Docstoc

LEGISLATIVE ACTION COMMITTEE

Document Sample
LEGISLATIVE ACTION COMMITTEE Powered By Docstoc
					                                       LEGISLATIVE ACTION COMMITTEE
                                         www.CoronaAdvocacy.biz/about.html

                                            Corona Chamber of Commerce
                                          904 East Sixth Street, Corona 92879
                                                    (951) 737-3350

                                                  Tuesday, June 16, 2009
                                                         8:00am

                                                      Presiding:
                                               Cynthia Schneider, Chair

                                               2009 Strategic Initiatives
                                            Employee and Employer Issues
                                   Improving Traffic and Transportation Infrastructure
                                            Stimulating the Local Economy

Call to Order and Roll Call

Chair’s Report

President & CEO’s Report

            Sacramento Trip Recap

Mayor Pro-Tem Report

Riverside County Transportation Commission Report

Local, State, Federal Legislative Staff Updates

New Business

    1.   April 2009 LAC Minutes                                                          ACTION

    2.   Adult Day Health Care Funding                                                   DISCUSSION

    3.   Legislative Report #5                                                           ACTION

             a.   AB 68 (Brownley) Solid Waste: Single-Use Carryout Bags
             b.   AB 87 (Davis) Single Use Carryout Bags
             c.   AB 89 (Torlakson) Taxation: Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products
             d.   SB 600 (Padilla) Cigarette and Tobacco Products Tax and Health Fund
             e.   AB 474 (Blumenfield) Water Efficiency Improvements
             f.   AB 1107 (Blakeslee) Environmental Protection Agency: Rules: Analysis
             g.   SB 356 (Wright) Regulations: Small Businesses

Announcements

Adjourn




                                                                                                      1
                                                                                                          CHAIR’S REPORT
                                                                                                 Legislative Action Committee
                                                                                                                 June 16, 2009

Recent Action

May 28, 2009
Cynthia Schneider Receives the Prestigious Small Business Advocate of the Year Award

Each year, the California Chamber of Commerce
recognizes small business leaders who have done
an exceptional job with their local, state and
national advocacy efforts. Last week in
Sacramento, at the California Chamber of
Commerce Business Summit, Cynthia Schneider,
former Corona Chamber Board Chairman and
current Chairman of the Corona Chamber‟s
Legislative Action Committee (LAC) was honored
with the prestigious Small Business Advocate of
the Year Award.

Cynthia Schneider is the Senior Vice President of American Security Bank and a long-time active member and volunteer
leader of the Corona Chamber of Commerce. American Security Bank has 7 full service branches (2 in Apple Valley; 1 in the
following: Corona; Laguna Niguel; Lancaster; Newport Beach and Victorville ;) and one loan production office in Palmdale.

Cynthia was recognized last week by Allan Zaremberg, President and Chief Executive Officer of Cal Chamber as a visionary
business leader who successfully secured the support of the Corona Chamber Board of Directors in 2006 to make an
unprecedented investment in representing the interest of our business community at all levels of government. Since then, the
Corona Chamber has built one of the most active and results driven business advocacy efforts. Joining Schneider was her
husband David and a host of others: Corona Chamber Chairman of the Board Linda Pearson (Corona Regional Medical
Center); Corona Mayor Steve Nolan; Corona Mayor Pro-Tem Karen Spiegel; Former Corona Mayor, Darrell Talbert; Officer
and Board Member for Corona Chamber Chris Miller (Thomas Miller Mortuary); Denea Breitenbucher (Corona Chamber
Staff) and Corona Chamber CEO / President Bobby Spiegel

“Since 2006, our Chamber has activated our local business community on hundreds of legislative proposals impacting
Corona,” stated Bobby Spiegel, President and CEO of the Corona Chamber of Commerce. “Cynthia was able to secure
hundreds of letters from our business community on each issue, educate them through numerous email „Call to Action‟
campaigns, and issue annual vote records to hold our Legislators accountable to our positions. In 2007 and 2008, each of our
State Legislators voted with the Corona Chamber 100% of the time,” continued Spiegel.

Under Cynthia‟s leadership, the Corona Chamber has developed a more concise advocacy plan by involving people in our
process of developing positions on behalf of our members. Cynthia created subcommittees of the LAC where Chamber
members review specific data detail by detail and then report on their discussion at the monthly LAC meeting. This process
streamlined the entire decision making process enabling the Corona Chamber to be more productive on behalf of its business
community.

Cynthia also successfully rallied our business community to support the implementation of the Sunrise Powerlink Project.
This Project will help protect the supply of reliable and affordable electricity for Corona and our State. Cynthia built a
grassroots network of over 200 local business leaders to actively support the project through letter writing campaigns. She
also traveled to San Francisco to be the lead business advocate testifying in support of the California Public Utility
Commission‟s approval of the project. After hours of testimony and at the urging of many businesses in Corona, the
Commission approved the Project.

Cynthia is also active in campaigns for elected officials. She works diligently on local campaigns, citing her father‟s guidance
as a child was to always use her talents to better others. Cynthia brings her creativity, visionary plans and action to local
elections. Corona Chamber of Commerce funds the Legislative Action process through its Signature Event, the Annual
Magic of Monte Carlo (being held on Friday, June 12 at Eagle Glen in Corona). Funds derived from this event also go
towards member benefits including Legislative outreach. None of the dues collected through membership fees are spent on
Legislative matters. The Corona Chamber has a membership just shy of 1,000.


                                                                                                                               2
May 13, 2009

Submit Your Letter Now: Help Us Stop
Another Proposal That Kills Job Creation
Elected officials in Sacramento are considering a proposed law,
AB 1358, that would prohibit any vendor doing business in California
from serving prepared food in a polystyrene food container.

Why this issue is important to you

AB 1358 would impose new and potentially costly mandates on
businesses without any consideration of functionality or cost.

Submitting your letter below will help the Corona Chamber send a message to
elected officials in Sacramento that anti-job creating proposals hurt
EVERYONE no matter the issue or targeted industry.

Why the Corona Chamber opposes AB 1358

AB 1358 does not address the major issue of whether a “recycling” or “composting”
container can be made readily available in a cost effective manner.

Food service containers that are easily “recyclable” and “compostable” are expensive to
produce and expensive to purchase.


Click here to submit your letter to help stop AB 1358!
  This web-based Corona business advocacy resource is funded through the Corona
Chamber of Commerce's Annual Signature Event, the Magic of Monte Carlo. Join us this
            year by clicking on the graphic below or call 951-737-3350.




                                                                                          3
                                                                                                             ACTION
                                                                                                   AGENDA ITEM 1
                                                                                         Legislative Action Committee
                                                                                                         June 16, 2009
April 2009 LAC Minutes

                                       LEGISLATIVE ACTION COMMITTEE
                                         www.CoronaAdvocacy.biz/about.html

                                            Corona Chamber of Commerce
                                          904 East Sixth Street, Corona 92879
                                                    (951) 737-3350

                                                Tuesday, April 21, 2009
                                                       8:00am

                                                      Presiding:
                                               Cynthia Schneider, Chair

                                                MEETING MINUTES

                                               2009 Strategic Initiatives
                                            Employee and Employer Issues
                                   Improving Traffic and Transportation Infrastructure
                                            Stimulating the Local Economy

Call to Order and Roll Call

        Chair Schneider called the meeting to order at 8:00am

        Chair                     Cynthia Schneider         American Security Bank               X
                                  Jim Bradley               Consultant
                                  Jack Mobilia              Manufacturer’s Council               X
                                  Rachel Rola               AsYouLikeItProductions               X
                                  Chris Miller              Chris Miller Mortuary                X
                                  Alex Braicovich           Waste Management
                                  Sandy Klein               Re/Max All Stars
                                  Chad Miller               Plas-Tech Sealing Tech               X
                                  Ann Poloko                Financial Investors Group            X
                                  Javier Vasquez            Miguel’s Restaurants                 X
                                  Mark Krakower             Kraktronix Laser Craft               X
                                  CC Vest                   Midpoint Bearing                     X
                                  Ken Rivers                Corona Regional Medical
                                  Justin Harmier            Merrill Lynch
        Mayor Pro Tem             Karen Spiegel             City of Corona
        Chamber Chair             Linda Pearson             Corona Chamber of Commerce
        Chamber CEO               Bobby Spiegel             Corona Chamber of Commerce           X
        Chamber Staff             Shaun Lumachi             Corona Chamber of Commerce           X

Chair’s Report

        Schneider reported on recent action.

President & CEO’s Report

        Spiegal reported on the upcoming Sacramento trip.

Mayor Pro-Tem Report

                                                                                                                    4
         No report.

Riverside County Transportation Commission Report

         No report.

Local, State, Federal Legislative Staff Updates

         No report.

New Business

    4.   March 2009 LAC Minutes                                                                   ACTION

         The March 2009 LAC Minutes were approved unanimously.

    5.   Special Election: May 19, 2009 Ballot Propositions 1D – 1F                               ACTION

                  The LAC unanimously approved the following positions:

                  Proposition 1D: The LAC tabled a decision on Proposition 1D to the LAC Executive Committee.
                  Proposition 1E: Support
                  Proposition 1F: Support

    6.   Californians Against Higher Taxes                                                        ACTION

                  The LAC voted unanimously to oppose any effort to reduce the vote requirement of 2/3 rds of both houses of
                  the Legislature to pass the state budget.

    7.   Legislative Report #4                                                                    ACTION

         The LAC unanimously approved the following positions:

             a.   TABLE            AB 25 (Gilmore) Surface Water Storage
             b.   SUPPORT          AB 28 (Jeffries) Natural Gas Engines: Water Pumps
             c.   SUPPORT          AB 31 (Price) Public Contracts: Small Business Procurement Act
             d.   TABLE            AB 178 (Skinner) Sales and Use Taxes
             e.   OPPOSE           AB 109 (Feuer) Outdoor Advertising
             f.   OPPOSE           SB 104 (Oropeza) Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Greenhouse Gases
             g.   SUPPORT          SB 125 (Benoit) Undocumented Criminal Aliens: Costs: Collecting Data
             h.   TABLE            SB 371 (Cogdill) Safe, Clean, Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2009

Adjourn

                  Schneider adjourned the meeting at 9:15am.




                                                                                                                               5
                                                                                                               DISCUSSION
                                                                                                          AGENDA ITEM 2
                                                                                                Legislative Action Committee
                                                                                                                June 16, 2009
Adult Day Health Care Funding

Presentation

Shaun Lumachi
Director of Government Affairs

Stimulating the Local Economy Subcommittee Recommended Position

         The Subcommittee voted unanimously to defer a position on this issue to the LAC.

Summary

    1.   Governor Schwarzenegger announced this week proposed $3.3 billion in cuts in State funding. The proposed cuts
         include the elimination of adult day health care services. The Legislature will decide in the next few weeks, which,
         if any, programs will survive the cut list.

Background

    2.   Dr. Barbara Porter, Program Director, of Corona-based Inland Empire Adult Day Health Care Center contacted the
         Chamber asking for help opposing the Governor‟s proposed funding cuts for adult day health care services.

    3.   The non-partisan Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) proposed and alternative recommendation to retain the adult day
         health care program (ADHC) as a Medi‐Cal benefit, and the policy‐based concept of achieving savings by targeting
         services to those with the greatest need for care.

    4.   The Governor, however, has proposed $117 million in overall funding for ADHC services and it is unclear iif any
         integration of ADHC funding with the Medi-Cal program.

    5.   The LAO proposal to limit ADHC services to those meeting medical necessity for 3 – 5 days per week attendance
         with exemptions for small or rural programs of under 60 daily attendance, PACE, regional center clients, and
         dialysis patients is reasonable, but not without some adverse impact.

Arguments in Support

    6.   If only 20% of the elderly who attend adult day health are forced into nursing homes (care that would be subsidized
         by the State), the $117 million in presumed savings will be wiped out.

Arguments in Opposition

    7.   The Corona Chamber opposed Proposition 1A which was the proposal by the Governor and the Legislature to
         increase revenues and stabilize long-term spending. Proposition 1A failed voter approval in May 2009. The Corona
         Chamber opposed Proposition 1A mainly because the Chamber believes the state has not done enough to limit State
         spending and implement cost cutting measures. ADHC service funding cuts contradict the standing position of the
         Chamber in urging the Governor to implement cost cutting measures.




                                                                                                                                6
                                                                                                                       ACTION
                                                                                                             AGENDA ITEM 3
                                                                                                   Legislative Action Committee
                                                                                                                   June 16, 2009
Legislative Report #5

Presentation

Shaun Lumachi
Director of Government Affairs

AB 68 (Brownley) Solid Waste: Single-Use Carryout Bags
And
AB 87 (Davis) Single Use Carryout Bags

Stimulating the Local Economy Subcommittee Recommended Position

         Oppose AB 68 and Oppose AB 87

Summary

    1.   Both AB 68 and AB 87 establishes a statewide fee of 25 cents for single-use carryout bags (bags), of all types,
         beginning in 2010 and restricts grocery and convenience stores from providing single-use carry out bags to their
         customers.

Background

    2.   Current law requires supermarkets and stores over 10,000 square feet that include a pharmacy to establish an in-
         store plastic carryout bag recycling program.

    3.   This current program must include:

               a.   Plastic bags provided by the store to include a label encouraging customers to return the bag to the store for
                    recycling;

               b.   Easily accessible recycling bins for plastic bags;

               c.   All plastic bags collected must be recycled in a manner consistent with the local jurisdiction's recycling
                    plan;

               d.   The store must maintain records relating to the program for at least three years and must make the records
                    available to the local jurisdiction or California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) upon
                    request; and

               e.   The operator of the store must make reusable bags available to customers.

    4.   This current law is set to sunset on January 1, 2013.

    5.   AB 68 and AB 87 state various legislative findings related to bags and their environmental impacts and defines
         certain terms used throughout the proposed legislation.

               a.   "Paper carryout bag" as a bag that contains no old growth fiber; is 100% recyclable; and, contains a
                    minimum of 40% post-consumer recycled content.

               b.   "Compostable carryout bag" as a bag that is derived from 100% "bio-based" sources containing no
                    genetically modified feedstock and meets the American Society for Testing and Materials Standard
                    Specification for Compostable Plastics.

               c.   "Reusable bag" as a bag made from cloth or other machine washable fabric, designed for multiple uses.

                                                                                                                                 7
             d.   Expands the existing definition of "store" to include chain convenience stores with at least 10,000
                  cumulative square feet or retail space.

    6.   On and after July 1, 2010, AB 68 and AB 87 prohibits a store from providing a bag unless the store charges a Bag
         Pollution Cleanup Fee (fee) of at least 25 cents per bag and requires that all bags distributed meet the above
         definitions, including limiting distribution of reusable bags to machine washable fabric bags.

    7.   Exempts from the fee individuals using the California Special Supplemental Food Program for Woman, Infants, and
         Children and individuals using the State Department of Social Services Food Stamp Program.

    8.   Allows stores charging the fee to retain a portion of the amount generated by the fee to pay for implementation of
         the proposed legislation, including educational programs and donation of reusable bags to community groups,
         nonprofits, and similar entities.

    9.   The remainder of the fee is to be transmitted to the State Board of Equalization (BOE) to be deposited into the Bag
         Pollution Fund (Fund).

    10. The Fund is to be spent, upon appropriation by the Legislature, as follows:

             a.   80% of the Fund, by CIWMB for grants to local governments, which have not enacted a ban on bags and
                  participate in the collection of the fee, on a per capita basis to establish litter control programs and to
                  conduct reusable bag giveaways.

             b.   3% by BOE to cover the costs of administering the fee collection and an additional 3% by CIWMB to
                  cover administrative costs.

             c.   14% shall be allocated equally to CIWMB, the State Water Resources Control Board, the Department of
                  Toxic Substances Control, and the Ocean Protection Council to develop and implement programs for
                  pollution prevention, abatement, cleanup, enforcement, "green chemistry" and product redesign, water
                  quality protection and cleanup, and environmental and public education and outreach related to the use of
                  bags; and, for CIWMB to report to the Legislature before January 1, 2012 regarding the effectiveness of the
                  bill and to make recommendations to further encourage the use of reusable bags (as defined).

    11. Authorizes BOE to adopt rules and regulations related to this bill, including provisions relating to fee collection,
        reporting, refunds, and appeals.

Arguments in Support

    12. Supporters contend the volume of plastic bags distributed to customers by grocery and convenience stores and
        pharmacies needs to be reduced significantly to reduce the volume of plastic bags that enter landfills and are
        disposed of illegally as litter or marine debris.

    13. Supporters also note that California uses over 19 billion plastic bags a year but recycles less than five percent of
        those bags and cites significant costs associated with disposing of plastic bags in landfills and cleaning up litter.

Arguments in Opposition

    14. Opponents claim that the fee imposed by this bill is actually a tax because the burden will be disproportionably
        borne by one group of individuals-customers of certain retail stores-rather than proportionally by all individuals who
        contribute to plastic bag litter.

Supporting

Heal the Bay (sponsor)                                               Californians Against Waste
American Federation of State, County and Municipal                   Center for Oceanic Awareness, Research, and Education
Employees (AFSCME)                                                   ChicoBag
Ballona Creek Renaissance                                            City of Los Angeles
Breathe California                                                   City of Oakland
California Coastkeeper Alliance                                      Clean Water Action Defenders of Wildlife
California State Association of Counties                             Earth Resource Foundation
                                                                                                                                8
Environment California                           Saatchi & Saatchi
Environmental Justice Coalition for Water        San Diego Coastkeeper
Faith2Green                                      Santa Barbara Channelkeeper
Friends of the LA River                          Santa Monica Baykeeper
Global Green USA                                 Save the Bay
Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council              Sierra Club California Southern California
Heal the Ocean                                   Watershed Alliance
Malibu Surfing Association                       Surfrider Foundation
Marin Sanitary Service                           The River Project
Natural Resources Defense Council                TreePeople
One Bag At a Time                                Urban Environmental Policy Institute
Orange County Coastkeeper                        Urban Semillas
Planning and Conservation League                 WiLDCOAST
ReuseThisBag.com                                 1 Bag at a Time
Ross Mirkarimi, Member, San Francisco Board of   Approximately 160 individuals
Supervisors

Opposing

American Forest and Paper Association
Cal-Tax




                                                                                              9
AB 89 (Torlakson) Taxation: Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products
AND
SB 600 (Padilla) Cigarette and Tobacco Products Tax and Health Fund

Stimulating the Local Economy Subcommittee Recommended Position

        Oppose AB 89 and Oppose SB 600

Summary

   1.   AB 89 imposes an additional excise tax on the distribution of cigarettes, and requires a dealer or wholesaler to file a
        return with the State Board of Equalization showing the number of cigarettes in his or her possession 90 days after
        the effective date of the proposed law.

   2.   SB 600 amends Cigarette and Tobacco Products Tax Law that would impose an additional tax on the distribution of
        cigarettes.

Background

   3.   Provides that revenues collected would be deposited in the Tobacco Excise Tax Account, and would be allocated for
        certain education, health, and child-related purposes.

   4.   AB 89 would commence on or after the first day of the first calendar quarter commencing more than 90 days on or
        after the effective date of the proposed law. An additional excise tax on the distribution of cigarettes will be at the
        rate of $0.105 for each cigarette distributed. The revenues collected from the additional tax would be deposited in
        the Tobacco Excise Tax Account, which would be created by the proposed law, and would be allocated, upon
        appropriation by the Legislature, for certain education, health, and child-related purposes.

   5.   Similar to AB 89, SB 600 also requires a dealer or wholesaler to file a return with the Board of Equalization
        showing the number of cigarettes in his or her possession.

   6.   SB 600 requires funds to be transferred to the Children and Families First Trust Fund, the Hospital Service Account,
        the Physician service Account and the Breast Cancer Fund. SB 600 imposes an additional tax on the distribution of
        cigarettes at the rate of $1.50 per pack.

   7.   AB 89 and SB 600 would result in a change in state taxes for the purpose of increasing state revenues and requires
        approval of 2/3 approval from the Legislature in order to become law.

   8.   The author‟s office of AB 89 estimates that the new proposed tax would raise approximately $2 billion annually
        which would help to fund education, children‟s healthcare and programs to help stop smoking.

   9.   Specifically, $1 billion would go towards education in order to offset borrowing and cost of living increases to the
        education fund.

   10. SB 600 is identified by the California Chamber of Commerce as a Job Killer.

Arguments in Support

   11. The new taxes will provide additional funding for the Tobacco Tax and Health Protection Act and the California
       Families and Children Act that support early childhood programs and various healthcare programs and anti-tobacco
       education programs.

Arguments in Opposition

   12. Since 2000, federal and state governments have increased their cigarette excise tax rates 92 times. This proposed tax
       increase on cigarettes will result in numerous unintended consequences by promoting purchases through untaxed or
       lower-tax venues and create incentives for illegal cigarette trafficking.


                                                                                                                               10
Supporting (SB 600)

American Cancer Society (co-sponsor)                                  California Dental Association
American Heart Association (co-sponsor)                               California Emergency Nurses Association
American Lung Association (co-sponsor)                                California Medical Association
American Dental Association                                           California Thoracic Society
Asian & Pacific Islander American Health Forum                        MAGNA Systems Incorporated
Breathe California                                                    The Lung Cancer Alliance-California
California Chapter of the American College of
Cardiology


Opposing (SB 600)

Asian Business Council                                                California Licensed Beverage Association
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs                           California Manufacturers & Technology Association
California Black Chamber of Commerce                                  California Taxpayers Association
California Chamber of Commerce                                        Commonwealth Brands, Inc.
California Distributors Association                                   Neighborhood Market Association
California Grocers Association                                        Regional Black Chamber of Commerce of San Fernando
California Independent Grocers Association                            Valley




AB 474 (Blumenfield) Water Efficiency Improvements

Stimulating the Local Economy Subcommittee Recommended Position

         A decision on this legislative proposal was tabled by the Subcommittee pending revised information presented below
         for LAC consideration.

Summary

    1.   AB 474 expands the authorization that allows public agencies to enter into contractual assessments to finance the
         installation of specified improvements to now include water efficiency improvements.

Background

Details of AB 474 are outlined below:

    2.   Authorizes a public agency to enter into a contractual assessment with a willing property owner to finance the
         installation of water efficiency measures.

    3.   Adds agriculture to the types of properties that can enter into a contractual assessment with a public agency to
         finance the installation of distributed generation renewable energy sources, energy efficiency, and water efficiency
         improvements.

    4.   Adds municipal utility districts and community service districts to the list of entities that may enter into contractual
         assessments with a willing property owner to finance the installation of distributed generation renewable energy
         sources, energy efficiency, and water efficiency improvements.

    5.   States that it is the intent of the Legislature to address chronic water needs throughout California by permitting
         voluntary individual efforts to improve water efficiency.
                                                                                                                                11
    6.   States that it is the intent of the Legislature that the authorization created by AB 474 should be used to finance the
         installation of water efficiency improvements that are permanently fixed to residential, commercial, industrial,
         agricultural, or other real property, including, but not limited to, recycled water connections, synthetic turf, cisterns
         for storm water recovery, and water-porous concrete.

    7.   Prohibits a water district from entering into any contractual assessment with a property owner to finance any energy
         efficiency improvements.

    8.   Requires a public agency to include a brief description of criteria that will be used for determining the
         creditworthiness of a property owner in its resolution of intention.

    9.   Redefines "efficiency improvements" to include agricultural property.

    10. Defines "public agency" as a city, county, city and county, municipal utility district, community services district, or
        water district as defined.

    11. Requires a legislative body to provide written notice of a hearing to any entity that provides energy or water within
        the boundaries of the area within which contractual assessments may be entered into.

Arguments in Support

    12. AB 474 allows water efficiency improvements to be financed by a public agency and a willing property owner and
        fills a financing void by offering upfront funding to the property owners to pay for costly water use efficiency
        improvements such as permeable pavement, recycled water piping, drip irrigation, cisterns, synthetic turf, or other
        water conservation measures.

Arguments in Opposition

    13. Essentially public agencies will be using tax payer monies to finance private property improvements in the areas of
        water efficiency. It should be noted that this could lead to other agencies funding other projects.

Supporting

CA Municipal Utilities Association [CO-SPONSOR]                       Green Plumbers USA
Metropolitan Water District of Southern CA [CO-                       Placer County Water Agency
SPONSOR]                                                              Planning and Conservation League
Association of CA Water Agencies                                      PolyTurf Inc.
CA Association of Realtors                                            Regional Council of Rural Counties
CA Chamber of Commerce                                                Sierra Club CA
CA Municipal Utilities Association                                    Three Valleys Municipal Water District
CA Special Districts Association                                      Valley Industry and Commerce Association
City of Corona                                                        WateReuse CA
Eastern Municipal Water District

Opposing

None on file at this time




                                                                                                                                 12
AB 1107 (Blakeslee) Environmental Protection Agency: Rules: Analysis

Employee/Employer Relations Subcommittee Recommended Position

         Support

Summary

    1.   Creates an economic review of regulations which aims to reduce the likelihood that overly burdensome regulations
         will be adopted by ensuring that accurate, science-based assessments are conducted, revealing the true cost to
         California businesses and the economy.

Background

    2.   Requires an economic cost-benefit analysis (CBA) of regulations proposed by the departments, boards and offices of
         the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal-EPA).

    3.   AB 1107 makes legislative findings that regulations should maximize benefits while minimizing cost and the cost
         and benefits of environmental protection regulations should be subject to an external professional peer review.

    4.   Requires Cal-EPA departments, boards and offices to complete an economic analysis evaluating the cost and
         benefits of proposed rules prior to adopting any regulation or water policy.

    5.   Defines cost and benefits to mean reasonable identifiable significant favorable or adverse effects that are expected to
         result from the implementation of the regulations.

    6.   Provides that any person may request that the economic CBA be subject to an external peer review. In the event of a
         request for a external peer review:

             a.    Requires Cal-EPA to contract with the National Bureau of Economic Research, the University of
                   California, and the California State University, or a group of economists selected by the president of the
                   University of California, to conduct the external peer review.

             b.    Requires the individual requesting a peer review of the economic CBA to enter into a contract with the Cal-
                   EPA department, board or office to pay for all of the cost associated with conducting the external peer
                   review.

    7.   Prohibits Cal-EPA departments, boards, and offices from adopting any rules or regulations unless:

             a.    The economic CBA, along with supporting economic data, studies and public comments, are submitted to
                   an external peer review entity; and

             b.    A written evaluation of the economic CBA by the external peer review organization is submitted and
                   reviewed by the department, board or office. If the department, board or office disagrees with the findings
                   of the external peer review organization, they shall provide an explanation of the basis of the disagreement;
                   and

             c.    A public hearing on the external peer review of the economic CBA, as well as the department, board or
                   office comments on the peer review report will be held. No notice or hearing on the proposed regulations or
                   rules can take place before the public hearing on the peer review document is held.

    8.   AB 1107 is identified by the California Chamber of Commerce as a Job Creator piece of legislation.

Arguments in Support

    9.   According to the California Chamber of Commerce AB 1107 creates a uniform requirement to complete an
         economic analysis of proposed rules and regulations for Cal EPA and its boards, departments, and agencies.


                                                                                                                                13
    10. The economic analysis is required to evaluate the costs and benefits of a proposed rule at a level of detail that is
        appropriate and practicable for reasoned decision making.

Arguments in Opposition

    11. The opposition, which includes a coalition of environmental and public health organizations, raise concerns about
        the effect of the review on the timeliness of regulations.

    12. AB 1107 may render it nearly impossible for the agency to act to protect the environment and public health by
        creating layer upon layer of red tape for an already overly burdened and underfunded agency, according to the
        opposition.

Supporting

California Chamber of Commerce (Sponsor)                             California State Floral Association
American Chemistry Council                                           California Taxpayers Association
American Council of Engineering Companies, California                California Warehouse Association
California Association of REALTORS                                   Can Manufacturers Institute
California Bean Shippers Association                                 Consumer Specialty Products Association
California Building Industry Association                             Industrial Environmental Association
California Business Properties Association                           International Council of Shopping Centers
California Forestry Association                                      National Association of Office and Industrial Properties
California Grain and Feed Association                                Pacific Coast Renderers Association
California Grocers Association                                       Pacific Egg & Poultry Association
California Independent Oil Marketers Association                     Sacramento Area Sewer District
California Manufactures & Technology Association                     Sacramento Regional Sanitation District
California Pear Growers Association                                  TechAmerica
California Retailers Association                                     Western Growers
California Seed Association                                          Western Plan Health Association

Opposing

Breast Cancer Fund                                                   Consumer Federation of California
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation                         Environmental Working Group
Clean Water Action                                                   Pesticide Watch
Coalition for Clean Air                                              Sierra Club California
Commonweal                                                           Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition




                                                                                                                                14
SB 356 (Wright) Regulations: Small Businesses

Stimulating the Local Economy Subcommittee Recommended Position

         Support

Summary

    1.   Revises the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) to require state agencies subject to the APA to make additional
         findings and determinations regarding the impact their regulations may have on small businesses and consult with
         small businesses during the regulatory process.

Background

    2.   Currently, the APA establishes the requirements for the adoption, publication, review and implementation of
         regulations promulgated by state agencies and does the following:

             a.    Authorizes an agency considering the adoption of a new regulation or amending or repealing an existing
                   one to consult with interested parties before initiating the regulatory action.

             b.    Requires an agency to involve parties who would be subject to the regulation before publishing a notice of
                   proposed action, if the proposed regulations involve complex proposals or a large number of proposals.

    3.   SB 356 creates a small business economic impact statement that includes both of the following:

             a.    An identification and estimate of the number of small businesses subject to the proposed regulation.

             b.    The estimated annual average cost of compliance by a small business subject to the proposed regulation,
                   including the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other administrative costs required for compliance
                   with the proposed regulation.

    4.   SB 356 redefines the term “small business” as being owned and operated by a person and specified conditions
         regarding employment or gross receipts instead of types of professional business activities.

    5.   The proposed legislation would delete the provisions authorizing an agency to not justify alternatives.

    6.   Instead would require the description of reasonable alternatives which includes the establishment of less stringent
         burdensome, consolidated, or simplified compliance or reporting requirements, the use of performance standards,
         and exemptions from the regulation, for small businesses.

    7.   SB 356 is identified by the California Chamber of Commerce as a job creator.

Arguments in Support

    8.   SB 356 improves climate for small business by reforming the regulatory development process to include a specific
         small business economic impact analysis and other provisions that mitigate the cost of regulation to small business.

    9.   By requiring agencies to work in closer coordination with small business owners, agencies will be able to help
         mitigate the high regulatory costs on small businesses.

Arguments in Opposition

    10. SB 356 would require state agencies, prior to seeking regulatory action, to make a number of specified findings and
        determinations on the impact of the proposed regulations on small business while it is not clear if state agencies have
        the resources or expertise to make some of the findings and determinations required by SB 356.

    11. The California Labor Federation opposes this measure as they believe it would "slant the regulatory process even
        more in favor of employers and business interests, at the expense of workers" and that there is no evidence that

                                                                                                                               15
        regulations have a disproportionate impact on small businesses or that the existing regulatory process marginalizes
        small businesses.

Supporting

California Small Business Association (Co-Sponsor)                California Hospital Association
National Federation of Independent Business (Co-                  California Hotel & Lodging Association
Sponsor)                                                          California Metals Coalition
Acclamation Insurance Management Services                         California Independent Grocers Association
American Council of Engineering Companies- California             California Independent Oil Marketers Association
Apex Envirotech, Inc.                                             California Manufacturers' & Technology Association
California Chamber of Commerce                                    California Restaurant Association California Service
California Black Chambers of Commerce                             Station and Automotive Repair Association
California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce                          Engineering Contractors' Association
California Association of Competitive                             Flasher/Barricade Association
Telecommunications Companies (CALTEL)                             Greater San Fernando Valley Chamber of Commerce
California Association of Health Facilities California            Independent Waste Oil Collectors
Automotive Business Coalition (CalABC) California                 Marin Builders' Association
Chapter of the American Fence Contractors' Association            Metal Finishing Association of Southern California
California Construction Industry Materials Association            National Association of Women Business Owners-
California Council American Society of Landscape                  California
Architects                                                        Small Business Action Committee
California Dump Truck Owners Association                          Small Business California TechAmerica
California Farm Bureau Federation                                 Western Growers Association
California Fence Contractors' Association                         Valley Industry Commerce Association (VICA)

Opposing

Amalgamated Transit Union                                         International Longshore and Warehouse Union
California Conference of Machinists                               Sierra Club California
California Labor Federation                                       Strateic Committee of Public Employees, Laborers'
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council                       International Union of North America UNITE HERE!
Consumer Federation of California Engineers and                   United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Western
Scientists of California                                          States Council
IFPTE Local 21




                                                                                                                          16

				
DOCUMENT INFO