BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 7
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 14, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
Roger Hern�ndez, 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 (Alarc�n), 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