BILL ANALYSIS Ó SB 7 Page 1 Date of Hearing: August 14, 2013 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT Roger Hernández, Chair SB 7 (Steinberg and Cannella) - As Amended: August 7, 2013 SENATE VOTE : 28-10 SUBJECT : Public works: charter cities. SUMMARY : Prohibits the reception or use of state funding or financial assistance for construction projects by charter cities that allow contractors to not comply with the state's prevailing wage law on any public works contract. Specifically, this bill : 1)Prohibits a charter city from receiving or using state funding or financial assistance for a construction project if the city has a charter provision or ordinance that authorizes a contractor to not comply with the provisions of current law governing prevailing wage requirements for public works on any public works contract. 2)Prohibits a charter city from receiving or using state funding or financial assistance for a construction project if the city has awarded, within the current or prior two years, a public works contract without requiring the contractor to comply with all of the provisions of current law governing prevailing wage requirements for public works. This provision does not apply if the charter city's failure to include the prevailing wage or apprenticeship requirement in a particular contract was inadvertent and contrary to a city charter provision or ordinance that otherwise requires compliance with current law governing prevailing wage requirements for public works. 3)Provides that a charter city is not disqualified from receiving or using state funding or financial assistance for its construction projects if the charter city has adopted a local prevailing wage ordinance for all its public works projects that includes requirements that in all respects are equal to or greater than the requirements imposed by the provisions of current law governing prevailing wage requirements for public works and that do not authorize a contractor to not comply with current law governing prevailing wage requirements for public works. SB 7 Page 2 4)Provides, for the purposes of this bill, that the following shall apply: a) A public works contract does not include contracts for projects of $25,000 or less when the project is for construction work, or projects of $15,000 or less when the project is for alteration, demolition, repair, or maintenance work; b) A charter city includes any agency of a charter city and any entity controlled by a charter city whose contracts would be subject to current law governing prevailing wage requirements for public works; and, c) State funding or financial assistance includes direct state funding, state loans and loan guarantees, state tax credits, and any other type of state financial support for a construction project. State funding or financial assistance does not include revenues that charter cities are entitled to receive without conditions under the California Constitution. 5)Requires the Director of Industrial Relations to maintain a list of charter cities that may receive and use state funding and financial assistance for their construction projects. 6)Specifies that the provisions of the bill do not restrict a charter city from receiving or using state funding or financial assistance that was awarded to the city prior to January 1, 2015, or from receiving or using state funding or financial assistance to complete a contract that was awarded prior to January 1, 2015. 7)Specifies that a charter city is not disqualified from receiving or using state funding or financial assistance for its construction projects based on the city's failure to require a contractor to comply with these requirements in performing a contract the city advertised for bid or awarded prior to January 1, 2015. 8)Makes related legislative findings and declarations. FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, this bill will result in unknown total costs, likely SB 7 Page 3 above $150,000 to the Department of Industrial Relations and other agencies to comply with the provisions of the bill. COMMENTS : According to the author, "The prevailing wage law is critical to the delivery of a quality construction product because it encourages contractors to perform the work with an efficient, skilled and streamlined workforce, ultimately creating long-term cost-savings to the taxpayers. This legislation is designed to provide incentives to charter cities to follow the prevailing wage law on municipal projects and thereby deter the underground economy and low-road construction models driven by unscrupulous contractors." This bill is sponsored by the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California. A Brief History of State and Federal Prevailing Wage Law State prevailing wage laws vary from state to state, but do share a common history that actually predates federal prevailing wage law. Many of these state laws were enacted as part of general reform efforts to improve working conditions at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries. Between 1891 and 1923, seven states adopted prevailing wage laws that required payment of specified hourly wages on government construction projects. The State of Kansas enacted the first prevailing wage law in 1891. Eighteen additional states and the federal government adopted prevailing wage laws during the Great Depression of the 1930s amidst concern that acceptance of the low bid, a common requirement of government contracting for public projects when government had become the major purchaser of construction, would operate to reduce the wages paid to workers on those projects to a level that would disrupt the local economy. California's prevailing was law was enacted in 1931. In general, the proponents of prevailing wage legislation wanted to prevent the government from using its purchasing power to undermine the wages of its citizens. It was believed that the government should set an example, by paying the wages prevailing in a locality for each occupation hired by government contractors to build public projects. Thus, prevailing wage laws are generally meant to ensure that wages commonly paid to construction workers in a particular region will determine the SB 7 Page 4 minimum wage paid to the same type of workers employed on publicly funded construction projects. Most public construction projects contracted for or by the federal government or the District of Columbia are covered by the federal prevailing wage law, the Davis-Bacon Act (Act), while 33 states have prevailing wage laws, often referred to as "little Davis-Bacon Acts," that encompass projects financed by states and their political subdivisions. The federal Davis-Bacon Act was enacted by Congress in 1931. The Act requires workers employed under public construction contracts of the federal government in excess of $2,000 to be paid a minimum wage that the United States Department of Labor determines to be prevailing for corresponding classes of workers. In addition, sixty separate federal laws currently specify the payment of Davis- Bacon wages for work prescribed. The federal government also has two additional prevailing wage laws - the Walsh-Healy Public Contracts Act of 1935 (which covers federal contractors in manufacturing and supply industries), and the O'Hara-McNamara Services Act of 1965 (which covers service contracts). The United States Supreme Court has stated the public policy underlying the Davis- Bacon Act as one of: "protecting local wage standards by preventing contractors from basing their bids on wages lower than those prevailing in the area . . . [and] giving local labor and the local contractor a fair opportunity to participate in this building program." Universities Research Ass'n. v. Coutu (1981) 450 U.S. 754, 773-774). General Background on "Public Works" Under California Law In general, "public works" is defined to include construction, alteration, demolition, installation or repair work done under contract and "paid for in whole or in part out of public funds." Over a decade ago, there was much administrative and legislative action over what constituted the term "paid for in whole or in part out of public funds." This action culminated in the SB 7 Page 5 enactment of SB 975 (Alarcón), Chapter # 938, Statutes of 2001, which codified a definition of "paid for in whole or in part out of public funds" that included certain payments, transfers, credits, reductions, waivers and performances of work. At the time, supporters of SB 975 stated that it established a definition that conformed to several precedential coverage decisions made by the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR). These coverage decisions defined payment by land, reimbursement plans, installation, grants, waiver of fees, and other types of public subsidy as public funds for purposes of prevailing wage law. According to the sponsors, SB 975 was intended to remove ambiguity regarding the definition of public subsidy of development projects. SB 975 also exempted certain affordable housing, residential and private development projects that met certain criteria. Follow-up legislation, SB 972 (Costa), Chapter # 1048, Statutes of 2002, was intended to clarify the application of SB 975 and was the result of extensive discussions between the State Building and Construction Trades Council (sponsor of SB 975), affordable housing advocates, and the Davis Administration. Supporters of SB 972 contended that the original legislation had unintended consequences for self-help housing and housing rehabilitation projects. As a result of that compromise, SB 972 exempted from public works requirements the construction or rehabilitation of privately-owned residential projects that met certain criteria. Why It Matters: "Prevailing Wage" The determination of whether a project is deemed to constitute a "public work" is important because the Labor Code requires (except for projects of $1,000 or less) that the "prevailing wage" to be paid to all workers employed on public works projects. Brief Background on Charter Cities The California Constitution gives cities the power to become charter cities. Of California's 482 cities, 121 are charter cities. The state's 361 general law cities are subject to the general laws passed by the Legislature. Under the Constitution, the ordinances of charter cities supersede state law with SB 7 Page 6 respect to "municipal affairs," while state law prevails with respect to matters of "statewide concern." This is often referred to as the home rule doctrine. The courts decide whether a matter falls within the home rule authority of charter cities. While the Constitution does not explicitly define "municipal affair," it does outline four categories that are presumed to be municipal affairs, stating that "it shall be competent in all city charters to provide, in addition to those provisions allowable by the Constitution, and by the laws of the State for: (1) the constitution, regulation, and government of the city police force (2) subgovernment in all or part of a city (3) conduct of city elections and (4) plenary authority is hereby granted, subject only to the restrictions of this article, to provide therein or by amendment thereto, the manner in which, the method by which, the times at which, and the terms for which the several municipal officers and employees whose compensation is paid by the city shall be elected or appointed, and for their removal, and for their compensation, and for the number of deputies, clerks and other employees that each shall have, and for the compensation, method of appointment, qualifications, tenure of office and removal of such deputies, clerks and other employees." Recent Court Decision on Charter Cities and Prevailing Wage Law The question of whether charter cities must abide by the PWL has been the subject of much debate and litigation for many decades, most recently in State Building & Construction Trades Council of California v. City of Vista (2009) 173 Cal. App. 4th 567. In 2006, voters in the City of Vista approved a .5% sales tax to finance construction and renovation of several public buildings. In June 2007, the Vista City Council ordered a special election for residents to vote on a ballot measure changing the city from a general law city to a charter city. The measure was recommended by the city attorney, who argued that the conversion would allow the city to save money by avoiding payment of prevailing wages on its public works projects. After the measure was approved by 67% of the votes cast, Vista amended a city ordinance to prohibit any city contract from requiring payment of prevailing wage unless prevailing wage is required by a state or federal grant, the contract does not involve a municipal affair, or prevailing wage is separately authorized by SB 7 Page 7 the city council. In October 2007, the Vista City Council approved contracts to design and build two fire stations with funds generated by the 2006 sales tax increase. These contracts, which totaled several million dollars, did not require compliance with the state's prevailing wage law. The State Building and Construction Trades Council of California filed suit seeking a writ of mandate ordering Vista to comply with the state's prevailing wage law. Vista argued that prevailing wage issues are not a statewide concern, and that the Constitution and laws governing charter cities give charters the right to determine whether to pay prevailing wages for public works that involve locally funded municipal affairs. The trial court denied the Union's petition, citing Vial v. City of San Diego (1981) 122 Cal. App. 3d. 346, which found that the expenditure of city funds on public works projects and the rates of pay of workers hired for such projects are municipal affairs of a charter city over which the state has no legislative authority. By a 2-1 decision, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. The California Supreme Court, by a 5-2 vote, also ruled in favor of Vista, deciding that charter cities are not required to pay prevailing wage for local public projects that are paid for by local funds. The crux of the argument before the Supreme Court was whether the wage levels of contract workers constructing locally funded public works are a municipal affair or a matter of statewide concern. The Union argued that the wage levels mandated by the state's prevailing wage law reflect regional rather than local interests and are, therefore, a matter of statewide concern. The Union also contended that wage levels in a local area are likely to have an effect regionally and statewide, and that the refusal of charter cities to pay prevailing wages depresses regional labor standards. Finally, the Union asserted that the prevailing wage law 's requirement that public works contractors hire apprentices is essential to the state's long-term economic health and that the training of the next generation of skilled construction workers is a statewide concern. In response, the majority opinion stated: "These arguments by the Union underscore the importance of identifying correctly the question at issue. Certainly regional labor standards and the proper training of SB 7 Page 8 construction workers are statewide concerns when considered in the abstract. But the question presented here is not whether the state government has an abstract interest in labor conditions and vocational training. Rather, the question presented is whether the state can require a charter city to exercise its purchasing power in the construction market in a way that supports regional wages and subsidizes vocational training, while increasing the charter city's costs. No one would doubt that the state could use its own resources to support wages and vocational training in the state's construction industry, but can the state achieve these ends by interfering in the fiscal policies of charter cities? Autonomy with regard to the expenditure of public funds lies at the heart of what it means to be an independent governmental entity. " '[W]e can think of nothing that is of greater municipal concern than how a city's tax dollars will be spent; nor anything which could be of less interest to taxpayers of other jurisdictions.' " (Johnson v. Bradley, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 407.) Therefore, the Union here cannot justify state regulation of the spending practices of charter cities merely by identifying some indirect effect on the regional and state economies. (See County of Riverside, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 296 ["No doubt almost anything a county does . . . can have consequences beyond its borders. But this circumstance does not mean this court may eviscerate clear constitutional provisions, or the Legislature may do what the Constitution expressly prohibits it from doing."].) The majority decision concluded that "no statewide concern has been presented justifying the state's regulation of the wages that charter cities require their contractors to pay to workers hired to construct locally funded public works." On the other hand, the dissenting opinion by Justice Werdegar, concurred in by Justice Liu, notes: "Against the considerable weight of the evidence that the prevailing wage law addresses an issue of statewide concern, the majority's answer is not to engage the issue, but to reframe the question. The majority thus asserts that the question is not whether regional labor standards and apprenticeship programs address an issue of statewide concern, but whether "the state can require a charter city to exercise its purchasing power in the construction market SB 7 Page 9 in a way that supports regional wages and subsidizes vocational training, while increasing the charter city's costs." (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 15.) What this reframing ignores is that the entire premise of the dispute before us, and the one that has continued to vex courts over the years, is that the state can sometimes override a city's local choices - even financial ones - so long as it has sufficient reason (i.e., with a state law addressed to strong statewide concerns). Moreover, in focusing narrowly on Vista's costs, the majority fails to adhere to the California Fed. Savings test that requires us to use a wide-angle lens, cautioning that "courts should avoid the error of 'compartmentalization,' that is, of cordoning off an entire area of governmental activity as either a 'municipal affair' or one of statewide concern." (California Fed. Savings, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 17.) Thus, while the effect of the prevailing wage law, as the majority laments, may be that Vista and other charter cities pay more for their public works projects, the purpose of the prevailing wage law, which the majority ignores, is not to make them pay more but to stabilize and support the construction trades. The latter is unquestionably a matter of substantial statewide concern." Specific Provisions of This Bill This bill does not directly addressing the legal disagreement presented above, which would require a constitutional amendment. Instead, this bill provides a "financial incentive" to encourage charter cities to require the payment of prevailing wages on all of their public works projects, including those paid for entirely with local funds. The bill prohibits the reception or use of "state funding or financial assistance" by charter cities that have ordinances or charter provisions allowing contractors to not comply with the prevailing wage law on any public works contract. The same restriction on state funds applies if a charter city has awarded, within the current or prior two years, a public works contract without requiring the contractor to comply with the prevailing wage law. The bill exempts contracts of $25,000 or less for construction work, and contracts of $15,000 or less for alteration, demolition, repair, or maintenance work. SB 7 Page 10 The bill defines "state funding and financial assistance" to include "direct state funding, state loans and loan guarantees, state tax credits, and any other type of state financial support for a construction project." Similar Existing Law Related to Project Labor Agreements Existing law has similar limitation on the use of state funds under Public Contract Code Sections 2502 and 2503. Under these existing conditions, if a charter provision, initiative, or ordinance prohibits, limits, or constrains the governing board's authority or discretion to adopt a project labor agreement (PLA), as specified, or prohibits the governing board from considering whether to allocate funds to a city-funded project covered by such an agreement, then the state funding or financial assistance shall not be used to support any construction projects awarded by the city. Specifically, SB 922 (Steinberg) of 2011 authorized a public entity to use, enter into, or require contractors to enter into, a PLA for a construction project, if the agreement includes specified taxpayer protection provisions. This bill also provided that if a charter provision, initiative, or ordinance prohibits the governing board's consideration of a PLA for a project to be awarded by the city, or prohibits consideration whether to allocate funds to a city-funded project covered by such an agreement, then state funding or financial assistance may not be used to support that project, as specified. Follow-up legislation, SB 829 (Rubio) of 2012 extended this provision to provide that in such a situation, state funding or financial assistance may not be used to support any construction projects awarded by the city, as specified. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The sponsor of this bill, the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, writes the following in support: "This legislation is designed to provide incentives to charter cities to follow the prevailing wage law on municipal projects and thereby deter the underground economy and low-road construction models driven by unscrupulous contractor associations. SB 7 Page 11 A long list of academic studies and public policy research confirm that the prevailing wage continues to be a useful and effective driver for local economic growth. Moreover, in charter cities with prevailing wage exemptions, new developments fail to generate quality jobs. In fact, these cities have not seen the cost savings promised by prevailing wage exemptions and instead have had their construction costs go up due to substandard construction performed by under-qualified contractors. SB 7 will reward the majority of cities that currently follow the state prevailing wage law. These cities have rejected the false arguments of anti-prevailing wage groups and low-road construction associations. These shadowy groups seek exemptions from the prevailing wage through vaguely drafted city charters developed entirely by a few politicians instead of a charter commission of elected representatives of the voting public. These associations purposely seek to place these charters on the ballot in low voter turnout elections in order to deceive the majority of local voters. This process has led to mismanagement and abuse of public funds in many cities throughout California. Case in point the City of Bell's former city manager, Robert Rizzo, during his manipulation of public funds removed the prevailing wage during a special election that recorded a vote of less than 1% of the city's population. The California Constitution gives cities the right to set policies that entirely involve a 'municipal affair.' The California Supreme Court has held that the payment of wages by contractors on a municipal project is a 'municipal affair' under the California Constitution, so charter cities may choose to excuse contractors on such projects from following the state prevailing wage law. On the other hand, the State has the authority to spend state money to provide a financial incentive for charter cities to follow the prevailing wage law. SB 7 does not change the outcome of State Building and Construction Trades Council v. City of Vista; instead it helps protect other local governments, including all general law cities and the majority of charter cities, from the practices of a minority group of charter cities that wish to reward their political allies with prevailing wage exemptions that consequently pass on the costs of healthcare and SB 7 Page 12 apprenticeship training to the surrounding cities. The cities that follow the prevailing wage law are furthering a policy that benefits the State, not just their own residents, so they are more deserving of state funds for their construction projects. SB 7 would not require charter cities to follow the prevailing wage law and, therefore does not prevent charter cities from having their own policies. As such, there is no conflict between SB 7 and the constitutional authority of charter cities." ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Opponents argue that this bill runs counter to the state Constitution and state Supreme Court decisions, and that its impact will have a crippling effect on charter cites that choose not to require prevailing wages in their public works contracts. Specifically, the League of California Cities writes the following in opposition to this bill: "The League's opposition to this measure rests on the fundamental principle of local control and the constitutional limits on state authority over charter cities. Moreover, this measure would establish a disturbing framework for future state micromanaging of charter city laws and policies by the tactic of withholding state funds as political leverage to attempt to force changes to city charters and ordinances. The right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy. The California Constitution empowers voters to create city charters to govern their municipal affairs. The Courts are tasked with interpreting the boundaries of "municipal affairs." By seeking to impose punitive measures for decisions made by local voters that are valid under the Constitution, the Legislature would infringe upon the exercise of what our U.S. Supreme Court has rightly called the "fundamental right to vote." Last summer, citing a provision in the state constitution that traces "back more than 100 years," the California Supreme Court held that (1) the construction of a city-operated facility for the benefit of the city's SB 7 Page 13 inhabitants with city funds is "quintessentially a municipal affair," and (2) the state cannot require a charter city to exercise its purchasing power based upon "some indirect effect [of the charter city's purchasing power] on the regional and state economies." State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, AFL-CIO v. City of Vista (2012) 54 Cal. 4th 547. This measure tries to leverage a different outcome than the Court's ruling by withholding vital state construction funds, derived from all of the state's taxpayers, from charter cities that fail to adopt prevailing wage requirements for projects they build with local funds. Such a condition is unlawful because the state is seeking to accomplish indirectly what it cannot achieve directly. We also urge your consideration of the policy implications of this measure. This measure will withhold all state construction funding from an estimated 51 California cities, with combined populations of over 5 million residents, by making them ineligible for all state grants, loans, tax credits and other financial assistance for construction projects. Ironically, because they are funded with state dollars, stopping all these projects means stopping prevailing wage jobs. Also, with our economy barely recovering and other state's and nations recruiting our businesses, do we really want to project this type of governmental instability? Are there no more measured educational or other approaches to this issue? Finally, legislators contemplating putting future bond and tax proposals before the state electorate in the future should pause to consider the signal this aggressive tactic sends to voters and taxpayers statewide. The state collects taxes from the residents and communities - including the proceeds of recently passed Prop. 30 - then withholds access to these same funds as political leverage from communities that are operating in lawful compliance with the State Constitution. If the Legislature is capable of such rash action, then on what grounds should voters and taxpayers trust the Legislature to adhere to the provisions of a future state bond, tax or other proposal?" REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : SB 7 Page 14 Support Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers Local #3 Building and Construction Trades Council of Humboldt and Del Norte Counties Building and Construction Trades Council of San Mateo County California Chapters of the National Electrical Contractors Association California Field Ironworkers Labor Management Cooperation Trust California Ironworkers Employers Council California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO California Legislative Conference of the Plumbing, Heating and Piping Industry California Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors National Association California State Association of Electrical Workers California State Pipe Trades Council California Teamsters Public Affairs Council Coalition of California Utility Employees Construction Employers' Association Contra Costa Building and Construction Trades Council Councilmember Bonnie Pannell, City of Sacramento Councilmember Darrell Fong, City of Sacramento Councilmember David Alvarez, City of San Diego Councilmember Esther Sanchez, City of Oceanside Councilmember Mary Salas, City of Chula Vista Don Cabianca, CSConstructors International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators Local 5 International Association of Sheet Metal Air Rail and Transportation, Local 104 International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 12 Individuals Johnny Zanette, GBayInc Kevin Beiser, VP San Diego Unified School District Mayor Daniel Helix, City of Concord Mayor Gary Davis, City of Elk Grove Mayor Jim Wood, City of Oceanside Peter Zschiesche, VP San Diego Community College Board Plaster Tenders of Southern California, Local 1414 San Diego County Building & Construction Trades Council Scott Barnett, Trustee San Diego Unified School District Southern California Contractors Association State Building and Construction Trades Council of California (sponsor) Teamsters Local 986 SB 7 Page 15 Union Roofing Contractors Association United Association of Plumbers & Steamfitters Local Union #230 United Contractors Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers Western Steel Council Opposition Air Conditioning Trade Association Alameda County Mayors Conference American Council of Engineering Companies, CA Associated Builders and Contractors of California Association of California Cities, Orange County Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce California Contract Cities Association Cities of Adelanto, Alhambra, Apple Valley, Arroyo Grande, Bakersfield, Benicia, Big Bear Lake, Buena Park, Burbank, Carlsbad, Ceres, Cerritos, Chula Vista, Coalinga, Culver City, Cypress, Danville, Del Mar, Diamond Bar, Dinuba, Downey, El Cajon, El Centro, Eureka, Folsom, Fortuna, Gilroy, Glendora, Grass Valley, Grover Beach, Hayward, Highland, Huron, Indian Wells, Jackson, King City, Lakewood, La Quinta, Lemoore, Lindsay, Mendota, Merced, Modesto, Moreno Valley, Murrieta, Napa, Norwalk, Oceanside, Pacific Grove, Palm Desert, Palo Alto, Paramount, Pasadena, Petaluma, Pico Rivera, Plymouth, Rancho Cucamonga, Rancho Mirage, Ridgecrest, Roseville, Salinas, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, San Marcos, Santa Ana, Santa Maria, Santee, Selma, Shafter, Signal Hill, Solvang, Tehachapi, Torrance, Tracy, Tulare, Victorville, Visalia, Vista, Wasco, West Covina, and Whittier Coachella Valley Economic Partnership Contra Costa Taxpayers Association Corona Taxpayers Association Corona Taxpayers Association Danville Area Chamber of Commerce Danville Chamber of Commerce Desert Valley Builders Association Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce Greater Merced Chamber of Commerce Home Builders Association of Kern County Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association Independent Cities Association Inland Empire Taxpayers Association Inland Empire Taxpayers Association Kern Citizens for Sustainable Government SB 7 Page 16 Kern County Taxpayers Association LA Co. Business Federation LA County Division, League of California Cities Lake Forest City Council League of California Cities Lewis Operating Corporation Los Angeles County Business Federation Marin County Mayors Council Mayor Ashley Swearengin, City of Fresno Michelle Steel, VC State Board of Equalization Modesto Chamber of Commerce MuniServices, LLC North of the River Chamber of Commerce Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors Association of California Redwood Empire Division, League of California Cities Sacramento County Board of Supervisors Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce Sacramento Taxpayers Association Salinas Valley Chamber of Commerce San Diego County Division, League of California Cities San Diego Taxpayers Association San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership San Joaquin Taxpayers Association Solano County Taxpayers Association South Bay Association of Chambers of Commerce Southwest California Legislative Council Stockton Chamber of Commerce Town of Apple Valley Western Electrical Contractors Association Analysis Prepared by : Ben Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091