FIRE Amended Legislation
Report Date: 6/20/2007

AB 1260

(Caballero) Local government: taxes, fees, assessments, and charges: notice. (A-06/19/2007   html   pdf)

Status:06/19/2007-From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on L.GOV.

Current Location:06/19/2007-S L. GOV.

Calendar Events:06/27/07 9:30 a.m. - Room 112 SEN LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Summary:

Articles XIII C and XIII D of the California Constitution generally require that assessments, fees, and charges be submitted to property owners for approval or rejection after the provision of written notice and the holding of a public hearing. Existing law, the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act, prescribes specific procedures and parameters for local jurisdictions to comply with Article XIII C and Article XIII D of the California Constitution. This bill would authorize the agency providing the property-related service to a parcel to provide the required notice of a proposed increase of an existing fee or charge in the agency's regular billing statement or any other mailing by the agency to the address at which the agency customarily mails the billing statement for the fee or charge. The bill would also authorize the agency providing the property-related service to a parcel to provide the required notice of a proposed new fee or charge in the manner authorized for notice of a proposed increased fee or charge where the agency is providing an existing property-related service to the address. The bill would require the agency, if the agency desires to preserve any authority it may have , to record or enforce a lien on the parcel to which service is provided, to also mail notice to the recordowner's address shown on the last equalized assessment roll , if that address is different than the billing or service address. The bill would also authorize any agency that bills, collects, and remits a fee or charge on behalf of another agency to provide notice on behalf of the other agency, as specified. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.

AB 1684

(Emmerson) Local government records: recordings. (A-06/19/2007   html   pdf)

Status:06/19/2007-From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on L.GOV.

Current Location:06/19/2007-S L. GOV.

Calendar Events:06/27/07 9:30 a.m. - Room 112 SEN LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Summary:

Existing law authorizes the head of a department of a county, a city or city and county, and a special district to destroy, after one year, recordings of routine video monitoring, unless the recordings are evidence in any claim filed or pending litigation, in which case the recordings shall be retained until the matter is resolved. Existing law provides that, for this purpose, routine video monitoring means videotaping by a video or electronic imaging system designed to record regular and ongoing operations of the entity of local government, including mobile in-car video systems, jail observation and monitoring systems, and building security taping systems. Existing law also requires a transit agency operated by a county, a city or city and county, or a special district , when installing new security systems, to purchase and install equipment capable of storing recorded data for at least one year, unless the transit agency, after diligent efforts, determines that the technology to store recorded data in an economically and technologically feasible manner for one year is not available and the agency has instead purchased and installed the best available technology . With respect to videotapes or recordings made by a security system operated as part of a public transit system, existing law provides an additional exemption from the one-year retention requirement if a transit agency utilizes a security system that was purchased or installed prior to January 1, 2004, and, in this case, instead authorizes retention for as long as the installed technology allows . This bill would reduce the retention requirement for recordings of routine video monitoring from one year to 210 days for each entity of local government . It would require each entity of local government, when installing new video monitoring security systems, to purchase and install the best available technology with respect to storage capacity that is both economically and technologically feasible at that time.