.
LEAGUE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
SEMINAR FILLING UP FAST!Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org PAGE 2 - PRIORITY FOCUS
October 13, 2006 - Issue #40
The 2006 League Fire Chiefs Seminar will be
held from November 29 through December 1 in La
Jolla (San Diego) at the Hilton Torrey Pines.
Ruben Grijalva, director, California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection and Kate Dargan,
assistant state fire marshal, will be the seminar’s
opening speakers.
A sample of this year’s seminar topics include:
• An Update of the California Fire Assistance
Program
• Urbanization and Disasters: Living in a
Dangerous World
• Emerging Labor Management Trends
• Flu Pandemic and First Responders
• Personal Health and Wellness
• Ethical Leadership and Values
In addition to the informative sessions, this is
also a great opportunity for new and experienced
fire chiefs to network and learn about vendors and
programs.
The cost of the 2006 League Fire Chiefs
Leadership Seminar is $430 for city officials, $550
for others, and $125 for guest/spouse. The
deadline for online registration for both the semi-
nar and housing is October 30, otherwise registra-
tion may be done on-site. Those registering online
will also receive a $20 CityBooks coupon! Regis-
tration may be completed at www.cacities.org/
events.
2006 LEAGUE FIRE CHIEFS LEADERSHIP
SEMINAR COMING UP!
To be held at the Hilton Torrey Pines hotel, the
seminar’s schedule will also include “Growing Your
Own Successors,” led by Frank Benest and “Man-
aging GASB 45 Liabilities” from a panel of speakers
that includes Donald Field from Orrick, Herrington
and Sutcliffe, Robert Hornaday from Keenan &
Associates, and Kenneth Marzion from the Califor-
nia Public Employees Retirement System
(CalPERS).
Concurrent session topics will cover the following:
• The Proposition 218 “Squeeze”
• Trends in Housing & Redevelopment
• A Road Map to Improving Your Infrastruc-
ture
• UUT Jeopardy – a session about current
and future threats to the Utility Users Tax
• Mandate This! – a session about the
mandates process, reforms and what it
could mean to your city pocketbook
• Explorations in Financial Ethics
• The Fair Labor Standards Act: Is it Fair or
Standard?
The closing general session speaker will be the
always hilarious Colin McKechnie, who will leave
seminar attendees with ideas on how to pursue the
“Stress-Less Path to Success.” Colin is an interna-
tionally recognized training consultant and known
for his interesting sessions that offer insight into life
using humor. His sessions are praised by the likes
of Queen Elizabeth II of England and the Prime
Minister of Malaysia.
To register, please visit www.cacities.org/events.
Cost for this event is $430 for city officials, $550 for
other attendees and $125 for guest/spouse.
Registration must be received no later than 5 p.m.
on Monday, October 30. If you register online,
you’ll also receive a coupon for $20 for CityBooks!
Otherwise, registration must be done on-site.
Aside from the great education you’ll receive,
the Financial Management Seminar is the perfect
place to network during the two evening recep-
tions. There are lots of opportunities for you to
meet new colleagues and catch up with old friends
in beautiful La Jolla! We look forward to seeing you
there!
??????? ??????? SEMINAR from page 1
Visit (and bookmark!) the League’s
Legislative Resources 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.
FIND A BILL, LEGISLATORS, LEG
COMMITTEE - OR ASK LEG STAFFPRIORITY FOCUS - PAGE 3 Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org
October 13, 2006 - Issue #40
What Are League Policy Committees? The
League’s eight policy committees are composed
of city officials from around the state. Policy
committees help to make League policy by review-
ing legislation, suggesting broad new policy guide-
lines and studying key issues impacting cities.
Policy committees were created by the League’s
board of directors to assist it in its policy delibera-
tions.
The eight standing policy committees are:
• Administrative Services
• Community Services
• Employee Relations
• Environmental Quality
• Housing, Community and Economic
Development (HCED)
• Public Safety
• Revenue and T axation
• Transportation, Communication and Public
Works (TCPW)
What Is the Role of League Policy Commit-
tees? More than 400 elected and appointed city
officials serve on policy committees, and partici-
pate directly in establishing League policy. They
add their collective expertise, wisdom and opinions
to the policy debate that is the foundation of
League policy. Recommendations from the policy
committees are forwarded to the League’s board
of directors.
Policy Committee Meetings in 2007 Almost
Set. Policy committees generally meet three to
four times per year at facilities near an airport
served by Southwest Airlines. Meetings are held on
Thursdays and Fridays and generally run from 10
a.m. to 3 p.m. and include lunch. The locations
generally rotate between north and south and the
meeting days switch each year.
For 2007, the meeting dates and locations are
as follows: January 11-12 in Sacramento and
March 29-30 in Ontario; June dates are likely to be
28-29 at a Northern California location to be
determined, but this is still tentative.
Thursday meetings will be: Community
Services; Employee Relations; Revenue and
Taxation; Public Safety
Friday meetings will be: Administrative
Services; Environmental Quality; HCED; TCPW
How To Become A Policy Committee Mem-
ber? It is easy to become a member of a policy
committee. First, decide what policy areas inter-
est you, and which policy committee you would
like to serve on. Second, ask your division or
department president to appoint you to that policy
committee. Third, if those slots are already filled,
you may request the League president to appoint
you to a committee. The majority of appointments
are made each year between October and De-
cember.
Please be aware that all appointments end at
the conclusion of each year’s annual conference.
Re-appointments are not automatic and must be
requested each year. League bylaws provide that
each division has two appointments and each
department has one appointment. The League
president may appoint 16 members to each policy
committee.
If you wish to pursue a League Presidential
Appointment, please write or e-mail League
President Maria Alegria with your request. It is
helpful to include a brief background statement
about yourself. In addition, remember to indicate
on which committee you wish to serve.
League Presidential Appointment requests
should be sent to the League’s office: c/o Linda
Welch Hicks, 1400 K Street, Sacramento, CA
95814. E-mail requests are acceptable and
should be sent to lhicks@cacities.org.
Questions? If you have questions or need
assistance, please do not hesitate to contact
League staff at (916) 658-8224.
? ???????????????????????????????????????????????? POLICY from page 1Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org PAGE 4 - PRIORITY FOCUS
October 13, 2006 - Issue #40
The first 30-second spot, “Many Groups,
Many Reasons,” includes quotes from diverse
organizations like the League of Women Voters of
California, California Small Business Association,
National Wildlife Federation, League of California
Homeowners, and California Taxpayers’ Associa-
tion.
The second ad, entitled “Scale,” is a 15-
second spot that also highlights the diverse coali-
tion opposing Proposition 90 and informs voters
that the vast majority of funding to support Propo-
sition 90 has come from large out-of-state devel-
opers.
To view both ads, visit www.noprop90.com.
‘No Prop. 90’ Editorials Up to 26, Coalition
Increases Membership
Twelve more editorials were published during
the past week against Prop. 90. The additions
have brought the total in California to 26, with no
signs of slowing down. One of more notable
quotes came from the Los Angeles Daily News,
which said Prop. 90 goes “far past reasonable.”
“Proposition 90 is the classic Trojan horse
measure that appears to be benign, but carries a
terrible reality at its core. That dark core is that it
redefines property rights to an absurd extreme that
could do severe damage to future financial health
and physical development. … Virtually the only
group to benefit from Proposition 90 will be land-
use lawyers and a few property owners and
speculators. But the rest of us will pay dearly for it.
Vote no on Proposition 90.” -Los Angeles Daily
News (10/10/06)
The Palm Springs Desert Sun spotlighted the
measure’s negative impact on the protection given
to the public.
“The best costume prize this month should go
to Proposition 90, a real wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Proponents say the measure is about protecting
private property rights, but it’s really about limiting
protections for the public good. Voters should be
wary of this deception and reject the measure.” -
Palm Springs Desert Sun (10/6/06)
Here is the current listing of editorials written
against Proposition 90:
• Los Angeles Times, (10/12/06)
• Monterey County Weekly, (10/12/06)
• Contra Costa Times, (10/11/06)
• Los Angeles Daily News, (10/10/06)
• Sonoma Index-Tribune, (10/10/06)
• Fresno Bee, (10/9/06)
• Santa Maria Times, (10/8/06)
• Modesto Bee, (10/6/06)
• Palm Springs Desert Sun, (10/6/06)
• Milpitas Post, (10/5/06)
• San Francisco Examiner, (10/5/06)
• Woodland Daily Democrat, (10/4/06)
• San Francisco Bay Guardian, (10/4/06)
• Paradise Post, (10/3/06)
• San Jose Mercury News, (10/2/06)
• Pasadena Star News, (9/27/06)
• Whittier Daily News, (9/27/06)
• San Gabriel Valley Tribune, (9/27/06)
• Riverside Press-Enterprise, (9/25/06)
• Gilroy Dispatch, (9/22/06)
• Sacramento Bee, (9/16/06)
• Napa Valley Register, (9/14/06)
• Mountain View Voice, (9/08/06)
• Santa Rosa Press Democrat, (9/11/06)
• Torrance Daily Breeze, (8/23/06)
• San Diego Union-Tribune, (8/22/06)
San Francisco Chronicle Report Exposes
‘Deceptive’ Prop. 90 Funding
Last week, an investigative report by the San
Francisco Chronicle quoted a number of political-
finance and watchdog organizations calling the
out-of-state funding of Prop. 90 such terms as:
“deceptive,” “secretive,” and “dirty.”
Written by Patrick Hoge, the story ran in the
Chronicle’s October 5 edition and exposed the
Continued on Page 5
PROP. 90 from page 1 ????????????????????????? ??????????????????????PRIORITY FOCUS - PAGE 5 Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org
October 13, 2006 - Issue #40
complicated and shady web of out-of-state organi-
zations bankrolling the campaign in support of
Proposition 90. The Chronicle revealed the “Yes
on 90” is funded by a network of tax-exempt
advocacy groups that “operate with varying levels
of openness” and all with ties to New York real
estate mogul Howie Rich, who “is funneling
millions of dollars to the (Prop. 90) campaign … in
a way that cloaks the identity and number of
financial supporters.”
For more, visit www.noprop90.com.
‘No on 90’ Coalition Continues to Grow
More and more organizations and individuals
are joining the “No on 90, Californians Against the
Taxpayer Trap” coalition, as they become more
familiar with the cynical “taxpayer trap” provisions
in this measure. Here is a list of those individu-
als and organizations that have joined this
week. For a complete list, visit
www.noprop.90.com.
New Organization and Individual Endorse-
ments Week of 10/9-10/13:
Public Safety:
• California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection
Business:
• Southern California Leadership Council
• Tulare Chamber of Commerce
• Victorville Chamber of Commerce
• California Nations Indian Gaming
Association
• Inland Action, Inc.
Homeowners:
• Hayward Mobilehome Owners Association
Organized Labor:
• California-Nevada Conference of
Operating Engineers
Ethnic:
• Mexican-American Legal Defense and
Educational Fund
• Multicultural Education Training and
Advocacy, Inc.
• Coalition for Economic Equity
• Center for Third World Organizing
• Filipinos for Affirmative Action
• Japanese American Citizens League
• Coalition of Black Trade Unionists
(Northern California Chapter)
• Asian Law Caucus
• California Immigrant Welfare Collaborative
• Centro Legal De La Raza
• Instituto Laboral De La Raza
• La Familia Counseling Service
Community:
• California Association of Nonprofits
Faith-Based:
• Progressive Jewish Alliance
• American Jewish Congress
Public Interest/Civil Rights:
• American Civil Liberties Union (Northern
California and Southern California
Chapters)
• People for the American Way
• Youth Force Coalition
• Anti-Defamation League
• California Abortion and Reproductive
Rights Action League
• California Women’s Agenda
• Disability Rights Education & Defense
Fund
• Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence
• Intergroup Clearinghouse
• National Center for Lesbian Rights
• Women’s International League for Peace
and Freedom
• Community United Against Violence
• Americans for Democratic Action –
Southern California Chapter
• Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom
PROP. 90 from page 4
????????????????????????????????????????????? ? ? Continued on Page 6Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org PAGE 6 - PRIORITY FOCUS
October 13, 2006 - Issue #40
• Californians for Justice
• Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice
• Justice Matters Institute
• AIDS Legal Referral Panel
• Charles Houston Bar Association
• Child Care Law Center
• Communities for a Better Environment
• Employment Law Center of the Legal Aid
Society of San Francisco
• Equal Justice Society
• Equal Rights Advocates
• First Amendment Project
• Housing Rights, Inc.
• Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the
San Francisco Bay Area
• Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
• Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute
• National Center for Youth Law
• National Lawyers Guild (San Francisco
Bay Area Chapter)
• Online Policy Group
Environmental:
• Heal The Bay
• Friends of Five Creeks
Water:
• Coachella Valley Water District
Study Finds Prop. 90 Would Cost Taxpay-
ers ‘Billions’ Annually. An independent study
released on September 27 by a team of econo-
mists at LECG Consulting, led by former legisla-
tive analyst Dr. William Hamm, has concluded
that “the costs imposed on the taxpayers by
Proposition 90 would amount to billions of dollars
annually.”
Entitled “The Fiscal Impact of Proposition 90,”
visit www.noprop90.com for a copy of the report
‘No on 90’ Walk Pieces Available Soon
Planning to walk precincts in the next few
weeks?
If so, please consider carrying a “No on 90”
message with you when you do. The campaign is
producing a two-sided color piece that you can use
to help educate voters about this harmful measure.
Similar to the piece that was available at “No on
Prop. 90” information desk at the League’s Annual
Conference, it will outline the impacts of Prop. 90
to taxpayers, the environment, public safety,
infrastructure and our communities on the front,
and the back will feature a partial list of the diverse
groups who are opposed. Walk pieces should be
available soon. Contact your Regional Represen-
tative to reserve yours today.
Know the Rules for Ballot Measure Advo-
cacy. City officials can participate in ballot mea-
sure advocacy if they do so on their own time,
and without using any public resources. To make
sure you understand the “do’s and don’ts” of ballot
measure advocacy, please review “Working on a
Ballot Measure Campaign: Some Rules for City
Officials” located at www.cacities.org/
ballotmeasures.
??????????????????????????????????? ????????????
PROP. 90 from page 5
The League wants to stay in touch!
Just because you are leaving your position
with the city doesn’t mean you stop caring
about or wanting to be involved in city
issues. Keep abreast of developments
affecting cities and the League by becom-
ing part of the League’s alumni group.
Members will receive periodic updates on
city issues and League activities. This is
the League’s way of saying “thank you” for
your public service—there is no fee for this
service.
To join, go to www.cacities.org/alumni
or send your contact information to
dharrison@cacities.org.
Leaving City Office? Retiring?