AgdaPkt 2005-06-13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

&-9' LegiSlatiY~ IBili Action .............................8...~............................. During the energy crisis. many cities were able to adjust their utility taxes to provide relief to community members who were hardest hit by the rising energy costs. To our knowledge. there is no identified local dispute driving the need for this bill. Neither the author, nor the transit district support- ers who testified in committee (and who have received a waiver from the cities in their district) could cite a situation where a local jurisdiction has refused to provide a waiver upon request. A one- size fits all exemption would only hamper this local flexibility. This is an issue of local control and is a tax that is imposed and administered at the local level and since Proposition 2'18 has been in effect, voted on by the citizens residing in the local jurisdiction. Local jurisdictions have shown flexibility in adminis- tering UUT's at the local level and should be able to retain control over this revenue resource. Staff: Jean Korinke, Status: SenRevTax, Hrg. June 8; Position: Oppose. TRANSPORTA 110N AND PUBLIC WORKS SB 372 (Margett) Vehicles: Sizra, Weight, and Load: Local Authorities: IsSiuance of Variance Permits. The League has submitted SB 372 in previous issues of Priority Focus, but would like to bring your attention to it again since the bill is moving quickly through the legislative process. This is a reminder to have cities check to see what your current charges are for oversized load vari- ance permits, SB 372 prohibits a local government from imposing additional charges for an oversized load variance permit if those charges are for services within the scope of the local authorities ordinary duties. Existing law authorizes a local authority to charge a fee of up to $16 for a daily use permit and $90 for an annual permit if the fee is established by ordinance or resolution after notice and hearing. However, local authorities may not charge more for their permits than Caltrans charges for its permits. In addition to the permit fee, a local authority may charge for special services needed for especially large or heavy loads, including engineering investi- gations, escorts, and tree trimming. According to the sponsor of the bill, some cities and counties in Southern California are charging additional fees beyond the permit fee for such things as accepting permit applications by fax or by paying the permit fee by credit card. If you have any concerns about this bill, please contact Genevieve Morelos at amorelos@cacities.ora. Staff: Liisa Lawson Stark; Status: AsTrans, Pending; Position: Infonnation Only. AB 453 (Benoit) Grade Seoaration Proiects. AB 453 increases, from one year to two years, the period within which a local agency must promise to begin a grade separation project (to separate a roadway from a railroad crossing) and complete related pre-construction activities before it can receive a grade separation project allocation from the California Transportation Commission (CTC). Grade separations can vastly improve safety at a particular intersection, but are generally reserved for particularly dangerous areas because of the expense. Each project can cost at least $20 million and take years to complete. Extending the period for local agencies to begin a project to a two year window will require an agency to make a diligent effort to expedite the project while eliminating the necessity to repeatedly burden the Department of Finance with time waiver requests. . AB 453 allows local agencies more time to satisfy the require- ments related to the use of state-allocated grade separation project assistance. Staff: Uisa Lawson Stark; Status: AsmFlr; Position: Support. AB 697 (Oropeza) Highway Users Tax Account. Despite co-sponsorship with the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) and the Associated General Contractors (AGC), and our efforts to buHd a coalition sufficient to ensure passage of AB 697. the bill failed passage before the Assembly Appro- priations Committee on Wednesday, May 25. 2005. AB 697 would provide that all moneys in the Highway Users Tax Account in the Transportation Tax Fund and in the State Highway Account in the State Transportation Fund are continuously appro- www.cacities.org u Visit the League's Official Website PRIORITY FOCUS/PAGE 9