Week one of the 2006 legislative year is now over, and with it came a combined total of 33 new bills from the Legislature.

Many of the bills simply only have a number and a summary at this point; actual language will be forthcoming. Of those 33, some of the more notable (at least appear to be notable):

* Senate: SB 1117 (Denham) would address the compensation of top officials at the University of California, following on recent news reports of questionable levels of pay... SB 1118 (Figueroa) would provide universal health care for children... and SR 20 (Florez), a resolution saying the Legislature should not ratify new Indian gaming deals if the casino would be built on lands not already designated for gaming.

* Assembly: AB 1779 (Mullin) would divert proceeds from the new Mega Millions lottery game to special needs in education, and would also formally codify the existence of the multi-state game... AB 1783 (Nunez) is the Assembly Speaker's version of the infrastructure bond... and AB 1791 (Bermudez) would extend the ban on sex offender residences from K-grade 8 schools to the vicinity of high schools, as well.

January will also be a busy month on the legislative calendar because bills that stayed alive-- but were not sent to the governor-- in 2005 have until the end of the month to get out of their house of origin. The January 31 deadline will lead to a flurry of committee and floor action in both chambers.

Is a fee different than a tax? Technically, yes. But for many Republicans, they are one in the same.

In fact, in recent years GOP lawmakers have made many an eloquent speech about how Democrats tack on a "fee"... which can often be approved on a simple majority vote... rather than assess a new "tax", which requires a two-thirds vote (and, therefore, GOP votes).

Now, fast forward to today... where Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger traveled to Sacramento's Nimbus Dam on the American River to promote his new water safety and flood protection package. The $35 billion proposal is part of the omnibus $222 billion public works agenda laid out last night in his State of the State speech.

To help pay for the water protection elements, Schwarzenegger is proposing $5 billion in new water user fees (the administration is technically calling it a "water resources investment" fund). The fee would amount to $3 a month for every residential water user in the state, and $10 a month for every industrial water user.

But why isn't that a tax, asked a reporter today? And isn't Schwarzenegger opposed to taxes? Here's the governor's answer:

"You know, a lot of times, you know, fees are fees and taxes are taxes. And that's why they're called fees. And that's why they're called taxes."

It remains to be seen what the governor's Republican colleagues in the Legislature will make of that distinction.

The State of the State, in any year, is a political and media spectacle. Hours and hours of preparation (and perspiration) go into an event that lasts only about half an hour. And the post-speech analysis lasts long after that.

So... with all due respect to the major substance of the speech and the challenges that lie ahead for Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Legislature (details of which are in two reports on The California Report, tomorrow morning and on tomorrow's newsmagazine), here's some of what happened today that didn't make the cut:

* The Briefing: The tone of Team Arnold in getting his proposal out to the public was markedly different this year. There were numerous pre-speech "leaks" to the media, and on Thursday afternoon, about 65 reporters gathered for a background briefing on the speech (For those not in the know, that means you can't quote anyone who spoke by name, and all of the discussion could not be reported until after the governor actually delivered the speech). The administration gave a similar background briefing in 2004, but was relatively tight-lipped in 2005.

And the briefing was... thorough... lasting more than 75 minutes, with detailed handouts totaling some 35 pages. So thorough, in fact, that it seems to have eclipsed what leading lawmakers were told about the proposal. "We got a very cursory briefing," said Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata (D-Oakland). One legislative staffer was even seen sneaking peeks at a reporter's packet of documents during the speech.

* The Guests: Many governors reference special guests seated next to the First Lady in the gallery. There were guests this year, but they didn't get the gubernatorial mention. The official list included a soldier who served in Iraq, the wife of another soldier still there, and Erin Runnion, whose daughter Samantha was kidnapped and murdered in southern California in 2002.

Other guests... well, let's just say some of them seemed unusual for a GOP chief executive: former Governor Gray Davis and Sharon Davis, former Governor Jerry Brown and wife Anne Gust, and United Farm Workers of America president Arturo Rodriguez.

Also in attendance in the galley: George Schultz, former Reagan cabinet member (whose wife, Charlotte Maillard Schultz, is the governor's protocol chief) and Jake Steinfeld, chair of the Governor's Council on Physical Fitness and founder of the "Body By Jake" franchise. Many of these VIPs, and others, could be seen in the swanky after-speech party hosted in the Capitol rotunda and in a tent on the West Steps.

Team Arnold, The Next Generation: The VIP party must not have been very exciting for two young ladies who ended up in the "spin tent" on the other side of the Capitol-- the outside location where reporters flocked to lawmakers and pundits for post-speech reaction. No one seemed to have remember seeing the two young ladies ever on their own-- they've only appeared at events with their mother, Maria.. They were Katherine and Christina Schwarzenegger. The two teenagers pretty much stayed together and seemed amused by the "spin tent."

They did not, to my knowledge, participate in any spin... nor did they seem to notice the man who walked past them at one point-- the man who wants Dad's job, state Treasurer Phil Angelides.

[FRIDAY UPDATE TO LAST ITEM: A call from Democratic operative Bob Mulholland says that, in fact, the governor's daughters did stop by and chat with Angelides. It seems everyone can get along after all, eh?]

(Photo: Governor's Office Website)

"A gang of good fellows are we... We laugh and joke, we sing and smoke... No matter the weather, when we get together, we have a jubilee." --Hail Hail, The Gang's All Here (1917)

Today's announcement that Governor Schwarzenegger is proposing an increase in K-12 education spending for 2006-07 came with a laundry list of new education programs... but ones the governor suggests paying for out of the same money the schools would already receive under the minimum funding guarantee.

Schwarzenegger's education secretary, Alan Bersin, outlined some of the new proposals at the same time he announced plans to repay almost $1.7 billion of the money owed under Proposition 98.

The "how much money is owed" argument aside, the governor is proposing to earmark about $321.5 million in education funding for everything from fine arts programs to physical education grants and high school exit exam support services.

[More details can be found in the governor's official press release here]

The proposals were part of the 45 minute meeting between education community leaders and the governor's staff (Schwarzenegger reportedly was present for parts of the meeting). But those same education leaders came out less than thrilled with the specific proposals.

"How are these new programs, however desirable, going to help me keep my schools open?", said Brian Lewis, executive director of the California Association of School Business Officials. Lewis says with many schools already shortchanged on the basics, it's a bad idea to start earmarking money for new programs.

But H.D. Palmer, deputy director of the governor's Department of Finance, says those criticisms miss the fact that a full $2.7 billion of the money the governor is putting into education is "discretionary", far outweighing the money being committed to the new programs.

Considering how much focus there will be in this new year on the state's infrastructure needs, the best starting point for discussion may be the comprehensive analysis of the issue released today by the non-partisan Legislative Analyst's Office.

The LAO report takes a much needed snapshot of the big picture, and it also raises some important questions for lawmakers about both how serious the state's problems really are, and how best to provide some real improvements for everything from jammed freeways to aging classrooms and levies.

If you're not nursing holiday fatigue, read it for yourself here. If you are, then consider for now what appear to be the LAO's most intriguing points:

* How Did We Get Here? The LAO analysis suggests that, contrary to popular perception, the state's current funding for infrastructure needs isn't that bad. In fact, the report concludes that California's per-capita infrastructure spending is now the highest it's been in decades. The problem seems to have been very low per-capita spending in the 1970s and early 1980s... an era of low investments that we are now struggling to overcome.

* How Much Is Needed? This will be a much debated issue in the coming weeks. One intriguing number comes from the 2003 infrastructure plan submitted by then Governor Gray Davis (the Schwarzenegger administration, as recently reported by many news organizations, has not submitted the required plan in the past 2 years). The 2003 plan prices the state's needs through 2008 at about $54 billion.

The LAO takes the Davis plan's rate of growth and extrapolates that the costs through 2011 could be as high as $75 billion.

As the old TV commercials say, but wait, there's more! The LAO report suggests the 2003 analysis doesn't account for substantial flood control needs in the Central Valley, or for any traffic congestion projects not already in the pipeline. So assume the real needs could be even higher.

* How Do We Solve The Problems? The LAO advises a two-pronged plan of deciding what order to proceed, and then how to pay for all of it.

Among the more intriguing recommendations: determine what needs should be actually be paid for by local governments... consider policy changes like year-round operations of higher education facilities (to reduce the need for more buildings) or a higher gas tax (to both pay for projects and encourage carpooling)... and make public health and safety infrastructure needs the #1 priority.

Granted, it's a lot to take in, but it shows how much more complex the issue of California's infrastructure needs is than the discussion often covered in speeches and news events.