My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2003-04-07
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009 partial
>
2003
>
AgdaPkt 2003-04-07
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/2/2011 2:34:04 PM
Creation date
4/3/2003 9:35:18 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Date
4/7/2003
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
64
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
FA -21 <br />Legislative Bill Action <br />............................... ............................... . <br />index. This law was enacted in 1998 in response <br />to a California Supreme Court decision in San <br />Marcos Water District v. San Marcos Unified <br />School District. In that case, the school district <br />claimed a capacity fee imposed by the water <br />district constituted a special assessment and, <br />therefore, the water district lacked the statutory <br />authority to impose the charge on the school <br />district. The court held in favor of the school <br />district and the Legislature responded with a law <br />that authorized public utilities to impose "capital <br />facilities fees" or "capacity charges" on public <br />agencies with certain restrictions. <br />A key problem that has arisen is the ava- <br />lanche of litigation against utilities relates to the <br />terminology: "capital facilities fees." The educa- <br />tion community and other public agencies have <br />asserted that any charge or fee that has a capital <br />component is a capital facility fee, and thus <br />subject to all of the statutory limitations embodied <br />in the Government Code. The utility community <br />has contended that connection fees and capacity <br />fees are capital facility fees, but that utility rates <br />(most of which contain a component to finance <br />ongoing capital work) are not capital facility fees. <br />AB 1051 <br />• Clarify that "capital facilities fees" does not <br />include utility service rates or commodity <br />charges, and provide that a public agency may <br />be charged for; and must pay utility rates contain- <br />ing a capital component for the operation, mainte- <br />nance, repair, replacement, or rehabilitation of <br />facilities that benefit a public agency receiving <br />utility services. <br />• Clarify the requirement that any judicial action <br />seeking a refund of a capital facilities fee, service <br />rate or commodity charges, or challenging the <br />validity of these fees, to be brought in accordance <br />with specified law relating to validating proceed- <br />ings; and require any action or proceeding to be <br />commenced within 120 days of the effective date <br />of the adoption of the fee, rate or charge. <br />The bill would not increase the rates, <br />charges, or fees associated with the cost of <br />capital facilities to educational institutions or public <br />agencies o relieve public utilities from the duty to <br />negotiate a capital facilities fee (connection fee or <br />capacity charge) when requested to do so by a <br />school or public agency. <br />Cities, especially those with utilities, should <br />write letters of support to the author, their Assem- <br />bly Member and members of the Assembly Local <br />Government Committee, to which AB 1051 has <br />been referred. If your city has been hit by a lawsuit <br />over capital facility fees, please include that <br />information and the potential cost to the city. Be <br />sure and send the League a copy of your letter. <br />Staff: Yvonne Hunter, Status: Pending in Assem- <br />bly Local Government. Position: Support. <br />HUMAN RESOURCES <br />AB 136 (Kehoe) Workers' Compensation. <br />Disability: Leave Of Absence. This bill extends <br />temporary disability (Labor Code 4850) for safety <br />officers to two years. This bill would have dramati- <br />cally adverse effects on local agency budgets at a <br />time when the economy and the state budget <br />crisis are forcing layoffs and local service cut- <br />backs. Under current law, firefighters and police <br />officers are entitled to up to one year of temporary <br />disability time off while receiving tax -free pay- <br />ments of their full salary. Because the benefit is <br />full salary, but tax free, the amount received by the <br />injured officer significantly exceeds their normal <br />take -home compensation. A temporarily injured <br />safety employee under this law cannot retire until <br />their "4850" time is exhausted. The local agency <br />cannot permanently fill that position until the <br />injured worker returns to modified work or retires. <br />One missing employee severely hampers re- <br />sponse models and emergency operations so <br />overtime personnel are hired back to sustain <br />staffing levels. Typically, a local agency backfills <br />positions for the entire year, which increases <br />costs extensively (full salary for the injured officer; <br />time and a half for the replacement who is out on <br />"4850" time). This occurs even when the agency <br />Visit the League's Official Web Site-- www.cacities.org PRIORITY FOCUS /PAGE 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.