AgdaPkt 2005-01-24 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

ß. A~~ lA WSUtTS CHALLENGE 911 ACCESS FEE ORDINANCES In separate legal actions, the cities of Stockton and Union City are being sued over their 911 access fee ordinances. These ordinances, similar to those enacted by a number of cities throughout the state, are designed to help finance the operation of and improvements to the cities' 911 communications systems. Stockton's ordinance is being challenged by a number of parties, including Pacific Bell, while Union City's is being challenged by, among others, AT&T Wireless, Verizon Wireless, and Cingular Wireless. Essentially, the lawsuits allege that the ordinances impose a "tax" contrary to state law. Both lawsuits are in the early stages of litigation. Recently, Union City filed a pleading called a demur- rer, asserting that the wireless providers lacked standing to challenge the ordinance. In addition, the city argued that the parties bringing the lawsuit also had to first pay the fees, ask the city for a refund of those fees paid, and have that request denied before they could even file their lawsuit. However, on December 8, 2004, Judge Steven Brick of the Superior Court for the County of Alameda disagreed with Union City's position. In his ruling, the judge stated that because the wireless providers had to collect and account for the fees collected and could be held liable for the fees in the event their customers failed to pay them, they had a real interest in the controversy and, thus, had stand- ing to bring the action. The judge also stated that . because the lawsuit challenged a local govemment fee or tax, the parties did not have to first seek a refund of the fees paid. The judge's ruling is being appealed to the court of appeal. Stockton has filed a motion to dismiss its lawsuit, asserting arguments similar to those of Union City. A hearing on the city's motion is scheduled for January 10,2005, in the United States District Court for the Eastem District of Califomia (Sacramento). Additional information on both these lawsuits will be provided as it becomes available. PENSION REFORM STATEMENT from page 1 . The League and CSAC do not yet have a position on the govemor's proposal or Assembly- man Richman's proposed constitutional amend- ments pertaining to pension reform. The propos- als are currently under study by our associations and their policy committees. . We agree that the state and some local agencies face large and increasing pension costs, and this issue is of growing concern to local officials. . Cities and counties have a long tradition of providing retirement benefits to their employees in order to recruit and retain quality staff. Recent changes in state law and investment losses by CALPERS and other retirement systems have combined to put significant pressure on city and county budgets. . We support the efforts of the governor and other state leaders to focus attention on this problem. We also are committed to working with all parties, including city and county employees, to develop and adopt solutions to this problem. . Pension reform is a serious issue, but we urge all parties to take the time to understand the causes for increasing costs, analyze altemative reforms, and to develop consensus on appropriate reforms. Both CSAC and the League are working to develop constructive proposals to engage in this debate and we expect to be able to release information soon. . We look forward to working with Govemor Schwarzenegger, Assemblyman Richman and all concerned parties to help the state and local governments find ways to control the costs of pension benefit programs that are fair and effec- tive to both employees and taxpayers. PAGE 2IPRIORITY FOCUS Visit the League's Official Web Site--www.cacities.org