January 21 and 22 in Sacramento was very informative and productive days. Wednesday’s meetings began with an 8:30 a.m. pre-meeting with California League of Cities’ attorney Bill Higgins and Lucas Frerichs who are two of our legislative advocates at the Capitol. We discussed the formation problems for the League’s Water Task Force, with 90 officials from around the state requesting to be included, and the staff report regarding the Model Landscape Ordinance regarding water use. We agreed that the proposal needs extensive work despite the fact that the State staff is finalizing its version. We all found it to be very Draconian in its approach and procedures.
For a complete copy: http://www.owue.water.ca.gov/docs/Modified_Text_of_Proposed_Regulation.pdf
The Housing, Community & Economic Development Policy Committee meeting began at 10 a.m. with a number of standard items regarding current policies and procedures. Assembly Republican Leader Michael Villines joined us at about 10:30 for a discussion on the budget and its potential impacts on local government. He was told that we can not accept further cuts in our appropriations at the same time that State departments, plans and regulations are forcing us to comply with costly infrastructure and procedural improvements that provide no State funding to achieve. He said the State does not give us unfunded mandates and the room erupted in laughter. We informed him that although legislation may not directly do so, it gives direction to departments for plans, regulations and program development that do have local costs. He said he’d take our words under advisement. He also was told that changes needed to be made to the prevailing wage laws that prevent us from meeting many State mandates.
Our work program for 2009 will be to protect property tax, redevelopment, sales tax and Prop. 42 funding allocations and oppose diversions. We will also seek local control alternatives for reasonable implementation of AB 32, SB 375 with implementation changes and cleanup, and support proposals that provide local policy makers with the fiscal tools and local control necessary to deliver critical local services. We will also focus our attention on any and all legislation and administrative plans that affect local issues.
At 11:15 a.m. we conferred with Doug Ito of the California Air Resources Board on implementation of SB 375. He said that the major thrust will be through CEQA but that no statewide resolution is near at this time. I asked specifically if the effort is being driven or significantly influenced by CAPCOA’s CEQA and AB32 white paper. He said that the CAPCOA document had no greater significance than any other documents being submitted by interested parties.
For a complete copy: http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/publications/others/CAPCOA-1000-2008-010.PDF.
At 1:15 p.m. we conferred with Assembly Housing & Community Development Committee Chairman Tony Mendoza. I again brought up unfunded mandates in his area and suggested that the least the State could do regarding prevailing wage requirements would be to regionalize them so that remote areas do not have to pay urban wages. He said that he’d never heard that approach before and thought it might have some merit.
We were updated on pending Federal and State legislation and agreed to support Federal legislation to reauthorize SAFETEA-LU funding for transit, highways, rail, air and port development and oppose efforts to reduce local government funds. We also support transit-oriented infill funding, Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants (EECBG), restoration of rental housing tax breaks, additional funding for local streets and road construction and maintenance, increased CDBG funding, and other economic stimulus proposals to achieve local, state and national priorities.
At the close of the meeting I arranged to be transported to the Capitol; area for a special subcommittee meeting on the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement (SSUTA). This was to be our final meeting to recommend a position after a year of meetings on this topic. Refer to Attachment dated January 21, 2009 or the public can read it at the reference desk of the City Library or email me at fstrong@charter.net and I will send them a pdf copy.
The committee amended the staff recommendation and passed it on to the Revenue and Taxation Policy Committee for action at its Thursday meeting. It was then adopted upon my motion and a unanimous vote.
The primary changes we made to the staff position were to add an opposition to any Federal legislation that “would directly undermine California’s utility user tax structure” and to “Share our analysis of the SSUTA with interested parties, exchange information on use tax collection issues with municipal Leagues in other states, including those states with tax structures similar to California.”
The Executive Summary is an extremely well done synopsis of the more than 800 pages of documentation studied and discussed by the subcommittee during 2008.
Following the meeting at the Leagues’ temporary offices I joined Council Members Gilman and Steinbeck along with a large number of Assemblypersons, Senators, State and local officials for an evening reception at the Citizens Hotel. We chatted with many of them and went our own ways. I concluded the reception with a brief pre-meeting with representatives of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) which included the Director and some of his staff. We confirmed an 8 a.m. breakfast meeting at the Hyatt Regency across from the Capitol and exchanged pleasantries. I took a cab back to my hotel.
Thursday morning began with a cab ride back to the Regency from the Doubletree and breakfast with three representatives of CDCR: Erin Sasse, Chief of External Affairs; Laura Enderton, Deputy Chief of External Affairs and Cynthia Florez-DeLyon, Parole Administrator I of the Office of Reentry Facilities, County Liaison.
We explored the current status of the repurposing of the former CYA facility in Paso Robles, the Fire Camp and the Reentry Facility design and environmental considerations. We discussed continued meetings between the State and the City and community workshops to keep our citizens well informed on the progress. Everything is currently waiting on settlement of the State Budget.
Following the meeting I went back to the Doubletree for a 10 a.m. meeting of the Revenue and Taxation Policy Committee of the League.
The meeting of the Revenue and Taxation Policy Committee began at 10 a.m. with the usual background information orientation, previous policies and parliamentary procedure. We had an update on the current status of the State Budget, which at that time was “nowhere”, with commentary by the League’s Legislative Director Dan Carrigg and League Fiscal Policy Advisor Michael Coleman.
That was followed by a State Department of Finance Presentation on the Governor’s Budget by Program Budget Manager Mark Hill. He stated that a key element of shifting $100 million of Indian gaming funds is dependent on Federal government’s grants.
For a full copy of the Legislative Analyst Office’s January 8, 2009, “Overview of the Governor’s Budget”:
http://www.lao.ca.gov/2009/budget_overview/09-10_budget_ov.pdf
The next speaker was lobbyist David Jones representing the California Redevelopment Agencies Association. David explained current efforts to protect local redevelopment funds from a State raid. The State has been sued over current efforts to take local redevelopment funds and the challenge looks good to the agency’s attorneys based on the California Constitution. However, he stressed that it is important for local government officials and citizens to contact their legislators to support the protection of local government funding sources.
Vice Chairman of the Assembly Budget Committee Roger Niello conferred with us on legislative reactions to the Governor’s Budget. He stressed that the Republican position on taxes has not changed but that Republicans are more willing to consider the use of fees to help fund current shortfalls. I brought up, again, the issues raised at the HCED committee concerning unfunded mandates and adjustments to prevailing wage regulations. I also suggested that since some of the deferrals of local money are being deferred to a future fiscal year, the State consider the RAW formula which allocates a 5%/year interest payment for use of OUR money. He smiled.
The SSUTA report from the subcommittee was then addressed. I moved and the committee unanimously approved the amended staff recommendation our subcommittee had adopted Wednesday afternoon.
Our final speaker was Michael Cohen, Deputy Legislative Analyst from the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO). Michal explained the way cash flow works for the State. He showed the trends and history of the holding fund (PMIA) and guaranteed that, unless drastic legislative or Constitutional changes were made, the cities’ money in the LIAF portion of the account could not be touched. As of November, 2008, there was $63 billion in the total account with $21 billion being local government investment and cash draw funds.
Although the cash flow system in California is complex the LAO’s full explanation can be found at: http://www.lao.ca.gov/2009/stadm/cash_flow/cash_flow_011409.pdf
The policy committee’s work load for 2009 was discussed as the last item and we were told that the subcommittee on a model TOT ordinance had not met as yet because of the budget crisis. As soon as the budget matters are settled that subcommittee will be meeting. I subsequently received a communication from the policy committee’s staff person that he hopes we can be as effective on that subcommittee as we sere on the SSUTA.
Following the meeting I went to the LAO’s office to pick up copies of the pertinent reports for the other members of the Council and some other City Officials. While there I discovered some other materials that were of interest which I would also recommend at another time.
However, one that was currently applicable to Paso Robles was “California Water: An LAO Primer.” On page 42 it specifically addressed methods of funding “water infrastructure” and noted “Revenue Bonds” as follows: “These also finance capital projects but are not supported by the General Fund. Rather, they are paid off from a designated revenue stream - usually generated by the projects they finance - such as water user assessments. These bonds also do not require voter approval.”