March 30, 2004
| TO: | CLA Members/ Systems/ Network Contacts |
| FROM: | Mike Dillon, Lobbyist Christina Dillon, Lobbyist |
| RE: | NEWS FROM THE CAPITOL |
I. LIBRARY BOND BILL PASSES FIRST COMMITTEE WITH BI-PARTISAN SUPPORT
Last week, the Senate Education Committee considered SB 1161 by Senator Dede Alpert (D-San Diego) which would provide $2 billion in general obligation bonds for the construction and renovation of public libraries, subject to voter approval on the November 2004 ballot. In her opening remarks, Senator Alpert, who is also a member of the Senate Education Committee, called SB 1161 "a very important measure for California's libraries." She then noted that while Proposition 14, approved by the voters in 2000, to provide $350 million in bonds for library construction, has been "a wonderful thing for library communities around the state...there were $550 million worth of requests in the last cycle." Senator Alpert, as a member of the bond construction board, has been troubled by the enormous amount of requests for funding, and the inability to award a sufficient number of grants due to the lack of available bond dollars.
Noting the sensitivity of the state's current fiscal climate, Senator Alpert acknowledged that the "$2 billion contained in the measure now is a dream, and probably an unrealistic one. However, I hope to keep the measure alive and continue talks with the legislature and the Administration." Senator Alpert said that she would be willing to consider different structures for the bond, such as placing half of the dollar amount on the November ballot, and the second half on the March 2006 ballot, similar to what was done with the school bond. She added, "Because we waited a decade to put a library bond on the ballot, we had so much pent up demand." Senate Education Chair, Senator John Vasconcellos noted that if Senator Alpert was hoping to place SB 1161 on the November ballot, "We would have to move it through the process quickly, although I am not opposed to doing that."
Testifying in support of the measure was Anne Cain, CLA Legislative Chair and Contra Costa County Library Director; Ann Cousineau, Chair of the 2000 bond effort and Solano County Library Director; and Susan Hildreth, CLA President and San Francisco Public Library Director. The lobbyist for the school library association, Jeff Frost, also lent his support, calling the joint use piece of the existing bond "very beneficial."
Senator Vasconcellos, as a courtesy, allowed Senator Alpert to put her bill up for a vote, rather than place the bill on the traditional Education Committee "suspense file," due to its large cost. He added, "SB 1161 is not going to suspense because to fast track it to the ballot, Senator Alpert needs to negotiate with the Governor." The bill passed out on a bi-partisan, unanimous vote of those present, with the following Senators voting "aye:" Chairman Vasconcellos, Vice Chair Bruce McPherson, Richard Alarcon, Dede Alpert, Wes Chesbro, Jeff Denham, Betty Karnette, Pete Knight, Gloria Romero, and Jack Scott.
II. ASSEMBLY HEARING ON TELECONNECT FUNDING - ASSEMBLYWOMAN PROPOSES BUDGET LANGUAGE REGARDING MANDATORY INTERNET FILTERS
Last week the Assembly Budget Subcommittee Number 4 on General Government met to consider the issue of the Teleconnect Program under the Public Utilities Commission budget. As the background paper for the subcommittee hearing references, "The Teleconnect Program provides discounts on telephone service, and other advanced telecommunication services that provide access to the Internet (such as DSL services) to schools, libraries, and qualifying hospitals, health clinics, and community-based organizations. Currently, the program provides a 50 percent discount regardless of the particular qualifying service or recipient. The service carrier applies this discount to the qualifying entity's telecommunications bill. The service carrier then submits claims to the PUC to be reimbursed for the discounts provided."
The issues before the subcommittee were: 1) Is the Teleconnect Program successful, and if so, should it be continued? 2) The legislature "borrowed" $150 million from the program last year to help balance the state Budget. Should General Fund dollars be provided to help backfill the "loan" that has yet to be repaid to the Teleconnect Fund, and should the PUC use its authorization to increase the surcharge rates? 3) Should libraries participating in the Teleconnect Program be required to participate in E-Rate as a condition of receiving funding? 4) Should Teleconnect discounts be targeted based on need (e.g. inner cities, rural areas, low-income communities, etc.)?
Currently, the Department of Finance is recommending that the subcommittee neither authorize a modest backfill for the Teleconnect Program, nor authorize the PUC to increase the surcharge on rates to fund the program. Subcommittee Chairman, Assemblyman John Dutra inquired of the DOF, "Is it your intent to kill the program?" The representative from Finance stated, "No, but the PUC data and the actual expenditures have been wildly different. We are not comfortable making a finding that the PUC needs additional funds." The PUC has received complaints that the Teleconnect should not have had such a significant unspent surplus of over $150 million last year, when the dollars were supposed to be available for schools, libraries, and other applicants. Chairman Dutra told the DOF, "Without the surcharge, it kills the program. There is no impact on the General Fund. And, unless you are going to write a check personally, it kills the program." The Department countered, "We feel they can restructure the program and do it within existing resources." The PUC agreed that there have been problems with the accounting side of the Teleconnect Fund, noting that the "numbers have been all over the map. The problem is invoices from carriers, etc. We think it is resolved now." Subcommittee member, Assemblywoman Sarah Reyes argued, "Isn't it true they can get E-Rate dollars? It is a much easier process than Teleconnect. I agree with the Administration that we can't ever get accurate information from the PUC. There was a huge surplus unused last year and we took it. It is frustrating knowing that some can go to E-Rate under the easier system."
The comments by Assemblywoman Reyes sparked opposition from the school, library, and community-based organization representatives, who countered that E-Rate applications are incredibly difficult and complicated to fill out -- with even the Department of Finance representative adding that it takes 40 hours to complete the application. During testimony by CLA, we added that in addition to the complexity of the applications, many libraries choose to not participate in E-Rate because it requires filtering of Internet terminals as a condition of receiving funds, and CLA believes filtering is a local control issue. Almost immediately after CLA had concluded testimony, Assemblywoman Reyes stated, "I am supportive of Budget Trailer Bill language to require filters in libraries as a condition of receiving Teleconnect Funds. There is no reason children should be looking at porn. Mr. Bermudez (referencing subcommittee member Assemblyman Rudy Bermudez) and I were just talking about it." (It should be noted that Assemblywoman Reyes authored legislation in 2001 to require libraries that receive state funds and provide Internet access to minors to purchase, install, and maintain filtering software that limits access to obscene or pornographic material. The bill was strongly opposed by CLA, and ultimately died in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.) The subcommittee did not address Assemblywoman Reyes' comments regarding Internet filters, but CLA will be working to oppose any efforts to link the Teleconnect funds with mandatory installation of Internet filters.
Lastly, Assemblywoman Reyes noted that she would "not be supporting anything on the digital divide until some of my communities take part in this [Teleconnect Program]." She highlighted several communities in the Fresno area including Mendota and others that "aren't connected and don't even have a library." Note: CLA was subsequently told that Mendota is serviced by the Fresno County library.
If you would be affected by Assemblywoman Reyes' proposal, please take a moment today to write Assembly Budget Subcommittee Chair, John Dutra and urge he and his subcommittee reject efforts to draft Budget Trailer Bill language linking the Teleconnect Fund eligibility to the mandatory installation of Internet filters.
The Honorable John Dutra
Chair, Assembly Budget Subcommittee Number 4 on General Government
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
III. SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT WORKING GROUP -- DISCUSSION OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS AND MORE FINANCING "TOOLS" FOR LIBRARIES?
Recently we reported that Senator Tom Torlakson has engaged a working group of city, county, and special district lobbyists to assist him and other members of the Senate Local Government Committee in coming up with a massive local government reform plan that would protect local revenue and perhaps give locals more tools and discretion over their funding. Last week, Senators Torlakson, Ross Johnson, and Bruce McPherson, along with the working group, heard presentations regarding special districts: what constitutes an "enterprise" district vs. a "non enterprise" district, how many are reliant upon the property tax, and what kind of services they provide.
During discussion regarding removing special districts from the property tax, the lobbyist representing the special districts noted that fire protection districts are 70% reliant on the property tax, and mosquito vector control at 80%. CLA added that the libraries, most notably the so-called "ERAF Orphan" libraries, that are heavily dependent upon the property tax, would suffer tremendously. Senator Torlakson posed the question, "Why should you all be exempt from a property tax shift?" A representative from the water agencies responded, "Independent special districts did not create the state's spending problem. Please don't come to local taxpayers and ratepayers to solve the problem."
The last portion of the meeting focused on the debate between fees and taxes. Senator Torlakson noted, "With the fees, you don't have Proposition 218 issues, you go to ratepayers, you have hearings, etc. Do the cities, counties and special districts need better tools like fees or taxes? Is there consensus with the cities, counties, and special districts regarding enabling local governments to face voters with proposals using a lower vote threshold, where the tax is targeted for specific services?" The representative for the California State Association of Counties noted that the constitution currently requires a 2/3rds vote for a specific tax, and only a majority vote for a general tax increase, (the "Trust Me Taxes") when history shows it should be just the opposite. Senator Torlakson later asked, "Regarding libraries, for example -- why not a 55 percent vote for passage of their issues? Why not put that on the table? Why should just schools have that authority? Libraries provide important educational, after-school services. This Governor is very big on after-school programs. One school in my district shut down the school library and there are no after school services because of the $2 billion cut to Proposition 98 (school funding). Can we give more tools to libraries, and parks and recreation districts?" We thanked Senator Torlakson for raising the issue, and said that we would welcome additional revenue raising options for libraries.
Senator Torlakson concluded by noting that the working group would spend the next meeting, (to be held later this week) addressing the issue of revenue swaps (i.e. trading a portion of the sales tax and the vehicle license fee, for an equivalent amount of the property tax). He said that the intent of the working group was to get as much work accomplished before the legislature's Easter Break, which commences April 2 and runs through April 11. Senator Torlakson is proposing to have recommendations incorporated into a legislative vehicle by April 14. We will keep you posted as details continue to develop relative to the working group.