June 23, 2006
Issue #25-2006
WANT MORE DETAILS
ON BILLS?
Visit the League of
California Cities
website at
www.cacities.org/
billsearch.
TELECOM IN THE NEWS TELECOM IN THE NEWS TELECOM IN THE NEWS TELECOM IN THE NEWS TELECOM IN THE NEWS
NATIONAL BROWNFIELD ASSOCIATION TO HOST CALIFORNIA CHAPTER NATIONAL BROWNFIELD ASSOCIATION TO HOST CALIFORNIA CHAPTER NATIONAL BROWNFIELD ASSOCIATION TO HOST CALIFORNIA CHAPTER NATIONAL BROWNFIELD ASSOCIATION TO HOST CALIFORNIA CHAPTER NATIONAL BROWNFIELD ASSOCIATION TO HOST CALIFORNIA CHAPTER
RECEPTION ON JULY 19 RECEPTION ON JULY 19 RECEPTION ON JULY 19 RECEPTION ON JULY 19 RECEPTION ON JULY 19
AB 2987 BUILD OUT REQUIREMENTS: WHY THESE ARE STILL AB 2987 BUILD OUT REQUIREMENTS: WHY THESE ARE STILL AB 2987 BUILD OUT REQUIREMENTS: WHY THESE ARE STILL AB 2987 BUILD OUT REQUIREMENTS: WHY THESE ARE STILL AB 2987 BUILD OUT REQUIREMENTS: WHY THESE ARE STILL
INADEQUATE INADEQUATE INADEQUATE INADEQUATE INADEQUATE
FIND A BILL, LEGISLATORS, LEG COMMITTEE - OR ASK LEG STAFF FIND A BILL, LEGISLATORS, LEG COMMITTEE - OR ASK LEG STAFF FIND A BILL, LEGISLATORS, LEG COMMITTEE - OR ASK LEG STAFF FIND A BILL, LEGISLATORS, LEG COMMITTEE - OR ASK LEG STAFF FIND A BILL, LEGISLATORS, LEG COMMITTEE - OR ASK LEG STAFF
LEGISLATIVE BILL SUMMARIES LEGISLATIVE BILL SUMMARIES LEGISLATIVE BILL SUMMARIES LEGISLATIVE BILL SUMMARIES LEGISLATIVE BILL SUMMARIES
Page 2 Page 2 Page 2 Page 2 Page 2
Page 3 Page 3 Page 3 Page 3 Page 3
??????????????????????? ???????????????
???????????????????????? ??????????????
Page 6 Page 6 Page 6 Page 6 Page 6
Less than two weeks remain to register online for the Mayors and Council
Members Academy Executive Forum and Advanced Leadership Workshops.
By registering online by July 3, registrants will receive a $20 coupon for
CityBooks! For more, see Page 2.
MAYORS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYORS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYORS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYORS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYORS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
ACADEMY – REGISTER NOW! ACADEMY – REGISTER NOW! ACADEMY – REGISTER NOW! ACADEMY – REGISTER NOW! ACADEMY – REGISTER NOW!
June 22 amendments to AB 2987 move video franchising authority from
the Department of Consumer Affairs to the Secretary of State. They also
attempt to address red-lining of services and correct serious problems with
the collection of franchise fees — but the amendments fail to solve these
problems. For more, see Page 3.
AB 2987 AMENDMENTS FAIL TO ADDRESS CONCERNS AB 2987 AMENDMENTS FAIL TO ADDRESS CONCERNS AB 2987 AMENDMENTS FAIL TO ADDRESS CONCERNS AB 2987 AMENDMENTS FAIL TO ADDRESS CONCERNS AB 2987 AMENDMENTS FAIL TO ADDRESS CONCERNS
As the State Legislature nears adoption of a budget, talk fills the halls of
the State Capitol that the month-long summer recess (July 7 to August 7) may
actually occur. By July 7, policy committees will have concluded their work,
and when the members return in August, they will have only 23 days to finish
work in the appropriations committees, debate issues on the floors, then
adjourn for the year on August 31. For more, see Page 5.
UPDATE ON KEY LAND USE/HOUSING BILLS UPDATE ON KEY LAND USE/HOUSING BILLS UPDATE ON KEY LAND USE/HOUSING BILLS UPDATE ON KEY LAND USE/HOUSING BILLS UPDATE ON KEY LAND USE/HOUSING BILLSVisit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org PAGE 2 - PRIORITY FOCUS
June 23, 2006 - Issue #25
TELECOM IN THE NEWS TELECOM IN THE NEWS TELECOM IN THE NEWS TELECOM IN THE NEWS TELECOM IN THE NEWS
A Primer on Network Neutrality
Hearing a lot about the term “network neutral-
ity” but don’t fully comprehend what it means?
Don’t worry, you’re not alone.
Network neutrality concerns whether all traffic
on the Internet should be treated the same, and at
the same price, or whether the companies that
deliver the Internet to homes of consumers can
charge a differing rate depending on usage.
To read a primer on the subject, visit
www.sfgate.com and search for “Network Neu-
trality – Speed Bumps on the Information
Highway.”
AT&T Not Exempt from Stevens’ Telecom
Reform Bill
According to an article by Newswire Multichan-
nel, a Senate staff member has confirmed that
AT&T Inc.’s Internet-Protocol TV services (IPTV) is
not exempt from video-franchising provisions in
S.2686, a telecommunications reform bill spon-
sored by Senate Commerce Committee Chair-
man Ted Stevens (R-Alaska).
To read more, visit www.multichannel.com,
and search for “No Free Ride for AT&T in
Stevens Bill.”
Telecos Spend More Than $30 Million on
Telecom Advertising
Media buyers of the California Cable and
Telecommunications Association, an opponent of
AB 2987, have estimated that telecos have spent
more than $30 million on telecommunications
advertising as of April 30.
The amount spent underscores the impor-
tance of the bill, which passed the State Assembly
and is set for hearing in the State Senate on June
27.
To read more, visit www.mercurynews.com
and search for “Millions Spent to Push Bill on
Broadband.”
Join your colleagues at the Monterey Confer-
ence Center on July 26-29, and explore the latest
issues of interest in cities throughout California.
The Executive Forum features keynote speaker
Joseph Grenny, president of “VitalSmarts” and co-
author of “Crucial Confrontations” and “Crucial
Conversations” – both New York Times
bestsellers. Enjoy beautiful Monterey in the sum-
mer and the excellent cuisine as you get reac-
quainted with old friends and make some new
ones.
The full conference registration fee is $445.
Please visit www.cacities.org/events to register
and view the programs.
MCMA MCMA MCMA MCMA MCMA from page 1 from page 1 from page 1 from page 1 from page 1 ???????? ????????
The California Chapter of the National
Brownfield Association (NBA) is hosting a
complimentary reception on July 19 in San
Francisco.
The even will be held from 5 p.m. to 7
p.m. and feature guest speakers Maureen
Gorsen, director, California Environmental
Protection Agency – Department of Toxic
Substances Control and Robert Colangelo,
chief executive officer, NBA. The reception
is a great networking opportunity for those
involved in the redevelopment process.
To register, visit
www.brownfieldassociation.org. More
information is also available at (773) 714-
0407, ext. 22, or via e-mail at
mayalanm@brownfieldassociation.org.
NATIONAL BROWNFIELD NATIONAL BROWNFIELD NATIONAL BROWNFIELD NATIONAL BROWNFIELD NATIONAL BROWNFIELD
ASSOCIATION TO HOST CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION TO HOST CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION TO HOST CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION TO HOST CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION TO HOST CALIFORNIA
CHAPTER RECEPTION ON JULY 19 CHAPTER RECEPTION ON JULY 19 CHAPTER RECEPTION ON JULY 19 CHAPTER RECEPTION ON JULY 19 CHAPTER RECEPTION ON JULY 19PRIORITY FOCUS - PAGE 3 Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org
June 23, 2006 - Issue #25
The amendments specify build out require-
ments on franchise holders with more than
500,000 telephone customers in California, as well
franchise holders with less than 500,000 telephone
customers in California. Here are some of the
concerns with these requirements:
• A franchise holder with more than 500,000
telephone customers must build out to at least 30
percent of low-income households within five
years after the holder begins providing video
service. But there is no requirement to go
beyond this 30 percent build out level after
five years – even though the franchise is
issued for 10 years.
• Specifying that holders with less than
500,000 telephone customers, who are required to
provide video service to “all customers … within a
reasonable time (undefined),” but the holder will
not have to meet the requirement if “the aver-
age cost to provide service is substantially above
the average cost of providing service in that
community.”
• The bill allows holders to apply to the
Secretary of State for a waiver from the build out
requirements with no prior notice to cities and
counties.
• The bill defines “low-income household” as
having an average income of less than $35,000.
But this definition does not account for geographic
location or number of persons in the household.
• AT&T and Verizon are still free to gerry-
mander their service area to underserve lower
income areas, and later seek a waiver from the
Secretary of State from any further build out
requirements.
AB 2987 BUILD OUT REQUIREMENTS: AB 2987 BUILD OUT REQUIREMENTS: AB 2987 BUILD OUT REQUIREMENTS: AB 2987 BUILD OUT REQUIREMENTS: AB 2987 BUILD OUT REQUIREMENTS:
WHY THESE ARE STILL INADEQUATE WHY THESE ARE STILL INADEQUATE WHY THESE ARE STILL INADEQUATE WHY THESE ARE STILL INADEQUATE WHY THESE ARE STILL INADEQUATE
TELECOM TELECOM TELECOM TELECOM TELECOM from page 1 from page 1 from page 1 from page 1 from page 1
??????????????
The bill still protects telephone companies at
the expense of consumers, and provides compe-
tition mainly for those “high value” areas of the
state that already are likely to have high quality
video and broadband service. This bill will not
improve the United States’ pathetic 15th worldwide
ranking in terms of access to broadband services.
Other serious problems with the bill remain
unaddressed. These include the funding for
“PEG” (public, education and government) chan-
nels that would be required; consumer protection;
preserving community control over local rights-of-
way; and funding for I-Net (“institutional network”)
services and free hook-ups for schools and
libraries.
Key Issues with AB 2987 (Núñez/Levine), As
Amended On June 22
Need to Prevent Discrimination. The
June 22 amendments attempt to respond to the
concerns raised by the League and many other
concerned parties regarding cherry-picking of
“high value” customers by the telephone compa-
nies – leaving “low value” customers with inferior
or no service. The amendments specify build-out
requirements on franchise holders – but the
“requirements” contain numerous weaknesses,
virtually guaranteeing that discrimination will
occur. (See “AB 2987 Build-Out Requirements:
Why These Are Still Inadequate”.)
Solution: Amend the bill to require that state
franchise holders must provide the same landline-
based broadband service throughout each local
jurisdiction within a specified number of years of
providing the service to the first customer within
that jurisdiction. Provide that state franchisees
must offer the same landline-based broadband
service throughout their telephone service territory
within the state within a specified number of
years, deploying to both high and low income
areas.
Continued on Page 4Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org PAGE 4 - PRIORITY FOCUS
June 23, 2006 - Issue #25
Franchise Fees Still At Risk. AB 2987
provides local agencies with franchise fees equal
to 5 percent of gross revenues (as many agencies
receive today). But the bill – even with amend-
ments — as drafted presents two serious is-
sues.
1. “Fee” really a state tax. While local
agencies can currently impose a franchise fee as
“rent” for local rights-of-way, AB 2987 imposes a
state franchise fee. The June 22 amendments
say that local agencies can collect the “fees” if
they adopt an ordinance. But since the state does
not own local streets, this state-imposed fee is
really a tax. Local agencies would need voter
approval before they could impose these new
“franchise fees” (taxes) on new franchisees.
2. The amended version of the bill continues
to use a definition of “gross revenues” that allows
video service providers to manipulate their gross
revenues and thereby reduce franchise fees –
meaning that agencies will lose revenues.
Abrogation of Contracts: More than
$300 Million Annual Franchise Fees at Risk.
California cities currently receive approximately
$300 million a year in cable franchise fees, in
exchange for the cable companies “renting” local
rights-of-way. These funds are considered gen-
eral revenues – available to fund public safety or
other local priorities.
Cable companies are proposing amendments
to terminiate existing franchise agreements with
local agencies. Franchise revenues could be
placed in jeopardy or significantly reduced if cable
companies are able to cut a deal in AB 2987 that
allows them to abrogate current contracts to
achieve a “level playing field” with telephone
companies.
Strengthen Customer Service Stan-
dards. AB 2987 pre-empts local customer ser-
vice standards which local agencies adopt and
enforce under their cable franchise agreements.
The bill requires local agencies to enforce limited
state standards and authorizes the imposition of
liquidated damages, but pre-empts franchise
termination as a remedy. In other words, the bill
gives local agencies the responsibility for ensuring
consumer protection with little real authority.
Solution. Leave in place local agency author-
ity to adopt customer service standards; at a
minimum, adopt model customer service stan-
dards developed by the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC). Leave in place local authority
to enforce those standards, including franchise
termination in extreme cases.
Retain Local Authority to Manage Public
Rights-of-Way. AB 2987 contains confusing
and conflicting language about the conditions
under which telephone companies can deploy
their equipment in local rights-of-way.
Solution: Amend the bill to provide that noth-
ing in the bill affects the authority of local agencies
to regulate the time/place/manner of the use of
the public rights-of-way provided it is done in a
manner consistent with the bill.
Retain Funding for PEG Channels.
Public, education and government channels
(“PEG”) are an important tool used by many local
agencies and local organizations to broadcast
public meetings, programs and information of
community interest. Cities are currently able to
negotiate with cable providers as part of their local
franchise agreement for PEG funding and sup-
port. AB 2987 would instead allow only 1 percent
for both PEG channels and I-Net services (“insti-
tutional networks”), and limit that to only pay for
capital expenses (no operating expense).
Solution: Amend AB 2987 to provide that
operators shall pay a specified amount of gross
revenues for PEG only (not I-Net, which should be
funded separately). Provide that these funds may
be used for either capital or operational expenses.
Institutional Networks. Institutional Net-
works (“I-Net”) provide a tremendous benefit to
????????????????????????????????????? ?????????
Continued on Page 5
TELECOM TELECOM TELECOM TELECOM TELECOM from page 3 from page 3 from page 3 from page 3 from page 3PRIORITY FOCUS - PAGE 5 Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org
June 23, 2006 - Issue #25
local government by providing high capacity voice/
video/data networks that they could never afford
on their own, while costing the operator relatively
little due to the fact that the incremental cost of
building additional capacity is relatively low. Many
local franchises require the cable operator to
provide an I-Net – but AB 2987 doesn’t require
operators to provide an Institutional Network even
if paid for by the local agency. The bill would
effectively terminate existing Institutional Networks
and prevent the deployment of new Institutional
Networks.
Solution: Amend the bill to require operators
to provide an I-Net, with the number of network
connections or sites based on the population of
the local agency. Alternatively, require existing
Institutional Networks provided by incumbents to
continue, but require new entrants to pay a propor-
tionate share of the cost to the incumbent.
TELECOM TELECOM TELECOM TELECOM TELECOM from page 4 from page 4 from page 4 from page 4 from page 4 ?????????????
This is, therefore, a good time to take stock on
where things stand on land use and housing
legislation.
The 2006 Legislative Session has been a
contentious one for land use issues: infrastructure
funding, redevelopment reform, eminent domain
and (Kelo), housing elements, 20-year land sup-
plies, density bonus battles, etc.
Infrastructure Bond Package. Two of the
most important developments for housing in this
legislative session have been the passage of a
$38 billion infrastructure bond package, with
funding for transportation, housing, schools,
levees; and passage of measure that protects
local Proposition 42 transportation funds. Voter
approval in November remains a significant
hurdle, however, as we are reminded by the
voters’ rejection of the library bond (Prop. 81) and
many local transportation taxes in the June pri-
mary.
Eminent Domain (Kelo) and Redevelop-
ment Reform. Early in the year, redevelopment
HOUSING HOUSING HOUSING HOUSING HOUSING from page 1 from page 1 from page 1 from page 1 from page 1
Continued on Page 6
???????????????? ????????
agencies were running a gauntlet of legislative
proposals aimed at stripping away eminent
domain authority, forcing higher housing set-
asides, and imposing other restrictions. Thanks
to the excellent efforts of the California Redevel-
opment Association and opposition from local
governments, many of the most onerous propos-
als have been defeated or stalled.
Several bills, however, including SB 1206
(Kehoe), continue to have provisions that merit
opposition. Yet, the real battle will come over the
“Anita Anderson” initiative measure, which is
anticipated to qualify for the November ballot.
This measure not only contains many limitations
on the use of eminent domain, it also expands
broadly into the field of “regulatory takings” and
would require compensation by state or local
governments to property owners for impacts of
state or local laws on property.
Housing Elements and Other Laws. A
number of bills were introduced in this area, but
many have either stalled or have been signifi-
cantly amended. SB 1800 (Ducheny), a
homebuilder-sponsored bill which required 20-
year land supplies to be dedicated to housing and
expanded state control over local housing ele-
ments, remains stalled in the Senate due to
significant environmental and local government
opposition.
Other measures which the League opposed,
such as AB 2526 (Arambula) and SB 1177
(Hollingsworth) are also stalled. While amend-
ments have improved other bills, the League
remains opposed to SB 1330 (Dunn), which
expands attorney fee provisions against local
governments, and several other measures.
League’s Housing/Land Use Package.
The League’s housing package also has thinned
out over the Legislative Session. Two League-
sponsored measures both failed to emerge from
the Appropriations Committee suspense files due
to costs to the state, and the adoption of $2.85
billion the housing bond SB 1689 (Perata). These
are SB 1754 (Lowenthal), which expanded tax
increment financing for high-density housing
development, and AB 2503 (Mullin), which re-Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org PAGE 6 - PRIORITY FOCUS
June 23, 2006 - Issue #25
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS
AB 573 (Wolk). Design/Engineering Con-
tracts. Indemnification. AB 573 would limit the
types of indemnification provisions public agencies
may require in contracts with design and/or engi-
neering firms. The sponsors and Assemblymember
Wolk have observed that insurance is not available
for the broader types of indemnification required by
many public agencies and thus, public agencies
have a false sense of security when design or
engineering firms sign such contracts.
To the contrary, some public agency attorneys
have remarked that their clients have no trouble
Visit (and bookmark!) the League’s
Legislative Resources page
(www.cacities.org/legresources). You’ll find
a roster and contact information for the
League’s legislative staff; the online Bill
Search program, background materials on
lobbying your legislators, and more.
FIND A BILL, LEGISLATORS, LEG FIND A BILL, LEGISLATORS, LEG FIND A BILL, LEGISLATORS, LEG FIND A BILL, LEGISLATORS, LEG FIND A BILL, LEGISLATORS, LEG
COMMITTEE - OR ASK LEG STAFF COMMITTEE - OR ASK LEG STAFF COMMITTEE - OR ASK LEG STAFF COMMITTEE - OR ASK LEG STAFF COMMITTEE - OR ASK LEG STAFF
quired a dollar-for-dollar return or ERAF funds to
local governments to match investment in local
housing trust funds.
Other stalled measures are AB 2468 (Sali-
nas), allowing local self-certification of housing
elements, and AB 3042 (Evans), which proposed
a more flexible housing transfer process. AB
2468 became bogged down in housing advocate
opposition, while AB 3042 became so loaded with
unrealistic requirements that it was no longer
worth pursuing.
These other League-sponsored measures,
however, continue to move: AB 2158 (Evans),
which requires Councils of Governments (COGs)
to consult with LAFCO’s prior to adopting housing
allocation methodology; AB 2572 (Emmerson)
which ensures communities with universities can
raise unique local issues; and AB 2259 (Salinas),
which continues LAFCO authority to review
unincorporated county development for consis-
tency with LAFCO policies.
Flood Control. Within the last few months,
the Legislature has been “awash” in flood control
bills. Two key measures that relate to housing,
planning and flood control are AB 802 (Wolk) and
AB 1899 (Wolk). AB 802 is supported by the
League. It now includes amendments jointly
developed by the League, CSAC, APA and RCRC
and others to enhance how general plans ad-
dress flood issues.
AB 1899 (Wolk) is the so-called “show me the
flood protection” bill which proposes to tie future
Greenfield development to implementation of
plans to achieve 200-year flood protection. The
state Department of Water Resources has been
circulating a conceptual proposal to address the
topic in a different manner.
A hotly debated bill, AB 1899 will likely be the
subject of continued negotiations throughout the
summer. The League has sent comments to the
author, and the EQ and HCED policy committees.
Finally, it is likely that one omnibus bill will be
crafted to address the issue of liability and flood
control.
???????? ?????
HOUSING HOUSING HOUSING HOUSING HOUSING from page 5 from page 5 from page 5 from page 5 from page 5
Continued on Page 7
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’s new “Issues and Advocacy”
page (www.cacities.org/
issuesandadvocacy) – a one-stop location
to access information about legislation,
policy issues and related developments.
You can track information on bills
(www.cacities.org/legtracking), locate
legislators and legislative committees, send
letters to legislators or the media through the
online Advocacy Center, research League
policy positions, access useful related links,
and much more.
Le Le Le Le Legisla gisla gisla gisla gislati ti ti ti ti v v v v ve Bill e Bill e Bill e Bill e Bill Action Action Action Action ActionPRIORITY FOCUS - PAGE 7 Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org
June 23, 2006 - Issue #25
finding qualified design firms for public projects and
that the broader indemnification requirements are
necessary to protect taxpayers.
Although the League has heard from cities that
they oppose the bill, we have also heard from cities
that either they “can live with the bill’s requirements”
or that they already use the types of indemnification
provisions specified in the bill.
Because the bill would limit the flexibility and
ability of local agencies to use this type of tool in
public contracts, the League opposes AB 573. AB
573 passed the Senate Judiciary Committee this
week and will be heard next on the Senate Floor.
Staff: Yvonne Hunter; Status: Pending on AsmFlr;
Position: Oppose.
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
AB 1665 (Laird). Flood Control. After a
lengthy hearing in the Senate Natural Resources
and Water Committee, the vote on AB 1665 was put
over for a week. AB 1665, sponsored by the Admin-
istration, would address a variety of flood protection
issues. Many provisions are non-controversial and
supported by many groups.
Others, however, are extremely controversial
and have attracted extensive opposition. These
include requirements that cities and counties that
benefit from state investment in levee improvement
agree to share the state’s liability before the state
will invest funds to upgrade the levee beyond its
original design. The controversial provisions also
include granting the Reclamation Board the author-
ity to assess property owners fees to pay for up-
grades to levees for which the state has legal
responsibility.
At the hearing, several sections were deleted
from the bill – some to be negotiated and amended,
some to remain deleted but included in another
vehicle. The shared liability/indemnification portion
of the bill to which the League had objected is one
of the issues that was deleted and will be included in
another bill.
Continued on Page 8
Le Le Le Le Legisla gisla gisla gisla gislati ti ti ti tiv v v v ve Bill e Bill e Bill e Bill e Bill Action Action Action Action Action
Based upon several sources at the Capitol, the
different shared liability/indemnification provisions
of various bills will all be deleted. Instead, one
comprehensive approach to flood liability and
indemnification will be crafted, with the likely legisla-
tive vehicle being AB 1528 (Jones), which is cur-
rently sitting in Senate Rules Committee. This is
likely an issue that will be negotiated during the July
summer recess. The League will participate in
those discussions.
With the liability provision deleted, the League
no longer opposes AB 1665. Staff: Yvonne Hunter;
Status: Pending in SenNR&Wa; Position: Pend-
ing.
AB 802 (Wolk). Flood Issues. General
Plans. AB 802 passed the Senate Local Govern-
ment Committee this week with no opposition. It
would enhance how city and county general plans
identify and respond to flood issues. Many of the
new requirements are taken from the general plan
guidelines, which suggest optional items for inclu-
sion. AB 802 will move next to the Senate Appro-
priations Committee. Staff: Yvonne Hunter; Status:
Pending in SenAppr; Position: Support.
AB 1899 (Wolk). Show Me the Flood Pro-
tection. AB 1899 moved out of the Senate Local
Government Committee this week after an exten-
sive hearing. The complexity of the issue and
difficulty in finding a workable solution to the prob-
lem of how to enhance flood protection for new
developments was demonstrated by the myriad of
perspectives presented at the committee.
The League has provided Assemblymember
Wolk with extensive comments based upon recom-
mendations from the League flood control working
group. Thursday, the League’s Environmental
Quality and Housing, Community and Economic
Development Policy Committees considered the
working group’s recommendation and the EQ
Committee engaged in a lively discussion with
Assemblymember Wolk.
Both policy committees unanimously adopted a
position that differs slightly from the flood controlVisit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org PAGE 8 - PRIORITY FOCUS
June 23, 2006 - Issue #25
working group’s recommendation to oppose AB
1899 unless it is amended. Instead, the policy
committees recommend that the League take no
position at this time on AB 1899. The League will
continue to work with the author’s office and others
to resolve the issues included in our letter, as well
as any other issues that come up. It is clear that
the bill is still a work in progress.
The policy committees also agreed that some
of the concepts included in the DWR proposal have
merit and should be factored in the mix of
discussion. Ultimately, we will evaluate how well the
bill has addressed our issues and then determine
whether to support, be neutral or oppose it.
A copy of the League’s letter, which includes a
discussion of the problem issues, is posted on the
League’s website. It is clear that the issue of flood
control and development will be one negotiated
throughout the summer. Staff: Yvonne Hunter;
Status: Pending in SenAppr; Position: Pending.
Le Le Le Le Legisla gisla gisla gisla gislati ti ti ti ti v v v v ve Bill e Bill e Bill e Bill e Bill Action Action Action Action Action
WANT TO SEND A LETTER IN WANT TO SEND A LETTER IN WANT TO SEND A LETTER IN WANT TO SEND A LETTER IN WANT TO SEND A LETTER IN
SUPPORT OF A LEAGUE POSITION? SUPPORT OF A LEAGUE POSITION? SUPPORT OF A LEAGUE POSITION? SUPPORT OF A LEAGUE POSITION? SUPPORT OF A LEAGUE POSITION?
HERE’S WHO TO CALL: HERE’S WHO TO CALL: HERE’S WHO TO CALL: HERE’S WHO TO CALL: HERE’S WHO TO CALL:
Senate Appropriations—(13)—Murray
(Chair), Aanestad (Vice–Chair), Alarcon,
Alquist, Ashburn, Battin, Dutton, Escutia,
Florez, Ortiz, Poochigian, Romero and
Torlakson. Staff Director: Bob Franzoia.
Consultants: Miriam Barcellona Ingenito,
John Decker, Nora Lynn, Mark McKenzie,
John Miller and Maureen Ortiz. Assistant:
Sally Ann Romo and Krimilda Hodson.
Phone: (916) 651–4101. Room: 2206.
Senate Natural Resources and Water—
(7)—Kuehl (Chair), Margett (Vice–Chair),
Aanestad, Kehoe, Lowenthal, Machado, and
Migden. Chief Consultant: Bill Craven.
Principal Consultants: Dennis O’Connor.
Consultant: Marie Liu. Assistants: Patricia
Hanson and Cathy Cruz. Phone: (916) 651–
4116. Room: 407.
June 30, 2006
Issue #26-2006
AB 2987: FEW STEPS FORWARD, HUGE LEAP BACK
The Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee passed out AB 2987
(Núñez/Levine) yesterday on a bi-partisan 9-0 vote, with an amendment that will allow cable
companies to “opt out” of their franchise agreement with local agencies and instead seek to
operate under a state franchise, if a competitor holding a state-issued franchise comes to town.
For more, see Page 2.
•••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• ••
FEDERAL TELECOM UPDATE: SENATE COMMITTEE
PASSES NATIONAL CABLE FRANCHISE MEASURE
The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee approved S. 2686 on June 28 on
a bipartisan vote of 15 to 7, and re-numbered the bill to H.R. 5252. The newly named Advanced
Telecommunications and Opportunity Reform Act of 2006, a bill which sets national standards for
local franchising, now moves to the full Senate. For more, see Page 3.
•••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• ••
‘TAXPAYER TRAP’ INITIATIVE QUALIFIES FOR NOVEMBER BALLOT
Earlier this week, a proposed state initiative qualified for the November ballot—with a number yet
to be assigned by the Secretary of State. Called eminent domain reform by its out-of-state
funders, it is really a cynical and deceptive trap that will cost taxpayers billions to compensate
individuals affected by regulations that protect neighborhoods, the environment, consumers and
the public-at-large. The League strongly opposes this measure and has helped start the
campaign coalition that will lead the opposition to this destructive and misleading measure.
For more, see Page 5.
ALSO IN THIS ISSUE:
Page 7: Budget Funds Local Transportation, Public Safety, Mandates
Page 9: Second Annual ILG Luncheon Symposium on September 7; State Court Upholds Local Agencies’ Right to
Regulate for Aesthetics
Page 10: Applications Now Being Accepted for Innovations in American Government Award; Keeping Up: Jarman
Appointed San Diego Fire Chief; Find a Bill, Legislators, Leg Committee – or Ask Leg Staff; Legislative Bill
Summaries
2
AB 2987 Continued from Page 1…
The League and the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) strongly opposed the
amendment. We question whether the California Constitution will allow the Legislature to pass a
statute authorizing the abrogation of a local contract. We believe that the matter will quickly
become the subject of a lawsuit if a cable company attempts to implement these provisions.
The abrogation amendment was one of a number of amendments taken by the committee during
a three hour hearing on June 29, during which the committee took up and discussed in detail
most of the issues identified with the bill. A number of issues appear to be largely resolved to the
satisfaction of almost all parties – although most people have yet to see the actual language of
the agreements they approved in principle.
There are a few outstanding issues that were not resolved. These will be worked on during the
July break, and amendments presented when the bill is heard in Senate Appropriations in August.
Several members of the committee – including Chair Martha Escutia and Sens. Kevin Murray and
Joseph Simitian, who were the most active of the Energy Committee members in terms of asking
questions and pressing for answers – are also members of Appropriations.
The following is a summary of the actions and status of the issues with the bill.
Abrogation of existing franchise agreements. The committee accepted an amendment
allowing cable companies to opt out of their franchise agreements 10 days after a competitor
comes announces that they have received a franchise to deploy service in the cable company’s
service territory. The argument put forward by cable is that this occurs under “limited
circumstances” (when a competitor comes to town), is likely to occur only rarely, will protect
consumers from unequal levels of fees, and will have a “de minimis” impact on local agencies.
Verizon and AT&T signed off; the League and CSAC will strongly oppose.
Fee v. tax. The issue is whether the franchise fee should be imposed by locals or by the state.
Amendments drafted by Legislative Counsel were taken to clarify that this is a state-imposed fee
that will be paid to local agencies for the use the public’s right of way. The League and CSAC
agreed to this language, although we also proposed a contingency provision stating that if state-
imposition is found invalid, the fee may be imposed locally. That provision is still in play, but the
committee didn't adopt it, and Nunez said he'll consider it.
Definition of general revenues. Agreement was reached in part: references to “Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles” will be deleted, as requested by the League. Further work on
the question of “bundling” services – another League suggestion – was accepted in principle but
language will be the subject of more discussion. The committee members and Speaker Núñez
agreed that the goal should be to keep local governments whole.
Local control over rights-of-way. Amendments were taken to clarify that local agencies retain
full authority over the time, manner and place of use of ROW.
Non-discrimination/Build-out. Most of the discussion focused on these provisions, with the
committee agreeing that additional amendments were needed to strengthen build-out
requirements. Nunez said he would be offering amendments that among other things will provide
that build-out requirements are only triggered when the telcos reach a 30% market share.
However, he didn't provide written amendments to the public, so the details are unclear.
Senators Murray and Escutia had big problems with the 30% figure, questioning whether the
telcos are likely to reach that figure. After much discussion the committee moved on, so we
assume (in the absence of seeing any language) that for now the provision remains the same,
with one exception: the committee was adamantly opposed to allowing telephone companies to
3
use satellite service to meet some portion of the build-out requirements. The issue will certainly
be discussed further in Appropriations.
Another issue that received a great deal of attention was language that allows what Chairwoman
Escutia called an “off-ramp” for companies that subsequently found they could not meet the build-
out requirement. She stressed that the off-ramp should only be available for circumstances
outside the control of the company (economic downturns, “acts of God”) – not poor management
decisions. There was strong agreement from the committee members that anti-discrimination
requirements must be met, with no exceptions.
Cross-subsidy (i.e. language to ensure that current phone customers do not subsidize the build-
out of video and Internet services under the new state franchise approach). An additional
amendment was taken to address this issue. It was not deemed acceptable by the TURN (“The
Utility Reform Network”), the group lobbying for this protection.
Customer Service/Protection. Additional amendments were taken to adopt FCC standards
(currently used as a “floor” in many local franchise agreements today), to raise penalties and to
clarify that local agencies have authority to enforce these consumer protection provisions.
Companies will be required to post a surety bond. Locals can impose fines, and draw on the
bonds to pay the fines. Funds collected can be used by local agencies to offset the costs of
bringing enforcement actions. The League and CSAC agreed to this amendment in principle
(although again, language was not available).
PEG (“Public, education and government”) channels and I-NET. As expected, the committee
deferred action on this issue so that concerned parties could work on amendments over July, with
Senators Murray and Simitian taking the lead. Simitian stated that his goal is “to hold
communities harmless” on this issue. He said that he “is not wild about abrogation”, and believes
particularly that if the bill allows for abrogation it’s especially important that companies not be to
able walk away from PEG commitments. When others said that state PEG requirements will
result in some winners and some losers among PEG providers, Senator Simitian essentially said
that's not good enough and that the PEG providers in his area currently receive more resources
than most and need to be protected.
CEQA. Local agencies will be the lead agency for CEQA review. Additional work on this will be
done over July.
Emergency Alert Systems. The committee agreed that work on this issue will occur over the
summer, with amendments taken up in Appropriations.
The regulatory/franchising agency. The committee agreed to take amendments designating
the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to assume this role. This issue provided much of
the comic relief of the day, as no state agency wants this role. No one likes it going to the CPUC,
but they ran out of options. Sen. Cox question how it would be paid for. Speaker Núñez said that
it would be from application fees and perhaps a percentage of gross revenues, which might or
might not be a share of local franchise fees, but nothing is currently in the bill other than the
application fee. This issue will be taken up by Appropriations.
The League testified that we still believe the best approach is a statewide framework, locally
implemented – with franchises issued by local agencies. Neither the committee nor the authors
or sponsors are willing to accept this amendment.
______________________________________________________________________
Federal Telecom Continued from Page 1…
The telephone companies are lobbying for a quick vote, but concerns about net neutrality, build-
out, and other controversial items may slow action on the measure. Following are highlights of
the Senate Commerce Committee's action on the bill.
4
Municipal Groups Achieve Some Important Amendments
Several key improvements to the bill were achieved by the League and the California State
Association of Counties (CSAC), working with the National League of Cities (NLC), National
Association of Counties (NAOC), the U.S. Conference of Mayors (USCM) and the National
Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (NATOA) and other national municipal
groups. These include amendments strengthening local control of local rights of way, protecting
local franchise fees, and preserving "PEG" (public, education and government) access channels
and their funding.
In addition, we understand that several important provisions were adopted by Sen. Stevens as
part of his manager's amendment, which resulted from discussions with the national local
government groups. Those changes included increasing from 75 to 90 days the amount of time
that cities would have to negotiate with new video providers before the contract applies; allowing
cities to collect monies on fees already paid by cable operators; requiring AT&T's Internet
television service to be subject to new franchising requirements; and ensuring that localities not
lose existing public-access channels and institution networks. The amendment was accepted by
voice vote.
No Build-Out Provisions
The most contentious video-franchising amendment - deciding whether new video service
providers should be required to build out their service to all neighborhoods within their franchise
area - was ultimately rejected by the committee by a 12-10 vote. The League had worked closely
with the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) and Sen. Barbara Boxer's office on the
amendment, which would have required newcomers to deploy video services in phases.
The obligation would have started as soon as a new entrant offered video service to 15 percent of
a given franchise area. Once the company had met that threshold, it would have had to offer
service to a further 20 percent of homes every two years until all households are reached.
California cities should thank Sen. Boxer for her tremendous efforts in spearheading this issue.
The League and CSAC sent a June 23 letter (a copy can be accessed at
www.cacities.org/telecom) to the senator endorsing the amendment. The amendment was
supported by all of the committee's Democrats and Republican Olympia Snowe (R-Maine).
The committee's rejection of this amendment leaves the bill with NO build-out requirements.
Key Troublesome Amendments for Cities Adopted
The committee also adopted, by a 19-3 tally, an amendment offered by Sen. George Allen (R-
Va.) that would permanently extend the moratorium on Internet taxes. In addition, the committee
also adopted an amendment by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) that would place a three-year
moratorium on all new cell phone taxes.
In a key point for Texas and other states which have recently adopted statewide cable franchise
laws, the committee rejected an amendment that would have "grandfathered" state franchise laws
recently adopted in Texas and several other states. It now appears that H.R. 5252 would pre-
empt those laws.
Net Neutrality Remains Contentious Issue
The most controversial item in the bill is the issue of network neutrality. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-
Ore.) has stated that he will place a hold on the bill, preventing a vote until the issue is resolved.
The thorny topic dealing with whether high-speed Internet operators should be able to charge
content providers more for premium treatment may result in significantly more discussions
occurring on this bill than the sponsors intend.
_____________________________________________________________________________
5
Taxpayer Trap Continued from Page 1…
Here’s why the Coalition and the League Opposes this Proposition:
• Cost all taxpayers billions. The measure will require billions of dollars in new payouts
any time a law or regulation is passed to protect our neighborhoods, limit
overdevelopment, protect air and water quality, restrict undesirable businesses or enact
new consumer protection laws. That’s because the measure contains a hidden provision
that allows virtually anyone to sue claiming a new law or regulation has impacted the
value of their property or business – no matter how far fetched the claim – and taxpayers
will be on the hook.
• Result in thousands of frivolous lawsuits and more bureaucracy and red tape. The
measure encourages frivolous lawsuits and new layers of bureaucracy and red tape.
Virtually any unscrupulous property owner or developer looking for a windfall can file a
lawsuit under this measure, claiming even the most minor new law has impacted the
value of their property. After a similar law was recently passed in Oregon (a much smaller
state), nearly 2,000 claims were filed – seeking $3.8 billion in claims that taxpayers of
that state could ultimately have to pay.
• Drive up the cost of infrastructure projects like schools, traffic relief and flood
control. The measure requires new and unreasonable payouts whenever agencies
acquire property for public works. These provisions will exponentially drive up the cost of
infrastructure projects, cause delays, or even stop needed projects from getting done.
Taxpayers pay, or citizens lose out on the congestion relief, road repairs, schools, utility
services and other infrastructure we need.
• Prevent voters and state and local agencies from enacting environmental
protections. The measure’s new provisions would severely restrict the ability of voters,
and local and state agencies to enact and enforce basic laws that protect our coastline,
preserve open spaces and farmland, protect air and water quality, and stop sprawl and
development of environmentally sensitive areas. If taxpayers can’t afford the new
payouts, agencies will be unable to enact new and enforce existing protections, or be
powerless to limit unwanted growth.
• Transfer control of our neighborhoods and communities from voters to
corporations and developers. The measure will undermine the ability of local
communities and even local voters to decide what types of projects get built in their
neighborhoods, what types of businesses locate in a neighborhood, and how a
community decides to grow.
• Jeopardize funds for police, fire and other critical local services and make it more
difficult to enact new consumer protection and even anti-crime laws. The measure
will dramatically reduce resources available for local police and fire protection,
emergency response and other critical local services by forcing local governments to pay
billions of dollars to enact measure that protect communities. It will also discourage new
consumer protection and criminal laws from being enacted. For example, the measure
could require new taxpayer payouts for laws dealing with identity theft, fraud and
consumer protections if the offending business makes a claim that such laws “devalue”
their business – payouts that could make these laws too costly to enact.
We are confident that California voters will see beyond the misleading “bait” of this initiative, and
they won’t get caught in the taxpayer trap that will harm taxpayers, our state, its economy, and
every California community. We’ll be working overtime to educate the voters between now and
election day. If you want more information or wish to get involved, please contact your league
regional representative or the campaign at (916) 443-0872.
6
Major Provisions of The Taxpayer Trap Initiative
The Bait:
Prohibits use of eminent domain unless the property acquired is owned and occupied by a
governmental agency. This provision is the bait in the taxpayer trap. While everyone agrees some eminent
domain reform is needed, the way this provision is crafted would also result in negative consequences and
significantly hinder community revitalization efforts and the ability of local agencies to clean up blight, eliminate
slum lords, build affordable housing, and reduce crime though partnerships with the private sector.
The Trap:
Changes laws defining compensable damages and severely and negatively impacts state & local
governments’ ability to enact and enforce environmental, land use, consumer protection and housing
laws and regulations. The initiative redefines “damage” to require payment for any government action that
someone claims will result in economic loss to property – no matter how unreasonable that claim. This “trap”
would result in frivolous lawsuits, huge payouts to a few wealthy landowners, and increased administrative
costs at taxpayers’ expense. For example:
o If voters act to limit the size of a development for environmental or traffic concerns to 100 homes, and
the developer claims the property could hold 200 homes, the measure allows the developer to sue to
force taxpayers to pay his company the value for the 100 homes he wasn’t allowed to build. Taxpayers
would be on the hook for the value of the property at the more dense use, even though the community
could not handle or did not want such a development.
o If a city approves a new commercial development, adjacent landowners could demand to be
compensated for the effects of increased traffic on lowering their property values.
o If the state enacts a new law restricting certain telemarketing practices, under this initiative, the
telemarketers could file a lawsuit to obtain massive taxpayer payouts for the purported impact of these
laws on their business.
Redefines “just compensation” and greatly increases the cost of all property acquisitions by state and
local agencies for needed infrastructure like schools, roads, levees, and other public works. The
initiative changes the current standard which requires compensation at "fair market value”, and requires new
levels of inflated payouts based on the value of the property as the government intends to use it. This “trap”
would result in windfall payouts to a few property owners – at the expense of common taxpayers – or make
infrastructure projects so prohibitively expensive that many will simply not get completed.
o For example, if a city acquires property for an airport, the owner could seek compensation for the value
of the property as though an airport were already built there, regardless of whether or not the owner
could have achieved such a use on his or her own, or under the applicable zoning.
Imposes new taxpayer costs. The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst cites “potentially major future costs” to deal
with regulatory takings provisions and “potentially major changes in governmental costs to acquire property for
public purposes.”
_____________________________________________________________________________
7
BUDGET FUNDS LOCAL TRANSPORTATION, PUBLIC SAFEY, MANDATES
The newly passed state budget contains good news for California cities.
California cities have good reason to thank their legislators and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger for
passing a budget that will provide funds for public safety, reimbursement of state mandated
programs, and continued repairs and maintenance of local streets and roads.
It is a budget that respects the historic partnership between the state and local governments, and
the important role that local governments play in providing essential services to every Californian.
The full implementation of Proposition 1A begins July 1. This historic agreement ended the ability
of the state to shift local funds to the state. As part of the agreement, that measure also required
cities, counties, special districts and redevelopment agencies to collectively shift a total of $2.6
billion to the state general fund over the past two years. That fund shift will now end, leaving cities
with $350 million in local funds that can be allocated for local purposes.
The Legislature and the Governor are to be commended for their leadership in bringing in a
budget that is prior to the fiscal year deadline, and which reflects the kind of bi-partisan
cooperation that Californians clearly expect and desire from their state representatives.
The Governor is expected to sign the budget on Friday.
Key Issues for Cities. The "big four" issues of importance to cities - Proposition 42
transportation funds, booking fee subventions, reimbursement of state mandated programs and
COPS funding - were all addressed in this budget. Here is a summary of those issues.
$424 million in Proposition 42, Transportation Funds. Prop. 42 will be fully funded for FY
2006-07 at $1.42 billion. While local streets and roads will not receive funding from this
appropriation, $424 million to maintain this local infrastructure will be included in an additional
appropriation of $1.415 billion, provided as early repayment of amounts borrowed from Prop. 42
by the state in FY 2003-04 and FY 2004-05. The State Controller’s Office anticipates that the
repayment allocations to local governments will be released in two consecutive payments, with
the first allocation approximately 10 working days into the fiscal year.
Proposition 42 Appropriations in FY 2006-07 Budget
(in millions)
2006-07 Prop. 42
Transfer
Early Repayment
2004-05
Early Repayment
2003-04
Total
TCRF $678 $315 -- $993
STIP $594 $232 $192 $1,018
Cities -- $116 $96 $212 Local
Streets
and
Roads
Counties
-- $116 $96 $212
PTA $148 $116 $96 $360
Interest -- $25 $15 $40
Total $1,420 $920 $495 $2,835
Comments:
· The $25 million in interest will be allocated proportionately to the various accounts. The State
Controller will configure the allocation of the interest, which is estimated to be about $25 million in
additional total funds.
8
· The $15 million in interest will be allocated proportionately to the various accounts.
TRCP: Traffic Congestion Relief Fund
STIP: State Transportation Improvement Program
PTA: Public Transportation Account
Proposition 42 Transportation Funding: Information Your City Needs to Know
Use of these Proposition 42 Funds: Proposition 42 funds must be used on only for street and
highway pavement maintenance, rehabilitation, reconstruction and storm damage repair. For
Proposition 42 purposes, maintenance means patching, overlay, and sealing. Reconstruction
includes overlay, sealing, or widening of the roadway to bring the roadway width to the desirable
minimum pavement width consistent with accepted design standards for local streets and roads.
However, widening of a roadway does not include widening for increasing the traffic capacity of a
street or road.
Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Requirement: In order to receive Proposition 42 allocations,
cities must be in compliance with the MOE provision. The MOE provision requires cities to
expend from their general fund, in the budget year in which Proposition 42 monies are allocated,
a defined amount of funds for transportation purposes. This amount is equal to or greater than
the average transportation expenditures for FY1996-97, FY1997-98 and FY1998-99. To find your
city’s MOE, visit www.californiacityfinance.com.
At the end of each fiscal year in which a city has received Proposition 42 funding, the city must
prove to the State Controller that they have spent the required MOE monies. Any city that fails to
do so must reimburse the state for the funds it recovered during that fiscal year. (For specific
details on Proposition 42, look up Revenue & Taxation Code Section 7104.)
Other Transportation Funding. The budget addressed PTA spillover funds, providing $248
million for local transit operations, $62 million for the STIP and $13 million for the High Speed Rail
Authority. (For more information on spillover funds, visit www.cacities.org/revandtax.)
• Booking Fee Subventions . The budget allocates $35 million to reimburse cities for
booking fees paid to counties during FY 2005-06, payable by the State Controller. In
addition, AB 1805, the local government trailer bill, enacts an alternative to booking
fees based upon a minimum payment of $35 million per year effective at the start of
FY 2007-08. In future years, if the appropriation of $35 million is not available, fees
may still be charged.
• State Mandates Reimbursement. The budget includes $90.3 million for FY 2005-06
claims and an additional $16.6 million for Peace Officers' Procedural Bill of Rights
(POBOR) mandate. The budget also provides $109 million for estimated mandate
claims for FY 2006-07 and an additional $16.6 million for POBOR for FY 2006-07.
Overall, a total of $169.9 million is in the budget for two years of mandate payments
owed to local government that were deferred by the state prior to FY 2004-05 ($83
million and $87 million, respectively for the first and second year repayments of the
15-year debt).
• Public Safety. The budget appropriates $238 million for COPS/Juvenile Justice
Grants -- an increase of $38 million ($19 million for each program) over the FY 2005-
06 level. The battle against methamphetamines was funded by a $20 million
augmentation to the War on Methamphetamine Grant program. The grant increases
the total allocation to the program to $29.4 million.
There are numerous other items of interest to cities in the budget. The League will continue to
analyze the budget and trailer bills and post updated information as it becomes available.
_____________________________________________________________________________
9
SECOND ANNUAL ILG LUNCHEON SYMPOSIUM ON SEPTEMBER 7
Does it sometimes seem that people just don’t understand how many positive things your city
does and the role the city plays in the community’s quality of life? Do you find people
immediately default to negative perceptions about government and those who serve in
government?
If so, the Institute for Local Government’s Second Annual Luncheon Symposium is for you.
To be held on September 7 at the League of California Cities’ annual conference in San Diego,
the symposium’s main topic will be “How to Talk About Government,” and is designed to help
effectively communicate about the positive role government plays in the lives of community
members. Come hear about the groundbreaking research being conducted by the Demos Center
for the Public Sector and The FrameWorks Institute concerning public attitudes about government
and ways to promote trust and confidence among your constituents.
The symposium will be held from 11:15 a.m. to 12:45 p.m. In addition, for those wanting further
information, there will be a post-symposium discussion from 2:30 p.m. to 4 p.m. - a great
opportunity for speakers and attendees to share their insights about effectively communicating
about government.
Cost for the symposium is $40, which covers lunch. To sign up, check the “ILG Luncheon” box on
your annual conference registration form before you submit it. For more information, please visit
the Institute for Local Government’s web site at www.ca-ilg.org.
You’re working hard to serve your community and make it even better. Let’s get the word out.
_____________________________________________________________________________
STATE COURT UPHOLDS LOCAL AGENCIES’ RIGHT
TO REGULATE FOR AESTHETICS
The California Court of Appeal, 4th Appellate District, Division One, has issued an opinion holding
that the County of San Diego may impose regulations and require permits from
telecommunications providers seeking to place their facilities in the public right-of-way under
Public Utilities Code section 7901.
This holding is in sharp contrast to the 9th Circuit’s opinion in Sprint v. La Canada-Flintridge
earlier this year, which came to the exact opposite conclusion. The Court of Appeal declined to
follow the 9th Circuit’s rationale, noting that the basis for the 9th Circuit’s holding was “shrouded.”
The 9th Circuit, perhaps noting the problems with the La Canada-Flintridge opinion, has de-
published the part that discussed Public Utilities Code section 7901. This means that it can no
longer be cited as precedent in federal district court.
The impact of these two developments is to remove the uncertainty over whether state law allows
cities to regulate placement of telecommunications facilities in the public right-of-way, based
solely on aesthetic considerations. The case is Sprint Telephony PCS v. County of San Diego,
2006 WL 1680053.
The League extends its thanks to Deputy City Attorney Bill Sanders with the San Francisco City
Attorney’s office, for drafting the friend-of-the-court brief on the League’s behalf.
_____________________________________________________________________________
10
APPLICATIONS NOW BEING ACCEPTED FOR
INNOVATIONS IN AMERICAN GOVERNMENT AWARD
The Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation at the John F. Kennedy School of
Government is now accepting applications for the 2007 Innovations in American Government
Awards.
Administered in partnership with the Council for Excellence in Government, the award is given
annually to programs that serve as examples of creative and effective government at its best. All
units of federal government – federal, state, local, tribal and territorial – are eligible and
encouraged to apply.
Five winners will be selected and each will receive a $100,000 grant to support replication and
dissemination activities. The deadline for applications is September 12. For additional
information and an application, visit www.ashinstitute.harvard.edu.
_____________________________________________________________________________
KEEPING UP: JARMAN APPOINTED SAN DIEGO FIRE CHIEF
Earlier this week, the San Diego City Council accepted the recommendation of Mayor Jerry
Sanders to appoint Tracy Jarman as Chief of Fire-Rescue Services. Jarman becomes the first
female fire chief in the history of San Diego.
A 22-year veteran of the San Diego Fire-Rescue Department, Jarman (a native of Escondido)
had been the department’s interim chief since former Fire Chief Jeff Bowman resigned on June 2.
The League congratulates Chief Jarman on her new position.
_____________________________________________________________________________
FIND A BILL, LEGISLATORS, LEG COMMITTEE – OR ASK LEG STAFF
Visit (and bookmark!) the League’s Legislative Resources page (www.cacities.org/legresources).
You’ll find a roster and contact information for the League’s legislative staff; the online Bill Search
program, background materials on lobbying your legislators, and more.
_____________________________________________________________________________
LEGISLATIVE BILL SUMMARIES
ADMINISTRATIVE
SB 1818 (Alarcon). Attorneys Fees. Big Box Lawsuits. As proposed to be amended, SB
1818 would permit cities and counties to be awarded attorneys fees and other litigation expenses
when the city or county prevails in certain zoning lawsuits brought against them by big-box
retailers who have a history of improper conduct in litigation and seek to use their superior size
and resources to intimidate the local government. In this proposed form, the bill passed the
Assembly Judiciary Committee and now moves to the Assembly Floor.
SB 1818 responds to a very real problem faced by many small and medium sized cities that are
sued by Wal-Mart in an attempt to intimidate the city to approve Wal-Mart’s proposed
development. The bill’s scope was narrowed by the amendments taken in the Assembly
Judiciary Committee – but, nevertheless, it would provide protections against litigation abuse for
those cities or counties that complied with land use and zoning laws in the process of denying a
big-box permit.
SB 1818 now goes to the Assembly Floor. Cities are encouraged to send letters of support to the
author and their Senators and Assembly Members. Staff: Yvonne Hunter; Status: Pending on
AsmFlr; Position: Support.
SB 1179 (Morrow). Skateboard Parks. Liability. SB 1179 passed the Assembly Judiciary
Committee on consent this week. SB 1179 would lower the age from 14 to 12 for which local
11
agencies enjoy limited liability protection due to injuries at city owned skateparks. It would also
extend the sunset date for this protection by four years.
Although some skateboarders remain opposed to the bill – claiming excessive enforcement and
fining by local agencies and preferring no bill to SB 1179 – the bill has moved along now with no
formal opposition. The League thanks Sen. Morrow for his willingness to move ahead with SB
1179. Cities with skateparks or planning to build skateparks should send letters of support to the
author and their assembly members. Staff: Yvonne Hunter; Status: Pending on AsmFlr;
Position: Support.
ENVIRONMENTAL
SB 1733 (Aanestad). Water Quality. Mandatory Minimum Penalties. Small Cities. SB 1733
represents a small but important step in the right direction for small cities struggling to meet new
water quality standards. Introduced as a much broader bill, it has been significantly narrowed,
including amendments taken by the author this week in the Assembly Environmental Safety and
Toxic Materials Committee.
As amended, SB 1733 would tweak existing law that determines which small waste water
agencies are eligible to direct penalty money that they pay when fined by a regional water board
under the existing mandatory minimum penalty structure to a local compliance project.
Currently, only waste water agencies that serve a city or unincorporated community with a
population of 10,000 or less, or a rural county are able to use the penalty money towards
compliance of a waste water upgrade, if they have a financial hardship. Unfortunately, the
existing definition of “financial hardship” is too narrow and unintentionally excludes waste water
agencies that should be eligible.
SB 1733 would provide a regional water board with additional flexibility and criteria to consider
when determining financial hardship and whether to permit the agency to put the penalty money
towards a compliance project, instead of directing it to the State’s Cleanup and Abatement
Account.
The League thanks Sen. Aanestad for his persistence in getting SB 1733 through, and
Assemblymember Ira Ruskin, chair, Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials
Committee, for his willingness to help address this difficult problem so that the bill would pass his
committee. Staff: Yvonne Hunter; Status: Pending in AsmAppr; Position: Support.
AB 2951 (Goldberg). Capital Facility Fees. AB 2951 would clarify existing law regarding
whether or not a public agency may charge another public agency “capital facility fees” for utility
services, such as sewer, water and electricity. The bill passed the Senate Local Government
Committee this week and moves next to the Senate Floor.
Without enactment of AB 2951, a public agency (i.e., a city or special district) that provides utility
services to another public agency (i.e., a school) would have to shift the costs of the revenue
generated by the capital facility fees it can longer charge the other public agency to business and
residential customers. A fact sheet on AB 2951 is available on the League’s website.
This bill is very important to those cities that provide utility services. Such cities are encouraged
to be sure they have sent letters of support to the author and their senators and assembly
members. This is the third time Assemblymember Goldberg has taken on this difficult issue – her
two previous bills on the topic were vetoed. Hopefully, the third time will be the charm. Staff:
Yvonne Hunter; Status: Pending on SenFlr; 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, De La Torre, Emmerson, Haynes, Karnette, Klehs, Leno, Nakanishi, Nation, Oropeza,
Ridley–Thomas, Saldaña, Walters, and Yee. Chief Consultant: Geoff Long. Principal Consultants:
12
Julie Salley–Gray, Steve Archibald, Scott Bain, Chuck Nicol, Kimberly Rodriguez, Stephen Shea.
Secretary: Laura Lynn Gondek. Room 2114. Phone: (916) 319–2081.