AgdaPkt 2002-04-01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

I. IIslatlv® ill! and help cities, counties and others plan for the 1927 has a broad definition of "existing infra- future. Stiff: Natasha [ooman, Status: Aslrans, structure needs." Position: Review and Comment. lhe [ea§ue supports this measure based on SB 1460 {Alarcon}. Contracts for Labor or existing policy to support new funding measures Sentices. SB 14§6 Provides that any entity that to assist local government efforts to upgrade enters into a labor contract for construction or existing infrastructure, and is consistent with the janitorial services when the entity knows or should past "smart growth" principles adopted by the know that the contract does not provide funds League. sufficient to allow the contractor to comply with all labor laws and re§ulations, is guilty of a lhe stiff competition In the Legislature among misdemeanor and subject to civil penalties, various proposed general obligation bond mca- Additionally, SB 1466 establishes a rebuttable sures (school, housing, water, high-speed rail) for presumption that the entity entering into a the November 2002 ballot, make the prospects for contract for labor or services does not violate the this measure somewhat of a long shot. However, provisions of this bill if the contract contains even if this bill fails to make the 2002 ballot, It comprehensive information about the contractor could always be placed on a future ballot and and its workforce. We have concerns regarding SB helps to build attention in the Legislature to the 1466 for two reasons. The first is that the rebut-problems cities face in upgrading local infrastruc- table presumption would be extremely difficult forture. Staff: Dan Carrigg, Status: AsLG;Hrg-4/10, a public agency to successfully argue. Secondly, AsBus&Prof, Position: Support. SB 1446 exposes public agencies to civil and criminal penalties andunderminesanagency's SB 1423 (Torlakson). MTC/ABAG. Mer§er confidence in determining the lowest responsible Feasibility. SB 1243 requires the Metropolitan bidder. Staff: Natasha Fooman, Status: Transportation Commission to meet with the SenLbr&lndRel, Position: Review and Comment. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) to conduct a study on the feasibility of merging the HOUSING AND LAND USE functions of the commission and those of ABAG into a new regional government commission. The AB 1927 (Kehoe). Neighborhood Infra- two organizations would need to make a report to structure Bond Act. AB 1927 enacts the Neigh- the Legislature no later than January 1, 2004. By borhood Infrastructure Bond Act of 2002, which, increasing the duties of a local agency, the bill if adopted, would authorize the issuance of $6 would impose a state-mandated local program. billion in general obligation bonds to finance Staff: Dan Carrigg, Status: SenLG;Hrg-4/17, grants for local infrastructure needs. In brief, the Position: Review and Comment. funding is proposed to be divided as follows: $2.5 billion for neighborhood residential infra- SB 1717 (Machado). Annexations of Non- structure needs; $1.5 billion for neighborhood Contiguous Islands. Leases. Under existing commercial infrastructure needs; $1 billion for law, upon approval of the Local Agency Formation infrastructure needs related to transit-oriented Commission (LAFCO), a city may annex non- development; $500 million for infrastructure contiguous territory not exceeding 300 acres related to infill developmem and $500 r~illion forlocated in the same county that the city owns and infrastructure related to mix ~d-use proje:ts. AB uses for municipal purposes. If, after the annex- PAGE 6/PRIORITY FOCUS Visit the League's Official Web Site--www. cacities.org