Laserfiche WebLink
9,Ai <br />April 4, 2003 <br />ssue #13 -2003 <br />d tolilwai0 CAN <br />HEALTH CARE PREMIUMS RUMORED TO RISE AGAIN BY 20 — 30% <br />BE A VOICE AT THE NEXT CALPERS HEALTH BENEFITS COMMITTEE <br />Hot Bills HEARING APRIL 15 SACRAMENTO <br />■ ■ ■ ■ Act Now Save the Date: If your city contracts with CalPERS health, you are <br />Page 2 <br />encouraged to attend the PERS Health Committee meeting on April 15" at <br />AB 136 (Kehoe). <br />the Ca/PERS Building at 400 P Street in Sacramento. It is a chance for <br />Workers' Compen- <br />the Board to hear your concerns with premium hikes, which are rumored to <br />. sation. Disability: <br />rise again this year by as much as 20 to 30% without any changes in plan <br />Leave Of Absence. <br />design or other changes. For more, see page 5. <br />■ Status: Oppose. <br />................... <br />AB 637 (Harman). <br />ASSEMBLY BUDGET COMMISSION SET TO MEET APRIL 8 <br />i State- Mandated <br />Local Programs. <br />As part of the final 2002 -03 budget package, a House Resolution, <br />■ Status: Support. <br />authored by Assembly Speaker Wesson, was signed into law creating the <br />Assembly Commission on Structural Challenges to Budgeting in <br />ACA 10 (Harman). <br />California. This bipartisan commission, composed of 12 members of the <br />■ Proposition 218. <br />Assembly, is tasked with identifying and examining issues and problems that <br />Storm Water Fees. <br />contribute to the difficulties in enacting a state budget. The commission will <br />Status: Support. <br />make recommendations to the legislature on how to address those issues <br />and problems. For more, see page 5. <br />• <br />................... <br />APPELLATE COURT RULES IN CITY'S FAVOR IN SB 402 CASE <br />The City of Redding received good news late last week (March 28, 2003) <br />■ <br />on its SB 402 challenge before the court of appeal. The court ruled in the <br />Want more details on <br />city's favor in an unpublished decision. The majority opinion adopted major <br />these and other bills? <br />elements of the court of appeal opinion in the County of Riverside case as its <br />Log on to the League of <br />own decision. The dissenting justice argued that article XI, section 11 of the <br />California Cities web site <br />California Constitution is limited to "purely local matters" and that the court <br />at www.c i and <br />click Legislative <br />should not reweigh the Legislature's determinations as to the policy justifica- <br />Advocacy. <br />tions for overriding local prerogatives in this area. (See also "Legal Advocacy <br />Wrap Up," page 2.) <br />................... <br />Page 2 <br />LEGAL ADVOCACY WRAP-UP <br />Page 3 <br />LOCAL UPDATE <br />Page 4 <br />THE BUDGET STORY - SOME PRESS QUOTES <br />Page 6 <br />LEAGUE GRASSROOTS IN ACTION <br />Page 8 <br />LEGISLATIVE BILL SUMMARIES <br />