IN THIS ISSUE: Sept. 21, 2007
Issue #36-2007
Page 7: League Legislative Briefings Scheduled for November
Legal Decision May Have a Profound Effect on Collective Bargaining
Page 8: California Transit Association Sues Over State Budget
Page 9: Public-Private Partnerships Conference Coming Up in Sunnyvale
$52 Million Available for Improvement Projects through the State
Safe Routes to School Program
Page 10: Call for Education Session Ideas: 2008 Mayors & Council
Members Academy, Executive Forum
Water Policies Conference Scheduled for October
Find a Bill, Legislators, Leg Committee, or Ask League Leg Staff
INFRASTRUCTURE BOND IMPLEMENTATION UPDATE
The following is an update on the implementation of each of the infrastructure bonds (Prop. 1B,
1C, 1D, 1E and 84) passed by the voters on the Nov. 2006 ballot. As new developments occur
with each bond, updates will be distributed through the League of California Cities’ Web site and
Priority Focus. For more, see Page 2.
•••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• ••
HOUSE AND SENATE CONSIDER EXTENSION OF THE INTERNET TAX
MORATORIUM: LETTERS OF SUPPORT NEEDED
With the temporary extension on Internet taxes set to expire on Nov. 1, the U.S. House of
Representatives and U.S. Senate are considering legislation to either permanently or temporarily
extend the current moratorium. For more, see Page 4.
•••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• ••
LEAGUE EFFORTS ON SB 2 HELP RETAIN LOCAL CONTROL ON ZONING
FOR HOMELESS SHELTERS
One of the bills of interest to local officials concerned with homeless and homeless housing
issues is SB 2 (Cedillo). Currently on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s desk, if signed into law, the
bill would require local agencies to zone for homeless shelters according to need.
For more, see Page 6.
2
‘Infrastructure’ Continued from Page 1…
Transportation Bond: Proposition 1B: This measure provides $19.92 billion for various transportation
projects to rebuild California. Priority programs of significant interest to California cities are:
• Local Street and Road Funds: $950 million has been allocated in FY 2007-08 to cities and
counties from the Local Street and Road Program. SB 78, the Budget Conference Committee
bill, allocates $600 million (Item #9350-104-6065), and SB 88, the bond implementation trailer bill,
allocates an additional $350 million.
AB 193 and AB 196, both budget cleanup measures, enact the provisions and amendments that
the League and the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) sought to ensure
accountable, efficient and effective transportation project delivery. AB 196 specifies that the $950
million is to be appropriated with $550 million for cities and $400 million for counties. This
division is consistent with the budget requests made by both the League and CSAC.
The allocation of $550 million to cities in FY 2007-08 guarantees that each city receives a
minimum of $400,000, or half of their total bond funds, whichever is greater. City by city
allocation estimates are available at www.cacities.org/infrastructure.
Prop. 1B funds will be allocated by State Controller John Chiang and directly dispersed to cities.
Prior to receiving an allocation, however, local governments must submit a list of projects they
expect to be funded with these funds to the Department of Finance (DOF). DOF will report
monthly to the state controller on which agencies have submitted project lists.
The League is working with CSAC to develop guidelines for cities and counties regarding access
to these funds, project eligibility and reporting requirements. We will make this available to city
officials as soon as it is complete on the League’s Web site and also through electronic
communication.
• Trade Corridor Goods Movement and Emission Reduction: The development of allocation
criteria for the $3.1 billion "goods movement" and air quality improvement programs remains
underway. SB 9 (Lowenthal) and SB 19 (Lowenthal) were the main legislative vehicles.
Although these bills stalled for the year, the Legislature is committed to continuing discussions
when it returns in Jan. 2008. $250 million (SB 77, item #3900-001-6054) was allocated in the
budget to the Air Resources Board to fund projects in FY 2007-08 intended to improve air quality
along four of California's major transportation corridors.
Those corridors are the Los Angeles ports to the Inland Empire, State Route 99 in the Central
Valley, the San Francisco Bay Area, and the San Diego border region. $193 million (SB 77, item
#3900-001-6053) was also included in the budget for school bus retrofits.
• State-Local Partnership: There are two measures in the Legislature that attempt to define the
$1 billion State-Local Partnership Program, which requires a local match to access transportation
bond funds - AB 1351 (Levine) and SB 748 (Corbett). These bills differ in the criteria for eligible
matching funds.
AB 1351 includes only sales tax dedicated to transportation as a match, thus limiting the program
only to "self-help" counties. SB 748 broadens the local match to also include all voter approved
taxes and fees, bridge tolls and Uniform Developer fees. The League supports SB 748, because
it provides the most flexibility for the local match.
While these bills were not sent to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger this year, the Legislature will
continue to work on this program when it returns in Jan. 2008. $200 million was allocated (SB 77,
item #2660-104-6060) to the California Transportation Commission for this program, to be
allocated prior to June 30, 2010. 3
• Local Bridge Seismic Retrofit: $13.5 million was allocated (SB 77, item #2660-104-6062) to
the California Transportation Commission for this program, to be dispersed prior to June 30,
2010. An additional $2.8 million may be expended for this program with the approval of DOF.
Funds will be administered by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to provide
the federal match requirement for local agencies for work on bridges, overpasses, and ramps.
Cities are encouraged to work with Caltrans to access these funds.
• High-Priority Grade Separation Projects: $122.5 million (SB 77, item #2660-104-6063) was
set aside for high-priority grade separation projects. Guidelines for this program must be adopted
by Feb. 15, 2008. Prior to adoption, the California Transportation Commission will hold two
hearings, one in Northern California and one in Southern California, to get public input on the
draft guidelines.
Cities should check the Transportation Commission’s Web site (www.catc.ca.gov) for hearing
information seeking project funding.
• Public Transportation Capital Improvements: Prop. 1B designated $4 billion for various
transit improvements, of which $3.6 billion will be distributed per formula among the state’s transit
agencies. SB 88 contains additional allocation criteria. The budget (SB 77, item #2640-104-
6059) appropriates $600 million for these transit capital improvements projects.
Housing and Infrastructure Bond: Proposition 1C: This measure allocates $2.85 billion for housing
and infrastructure projects to be allocated by the Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD). Approximately half of the bond, $1.4 billion, will fund existing programs including the Multifamily
Housing Program (MHP), Emergency Housing Assistance Program (EHAP), and Building Equity and
Growth in Neighborhoods (BEGIN) program.
The remaining $1.45 billion is designated for infill infrastructure ($850 million), parks ($200 million),
transit-oriented development ($300 million), and innovative programs ($100 million).
• Funding for Infill Infrastructure: $240 million has been made available for a wide variety of
capital improvements to support infill development. Grants are available to local agencies,
nonprofit or for profit developers for developing in qualifying infill areas. Housing element
compliance is a precondition.
Fifteen percent of housing units must be affordable (for very-low income households if the units
are rental, or for moderate income households if the units are owner-occupied). Priorities will be
given to projects that can demonstrate project readiness, completion of necessary environmental
reviews, higher density, proximity to transit, parks, schools and jobs, consistency with adopted
regional blueprints, and demonstrated local support.
Additional guidelines are to be developed by HCD. SB 86 sections 27, 28 and 39 contain
definitions and criteria. SB 77, the budget bill, contains the appropriation (item #2240-101-6069).
The Legislature passed AB 1053 (Núñez), which if signed by the Governor, would extend
eligibility to business improvement districts submitting a joint application with a city or county.
• Brownfield Remediation: $60 million is allocated for loans and grants to cleanup brownfields
that promote infill residential and mixed use development consistent with regional and local land
use plans. This program is required to be administered, in consultation with HCD, through the
California Recycle Underutilized Sites (CALReUse) program operated under the California State
Treasurer’s Office.
Sections 29 and 39 of SB 86 contain definitions and criteria. SB 77, the budget bill, contains the
appropriation (item #2240-101-6069).
• Transit Oriented Development: $95 million is allocated to a program created under Prop. 1C
designed to provide assistance to public agencies and developers with developing higher density
housing within one-quarter mile of a transit station (SB 77, item #2240-101-9736). The 4
Legislature passed AB 1091 (Bass), which if signed by the Governor, would extend the distance
requirement to one-half mile of a transit station.
• Parks and Housing: The budget did not contain an allocation for the $200 million that
was included in Prop. 1C for parks. AB 1252 (Caballero), a bill the League originally
supported, contained implementation criteria for this program. This bill was held in the
Senate Appropriations Committee.
The bill was then the subject of a late-session “gut and amend” and now addresses
allocation criteria for $400 million in parks funding in Prop. 84. Despite the late
movement, this bill remained in the Senate and will be considered next year.
Cities should note that parks development is an eligible use of funds under the infill
infrastructure program listed above.
Proposition 84: Environmental Quality Bond: This measure designates $5.4 billion for improving
natural resources and water programs including state projects and flood control, safe drinking water,
water quality improvement, integrated water management, water planning and sustainable communities.
No funding was appropriated for these purposes in the budget. Several measures remain to be debated,
including:
• $400 Million in Park Funds: AB 31 (De Leon) and AB 1252 (Caballero) are the vehicles for
allocating these funds, as other bills have either been amended or stopped. Both bills are now
two-year bills.
• $90 Million in Planning Funds and $90 Million in Urban Greening: SB 732 (Steinberg) creates a
"Sustainable Communities Council" to coordinate the activities of various state agencies that aim
to improve air and water quality, natural resource protection, affordable housing, and
transportation through land use planning. The bill stalled on the Assembly floor and is now a two-
year bill.
Proposition 1D: Education Facilities Bond: This bond establishes $10.5 billion for performing school
building repairs and providing innovative learning facilities for California students, including seismic
retrofitting and classroom repairs. One of the open issues is the allocation of $29 million to fund joint-use
projects for construction of K-12 school facilities. SB 35 (Torkalson), which is on the Governor’s desk,
would expand the definition of projects and what is considered local contributions under the school
facilities joint use program.
Proposition 1E: Levee Bond: This measure designates $4.09 billion in bond funding for critical river
levee repair and construction, flood control projects and the updating and repair of old water mains and
sewer systems. It also includes $290 million to create flood protection corridors and floodplain mapping.
SB 85, a budget trailer bill, establishes several reporting requirement related to the expenditure of
bond funds for levees, and limits local cost share requirements for facilities part of the State Plan
of Flood Control and specified urban areas.
_____________________________________________________________________________
‘Internet Moratorium’ Continued from Page 1…
The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee is expected to vote on a
temporary Internet tax moratorium extension bill (S. 1453) on Thursday, Sept. 27. The legislation
would extend the current moratorium on Internet taxes from Nov.1, 2007 to Nov. 1, 2011 and is
co-sponsored by California Sen. Dianne Feinstein. California Sen. Barbara Boxer, who sits on
the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, has not yet endorsed the bill.
Take Action!
The League of California Cities is in support of S. 1453 and is asking all California cities to write
letters to Sen. Boxer urging her to support this legislation. Please support this effort and send a
letter to Sen. Boxer today! 5
A sample letter is located at www.cacities.org/federalresources.
Meanwhile, the House Judiciary Committee is discussing whether or not to consider a permanent
Internet tax moratorium bill, as temporary Internet tax extension legislation has not been
introduced in the House.
Take Action!
Several measures designed to permanently extend the moratorium on Internet access taxes have
been introduced in the House, though no temporary extension bills have yet.
The League is in support of a temporary extension and is asking Utility Users Tax (UUT) cities
with members on the House Judiciary Committee to write their representatives to urge them to
work with the House Judiciary Committee leadership to introduce legislation that would extend
the Internet Moratorium.
A list of all of the California Members on the House Judiciary Committee is below, and a sample
letter is located at www.cacities.org/federalresources.
The Honorable Howard Berman
U.S. House of Representatives
2221 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
The Honorable Zoe Lofgren
U.S. House of Representative
102 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
The Honorable Maxine Waters
U.S. House of Representatives
2344 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
The Honorable Linda Sanchez
U.S. House of Representatives
1222 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
The Honorable Brad Sherman
U.S. House of Representatives
2242 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
The Honorable Adam Schiff
U.S. House of Representatives
326 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
The Honorable Elton Gallegly
U.S. House of Representatives
2309 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
The Honorable Dan Lungren
U.S. House of Representatives
2448 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
The Honorable Darrell Issa 6
U.S. House of Representatives
211 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
_____________________________________________________________________________
‘SB 2’ Continued from Page 1…
SB 2 evolved out of last year’s SB 1322 (also authored by Sen. Cedillo), which the League of
California Cities opposed. SB 1322 would have required have severely curtailed local agency
discretionary authority over emergency shelters and large residential care facilities (seven beds
or more). That bill was vetoed by the Governor, who was generally concerned about homeless
issues.
Accordingly, the League was successful in defeating SB 1322, but political forecasters suggested
that a different course of action was needed to address SB 2. (The League’s November edition
of Focus on Housing – www.imakenews.com/focusonhousing – will include a more detailed
account of the political dynamics behind this bill).
As a result, the League’s Housing, Community, and Economic Development Committee formed a
subcommittee on homeless issues and developed policy. Based on this policy, the League
began negotiating with Sen. Cedillo and other stakeholders on language on SB 2.
Impact of SB 2
SB 2 is not perfect for local government, but it is a great deal better than its predecessor. The bill
would preserve discretion for local agencies to locate shelters in their communities and to adopt a
set of development standards to address things like security, lighting, loitering, and other site
management issues for emergency shelters only. The language related to large residential care
facilities has been taken out of the bill.
The measure would also allow the agency to take credit for pro-active programs already in place
(like transitional and supportive housing) to reduce homelessness in the community. Another part
of SB 2 authorizes up to three agencies to enter into an agreement to provide homeless services
and share the credit proportionately.
On the other hand, if it becomes law, SB 2 would require every local agency to have zoning in
place that would allow an emergency shelter. In addition, the bill says that local agencies must
approve at least one homeless shelter. Local agencies must approve a shelter that is consistent
with zoning as long as there is still a need in their communities.
There is some good actor language as well; local agencies that have at least one shelter within
their communities and can show that there is no further need, do not have to approve further
shelters.
While SB 2 is a large improvement over the previous version of the bill, some cities with larger
homeless populations were uncomfortable with its language. The cities of Santa Monica,
Oakland, and San Jose all expressed concerns about the bill. The city of Los Angeles, on the
other hand, supported the bill.
Accordingly, the League was in a tough position. Sen. Cedillo had amended the bill several times
at the League’s suggestion to address our biggest concerns, but individual members still
opposed. In the end, the League did not take a position.
What’s Next
Currently, SB 2 is sitting on the Governor’s desk. It is difficult to know what the Governor will do.
On one hand, the bill got through both the Senate and the Assembly largely on party line votes
and could be framed in a way that makes it look substantially similar to the bill that was vetoed
last year. In addition, several “good actor” cities on this issue actually oppose the bill.
On the other hand, there are significant differences between SB 2 and last year’s SB 1322 and
this year, the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) and the California Chapter of the 7
American Planning Association are supporting the bill (last year they opposed). In addition, the
Governor has his own Homeless Initiative, which includes an element to improve the siting
opportunities for shelters around the state.
Regardless, this is a bill to watch. If signed, SB 2 will need to be incorporated into the next
housing element change, or if it is vetoed, Sen. Cedillo will introduce the bill again next year.
For more information on the issue, contact League Legislative Representative Bill Higgins at
bhiggins@cacities.org.
_____________________________________________________________________________
League Legislative Briefings Scheduled for November
The League of California Cities is hosting two briefing sessions in November. Scheduled for
Wednesday, Nov. 28, in Pasadena and Thursday, Nov. 29, in San Jose, these identical briefings
will focus on bills of note to city officials that passed in the previous legislative session.
Tentative session topics will include:
• Implementation of the State Infrastructure Bond Package
• The fate of ACA 8 and pending initiatives—What’s next on eminent domain and
regulatory takings
• Climate Change: ARB Regulations, SB 375 (Steinberg), the attorney general’s lawsuits,
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines: Are your ready for this kind of
“green heat?”
• Growing Pains: Legislation affecting redevelopment, flood control, environmental issues,
housing and land use
• Employee relations and workers compensation
• Sex offender management, gang abatement, and prison overcrowding: local implications
The cost of attendance is $140, which includes a luncheon. Registration and further information is
available at www.cacities.org/events.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Legal Decision May Have a Profound Effect on Collective Bargaining
The collective bargaining process in California may be fundamentally altered, if the California
Supreme Court declines to review Lexin v. Superior Court.
The case arose out of a decision by the San Diego Employees’ Retirement System (SDCERS)
board of administration to approve an increase in pension benefits for city employees and at the
same time, allowed the pension fund to be underfunded. The San Diego County District Attorney
brought a criminal proceeding against the certain members of the board, alleging a violation of
Government Code section 1090.
Section 1090 is a draconian state law that prohibits a public official or employee from participating
in a public agency decision in which the official or employee has a financial interest. In Lexin, the
district attorney argued that the board members who are public employees have an indirect
financial interest in the decision to increase the pension benefits because they are members of
the bargaining units that would be affected by the change to the benefits.
The board members argued in response that their decision fell within the salary exception to
section 1090, which provides that participating in a decision affecting the official or employees
own salary does not constitute a 1090 violation. The board members argued that pension
benefits are a component of their salary, and therefore, their participation in decision affecting
their pension benefits would fall within the salary exception.
The 4th District Court of Appeal did agree that pension benefits are part of an employee’s salary
for purposes of the salary exception. The Court noted, however, that the salary exception 8
contained its own exception where the decision “directly involves the department of the
government entity that employs the officer or employee….”
The Court reasoned the public employees serving on the board were participating in decisions
that affected the department in which they were employed, because employees in those
departments were members of the bargaining unit negotiating with the city and as a result, would
receive the increased pension benefits. The Court concluded, therefore, the salary exception did
not apply.
Impact of the Court’s Decision
The Court seemed unaware of the profound effect its interpretation of the salary exception will
have. Typically in collective bargaining, a bargaining unit will select one or more employee
representatives to represent the unit in negotiations with management over compensation and
work conditions.
The negotiations will inherently involve the department or departments of the bargaining unit
representatives because most, if not all, non-management employees of a department will be
members of the same bargaining unit. So, under the Court’s interpretation of the salary
exception, no member of the bargaining unit could participate in negotiations with management
over salary and benefits.
To take the analysis further, often management employees who are charged with negotiating
agreements with the bargaining units have their benefits tied to those benefits provided to
employees within the bargaining units. If this is the case, these management employees may
also be unable to participate in negotiations if the outcome of the negotiations would affect the
management employee’s department because they will not be able to rely on the salary exception
to section 1090.
The Court‘s interpretation leaves an open question: if neither management nor a bargaining unit
may be represented by city employees during salary negotiations, how is collective bargaining to
work?
The League of California Cities was informed that the defendants will be petitioning the California
Supreme Court for review. The League will likely be filing a letter with the Supreme Court in
support of review. Stay tuned to future issues of Priority Focus for updates on this critical
collective bargaining issue.
To read the 4th District Court of Appeal’s opinion, visit courtinfo.ca.gov, look up the court, and
then the published opinion of Lexin v. Superior Court.
_____________________________________________________________________________
California Transit Association Sues Over State Budget
On Sept. 6, the California Transit Association (CTA) filed a lawsuit in the Sacramento Superior
Court to prevent approximately $1.3 billion of transit funds slated for bus and light rail service
from being used to balance the FY 2007-08 state budget.
To help balance the budget, the Schwarzenegger Administration proposed diverting funds from
the Public Transportation Account (PTA) to the general fund. The money is now earmarked for
debt repayment and other transportation related programs including home-to-school
transportation.
Part of PTA’s funding comes from the sales tax on gas and diesel and is supposed to be used for
transit-related purposes. In recent years, high gas prices have helped increase the PTA’s
balance. The Administration has asserted that these transit funds can be shifted because they
are still being used for transportation purposes as well as paying off the state’s debt.
The CTA’s lawsuit (which was filed against California Director of Finance Michael G. Genest and
State Controller John Chiang) contends however, that shifting these funds is illegal. In addition, it
alleges that shifting the funds violates voter-supported constitutional amendments that designated 9
the PTA as a trust fund, with a legal requirement that revenues must be spent on mass
transportation purposes.
Another aspect of this lawsuit involves a budget amendment through which half of the future
sales tax revenues on gas diverted from one of PTA’s revenue streams (spillover funds) would be
transferred to the general fund. CTA is also trying to stop this permanent shift of funds.
As developments in the lawsuit occur, updates will be issued through Priority Focus and the
League of California Cities’ Web site, www.cacities.org.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Public-Private Partnerships Conference Coming Up in Sunnyvale
A one-day conference on the topic of public-private partnerships and how public agencies can
use them for various projects is set for Oct. 17, in Sunnyvale.
Sponsored by the Silicon Valley Leadership Group (SVLG), the conference will feature
presentations from public agencies around the world about their partnerships with private sector
firms to speed the delivery of needed improvements while saving public funds and retaining high
standards.
Case studies will include:
• Denver (Colorado) Regional Transportation District’s plan to utilize a public-private
partnership (P3) to realize its 12-year plan to build and operate high-speed rail lines and
expand and improve bus service and Park-n-Rides throughout the eight-county region - the
largest transit expansion project in the United States
• The city of the Carlsbad’s plan to have Poseidon Resources develop a desalination plant that
would produce about 50 million gallons per day of drinking (potable) water, or about 9 percent
of the total potable water demand for San Diego County
• The San Jose school district’s partnership with Chevron Energy Solutions and Bank of
America to establish what is believed to be the largest solar power and energy-efficient
facilities program in K-12 education in the United States
The conference will be held at The Commons, located at 1 AMD Drive in Sunnyvale. The cost of
the conference is $175 for non-SLVG members and $100 for members. For more information
and to register, visit www.svlg.net or contact Laura Stuchinsky at (408) 501-7851 or
lstuchinsky@svlg.net.
_____________________________________________________________________________
$52 Million Available for Improvement Projects through the State Safe Routes to
School Program
Applications are now being accepted for project funding through the State Safe Routes to School
program of the California Department of Transportation. This call for projects covers FY 2006-07
and FY 2007-08, with available amounts of approximately $26.8 million and $25.5 million each
year, respectively. Cities are encouraged to review the program and apply for funding for
appropriate projects.
The goals of the program are to reduce injuries and fatalities to school children and to encourage
increased walking and bicycling among students. The program achieves these goals by
constructing facilities that enhance the safety for pedestrians and bicyclists. Pathways, trails,
sidewalks and crossings built with greater attention to safety, will increase the likelihood of
attracting and encouraging students to walk and bike also increases.
Established in 1999, the State Safe Routes to School program came into effect from the passage
and signing of AB 1475. The program was again extended in 2001 and 2004. Most recently,
Assembly Member Nell Soto introduced AB 57 to extend the program until Jan. 1, 2013.
The deadline for applications is Friday, Nov.16. For more information including online application 10
forms and previous project funding awardees, please visit www.dot.ca.gov and search for “Safe
Routes to School Program.”
_____________________________________________________________________________
Call for Education Session Ideas: 2008 Mayors & Council Members Academy,
Executive Forum
Do you have a great idea for a session or speaker for the 2008 Mayors & Council Members
Academy Executive Forum in Squaw Valley next year? If so, we want to know about it!
The League’s 2008 Mayors and Council Members Executive Forum Planning Committee will be
considering session ideas for any topic area. To submit your ideas, a fully-completed proposal
form packet is due on or before noon on Monday, Oct. 15.
This packet is available at www.cacities.org/events. Any individual, group, business or
organization may submit a proposal suggestion.
Who are the thought leaders that understand municipal government and the issues our cities face
on a daily basis? What are the vital issues our membership must learn to succeed beyond 2008?
This is an exciting opportunity to share your ideas, knowledge and expertise with local
government staff, elected officials and decision makers.
The 2008 Mayors & Council Members Academy Executive Forum will be held at the Squaw
Creek Resort in Squaw Valley on June 4-6, 2008.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Water Policies Conference Scheduled for October
The Western Governors’ Association is hosting “Water Policies and Planning in the West:
Ensuring a Sustainable Future” on Oct. 10-12 in Salt Lake City, Utah. City officials involved in the
planning and management of western water policies are encouraged to attend.
The purpose of the conference is to develop policy options and identify case studies relating to:
• Water planning to deal with challenges resulting from growth
• Effective watershed approaches to water planning
• Responding to climate change and drought impacts
Invited keynote speakers include Gov. Jon Huntsman (Utah), Gov. Janet Napolitano (Ariz.), Sen.
Jeff Bingaman (N.M.), Sen. Pete Domenici (N.M.), U.S. Department of the Interior Secretary Dirk
Kempthorne, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen Johnson.
Registration for the conference is $250 for government or nongovernmental attendees. Further
information, including how to register, is available online at www.westgov.org.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Find a Bill, Legislators, Leg Committee, or Ask League Leg Staff
Visit (and bookmark!) the League’s Legislative Resources Web page
(www.cacities.org/legresources). You’ll find a roster and contact information for the League’s
legislative staff; the online Bill Search program, background materials on lobbying your
legislators, and more.
_____________________________________________________________________________
IN THIS ISSUE: Sept. 28, 2007
Issue #37-2007
Page 3: New Issue of Focus on Housing Published
Page 4: Schedule of HCD Prop. 1C Funding Stakeholder Meetings Now Available
California Public Utilities Commission Rule 20A Reallocation Order Vacated
California Traffic Control Devices Committee to Hold Special Workshop on Oct. 10
Page 5: OPR Seeks Input on Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Guidelines for CEQA
Forum on the Socio-Economic Impacts of Indian Gaming Coming in October
Page 6: League Legislative Briefings Scheduled for November
Call for Education Session Ideas: 2008 Mayors & Council Members Academy, Executive Forum
Find a Bill, Legislators, Leg Committee, or Ask League Leg Staff
‘HOUSING BOTTOM LINE’ STUDY MISSES THE POINT
In June, the California Home Building Foundation released “The Housing Bottom Line: The Fiscal
Impact of New Home Construction on California Governments.” While the effort was notable, the
study sadly misses the point and fails to consider the individual characteristics of California’s 478
cities, according to a critique written by Michael Coleman, the League of California Cities’ fiscal
consultant. For more, see Page 2.
•••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• ••
LEAGUE PARTICIPATES IN PUBLIC SAFETY PRESS CONFERENCE
Issues Surrounding Potential Prison Population Cap and Inmate Release Spotlighted
On Monday, Sept. 24, representatives from the League of California Cities participated in a public
safety press conference in San Francisco. The event was held before the first hearing of a three-
judge panel with authority to determine whether or not to release 40,000 inmates from the state
prison system and cap the prison population to reduce overcrowding.
The pre-hearing press event was held at the Phillip Burton United States Courthouse to call
attention to the public safety issues related to the potential large-scale inmate release and
population cap. For more, see Page 2.
•••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• ••
GOVERNOR SIGNS SECURE RE-ENTRY FACILITY LEGISLATION
On Wednesday, Sept. 26, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed SB 943 (Machado), a bill that
creates the first secure community re-entry facility in California. Re-entry facilities are designed
to provide offenders with intensive rehabilitation, reducing the chances of recidivism.
For more, see Page 3.
2
‘Housing Bottom Line’ Continued from Page 1…
The full critique is available at www.CaliforniaCityFinance.com. A segment of the critique is
located below:
“The building industry funded ‘Housing Bottom Line’ study examines a specific class of new home
and attempts to calculate how that home and its occupants use state and local public services
and pay taxes. But a substantial portion of Californians do not fall into the study’s focus of new
home-owners with substantial incomes. Moreover, some methods and assumptions of the study
are ill-considered.
The study examines a median priced single family home (in each of several defined regions in
California) with residents having incomes high enough to purchase that house and therefore
using public services and making tax payments relative to that income level.
The study implicitly assumes that the home will result in new jobs for the residents of the home
that are 1) located in the city where the home is built and 2) at the income level needed to
purchase the home (i.e. not retail, construction, etc.). The study essentially credits new
residential development with all new business and economic development, crediting new
housing with the tax revenues paid by businesses as well as their costs of public service.
The study generally assumes that these new higher income residents pay for public services
(through state and local taxes) but don’t ‘use’ many of them (i.e. prisons, social services, mental
health, etc.). They have private health insurance so they don’t rely on publicly funded social
services and they don’t even benefit from their “use” by others. The study implies that the growth
in population that comes from new residential development does not increase the demand for
publicly funded social services or the prison population.
The study implicitly assumes that the fiscal effects of a new house don’t change over time:
once a ‘new house,’ always a ‘new house,’ never an ‘existing house’ even though the study
concludes that existing homes cost more in state and local public services than they generate in
tax revenues.
The study examines only this ‘median house’ and does not consider the wide variations over
time and place. Substantial differences in circumstances mean that the example described by
the report does not accurately describe any real circumstance.
The real problem with the fiscal impacts of residential development in California concerns
affordable housing and infill development, where higher costs are not matched by sufficient
on-going revenues. This study does not address these circumstances.”
_____________________________________________________________________________
‘Public Safety Press Conference’ Continued from Page 1…
Although the three-judge panel did not issue a decision and elected to set a trial date for
sometime in Jan. or Feb. 2008, media interest in the press conference was high. Reporters from
a number of Bay Area television stations (including KRON and the local affiliates of NBC, FOX,
Univision, ABC and NBC) covered the event. In addition, public radio reporters from KQED and
KPCC attended, along with reporters from World Journal and the San Francisco Daily Journal.
During the conference, La Mesa Council Member Dave Allan, who chairs the League’s Public
Safety Policy Committee, discussed AB 900, the Public Safety and Offender Rehabilitation Act of
2007, addresses prison overcrowding.
Allan remarked how the legislation adds greater bed capacity to the state prison system,
increases rehabilitation services in the system, and funds 16,000 beds in re-entry facilities where
offenders will have access to job training, counseling, housing placement and more.
Tehachapi Mayor Ed Grimes, the president the Association of California Cities Allied with Prisons,
spoke about the burden California’s 478 cities would face if this many inmates are released and
the total population is capped.
3
Background
The League is part of a coalition which includes law enforcement and local government that is
supporting intervention in Coleman, et al. v. Schwarzenegger and Plata et al. v. Schwarzenegger.
The two class action lawsuits focus on allegations that conditions in the California prison system
violate the federal constitutional rights of inmates. The League joined the coalition because if this
action occurs, it will place a significant burden on local governments.
As developments in the coalition intervention occur, updates will be issued through Priority Focus
and the League of California Cities’ Web site, www.cacities.org.
_____________________________________________________________________________
‘Re-Entry Facility Legislation’ Continued from Page 1…
Re-Entry Facility Workshops
The League of California Cities – along with the California State Association of Counties,
California State Sheriffs’ Association, Chief Probation Officers Association, California Mental
Health Directors Association, County Alcohol & Drug Program Administrators Association of
California and the Association of California Cities Allied with Prisons – has partnered with the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for a series of 10 informational regional
summits on re-entry facilities throughout the state.
The purpose of these workshops is to offer a forum for exchanging information and presenting
perspectives on what roles and responsibilities the state, counties and cities will assume in
bringing re-entry facilities online in California’s communities. The final workshops in the series
will be held in October for Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, and Ventura counties.
For more information on the workshops, contact League Legislative Analyst Dorothy Johnson at
djohnson@cacities.org.
_____________________________________________________________________________
New Issue of Focus on Housing Published
Eminent Domain Reform Measures, ‘Green’ Affordable Housing Examined
The October 2007 edition of Focus on Housing, the League
of California Cities’ affordable housing electronic newsletter,
published earlier this week.
Among the news this month, League Executive Director
Chris McKenzie calls out the Jarvis eminent domain ‘reform’
measure as an attack on tenant rights; while Solara, a new
community in Poway, is highlighted for its “green” features.
In addition, the issue features a summary of affordable
housing news from around California and details on the
CRA/Cal-ALHFA Affordable Housing Conference coming up
in late October.
To sign up for the free subscription and to read the current issue, visit
www.imakenews.com/focusonhousing. Focus on Housing is published by the League of
California Cities in support of the League goal of working to expand the supply and affordability of
housing, and to engage the League membership in discussion and debate on housing policy
issues.
For more information on how you can contribute your affordable housing stories to the newsletter,
contact League Communications Specialist Brian Heaton at bheaton@cacities.org.
_____________________________________________________________________________
4
Schedule of HCD Prop. 1C Funding Stakeholder Meetings Now Available
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has updated its list
for workshops and stakeholder meetings regarding Proposition 1C funding. To access the
schedule, visit www.hcd.ca.gov/fa/bonds.html.
Of particular note to cities are meetings on the Infill Incentive Grant Program. The first meeting
for that program is scheduled for Oct. 18, in Fresno.
In addition, work on revised draft guidelines for transit-oriented development funding is underway.
HCD will issue the revised draft in early October and will allow an additional round of public
comment through mid-October. The first Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for transit-
oriented development funds is scheduled for early November.
For further information, contact HCD Director of Legislation Jolena Voorhis at (916) 323-0169.
_____________________________________________________________________________
California Public Utilities Commission Rule 20A Reallocation Order Vacated
On Sept. 20, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) granted the League of California
Cities’ application requesting that CPUC rehear its prior decision regarding the reallocation of
Rule 20A funds – money that is available to finance electrical utility undergrounding projects.
The ruling means that reallocating funds from inactive cities is on hold, ensuring that cities will be
given notice and have an opportunity to comment on how inactive status should be determined.
CPUC remanded the matter to the Commission’s Energy Division for further proceedings.
Background
In July, Southern California Edison was ordered to take Rule 20A money from cities and counties
deemed to have inactive undergrounding programs and transfer some of the funds to the city of
La Habra for an undergrounding project.
CPUC identified cities and counties as inactive using two criteria:
1. The city had not completed an undergrounding project since 1999
2. The city had not formed a utility district which is a prerequisite for accessing Rule 20A
funds
What’s Next
The League expects CPUC to make a decision and issue a new order within the next six months.
As information becomes available, updates will be made through the League’s Web site and
Priority Focus.
_____________________________________________________________________________
California Traffic Control Devices Committee to Hold Special Workshop on Oct. 10
The California Traffic Control Devices Committee (CTCDC), the official advisory body to the
Director of the State Department of Transportation, will host a special workshop in Sacramento
on Wednesday, Oct. 10. The workshop is being held to discuss changes to the California Traffic
Manual that could affect local speed limits in all California cities.
CTCDC is requesting feedback from cities on Section 2B.13 in the California Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), which addresses speed limits on local streets and roads.
Current state law requires that cities set their arterial speed limits based on the results of a speed
survey. The speed limit is set at the 85th percentile speed, or the speed that 85 percent of
surveyed motorists are driving at or below.
5
As of Sept. 2006, new language in Section 2B.13 changed the interpretation of how speed limits
are set.
Prior to the change, cities could set speed limits “within five miles per hour” of the 85th percentile
speed. The new language asks cities to set speeds based on “round(ing) to the nearest five
miles per hour.” This change in text or “rounding” policy created variances in interpretation,
application and in some cases judicial ruling.
CTCDC is revisiting this “rounding up rule” issue by proposing options that would resolve issues
resulting from the 2006 policy change.
League Policy Committee and City of Thousand Oaks to Study Options
In response to options proposed by CTCDC, the League of California Cities Transportation Public
Works and Communication Policy Committee (TCPW) appointed a special sub-committee in
partnership with the city of Thousand Oaks to study the proposed options and their impact on
local speed limits. In tackling speed limit issues within their jurisdiction, Thousand Oaks learned
of CTCDC and its special workshop, and approached TCPW for its support.
The sub-committee will recommend possible action for TCPW’s consideration and approval
during the Jan. 2008 policy committee meeting, which will then be presented at a future CTCDC
meeting.
Additional information about the CTCDC and the Oct. 10 special workshop is available online at
www.dot.ca.gov.
For information about the TCPW sub-committee, please contact League Legislative Analyst
Dorothy Johnson at djohnson@cacities.org or Mina Layba of the city of Thousand Oaks at
mlayba@toaks.org.
_____________________________________________________________________________
OPR Seeks Input on Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Guidelines for CEQA
The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) is currently developing California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions.
OPR is asking local governments to submit comments and advice regarding the guidelines to
CEQA.GHG@opr.ca.gov.
The guidelines are being developed pursuant to SB 97, which requires OPR to “prepare, develop,
and transmit” the guidelines to the State Resources Agency on or before July 1, 2009. Updated
information on OPR’s progress can be found at www.opr.ca.gov/ceqa/.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Forum on the Socio-Economic Impacts of Indian Gaming Coming in October
The Center for State and Local Taxation at the University of California, Davis, is sponsoring “The
Economic and Social Impact of Indian Gaming in the U.S.” The forum will take place on Friday,
Oct. 26 from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., in the Activities & Recreation Center at UC Davis. City officials
with an interest in this topic may want to consider attending.
Speakers will include a variety of university professors from all over the United States, along with
representatives from various institutes and commissions which will examine the growth of Indian
gaming in the U.S., as well as its social and economic impacts.
For more information, visit www.iga.ucdavis.edu/Events/indian-gaming.
_____________________________________________________________________________
6
League Legislative Briefings Scheduled for November
The League of California Cities is hosting two briefing sessions in November. Scheduled for
Wednesday, Nov. 28, in Pasadena and Thursday, Nov. 29, in San Jose, these identical briefings
will focus on bills of note to city officials that passed in the previous legislative session.
Tentative session topics will include:
• Implementation of the State Infrastructure Bond Package
• The fate of ACA 8 and pending initiatives—What’s next on eminent domain and
regulatory takings
• Climate Change: ARB Regulations, SB 375 (Steinberg), the attorney general’s lawsuits,
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines: Are your ready for this kind of
“green heat?”
• Growing Pains: Legislation affecting redevelopment, flood control, environmental issues,
housing and land use
• Employee relations and workers compensation
• Sex offender management, gang abatement, and prison overcrowding: local implications
The cost of attendance is $140, which includes a luncheon. Registration and further information is
available at www.cacities.org/events.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Call for Education Session Ideas: 2008 Mayors & Council Members Academy,
Executive Forum
Do you have a great idea for a session or speaker for the 2008 Mayors & Council Members
Academy Executive Forum in Squaw Valley next year? If so, we want to know about it!
The League’s 2008 Mayors and Council Members Executive Forum Planning Committee will be
considering session ideas for any topic area. To submit your ideas, a fully-completed proposal
form packet is due on or before noon on Monday, Oct. 15.
This packet is available at www.cacities.org/events. Any individual, group, business or
organization may submit a proposal suggestion.
Who are the thought leaders that understand municipal government and the issues our cities face
on a daily basis? What are the vital issues our membership must learn to succeed beyond 2008?
This is an exciting opportunity to share your ideas, knowledge and expertise with local
government staff, elected officials and decision makers.
The 2008 Mayors & Council Members Academy Executive Forum will be held at the Squaw
Creek Resort in Squaw Valley on June 4-6, 2008.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Find a Bill, Legislators, Leg Committee, or Ask League Leg Staff
Visit (and bookmark!) the League’s Legislative Resources Web page
(www.cacities.org/legresources). You’ll find a roster and contact information for the League’s
legislative staff; the online Bill Search program, background materials on lobbying your
legislators, and more.
_____________________________________________________________________________