Laserfiche WebLink
<br />8A <br />Page 12 <br /> <br />~.t~,~i,.~~.~, (;r':::;j~tnt..'w~ .z~:::' tJpl~~~;i'~ r.'(,' tlhp'jli$.lh"~ "}[!.t r;;f:i.l;}' : ~.Wl!'l, ~hl:1; ~Hti.l (~U.t{.l r:i,~ ~~r~!t'-~ <br /> <br />PRIORITY <br />FOCUS <br /> <br />~LEAGUE <br />~. ('::.;, (!"'-:T!j'I;I:t~ <br />,i ' 1.., .,_.. <br /> <br />IN THIS ISSUE: <br /> <br />April 4, 2008 <br />Issue #14-2008 <br /> <br />Page 5: Cities Starting to Receive Prop. 1B Local Street and Road Funds <br />Governor Signs Bill That Allows Local Governments To Buy Back Debt <br />Page 6: Sustainable Cities Feature: Solana Beach Keeps Beaches Cigarette Free <br />Latino Caucus Hosts Forum During Legislative Action Days <br />Page 1: FEMA Requests Comments on Disaster Assistance Regulations <br />Find a Bill, Legislators, Leg Committee, or Ask League Leg Staff <br /> <br />SENATE BUDGET COMMITTEE HOLDS SECOND HEARING ON STATE-LOCAL <br />FISCAL RELATIONSHIP <br /> <br />On Thursday, April 3, the Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review held its second <br />hearing on the history of the state-local fiscal relationship. In the previous hearing, the Legislative <br />Analyst's Office (LAO) reviewed its perspective on the past 35 years of this relationship. Local <br />government representatives were invited to provide their perspective at the second hearing. <br />For more, see Page 2. <br /> <br />.................................... <br /> <br />LEGISLATIVE ACTION DAYS SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 16-17 IN SACRAMENTO <br /> <br />The League of California Cities' Legislative Action Days are scheduled for April 16-17, with <br />events being held at the Sacramento Convention Center and the Sheraton Grand Sacramento <br />Hotel in Sacramento. For more, see Page 3. <br /> <br />.................................... <br /> <br />CALIFORNIA STATE TREASURER BILL LOCKYER CALLS FOR <br />MUNICIPAL BOND RATING REFORM <br />California Cities Invited and Urged to Participate <br /> <br />The turmoil in the municipal bond markets has brought into focus the higher standards imposed <br />by the three major rating agencies in rating municipal bonds compared to corporate bonds, <br />mortgage-backed securities and other debt instruments. As most investors know, municipal <br />issuers rarely default on their bonds. Yet municipal ratings fail to reflect that fundamental fact. <br /> <br />The rating agencies even acknowledge this disparity, but ignore it in their ratings. Standard & <br />Poor's, for example, acknowledges that the historic rate of defaults of A-rated municipal bonds is <br />0.23 percent, while that of corporate bonds is 2.91 percent - or 13 times greater! <br />For more, see Page 4. <br />