Laserfiche WebLink
// �4- 2� <br /> LEGALfrom page 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . <br /> from individual swap meet vendors to the operator of <br /> the swap meet without the prior approval of city These and other recent filings are available on <br /> voters if the fee is imposed as a regulatory measure. the Lea�ue's website at: www.cacities.ora/ <br /> The Attomey General opinion number is 03-412 and recentfil�.� <br /> i:; available at http://aq.ca.qov/opinions/published/03- <br /> 4 '—� To request fiendof-the�ourt assistance from <br /> the League visit: www.cacities orq/reQUestamicus. <br /> Meeting Locations and Brown Act Compliance <br /> The League recenUy submitted comments to the <br /> Attomey General on questions relating to the noticing � <br /> of ineeting locations and compliance with the Brown � <br /> Act. The League thanks Michael Jenkins with P � <br /> Jenkins 8 Hogin, for writing the comments on �i'� <br /> behaff of the League. The Attomey General opinion �"� <br /> number is 03-608. The opinion is currently pending. � <br /> Economic Development <br /> OTHER LEGAL ADVOCACY UPDATES Handbook <br /> The Califomia Supreme Court recently agreed to Economic Development, Business <br /> hear the following cases that the League urged the <br /> court to review. Growth 8 Decline, and The Strategic <br /> P/anning Process <br /> Charter Cities and Prevailing Wages NEW: A tool to help educate city <br /> The California Supreme Court will consider officials about ways to tackle serious <br /> whether charter cities are required to pay prevailing economic policy issues. <br /> wages in public works construction projects. The <br /> League thanks Kathy Jenson with Rutan 8� Plus: <br /> Tucker, for writing the letter in support of review on • Best practices and case studies <br /> behalf of the League to the Califomia Supreme Court. • Secrets for developing economic <br /> The name of the case is Ciry of Long Beach v. development success <br /> Ca/ifomia Department of Industna/ Relations, No. • Tools for understanding and analyzing a <br /> S 118450. <br /> community's economic base <br /> • Developing and implementing a strategic <br /> CEQA and Mitigation Costs Involving Public eco- nomic development plan <br /> Entities • Benchmarking tools and tips on putting it all <br /> The California Supreme Court will consider together. <br /> whether a state agency is required to pay for the <br /> costs to mitigate the impacts created by their project. This publication is available from the League for <br /> The court of appeal concluded that they are not $15. There is a ten percent discount on orders of <br /> required, exposing local govemments to increased five or more. <br /> fiscal burdens. The League thanks Zach Cowan, <br /> Assistant CityAttomey, Berkeley, forwritingthe Questions? Contact League Publications at <br /> letter in support of review on behalf of the League to 916/658-8257 or order online at: <br /> the Califomia Supreme Court. The name of the case www.cacities.org/store. <br /> is City of Marina v. Board of Tiustees of the Califor- <br /> nia Sfate University, No. S117816. <br /> Visit the League's Official Web Site-•www.cacities.org PRIORITY FOCUS/PAGE 5 <br />