Electric trucks eligible for rebates

By Reed Fujii, Stockton Record, 3/18/10  

STOCKTON - California clean-air officials Wednesday announced $3.7 million in rebate incentives for buyers of clean vehicles, including up to $20,000 each for commercial trucks being produced by Electric Vehicles International in Stockton.

Just last week, the California Air Resources Board formally accepted EVI's fully electric medium- and heavy-duty trucks as zero-emission vehicles.

That makes the trucks eligible for all sorts of special incentives, said Steve Riley, the company's sales and marketing vice president, including the new rebate program.

In addition to state incentives, he said, "There's some federal tax credits that are available right now, which would give $30,000 worth of tax credits, and we're in the midst of being ... approved for that right now."

Like other alternate-energy vehicles, EVI trucks cost somewhat more than petroleum-fueled equivalents. The trucks are priced from $130,000 to more than $200,000, depending on size and equipment options, Riley said.

Having opened its assembly facility in Stockton last fall, the company is working to secure sales and begin commercial production.

"We're in the midst of doing three demos right now," Riley said. "Hopefully, we'll get some orders out of that."

In all, there are about a dozen potential customers interested in giving EVI trucks serious consideration.

"We feel we will be in full production by June, July," Riley said.

The air board rebates also include up to $5,000 for the purchase of zero-emission and plug-in hybrid light-duty and passenger vehicles. They will be granted on a first-come, first-served basis.

While the incentives lower initial costs, EVI said its electric trucks give customers further benefits from ongoing fuel savings and reduced maintenance costs compared with conventional diesel vehicles.

After-school program report for state draws mixed views

By Ryan Chalk, The Reporter, 3/18/10  



A report touting California as the leader in after-school programs has law enforcement officials singing praises, while education officials wonder if it's the best investment, given the current state of education funding.

The report by Fight Crime: Invest in Kids California was released last week. Titled "California's After-School Commitment: Keeping Kids On Track and Out of Trouble," it shows that California invests over three times more in after-school programs than the remaining 49 states combined.

But given unprecedented cuts to education ($96.4 million in education reductions from the 2009-2011 budgets over the last two years in Solano County alone), some educators wonder if the money would be better spent on core programs.

Fight Crime: Invest in Kids California is a bipartisan, nonprofit and anti-crime organization led by 400 sheriffs, police chiefs, district attorneys and victims of violence.

"We in law enforcement know the window for kids to get in trouble or become a victim of crime is between 2 and 6 p.m. Furthermore, the window for a juvenile to commit a violent crime such as homicide, rape or assault is between 3 and 4 p.m.," said Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca on a conference call with San Francisco Police Chief George Gascon, Richmond Police Chief Chris Magnus and journalists from across the state.

"After-school programs help reduce crime in the long term by keeping kids in school and reducing drop-outs," Gascon

said. "They also help kids build relationships with peers and adult role models."

Vacaville Police Chief Rich Word agrees and said that after-school programs contribute to the public safety. He referred to the 2 to 6 p.m. window as the "high time for juvenile crime."

"People say that it's not public safety, but it is. It may look like recreation, but it contributes to the safety of the community," Word said.

The majority of funding for California's after-school programs comes from a 2002 voter-approved measure called Proposition 49, championed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger prior to his election. Also referred to as the After-School Education and Safety Act, it provides $550 million each year to programs aimed at students from low-income families.

Vacaville receives about $400,000 a year in Proposition 49 funds for after-school programs. Dixon's two Title I elementary schools receive just over $200,000.

The recent report states that there are 33 low-income schools in Solano County that receive state and/or federal funds for after-school programs, while 21 low-income schools are not funded. The report includes fee-based after-school programs, as well as free ones run by the schools.

In the Vacaville Unified School District, four elementary schools operate Proposition 49 after-school programs: Markham, Hemlock and Padan and Fairmont Charter.

While a strong supporter of after-school programs, Vacaville schools Superintendent John Aycock said that a discussion about how money is spent on after-school programs vs. core educational programs during the school day would make an interesting debate.

Roger Halberg, superintendent of Dixon Unified School District, said one of the continuing struggles for school districts is a lack of local control in how state and federal funds are spent. Last year, when districts were faced with deep cuts in education, the state relaxed some guidelines to allow flexibility with categorical funds. For example, Dixon Unified, like other districts, chose not to fund programs such as summer school and to use that money in other ways.

In 2006, priorities changed to ensure funding was concentrated on schools serving low-income families. Federal law requires that programs funded through Proposition 49 have at least 40 percent or more of its students participating in the federal free or reduced-cost school meals program. These are often referred to as Title I schools. The report also states that local schools and communities must match 33 cents for every state dollar. The Vacaville Public Education Foundation provides that match in Vacaville.

The report also states that 4,200 elementary, middle and high school campuses across the state receive funding for after-school programs, but nearly 2,000 schools in low-income neighborhoods are still without state or federally funded programs.

"We all understand that we're in tough economic times, but it's important that California protects funding for after-school programs," Magnus said.

The report comes at a time when the governor's budget is expected to include an $8 billion cut to education spending. Advocates of increased school funding say that already places California 46th out of 50 states in per-pupil spending, on its way to 49th.

Proposition 49 money is not available to shore up other budget shortfalls. If it were, Halberg said, it would warrant some discussion.

"If that was something where we could flex the funding and spend it in other areas, that would have at least been looked at closely. All of this cutting has forced us to ask, 'What is the absolute core?'" Halberg said.

"I'm an avid believer and supporter of after-school programs, but no one has really broached that debate," Aycock said.

To download a pdf of the report, log on to www.fightcrime.org/state/2010/ reports/californias-after-school-commitment.

Public pension tsunami building

Daily Bulletin editorial,  3/15/10 

It might not feel like it now, but Californians are lucky this is an election year with competitive state races. They are also lucky that one of the most high-profile campaigns is the Republican primary race for the gubernatorial election in November.

This is good timing because a fiscal storm is headed toward state and local governments, and the only people talking about it in any serious way are Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner. The two GOP rivals have made pension reform part of their gubernatorial campaigns.

This is an important discussion. Although government officials knew about the soaring costs of public pensions, no one has had the guts to stand up to the public employee unions.

California taxpayers spend about $17 billion a year on public employee pensions - a number that is ballooning by several billion dollars every year.

That would be bad enough were it not for the financial crises facing the state and local governments because of the economic downturn. To balance their budgets and fend off bankruptcy, officials are laying off workers, cutting services and other costs and raising fees and taxes.

Rialto will ask its voters in a June 8 advisory vote whether they want to hike their own property taxes to pay for $5 million a year in new pension enhancements for city employees.

Even those measures, however, don't address the rising costs to taxpayers. For example, pension costs for Los Angeles County employees are expected to balloon from the current $804million to $1.27billion in just two years. How many inmates will officials have to release from county jails to make up for that revenue drain?

Many people are calling the issue the pension tsunami. Sounds melodramatic, but it's actually an apt analogy. The reason that tsunamis cause so much damage and kill so many people is that they arrive with less warning than a typical natural disaster and are less scary than the mythical tidal wave that towers 200 feet above shore. Yet their quiet approach belies the tremendous destructive power behind the water surge.

Whole cities are washed away before residents collectively understand what's happening. A tsunami can be building for a long time before it lands, giving those in its way a false sense of security until it's too late to get away.

This is not unlike what awaits the budgets of local governments, and at least a few people are starting to realize the danger that seemed so far away is getting close. Last week, Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael Antonovich asked CEO Bill Fujioka to look at ways the county can reduce its pension burden. That's a good start, but the county - like cities - will have to move with more speed than the typical bureaucratic measure.

This is the time for government officials - not just two campaign rivals - to undertake a discussion of serious pension reform. But so far, neither the state nor local governments have taken any real action to batten down the budget hatches to prepare for the coming perfect pension storm.

Alameda land-use ruling could reshape state

John King, SF Chronicle, 3/17/10 



When an Alameda County judge this month ruled that Pleasanton must loosen its development rules to allow large amounts of new housing for all income levels, he sent a message that could ricochet around the state.

The ruling by Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch found the prosperous city of 68,000 at fault for a voter-approved cap on the number of housing units allowed within its borders. Roesch based his decision on a California law that requires cities to make land available to accommodate their share of regional housing needs - and that is a standard that most municipalities don't meet.

If the Alameda decision stands, and if other cities face legal challenges, the result could reshape the landscape of California suburbs and small cities - conceivably forcing them to reconsider height limits or increasing the density in their downtowns.

"The next few weeks, everyone is going to take a look at this and see what it might mean," said Cathy Cresswell, the deputy director for housing policy development at the state's Department of Housing and Community Development. "Some might want to take another look at how they've addressed this very important state requirement."

Cresswell was referring to the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, a formula used since 1980 but, like many state edicts, often ignored.

The idea is simple: Likely growth is determined regionally, with housing needs tied to job creation. Regional planners then break up this amount among cities and unincorporated county areas so housing is located near jobs.

Local governments then must demonstrate that they can allow such growth to occur.

The decision by Roesch faults Pleasanton for capping its number of housing units at 29,000. There are currently more than 27,000, yet the city's general plan clears the way for an additional 45,000 jobs by 2025.

To meet the state requirement, Pleasanton was supposed to make room for 5,059 units between 1999 and 2006. Instead, the city issued 2,156 housing permits - 43 percent of the desired amount.

But if the cap on units is unusually blunt, Pleasanton's resistance to housing is typical of the region.
Falling short of goal

According to a study of housing production between 1999 and 2006 conducted by the Association of Bay Area Governments, just 24 of 102 cities in the region produced more housing than requested by the state.

In terms of housing for lower-income residents - a need also addressed in the formula - the results were even more lopsided: Of the 61,000 moderate-income units that ABAG hoped for in this period, 17,697 were built in the Bay Area.

While Pleasanton attorneys have yet to comment on the ruling, plaintiffs are open about the larger message they seek to send.

"The bottom line is, it's the law" that local government must respond to state edicts, said Wynn Hausser of Public Advocates, which argued the Pleasanton suit on behalf of Urban Habitat Program, a social equity advocacy group. The suit was joined last year by state Attorney General Jerry Brown.

"Everybody has to share in the region's growth, the positives and negatives," Hausser said. "The law doesn't say everything has to be urban, but we're going beyond a point where communities can be enclaves."
Concentrate the growth

One way to accommodate growth in suburbia is to allow slightly taller apartment buildings and condominiums in the center of town, to concentrate it near BART or bus stops, and loosen zoning so that single-family neighborhoods can sprout cottages and "in-law" units.

This sort of strategy has been touted for the past decade by advocates of what is called "smart growth." And, more recently, the message has been taken up by environmentalists who see compact development as a way to get people out of their cars and to preserve open space.

"There certainly has been a demand for those sorts of ideas," said Paul Fassinger, the research director for ABAG. "The trouble has been getting (local governments) to understand that this might be a good idea for them, not just for somebody else."

If Roesch's ruling is upheld - and is applied elsewhere - those governments might have less wiggle room in the years to come.