Legislation Details

File #: HIST-685    Version: 1 Subject:
Type: Historical Status: Consent Agenda
In control: City Council Meeting Agenda
On agenda: 7/11/2005 Final action: 7/11/2005
Title: LEGISLATION AND LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES PRIORITY FOCUS Issues #25, and #26 Dated June 24, 2005 and July 1, 2005.
Attachments: 1. focus.June 24.pdf, 2. focus.July1.pdf
June 24, 2005 Issue #25-2005 WANT MORE DET AILS ON BILLS? Visit the League of California Cities website at www.cacities.org/ billsearch. Of the U.S. Supreme Court’s three takings cases this year, Kelo v. City of New London received a significant amount of media coverage. It had all the elements of a good press story. On one hand, an economically “distressed municipality” was struggling to offset the loss of a military base and 1,500 jobs. On the other, sympathetic owners were being forced to sell their life long homes in the name of progress. For more, see Page 8. U.S. SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS CONDEMNATION FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Sometimes, common sense prevails. Such was the case when the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that property owners do not get a “second bite at the apple” by bringing a takings claim in federal court after the case has already been decided in state court. For more, see Page 4. COURT AFFIRMS STANDARD PRACTICES IN PROPERTY RIGHTS LITIGATION With a deadline of June 30 looming on the latest Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) extension, news reports late in the evening on Thursday, June 23, indicated that lawmakers reached an agreement on a final spending figure for a multi-year authorization bill for renewing the 1998 TEA- 21 bill. For more, see Page 7. TEA-21 REAUTHORIZATION CONFERENCE REPORTEDLY REACH AGREEMENT ON FUNDING TOTAL MAYORS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS LEADERSHIP WORKSHOPS • MAYORS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS EXECUTIVE FORUM, JULY 27- 29 STATE SUPREME COURT DENIES REVIEW • LAWSUIT CHALLENGING PARCEL TAX TOSSED GOVERNOR SIGNS NEW INDIAN GAMING AGREEMENTS LEGISLATIVE BILL SUMMARIES Page 4 Page 2 Page 3 Page 5Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org PAGE 2/PRIORITY FOCUS If your city had a natural disaster or terrorist attack, what are the first three steps you would take? “Elected Officials’ Role in Providing Home- land Security” is one of the five workshops follow- ing the Mayors and Council Members Academy Executive Forum in Monterey. The description is below: If a terrorist attack, natural disaster, or other emergency struck your city, what actions would you take? Who would you communicate with and how? What would you tell the public through the media? How would you interact with other respon- sible agencies such as the FBI and OES? These are important issues that face elected officials. Strategic planning is necessary to ensure our communities are prepared and equipped to handle homeland security concerns. Learn answers to these questions and much more in this unique workshop designed by homeland security experts who understand the needs of cities because they are also city elected officials. For registration information, please visit www.cacities.org/events. Each workshop is five to six hours spread over Friday afternoon and Satur- day morning, July 29-30. REGISTER NOW! MAYORS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS ACADEMY ADVANCED LEADERSHIP WORKSHOPS  This year’s Mayors and Council Members Executive Forum promises to deliver the latest developments in your field and leave you with ideas that you can implement in your city. There are numerous sessions that will provide elected officials with fresh insights and information – extremely useful in meeting the challenges of California’s rapid changes and tight local budgets. This year’s conference theme is maintaining the political power of cities. In keeping with the goals of the League of California Cities board of direc- tors, sessions will address housing, infrastructure, economic development and redevelopment. Many other sessions target timely topics such as land use planning, how to increase city finances, telecommunication regulations and much more. A full daily breakfast buffet will increase your energy level for days packed with exciting ses- sions and events. Discussion groups, briefings, and presentations will enhance your knowledge, and allow you to network with your fellow elected officials. Enjoy a beach party reception dinner with live music, palm trees, roaring bonfire, ping- pong, and other entertainment. Don’t miss this event to acquire new skills, learn about key city issues, and exchange innova- tive ideas all in the relaxed atmosphere of the Monterey Peninsula. Register before July 15 and receive a coupon worth $25 redeemable at CityBooks. To register for the conference and view the preliminary program, visit our web site at www.cacities.org/events. For more information, you may contact Paul Flint via e-mail at pflint@cacities.org. Restore and protect local control for cities through education and advocacy to enhance the quality of life for all Californians. League Mission MAYORS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS EXECUTIVE FORUM, JULY 27- 29 IN MONTEREY REGISTER ONLINE!PRIORITY FOCUS/PAGE 3 Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org On June 16, the state Supreme Court denied review in Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. City of Fresno. The case involved a city of Fresno ordinance that required each municipal utility to pay into the city’s general fund a yearly fee “in lieu of property and other taxes normally placed upon private business.” In 2002, the city expected to generate approximately $8.6 million from these in lieu fees paid by the municipal utilities. The amount paid by each utility was passed through to its customers. In January 2003, a lawsuit was filed against Fresno, alleging that the in lieu fees were pre- empted by state law and that they violated various state constitutional provisions and statutes. The Fifth District Court of Appeal agreed. In its deci- sion, the court held that: • Water, sewer and trash fees are subject to Proposition 218; • Proposition 218’s requirements have applied to such fees since July 1, 1997, regardless whether such fees have been “extended, imposed or increased” since then; and • Utility fees may include the cost of providing municipal services to public utilities, such as the cost of repairing streets impacted by wear and tear of utility vehicle traffic. By denying review, the decision by the Fifth District Court of Appeal stands. For more information on this case, please see “Are Utility Fees Subject to Proposition 218?” by Michael Colantuono in the May 2005 edition of Western City. STATE SUPREME COURT DENIES REVIEW Several lawsuits are currently underway in California that challenge parcel tax elections. On June 17, a Santa Clara County judge dismissed one such action. The lawsuit challenged the election on the basis that it did not permit non- resident property owners to vote on the parcel tax, even though they would have to pay it. The lawsuit was dismissed on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to “properly publish papers in a certain format and in a timely manner.” The judge did not address the underlying merits of the case. It is believed that a similar lawsuit filed against the Mountain View-Whisman Elementary School District will be dismissed on the same grounds. The League is monitoring these various cases and has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in an appellate court case that raises similar issues. In Neilsen v. City of California City, an out-of-town property owner filed a lawsuit challenging a parcel tax election that limited the voting electorate to parties residing within the precincts in California City. The brief was written on behalf of the League by Michael Colantuono. Western City magazine’s job opportunity section is the source for job seekers looking for positions in local government. According to our reader survey, the job opportunity section is the best read section of our magazine! When you place an ad in Western City magazine, it will be posted at no additional charge on our website, which receives over 80,000 hits per month. Call to place your recruitment ad today! We Have What You Need (800) 262-1801 or visit our website at www.westerncity.com LOOKING FOR CALIFORNIA’S BEST TO FILL A POSITION IN YOUR CITY? LAWSUIT CHALLENGING PARCEL TAX TOSSEDVisit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org PAGE 4/PRIORITY FOCUS   Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger recently announced the completion of Indian gaming agreements with the Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation and the Yurok Tribe. The governor ascertains that the agreements provide a fair contribution of revenues to the state, provide protections to patrons and employ- ees, and ensure that local communities will be protected and receive compensation to mitigate off-reservation and environmental impacts.   The Yurok and Quechan tribes are two of the largest tribes in the California, and the compacts authorize a single casino each at a single loca- tion on their reservations in Del Norte and Impe- rial County, respectively (the 1999 compacts afforded each tribe the right to two casinos).   The Yurok Tribe anticipates that its facility will generate $7 million annually in net win from the operation of its slot machines, and the Quechan Tribe anticipates that its new facility will generate around $59 million annually.   According to a press release from the governor’s office, in each case, the tribes will provide a revenue contribution to the state based on a percentage of their net win from the opera- tion of their slot machines, based on a sliding scale starting at 10 percent. The two compacts are anticipated to provide the state with approxi- mately $7 million in revenue per year. In addition, the tribes have agreed to enter into intergovernmental agreements with their local communities to mitigate impacts on infra- structure, the environment, fire protection, law enforcement, public safety, gambling addiction, and emergency medical services.   The compacts must now be ratified by the State Legislature and then approved by the U.S. Department of the Interior.   Click here for details of the recently signed compacts.   GOVERNOR SIGNS NEW INDIAN GAMING AGREEMENTS The case involved a challenge to San Francisco’s hotel conversion fee. The San Remo Hotel (San Remo) claimed that the fee amounted a taking. At issue before the U.S. Supreme Court, however, was the extent to which a takings claim could be heard in federal court after a state court had already reached a final decision on the claim. The procedural history was complex. San Remo first filed a claim in federal court. But the federal court held that the state court was the proper venue under the “Williamson County” rule, which holds that compensation claims under the Takings Clause should be brought in state court. See Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985). San Remo, however, was allowed to preserve its right to bring a subsequent claim in federal court to the extent that such a claim was different than what could be brought in state court. Fast-forward a few years. San Remo pursued its claim all the way to the California Supreme Court and ultimately lost. Afterwards, San Remo re-filed a claim in federal court that made the same argu- ments already decided by the California Supreme Court. San Francisco argued that there was no difference between federal law and state law on the takings issue, and thus San Remo should be precluded from filing it claim in federal court. The U.S. Supreme Court sided unanimously with the City of San Francisco. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the court, found that federal courts cannot disregard the full faith and credit statute, which prohibits the re-litigation of issues resolved by courts of competent jurisdiction. Thus, the federal court was precluded from hearing San Remo’s claim because a fully competent state court had already reached a determination. The Supreme Court also upheld its long-stand- ing Williamson County rule (as mentioned above, that takings claims should be heard in state court). Chief Justice Rehnquist, however, who had origi- nally signed the Williamson County opinion 20 Continued on Page 7 SAN REMO from page 1Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org PRIORITY FOCUS/PAGE 5 Legislative Bill 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 developments. 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. HOUSING AND LAND USE SB 4 (Murray). The California Public Per- formance Facilities Authority Act. SB 4 would establish the California Public Performance Facili- ties Authority (Authority) Act in state government to be administered by a board of directors. The Authority, among other powers and duties, would have the ability to acquire, construct and operate a sports facility, sell naming and sponsorship rights, impose facility fees on tickets, and issue revenue bonds for financing. On June 21, the bill was heard in the Assembly Arts, Entertainment, Sports, Tourism, and Internet Media Committee. The League had previously adopted a “Watch” position on SB 4 because of concerns of how the bill will impact local land use authority. During the committee hearing, the League asked Senator Murray to take several amendments that would address concerns about local land use approval. The requested amendments would clarify that proposed facilities must receive all necessary land use and other development approvals required by the local government in which the proposed facility would be located. Senator Murray also agreed to remove a section of the bill that would give the Authority the power of eminent domain to acquire land. The League requests that cities and their financial officers review the newly amended version of SB 4 and give feedback on whether the amended version could be a useful financing tool for local governments. The author is soliciting support from cities on this measure. Staff: Dan Carrigg; Status: AsApps; Position: Review and comment. SB 575 (Torlakson) Housing Development Projects. This bill would revise the conditions under state Anti-NIMBY Law, upon which a disap- proval or conditional approval of a housing devel- opment project is based. The League had many concerns with the introduced version of this bill, so the author removed the most controversial items to facilitate discussions. A working group of city attorneys and housing advocates met for several months and have been able to reach consensus on a number of issues. The author has agreed to take the working group’s amendments and place them into the bill. Staff: Dan Carrigg; Status: AsmFlr; Position: Neutral. TRANSPORTATION AB 1051 (Benoit and Umberg). Pocket Bikes. Restrictions. AB 1051 requires a manu- facturer of a two-wheeled motorized vehicle, com- monly known as a “pocket bike,” to provide a printed disclosure indicating prohibited uses of pocket bikes. Additionally, AB 1051 authorizes a peace officer to remove and seize a pocket bike that is found to be operating in violation of this bill for a minimum of 48 hours. AB 1051 improves public safety on local streets and roads by requiring notification to purchasers of the limited use of pocket bikes. Staff: Liisa Lawson Stark; Status: SenApps, Hrg. 6/27; Position: Support. SB 275 (Torlakson) Transportation Needs Assessment. SB 275 requires the California Transportation Commission (CTC), working with the Department of Transportation (DOT), regional planning agencies, cities and counties to complete a 10-year needs assessment of the state’s trans- portation system.Visit the League’s Official Website -- www.cacities.org PAGE 6/PRIORITY FOCUS The proposed 10-year needs assessment is to include the state highway system, local streets and roads, rail programs, regional transit systems, as well as high priority projects that anticipate traffic reduction, and are economically and environmentally beneficial to the state. In addition, the CTC, with the help of involved entities, will submit actions and estimates necessary for the DOT to complete the projects in a timely and cost-effective manner. In 1999, when the last needs assessment (SR-8) was complete, the report demonstrated the need to reinvest in, and fund, California’s existing transporta- tion systems. With the continual population growth and vehicle miles traveled in California, a new needs assessment is necessary to evaluate where our transportation infrastructure stands. Staff: Liisa Lawson Stark; Status: AsTrans, Hrg. 6/27; Posi- tion: Support. PUBLIC SAFETY AB 1507 (Pavley). Cardiac Health. Automatic External Defibrillators. Health Studios. AB 1507 requires that health club facilities purchase and install Automatic External Defibrillators (AEDs), as well as train personnel in their use. Many private health clubs are located within city limits, within response areas of local fire departments. Placing AEDs in health clubs is a good public safety mea- sure that will allow increased chances of survival of a cardiac arrest victim if use of an AED is available prior to the arrival of emergency responders. Staff: Liisa Lawson Stark; Status: SenJud, Hrg. 6/28; Position: Support. AB 669 (La Suer). Firefighter Training and Standards. AB 669 creates the California Firefighter Training Standards Task Force to develop a system that puts in place a comprehensive, con- tinuing training and education structure that meets the needs of the disciplines within the fire service profession. Many public entities provide education and training to firefighters, including cities, counties, special districts, community colleges and the state. The California Firefighter Training Standards Task Force will bring together these stakeholders to develop coordinated training and education for the fire service. Staff: Liisa Lawson Stark; Status: SenGO, Hrg.6/28; Position: Support. SB 719 (Romero). Police Vehicle Pursuits. SB 719 narrows the available immunity for public entities that employ peace officers when a third party is injured or killed in a collision with a person fleeing from peace officer pursuits. Such entities are immune if they 1) have adopted and promul- gated a policy for safe conduct of motor vehicle pursuits that meet minimum state standards, and 2) provide regular and periodic training for their officers regarding safe pursuits. Additionally, SB 719 increases criminal penalties for willfully fleeing or attempting to evade police pursuit in a motor vehicle. The act of driving a motor vehicle in an at- tempt to evade a peace officer is dangerous and unnecessarily places the lives of peace officers and other citizens at risk for injury or even death. SB 719 is a good approach to help curb the escalating danger of high-speed pursuits by increasing peace officer training and providing prison sentence enhancements to deter offenders from attempting to flee law enforcement officers and endangering lives. Staff: Liisa Lawson Stark; Status: AsPubSfty, Hrg. 6/28, Position: Support. WANT TO SEND A LETTER IN SUPPORT OF A LEAGUE POSITION? HERE’S WHO TO CALL: ASSEMBLY APPROPRIATIONS (18)—Chu (Chair), Runner (Vice Chair), Bass, Berg, Calderon, Emmerson, Gordon, Haynes, Karnette, Klehs, Leno, Nakanishi, Nation, Oropeza, Ridley– Thomas, Saldaña, Walters, and Yee. Room 2114. Phone: (916) 319–2081. ASSEMBLY PUBLIC SAFETY (7)—Leno (Chair), La Suer (Vice Chair), Cohn, Dymally, Goldberg, Ruskin, and Spitzer. 1020 N Street, Room 111. Phone: (916) 319–3744. ASSEMBLY TRANSPORTATION (13)— Oropeza (Chair), Huff (Vice Chair), Bogh, Chan, S. Legislative Bill ActionVisit the League’s Official Website -- www.cacities.org PRIORITY FOCUS/PAGE 7 Legislative Bill Action Horton, Karnette, Liu, Mountjoy, Niello, Pavley, Ridley–Thomas, Salinas, and Torrico. 1020 N Street, Room 112. Phone: (916) 319–2093. SENATE APPROPRIATIONS—(13)—Migden (Chair), Aanestad (Vice–Chair), Alquist, Ashburn, Battin, Bowen, Dutton, Escutia, Murray, Ortiz, Poochigian, Speier, and Vacancy. Staff Director: Anne Maitland. Deputy Director: Bob Franzoia. Consultants: George Cate, Miriam Barcellona Ingenito, Nora Lynn, Lisa Matocq and Maureen Ortiz,. Assistant: Sally Ann Romo. Phone: (916) 445–3284. Room: 2206. SENATE GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION— (11)—Florez (Chair), Denham (Vice–Chair), Battin, Chesbro, Cox, Dunn, Margett, McClintock, Murray, Soto, and Vincent. Consultants: Steve Hardy and Arthur Terzakis. Assistant: Brenda K. Heiser. 1020 N Street, Suite 584. Phone: (916) 445–1193. SENATE JUDICIARY—(7)—Dunn (Chair), Morrow (Vice–Chair), Ackerman, Cedillo, Escutia, Figueroa, and Kuehl. Chief Counsel: Gene Wong. Deputy Chief Counsel: Gloria Megino Ochoa. Counsels: Alexandra Montgomery. Assistants: Carol Thomas and Emily Crossland. Phone (916) 445– 5957. Room 2187. years ago, filed a separate opinion suggesting rule should be “reconsidered.” The fact that three other justices joined him effectively creates an invitation to challenge the rule. It only takes the vote of four justices to place a case on the Supreme Court’s calendar. The League’s legal advocacy committee has been involved the earlier stages of this case in both state court and federal court. The National League of Cities filed a brief on behalf of all cities before the U.S. Supreme Court. For a copy of the decision, see U.S. Supreme Court’s website at www.supremecourtus.gov/ opinions/04slipopinion.html. SAN REMO from page 4 TEA 21 from page 1 For more information on this and other League issues, visit www.cacities.org. After 21 months of deadlock, it was reported that House and Senate conferees have agreed on $286.5 billion for multi-year highways, transit and traffic safety legislation. Both chambers of Congress successfully ap- proved transportation legislation earlier this year, but a lack of consensus over a reauthorization spending total stalled conference negotiations for weeks. A $295 billion Senate bill (S.732) cleared in May was deemed too expensive by the White House, which continues to back the House’s $284 billion spending measure (HR 3). It is unclear if the Bush Administration would accept a compromise figure, the deal would represent a significant step forward for transporta- tion conferees that have struggled with the overall funding level dilemma for almost two years. Since prior authorization law expired in 2003, several short-term extensions have kept transportation programs running while Congress continues work on a final bill, which has been said, might occur before the June 30 deadline next week. Earlier this week, the California Delegation sent a letter to the conferees outlining three reauthorization priorities for California. They include Minimum Guarantees, preservation of urban transit formula in current law and adopting House Congestion, Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement language. Visit the League’s website for a copy of the California Delegation letter to the Conferees.Visit the League’s Official Website -- www.cacities.org PAGE 8/PRIORITY FOCUS The case involved a development plan to create 1,000 jobs, increase public revenues, and generally revitalize an economically distressed city. To implement the plan, New London pur- chased most of the property earmarked for the project from willing sellers, but initiated condem- nation proceedings against those who refused to sell. In reviewing the legal issues, however, the court upheld in a five-to-four decision the city’s authority to condemn land for the purpose of economic development. Specifically, court exam- ined the scope of the “public use” requirement of the Takings Clause, which provides that the power of eminent domain (and the resulting just compen- sation) may only be used for “public purposes.” The owners had challenged the public nature of the New London’s action because the ultimate result was to turn the land over to a developer. Thus, the owners argued, the action was effec- tively “private” insofar that it ultimately resulted in transferring ownership of the land from one private part to another. Justice Stevens, delivering the opinion of the court, rejected this argument, noting that subse- quent private ownership did not necessarily negate the public purpose of the action. There is no principled way of distinguishing economic development from the other recognized public purposes. Indeed, the city’s development plan included many public elements, such as a marina, parks, and a riverwalk. Moreover, the court deferred to the city’s determination that the overall objective of rejuve- nating the downtown and waterfront was in itself a sufficient public purpose to justify the condemna- tion action. The court concluded by noting that in “affirm- ing the city’s authority to take petitioners’ proper- ties, we do not minimize the hardship that con- demnations may entail, notwithstanding the payment of just compensation. We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any state from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power..” Finally, Justice Kennedy hinted that this ruling might not be so broad as it first appears. Though he joined the majority, he filed a concurring opinion stating that in his mind there were limits to how deferential the court would be to deferring to legislative bodies on the issue of public purpose. In such cases, he would entertain a higher level of judicial scrutiny. When combined with the four dissenting justices, there would seem to be a majority of justices that would favor some limita- tions to the rule affirmed by the court. But Justice Kennedy did not provide any further clarification, leaving that determination to another day. For a copy of the decision, see U.S. Supreme Court’s website at www.supremecourtus.gov/ opinions/04slipopinion.html. KELO from page 1 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. INFORMA TION YOU NEED, RIGHT AT YOUR FINGERTIPS! Purchase this publication on-line at www.cacities.org/store or call 916-658- 8257 for an order form. City officials price$30, non-city official price $65, plus shipping & handling. THE 2005 CITY HALL DIRECTORY IS NOW A VAILABLE July 1, 2005 Issue #26-2005 WANT MORE DET AILS ON BILLS? Visit the League of California Cities website at www.cacities.org/ billsearch. GREATER SAN DIEGO WINS 2005 REGIONAL STEWARDSHIP AWARD • CANOGA PARK HONORED AS WINNER OF 2005 ALL-AMERICAN CITY AWARD • WEST HOLLYWOOD RECEIVES CITY LIVABILITY AWARD LEGISLATIVE BILL SUMMARIES LEAGUE URGES COMMUNITY DEBATES TELECOMMUNICATIONS ISSUES AFFECTING CITIES Page 4 Page 3 Page 8 Page 9 As we go to print, there is a growing sense that a final agreement on the budget (SB 77) may be close. For more, see Page 2. At the urging of the League and other stakeholders with telecommunica- tions interests, the Senate Energy, Utilities and Commerce Committee this week voted to pass two telecommunications bills out of the committee, and will work with Senate and Assembly leadership to establish an interim confer- ence committee to develop compromise approaches on the telecommunica- tions issues they raise. For more, see Page 8. TELECOM DEBATE IN CALIFORNIA MOVES TO THE FALL As reported last week, it was expected that Congress would pass the Transportation Reauthorization bill. But on the evening of July 30, before concluding business and adjourning for the July 4 recess, the House and Senate passed another short-term extension of current highway and transit law. This will give conferees time to negotiate and iron out the policy details of a comprehensive reauthorization bill. For more, see Page 2. CONGRESS PASSES 8 TH EXTENSION FOR TRANSPORTATION REAUTHORIZATION BILL BUDGET DEAL NEAR?Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org PAGE 2/PRIORITY FOCUS TEA 21 from page 1 The new extension’s deadline is set for July 19, giving House and Senate members less than two weeks to complete a final bill when they return from recess on July 11. While conferees are close to reaching an agreement on the overall spending level of $286.5 billion, they are still seeking consensus on an acceptable minimum guarantee threshold and other policy considerations. Conferees have also yet to agree on the following an adequate high- ways-transit split, which was an 80-20 percent split in the original TEA-21 law. Additionally, the Bush administration has not signaled its approval for the compromise-spend- ing total, the administration stated earlier this year that it would not sign a bill that was in excess of $284 billion. We will keep you posted as the conferees take up this issue again later this month The Senate convened today, but recessed until noon on Sunday, July 3. Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez sent Assemblymembers home, but has scheduled them for check-in sessions throughout the weekend. Yesterday Gov. Schwarzenegger convened a meeting of the “Big Five”-Senate Pro Tem Don Perata, Senate Minority Leader Dick Ackerman, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and Assembly Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy. Following their discussions, the Senate called a surprise session, as Democratic senators pushed to try to pass a budget that met the June 30 constitutional dead- line for budget adoption. While the effort was unsuccessful, there appeared to be more open acknowledgement by both sides that each has worked hard to try and meet the deadline. Both the Republicans and Democrats suggested they had made conces- sions on specific budget items since the June 15 failed vote on the budget. Republicans continued to express concerns over what they assert is a $2 billion out-year budget deficit increase in the conference committee budget proposal, over the governor’s May revision proposal. Democrats assert that they are really only $400 to $500 million. There appeared to be a sentiment by both sides that the Senate will likely pass the budget before the Assembly, and possibly by next week. Senate President Pro Tem Perata announced that Senate leadership had rescinded a prior agree- ment that there would be a suspension of Senate committee hearings until after the budget is passed, and that the Senate will resume commit- tee hearings the week after next. This could well be a signal that the Senate plans to push for passage quickly of a final budget agreement. Please watch the League website for budget updates. If a deal emerges, we will work to obtain as much information as we can and post the information on the website. BUDGET from page 1 Western City magazine’s job opportunity section is the source for job seekers looking for positions in local government. According to our reader survey, the job opportunity section is the best read section of our magazine! When you place an ad in Western City magazine, it will be posted at no additional charge on our website, which receives over 80,000 hits per month. Call to place your recruitment ad today! We Have What You Need (800) 262-1801 or visit our website at www.westerncity.com LOOKING FOR CALIFORNIA’S BEST TO FILL A POSITION IN YOUR CITY?PRIORITY FOCUS/PAGE 3 Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org The Greater San Diego’s Partnership for the New Economy has won a 2005 Regional Steward- ship Award from the Alliance for Regional Steward- ship (ARS), a national, peer-to-peer network of regional stewards that share experiences and working collaboratively on innovative approaches to common regional challenges. These annual awards recognize the innovative work of regional alliances and organizations that have demonstrated progress in all four elements of ARS’ Principles for Regional Stewardship (collabo- rative governance, innovative economy, livable communities, and social inclusion) and have achieved tangible results, increased regional capacity, and shown the potential for sustainability. The San Diego Partnership for the New Economy is a collaborative group made up of public officials, economic developers, educational institutions, and industry associations. Through forums and dialogue, the Partnership identified a number of key issues facing the San Diego region, including transit options, affordable housing, fiscal reform, economic prosperity, and educational opportunities. For additional information on the award program and the 2005 winners, visit www.regionalstewardship.org/awards/. GREATER SAN DIEGO WINS 2005 REGIONAL STEWARDSHIP AWARD The National Civic League (NCL) recently announced the winners of the 2005 All-American City Awards. Canoga Park, Calif., was one of the 10 cities honored in this year’s competition. The All-America City Award encourages and recognizes civic excellence, and honors communi- ties where citizens, the government, businesses and non-profit organizations demonstrate successful resolution of critical issues. Since 1949, more than 4,000 cities have competed with approximately 500 earning the prestigious designation as an All- America City. The cities of Lincoln and Modesto were also among the 30 finalists in the 2005 competition. The League congratulates all three California cities on their achievements. For more information on the program and this year’s winners, visit http://ncl.org/aac/index.html. CANOGA PARK HONORED AS WINNER OF 2005 ALL-AMERICAN CITY AWARD On June 11, the United States Conference of Mayors announced the 2005 City Livability Awards. John J. Duran, mayor of West Hollywood, Calif., was the sole recipient in the state of Califor- nia, and received Honorable Mention in the cat- egory of cities with populations less than 100,000. The awards recognize and honor mayors for exemplary leadership in developing and imple- menting programs that improve the quality of life in American’s cities. An independent panel of judges, selected by the U.S. Conference of May- ors, determined the winning mayors from a pool of 151 applicants based on three criteria: mayoral leadership, creativity and innovation, and broad impact on the quality of life for residents. The League congratulates Mayor Duran on his achievement. For more information on the 2005 awards, visit http://usmayors.org/ 73rdAnnualMeeting/citylivability_061105.pdf. WEST HOLLYWOOD MAYOR RECEIVES HONORABLE MENTION IN 2005 CITY LIVABILITY AWARDS Plan now to attend the 2005 Annual Conference this fall - the first time it has been in San Francisco since 1997. Make you reservations through our online system at www.cacities.org/ac. 2005 ANNUAL CONFERENCE: OCTOBER 6-8, MOSCONE WEST CONVENTION CENTERVisit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org PAGE 4/PRIORITY FOCUS Legislative Bill 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. HOUSING AND LAND USE AB 1335 (Vargas) Business Improvement Districts: This bill makes a number of changes to laws affecting the formation and terms affect- ing Business Improvement Districts. The League worked extensively with the author’s staff to address technical issues with prior versions of this legislation, and sent a letter of support on the June 8, version of the bill. On June 27 and 29, however, the bill was amended to make significant changes. Key among these changes is an amendment that reduces the initial petition threshold for business owners from 50 to 30 percent. While a lower initial threshold may seem appealing to some, it can also be maintained that a significant level of business support is necessary to maintain a viable district. Given these recent changes, the League has notified the author that it is removing its prior support position because we have not received sufficient policy direction from our membership as to the advisability of the recent changes. Cities affected by this bill should carefully review the recent changes to this legislation. Staff: Daniel Carrigg; Status: SenLG, Hrg. 7/6; Position: Review and Comment. SB 135 (Kehoe) Community Service Districts. This legislation contains a compre- hensive update of statutes relating to community services districts, based upon the work of a task force hosted by the Senate Local Government Committee. Although the bill enjoys broad support because many of its provisions are helpful and non-controversial, the League re- cently adopted an Oppose, Unless Amended position based upon the effect of a provision of legislation that partially erodes city authority versus the role of local agency formation commissions and community services districts. The issue raised by the League focused on a change the bill makes to the permitted exercise of “latent powers” by a district that operates within an existing city. Under existing law, Section 61601 Government Code, a district may only exercise a latent power not listed in its original documents of formation with the approval of the voters and the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). This bill removes the voter approval requirement, and requires only LAFCO to approve. Further, this bill lists 31 separate latent powers that a community services district may exercise in the future with simple LAFCO approval. While LAFCO may be the appropriate body to consider service delivery outside the boundaries of incorporated cities, this bill – which is presented as a statutory clean-up vehicle – should not be permitted to weaken protec- tion for city authority inside a city’s boundaries. While an amendment was taken to ensure that LAFCO could not approve duplicate services, the League requested that this measure be further amended to ensure that if a community services district proposes to expand a new service or exer- cise a new power to an area within a city’s borders, the affected city can veto the expansion by object- ing to it in writing with the appropriate LAFCO if the power or service duplicates one the city intends to provide or desires to reserve its right to provide.Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org PRIORITY FOCUS/PAGE 5 Legislative Bill Action The League’s request for an amendment was not approved by the Assembly Local Government Committee. Staff: Daniel Carrigg; Status: AsApps; Position: Oppose Unless Amended. ENVIRONMENTAL SB 1059 (Escutia). Transmission Corridor Zones. Local Preemption. SB 1059 is a two- year bill and as such it is dead for the year! Spon- sored by the Administration, this measure would authorize the California Energy Commission to designate “transmission corridor zones” (TCZs) and require local governments to amend their general plans to reflect any TCZ within their boundaries. While the League agrees with the need to do better long range planning for future transmission line needs, the process included in SB 1059 is severely flawed, to say the least. The coalition of local governments opposed to SB 1059, led by the League, the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) and the Regional Council of Rural Counties (RCRC), were recently joined by a growing number of private business, landowner and developer groups, who either officially opposed the bill or expressed strong reservations about its provisions. Given this growing level of opposition, the author and Admin- istration decided to make SB 1059 a two-year bill. Discussions will take place during the fall to try to find a workable compromise that will promote better long range planning without the problems associated with the current version of SB 1059. Thanks to cities that responded to the League’s requests to send letter of opposition. Staff: Yvonne Hunter; Status: AsRules, two-year bill; Position: Oppose unless amended. ACA 13 (Harman). Storm Water and Flood Control Fees. Proposition 218. ACA 13, which is sponsored by the Administration and strongly supported by the League, would add storm water and flood control fees to those types of fees that currently are exempt from the voter approval requirements of Proposition 218. The bill is part of the Administration’s legislative package to address flood control issues, which also includes AB 1665 (Laird). As a Constitutional amendment, ACA 13 faces the daunting task of securing a two-thirds vote on the Assembly Floor – and at this time, it is clear that in its current form, that is not possible. Thus, the League has been told by representatives of the Administration that ACA 13 will not move ahead in its current form this year and most likely is a two- year bill. The negotiations on AB 1665, while ongoing and productive, appear to have stalled. The newly amended version of the bill now in print soon will form the basis of continued negotiations. It is unclear whether they have stalled temporarily or permanently this year. The League has no posi- tion on AB 1665, but has been participating in the stakeholder meetings. It appears at this time that AB 1665 is a two-year bill as well. We’ll keep you posted as events unfold. Staff: Yvonne Hunter; Status: AsLG; Position: Support. SB 861 (Speier). Dangerous and Vicious Dogs. Local Regulation. As amended last week, SB 861 would authorize local governments to enact regulations related to dangerous and vicious dogs that are specific to individual breeds, pro- vided that the local regulations do not constitute a ban on the breed. Additional amendments adopted by the author this week in the Assembly Local Government Committee would narrow the types of local agency regulation to breed-specific requirements for neutering and spaying, and breeding restrictions. The bill returns to local governments some limited regulatory authority that was lost in the late 1980s when legislation banned any type of breed-specific local ordi- nances. SB 861 is in response to a number of tragic situations in which Pit Bulls and other large dogsVisit the League’s Official Website -- www.cacities.org PAGE 6/PRIORITY FOCUS Legislative Bill Action have attacked and injured or killed children and adults. As a result, the City of San Francisco recently evaluated what steps could be taken by local governments to prevent canine-related inju- ries. The report prepared by the city’s animal control department recommends a number of sensible and proactive regulatory steps that local governments could enact for individual breeds, if existing law is changed to provide that such autho- rization. SB 861 reflects several of the recommen- dations included in the report. A copy of the San Francisco report is posted on the League’s website under the information included on SB 861. The issue of animal control and local regulation of dogs is one that generates considerable passion in the Legislature. The League supports SB 861 as a way to give local governments additional tools and flexibility to appropriately regulate dangerous and vicious dogs within their communities in order to protect their residents. In its amended form, it passed the Assembly Local Government Commit- tee this week and will be heard next on the Assem- bly Floor. Staff: Yvonne Hunter; Status: AsmFlr; Position: Support. SB 655 (Ortiz). Naturally Occurring Asbes- tos. SB 655 (Ortiz) proposes a series of steps to identify the locations of and mitigate the exposure impacts of naturally occurring asbestos. While most of us know about the potential problems from asbestos in buildings, a newly emerging health problem and potential hazard if not mitigated properly is naturally occurring asbestos As currently drafted, SB 655 has a number of problems and is not workable. However, the author has worked with the League and others to identify conceptual amendments to her bill that would improve the mapping of areas where naturally occurring asbestos is located, best management practices that can be used to mitigate the impacts of the asbestos during construction projects, and property owner notification. The bill is the classic “work in progress.” The author has committed to continue to work with the League and others in an attempt to resolve several of the bill’s problems. Given those commitments, SB 655 passed both the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials and Local Government Committees this week. We’ll keep you posted. Staff: Yvonne Hunter; Status: AsApps; Position: Watch. SB 412 (Figueroa). Massage Therapists. State and Local Regulation. Don’t let the current version of SB 412 rub you the wrong way! SB 412 is the latest legislative attempt in the last few years to enact professional stan- dards for the massage therapy industry. This is being done as a way of distinguishing legitimate massage therapy businesses from those activi- ties that are, in reality, part of the more shady side of our society. In its recently amended form, SB 412 in- cludes local agency preemption. The League has been in close contact with the bill’s support- ers and author’s office about the need to modify the preemption provisions of the bill. While we do not object to local preemption related to profes- sional standards, the League has emphasized that local agencies need to retain the right to regulate land use, impose business license fees and continue local inspections and enforcement of massage therapy businesses. We are confi- dent that agreement can be reached regarding the preemption provisions of SB 412. Without this agreement, we know that cities will be bent out of shape over the preemption provisions of the bill. The bill passed the Assembly Business and Professions Committee this week. Staff: Yvonne Hunter; Status: AsApps; Position: Watch. PUBLIC SAFETY 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 thatVisit the League’s Official Website -- www.cacities.org PRIORITY FOCUS/PAGE 7 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, littering, loitering, graffiti, excessive loud noises, public drunkenness and lewd conduct. Staff: Liisa Lawson Stark; Status: AsGO, Hrg. June 8; Position: Support. AB 1329 (Wolk) Design Build Contracting: Cities. AB 1329 permits cities residing in the Yolo and Solano Counties to enter into design-build contracts until January 1, 2011, subject to the conditions and requirements currently applicable to design-build contracts in Alameda, Contra Costa, Sacramento, Santa Clara, Solano, Sonoma, and Tulare Counties. AB 1329 would limit city design-build contracting to projects for the erection of structures, but excludes from entering into design-build contracts for the construction of roads, bridges, and other transit and non-transit infrastructure. The League supports allowing design-build contracting as an option to cities. Staff: Liisa Lawson Stark, Status: Hearing Date: Senate Local Gov. 7/6, Position: Sup- port WANT TO SEND A LETTER IN SUPPORT OF A LEAGUE POSITION? HERE’S WHO TO CALL: ASSEMBLY APPROPRIATIONS (18)—Chu (Chair), Runner (Vice Chair), Bass, Berg, Calderon, Emmerson, Gordon, Haynes, Karnette, Klehs, Leno, Nakanishi, Nation, Oropeza, Ridley– Thomas, Saldaña, Walters, and Yee. Room 2114. Phone: (916) 319–2081. 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. 1020 N Street, Room 156. Phone: (916) 319–2531. ASSEMBLY LOCAL GOVERNMENT (7)— Salinas (Chair), Emmerson (Vice Chair), De La Torre, Houston, Lieber, Nation, and Wolk. 1020 N Street, Room 157. Phone: (916) 319–3958. ASSEMBLY RULES (8)—Montañez (Chair), Cogdill (Vice–Chair), Baca, Benoit, Coto, Dymally, Karnette, and Villines (Alternates: 2 vacancies). Chief Administrative Officer: Jonathon Waldie. Secretary: Anna McCabe. Room 3016. Phone: (916) 319–2800. SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT—(7)— Kehoe (Chair), Cox (Vice–Chair), Ackerman, Machado, McClintock, Soto, and Torlakson. Consultants: Peter Detwiler and Jennifer Swenson. Assistant: Elvia Diaz. Phone: (916) 445–9748. Room: 410. Legislative Bill Action 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, show- ing the bill history, current status, committee analyses, votes, and much more. You can even view League letters of support or opposi- tion, and access the League lobbyist working on the bill.Visit the League’s Official Website -- www.cacities.org PAGE 8/PRIORITY FOCUS The bills addressed by the senate committee were AB 1547 (Levine) and AB 1735 (De la Torre). A third bill, SB 909 (Escutia) is being held in the Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee. The bills in the senate committee raise the issue of whether non-cable television companies (telephone companies and energy companies) should be exempted from local franchising author- ity. While we were prepared for a debate on the issue, led by Chairperson Martha Escutia the committee voted unanimously to gut the afore- mentioned bills and send them to a conference committee, with interim hearings to be held in the fall (between sessions). Some of chair’s com- ments are paraphrased as follows: • I am looking for a big push for conference committee language for all three bills • I am damn serious about the process being fair. • I would like to take the conference commit- tee throughout the state, i.e. San Francisco, Fresno and Los Angeles. etc. This will guarantee that we receive input from throughout the state. • This is not a show-and-tell-type of exercise — unlike other conference committees. • I want to come back in January with language that all stakeholders have bought into, and to forward to two to three bills via the legisla- tive process. Conference Committee Urged Senator Escutia said she will seek approval from Senate Pro Tem Don Perata to form the conference committee and request that he serve as a co-chair. She also encouraged Assembly- man Levine to follow the same approach with Speaker Fabian Nunez. With both Escutia and Levine requesting the creation of the conference committee, and the co-chair participation by their respective leaders, the leaders are likely to ap- prove the request. Contrary to an earlier report, the conference committee has not been officially approved by either house leadership. Many things can happen in a conference committee. Both Escutia and Senator Deborah Bowen, a member of the Energy, Utilities and Commerce Committee, intend for the conference committee to be substantive. The cable television industry supports the creation of conference committee, as does the League. However, other groups apparently do not favor a conference committee and may approach legislative leadership trying to convince them to push ahead this session with more narrow legisla- tion to address their industry-specific problems. Levine Discussions Ongoing The Assembly Utilities and Commerce Com- mittee Chairperson, Assemblymember Levine, is holding weekly meetings with stakeholders in an attempt to develop a comprehensive regulatory scheme the communications industry in California. The assemblymember apparently plans to con- tinue to hold the weekly meetings to gather further input (see “Telecommunications Issues Affecting Cities”). While these discussions are ongoing, the League strongly urges cities to begin the debate locally about how emerging telecommunications issues should be addressed at the local level (see “League Urges Community Debates”). In the meantime, we will keep you informed as this issue develops and a clearer agenda emerges. LEAGUE URGES COMMUNITY DEBATES The issue of a new regulatory scheme for the communications industry, video, data and voice, will be an extremely important issue for local governments over at least the next two years. If a discussion over these issues has not taken place in your community, we highly encourage cities to plan to hold such a debate. Communities that are TELECOM from page 1 Continued on Page 9 www.cacities.org -- Visit the League’s Official Website PRIORITY FOCUS/PAGE 9 prepared for this “new regulatory world” will do much better in shaping these services in their communities. Those communities that are unpre- pared will have these services shaped entirely by the industry and industry will not be concerned with the larger public policy issues in the deploy- ment of a communications infrastructure (see “Telecommunications Issues Affecting Cities”). We urge that cities move now to address these issues locally, while this debate continues at the state level. Plan to participate in the statewide meetings that will likely take place in conjunction with the work of the Legislature. To view an issue paper on the telecommunications issues, please visit the Transportation, Communications and Public Works section of the League’s website at www.cacities.org/tcpw. TELECOMMUNICATIONS ISSUES AFFECTING CITIES o State Parameters for Local Franchises. One of the communications industry concerns can be described in general as “uniformity.” The argument is that the more “uniform” the franchise process is, the better it is for industry. It is a point that is consistent with the industry goal of “speed to market.” The contention is that the faster the industry gets to market the more “sound” the industry business plan. This issue has both pros and cons from a local government perspective. It runs the potential of being preemptory of local authority over the local franchise process. On the other hand, it may speed negotiations, which can easily become prolonged, on certain regulatory issues. As with any legislation, the details are important in how this issue develops. o Local Franchise Fees. Local govern- ments can currently collect a franchise fee from most utilities. It is a substantial amount of money on a statewide basis. Industry is raising the same “uniformity” issues when it comes to fees. The argument is that it would be easier to collect a fee at the state level and remit it back to local govern- ment. Local governments have not had a good experience with state collected and remitted fees/ taxes (remember vehicle license fees (VLF)?). Is there a compromise position on this issue? Will a franchise fee or some other fee apply to what are now the traditional telephone companies? o Utility User Taxes. In an attempt to achieve this industry concern for “uniformity,” there is interest in trying to lump franchise issues with utility user tax (UUT) issues. Among the problems with this concept is that a franchise fee is just that – a “fee” with a nexus to the public right-of-way. Utilities pay these fees for the privilege of putting down their infrastructure in the public’s right-of-way. On the other hand, a UUT is just that – a “tax” and is enacted by a city to pay for general fund services such as police and fire. Combining a tax and a fee is at best wrong, and presents numerous questions as to communities that have these two revenue sources may be held harmless. Approximately 150 local agencies have a UUT and the rates vary considerably across the state. o Public, Education and Government Channels (PEG). The requirement of PEG channels for the community is a critical concern to many communities and is one of the more difficult issues in local franchise negotiations. While there is strong legislative sentiment about the need for PEG channels, there are questions about how many are needed and under what conditions? Is there a way to place a portion of the PEG require- ments in state law, but allow local flexibility in negotiations? o Build-Out of Communications Systems. A key issue, again with good support in the Legis- lature, is the need to build out the communications infrastructure in a community in a manner that does not discriminate against one portion of the community over another. This is a consideration at the city level as well as at a statewide or regional level. TELECOM from page 8