April 21, 2006
Issue #16-2006
TELECOM CONTINUES TO MOVE IN WASHINGTON AND SACRAMENTO
Telecommunications reform legislation will be heard next week in the U.S. Congress and the
California Legislature next week.
In Congress, opening statements in the full House Energy and Commerce committee are slated
to occur on Tuesday, April 25, with committee mark up of the Communications Promotion and
Enhancement Act of 2006 (COPE) set for April 26. This legislation creates a national franchise,
purportedly to expedite the provision of video and Internet services to local communities.
For more, see Page 2.
•••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• ••
SENATE AND ASSEMBLY COMMITTEES SET TO HEAR
EMINENT DOMAIN BILLS
Several important bills dealing with eminent domain are up for hearing next week.
The Senate Judiciary Committee is set to hear three bills dealing with eminent domain on
Tuesday, April 25: SB 1210 (Torlakson), SB 1650 (Kehoe) and SCA 20 (McClintock). The
Assembly Housing Committee is set to hear another eminent domain bill, AB 1990 (Walters).
Another bill, SB 1206 (Kehoe), is currently in the Senate Appropriations Committee, but as of this
writing, no date has been set for a hearing. For more, see Page 4.
•••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• •• •••• ••• ••• ••
AB 1899 (WOLK) – ‘SHOW ME THE FLOOD PROTECTION’
BILL NARROWED
Measure Passes Assembly Local Government Committee
With spring rains continuing, California’s reservoirs at or near capacity and the state’s flood
control system stretched, it was fitting that Assemblymember Lois Wolk’s AB 1899 was heard in
the Assembly Local Government Committee this week. For more, see Page 7.
ALSO IN THIS ISSUE:
Page 8: Telecom in the News; Find a Bill, Legislators, Leg Committee – or Ask Leg Staff
Page 9: Legislative Bill Summaries
1
2
Telecom Continued from Page 1…
The League of California Cities continues to work with California Congressional delegation
members on the committee (Reps. Waxman, Eshoo, Radanovich, Capps, Bono and Solis) and
the national lobbying groups representing an array of governmental interests. Efforts focus on
refining amendments that were not successful during the during the Subcommittee mark up
earlier this month. (Please see “House Telecommunications and the Internet Subcommittee
Markup of National Video Franchising Bill” for a list of those amendments at
www.cacities.org/telecom).
The League has sent a joint letter to members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee
outlying our concerns for amendments. A copy of the letter will be available on the League’s
website at www.cacities.org/telecom early next week.
The bill is expected to pass out of the full committee on April 26, which means that it will likely go
to the House floor in early May.
League Opposes AB 2987 (Nunez/Levine) in its Current Form
On Monday April 24, AB 2987 (Nunez/Levine): Cable and Video Services, will be heard in the
Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee. The League is opposed to the bill in its current
form. League-adopted policy on telecommunications stands considerably at odds with the
provisions of AB 2987.
The following issues are of specific concern:
State Franchise Authority. One of the cries of the telephone industry in the telecom debate has
been the so-called “speed to market” issue. As they describe the problem, the traditional local
franchise process is an impediment to the telephone companies (new market entrants) deploying
these new communications services in a timely manner that makes sense in the context of their
business plan. However, few persuasive arguments have been made by telephone companies to
support these claims.
In spite of the telephone industry’s claim that speed to market is critical, the model offered in AB
2987 makes little sense. The bill establishes a statewide franchise system that will be
administered by the state Department of Corporations. It expands the department’s
responsibilities considerably and sets up a new bureaucracy to dispense franchise applications
by companies interested in providing telecommunications services in local communities.
The department, as with all state departments or agencies, has had no experience in what has
been to date a local franchising process. The department is designated in the bill as the authority
in charge of activities that are occurring at the local level, primarily on local streets and roads.
League Recommends Alternative
If the Legislature enacts a new, expedited statewide franchise process, our recommendation is to
enact a state franchise law that is executed at the local level. Under this proposal, all or most of
the elements of the current local franchises would be placed in state law. This eliminates or
reduces the amount of time spent negotiating the franchise with local and therefore provides the
speed to market that the telephone industry is seeking.
The local government’s authority would be a “ministerial” act and could be subject to a deadline
for approval, once the new entrant video provider submits its application. The state law would put
clear parameters around the franchise agreement and would remove most items from local
negotiations. A statewide model executed at the local level achieves the “speed to market”
demand of video providers, eliminates the need for a new state bureaucracy and maintains a
local government role in what is still essentially a local issue.
3
There may be some situations where a city and a new entrant or and incumbent provider may
want to negotiate an issue where it is in the mutual interest of both to do so. We recommend that
any law also allow local franchise negotiations, if/when both parties agree to negotiations.
Franchises/Franchise Fees. The League recommends that a definition of “gross revenues”
upon which franchise fees are calculated be written as broadly as possible. Since the start of the
Levine working groups, all interested parties have agreed that cities should remain whole
financially under any new franchise system.
Federal law has enforcement provisions that allow franchising agencies to not renew a franchise
if a cable operator is out of compliance with the terms of the franchise. The League requests that
AB 2987 be amended to permit this same authority locally.
Local franchise law also typically includes provisions to deal with problems of late payments by a
provider, including interest and late payment charges. Provisions should be included in AB 2897
to cover these operational issues.
Further, language in AB 2987 implies that the franchise fee is imposed on and paid by the
subscriber rather than the company holding the franchise. Under current cable franchises the
cable operator pays the franchise fee, this bill should be corrected to ensure that the new entrant
is also responsible for paying the franchise fee.
Preemption of Local Tax Authority. The language of 53085.4(c) is too broad and preempts
local tax and fee authority. In its current version the bill preempts local taxes and fees such as
encroachment and fees, and business license taxes. This should be corrected.
Right of Way Management. There are two key issues that involve management of the public
right of way. The first is the stated intent of at least one “new entrant” to place large boxes (5 feet
to 6 feet tall with a 3-foot to 4-foot square base) in the public right of way. There needs to be
some authority to deal with the aesthetics of this large “lawn furniture.”
Second, current right of way management under local franchises contains a set of procedural
rules to follow when issues arise during the deployment of communications infrastructure.
Procedural rules include who is responsible when a water main is accidentally broken, who is
responsible for clean up and removal of graffiti and other safety or repair issues. Local franchises
include procedures with several models to use to cover these incidents and therefore appropriate
language should be amended into the bill.
Consumer Protection/Customer Service. There is considerable interest among cities to
continue as the enforcement agency for consumer protection and customer service standards.
From the perspective of the consumer it would make more sense to place this authority at the
local level than with a state agency or department or certainly the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC). Under current law, cities have the option to assume the authority to enforce
consumer protection and customer service standards.
AB 2987 should be amended to permit those cities with the desire and experience to assume this
enforcement authority. Federal law now permits local agencies to enforce the FCC adopted
customer service standards and also allows the flexibility to enact local customer service
standards in addition to the FCC standards. AB 2987 should be amended to permit this local
option and flexibility using FCC standards as a base for customer service and consumer
protection.
Emergency Notification. Current federal law requires cable operators to cooperate with the
federal Emergency Alert System. This requirement does not cover local emergencies. As a result,
many local franchises now require the cable operator to provide an emergency notification
system. This is the text “crawler” at the bottom of the screen on every channel to warn local
residents. AB 2987 should be amended to require the use of this notification system by all video
service providers.
Outstanding Issues for Franchise Law Reform
4
There are two outstanding issues that are critical to a successful state rewrite of the franchise
laws for telecommunications services. Those issues are:
Public, Education and Government (PEG) Channels/Institutional Networks (INET). The
provisions of AB 2987 pre-empt local authority when it comes to the issue of public, education
and government channels as well as the institutional network (INET) services currently provided
in some communities.
The INET is a network of telecommunications lines connecting schools, libraries, nonprofit
organizations and/or other governmental facilities. These services are critical in many
communities. The immediate problem under AB 2987 is that there is no provision to continue
these services after certain dates. It is not specified how a local community without INET services
currently can acquire these services in the future.
AB 2987 does provide some standards for PEG services, but these standards may not be flexible
enough to meet growing needs in California. The League has asked the Speaker’s staff for more
time to vet this issue of PEG channels and INET services and come back with an improved
proposal.
Build Out/Discrimination Issues. Speaker Nunez’s staff has indicated that the build
out/discrimination issue is still a “work in progress” in the legislation. This is another critical issue
in local communities. Under the current law for video services, local governments have the
authority to demand build out of cable systems to ensure that all parts of a community receive
these services.
Local governments have been successful in ensuring that our local communities receive cable
services in California. The bottom line is that new entrants should not be given complete free-
reign to pick and choose the parts of a community that receive these new telecommunications
services. There has to be some reasonable standard to permit the deployment of these services
in an equitable manner. The League pledges our cooperation in working toward such a solution.
The League is actively engaged with the Speaker and Assemblymember Levine and plans to
keep city officials closely informed as this legislation moves forward.
______________________________________________________________________
Eminent Domain Continued from Page 1…
The League is opposed to SB 1206, SB 1210, SCA 20 and AB 1990. These bills are
problematic for cities that are working hard to build affordable housing, restore blighted areas and
revitalize their communities.
The League does not have a position on SB 1650. This measure is focused on ensuring fairness
to property owners in the eminent domain process exercised by redevelopment agencies. The
League and the California Redevelopment Association (CRA) support the purpose of the bill, and
are working with the author to achieve this goal.
Cities Urged to OPPOSE SB 1206, SB 1210, SCA 20 and AB 1990
Cities are urged to carefully study these bills and determine the impact they would have on your
community. We urge you also to contact the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to
OPPOSE SB 1206, SB 1210 and SCA 20, and contact the members of the Assembly Housing
Committee to OPPOSE AB 1990. Explain the real world consequences of their provisions in your
city.
Senate Judiciary Committee Members: Senator Joe Dunn (Chair, D-Santa Ana), Senator Dick
Ackerman (Vice Chair, R-Irvine), Senator Martha Escutia (D-Whittier), and Senator Sheila Kuehl
(D-Santa Monica).
Assembly Housing Committee Members: Mullin (Chair, D–S. San Francisco), Garcia (Vice
Chair, R-Cathedral City), Baca (D-Rialto), Hancock (D-Berkeley), La Suer (R-La Mesa), Salinas
(D-Salinas), and Torrico (D-Newark).
Bills Introduced Following Kelo Decision
All of these measures were introduced in the wake of last summer’s Supreme Court’s decision in
Kelo v. City of New London. While the decision did not change California law, it raised the profile
over the use of eminent domain by local agencies, giving property rights advocates, who have
wanted to abolish eminent domain for years, a platform to run on. It’s also given legislators who
have been critical of redevelopment agencies an opening to try to overhaul all of redevelopment
law – even that which has nothing to do with eminent domain.
SB 1206 and SB 1210 represent the most far-reaching changes to Community Redevelopment
Law in over a decade. While the League supports responsible reform, these measures would
threaten local governments’ ability to eradicate blight, clean-up environmentally polluted
properties, build affordable housing, and create jobs and economic opportunity. Below are just
some of the problems with these bills:
SB 1206 (Kehoe). While SB 1206 contains other provisions that are duplicative or unnecessary,
below are the major concerns:
• Greatly limits communities’ ability to identify and clean-up blight: SB 1206 would
abolish many of the current factors used by redevelopment agencies to show the existence of
blight, such as "defective design or physical construction," "impaired investments," "high turn-
over rates, abandoned buildings and excessive vacant lots." Remaining blight factors would
have to meet specific numerical or percentage tests severely limiting a community’s ability to
eradicate blight by:
Creating arbitrary distinctions.
Eliminating any flexibility in methodology for demonstrating the existence of blight.
• Opens the door to frivolous lawsuits and legal challenges: SB 1206 contains several
provisions which are legally problematic for local governments including:
Creates a new cause of action against redevelopment agencies that could be used to
prevent or delay the issuance of bonds.
Prohibits agencies from requiring developers to indemnify the agency and local
government from the costs of defending lawsuits. This could expose the general fund of
cities or counties with limited financial resources to exorbitant costs associated with
defending lawsuits without merit from project opponents.
• Makes it considerably more difficult to keep commitments made to communities at the
time of plan adoption: SB 1206 requires new blight findings after 10 years from the
adoption of the redevelopment plan as a condition of issuing new bonds. The typical
redevelopment plan has a 30-year life span and is developed and approved with community
involvement. Many times residents want quality of life components such as parks or libraries
included in the plan. However, these components are typically put in towards the end of the
plan when the majority of blight has been eradicated. If agencies have to make new findings
of blight every time they issue bonds after 10 years, it is unlikely they will be able to fulfill their
commitment to these communities.
SB 1210 (Torlakson). It’s important to note that, for the most part, the provisions of this bill
amend sections of Eminent Domain Law which are applicable to all public agencies and utilities
which use the power of eminent domain. While SB 1210 contains provisions that are duplicative
or unnecessary, below are the major concerns:
• Greatly increases costs associated with acquiring properties for public projects and
penalizes public agencies for attempting to be prudent with taxpayer dollars:
5
6
If a jury determines fair market value is 10% greater than the public agency's last offer,
the public agency would be required to pay attorney fees and expenses. This would
encourage public agencies to make offers well in excess of fair market value in order to
avoid the risk of this penalty, resulting in a windfall to a few property owners at taxpayer
expense.
Would limit ability to quickly acquire property by making it easier for a property owner to
obtain a stay of an order of prejudgment possession. This could delay major public
works and utilities projects and drive up costs significantly. This section may restrict local
governments’ ability to timely engage in emergency fixes to critical infrastructure.
The League remains continual conversations with Sen. Torlakson about the scope and language
of SB 1210.
Committee members need to be contacted to Oppose these bills and hear from redevelopment
agencies and local government about the real world consequences of their provisions. The
Senate Judiciary Committee members are Senator Joe Dunn (Chair, D-Santa Ana), Senator Dick
Ackerman (Vice Chair, R-Irvine), Senator Martha Escutia (D-Whittier), and Senator Sheila Kuehl
(D-Santa Monica).
SCA 20 (McClintock). This proposed constitutional amendment would prohibit the use of
eminent domain unless the property to be acquired will be owned and occupied by a
governmental entity. Since redevelopment agencies usually acquire property for the purpose of
getting it redeveloped and back on the tax rolls quickly through private ownership, it effectively
eliminates the use of eminent domain for redevelopment. SCA 20 also changes the definition of
“just compensation,” significantly increasing the cost of building roads, highways, transit, schools,
parks, libraries, and other public works projects. It redefines “just compensation” to include:
• Cost of acquiring comparable property, even if “comparable property” is significantly more
expensive than the fair market value of the property being condemned.
• Lost income, relocation costs and loss of business goodwill would be embedded in the
state constitution.
• Attorneys’ fees in any case where a jury awards even one dollar more than the agency’s
offer.
SCA 20 eliminates many public-private partnerships. SCA 20 prohibits the use of eminent
domain if the property acquired does not stay in public ownership, thus doing away with public-
private partnerships such as:
• Affordable housing. Redevelopment agencies often acquire blighted properties and work
with non-profit housing developers to take over construction, ownership, and
management.
• Environmental clean-up projects. More than 500 Brownfield sites have been or are being
cleaned up by redevelopment agencies.
• Community revitalization projects. Redevelopment agencies partner with the private
sector to revitalize blighted areas, to spur economic investment and jobs, and to stimulate
business expansion.
SCA 20 would distort the constitutional principle of separation of powers. SCA 20 would
distort this principle by fundamentally changing the relationship between legislative and judicial
branches of government. This proposed constitutional amendment:
• Makes judges, not elected officials, the most significant figures in determining public use
and necessity
• Instructs the court to give no deference to legislative determinations of public use and
necessity
• Requires condemning agencies to prove by a preponderance of the evidence at trial the
necessity of the taking, which is already done at the legislative level.
7
AB 1990 (Walters). AB 1990 would preclude the use or implied use of eminent domain for any
property that would not be fully owned and operated by the acquiring governmental entity. It
would preclude any transfer of land to nonprofit housing entities, public private partnerships like
toll roads, and a host of other activities that make communities viable. AB 1990 would preclude
redevelopment agencies from acquiring polluted brownfield properties and turning them over to a
private sector end use.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Flood Protection Continued from Page 1…
As amended on April 17, AB 1899, the so-called “Show Me the Flood Protection” bill, has been
significantly narrowed and changed. The League is continuing to review the amendments and
processes proposed in AB 1899 and has no position on it.
As amended, the bill generally does the following:
• Only applies to geographic areas in the state within the jurisdiction of the State
Reclamation Board (i.e. the flood hazard zones in the watersheds of the Sacramento and
San Joaquin Rivers, including both project and private levees);
• Only applies to greenfield development, and not infill development;
• Establishes a process whereby the Reclamation Board and local flood districts would
provide local governments with flood assessment information early in the development
proposal process and through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This
would include an assessment of the flood protection capabilities for the infrastructure that
“protects” the proposed project (i.e. levee integrity, level of existing flood protection);
• Requires that if potential flooding would be a depth of three feet or more, that the
development must meet a 200-year protection standard within five years in order to be
approved by the local government.
After strenuous objections by the League earlier in the week, the author agreed to amend two
sections of the bill dealing with liability. Provisions on pages 9 and 12 of the April 17 version of
the bill will be amended to delete the sentence authorizing the Reclamation Board or a local flood
control agency to require a city or county to indemnify them prior to providing flood assessment
information. Instead, language will be added that the city or county will not be liable for basing
decisions based upon the information received the Reclamation Board or local flood control
agency.
Affected Cities Urged to Review, Provide League with Comments
The League is still reviewing AB 1899 and encourages affected cities to do so as well. The bill
proposes a process that is, in part, consistent with some of the flood principles adopted by the
League to ensure that cities do not unintentionally approve development that puts residents at
risk. While the League does not support a blanket statewide 200-year flood protection standard,
we do not have a position on the standard as proposed in AB 1899 – a 200-year protection for
areas that will flood three feet or more in the Reclamation Board’s jurisdiction.
Cities are encouraged to review AB 1899 carefully and send their comments to the League.
Specifically, we suggest separating out the 200-year standard issue when evaluating the bill.
First, cities should consider whether or not the process proposed in the bill is workable and what
changes they would recommend to improve it. Second, is the 200-year standard requirement
appropriate or not for areas that could flood to a depth of three feet or more? The author correctly
states that AB 1899 is a work in progress and the League will continue to be involved in the
discussions.
The political dynamics of the AB 1899 are evolving. Currently, the League, the California State
Association of Counties (CSAC), the Regional Council of Rural Counties (RCRC), and American
8
Planning Association, California Chapter (APA) have no position. The realtors have removed their
opposition and are now neutral based upon the April 17 amendments.
The development/business community appears to be somewhat split, with the Building Industry
Association (BIA) and California Chamber of Commerce opposed and some development
interests opposed unless amended and wanting to continue discussions to find a workable
solution. Environmental groups generally support the bill.
AB 1899 passed the Assembly Local Government Committee this week and will be heard next in
the Assembly Natural Resources Committee.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Telecom in the News
Online Retailers May Build Wireless Internet
According to a recent story in The Inquirer, an online news site covering technology, online
retailers Google, eBay and Amazon.com have considered building their own nationwide wireless
Internet system if telecos such as AT&T try to charge them for sending customers to their
websites.
If such a system were developed, it could take the Internet out of the hands of the U.S. telcos,
which would be severely impacted by the loss of Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) and
broadband accounts.
To read the article, visit www.theinquirer.net and search for “Google, eBay and Amazon May
Build Their Own Internet.”
Barton Shielding Telecom Reform Bill
House Energy and Commerce Chairman Joe Barton (R-Texas) is taking steps to avoid having his
telecommunications reform legislation referred to the Judiciary Committee.
Barton and Fred Upton (R-Mich.), chairman, Telecommunications and the Internet Subcommittee,
were cautious about accepting amendments to the legislation that would give jurisdiction to the
Judiciary Committee. The Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of
2006 (COPE Act) will be heard in the Energy and Commerce Committee on April 26.
To read the article, visit www.njtecomupdate.com and search for “Barton Shielding Telecom Bill
from House Judiciary Panel.”
Editorial Speaks Out Against COPE Act
An editorial in the April 17 edition of the San Francisco Chronicle expressed concern that the
Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006 (COPE Act) would
undercut Internet access for citizens nationwide if it passed, calling the reform act “misguided.”
The editorial writer believes that among other things, the bill would hinder efforts by start-up
providers to get into the Internet business.
To read the editorial, visit www.sfgate.com and search for “Don’t Undercut Internet Access.”
_________________________________________________________________________
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.
_____________________________________________________________________________
9
Legislative Bill Summaries
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
SB 1818 (Alarcon). Attorney Fees. Big Box Lawsuits. As amended, SB 1818 would provide
local governments the ability to recover their attorney fees in any civil action brought by a big box
retailer, where the local government prevails and the court determines the lawsuit to be frivolous.
Over the years, local governments have been sued by large retailers, the so-called “big box”
stores. Local governments must use scarce city funds to defend themselves in court, even in the
instances where the local government prevails.
In many situations, the large retailer, with very deep pockets and able to pursue lengthy and
costly litigation, uses the threat of a lawsuit to pressure or intimidate a local government to
abandon a proposed ordinance or modify it to reflect the wishes of the retailer. While this is bad
enough for any situation, it is especially difficult for small or cash-strapped cities who cannot
afford to defend a lawsuit that is frivolous.
The most recent lawsuit involving a big-box retailer against a city concerns Wal-Mart versus the
City of Turlock. Wal-Mart sued after Turlock adopted a local ordinance regarding big-box retailers
on the basis that the ordinance was unfairly targeting the store and that the city did not properly
comply with CEQA before adopting the ordinance.
The city prevailed last year in Superior Court and again earlier this month in the Fifth District court
in a 3-0 decision. Unfortunately, Turlock has spent over $300,000 fighting the lawsuits over the
last two years.
SB 1818 would provide a narrow exception to this unfortunate situation and permit local
governments that prevail in a lawsuit brought by a big box retailer to recover its legal costs, if the
lawsuit is deemed by the court to be frivolous and without merit. The bill would protect cities and
their taxpayers from having to cover the costs of defending merit less lawsuits.
SB 1818 will be heard April 25 in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Cities should send letters of
support on this important fairness bill. Staff: Yvonne Hunter; Status: Hearing: April 25; SenJud;
Position: Support.
Want to Send a Letter in Support of a League Position? Here’s Who to call:
SENATE JUDICIARY—(5)—Dunn (Chair), Ackerman (Vice–Chair), Escutia, Kuehl and 1
vacancy. Chief Counsel: Gene Wong. Deputy Chief Counsel: Gloria Megino Ochoa. Counsels:
Alexandra Montgomery, Amanda Taylor and Benjamin Palmer. Assistants: Carol Thomas and
Roseanne Moreno. Phone (916) 651–4113. Room 2187.
April 28, 2006
Issue #17-2006
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
SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE REVISES LEGISLATIVE SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE REVISES LEGISLATIVE SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE REVISES LEGISLATIVE SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE REVISES LEGISLATIVE SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE REVISES LEGISLATIVE
RESEARCH GUIDE RESEARCH GUIDE RESEARCH GUIDE RESEARCH GUIDE RESEARCH GUIDE
GRIJALVA NAMED DIRECTOR OF CALIFORNIA’S DEPARTMENT OF GRIJALVA NAMED DIRECTOR OF CALIFORNIA’S DEPARTMENT OF GRIJALVA NAMED DIRECTOR OF CALIFORNIA’S DEPARTMENT OF GRIJALVA NAMED DIRECTOR OF CALIFORNIA’S DEPARTMENT OF GRIJALVA NAMED DIRECTOR OF CALIFORNIA’S DEPARTMENT OF
FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION
WESTERN CITY WESTERN CITY WESTERN CITY WESTERN CITY WESTERN CITY MAGAZINE WINS MAGAZINE WINS MAGAZINE WINS MAGAZINE WINS MAGAZINE WINS CAPIO ‘EXCELLENCE IN CAPIO ‘EXCELLENCE IN CAPIO ‘EXCELLENCE IN CAPIO ‘EXCELLENCE IN CAPIO ‘EXCELLENCE IN
COMMUNICATIONS’ AWARDS COMMUNICATIONS’ AWARDS COMMUNICATIONS’ AWARDS COMMUNICATIONS’ AWARDS COMMUNICATIONS’ AWARDS
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
SENATE LEADER’S STATED INFRASTRUCTURE DEADLINE NEARS SENATE LEADER’S STATED INFRASTRUCTURE DEADLINE NEARS SENATE LEADER’S STATED INFRASTRUCTURE DEADLINE NEARS SENATE LEADER’S STATED INFRASTRUCTURE DEADLINE NEARS SENATE LEADER’S STATED INFRASTRUCTURE DEADLINE NEARS
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 4 Page 4 Page 4 Page 4 Page 4
Page 7 Page 7 Page 7 Page 7 Page 7
Key committees in Congress and the California Legislature took action on
telecommunications reform this week. For more, see Page 4.
??????????????????????? ???????????????
TELECOM REFORM MEASURES PASS MILESTONES IN TELECOM REFORM MEASURES PASS MILESTONES IN TELECOM REFORM MEASURES PASS MILESTONES IN TELECOM REFORM MEASURES PASS MILESTONES IN TELECOM REFORM MEASURES PASS MILESTONES IN
WASHINGTON D.C. AND SACRAMENTO WASHINGTON D.C. AND SACRAMENTO WASHINGTON D.C. AND SACRAMENTO WASHINGTON D.C. AND SACRAMENTO WASHINGTON D.C. AND SACRAMENTO
Help support the League’s package of incentive-based housing bills! Sign
up NOW to attend the League’s annual Legislative Action Days in Sacra-
mento. For more, see Page 6.
???????????????????????? ??????????????
LEAGUE LEGISLATIVE ACTION DAYS, MAY 17-18 LEAGUE LEGISLATIVE ACTION DAYS, MAY 17-18 LEAGUE LEGISLATIVE ACTION DAYS, MAY 17-18 LEAGUE LEGISLATIVE ACTION DAYS, MAY 17-18 LEAGUE LEGISLATIVE ACTION DAYS, MAY 17-18
SHERATON GRAND HOTEL, SACRAMENTO SHERATON GRAND HOTEL, SACRAMENTO SHERATON GRAND HOTEL, SACRAMENTO SHERATON GRAND HOTEL, SACRAMENTO SHERATON GRAND HOTEL, SACRAMENTO
SB 1627 (Kehoe) would allow wireless telecommunications companies to
collocate their wireless facilities on a non-discretionary basis. The bill passed
out of the Senate Environmental committee this week. It will now proceed to
the Senate Appropriations Committee. The League of California Cities has
taken an “Oppose Unless Amended” position on the bill, because in its current
form, the bill pre-empts local government authority to regulate collocation.
For more, see Page 6.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ‘COLLOCATION’ BILL TELECOMMUNICATIONS ‘COLLOCATION’ BILL TELECOMMUNICATIONS ‘COLLOCATION’ BILL TELECOMMUNICATIONS ‘COLLOCATION’ BILL TELECOMMUNICATIONS ‘COLLOCATION’ BILL
CLEARS SENATE POLICY COMMITTEE CLEARS SENATE POLICY COMMITTEE CLEARS SENATE POLICY COMMITTEE CLEARS SENATE POLICY COMMITTEE CLEARS SENATE POLICY COMMITTEE
HOT BILLS
OPPOSE AB 2987
(Nunez). Cable and
video service.Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org PAGE 2 - PRIORITY FOCUS
April 28, 2006 - Issue #17
???????????? ?????????????
TELECOM IN THE NEWS TELECOM IN THE NEWS TELECOM IN THE NEWS TELECOM IN THE NEWS TELECOM IN THE NEWS
AT&T Establishes Grassroots E-mail Letter
Writing Campaign
AT&T, in an effort to promote Project
Lightspeed, the teleco’s broadband Internet and
TV endeavor, has organized a grassroots e-mail
letter writing campaign to public officials.
To read the article, visit www.nwherald.com
and search for “Residents E-mail Officials
About Cable Competition.”
Will AT&T Scale Back Project Lightspeed?
Analysts in the telecommunications industry
are predicting that AT&T may have to scale back
its Project Lightspeed project. Its current Video
Digital Subscriber Line (VDSL) model only allots
for six megabytes per second of broadband to the
home (25 megabytes of data to the home overall),
which is a concern for AT&T.
To read more, visit www.dslreports.com and
search for “AT&T Realizing 25Mbps Not
Enough.”
Additional background information on this topic
can be found at www.arstechnica.com/news.ars.
Search for “AT&T to Slow Down Fiber Rollout?”
GOP Turns Back COPE Network Neutrality
Amendment
On Wednesday, April 26, House Commerce
Committee Republicans, along with four Demo-
crats, voted 34-22 to defeat an amendment to the
Communications Opportunity, Promotion and
Efficiency Act of 2006 (COPE Act) that would have
prohibited broadband providers from charging
content and service providers different rates
based on bandwidth consumption.
To read more on this issue, visit
www.internetnews.com and search for “GOP
Gets Its Way on Net Neutrality.”
MoveOn.org Campaigns for Network
Neutrality
MoveOn.org, a grassroots civic advocacy
organization, has begun work campaigning
against Internet providers such as AT&T and
Verizon that are seeking passage of a bill that
would gut “Network Neutrality” on the Internet.
Network Neutrality is the safeguard that pre-
vents Internet providers from choosing which
websites open most easily for you based on which
site pays that provider more.
For more information, visit
www.civic.moveon.org/save_the_internet/.
The Senate Local Government Committee has
revised Quick List – a guide that provides help in
researching statutes.
Created by the Senate Local Government Com-
mittee, this annotated glossary of local-govern-
ment statutes includes 60 key state laws, statu-
tory citations, and handy references. Plus, the
guide includes step-by-step directions for retriev-
ing public documents and a list of helpful
websites.
Quick List can be found under “Links of Inter-
est to Cities” on the League website at
www.cacities.org. For more information and
ordering, contact the Senate Publications and
Flags Office at (916) 651-1538.
SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
COMMITTEE REVISES LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE REVISES LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE REVISES LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE REVISES LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE REVISES LEGISLATIVE
RESEARCH GUIDE RESEARCH GUIDE RESEARCH GUIDE RESEARCH GUIDE RESEARCH GUIDE
Restore and protect local control for cities
through education and advocacy to
enhance the quality of life for all Californians.
Our MissionPRIORITY FOCUS - PAGE 3 Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org
April 28, 2006 - Issue #17
Former League of California Cities Fire Chiefs
Department President Ruben Grijalva has been
appointed director of California’s Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection. Announced by Gov.
Schwarzenegger on Friday, April 21, the governor
recognized Grijalva’s dedicated public service as
a key factor in his appointment to the post.
“While serving in my administration, Ruben
has proven himself to be an accomplished leader
and dedicated public servant,” said
Schwarzenegger. “His commitment to responsibly
managing California’s wildlands and continuing to
improve our fire protection capabilities makes him
the ideal individual for this important position.”
Grijalva served as the president of the
League’s Fire Chiefs Department in 2003. His
most recent public service has been as acting
director of the Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection since January. He is currently the chair
of the State Board of Fire Services.
Prior service includes a 14-year stint with the
city of Palo Alto Fire Department from 1990 to
2004, first as assistant fire chief and later as fire
chief and 14 years of service (1976-1990) with the
Department of Public Safety for the city of Sunny-
vale.
The League congratulates Ruben on his new
appointment.
KEEPING UP: GRIJALVA NAMED DIRECTOR OF KEEPING UP: GRIJALVA NAMED DIRECTOR OF KEEPING UP: GRIJALVA NAMED DIRECTOR OF KEEPING UP: GRIJALVA NAMED DIRECTOR OF KEEPING UP: GRIJALVA NAMED DIRECTOR OF
CALIFORNIA’S DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA’S DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA’S DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA’S DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA’S DEPARTMENT OF
FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION
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
The League of California Cities won two
awards last week from the California Associa-
tion of Public Information Officials (CAPIO).
CAPIO announced the awards last week
during the organization’s “Excellence in Com-
munications” Awards Ceremony at the Doral
Resort in Cathedral City. Forty-one finalists
in 11 categories received top honors from a
total of 92 entries.
The League won a First Place Award for
Excellence in the category of writing for the
November 2005 Western City story, “How the
Telecommunications Revolution Will Affect
Your City.” The story was written by League
staff, with input and assistance from a number
of League members knowledgeable about
telecommunications issues.
A reprint of the story has been widely dis-
tributed by the League in an effort to educate
city officials about the nature of telecommuni-
cations reform debate.
The League also won a third place award in
the “Special Publication” category for Western
City Magazine.
According to CAPIO Awards Chairman Mark
Dennis, “This year’s finalists set high stan-
dards and CAPIO awards are fitting symbols of
an organization’s commitment to quality.”
CAPIO’s 11 award categories are designed
to showcase outstanding communications
strategies, products and skills in print, video,
on the Internet and in public.
WESTERN CITY WESTERN CITY WESTERN CITY WESTERN CITY WESTERN CITY MAGAZINE WINS MAGAZINE WINS MAGAZINE WINS MAGAZINE WINS MAGAZINE WINS
CAPIO ‘EXCELLENCE IN CAPIO ‘EXCELLENCE IN CAPIO ‘EXCELLENCE IN CAPIO ‘EXCELLENCE IN CAPIO ‘EXCELLENCE IN
COMMUNICATIONS’ AWARDS COMMUNICATIONS’ AWARDS COMMUNICATIONS’ AWARDS COMMUNICATIONS’ AWARDS COMMUNICATIONS’ AWARDSVisit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org PAGE 4 - PRIORITY FOCUS
April 28, 2006 - Issue #17
Senate pro Tem Don Perata has stated publicly
that an infrastructure package must be passed by
early May–before the release of the governor’s
revision of the state budget (the “May Revise”) and
the ensuing heavy budget debates. This would
ensure that a package appears on the November
ballot and partisan election campaigns begin to play a
role in the passage of a bi-partisan legislative pack-
age.
Earlier this week, there was speculation at the
Capitol that the Senate might vote on an infrastruc-
ture package during the Senate’s Floor Session on
Thursday, April 27. That session, however, concluded
without a vote and many legislators have returned to
their home districts.
The League continues to hear that there is
consensus on several pieces of an infrastructure
package including transportation, flood protection,
levee repair and education, but details are still being
worked out. No language has been available to
review.
At the time of this writing, the League is also
aware of discussions taking place among Senate
leaders regarding funding, and a housing component
as well. Democrats have made it clear that this is one
of their priorities.
With the governor’s May Revise release date just
two weeks away, it appears at this point that there is
no urgency to vote on a package without ensuring bi-
partisan consensus.
SENATE LEADER’S STATED SENATE LEADER’S STATED SENATE LEADER’S STATED SENATE LEADER’S STATED SENATE LEADER’S STATED
INFRASTRUCTURE DEADLINE NEARS INFRASTRUCTURE DEADLINE NEARS INFRASTRUCTURE DEADLINE NEARS INFRASTRUCTURE DEADLINE NEARS INFRASTRUCTURE DEADLINE NEARS
TELECOM TELECOM TELECOM TELECOM TELECOM from page from page from page from page from page 1 1 1 1 1
Continued on Page 5
??????? ??????
In Congress, the House Energy and Com-
merce Committee conducted a mark up of the
Communications Promotion and Enhancement
Act of 2006 (“COPE”) this week and the measure
passed out of the Committee. It is headed to the
House floor on Thursday, May 4.
Authored by Committee Chairman Joe Barton,
R-Texas, and Bobby Rush, D-Ill., this measure
would establish a national franchise for new
telecommunications video providers, regulated by
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
The bill would allow current providers who operate
under a local franchise to shift to the national
franchise if a competitor began offering service in
the same service area.
The panel rejected amendments that would
have added language aimed at including build out
requirements for telecom providers. The proposal
also strengthens anti-discrimination provisions.
These include a League-supported compromise
amendment by Congresswoman Hilda Solis (D-
Calif.) to include build out provisions, which failed
on a vote of 33-23. The compromise amendment
would have phased build out after five years in a
franchise area if a company’s service has been
subscribed to by 15 percent of the households it
reaches.
California representatives on the Committee,
Mary Bono (R-45) and George Radanovich (R-
19), voted against the build out provision. Without
the amendment or similar language, the bill
contains no build out requirements. Build out
requirements are necessary to ensure all areas in
a community will have access to those services.
As Congresswoman Solis indicated in her
remarks, “Without this amendment, many neigh-
borhoods will not share in cable competition and
will risk seeing worse service and higher prices
for their existing cable services.”
Chairman Barton did agree to somewhat
strengthened anti-discrimination provisions that
could impose greater restrictions on new video
entrants. The anti-discrimination provisions
Only Western City magazine brings you practical
ideas and information you need to know about local
government in California. Western City magazine
presents big-picture policy issues and trends in a
format suited for busy professionals, with concise
feature articles and in-depth series that explore
statewide issues. Stay informed about city issues
across California. Subscribe today. Visit:
www.westerncity.com/pf.
You Could Have Your Own
Subscription to
Western City magazine.
Subscribe Today!PRIORITY FOCUS - PAGE 5 Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org
April 28, 2006 - Issue #17
require national franchises to cover the same
areas as the existing cable operator(s). New
entrants would not have to offer service within
their entire areas but would have to abide by anti-
discrimination rules within those regions.
The committee also rejected amendments
that would have retained local governments’
control and oversight over their local streets and
sidewalks—their public rights-of-way. Instead, the
bill gives the Federal Communications Commis-
sion (FCC), 3,000 miles away in Washington,
D.C., control and oversight.
The League urges cities to call their Repre-
sentatives and ask for a “NO” vote unless the bill
is amended to meet these concerns. As the full
House is expected to take this measure up next
week, it is important to act immediately.
In making these calls, please refer to the Video
Franchising Truth White Paper, located at
www.nlc.org, which lays out the real facts and
myths on key local government amendments,
prepared by the National League of Cities, U.S.
Conference of Mayors, and additional local and
state organizations.
Assembly Committee Passes AB 2987
Also this week, the Assembly Utilities and
Commerce Committee passed on a 10-0 vote
(with one member not voting) AB 2987, authored
by Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez and commit-
tee chairman Lloyd Levine (D-Van Nuys).
The vote to move the bill out of committee
came after a lengthy hearing of more than two
hours. During that time, supporters and oppo-
nents argued about whether the measure would
achieve its stated goals of promoting competition
in video services, providing consumers with more
choice, lowering prices, speeding the deployment
of new communication and broadband technolo-
gies, creating jobs and benefiting the California
economy.
The committee action was not unexpected,
particularly given the influence of the two authors.
In meetings with the Speaker’s staff, the League
had received a receptive hearing of some, if not
necessarily all local agency issues and concerns.
League staff was informed that the bill would likely
be placed on the Assembly Appropriations Sus-
pense File (reserved for bills with significant fiscal
impacts).
During its time on the suspense file, concerns
raised by local agencies and others would be
considered. These concerns include: build-out
provisions (protection against red-lining), con-
sumer protection, maintaining public, education
and government (PEG) programming and sta-
tions, institutional (INET) services for schools,
libraries and other governmental buildings, defini-
tion of gross revenues and other issues.
The League urges cities to review this mea-
sure, and to write to their legislators about the
impacts that the bill would have on their city. To
access a sample letter and talking points, visit the
League’s website at www.cacities.org/telecom, or
the League’s online Advocacy Center at
www.cacities.org/advocacycenter.
Tips for Effective Advocacy
Remember that personal contacts with your
representatives are going to carry the most weight
– a phone call, a visit to the district office, some
type of personal meeting. You can use the talking
points on the League’s Advocacy Center to help
get the conversation going. Second in the order of
effectiveness: a faxed letter – on your letterhead –
sent to your member.
Finally, if you don’t have time for the other
options, use e-mail. It’s available on the
Advocacy Center to make it easy for you to be
an advocate for your city. It’s much better
than not writing at all.
TELECOM TELECOM TELECOM TELECOM TELECOM from page from page from page from page from page 4 4 4 4 4
? ? ? ???????????????????????????????????????????Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org PAGE 6 - PRIORITY FOCUS
April 28, 2006 - Issue #17
????? ? LEG ACTION DAYS LEG ACTION DAYS LEG ACTION DAYS LEG ACTION DAYS LEG ACTION DAYS from page 1 from page 1 from page 1 from page 1 from page 1
Join hundreds of local officials and state offi-
cials to meet one-on-one with legislators to urge
them to work with us on telecommunications
reform that protects local communities; funding for
infrastructure; protecting redevelopment agencies’
authority to work for our cities; housing legislation;
and other important issues for cities. Confirmed
speakers include: Assemblymember John Laird,
Chair, Assembly Budget Committee; Sen. Bob
Dutton, Vice Chair, Senate Revenue and Taxation
Committee; California Housing and Community
Development Director Lynn Jacobs; and Terry
Abbott, Division Chief of Local Assistance, Califor-
nia Department of Transportation.
Registration is free – but we do need a count
for our May 17 Legislative Reception and other
events. Visit www.cacities.org to view the initial
program agenda. Register online at
www.cacities.org/events.
Issue Papers: Download background materi-
als that will aid in your legislative lobbying on the
Legislative Action Days webpage on the League
website – www.cacities.org/lad.
• Housing & Infrastructure
• Telecommunications Reform
• Transportation & Infrastructure
A fourth document, Eminent Domain & Rede-
velopment, will be available in the near future.
Need to Preserve Local Discretion and
Public Review. Generally, local agencies are not
opposed to collocation and may prefer collocation
rather than adding a new structure. There are
times, however, that even a small collocation
project that supports additional antenna space will
be seen as aesthetically displeasing.
The League is working to ensure that the
following provisions are added to the bill:
• No pre-emption of the local discretionary
process
• No pre-emption of local authority to regu-
late collocation based upon aesthetics
• Allow the public continued input on place-
ment through the local hearing process
Currently, the bill is being amended and the
League will review those amendments and evalu-
ate whether they meet the needs and concerns of
local government. The League has been in
contact with the bill’s sponsor, T-Mobile, and
welcome additional conversations to ensure that
local governments retain their authority to regulate
how the process is done, where any new struc-
ture will be placed and that the process allows
public input.
The League will continue to engage the bill and
follow-up in Priority Focus when the amendments
are in print.
SB 1627 SB 1627 SB 1627 SB 1627 SB 1627 from page 1 from page 1 from page 1 from page 1 from page 1 ????? ?????????
Don’t miss this opportunity to get the League’s most useful reference tool. This
comprehensive California directory provides important contact information for mayors,
council members and city department heads. The directory also features the League’s
staff directory, League partners, affiliate organizations and a wide variety of advertisers.
INFORMATION YOU NEED, RIGHT A T YOUR FINGERTIPS!
Purchase this publication online at www.cacities.org/store or call (916) 658-8257 for an
order form. City officials price $30, non-city officials price $65, plus shipping & handling.
THE 2006 CITY HALL DIRECTORY IS NOW AVAILABLE!PRIORITY FOCUS - PAGE 7 Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org
April 28, 2006 - Issue #17
Continued on Page 8
TRANSPORTATION
SB 1404 (Machado). Vehicles. Parking
Violations. Street Cleaning. SB 1404 would add
Section 40216 to the Vehicle Code to require cities
to prove street sweeping occurred on the date a
street sweeping violation ticket was issued. Fur-
ther, the bill would also declare that the regulation
of parking violations of an ordinance for street
cleaning is in need of uniform statewide regulation.
Under the bill, the burden of proof would be
placed on a city to prove that the city provided
street cleaning services on the day all parking
violation notices are issued. SB 1404 would hold
cities to specific maintenance times without taking
into account other issues that may interfere with
street sweeping. Finally, SB 1404 has the potential
to set a slippery slope and could create a tendency
to disregard other posted parking restrictions and
laws. Staff: Liisa Lawson Stark; Status:
SenAppr; Position: Oppose.
SB 1431 (Cox). Public Contracts. Design-
build Contracting. Cities, Counties and Special
Districts. SB 1431 would allow cities, upon
approval of the city council, to utilize design-build
contracting until January 1, 2017. Currently, this
method of contracting is available only to some
cities in California. The League supports allowing
cities options to use design-build contracting in
order to bring efficiency to public contracting.
Staff: Liisa Lawson Stark; Status: SenAppr;
Position: Support.
SB 1812 (Runner) Department of Transpor-
tation. Surface Transportation Project Deliv-
ery Pilot Program. SB 1812 would allow Califor-
nia to participate in a federal pilot program in-
tended to speed delivery of needed transportation
projects, and provide cost savings without weak-
ening environmental protection. SB 1812 would
allow Caltrans to take on the current role of the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in approv-
ing these environmental documents.
Caltrans will be required, as a condition of the
pilot project, to comply with federal laws, regula-
tions, and FHWA guidance documents and policy
directives as if it were the FHWA. This new
opportunity will not reduce environmental review,
but will expedite project delivery and avoid escalat-
ing costs caused by delays. Staff: Liisa Lawson
Stark; Status: SenAppr; Position: Support.
PUBLIC SAFETY
AB 1873 (Torrico). Child Protection. Safe
Surrender. AB 1873 would allow a local fire
agency, upon approval of the appropriate govern-
ing board, to designate safe-surrender sites for
accepting physical custody of a minor child 30
days old or younger. City fire departments have
an established history of operating safe-surrender
sites in coordination with the county. Allowing local
fire agencies to designate safe-surrender sites will
likely expand the program based on circum-
stances and conditions specific to the community.
Staff: Liisa Lawson Stark; Status: AsmAppr;
Position: Support.
AB 2310 (Torrico) Fire Works Regulations.
Local Law Enforcement. AB 2310 would allow
Le Le Le Le Legisla gisla gisla gisla gislati ti ti ti tiv v v v ve Bill e Bill e Bill e Bill e Bill Action Action Action Action Action
The following are summaries of just a few of the legislative bills that are currently being acted upon
by the League of California Cities. For more information about these and other bills, please visit
the League website to access information about legislation, policy issues and related develop-
ments. You can track information on bills (www.cacities.org/billsearch), locate legislators and
legislative committees, send letters to legislators or the media through the online Advocacy Center
(www.cacities.org/advocacycenter), research League policy positions, access useful related
links, and much more.Visit the League’s Official Website--www.cacities.org PAGE 8 - PRIORITY FOCUS
April 28, 2006 - Issue #17
local agencies, including fire departments, to
seize illegal fireworks and impose a fine or penalty
on individuals for possessing them for personal
use. AB 2310 also would allow the imposition of
penalties through a citation for possession in
amounts that are only enough for personal use.
This new infraction would allow penalties to be
collected without requiring local prosecutors to
pursue criminal prosecution.
In addition, the fine would be used to reim-
burse local agencies for disposal and administra-
tive costs, and a portion of the fine will be given to
the State Fire Marshal for a statewide disposal
program. AB 2310 is a good public safety mea-
sure that allows local agencies to better protect
our communities. Staff: Liisa Lawson Stark;
Status: AsmAppr; Position: Support.
WANT TO SEND A LETTER IN WANT TO SEND A LETTER IN WANT TO SEND A LETTER IN WANT TO SEND A LETTER IN WANT TO SEND A LETTER IN
SUPPORT OF A LEAGUE POSITION? SUPPORT OF A LEAGUE POSITION? SUPPORT OF A LEAGUE POSITION? SUPPORT OF A LEAGUE POSITION? SUPPORT OF A LEAGUE POSITION?
HERE’S WHO TO CALL: HERE’S WHO TO CALL: HERE’S WHO TO CALL: HERE’S WHO TO CALL: HERE’S WHO TO CALL:
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: Julie Sallie–Gray, Steve
Archibald, Scott Bain, Chuck Nicol, Kimberly
Rodriguez, Stephen Shea. Secretary: Laura
Lynn Gondek. Phone: (916) 319–2081.
Room: 2114.
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.
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