June 9, 2006
Issue #23-2006
WANT MORE DETAILS
ON BILLS?
Visit the League of
California Cities
website at
www.cacities.org/
billsearch.
AB 2987 (NÚÑEZ/LEVINE): WHY THIS BILL NEEDS WORK AB 2987 (NÚÑEZ/LEVINE): WHY THIS BILL NEEDS WORK AB 2987 (NÚÑEZ/LEVINE): WHY THIS BILL NEEDS WORK AB 2987 (NÚÑEZ/LEVINE): WHY THIS BILL NEEDS WORK AB 2987 (NÚÑEZ/LEVINE): WHY THIS BILL NEEDS WORK
BUDGET UPDATE: PROP 42 REPAYMENT STILL UNKNOWN BUDGET UPDATE: PROP 42 REPAYMENT STILL UNKNOWN BUDGET UPDATE: PROP 42 REPAYMENT STILL UNKNOWN BUDGET UPDATE: PROP 42 REPAYMENT STILL UNKNOWN BUDGET UPDATE: PROP 42 REPAYMENT STILL UNKNOWN
FIND A BILL, LEGISLATORS, LEG COMMITTEE - OR ASK LEG STAFF FIND A BILL, LEGISLATORS, LEG COMMITTEE - OR ASK LEG STAFF FIND A BILL, LEGISLATORS, LEG COMMITTEE - OR ASK LEG STAFF FIND A BILL, LEGISLATORS, LEG COMMITTEE - OR ASK LEG STAFF FIND A BILL, LEGISLATORS, LEG COMMITTEE - OR ASK LEG STAFF
HOW DID YOUR REPRESENTATIVES VOTE ON H.R. 5252? HOW DID YOUR REPRESENTATIVES VOTE ON H.R. 5252? HOW DID YOUR REPRESENTATIVES VOTE ON H.R. 5252? HOW DID YOUR REPRESENTATIVES VOTE ON H.R. 5252? HOW DID YOUR REPRESENTATIVES VOTE ON H.R. 5252?
LEGISLATIVE BILL SUMMARIES LEGISLATIVE BILL SUMMARIES LEGISLATIVE BILL SUMMARIES LEGISLATIVE BILL SUMMARIES LEGISLATIVE BILL SUMMARIES
Page 2 Page 2 Page 2 Page 2 Page 2
Page 3 Page 3 Page 3 Page 3 Page 3
??????????????????????? ???????????????
???????????????????????? ??????????????
Page 7 Page 7 Page 7 Page 7 Page 7
TELECOM UPDATE TELECOM UPDATE TELECOM UPDATE TELECOM UPDATE TELECOM UPDATE
As legislative bills move from their house of origin to the second house,
the myriad of flood bills working their way through the Legislature are receiving
more intense scrutiny and refinement. The realization has hit that some type
of coordination among and between the bills will be necessary to avoid pass-
ing conflicting policy or similar language in multiple bills that is cancelled out.
For more, see Page 5.
FLOOD BILLS INUNDATE LEGISLATURE FLOOD BILLS INUNDATE LEGISLATURE FLOOD BILLS INUNDATE LEGISLATURE FLOOD BILLS INUNDATE LEGISLATURE FLOOD BILLS INUNDATE LEGISLATURE
Page 10 Page 10 Page 10 Page 10 Page 10
League efforts on telecommunications reform legislation continued this
week at both the federal and state levels. For more, see Page 7.
HOUSE REJECTS CITIES’ AMENDMENTS, PASSES HOUSE REJECTS CITIES’ AMENDMENTS, PASSES HOUSE REJECTS CITIES’ AMENDMENTS, PASSES HOUSE REJECTS CITIES’ AMENDMENTS, PASSES HOUSE REJECTS CITIES’ AMENDMENTS, PASSES
FEDERAL TELECOM REFORM (H.R. 5252) FEDERAL TELECOM REFORM (H.R. 5252) FEDERAL TELECOM REFORM (H.R. 5252) FEDERAL TELECOM REFORM (H.R. 5252) FEDERAL TELECOM REFORM (H.R. 5252)
Page 11 Page 11 Page 11 Page 11 Page 11
On the evening of Thursday, June 8, the House passed H.R. 5252, the Com-
munications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006 (COPE Act)
by a vote of 321-101, with 11 members abstaining from the vote, including Califor-
nia Congresswoman Mary Bono. The COPE Act would replace the local fran-
chising process with a national franchise scheme for broadband and video
service providers. For more, see Page 9.Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org PAGE 2 - PRIORITY FOCUS
June 9, 2006 - Issue #23
AB 2987 (Núñez/Levine) would create a new
statewide franchise for cable and video service
providers, issued by the California Department of
Consumer Affairs. The bill’s supporters claim that
AB 2987 will guarantee “speed to market” for
telephone companies that want to offer video
services that compete with cable companies.
They argue that increased competition will offer
consumers lower rates and better service.
The League of California Cities supports
competition and a streamlined approach to fran-
chising. But we are greatly concerned over a
number of problems in AB 2987 that the authors
have yet to address.
The following summary identifies issues, and
possible amendments to address these concerns:
Discrimination/Build-Out/Redlining
Problem: Access to telephone service is
available to all Californians, regardless of income
levels and regardless of whether they live in urban
or rural areas, not due to market forces but be-
cause it was required by the state. Cable service
is available throughout most cities not because of
market forces but because it was required as part
of the local franchising process.
AB 2987 prohibits discrimination on the basis
of income, but only contains vague legislative
intent language concerning build-out. It pre-empts
local build-out requirements and is silent on
statewide build-out issues. AT&T has a business
build-out strategy that depends upon cherry-
picking.
Solution: Amend the bill to require that state
franchises must provide the same landline-based
broadband service throughout each local jurisdic-
tion within a specified number of years of providing
the service to the first customer within that juris-
diction. Provide that state franchisees must offer
the same landline-based broadband service
throughout their telephone service territory within
the state within a specified number of years.
Deployment throughout the state must occur
AB 2987 (NÚÑEZ/LEVINE): WHY THIS BILL NEEDS WORK AB 2987 (NÚÑEZ/LEVINE): WHY THIS BILL NEEDS WORK AB 2987 (NÚÑEZ/LEVINE): WHY THIS BILL NEEDS WORK AB 2987 (NÚÑEZ/LEVINE): WHY THIS BILL NEEDS WORK AB 2987 (NÚÑEZ/LEVINE): WHY THIS BILL NEEDS WORK
according to a phasing plan whereby phases
alternate between higher-income areas and lower-
income areas and between urban and rural areas.
Customer Service
Problem: Local agencies typically adopt and
enforce consumer protection/customer service
standards. The Federal Communications Com-
mission (FCC) has also established model cus-
tomer service standards that are not mandatory
but which many local agencies adopt or supple-
ment. Local agencies use a variety of enforce-
ment tools ranging from informal intervention
when customers have problems to imposition of
liquidated damages or civil penalties to franchise
termination.
AB 2987 pre-empts local customer service
standards, preserving only the more limited state
standards. As amended, the bill requires local
agencies to enforce the standards and authorizes
the imposition of liquidated damages, but pre-
empts franchise termination as a remedy. In other
words, the bill gives local agencies the responsi-
bility for ensuring consumer protection with little
real authority.
Solution. Leave in place local agency author-
ity to adopt customer service standards; at a
minimum, adopt the FCC standards as state
standards. Leave in place local authority to
enforce those standards, including franchise
termination in extreme cases.
Rights-of-Way Management
Problem: AB 2987 contains confusing and
conflicting language about who controls the public
rights-of-way. Proposed section 53058.7 provides
that a state franchisee can install a network within
public rights-of-way under the same terms and
conditions applicable to telephone corporations.
This is completely inconsistent with the remainder
of the bill, as it means that video providers can
provide services pursuant to Public Utilities Code
section 7901 without obtaining a franchise, paying
franchise fees, etc.
Continued on Page 3PRIORITY FOCUS - PAGE 3 Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org
June 9, 2006 - Issue #23
Additionally, the bill defines “right of way” as
“the area along and upon any public road or
highway, or along or across any of the waters or
lands within the state.” Therefore a holder of a
state franchise could theoretically place facilities
on any land within the state, public or private.
With AT&T planning to install large utility
boxes in order to deliver its “Project Lightspeed”
service, neighborhoods could be significantly
impacted by a loss of control over the rights-of-
way.
Solution: Amend the bill to provide that
nothing in the bill affects the authority of local
agencies to regulate the time/place/manner of the
use of the public rights-of-way provided it is done
in a manner consistent with the bill. Develop a
better definition of rights-of-way.
PEG Funding – Amount and Use
Problem: AB 2987 currently includes a blank
for the percentage of gross revenues that the
state franchised provider would pay to support
public, education and government channels
(“PEG”) – but an earlier version gave the provider
the choice of paying either 1 percent of gross
revenues or, at the provider’s option, a pro rata
share of the unpaid cash obligations of the
incumbent to fund both PEG channels and an
Institutional Network (i.e. telecommunications
lines connecting schools, libraries and other
public buildings).
One percent is woefully inadequate to even
fund PEG, let alone an I-Net, and is far less than
what many existing local franchises require.
Further, the option to pay a pro rata share of
unpaid cash obligations of the incumbent will
often be little or nothing, either because the
incumbent paid a large share of the funding up
front or because the incumbent provides in-kind
services and equipment rather than funding.
In addition, the bill limits use of the funds to
capital expenses, whereas many local franchises
? ? ???????????? AB 2987 AB 2987 AB 2987 AB 2987 AB 2987 from page 2 from page 2 from page 2 from page 2 from page 2
Continued on Page 4
The Budget Conference Committee continued
to meet this week to work on a compromise
between the Governor’s proposal, and Assembly
and Senate recommendations on state budget
expenditures. Most outstanding budget items have
been agreed upon, but the fate of Proposition 42
repayments is still undecided.
The League has heard several ideas circulat-
ing about the Proposition 42 repayments, includ-
ing:
• It will be part of negotiations between the
“Big 5” as a closer for the entire budget
package. (The Big 5 includes the Gover-
nor, Senate President pro Tem Don Perata,
Senate Minority Leader Dick Ackerman,
Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, and
Assembly Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy)
• The transportation portion of the budget will
be one package that includes Prop. 42
repayment and spillover revenue pay-
ments, instead of two separate items. For
more information on spillover revenue, see
“What Are the Spillover Funds?” located
at www.cacities.org/revandtax.
• $460 million of the Governor’s proposed
$920 million payback is being considered
to fund urban parks. The Senate recom-
mendation was to fund the payback at
$460 million (half of the Governor’s pro-
posal) and put $460 million back in to the
General Fund.
With a budget deadline of June 15 fast ap-
proaching, Legislative staff members have ex-
pressed extreme optimism that a state budget will
be passed on-time, or close to on-time, so we
anticipate action on the Proposition 42 repayment
budget item soon.
The League appreciates all correspondence
cities have made urging the early repayment of
$920 million of borrowed Proposition 42 funds,
including $245 million for local streets and roads.
BUDGET UPDATE: PROP 42 BUDGET UPDATE: PROP 42 BUDGET UPDATE: PROP 42 BUDGET UPDATE: PROP 42 BUDGET UPDATE: PROP 42
REPAYMENT STILL UNKNOWN REPAYMENT STILL UNKNOWN REPAYMENT STILL UNKNOWN REPAYMENT STILL UNKNOWN REPAYMENT STILL UNKNOWNVisit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org PAGE 4 - PRIORITY FOCUS
June 9, 2006 - Issue #23
ings. These requirements ensure that our kids
have the full range of educational tools, that people
without access to broadband can get it at libraries,
and that government agencies can better serve
the public. The bill would preempt these require-
ments.
Solution: Require operators to provide free
service to all public schools, libraries and other
public buildings.
Institutional Networks
Problem: Many local franchises require the
cable operator to provide an “Institutional Network”
(i.e. telecommunications lines connecting schools
and/or other government buildings). Institutional
Networks provide a tremendous benefit to local
government by providing high capacity voice/video/
data networks that they could never afford on their
own, while costing the operator relatively little due
to the fact that the incremental cost of building
additional capacity is relatively low.
The initial version of AB 2987 only provided for
funding of 1 percent of gross revenues to be used
for both PEG and Institutional Networks. As
discussed above, 1 percent is insufficient, and is
less than many agencies currently receive, for
PEG alone.
Further, even if the funding were sufficient, AB
2987 doesn’t require operators to provide an
Institutional Network even if paid for by the local
agency. The bill would effectively terminate exist-
ing Institutional Networks and prevent the deploy-
ment of new Institutional Networks.
Solution: Amend the bill to require operators
to provide an Institutional Network, with the number
of network connections or sites based on the
population of the local agency. Alternatively,
require existing Institutional Networks provided by
incumbents to continue, but require new entrants
to pay a proportionate share of the cost to the
incumbent.
? ??????????????????????????????????????????????
AB 2987 AB 2987 AB 2987 AB 2987 AB 2987 from page 3 from page 3 from page 3 from page 3 from page 3
allow the funds to be used for operational ex-
penses. (Federal law limits use of these funds to
capital expenses unless the franchise agreement
allows use for operational expenses.)
Solution: Amend AB 2987 to provide that
operators shall pay a specified amount of gross
revenues for PEG only (not I-Net, which should be
funded separately). Provide that these funds may
be used for either capital or operational expenses.
Franchise Fees
Problem: There are two problems. One is
that AB 2987 currently imposes a state franchise
fee that is remitted to the local agency. The
reason that a franchise fee generally is not consid-
ered a tax is that it is essentially rent for use of
property.
However, the state does not own local streets,
so it cannot impose the fee without it arguably
becoming a tax. Also, there is no purpose served
by having the fee imposed by the state and remit-
ted to the local agency rather than it simply being
imposed directly by the local agency. The state-
imposition approach will likely lead to litigation.
The other issue is that while AB 2987 provides
that local agencies will receive 5 percent of gross
revenues, it includes exclusions to the definition of
gross revenues that will result in a loss of rev-
enues to those local agencies.
Solution: Authorize local agencies to impose
a franchise fee not to exceed 5 percent of gross
revenues, provided that the fee is the same for all
equivalent providers. Provide that revenues from
bundled services shall be allocated between each
type of service in proportion to the price of each
service if provided separately.
Service to Schools, Libraries and Other
Public Buildings
Problem: Many local franchises require
operators to provide free video and data services
to public schools, libraries and other public build-PRIORITY FOCUS - PAGE 5 Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org
June 9, 2006 - Issue #23
Amended versions of several major bills have
now been published and can be reviewed by city
officials. Hearings on these bills are scheduled for
the next two or three weeks, prior to the antici-
pated legislative summer recess.
The following is a recap of the main flood bills
and the issues being discussed:
AB 1899 (Wolk). Show Me the Flood Pro-
tection.
AB 1899 is limited to the Sacramento and San
Joaquin Rivers watershed. It would require any
new development in a greenfield area (i.e., not
infill) that will flood to a depth of three feet or more
to have firm, 100-year flood protection before the
development is approved.
The measure would require a plan to be
implemented that would provide 200-year protec-
tion for that development in 10 years. In the
interim, the developer would be required to pro-
vide notice to buyers that the area is at risk for
flooding and to provide flood insurance for the
property until it reaches 200-year protection, but
for no more than 10 years.
The League has no position on AB 1899 at this
time. Assemblymember Wolk’s office has ac-
cepted a number of amendments requested by
the League. City officials from the League’s flood
working group, as well as from impacted cities,
will meet in the League office to evaluate the bill
and develop a recommendation on what position
the League should take that will be considered by
League policy committees and the board of
directors.
Interesting, earlier this week, representatives
from the League, the California State Association
of Counties (CSAC), Regional Council of Rural
Counties (RCRC) and the American Planning
Association, California Chapter (APA) met with
representatives of the Department of Water
Resources (DWR) to be briefed on a proposal
Continued on Page 6
DWR is developing that could be considered as
an alternative to the process contained in AB
1899.
The dialogue at that meeting was productive,
although at this time, no formal proposal is avail-
able. The League will continue to be very much
engaged in the discussions surrounding AB 1899
and other proposals.
AB 1899 will be heard in the Senate Local
Government Committee on June 21 and if passed,
will then be heard in the Senate Judiciary Commit-
tee hearing on June 27.
AB 802 (Wolk). Flood Protection. General
Plans.
The new amendments of AB 802 reflect many
months of collaborative work between
Assemblymember Wolk’s office and the League,
CSAC, RCRC and APA. As amended, AB 802
would require cities and counties to amend their
general plans to include more robust policies on
flood protection and mitigation.
For example, the measure takes several
options from the General Plan Guidelines that
address flood issues in the safety element which
are currently optional and makes them mandatory.
These items were selected because they are
considered to be the type of basic topics that
safety elements should address.
The bill also includes a provision to require that
when a city or county receives its Regional Hous-
ing Needs Assessment (RHNA) number from the
Council of Governments or the California Depart-
ment of Housing and Community Development
(HCD), that the factors used to determine the
RHNA number include consideration of flood risk
on land available for housing and/or the cost of
housing. Discussions are still ongoing to craft
language to authorize fees to be charged to cover
the mandated costs to local agencies to comply
with the bill.
?????????????????????????? ?????????????????
FLOOD BILLS FLOOD BILLS FLOOD BILLS FLOOD BILLS FLOOD BILLS from page 1 from page 1 from page 1 from page 1 from page 1Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org PAGE 6 - PRIORITY FOCUS
June 9, 2006 - Issue #23
Section 12657 of AB 1665 (pages 19-20,
especially lines 7 to 17 on page 20) would require
that before the state will contribute any funds to
upgrade a levee beyond its original design flows,
cities and counties that “lie in whole or in part
within the benefited area of that provide” must have
executed an agreement with DWR whereby “those
cities and counties agree to be subject to joint
liability and contribution when any action related to
the project is brought against the state.”
The liability sharing requirement does not apply
to “projects where repairs are being made to
restore previous levels of flood protection associ-
ated with specific design flows.” The League
views this provision as counterproductive to
improving flood protection. Why would a local
government help fund a levee upgrade beyond its
original design specifications – or even beyond the
minimum state or federal requirements – if by
doing so the city would share in the state’s liability?
This is a disincentive to local governments to
improve flood protection and could be viewed as
an incentive to deny new housing developments in
areas where increased flood protection is needed.
It could also be viewed as a disincentive to improve
levee protection in existing urbanized areas where
aging levees need upgrading. The League has
shared these views with DWR representatives.
The League is studying AB 1665, but unless
the liability provision is deleted the League will
oppose the bill. Impacted cities should review AB
1665 and send their comments to
Assemblymember Laird and the League office. AB
1665 will be heard in the Senate Natural Re-
sources and Water Committee on June 20.
SB 1796 (Florez). Reclamation Board.
SB 1796 proposes to restructure the State
Reclamation Board and to direct the board to
review development projects and land use plans to
ensure flood protection. While the League does not
have a position on the Reclamation Board compo-
sition portion of the bill, we had expressed concern
? ? ?????????????????????????????????????????
FLOOD BILLS FLOOD BILLS FLOOD BILLS FLOOD BILLS FLOOD BILLS from page 5 from page 5 from page 5 from page 5 from page 5
The League anticipates ultimately supporting
AB 802. We thank the author and her staff for
their willingness to work through the issues with
local governments. AB 802 will be heard in the
Senate Local Government Committee on June
21.
AB 1665 (Laird). Flood Control.
Last year, AB 1665 was the lead flood bill
moving through the Legislature, focusing on
notification of flood risk, analysis of levee integrity
and other moderate steps improve flood preven-
tion in California. Notwithstanding the effects
from Hurricane Katrina, however, the bill stalled,
in spite of weeks of intense negotiations among
many stakeholders.
This week, AB 1665 was substantially
amended to address a variety of new issues,
many of which are designed to enable the Depart-
ment of Water Resources to better plan for and
respond to flood risks. It applies only to areas
within the geographical jurisdiction of the State
Reclamation Board – the watershed of the Sacra-
mento and San Joaquin Rivers.
While most of the provisions deal with admin-
istrative or procedural issues, several may be of
interest to local governments that are behind
levees, regardless of whether or not the levees
are owned or operated by another local agency.
Cities are encouraged to review those sections
and send their comments to Assemblymember
Laird and the League.
Of significant interest to cities is a provision
that is designed to provide liability relief to the
state for flooding from failures in state project
levees. Since the state paid out nearly $500
billion in damages due to the Paterno decision
(Paterno v. State of California, [2003]), it has
searched for ways to share that liability with cities
and counties, even if the cities and counties have
no control over the ownership and operation of a
levee.
Continued on Page 7PRIORITY FOCUS - PAGE 7 Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org
June 9, 2006 - Issue #23
about the ambiguities in the bill regarding the
Reclamation Board’s land use authority.
At the bill’s hearing in the Senate Natural
Resources and Water Committee several months
ago, the Sen. Florez committed to work with
interested parties, including the League, to clarify
any ambiguity to make sure that the Reclamation
Board does not step into land use authority. An
agreement has been reached on language neces-
sary to address the League’s concerns, and we
anticipate amendments will be in print shortly. SB
1796 has passed the Senate and is pending in the
Assembly.
Liability Still a Concern for Local Govern-
ment
Although AB 3050 (Jones), which would have
required cities and counties to share in the state’s
liability for flood damages, failed in the Assembly,
the issue is far from dead. Besides being included
in AB 1665, we anticipate that this issue will appear
in several other bills.
The League’s position is that we oppose efforts
to shift all or part of the state’s flood liability on to
cities and counties simply because they approve
development in areas behind levees. In addition,
the League believes that if the local government
approves the development consistent with existing
state or federal law related to development in
floodplains or behind levees, then cities and coun-
ties should not be liable.
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 FIND A BILL, LEGISLATORS, LEG FIND A BILL, LEGISLATORS, LEG FIND A BILL, LEGISLATORS, LEG FIND A BILL, LEGISLATORS, LEG
COMMITTEE - OR ASK LEG STAFF COMMITTEE - OR ASK LEG STAFF COMMITTEE - OR ASK LEG STAFF COMMITTEE - OR ASK LEG STAFF COMMITTEE - OR ASK LEG STAFF
TELECOM TELECOM TELECOM TELECOM TELECOM from page 1 from page 1 from page 1 from page 1 from page 1
??????????????
Continued on Page 8
????? ??????
FLOOD BILLS FLOOD BILLS FLOOD BILLS FLOOD BILLS FLOOD BILLS from page 6 from page 6 from page 6 from page 6 from page 6
In Congress, the House of Representatives
took up and passed H.R. 5252, the “Communica-
tions Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement
Act of 2006” (“COPE”), on a vote of 321-101.
(See “House Rejects Cities’ Amendments,
Passes Federal Telecom Reform H.R. 5252”, p.
1.)
AB 2987 Lobbying Continues
In California, League lobbying staff joined with
the California State Association of Counties
(CSAC), and other groups in a meeting to discuss
amendments to AB 2987 (Núñez/Levine) with key
legislative policy staff.
This bill has now advanced to the Senate, and
is likely to be heard in the Senate Committee on
Energy, Utilities and Communications (Sen. E, U
& C) on June 20. Sen. Martha Escutia (D–
Whittier) chairs the committee. Other committee
members are: Sen. Richard Alarcon (D-Sun
Valley), Sen. Jim Battin (R–La Quinta), Sen.
Debra Bowen (D-Marina del Rey), Sen. Dave Cox,
vice chair (R-Fair Oaks), Sen. Joseph Dunn (D-
Santa Ana), Sen. Bob Dutton (R-Rancho
Cucamonga), Sen. Christine Kehoe (D-San
Diego), Sen. Kevin Murray (D-Los Angeles), and
Sen. Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto).
We understand that there is a possibility that
following its hearing in Sen. E, U & C, the bill could
be referred to the Senate Local Government
Committee, chaired by Sen. Kehoe. This is not a
certainty; Sen. Kehoe is also a member of the
Sen. E, U & C Committee, and could satisfy her
questions and concerns during that committee’s
hearing of the bill.
Redlining Remains a Key Concern
The League is continuing to work on several
fronts to educate legislators about the need to
amend AB 2987 to address the very serious
issues that the bill presents for communities:
redlining of services; lack of customer serviceVisit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org PAGE 8 - PRIORITY FOCUS
June 9, 2006 - Issue #23
TELECOM TELECOM TELECOM TELECOM TELECOM from page 7 from page 7 from page 7 from page 7 from page 7 ????????????????????????????????????? ?????????
protections; loss of control over local rights-of-
way; loss of funding for public, education and
government stations (“PEG”) and I-NET systems
(Internet systems for schools, libraries and other
government organizations); reduced franchise
fees and other concerns.
Sen. Escutia has long expressed a deep
concern about protecting communities from
economic redlining – something that the League
and other organizations are deeply concerned
would in fact occur with AB 2987.
Legislative and Grassroots Lobbying
Intensifies
The League is intensifying its grassroots
lobbying and media outreach efforts on this bill.
City managers are being urged to get involved with
this issue, and encourage their council members
to do so as well. The League’s regional staff is
reaching out to identify local groups with whom
city officials can work in coalition to send the
message to legislators that AB 2987 is a badly
flawed bill.
And these efforts are paying off. Increasing
numbers of organizations and individuals are
visiting the “No on AB 2987” page on the League
website (www.cacities.org/ab2987) to get informa-
tion about the bill, and to download the coalition
sign-up form. The names on the growing list of
coalition members will be updated weekly.
At the statewide level, the League is working to
build a coalition with other statewide and regional
organizations around our shared concerns with
the bill. The League is reaching out to media
around the state to brief them on cities’ issues and
concerns with the bill. These affiliations will
become increasingly helpful as the League works
for amendments to a bill intended to foster compe-
tition and choice for consumers, but which carries
many untended consequences for cities.
Electric Energy Deregulation Déjà Vu!
City officials should continue to remind their
legislators of what happened with electric energy
deregulation. It provides a useful example of what
can happen when a complicated bill is passed
without sufficient scrutiny. Remember that legisla-
tion – like AB 2987 – was sold to legislators with
arguments that it would foster competition, and
that competition would produce lower rates for
consumers and greater consumer choice of
services.
As we all now know, electric energy deregula-
tion was a disaster for California. It did not reduce
rates; it did not create greater consumer choice.
And it left the state vulnerable to rip-offs from
energy producers and suppliers that had only their
profits in mind.
What You Can Do
Visit the League’s website (www.cacities.org/
ab2987) to download a sample letter to send to
Sen. Martha Escutia, talking points, fact sheets
and other materials you can use in talking to
legislators about this bill. The materials are also
helpful to help recruit organizations and individuals
who will be directly impacted by this poorly drafted
measure. Be sure to join the coalition the League
is building on this bill; there’s a form on the
website you can download and fax to the League.
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.PRIORITY FOCUS - PAGE 9 Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org
June 9, 2006 - Issue #23
????????? ????????????????????????????????????
H.R. 5252 H.R. 5252 H.R. 5252 H.R. 5252 H.R. 5252 from page 1 from page 1 from page 1 from page 1 from page 1
Continued on Page 10
Under the bill, local governments would lose the
authority to enforce local laws pertaining to the use of
local rights-of-way, with enforcement resting with the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) —
3,000 miles away from California in Washington,
D.C. The bill is also silent on the appropriate forum
to resolve rights-of-way disputes, leaving that author-
ity to the FCC.
The COPE Act is silent on the issue of build-out.
In addition, while the measure includes an anti-
discrimination-related provision, the provision is
nullified by other language in the bill that would allow
new providers to self-select their service areas. As
such, a new broadband video service provider –
through a national franchise – could pick and choose
which neighborhoods they wish to serve while
bypassing all others completely.
The League has worked closely with the National
League of Cities (NLC), California State Association
of Counties (CSAC) and the California Congres-
sional delegation to amend the bill to address Califor-
nia cities’ concerns with the public rights-of-way
enforcement and build-out provisions of the bill since
House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair-
man Joe Barton (R-T exas) introduced the legislation
in March.
Over the last several weeks, California cities
have made significant inroads with the delegation.
The League has worked closely with Congress-
women Hilda Solis and Diane Watson to construct
an amendment on build-out, and with Congressman
Gary Miller and Congresswoman Susan Davis to
develop a bipartisan amendment that would address
cities’ concerns with the public rights-of-way enforce-
ment issues created by the bill.
We owe a special thanks to Congresswomen
Solis and Watson who came to the floor several
times on Thursday night to speak out on these
important issues. Congresswoman Solis also
proposed to send the bill back to the Energy and
Commerce Committee to be amended. This
proposal garnered a vote of 165-256 (30 of
California’s current 52 members voted to send the
bill back). Solis’ and Watson’s full statements are
available at www.cacities.org/telecom.
Unfortunately, the House Rules Committee voted
to oppose floor consideration of both the Miller-Davis
and Solis-Watson amendments, leaving no way to
improve the bill before it reached the House floor.
Cities’ Outreach Made A Difference
Thanks are also in order to all of the California
cities who sent letters and made calls to their
members urging them to amend or oppose the
legislation. These efforts ultimately helped to con-
vince the majority of the delegation to vote against
the measure.
The League and CSAC also distributed a letter to
the delegation urging opposition to the measure on
the afternoon of the Floor vote. A copy of that letter is
available on the League website at www.cacities.org/
telecom. A final tally of the California Congressional
delegation’s vote on the bill (28 of our 52 Members
voted “NO” - over half of California’s Congressional
delegation) can be viewed at “How Did Your Repre-
sentative Vote on H.R. 5252?”
What’s Next?
The focus of the federal debate on telecommuni-
cations law reform now moves to the Senate, where
the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation
Committee is scheduled to hold a June 13 hearing
on a revised version of Chairman Ted Stevens (R-
Alaska) draft legislation—the Communications,
Consumer’s Choice, and Broadband Deployment
Act of 2006 (S. 2686).
The revised proposal has not yet been released,
but is expected to offer greater support for the
concerns of California cities than the original version
released by the chairman’s office last month.
At the May 18 opening hearing on the draft bill,
Chairman Stevens pledged to work with the
Committee’s Ranking Member Daniel Inouye (D-
Hawaii) to address the issues raised by the NationalVisit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org PAGE 10 - PRIORITY FOCUS
June 9, 2006 - Issue #23
????????????????????????? ????????????????????
H.R. 5252 H.R. 5252 H.R. 5252 H.R. 5252 H.R. 5252 from page 9 from page 9 from page 9 from page 9 from page 9
YEAS (23)
Baca
Calvert
Campbell
Cardoza
Costa
Doolittle
Dreier
Gallegly
Harman
Herger
Hunter
Issa
Lewis
Lungren
McKeon
Miller, Gary
Nunes
Pombo
Radanovich
Rohrabacher
Royce
Sanchez, Loretta
Thomas
NOT VOTING (1)
Bono
NAYS (28)
Becerra
Berman
Capps
Davis
Eshoo
Farr
Filner
Honda
Lantos
Lee
Lofgren
Matsui
Millender McDonald
Miller, George
Napolitano
Pelosi
Roybal-Allard
Sanchez, Linda
Schiff
Sherman
Solis
Stark
T auscher
Thompson
Waters
Watson
Waxman
Woolsey
HOW DID YOUR REPRESENTATIVES VOTE ON H.R. 5252? HOW DID YOUR REPRESENTATIVES VOTE ON H.R. 5252? HOW DID YOUR REPRESENTATIVES VOTE ON H.R. 5252? HOW DID YOUR REPRESENTATIVES VOTE ON H.R. 5252? HOW DID YOUR REPRESENTATIVES VOTE ON H.R. 5252?
Final California Congressional Delegation Vote Results for Passage of H.R. 5252, the
Communications, Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act Of 2006. (The League was
urging a “Nay” vote.)
League of Cities (NLC), National Association of
Counties (NAC), the U.S. Conference of Mayors
(USCM), the Government Finance Officers Associa-
tion (GFOA) and the National Association of T ele-
communications Officers and Advisors (NATOA).
California Senator Barbara Boxer was particularly
vocal at the hearing about the effect that the draft
measure would have on local governments at the
hearing, raising many of the League’s major con-
cerns with the bill, including rights-of-way, build-out
and anti-redlining. (For the full article on the hearing,
please read the May 19 edition of Priority Focus,
located at www.cacities.org/priorityfocus2006.)
Following the hearing, the committee intends to
hold a markup of the legislation on June 20.PRIORITY FOCUS - PAGE 11 Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org
June 9, 2006 - Issue #23
Le Le Le Le Legisla gisla gisla gisla gislati ti ti ti tiv v v v ve Bill e Bill e Bill e Bill e Bill Action Action Action Action Action
The following are summaries of just a few of the legislative bills that are currently being acted upon
by the League of California Cities. For more information about these and other bills, please visit
the League website to access information about legislation, policy issues and related develop-
ments. You can track information on bills (www.cacities.org/billsearch), locate legislators and
legislative committees, send letters to legislators or the media through the online Advocacy Center
(www.cacities.org/advocacycenter), research League policy positions, access useful related
links, and much more.
PUBLIC SAFETY
AB 1688 (Niello). Illegal Dumping Enforce-
ment Officers. AB 1688 will grant illegal dumping
enforcement officers powers of arrest to enforce
illegal dumping laws. This will allow these en-
forcement officers to conduct complete investiga-
tions without further burdening limited police
resources for basic investigative procedures.
Properly empowered civil enforcement officers
are important to California’s effort to fight the
epidemic of illegal dumping. Illegal dumping
poses a public safety, health, and environmental
hazard on communities, which costs taxpayers
and governments money in clean up and mitiga-
tion expenditures.
AB 1688 represents a means to effectively
utilize current resources without increasing costs
or draining limited police resources to protect the
environment and reduce the millions of taxpayer
dollars spent each year to clean up illegal dump-
ing. Staff: Liisa Lawson Stark; Status:
SenPubSafe; 6/13, Position: Support.
AB 2836 (Karnette). Fire Protection. Resi-
dential Care Facility for the Elderly. AB 2836
will require a residential care facility for the elderly
with four or more residents to install and maintain
an operable automatic fire sprinkler system
approved by the State Fire Marshal no later than
January 1, 2014. If a facility is licensed on or after
January 1, 2010, it is automatically required to
install and maintain an automatic fire sprinkler
system.
Automatic fire sprinklers will provide residents
of care facilities the precious time needed to
safely evacuate a building. In addition, fire sprin-
klers will eliminate hostile and dangerous fire
conditions emergency service personnel face in
fire and rescue operations. Staff: Liisa Lawson
Stark; Status: SenHumanS, 6/13; Position:
Support.
SB 412 (Figueroa). Massage Therapy. Just
when it seemed like the supporters had thrown in
the towel and were not going pursue SB 412,
which would establish a statewide licensing
scheme to regulate the practice of massage
therapy, a newly amended version of the bill was
in print this week.
Many who reviewed the previous version were
significantly bent out of shape due to many of its
provisions. These included provisions that pre-
empted city and county regulatory authority over
massage therapists. The newly amended version
attempts to respond to many of the issues raised
by the League, based upon comments by city
attorneys and public safety representatives who
have worked with the League on the bill.
As amended, SB 412 would establish experi-
ence and educational requirements for an indi-
vidual to become certified as a massage therapist.
Individuals with such certification would not be
required to meet additional experience and educa-
tion requirements in order to practice in any city or
county.Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org PAGE 12 - PRIORITY FOCUS
June 9, 2006 - Issue #23
Le Le Le Le Legisla gisla gisla gisla gislati ti ti ti tiv v v v ve Bill e Bill e Bill e Bill e Bill Action Action Action Action Action
Local governments would be restricted in the
type of local regulatory authority they would have,
except that cities and counties could adopt and
enforce a local ordinance dealing with government
zoning, business licensing and reasonable health
and safety requirements for massage businesses
that meet the requirements established by the bill
and as long as the local requirements are no
different from the fees or requirements applied to
any person operating any other lawful professional
or personal services business within the jurisdic-
tion.
The amendments attempt to walk the fine line
between reasonable restrictions on local govern-
ments regarding regulation of legitimate busi-
nesses (i.e., legitimate massage therapists) and
the need to enforce against businesses that are
fronts for illegal activities (i.e., prostitution).
Cities should review the June 5 version of SB
412 and send their comments to the League. The
League’s Public Safety Policy Committee will
review the measure at its June 23 meeting. Staff:
Yvonne Hunter; Status: Pending in AsmAppr;
Position: Pending.
ENVIRONMENTAL
SB 1778 (Alarcon). Solid Waste. Alterna-
tive Daily Cover. Several cities have inquired
about the status of SB 1778. Opposed by the
League, SB 1778 would have restricted the ability
of cities and counties to receive AB 939 credit
when green waste is used as alternative daily
cover (ADC) on landfills. The bill has stalled on
the Senate Appropriations Committee Suspense
File and is dead for the year.
It appears that if the bill had moved out of the
Appropriations Committee, it would not have
restricted use of ADC, but instead would have
required a study. Staff: Yvonne Hunter; Status:
SenAppr Suspense File; Position: Oppose.
WANT TO SEND A LETTER IN WANT TO SEND A LETTER IN WANT TO SEND A LETTER IN WANT TO SEND A LETTER IN WANT TO SEND A LETTER IN
SUPPORT OF A LEAGUE POSITION? SUPPORT OF A LEAGUE POSITION? SUPPORT OF A LEAGUE POSITION? SUPPORT OF A LEAGUE POSITION? SUPPORT OF A LEAGUE POSITION?
HERE’S WHO TO CALL: HERE’S WHO TO CALL: HERE’S WHO TO CALL: HERE’S WHO TO CALL: HERE’S WHO TO CALL:
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY—(6)—Migden
(Chair), Poochigian (Vice–Chair), Cedillo,
Margett, Perata, and Romero. Chief Counsel:
Alison Anderson. Counsels: Mary Kennedy,
Jerome McGuire and Steven Meinrath. Assis-
tants: Barbara Reynolds and Mona Cano.
Phone: (916) 651–4118. Room: 2031.
SENATE HUMAN SERVICES—(5)—
Alquist (Chair), Maldonado (Vice–Chair),
Aanestad, Chesbro and Romero. Consultants:
Jack Hailey and Sue North. Assistant: Joy
Traylor. Phone: (916) 651–4112. Room: 2195.
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS—(13)—
Murray (Chair), Aanestad (Vice–Chair),
Alarcon, Alquist, Ashburn, Battin, Dutton,
Escutia, Florez, Ortiz, Poochigian, Romero
and Torlakson. Staff Director: Bob Franzoia.
Consultants: Miriam Barcellona Ingenito, John
Decker, Nora Lynn, Mark McKenzie, John
Miller and Maureen Ortiz. Assistant: Sally Ann
Romo and Krimilda Hodson. Phone: (916)
651–4101. Room: 2206.
ASSEMBLY APPROPRIATIONS— (18)—
Chu (Chair), Runner (Vice-Chair), Bass, Berg,
Calderon, De La Torre, Emmerson, Haynes,
Karnette, Klehs, Leno, Nakanishi, Nation,
Oropeza, Ridley–Thomas, Saldaña, Walters,
and Yee. Chief Consultant: Geoff Long. Princi-
pal Consultants: Julie Salley–Gray, Steve
Archibald, Scott Bain, Chuck Nicol, Kimberly
Rodriguez, Stephen Shea. Secretary: Laura
Lynn Gondek. Phone: (916) 319–2081.
Room: 2114.
June 16, 2006
Issue #24-2006
WANT MORE DETAILS
ON BILLS?
Visit the League of
California Cities
website at
www.cacities.org/
billsearch.
FLEX YOUR POWER: GOVERNOR TO PRESENT CALIFORNIA’S SUMMER FLEX YOUR POWER: GOVERNOR TO PRESENT CALIFORNIA’S SUMMER FLEX YOUR POWER: GOVERNOR TO PRESENT CALIFORNIA’S SUMMER FLEX YOUR POWER: GOVERNOR TO PRESENT CALIFORNIA’S SUMMER FLEX YOUR POWER: GOVERNOR TO PRESENT CALIFORNIA’S SUMMER
ENERGY OUTLOOK ON JUNE 30 ENERGY OUTLOOK ON JUNE 30 ENERGY OUTLOOK ON JUNE 30 ENERGY OUTLOOK ON JUNE 30 ENERGY OUTLOOK ON JUNE 30
MAYORS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS ACADEMY – REGISTER NOW! MAYORS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS ACADEMY – REGISTER NOW! MAYORS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS ACADEMY – REGISTER NOW! MAYORS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS ACADEMY – REGISTER NOW! MAYORS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS ACADEMY – REGISTER NOW!
FLOOD LIABILITY ISSUE RESURFACES IN AB 1528 FLOOD LIABILITY ISSUE RESURFACES IN AB 1528 FLOOD LIABILITY ISSUE RESURFACES IN AB 1528 FLOOD LIABILITY ISSUE RESURFACES IN AB 1528 FLOOD LIABILITY ISSUE RESURFACES IN AB 1528
FEDERAL TELECOM UPDATE FEDERAL TELECOM UPDATE FEDERAL TELECOM UPDATE FEDERAL TELECOM UPDATE FEDERAL TELECOM UPDATE
FIND A BILL, LEGISLATORS, LEG COMMITTEE - OR ASK LEG STAFF FIND A BILL, LEGISLATORS, LEG COMMITTEE - OR ASK LEG STAFF FIND A BILL, LEGISLATORS, LEG COMMITTEE - OR ASK LEG STAFF FIND A BILL, LEGISLATORS, LEG COMMITTEE - OR ASK LEG STAFF FIND A BILL, LEGISLATORS, LEG COMMITTEE - OR ASK LEG STAFF
LEGISLATIVE BILL SUMMARIES LEGISLATIVE BILL SUMMARIES LEGISLATIVE BILL SUMMARIES LEGISLATIVE BILL SUMMARIES LEGISLATIVE BILL SUMMARIES
Page 2 Page 2 Page 2 Page 2 Page 2
Page 3 Page 3 Page 3 Page 3 Page 3
???????????????????????? ??????????????
??????????????????????? ???????????????
Page 7 Page 7 Page 7 Page 7 Page 7
The June 15 constitutional deadline to pass a state budget has passed.
However, both houses of the Legislature remain “on call” in case a negotiated
package is ready to be voted on. It appears that there is agreement on most
parts of the budget, with the exception of debt repayments, booking fees and
health insurance for children. For more, see Page 4.
BUDGET UPDATE: JUNE 15 DEADLINE PASSES, BUDGET UPDATE: JUNE 15 DEADLINE PASSES, BUDGET UPDATE: JUNE 15 DEADLINE PASSES, BUDGET UPDATE: JUNE 15 DEADLINE PASSES, BUDGET UPDATE: JUNE 15 DEADLINE PASSES,
BUT AGREEMENT MAY BE NEAR BUT AGREEMENT MAY BE NEAR BUT AGREEMENT MAY BE NEAR BUT AGREEMENT MAY BE NEAR BUT AGREEMENT MAY BE NEAR
After months of intensive collaboration between representatives from local
government organizations and Assemblymember Lois Wolk’s office, the
League of California Cities officially took a support position on AB 802.
For more, see Page 5.
LEAGUE ANNOUNCES SUPPORT FOR LEAGUE ANNOUNCES SUPPORT FOR LEAGUE ANNOUNCES SUPPORT FOR LEAGUE ANNOUNCES SUPPORT FOR LEAGUE ANNOUNCES SUPPORT FOR
AB 802 (WOLK) – FLOOD PLANNING BILL AB 802 (WOLK) – FLOOD PLANNING BILL AB 802 (WOLK) – FLOOD PLANNING BILL AB 802 (WOLK) – FLOOD PLANNING BILL AB 802 (WOLK) – FLOOD PLANNING BILL
The hearing of the Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Commerce
on the cable video franchise bill (AB 2987 - Núñez/Levine) has been resched-
uled, from Tuesday, June 20 to Tuesday, June 27. For more, see Page 6.
AB 2987 HEARING RESCHEDULED AB 2987 HEARING RESCHEDULED AB 2987 HEARING RESCHEDULED AB 2987 HEARING RESCHEDULED AB 2987 HEARING RESCHEDULED
Page 6 Page 6 Page 6 Page 6 Page 6Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org PAGE 2 - PRIORITY FOCUS
June 16, 2006 - Issue #24
On Friday, June 30, Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger and other California leaders in
energy efficiency, will hold a presentation on the
state’s energy outlook for this summer.
To be held from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. at the
Los Angeles Airport (LAX) Marriot, the event will
also showcase Flex Your Power award winners’
successful energy-saving strategies and describe
the programs, rebates and services that Califor-
nians can take advantage of this year. For a full
agenda, registration and travel information, please
visit www.fypower.org/register/june30/.
FLEX YOUR POWER: GOVERNOR TO FLEX YOUR POWER: GOVERNOR TO FLEX YOUR POWER: GOVERNOR TO FLEX YOUR POWER: GOVERNOR TO FLEX YOUR POWER: GOVERNOR TO
PRESENT CALIFORNIA’S SUMMER PRESENT CALIFORNIA’S SUMMER PRESENT CALIFORNIA’S SUMMER PRESENT CALIFORNIA’S SUMMER PRESENT CALIFORNIA’S SUMMER
ENERGY OUTLOOK ON JUNE 30 ENERGY OUTLOOK ON JUNE 30 ENERGY OUTLOOK ON JUNE 30 ENERGY OUTLOOK ON JUNE 30 ENERGY OUTLOOK ON JUNE 30
????????????? ????????????
Less than three weeks remain to
register online for the Mayors and Council
Members Academy Executive Forum and
Advanced Leadership Workshops. Regis-
trants will receive a $20 coupon for
CityBooks by registering online by July 3.
Join your colleagues at the Monterey
Conference Center on July 26-29, and
explore the latest issues of interest in cities
throughout California. The Executive
Forum features keynote speaker Joseph
Grenny, president of “VitalSmarts” and co-
author of “Crucial Confrontations” and
“Crucial Conversations” – both New York
Times bestsellers. Enjoy beautiful Monterey
in the summer and the excellent cuisine as
you get reacquainted with old friends and
make some new ones.
The full conference registration fee is
$445. Please visit www.cacities.org/events
to register and view the programs.
MAYORS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYORS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYORS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYORS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYORS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
ACADEMY – REGISTER NOW! ACADEMY – REGISTER NOW! ACADEMY – REGISTER NOW! ACADEMY – REGISTER NOW! ACADEMY – REGISTER NOW!
Confirming the old legislative mantra that “a bill
is never really dead,” AB 3050 (Jones) has
morphed into AB 1528 (Jones) and miraculously
jumped over to the Senate.
AB 3050 failed passage in the Assembly
several weeks ago. The League opposed the
measure, which would have required that cities
and counties that approve development in
greenfields share the state’s liability for flood
damage lawsuits. AB 1528, a bill in the Senate, is
a “gut and amend” measure which is now virtually
identical to AB 3050.
The League continues to oppose measures
that shift liability to cities for flood damages, simply
because the city approves development. The
League believes that if the city approves the
development in a manner consistent with state
and federal law, then it should not be required to
share the state’s liability.
In addition, AB 1528 represents a breach of the
legislative process. While “gut and amend” bills
are commonplace, this particular gut and amend
is more glaring since the measure it now reflects
failed passage (a polite phrase for “was defeated”)
in the Assembly.
Recalling what we said a few weeks ago,
when reporting on the failure of AB 3050, the bill
may be dead, but the issue remains alive. AB
1528 had been referred to the Senate Judiciary
Committee to be heard on June 27. After com-
plaints by local government representatives,
however, it was pulled back into the Senate Rules
Committee. The process of the House, at least in
this instance, remains intact.
Cities are encouraged to write the author and
members of the committee and express their
opposition, both on policy and process grounds.
FLOOD LIABILITY ISSUE FLOOD LIABILITY ISSUE FLOOD LIABILITY ISSUE FLOOD LIABILITY ISSUE FLOOD LIABILITY ISSUE
RESURFACES IN AB 1528 RESURFACES IN AB 1528 RESURFACES IN AB 1528 RESURFACES IN AB 1528 RESURFACES IN AB 1528PRIORITY FOCUS - PAGE 3 Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org
June 16, 2006 - Issue #24
As reported last week in Priority Focus, the
U.S. House of Representatives passed its own
version of telecom reform (H.R. 5252), rejecting
critical amendments on build-out and local control
of rights-of-way that were sought by local agen-
cies. The debate has now moved to the Senate,
which will conduct a mark up of Sen. Ted Stevens’
(R-Alaska) draft legislation—the Communications,
Consumer’s Choice, and Broadband Deployment
Act of 2006 (S. 2686), next week. Sen. Stevens
chairs the Senate Commerce, Science and
Transportation Committee, which will undertake
the mark up.
This measure is much-improved over H.R.
5252. The League is working with the National
League of Cities (NLC), California State Associa-
tion of Counties (CSAC) and other national organi-
zations on this measure. NLC reported the follow-
ing on their website:
During the prior Senate Committee hearing
local governments responded to the first draft of
S.2686 and raised several major areas of con-
cern, along with numerous other matters of gen-
eral concern. Subsequently, the staff from both the
majority and minority offices have been generous
with their time in allowing local governments to
express their concerns and offer suggestions to
the earlier draft. This new draft reflects a good faith
effort by staff to respond to many of local govern-
ments’ concerns, and we appreciate the work
Committee Staff has put into making improve-
ments to the draft. There are a number of areas
that are still in flux, and we will continue to work
towards an outcome that addresses our concerns
– to speed deployment of competitive video and
broadband services to all of our communities while
continuing to protect consumers and to keep local
government whole and able to continue the level of
services provided today.
Thank Senators Boxer and Feinstein
Both California Senators Barbara Boxer and
Dianne Feinstein have been strong voices for local
government concerns with federal franchising of
video and telecommunications services. Sen.
Boxer is on the Senate Commerce, Science and
Transportation Committee. She has consistently
argued for amendments sought by the local
government associations.
Sen. Feinstein, though not a member of the
committee, has also expressed her strong sup-
port for local government concerns.
Thank both these senators for their support!
FEDERAL TELECOM UPDATE FEDERAL TELECOM UPDATE FEDERAL TELECOM UPDATE FEDERAL TELECOM UPDATE FEDERAL TELECOM UPDATE
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.
THE 2006 CITY HALL
DIRECTORY IS NOW
AVAILABLE!Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org PAGE 4 - PRIORITY FOCUS
June 16, 2006 - Issue #24
Budget Discussions Continue
It is uncertain when a budget package will be
ready for a vote, but discussions have elevated to
the Big 5 (the Governor, Senate President Pro Tem
Don Perata, Senate Minority Leader Dick
Ackerman, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, and
Assembly Minority Leader George Plescia), indi-
cating that final details are being negotiated.
Issues at Odds
Debt Repayment. Democrats want to put $1
billion of the state’s windfall into a reserve fund to
decide how to spend it at a later time. Republi-
cans would like to see the $1 billion used to pay
down debt as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has
proposed.
Booking Fees. Discussions regarding the
Governor’s proposal on booking fees are under-
way with legislative leadership to include the
proposed solution as part of the budget package.
The Governor’s proposal continuously appropri-
ates $40 million from the state budget to offset
fees most counties currently charge cities for
booking suspects in to county jails.
The proposal represents a historic collabora-
tion between city police chiefs and county sheriffs
to address the booking fee issue and offer a
solution to this ongoing debate. Visit
www.cacities.org/revandtax for additional details
on the booking fee proposal.
At the time of this writing, the League was
aware of a proposal to possibly include $40 million
for this budget year only to reimburse cities that
pay booking fees. This would enable negotiations
to continue on the Governor’s proposal for a long-
term solution without holding up the budget.
Health Insurance for Children. Republicans
are objecting to efforts to expand health insurance
coverage to all California children, including un-
documented immigrants. (Note: Gov.
Schwarzenegger has weighed in support of
funding health insurance for all California children,
including undocumented immigrants, although he
believes that the state cannot afford to do this
today.)
Proposition 42 Repayment and Spillover
Revenues
On Saturday, June 10, the Budget Conference
Committee met to act on open budget items,
including Prop. 42 repayment and allocation of
“spillover” revenues.
In a compromise between Senate and Assem-
bly proposals, the conference committee voted 4-
2 (Republicans voting no) to fund Prop. 42 repay-
ment at $660 million, with full funding for repay-
ment to local streets and roads. The compromise
represents a halfway point between the Senate’s
proposal of $460 million and the Assembly’s
proposal of $920 million. The $660 million is
allocated as follows:
• $245 million for the State Transportation
Improvement Plan
• $245 for local streets and roads $122
million to the Public Transit Account
• $48 million to the Traffic Congestion Relief
Program (this is a reduction over the
governor’s proposal, but these projects
will receive a large portion [$678 million]
from the regular Prop. 42 FY 2006-07
allocation—enough the Legislature bel-
ieves, to keep these projects moving
without delay.)
The conference committee also acted on the
spillover revenues (see www.cacities.org/
revandtax for information on spillover funds)
rejecting the Governor’s proposal to direct
spillover to the debt service on the transportation
bond and allocated the $343 million as follows:
• $20 million for farmworker transportation
• $13 million for high speed rail
• $248 million for the State Transit Account
(for transit operating expenses)
• $62 million for the Public Transit Account
(for transit capital projects)
?????????????????????????????????????? ? ? BUDGET UPDATE BUDGET UPDATE BUDGET UPDATE BUDGET UPDATE BUDGET UPDATE from page 1 from page 1 from page 1 from page 1 from page 1PRIORITY FOCUS - PAGE 5 Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org
June 16, 2006 - Issue #24
???????????????????????????????????????????????
AB 802 AB 802 AB 802 AB 802 AB 802 from page 1 from page 1 from page 1 from page 1 from page 1
AB 802 would require cities and counties to
amend their general plans to better address flood
planning and prevention policies. Among the
provisions, it would:
• Require the land use element of the gen-
eral plan to identify areas that are subject
to flooding as identified by floodplain map-
ping prepared by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) or the De-
partment of Water Resources (DWR).
• Upon the next revision of the housing
element on or after January 1, 2008,
include several options from the General
Plan Guidelines that address flood issues
in the safety element which are currently
optional and makes them mandatory.
These items were selected because they
are considered to be the type of basic
topics that safety elements should ad-
dress. They include the following:
• Identify flood hazard zones and estab-
lish policies to avoid or minimize flood
risk for new developments using
information existing from state, federal
or other sources.
• Identify essential infrastructure that
may be impacted by flooding and
develop policies for infrastructure
integrity during flood emergencies to
ensure rapid restoration, if necessary.
• Establish policies that locate new
essential disaster response facilities
such as hospitals, shelters and emer-
gency response entities out of flood
hazard zones.
• Require that when a city or county re-
ceives its Regional Housing Needs As-
sessment (RHNA) number from the
Council of Governments or the California
Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD), that the factors used
to determine the RHNA number include
consideration of flood risk on land available
for housing and/or the cost of housing.
• Provide fee authority for cities and coun-
ties to recover the cost of amending their
general plans to comply with the bill’s
requirements.
• Cities and counties that have (FEMA)-
approved Floodplain Management Ordi-
nances that substantially comply with the
requirements of AB 802, or have substan-
tially equivalent provisions to their general
plans may use that information to comply
with AB 802.
The League believes that AB 802 reflects good
planning and represents the basic elements that
all general plans should include to plan properly if
the city is in a flood hazard zone. It is our under-
standing that many cities already address all or
part of the requirements in AB 802.
The League thanks Assemblymember Wolk
and her staff for their willingness to work closely
with us so that the League could support the bill.
AB 802 will be heard in the Senate Local Govern-
ment Committee on June 21.
Stay Up-To-Date on Bills That
May Impact Your City
www.cacities.org/billsearch
Become a regular user of the League’s
online Legislative Tracking System. The
League’s website is your gateway to all the
information you need: bills sorted by subject
areas, showing the bill history, current
status, committee analyses, votes, and
much more. You can even view League
letters of support or opposition, and access
the League lobbyist working on the bill.Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org PAGE 6 - PRIORITY FOCUS
June 16, 2006 - Issue #24
The rescheduling provides more time for the
legislative staff and members to work on sorting
through the various issues and concerns that
have been raised with the telephone-company
backed measure, including those put forward by
the League and local agencies and other groups.
The League is continuing to build the Tele-
communications Equality Coalition (TEC) - an
organization calling for amendments to the bill
that would address issues such as red-lining of
services, lack of consumer protections, funding
for public, education and government (“PEG”)
stations, local control of public rights-of-way,
funding of franchise fees and other concerns.
Plans for joint lobbying efforts and media out-
reach are underway.
Additional issues with the bill are coming to
light, as its provisions are more carefully exam-
ined. This week, the League’s legal counsel
issued an analysis that concluded that the provi-
sions calling for a state-issued franchise, with
fees remitted to local agencies, presents two
significant problems for local governments: the
state franchise fee is actually a local tax which
will require voter approval; and the definitions in
the bill mean that local governments will not be
made whole by the bill.
Let’s Not Repeat Mistakes of Energy De-
regulation!
The analysis provides yet one more reason
for the Senate to do what the Assembly did not
do: take the time to understand this proposal,
and amend it to address the many issues that the
League and others are raising.
Like the electric energy deregulation fiasco of
ten years ago, AB 2987 has enormous conse-
quences for the state. That poorly designed
legislation led to rate increases, electric energy
shortages and rotating black-outs that hurt con-
sumers and the California economy. Telecom-
munications services – video and broadband –
are hugely important to Californians. Competition
among providers would benefit consumers – but
only if the competition is fair to all Californians –
not just advantaging the well-to-do. Legislators
must take the time to do this right.
City Officials: Get Involved!
Cities should do the following to help deliver
these messages:
• Write or call your legislators to tell them of
your concerns with AB 2987. (Visit the League’s
Advocacy Center at www.cacities.org/
advocacycenter for a sample letter or talking
points.)
• Write a letter to your local paper about your
concerns. (Again, check the Advocacy Center for
a sample.)
• Join the Telecommunications Equality
Coalition (TEC)! (Get a copy of the sign-up form
from the League’s website: www.cacities.org/
ab2987. Fax it back to Robb Korinke at the
League: (916) 658-8240.
• Contact your League regional representa-
tive to find out about more advocacy activities.
AB 2987 HEARING AB 2987 HEARING AB 2987 HEARING AB 2987 HEARING AB 2987 HEARING from page 1 from page 1 from page 1 from page 1 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 FIND A BILL, LEGISLATORS, LEG FIND A BILL, LEGISLATORS, LEG FIND A BILL, LEGISLATORS, LEG FIND A BILL, LEGISLATORS, LEG
COMMITTEE - OR ASK LEG STAFF COMMITTEE - OR ASK LEG STAFF COMMITTEE - OR ASK LEG STAFF COMMITTEE - OR ASK LEG STAFF COMMITTEE - OR ASK LEG STAFF
????????? ??????????????????????????????PRIORITY FOCUS - PAGE 7 Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org
June 16, 2006 - Issue #24
Le Le Le Le Legisla gisla gisla gisla gislati ti ti ti tiv v v v ve Bill e Bill e Bill e Bill e Bill Action Action Action Action Action
The following are summaries of just a few of the legislative bills that are currently being acted upon
by the League of California Cities. For more information about these and other bills, please visit
the League website to access information about legislation, policy issues and related develop-
ments. You can track information on bills (www.cacities.org/billsearch), locate legislators and
legislative committees, send letters to legislators or the media through the online Advocacy Center
(www.cacities.org/advocacycenter), research League policy positions, access useful related
links, and much more.
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. City fire departments have an estab-
lished history of operating safe-surrender sites in
coordination with the county.
Allowing local fire agencies to designate safe-
surrender sites will likely expand the program
based on circumstances and conditions specific
to the community. Fire agencies provide integral
public safety services, even to the youngest
members of our communities. It is imperative
they, too, have the authority to designate safe
surrender locations to protect the most innocent
members of our society. Staff: Liisa Lawson
Stark; Status: SenJud, 6/20; Position: Support.
AB 2174 (Villines) Criminal Procedure.
Defendant’s Appearance. AB 2174 will require a
defendant to be present in court at the time of
sentencing in misdemeanor cases involving
driving under the influence (DUI). Drunk driving is a
major public safety issue, and it accounts for
nearly 20 percent of all traffic fatalities. While the
League generally does not take positions on
legislation relating to court proceedings, we
believe AB 2174 is an overall good public safety
measure that will better protect the health and
safety of our citizens. Staff: Liisa Lawson Stark;
Status: SenPubSafe, 6/20; Position: None
(Support in Concept).
AB 2672 (Oropeza). Alcoholic Beverages.
Licenses. Local Government Review. AB
2672 will increase the extension period for local
government review of liquor license transfers from
20 to 30 days. Further, this bill will extend the list
of local government departments that may re-
quest a liquor license review extension.
The League supports methods to allow addi-
tional involvement by local government agencies
in the application process of liquor licenses. AB
2672 will allow individual communities to effec-
tively review and manage any pertinent public
safety and economic issues related to the retail
sale of alcoholic beverages. Staff: Liisa Lawson
Stark; Status: SenGO, 6/27; Position: Support.
SB 148 (Scott). Alcoholic Beverages.
Licensing Restrictions. SB 148 authorizes a
city or county to amortize, terminate or impose
conditions on liquor stores not currently subject to
local regulation. Under current law, cities or
counties can only enforce zoning ordinances that
were present when a licensee obtained a license
for alcohol sales and does not give cities the
ability to change the law and enforce it. SB 148
requires retail liquor sales licensees issued a
Type 20 or Type 21 off-sale retail license, to
comply with zoning regulations which a city or
county adopts after a licensee obtains a liquor
license.
SB 148 would assist cities and counties
throughout California in addressing repeated
public safety problems often associated with
nuisance liquor stores such as vandalism, litter-
Continued on Page 8Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org PAGE 8 - PRIORITY FOCUS
June 16, 2006 - Issue #24
Le Le Le Le Legisla gisla gisla gisla gislati ti ti ti tiv v v v ve Bill e Bill e Bill e Bill e Bill Action Action Action Action Action
ing, loitering, graffiti, excessive loud noises, public
drunkenness and lewd conduct.
If SB 148 would help your city address issues
associated with problem liquor establishments,
please send a letter to Sen. Jack Scott supporting
this legislation. Sen. Scott’s fax number is: (916)
324-7543. Staff: Liisa Lawson Stark, Status:
AsmGO, 6/21; Position: Support.
TRANSPORTATION
AB 2295 (Arambula). Transportation Capital
Improvement Projects. AB 2295 clarifies exist-
ing law regarding the eligibility of local road
projects for funding through the State Transporta-
tion Improvement Program (STIP). Specifically,
the bill amends the Streets and Highways Code
Section 164 to include “local road rehabilitation”
among the list of eligible types of projects that may
receive STIP funding subject to regional discretion
pursuant to current law. Staff: Liisa Lawson
Stark; Status: SenT&H, 6/20; Position: Support.
AB 2210 (Goldberg). Tow Trucks. Regulat-
ing. AB 2210 strengthens regulations on vehicle
towing and protects consumers. In addition, this
bill affirms the authority that local policy leaders
have regarding the licensing and regulation of tow
truck companies.
The League supports the best possible use of
local resources in an efficient and effective man-
ner. A safe and speedy towing and vehicle recov-
ery process that is regulated at the local level can
reduce the wasteful use of local law
enforcement’s limited resources while ensuring
the safety of citizens. Staff: Liisa Lawson Stark;
Status: SenT&H, 6/20; Position: Support.
WANT TO SEND A LETTER IN WANT TO SEND A LETTER IN WANT TO SEND A LETTER IN WANT TO SEND A LETTER IN WANT TO SEND A LETTER IN
SUPPORT OF A LEAGUE POSITION? SUPPORT OF A LEAGUE POSITION? SUPPORT OF A LEAGUE POSITION? SUPPORT OF A LEAGUE POSITION? SUPPORT OF A LEAGUE POSITION?
HERE’S WHO TO CALL: HERE’S WHO TO CALL: HERE’S WHO TO CALL: HERE’S WHO TO CALL: HERE’S WHO TO CALL:
SENATE GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZA-
TION—(9)—Florez (Chair), Denham (Vice–
Chair), Battin, Chesbro, Margett, McClintock,
Romero, Soto and Vincent. Consultants: Steve
Hardy and Arthur Terzakis. Assistant: Brenda K.
Heiser. Phone: (916) 651–1530. 1020 N Street,
Suite 584.
SENATE JUDICIARY—(5)—Dunn (Chair),
Morrow (Vice–Chair), Ackerman, Escutia and
Kuehl. Chief Counsel: Gene Wong. Deputy Chief
Counsel: Gloria Megino Ochoa. Counsels:
Alexandra Montgomery, Amanda Taylor and
Benjamin Palmer. Assistants: Carol Thomas and
Roseanne Moreno. Phone (916) 651–4113.
Room 2187.
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY—(6)—Migden
(Chair), Poochigian (Vice–Chair), Cedillo,
Margett, Perata, and Romero. Chief Counsel:
Alison Anderson. Counsels: Mary Kennedy,
Jerome McGuire and Steven Meinrath. Assis-
tants: Barbara Reynolds and Mona Cano.
Phone: (916) 651–4118. Room 2031.
SENATE TRANSPORTATION AND HOUS-
ING—(13)—Lowenthal (Chair), McClintock
(Vice–Chair), Ashburn, Cedillo, Ducheny, Dutton,
Kehoe, Machado, Margett, Runner, Simitian,
Soto and Torlakson. Chief Consultant: Carrie
Cornwell. Consultants: Art Bauer, Mark Stivers
and Jennifer Gress. Assistants: Tracey Hurd–
Parker and Mark Teemer. Phone: (916) 651–
4121. Room 2209.
ASSEMBLY GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZA-
TION— (15)—J. Horton (Chair), Plescia (Vice
Chair), Aghazarian, Bermúdez, Calderon,
Chavez, Coto, Garcia, La Suer, Levine, Liu,
Mountjoy, Negrete McLeod, Torrico, and Yee.
Chief Consultant: Chris Lindstrom. Consultant:
Eric Johnson. Secretary: Lorreen Pryor. Phone:
(916) 319–2531. 1020 N Street, Room 156.
For legislators’ phone numbers, ad-
dresses and e-mail please see the
League’s website (www.cacities.org/
legtracking).