Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD LEGISLATIVE & LITIGATION COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 5-92 OCTOBER 21, 1992 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: PROPOSITION 156, PASSENGER RAIL AND CLEAN AIR BOND ACT As part of its review of the propositions for the ballot for November 1992, the Legislative and Litigation Committee received a request for support of Proposition 156, the Passenger Rail and Clean Air Bond Act. In 1989, the State Legislature provided for three $1 billion rail transportation bond measures'on the ballot as part of an $18.5 billion transportation blueprint for the 21st Century. In 'June of 1990, the voters passed the first bond act. Proposition 156 is the second of three bond acts to help fund the transportation blueprint. The Act would directly benefit the region by providing funds for improving intercity service on Amtrak's "San Joaquin" line. Failure to approve this bond measure could cause "county minimum" transportation funding from the State to Kern County to be reduced, causing three projects affecting Bakersfield which are currently in the State Transportation Improvement Program to be delayed or to go unfunded. These projects include Renfro Road to Route Legislative & Litigation Committee Report No. 5-92 October 21, 1992 Page 2 99, Ming Avenue to Route 204 widening, and construction of an eastbound passing lane from Democrat Road to beginning of the freeway. The Public has been supportive of public transportation bond measures in the past, and the Legislative and Litigation Committee urges citizens to continue to support rail transportation and an overall public transportation system which provides · greater transportation options, less congestion, cleaner air, and energy conservation for the ever-diversifying needs of California residents. Therefore, the Legislative & Litigation Committee recommends the City Council accept this Report and support Proposition 156 On the November ballot. Respectfully submitted, Councilmember Patricia M. Smith, Chair Councilmember Patricia J. DeMond Councilmember Lynn Edwards .alb L&L5-92. RPT 'CITY OF BAKERSFIELD LEGISLATIVE & LITIGATION COMMITTEE MAJORITY REPORT NO. 6-92 OCTOBER 21, 1992 ' TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: PROPOSITION 167, STATE TAXES ~ On September 16, the City Council referred to the Legislative & Litigation Committee a request to study the possibility of opposing Proposition 167, regarding state taxes. The Committee has reviewed proposition materials and the pros and cons of a City position on the proPosition. The League of California Cities, as well as the Board of Supervisors, have taken a stance in opposition, to this proposition which, among other things, decreases some taxes while increasing others. Because Changes in state and local taxes influence the behavior of individuals and businesses, the net impact of the Proposition is uncertain. The measure could result in a 20% increase in the total amount of income taxes paid by businesses in California and a 10% to 20% increase in the total amount of property taxes imposed on businesses. Estimates for direct fiscal loss to cities, counties and special-district for 1992-93 are roughly $95 million, with a gain between $550 million to $1.2 billion annually thereafter. Legislative & Litigation Committee Report No. 6-92 October 21, 1992 Page 2 The Legislative and Litigation Committee recognizes that current economic conditions impact Bakersfield's and Kern'County's livelihood. Because Proposition 167 would affect nearly everyone, the Committee urges voters to carefully review it and to decide for themselves whether it is in their best interests. Therefore, the Legislative and Litigation Committee recommends the City Council accept this report and encourage all voters to go to the polls on November 3. Respectfully submitted, Councilmember Patricia J. DeMond Councilmember Lynn Edwards .alb L&L6-92.RPT CITY OF BAKERSFIELD LEGISLATIVE & LITIGATION COMMITTEE MINORITY REPORT NO. 7-92 OCTOBER 21, 1992 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: PROPOSITION 167, STATE TAXES The Legislative and Litigation Committee reviewed ProPosition 167 in two meetings, discussing the pros and cons of the effects of the proposition upon the economy. I support the Legislative and Litigation Committee majority viewpoint that California voters should carefully review the proposition to decide what is best for them. However, I also feel that while the proposition has potential benefits, I feel it would be detrimental to the business climate upon which California's economic recovery is based. Because of this, I am personally taking a position of opposition to Proposition 167. I recommend the City Council accept this report. Respectfully submitted, Councilmember Patricia M. Smith, Chair .alb ML&LT-92. RPT CITY OF BAKERSFIELD LEGISLATIVE & LITIGATION COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 9-92 DECEMBER 9, 1992 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION FOR LOCAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUES since the enactment of Proposition 13, cities, counties, andspecial districts have been increasingly required to use their limited local property tax revenues to fund State-mandated programs, leaving fewer resources available for funding essential and traditional local programs. While levels of government need to work together to provide the best and most efficient services to their constituents, State absorptions of local revenue sources clearly demonstrate the need for local governments to protect local resources in order to provide services for their citizens. One avenue for protecting traditional local revenue resources is a Constitutional amendment which will prohibit realignments, shifts, and other methods of taking away local revenues. Support for such aConstitutional amendment, as well as a number of other 'options available to the City for protecting property and other local revenue resources, has been reviewed by the Legislative and Litigation Committee. The' Committee is continuing to review available options, including working with State elected leaders to inform them of the essential services which cities, counties and special districts provide to citizens and reviewing alternatives being researched by the League of California Cities. As part of its search for all options available for maintaining local Legislative & Litigation Committee Report No. 9-92 December 9, 1992 Page 2 control, the Committee will be reviewing the "Action Plan" and "Guiding Principles" of the Kern Citizens for Effective Local Government. The Committee expects to promulgate a resolution supporting local government resources protection at the end of its review. The Committee recommends acceptance of this report. Respectfully submitted, Councilmember Patricia M. Smith, Chair Councilmember Patdcia J. DeMond Councilmember Lynn Edwards (L&L0992) December 9~ 1992 AGENDA SECTION: Reports AGENDA ITEM: 10. a. TO: Honorable Mayor and city Council APPROVEd:~. FROM: Trudy Slater, Admin. Analyst · DEPARTMENT HEAD ~J ~'?.--C~ ~ DATE:, November 25, 1992 CITY MANAGER /~/~ / ~ SUBJECT: Report No. 9-92 from the Legislative and Litigation co~itte~ regarding Constitutional Protection for Local Property Tax Revenues. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends acceptance of'Report. BACKGROUND: Since the enactment of Proposition 13, cities, counties, and special districts have been increasingly required to use their limited local property tax revenues to fund state mandated programs With fewer resources available for funding essential local services and traditional local programs. Further state shifts in property tax revenues, together with the already substantial burden of providing funding for state mandated programs, have caused severe restrictions to or elimination of traditionally local programs and services with a serious impact on the ability to provide adequate levels of law enforcement, fire protection and other services essential to local residents. It appears this trend will continuing even with' economic rebound. A Constitutional amendment protecting local government property tax revenues is one of many avenues available for coping with the drain of local funds away to the state. JP BAKERSFIELD 1990 August10,1992 Mr. John R. Cove American Heart Association 404 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Mr. Cove: At the City Council meeting of August 5, 1992, the City Council approved the attached Legislative and Litigation Committee report. The Legislative and Litigation Committee appreciates the time you and others took to attend the meeting, and thank you for your input. Sincerely, Trudy Slater Administrative Analyst TS:jp Enclosure City of Bakersfield · City Manager's Office · 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield · California · 93301 (805) 326-3751 · Fax (805) 325-9162 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 3-92 AUGUST 5, 1992 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: CITYWIDE SMOKING Over the past few months, the Legislative and Litigation Committee has met several times to discuss the pros and cons of instituting a Citywide smoking ordinance. In an effort to get as broad an information base as possible on the issue, the Committee reviewed data provided by the Kern Tobacco Free Coalition and the League of California Cities, met with representatives from the community, and discussed regulatory issues of concern if the City were to become "smoke free.`' The Committee agrees with American Heart Association, American Lung Association, and Tobacco Free Coalition representatives that smoking is harmful to the human body and that federal tobacco industry subsidies should be discouraged. However, data provided in a Kern County restaurant survey indicated that thero is support for a smoking ban in restaurants only if it is legislatively' regulated. In an atmosphere where most businesses are clamoring for less regulation rather than more, where "no smoking" enforcement issues would be a concern, and where the ability to self-regulate lies within the hands of the state and local restaurant associations, the Committee is very reluctant to add another cost of doing business to businesses already burdened with government regulations. Legislative and Litigation Committee Report No. 3-92 August 5, 1992 Page 2 Therefore, the Committee does not recommend that a Citywide smoking ordinance be implemented and that citizens should have the ability to choose to support restaurants and other businesses which are most conducive to their personal smoking or non-smoking habits. The Committee recommends the City Council accept this report. Respectfully submitted, Councilmember Patricia M. Smith, Chair Councilmember Patricia J. DeMond Councilmember Lynn Edwards (L&L0392) BAKERSFIELD MEMORANDUM July 15, 1992 TO: LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE FROM: TRUDY SLATER, ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST SUBJECT: DRAFT CITYWIDE SMOKING REPORT' I have attached a draft copy of the L&L Citywide Smoking report which is to go on the August 5, 1992 agenda. Please let me know if you have any corrections/changes, etc. Your changes are needed by July 21 to get the report into the normal agenda process. Thank you. (m0715921) Attachment cc: J. Dale Hawley, City Manager DRAFT 7/15/92 CITY OF .BAKERSFIELD LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 3-92 AUGUST 5, 1992 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL .SUBJECT: CITYVVIDE SMOKING Over the past few months, the Legislative and Litigation Committee has met several times to discuss the pros and cons of instituting a Citywide smoking ordinance. In an effort get as broad an information base as possible on the issue, the Committee reviewed data provided by the Kern Tobacco Free Coalition and the League of California Cities, met with representatives from the community, and discussed regulatory issues of concern if the City were to become "smoke free." The Committee agrees with American Heart Association, American Lung Association, and Tobacco Free Coalition representatives that smoking is harmful to the human body and that federal tobacco industry subsidies should be discouraged. However, data provided in a Kern County restaurant survey indicated that there is support for a smoking ban in restaurants only if it is legislatively regulated. In an atmosphere where most businesses are clamoring for less regulation rather than more, where "no smoking" enforcement issues would be a concern, and where the ability to self-regulate lies within the hands of the state and local i'estaurant associations, the Committee is very reluctant to add another cost of doing business to businesses Legislative and Litigation Committee Report No. 3-92 August 5, 1992 Page 2 already burdened with government regulations. Therefore, the Committee feels that a citywide smoking ordinance in the City of Bakersfield is not needed at this time and that citizens should have the ability to choose to support restaurants and other businesses which are most conducive to their personal smoking or non-smoking habits. The Committee recommends the City Council accept this report. Respectfully submitted, Councilmember Patricia M. Smith, Chair Councilmember Patricia J. DeMond Councilmember Lynn Edwards (L&L0392) BAKERSFIELD 1990 June 25,1992 The Honorable Pete Wilson Governor of .,California State Capitol Building Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Governor Wilson: I have included a 10-minute video tape' made of a news conference held here in Bakersfield yesterday. The tape visually reflects how Bakersfield City legislators and others feel about proposed State efforts to shift city funds to pay for state programs. Seriously consider the statements made on the tape as you make the multimillion dollar decisions you have to. as Governor of the State of California. Coming from a local legislative background as you have, you have a better idea of what will happen at the local level. Sincerely, City Manager JDH:jp Enclosure cc' Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Bakersfield · City Manager's Office · 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield · California · 93301 (805) 326-3751 · Fax (805) 325-9162 BAKERSFIELD 1990 IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Mayor Clarence Medders June 22, 1992 1501 Truxtun Avenue Page 1 of 2 (805) 326-3770 NEWS. RELEASE CITIES SEND LOUD MESSAGE'TO SACRAMENTO City leaders,, citizens, and staff will meet on the steps at the Bakersfield City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, at 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, June 24, to take a stand against proposals to take tax money away from cities which will force them to raise taxes to cover basic services. Mayor clarence Medders will lead the charge by tossing turnips on a truck bound for Sacramento which will get across the message that the Legislature "can't squeeze blood out of a turnip." A symbolic lowering of the California State flag will occur at 8:30 a.m., to remain that w. ay until the State passes its budget. Since the passage of Proposition 13, cities have become the brunt of State raids on funding sources, forcing them to make cuts while the State continues in a headlong path into debt, $11 billion at last count. Latest State proposals include taking $1 billion in city revenues to backfill other programs. For Bakersfield .alone, this would mean $4,300,000 per year by 1995. -more- City of Bakersfield · City Manager's Office * 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield · California · 93301 (805) 326~3751 · Fax (805) 325-9162 CITIES SEND LOUD MESSAGE TO SACRAMENTO Page 2 of 2 June 22, 1992 A chartered bus, filled with representatives from California cities and concerned citizens, will stop in Bakersfield at 9:00 a.m. on its way from Los Angeles to Sacramento. Scheduled to ardve in Sacramento at 4:00 p.m. city representatives will demonstrate that ' they have not "just fallen off the turnip truck" and that the State is greatly mistaken "if it thinks cities are going to take this lying down"! Turnips from the turnip truck will be displayed on. the steps of the Capitol and then delivered to each of the members of the Legislature and the Governor. "Cities have to make the Legislature stop balancing its budget on their backs," stated Mayor Medders. "We are the ones who have over the years made the hard choices to raise taxes and sacrifice people and services. We can't continue to feed the State system when it isn't making those hard choices, too. City legislators meet their constituents everyday in the stores and at the gas pump. State legislators don't: It's time we sent a loud and long message that we have had enough." Cities from throughout Kern County will toss their turnips on the truck. Citizens of Bakersfield and surrounding communities are encouraged to join with city leaders to send this message to the State. June 23,1992 TO: Mayors and City Managers/City Clerks in ,Non-Manager Cities FROM: Don Benninghoven, Executive Director RE: Recent State Budget Developments: Republicans Unveil Proposal and Assembly Democrats Issue.Modified Proposal Republican Proposal Late Friday, a "Republican Leadership Budget Proposal" was surfaced amid the legislative debate over the State budget. / Presumably, the proposal was surfaced by the Governor, Senate and Assembly Republican leadership, however, it is not clear that it is endorsed by all of the Republican leadership. The proposal covered a wide range of budget problems and options, including a proposal on Local Finance Reform which suggests the following solutions: 1.-AB 8 Property Tax Shift. The Republican leadership proposes to shift all AB 8 property tax from cities, counties and special districts in the first year - 1992-93. This shift is accomplished as follows: a. $1 billion from cities, counties and specials districts '- based on th¢-,!~' proportionate share of the bailout money; and b. The remaining $1.7 billion of AB 8 property tax money will be taken from cities, counties and special districts and placed in a countywide "local allocation fund." All. local.agencies in the county may qualify for distributions from the local allocation fund. Allocations from the fund shall be made by consent of the local agencies. Presumably, some of the property tax could be returned to local governments based on some unknown formula. 2. Mandate Relief. Cities, counties and special districts would be provided mandate .relief as follows (No real detail beyond what is liSted below is provided): a. Retirement Cost Reform. b. Disability Retirement. c. Repeal Section 17000 of the Welfare and Institutions Code and Repeal of Beilenson Act Requirements (County mandate reforms). c. Repeal maintenance of effort requirements f°r Propositions 99 (County health program) and 108/111 (local gas tax match). d. Workers' Compensation Reform. 3. New Tax Authority. Provide local government with the following new tax authority: a. Cities:Increase Bradley-Burns sales tax rate (No indication about how much of an increase or how it would be distributed). b. Counties: Grant Charter city tax authority and increase Bradley-Burns sales tax rate. Assembly Democratic Proposal This afternoon, we have learned of a new and modified version of the Assembly Democratic proposal we outlined to you on June 19 of last week. The new proposal is as follows: 1. AB 8 Property Tax Shift. Approximately $805 million would be shifted from cities over the next three years. Thirty-eight percent (38%) or about $306 million would be shifted in 1992-93; Sixty-nine percent (69%) or about $555 million in 1993-94; and the full $805 million in 1994-95. Note: These estimates are based on the current value of the AB 8 shift and do not include growth in assessed values that will increase these amounts. 2. Redevelopment. Approximately $175 million in redeveloPment would be taken from redevelopment agencies throughout the state. 3. Replacement Revenue, The local BradleY-Burns sales tax would be increased in increments over three years. The levy would be uniform countywide and revenues would be returned to cities and the county in proportion to their losses from the AB 8 shift. In the first two years,, the increase could be from 1/4 to 1/2 cent each year; and in the .third year an additional 1/4 cent could be added. Therefore, after three years, an additional local sales tax of as much as 1 and 1/4 cent could be levied countywide. An initial and very preliminary skirmish occurred today on the floor of the Assembly over a State budget issue relating to schools. Most reports have the debate beginning in earnest 'tomorrow afternoon (Tuesday June 23, 1992). State Chamber, Bankers, Farm Bureau, Building Industry Association, and Cai-Tax Support League The California Chamber of Commerce, California Taxpayers Association, California Bankers Association and the California Farm Bureau joined in the League's fight against proposals to take cities' share of property taxes. Representatives of the organizations signed a joint letter to Governor Wilson and the four key Legislative leaders stating their strong opposition to take away city property tax income to balance the State's budget. "The property tax shift will remove the incentive to local government to approve development. Cities and counties often make land-use decisions which increase property tax revenue to the local government. If the property tax shift occurs, local government will benefit much less from approving development and will be much more likely to slow or'stop development," the four organizations stated in their joint letter. In addition, the California Building Industry Association has added their oPposition. City officials should encourage their local Chamber of Commerce presidents to send similar statements to local Legislators and the Governor. Under both the Democratic and Republican proposals before the Legislature, cities would be left with approximately 7 percent of the property tax. What incentive is there for a city to approve housing, manufacturing or commercial development if 93 percent of the revenue goes to other local agencies? The economic'engine of this State -- city government ~- will sputter and die completely if this proposal goes through. (CL062392) League of Califomia Cities ~tme 17, 1992 Mayor l~o Tern Don Bcnningboven, Zbmmtiw Director In the 1~ days of June es the Legishture end Governor ere serioudy enSq~ fn to ensm~ ~ ~e'League h. properb cm---m~c~t.d rb~ storewide ~ of ~ about the dire~ons which the negotim3'ons may te~ To begS, we are compelled to nspond to argmnents tluU them is solid policy n~domle fro' the state to 'take bnek" property tax revenues allocated to ~ counties and specinl ~dlout" of local gov~nm~ts to compcnsm~ for the fmandal devamflon of ~opmlfl~n 13; and, tliat tt~ magni~ of the cu~enz rote ~.def~t d~ates tlua the sutt~ now wl~i~ need to be a cemrai part of the debate over ~_~t_, proposed a~km by tho constitutionally canno~ bo used b~ tho sttt~ Th~ stato has hover ~ and used property ux for sine pro~'~,,~ The passage of Proposition 13 severe~ reduced, b~ ap~mima~ly 60 percent, the amount of property tax going m ]o~d govermnent - ~iti~, The sram ~ose to le~n the flnandal blow to ]o.d ~venmum. by shilling smn~ was R~n iabeiml as tl~ lona. un-m. ~l'mnn~-nt loenl ~ ~sme~. _]~nelm_~n_ ']~1 one-ludf of th~ property tax revennes. JUH 17' '~E 16:EI~ LOZ-='31~/~-6~?l (~ties have used t~*~ autonomy and ac2d to ~b~ mako ~m~h 5udset dechions · locally without askin~ the state fx~r help. The mto's E, mpl~ Development L~9I; and. through May o~ ~992 another 1.700 ci~ Jobs have been eliminated. Cttb have cut a tout o~ $,900 jobs in tho Jest !? months wino other ~ocal $oveumonts havo tncre.ed emp]oymc~ (See attached stattstia ~m P..DD); th.o ar~ not.~* actions, but actual rednctiom already domunm2d by tho mte~s HDD. Th, emU. are in spite o~ the ~t *_~ 70 percefft o~ the cities raised ULmS and fm in 191-92. Again. these actions were taken independentty by cities wtthmrt any requem hr help ~rom ~he state. suppor~ thoso services. A city council can set a policy direction for its city, in terms of sorvic, and d~lopmcnt and ttum build or modi~ the tax bas~ to support amunnnity This h~torfmtl and stoblc philosophy' b~ht~d city ~ is serlous~ tln'eaten~ In the policies bein~ considered by the Lesislature, You aro running tho risk ~ ctti. mor~ &pcndmn on tho into as anmti, and school disuim now ar~ In tl~ lone- term, t~, d/minion/s not 8X2od for cities and it is ~ no~ good for the ~[tv Resuflmlb{lhv ~or State General ~'3md It is not our intent to minimize tho dfffladtt, which you as L~ and the Chief Em:ulive of r~J.q state bce. Yom' are in an impossible posit/on for a publfc decision. maker and we fully undersUmd tho dilemma. Your decisions will affo~ all pubH~ services However, the one issue which city officials f~f! to comprehend fn all of thte debam and tho one issuo which is the pxtzna2T reason ~or tho outri~ hostility demomUumi by samo city offichl& is the ra~io ~or city tuclmion in what fs essentially a state gmmd fund probla~ C~r. pml]raz~ do not impac~ the state general fmid and havo therefore ~ Why aro dries beias asked ~o condoM, ia tho masnitudo ~ proposed, to a proMem whfch they did not camo and ovor wMch they have no conuol? We do not manqo or 3 council m pmmbe ,h~, they will evoid cum~ sezvices ~ · ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~om ~e ~ ~ ~ m ~s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ for ~ ~~ 4 LO~ OF ~ RgVENT~ ~ & RESULT OF ~TATg BUDGgT AC/~ON8 CITY . B^(io.,. c um. .'HREBAUGH -- . s= ,.. F~ 209/659-3412 CI~ MANAGER'S OFFICE ~ ~gisla~ B~g~ ~nf~ Com~t~ S~rs Alquist, l~ a~ Hill A~mbly Memb~s V~IOS, H~n~ ~d Wright ~r ~o~s): On b~a~ o~ ~c ~ty of Fi~augh, I s~ngly ~umgc you m ~d~ ~ effom to bM~~ · e Sm~'s budget by ~ffing ~ney from ci~es. ~t S~ ~~s in~e ~ing of City vehicle ~n~ f~ ~ pm~ ~ in,me ~t go ~ supra 1~1 ~..~s amoun~ · a 1~ of $3~,540.~ for thc ~ty of ~mbaugh alone, 2f~ of ~e Gmml Fund. We su~i~ such ~u~ons in ~ ~nomy whi~ ~y ~ ~ our ~m m rev~u~ subs~gaUy. ~g~ ~d ~ls. It is ol~ly ~us ~ ~ue m u~ ~g~ m "b~l out' ~e ~ ~e ~t ~v~l y~, ~g~ havo ~d any ~ "b~oul.' ~ ~ h~ al~dy ~ on~h~f of ~ non-P~g ~n~ and Po~tu~, ~g~ T~, ~~ F~, Pm~ny ~ ~, Liquor 1~ ~, ~gh~y ~ U~f~ Bugn~ ~, Financial ~ ~oi~, ~d ~mbu~t for ~e Bu~n~ Inv~n~ ~~. ~ C[~ mwnu~ ~mu~h V~ol~ Li~n~ F~ ~d ~y ~ in~ ou~ ~ly in~ ~ of · ~ major ~u~ of ~v~u~ ~ ~iti~. ?~ and sho~-~ lm~a of m~y i~s b~ng ~nsid~, i~uOi~ ~g ~ny ~ and v~id~ U~ ~ ~om oig~, ~uld ~ di~us ~r ~1 ~ifo~s. I would ~ ~d to ~uss fu~er ~ y~ ~e n~ag~ eff~ ~is would ~ ~n ~e Ci~y Mayor ? BAKERSFIELD MEMORANDUM June 3, 1992 TO: LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE PATRICIA SMITH, CHAIR PATRICIA DEMOND, MEMBER LYNN EDWARDS, MEMBER FROM: TRUDY SLATER, ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST (.J~z~ SUBJECT: COMMITTEE INFORMATION I have attached a copy of the Kern County Health Department smoking survey that I requested be forwarded to you. You will note that the seven-question survey encompassed all of Kern County (not just Bakersfield). Under the comments section, several responses were received and are included in Table IV. The comments range from encouraging the passage of a smoking ordinance to limiting restrictions on business. Table III indicates restaurants that may support a no- smoking ordinance, based on information extrapolated from answers to question 3 of the survey. Also attached are copies of ACA 39, SB 1977, and SB 1538. The League opposes these bills and encapsulates them in Bulletin #20. I will add them to the legislative update portion of the June 18 meeting. Please let me know if you have any questions on any of the above or wish additional information before the meeting on the 18th. (m0603921) Enclosures cc: City Manager Dale Hawley City Attorney Larry Lunardini OFFICE MEMO K E R N C O U N T Y DATE: April 23, 1992 TO: Annalee Frisbie TCP Project Dh'ector FROM: Paul W. Owens Admini_~tratJve Assistant SUBJECT: KERN COUNTY RE~AURANT SURVEY The Tobacco Free Coalition of Kern County together with the Kern County Health Department Tobacco Education Program rec_emly completed a survey to determine the smoking policies in Kern County restaurants. This survey was initiated in February 1992. A list consisting of 1,443 restaurants permitted to operate in Kern County was made available to us by Environmental Health Services to assist in this project. A total of 1,024 restaurant names were selected from the list and used for this study. A packet containing a restaurant survey questionnaire; a brochure entitled, 'facts about Second- Hand Smoke', to provide some information about the hazards of second-hand smoke; a stamped, self addressed return envelope; and a letter explaining the purpose of the survey was mailed to each restaurant owner/manager asking him to participate by completing the seven question, one-page questionnaire and return it in the enclosed envelope. The restaurants in this survey were selected to participate based on the following criteria: (1) primary function - preparing and serving food; and (2) inside seating for consuming prepared menu items. All completed questionnaires that indicated anything other than this, such as, 'bar' business only, 'carryout' business only, or 'outside' seating only, was used as justification for excluding the questionnaire from the survey. Of the 1,024 questionnaire packets mailed, 94 packets were returned by the postal service as undeliverable for a total of 930 questionnaire packeu actually being delivered. A total of 330 of the 930 questionnaires delivered were completed by the owner/manager or his designee and returned in response to this survey for a very respectable 35.$% return rate. Even with this impressive return rate, many of the well known local restaurants did not consider this health issue on secondhand smoke sufficiently urgent or of sufficient magnitude to donate a few minutes of their time to respond. A list of these restaurants will be provided upon request. It should also be noted that a few straggler questionnaires continue to be received which will reflect a slight increase on the above return rate. Forty-eight (48) of the 330 completed questionnaires returned did not satisfy the criteria mentioned above and, therefore, were not used in the survey. As shown on the an,tched summary sheet, the information taken from a total of 282 completed restaurant questionnaires was used to make the following de~erminatiom: A. The maximum seating capacity is 100 se~ts ~ kas in 58.95 (166/282) of the restaurants that B. The information requested on the questionnaire concerning the type of restam"ant must have been ambiguous and unclear to the respondent on how to answer this question. Six choices were provided on the questionnaire to assist the respondent in ~ecting the one choice that best described his particular business. Instead of interpreting the question in this fashion, many (100) respondents checked multiple choices which indicated a varie~3, of services provided. On each returned questionnaire showing more than one choice to describe the type of restaurant, one of the various choices marked by the ,.respondent was selected and used for this survey. The selection was based on a descriptive name, familiarity or outright guess. The maximum s~.ating capacity in each facility was ~lso given consideration in making the selection. The atuched summary shows 53.9% of the restaurant owners consider their eating establishment as a "sltdown with tables/booths" service; 27..3% as 'f~st food"; 7.4% each as 'count' service" and "coffee shop", and 3.9% as "buffet" ming establishments. A summa~'y of the information collected on specific restaurant smoking policies from two hundred ei~hty- two (282) respondents contributing to this survey are as follows: 1. Question: Is a non-smoking section provided for the patror~? If yes, what percent of your seating is non-smoking? Response: 59.6% (168/282) of the respondents said, Yes, non-smoking sections are provided for patrons. 35.1% (591168) of the restaurants that provide non-smoking sections for their patrons are 100% smoke-free. Each of the smoke-free restaurants are listed in Table I. 27.4% (46/168) of the respondents said their restaurants provide from 21% to 40% of the se~ting capacity to non-smokers. The remaining restaurants, two of which did not respond to this part of the question, provide non-smoking areas that range anywhere from 1% to 86% of the seating capacity. 2. Question: If the restaurant is 100% smoke-free, has becoming smoke-free: Hun business; Increased business; Not ~ffected business?. " Respome: 72.9% (43/59) of the restaurants that are 1005 smoke-free reported that becoming smoke-free has not affected business. 11.9% (7/59) of the restaurants reported business h~d Increased since becoming smoke-free while only 5 (8.S%) restaurants reported being smoke-free actually hurt their business. 3. Question: if your restaurant does not have a smoke-free policy, ate there plato to implement such a poi~c.~. Response: 62.8% (140/223) of the restaurants that ate not currently 100% smoke-free indicate they have no Intention of implementin~ a smoke-free policy. 23.8% of the respondents did not a~wer the question. Thirty (30) respondent~ reported they plan to implement a ~ policy in their restaurant at some future date. These restaurants are listed tn T~ble !1. Note: Many restaurant owners .would like to see legislation pa~d that will prevent smokin~ tn all restam'ants. A list of these restaurants is ~own in Table 111. 4. Question: Which do patrons request most ohm? Smoking; Non.~moking; First available table. Response: 34.4% (97/282) of the respondents said the question did not apply to their restatwant or they simply did not bother to answer the question. Another 31.2% (88/282) reported pan'om would take the first available table rather than wait for an open table in a smoking or non- smoking section of their choice. 20.2% (57/282) of the respondents said patrom request a mm.. smokinl section most often while a smokin~ section is requested most often in 14.2% of the Question: Is smoking allowed in the restroonu? If no, ate 'No Smoking" signs po~ed?. Response: 36.2% (102/282) of the respondents said, (No), they do not allow smoking in the 66.7% (68/102) of the restaurants that do not allow smoking in the restrooms have "No Smoking" signs posted. 6. Question: Are you aware that Prop 65 requires second-hand smoke (passive smoke) warning signs to be posted in restaurants that include smoking sections? Response: Slightly less than half (49~3%) of the restaurant owners/managers said, (Yes), they aze aware of the warning sign requirement of Prop 65. The a~ched summary also shows 40.4% of the respondents were not aware of Prop 65 and the remaining 10..3% did not answer the question. Note: Due to the many inquiries received from concerned restaurant owners regarding the warning sign on passive smoke, a letter, dated February 25, 1992, was mailed to each restaurant owner/manager who received the questionnaire providing them with information where the warning signs may be purchased. 7. Question: Are there cigarette vending machines? If yes, (a) Where is it located; and (b) Is it visible to employees? Response: Only 19.9~ (f56/282) of the restaurants that responded have cigarett~ vending machines on the premises. (a) Almost half or 4~.4% (26/1561) of the vending machines in restaurants are located nesr the mtranee; and (b) 83.9% (47/56) of the restaurants that have cigarette vending machines reported the. machines are visiblo to the employees. The questionnaire also provided a space for the owner/manager to make any comments that be/she might wish to share. These comments range from "I would like to see a law passed to prevent smoking in all public buildings" to "Please advertise that we let people smoke. (It's their right)." The survey comments are shown in Table IV. Atuchments pwo/restsrvy.wp cc: B.A. Jinaclu, M.D., M.P.H. Director of Public Health Services 100% S~OKE-Fi~I~I~ i~I~TAURANTS ~ii~ ~ S~i~ ~fi~d ~e~fi~d ~llege Sit ~ w~ ~fi~d R~egMe ~m T~lm~ ~el~r~ Sit ~ wi~ ~fi~ T~I~~ B~e~fieid College Sit ~ wi~ ~fi~d F~ S~i~ D~t. T~I~~ B~field Civic Sit ~ wi~ ~fi~d Li~t ~a T~I~~ P~'s Pollos Sit ~ wi~ ~fi~ T~I~ 2 ~m 4 ~'s ~exi~ Sit ~ wi~ ~fiMd R~ur~t T~I~~ J~e's ~igin~ Buff~ ~e~fi~d Tex-Mex Cafe The Guild Hous Sit Down with Bakersfield Tables/Booths Carl's Jr. Fast Food Bakersfield/ 8 Locatiolu Carl's Jr. Fast Food Lost Hiil~ Carl's Jr. Fast Food Buttonwillow Carl's Ir. Fast Food Mojave Carl's Jr, Fast Food Ridgecrest The Burger Hut Fast Food Bakersfield Cour~ide at Sit Downwith Bakersfield Laurelglen Tables/Booths TABLE I Page 2 NAME TYPE SERVlCE LOCA~ON Ara-S~'vices Buff~ Bak~'sfietd CSUB Corm TCBY ~un~ S~i~ B~fi~ 2 ~m Sub Stop F~t F~ ~fidd ~~'s F~y Sit ~ wi~ Cr~ T~lm~ 2 ~'s M~ Sit ~ wi~ B~fidd Ho~ T~lm~ ~e IW Rm~ur~ Sit ~ wi~ T~I~ 'T~ Fat S~wi~ Shop F~t F~ 2 Busy Bum F~t F~ B~e~fi~d ~e G~den S~t Buff~ B~fi~d Ta~ ~11 F~t F~ W~ Ta~ Bell F~t F~ ~1~ Giov~i's Count~ Se~i~ Sh~ Fmga~i's Sit ~ wi~ Sh~ T~lm~s ~ie's Ge~ D~i Coum~ Semice Frui~ Puk AII-~ Coum~ Se~i~ T~ S~wich Shop Bue~ Vista Coun~ S~i~ T~ ~if Shop, ~c. ~'s Mexi~ F~ Coff~ Shop T~ TABLE ! TYPE RVICE SR.O. Coun~ Service Tehac~api W~r's ~ F~t F~ T~i Yo~ PI~ C~n~ S~i~ T~i ~fily W~iie's F~t F~ K~ie ~ & R~ Count~ S~i~ ~g~t All N~r~ I~ Cr~ Ta~ ~! F~t F~ ~d~mt Sr. Nu~tion ~o~ Sit ~ wi~ T~lm~ Sr. Nu~ition ~o~ Sit ~ wi~ McF~I~ T~i~s Sr. Nu~ition ~o~ Sit ~ wi~ T~ T~i~s Sr. Nu~ition ~o~ Sit ~ wi~ C~if. Ci~ T~i~~ Sr. Nu~ition ~op~ Sit ~ wi~ Ridl~mt T~l~s Sr. Nu~ition ~o~ Sit ~ wi~ T~I~~ Sr. Nu~ition Pro~ Sit ~ wi~ Del~ Tabim~s Sr. Nu~ition ~ogr~ Sit ~ wi~ Bu~nw~low T~I~~ Sr. Nu~ition Prop~ Sit ~ wi~ W~ T~I~~ TABLE II P,F.,~"rA~ TI. LdkT ~ TO IblPLEM~ A S~q4OKE-FP, EE POI. JC*y Jack in the Box 3350 Stine Road Bakersf~kl Lamp~ Pizza 2104 N. Cheatn' Ave Bakmf~id Taco Bell 3921 Auburn Street Bakersf~td Joseph's 3013 F Sueet Bakernf~d Luigi's Cafe 725 E, 19th Strut Bakersfield Westchester Bowl 1819 30th Street l~kersfieid Coffee Shop Panda Express 2701 Ming Avenue l~ke~s~eld Grand China Restaurant 3770 Ming Avenue Bakers~eld Tavern on the Green 6218 Sundale Ave Bakersfield Tony's Pizza 1806 Cecil Avenue Delano Pagoda Inn 931 7th Street Wasco Taco Loco 11204 Main Street Lan~nt Reno's Coffee Shop 15834 Sierra l-lwy Mojave Kentucky Fried Chicken P.O. Box 466 lake Junk Food Junction/ 221 E. Ridgecrest Blvd Ridgecresx Bu~l'¥ Bath Der Wienerschnitzel 236 N. Chester Ave Bakersfield Mountain Mike's Pizza 2677 Mt. Vernon Ave B~ersfield Super Burrito Giant 804 Union Avenue Bakersfield J W House of Bar-B-Q 812 llth Stre~ B~rsfi~d Molly J's 6401 Ming Avenue Bakersfield Molly l's 3150 Panama Lane Bak~rsfi~d Milt's Coffee Shop. 6112 Knudsen Drive Burger King 2344 Girard Strm Delano Hahn's Restaurant 230 Kern Street T~ Casa Royal Cafe 281 'S. Union Ave Bakersfield Bear Mountain Pizza 393 Bear Mtn. Blvd Arvin Henry's Cafe 550 Tucker Road Tehachapi Kern Valley Golf Club P.O. Box 888 Kernville Shirley Meadows 1600 Rancheria Road Greenlx)m Mtn Ski Area Gentry's Texas BBQ 400 Inyokern Road Inyokern TABLE [] RESTA~ THAT MAY SUPPORT A NO SMOKING ORDINANCg Jostph's Restaurant 3013 F Street Bak~fidd Casa Munoz 1736 Union Avenue Baker~fi~kl Chuck E. Cheese's pir~a 3760 Ming Avenue Bakersfield Brinks Deli & Fine Wine 3803 Ming Avenue Bakersfield Spencer's Restaurant 10437 Rosedale Hwy Bakersfield Courtyard 3601 Marriott Street Bakersfield John's Pizza, Pasta, 384-350 W. Ridgecrest Ridgecrest & Ice Cream Molly J's 6401 Ming Avenue Bakersfield Molly J's 3150 Panama Lane Bakersfield Burger King 5120 Olive Drive Bakersfield/ 11 Locations Burger King 2101 Hwy 46 Wago Burger King 2344 Girard Street Delano Burger King 20673 Tracy Avenue Buttonwiilow Cattlemen's Restaurant 3731 Pierce Road Bakersfield White Elephant 621 Center Street TaR Brewer's Cafe 860 E. Tehachapi Blvd. Tehachapi , Reno's Coffee Shop 15834 Sierra Highway Mojave R. B.'s Whistle Stop 211 E. Tehachapi Blvd. Tehachapi Food For Thought 126 N. Balsam Street Ridgecrest Bar-B-Que Factory 3401 Chester Avenue Bakersfield Peter Piper pi.a 1505 Columbus Street Bakersfield Maria's 250 Oak Street Bakersfield Mexicali 631 lSth Street Bakersfield Stockdale Restaurant & 7001 Stockdale Hwy Bakersfield Cocktail Lounge McDonald's 2701 Ming Avenue Bakersfield Airpark Gaily & Grill 2000 S. Union Avenue Bakersfield Clark's Coffee Shop 8101 E. Brundage Lane Bakersfield Shirley Meadows 1600 Rancheria Road Greenhorn Mm Ski Area TABLE IV ~AURANT SUR~ CO~ 100% Smoke-Free Restaurants "We own a family restaurant and none of the family smokes. We don't allow smoking ~n our home md we won't allow it in our restaurant.' ~ 4M's Mexican Restaurant) 'It's ail volunteer and why should we have to suck in a Io~ of extra smoke.' (The Guild House) 'We have been in business 5 years. We have always been a no-smoking restaurant. (Sub-Stop) 'We are proud to be a 100% Non-smoking facility.'. (Courtside at l, aurelglen) 'We changed 15 months ago to non-smoking because of customer request and don't consider allowing smoking ever again." (Rosemary's Family Creamery) "l'm all for not allowing smoking in public places.' (Taco Bell - Wasco) "Any confined area should be no smoking. Since no smoking' implemented, restaurant smells like food instead of cigarettes. More good comments than bad with no smoking.' (Taco Bell - Deiano) 'I have a Deli Restaurant and because of the fresh meats and cheeses I am slicing there i~ no smoking in my place. People like it very much.' (Edie's German Deli) "I have had many customers say they eat here because of the 'No Smoking' policy.' (S.R.O. - Tehachapi) "We are happy to offer people a "clean' air', 'health food' alternative restaurant." (Yogurt Plaza) "Smoke-free restaurants will only hurt the business owners. Giving patzons a choice of seating is fair for all concerned.' (Al & Reed's All Natural Ice Cream) "No smoking has little bearing on our business. But, it is appreCiated by 'many customers.' (Taco Bell - Ridgecrest) "May the "power" be with you.' (Maitia's Basque) 'The money wasted on surveys such as these is foolish. We are a farm cafe - farms and farm-hands only!' (Beryl's Korner Cafe) '1005, smoke-free would reduce business, reduce staff and affect economics in the community.' (Picadilly Cafeteria) "We are implementing a non-smoking section but no customers have verbally asked for one. · (Rusty's Pizza Parlor) "Less restrictions would be good for business. · .(Lam's Chinese Restaurant) TABLE 13/ Page 2 Restaurants - No~ 100% Smoke-Free 'If ! were to tell people not to smoke, it would hurt my business. Meaning people would go else~ere to eat and smoke. If they were to pass a law stating that it is illegal to smoke in public places then it would be more acceptable. You see, my little business is not big enough to split into two sections (Smoking & Non-smoking). · (Corkey's Restaurant) 'I have been here for 28 years and the smoke has not bothered me yet." (Old Corral Cafe) "There should be No Smoking in all restaurants. Customers will not smoke if a law is passed like the same in supermarkets and stores." Ooseph's Italian Restaurant) 'Stop making business responsible! Sust pass a law making smoking illegal in public and commercial properties. You enforce it!' (John Baxter Smith) 'We have installed ionizen in our air conditioning systems and it keeps the air very clean.' (Clmeau Basque) · I would like a law to pass to make all restaurants Non-Smoking.' (Casa Munoz) 'I am a non-smoker and would prefer a non-smoking restaurant. However, the majority of guests smoke and even give me a hard time about the no smoking areas.· (Chuck E. Cheese's Pizza) 'I feel that people should consider other's rights as well as feelings of others.' (Bakers Squ~re Restaurant) 'I would like to see a Non-Smoking law passed for all restaurants in Kern County.' (Brinks Deli & Fine Wine) 'We have installed two large electric smoke eaters.' (Tavern On The Green) 'Informal surveys conducted with both employees and customers indicate approximately 35% of employees and 25% of customers strongly object to a Smoke-Free Agreement proposal. Although I (owner) personally would much prefer a smoke-free environment, l'm reluctant to unilaterally make that decision based upon our input.' (Burger King) 'Why don't we just pass legislation to prohibit smoking in public places, then the individual doesn't have to be the bad guy.' (Spencer's Restaurant) 'It' the city or state would pass an ordinance to prevent smoking in public restaurants, we would be more than happy to comply.' (Courtyard) 'We need a no smoking law in restaurants. We have problems breathing in this passive smoke.' (Cattlemen's Restaurant) TABLE 1~ Page 3 Restaurants - Not 100% S~lok~-Free 'Very few of our dining room customers smoke so we have been able to eliminate segregated areas.' 0Vhite Elephants Steak House - TX) .. 'When we first opened IhM a no smokin,~ policy. Many people let me know they don't buy from 'no .smoking' establishments. One couple was so an~/they'd park in front of our door to eat acro~ the strew. They would empty their ashtray at our door. (It has been six months and they still do this!) Now, I just keep a couple ashtrays behind the counter for customers who ask. That way I try not to encourage smoking, but I honestly can not afford to alienate people. My business is new and just barely makin~ it. Since I didn't know about the si~n I need to post it. I don't like cigarettes anymore than you do." (Burrito King - Taft) 'I feel by not being able to smoke'would hur~ my business a ~'eat deal. This is a free country, isn't (Big John's - Frazier Park) "Mr. Owen & I neither one smoke. I never have & he quit 30 years a~o. Our a~es are 73 & 67 respectively, a~l both in very good health. I try to encourage people to quit but it has to be a person~ own choice. By the way, more people are killed by automobiles. Why don't we ban them too?" (Freddie's Eden Roc Country) '1 haven't had any complaints about smokers or had ~nyone ask me about a non-smoking section.' (Alex T & W Family Restaurant) 'We have a large smoke removal system. My customers ale largely truck drivers, 90~ smoke." (The Scotsman Restaurant) 'Will be h~ppy when and if Kern County goes smoke-free. · (Brewer's Cafe - Tehachapi) "We never have complaints because of smoking. · (Domingo's - Boron) 'Our 4 smokee~er units, one in each room, absorb all the smoke keeping the air fresh and clean.' 0/ilia Basque - Rosamond) "1 would be in favor of no smoking in ali public places i.e. restaurants, but I have a bar & that would be a problem. · (Reno's Coffee Shop - Mojave) "I do not smoke and do not like to be around it either - but I also don't like telling my customers that they can't smoke. My employees must go outside to smoke but .currently I don't have any that are smokers." (R.B.'s Whistle Stop - Tehachapi) 'Due to the small size of the dining area, a non-smoking section is not possible.' (Kentuc~ Fried Chicken - Lake Isabella) "Every effort is being made to minimize harmful effects by air conditioning and filtration.' (Elk's Lodge - Wofford Heights) TABLE IV PRe 4 Restaurants - No~ 1~% Smoke-Free 'We would love non-smoking, a lot of our customers complain if someone smokes durin~ lunch and dinner. Unfortunately a Io~ of very regulars would go elsewhere if they could not smoke.' (Food For Tbought) · It would be ~reat if you could ~ue a policy prohibiting smoking in any restaurant. · (John's Pizza, Pasta, & Ice Cream) 'Smoking should not 'be allowed in restaurants.' (Bar-B Que-Factory) "We'have two smoke eaters and high ceilings that keep the air clean.' (Corner Pocket Family Billiards) 'Stop producing cigarettes and pay the companies from taxes for once and all.' (Mountain Mike's Pizza) · Would support a smoke-free policy for all restaurants. · (Peter Piper Pizza) "We have a sign that asl~ patrons to please not smoke. We have removed all ash trays from tables so patrons must ask for one. We no longer have matches as advertisement. · (Maria's Mexican Restaurant) 'If all restaurants were made non-smoking then no restaurant would have an economic advantage or disadvantage over the other. We belong to the California Restaurant Association which advocates making all restaurants (food serving establishments) non-smoking. If this were so, patrons would not base their choice of eating establishment on this controversial issue. Speaking only for ~, most or more than 3/4 of my customers are smokers, and making Mexicali entirely non-smoking would certainly cause me to lose business.' (Mexicali) 'Customers would go somewhere else to eat if I made the restaurant non-smoking." (Canton Chow Mein) 'I do not have such a policy nor do I want one. My restaurant is to small to segregate. · (Clock Coffee Shop) "On a recent survey only 9% of our membership smoke.' (Stockdale Restaurant & Cocktail Lounge) 'We give the people a choice." (Perko's) 'All public buildings should be no-smoking. If they want to smoke it should be in the open air." (McDonald's) 'At this time we can't afford to implement a smoke free policy in both our restaurants. We will fully support any bill or initiative that stops smoking in all public places.· (Molly J's) 'Laws, smoking or non-smoking sections are not necessary. Customers make their own choices by fi'equenting restaurants with amenities they desire.' (Milt's Coffee Shop) "It would greatly effect our business if there were a no smoking law passed. · (Taco Factory - Delano) TABLE IV Pa~e 5 Restaurants - Not 100% Smoke-Free fConO 'If smoking were prohibited it would greatly hurt our business!' (L.R.'s Pizza - Delano) 'As a non-smoker and 50% owner, I would love it if we could be a non-smoking restaurant. I feel that it would be detrimental to our business if we to prohibit smoking without the backing of legislation to require it, however. I do feel that little progress is going to be made in the area of tobacco education until the Government stops subsidizing the industry and the industry becomes responsible to the people who have become addicted to their product. · (Ah'park Galley and Grill) "County should pass a non-smoking ordinance applicable to ali dining establishments." (Clark's Coffee ShoP) 'We would like to have non-smoking anywhere. · (Shirley Meadows Ski Area - Greenhorn Mm.) 'Please advertise that we let people smoke. (It's their right)· (Eilie's Dart Pub '- Inyokern) "We find customers that smoke are aware of their neighbor customer and many will leave the dining room and return to the Bar to have a cigarette. · (Pyrenees Cafe) 'No ashu'ays are provided in the dining area. An ashtray is only made visible if patron requests.' (Sub- marine - Ridgecrest) Pwo/restsrvy.wp 'EEI3l COUI?! gES?&UL~I? SUEVE! -- FEBRUAiT ]99! APE[L Zl, 199Z ................................... mo. O! FAS? COURTBi liEPOKli FOOD (I) 80FFrr (l) 8Al (ti SiBV[CE (ti ?ABL~/8OO?U ~fAUEANT ....................... 102-- ?7 2?4 --11 ).9 ................... ~,~ .............. ~1 .......... i:~ .......... ]52 53.9 2] ?.4 ......................................... IQ. or NO IKSPOISiS i-lO0 (il IOl-lO0 (Ii 201-300 (ti 301-400 (t) 401-600 (Ii iKSFON$1 (~] SEATING CAPA~[?~ ............ : ................... 202 166 58.9 61 21.6 ...... i4 ........... 5.0 ......... ¢ 1,4 ! 2,5 30 10,6 K. or FOR PATiONS? I0. OF KO ....................... R~SPORSRS 8USZRRSS Itl Bus[#RS$ (t) RUSIW£SS {ti UWIWOW~ (%} ~£SPONS£ (K} · ~, {F THE RESTAURA#T {S 100% S#O[8-FgEE, 5~ 5 8,5 ! ]1.9 43 _72..) .. 2 . . 3.4 ......... 2 3,4 WO. OF NO IESPONSES YES ..... 8Uti A PO~LCY? ............................... FIRST ~ ' . ...... ~_Q~ NON- AVAILABLE N/A - N0 ...... ' ' RBSPOI$88 SWOt[IG (~] $~OIIIG (ti "~ABLE ...........(fY ~ESP0NSE -' (t) 4, ¥K¢~ D0 PATIO#$ iE~U~ST ~OST OFTEN? lee .... {0 . _]t,~ ....... ~!._ .20.2 88 31.! 9? 34.4 ............................................... .. N~,. OF NO NO, Or #HA - NO ARE TOO AYARE THAT PEOP 65 EEGU[~HS SRCOHD ' -28Z ...... ~'J~ .......... i'~i .........~4 -- i~.i 29 IO.i lAiD S#Oli (PA$$IVK SNOl~l YAB#ZHG I0, or iilPOIIl$ TiS (11 IO .............................. Ir Tis: HHSPOBiH$ iitoqCi JiB iiStlOOi$ (lB alit (ti TUFF[C VAT I10. OF MO B. [$ Et VISABgE TO ENPLOYE£$? 56 l! 83.~ 6 10.7 3 ............................................... flAIlED UNDE~ .... (~l DBAL[Y~ NOT ~ ........ 8. USPOi~i ~AT£: 1,014 il J.2 9~0 48 2~! ~5.$ 5g Cit¥1ink 6/2/92 In bill text, brackets have special meaning: [A> <A] contains added text, and [D> <D] contains deleted text. Amended AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 21, 1992 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 1, 1992 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 25, 1992 ASSEMBLY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT No. 39 Introduced by Assembly Member O'Connell [A> (Principal coauthor: Assembly Member Umberg) <A] (Coauthors: Assembly Members Bane, Clute, Collins, Epple, Ferguson, Filante, Nolan, Peace, [D> Umberg, <D] and Woodruff) (Coauthors: Senators Bergeson, Killea, Leslie, and Vuich) February 10, 1992 Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 39--A resolution to propose to the people of the State of California an amendment to the Constitution of the State, by amending Section 4 of Article XiIIA thereof, relating to taxation. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST ACA 39, as amended, O'C°nnell. Local taxes [D> , <D] [A> and <A] assessments [D> , and fees <D] . o The California Constitution authorizes cities, counties, and special districts to impose special taxes by a 2/3 vote of their electors, except ad valorem taxes on real property or transaction taxes on the sale of real property. T~is measure would require cities, counties, and special districts to provide [D> 90 <D] [A> 60 <A] days' public notice and to conduct at least 2 public hearings before adopting any new [D> or <D] [A> , <A] increased [A> , or decreased <A] general tax, or any new [D> or <D] [A> , <A] increased [A> , or decreased ~A] assessment. Vote: .2/3. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. State-mandated local program: no. Resolved by the Assembly, the Senate concurring, That the Legislature of the State of California at its 1991-92 Regular Session commencing on the third day of December 1990, tWo-thirds of the members elected to each of the two houses of the Legislature voting therefor, hereby proposes to the people of the State of California that the Constitution of the State be amended by amending Section 4 of Article XIIIA thereof, to read: SEC. 4. (a) Cities, counties, and special districts, by a two-thirds vote of the qualified electors of the city, county, or district, may impose special taxes within the city, county, or district, except ad valorem taxes on real property or a transaction tax or sales tax on the sale of real property within the city, county, or special district. (b) Before adopting any new [D> or increased <D] [A> , increased, or decreased <A] general tax or any new [D> or increased <D] [A> , increased, or decreased <A] assessment, cities, counties, and special districts shall provide [D> 90 <D] [A> 60 <A] days' public notice and conduct at least two noticed public hearings regarding the proposed new [D> or increased tax, assessment, or fee <D] [A> , increased, or decreased tax or assessment <A] . The Legislature shall prescribe the manner in which notice is given and hearings are conducted pursuant to this subdivision. The requirements imposed by this~ subdivision shall be construed as additional to, and not to supersede, any existing provisions of law. END OF REPORT Cit¥1ink 6/2/92 In bill text, brackets have special meaning: [A> <A] contains added text, and [D> <D] contains deleted text. Amended AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 12, 1992 AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 20, 1992 AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 6, 1992 SENATE BILL No. 1977 Introduced by Senator Bergeson February 21, 1992 An act to amend Section 54960.1 of, and to add Section 54954.5 to, the Government Code, relating to public meetings. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST SB 1977, as amended, Bergeson. Local taxes and assessments: public meetings. The existing Ralph M. Brown Act requires legislative bodies of local agencies to give mailed notice of every regular meeting to any person who has filed a written request for that notice, and to post at least 72 hours before a regular meeting an agenda containing a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting. Any member of a legislative body who attends a meeting of the legislative body where action is taken in violation of any provision of the act, with knowledge of the fact that the meeting is in violation thereof, is guilty of a misdemeanor. This bill would amend the act to require the legislative body of any city, county, or special district [D> to provide 60 days' public notice in a specified manner and to conduct at least 2 public hearings <D] [A> , <A] before adopting any new or increased general tax or any new or increased assessment [A> , to conduct at least one public meeting, with 45 days' notice, regarding the proposed new or increased general tax or new or increased public assessment in addition to the noticed public meeting at which the legislative body proposes to enact or increase the-general tax or assessment <A] It would also authorize any interested person to commence court action to obtain a determination that an action taken by a legislative body of a local agency in violation of the bill is null and void. 2 This bill would not become operative unless and until ACA 39 is adopted by the voters at a statewide election and takes effect. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. State-mandated local program: no. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: SECTION 1. Section 54954.5 is added to the Government Code, to read: 54954.5. (a) Before adopting any new or increased general tax or any new or increased assessment [D> or fee <D] , the legislative body of a city, county, or special district shall [D> provide 60 days' public notice and conduct at least two noticed public hearings regarding the proposed new or increased general tax or new or increased assessment. <D] [A> conduct at least one public hearing regarding the proposed new or increased general tax or new or increased assessment in addition to the noticed public meeting at which the legislative body proposes to enact or increase the general tax or assessment. The legislative body shall provide 45 days' public notice of that public meeting. <A] (b) The notice [A> of the public meeting <A] required by subdivision (a) with respect to a proposal for a new or increased general tax shall be accomplished by Placing a display advertisement of at least one-eighth page in a newspaper of general circulation for three weeks pursuant to Section 6063 and by a first-class mailing to those interested parties who have filed a written request with the local agency for mailed notice of public meetings.or hearings on new or increased general taxes. Any written . request for mailed notices shall be effective for one year from the date on which it is filed unless a renewal request is filed. Renewal requests for mailed notices shall be filed on or before April 1 of each year. The legislative body may establish a reasonable annual charge for sending notices based on the estimated cost of providing the service. (c) The notice [A> of the public meeting <A] required by subdivision (a) with respect to a proposal for a new or increased assessment on real property~ shall be accomplished through a first-class mailing, postage prepaid, in the United States mail and shall be deemed given when so deposited. This mailed notice shall b~ given to all property owners by a mailing to those persons whose names and addresses appear on the last equalized county assessment roll or the State Board of Equalization assessment roll, as the case may be. (d) The notice requirements imposed by this section shall be construed as additional to, and not to supersede, existing provisions of law, and shall be applied concurrently with the existing provisions so as to not delay or prolong the governmental 3 decisionmaking process. SEC. 2. Section 54960.1 of the Government Code is amended to read: 54960.1. (a) Any interested person may commence an action by mandamus or injunction for the purpose of obtaining a judicial determination that an action taken by a legislative body of a local agency in violation of Section 54953, 54954.2, 54954.5, or 54956 is null and void under this section. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent a legislative body from curing or correcting an action challenged pursuant to this section. (b) Prior to any action being commenced pursuant to subdivision (a), the interested person shall make a demand of the legislative body to cure or correct the action alleged to have been taken in violation of Section 54953, 54954.2, 54954.5, or 54956. The demand shall be in writing and clearly describe the challenged action of the legislative body and nature of the alleged violation. The written demand shall be made within 30 days from the date the action was taken. Within 30 days of receipt of the demand, the legislative body shall cure or correct the challenged action and inform the demanding party in writing of its actions to cure or correct or inform the demanding party in writing of its decision not to cure or correct the challenged action. If the legislative body takes no action Within the 30-day period, the inaction shall be deemed a decision not to cure or correct the challenged action, and the 15-day period to commence the action described in subdivision (a) shall commence to run the day after the 30-day period to cure or correct expires. Within 15 days of receipt of the written notice of the legislative body's decision to cure or correct, the expiration of the 30-day period to cure or correct, or not to cure or correct, within 15 days of or within 75 days from the date the challenged action was taken, whichever is earlier, the demanding party shall be required to commence the action pursuant to subdivision (a) or thereafter be barred from commencing the action. (c) An action taken that is alleged to have been taken in violation of Sections 54953, 54954.2, and 54956 shall not be determined to be null and void if any of the following conditions exist: (1) The action taken was in substantial compliance with Sections 54953, 54954.2, and 54956. (2) The action taken was in connection with the sale or issuance of notes, bonds, or other evidences of indebtedness or any contract, instrument, or agreement thereto. 4 (3) The action taken gave rise to a contractual obligation, including a contract, let by competitive bid, upon which a party has, in good faith, detrimentally relied. (4) The action taken was in conneCtion with the collection of any tax. (d) During any action seeking a judicial determination pursuant to subdivision (a) if the court determines, pursuant to a showing by.the legislative body that an action alleged to have been taken in violation of Section 54953, 54954.2, 54954.5, or 54956 has been cured or corrected by a subsequent action of the legislative body, the action filed pursuant to subdivision (a) shall be dismissed with prejudice. (e) The fact that a legislative body takes a subsequent action to cure or correct an action taken pursuant to this section shall not be construed or admissible as evidence of a violation of this chapter. SEC. 3. This act shall not become operative unless and until Assembly Constitutional Amendment 39 is adopted by the voters at a statewide election and takes effect. END OF REPORT Citylink 6/2/92 .In bill text, brackets have special meaning: [A> <A] contains added text, and [D> <D] contains deleted text. AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 27, 1992 AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 21, 1992 AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 21, '1992 AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 6, 1992 AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 23, 1992 SENATE BILL No. 1538 Introduced by Senators Kopp, Ayala, Davis, Johnston, Keene, Marks, and Rosenthal (Principal coauthor: Assembly Member Connelly) (Coauthors: Assembly Members Conroy, Elder, Terry Friedman, Filante, and Nolan) February 18, 1992 An act to amend Sections 54951.7, 54952.2, 54952.3, 54953, 54953.5, 54954, 54954.2, 54954.3, 54956.9, 54957, 54957.1, 54957.2, 54957.5, 54957.6, 54957.7, 54959, 54960.1, 54960.5, and 54961 of, to amend and renumber Sections 54952.5, 54952.6, and 54952.7 of, and to add Sections [D> 54952.1, <D] 54952.5, 54952.6, 54953.6, 54954.5, 54955.2, and 54963 to, the Government Code, relating to open meetings. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST SB 1538, as amended, Kopp. Open meetings of local government. The Ralph M. Brown Act generally requires that the meetings of the legislative bodies of local agencies, as those terms are defined, be conducted openly, with specified exceptions. Among other things, the act makes certain notice requirements concerning public meetings and makes it a misdemeanor for a member of a legislative body to attend a meeting where a violation occurs with knowledge of the fact that the meeting violates the act. Under existing law, local agency, for purposes of the Ralph M. Brown Act, includes any nonprofit corporation created by one or more local agencies having members on its board of directors with the purpose of making or operating any public work project. This bill would define public work project to include any structure or infrastructure improvement, and its associated services and activities intended for public rather than private 2 benefit. [D>· The Ralph M. Brown Act defines legislative body to include any body on which officers of a local agency serve in their official capacity as members and which is supported by funding from that local agency. <D] [D> This bill would define official capacity as including, but not limited to, service by one or more members of a legislative body on any advisory committee or task force created for the purpose of, or is responsible for, recommending action to be considered by the legislative body. <D] The Ralph M. Brown Act [D> also <D] defines legislative body as any multimember body which exercises any authority of a legislative body of a local agency delegated to it by that l'egislative body. This bill would specify that such a body that exercises any material authority of a legislative body of a local agency delegated to it is a legislative body whether it is organized and operated by a local agency or by a private corporation specifically created to exercise the delegated authority. The Ralph M. Brown Act defines legislative body to include an advisory body of a local agency. This bill would require an advisory body to post an agenda for its meetings in the manner required of the body it advises, thereby imposing a state,mandated local program. The bill would exclude a limited duration ad hoc committee from the definition of legislative body but would include any standing committee of a governing body irrespective of its composition. This bill would also define legislative body to include the body-elect resulting from the election to incorporate a municipality or other local agency and would define a member of a legislative body of a local agency as any person who has been elected to serve as a member of a legislative body but has not yet assumed the duties of office. The Ralph M. Brown Act generally requires all meetings of the legislative body of a local agency to be open and public. This bill would define "meeting," with exceptions, as any congregation of a majority of the members of a legislative body in the same time and place to hear, discuss, or deliberate upon any item within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body or its local agency, and any use of direct communication, personal intermediaries, or technological devices permitting a majority of the members to become aware of an item within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body or the local agency where the purpose or effect is to develop a collective concurrence as to action to be taken on that item. 3 Existing law requires all meetings of the legislative body of a local agency shall be open and public with specified exceptions. This bill would prohibit a legislative body from taking action by secret ballot. The Ralph M. Brown Act permits recording of open and public meetings by any person. This bill would make any recording made at the direction of a local agency a public record under the California Public Records Act, as specified. The bill would also provide that no legislative body shall prohibit or otherwise restrict the broadcast of its proceedings in the absence of a reasonable finding that the broadcast cannot be accomplished without disruption. Under the Ralph M. Brown Act, meetings of the legislative body of a local agency need not be held within the boundaries of the territory over which the agency exercises jurisdiction. If an emergency makes the designated meeting place unsafe the presiding officer may designate a meeting place for the duration of the emergency. This bill would require meetings to be held within the boundaries of the territory of the agency, with limited exceptions, and would permit the presiding officer's designee to designate an emergency meeting place. The Ralph M. Brown Act requires the posting of an agenda at least 72 hours before a regular meeting of a legislative body briefly describing each item of business and restricts action or discussion of the meeting to these items on the agenda, unless, by at least a 2/3 vote, as specified, the legislative body decides there is a need for action on a nonagenda item. This bill would revise the content of that description and would permit members of a legislative body. to respond to certain questions not relating to agenda items. This bill would make further restrictions on the discussion or action on nonagenda items. The Ralph M. Brown Act requires the agenda for a regular meeting to provide an opportunity for members of the public, to address the legislative body. This bill would require the agenda for a special meeting at which action is proposed to be taken on an item to provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body prior to action on the item. The bill would further require the legislative body not to abridge or prohibit constitutionally 4 protected speech, including, but not limited to, public criticism of the agency, as specified. This bill would also prescribe disclosures of the nature of closed sessions according to a specified format. Existing law specifies the circumstances requiring a notice of the adjournment or continuance of a meeting to be made and posted. This bill would further require that the notice of adjournment or continuance be given to the news media as specified thereby imposing a state-mandated local program. The Ralph M. Brown Act permits closed sessions of a legislative body to confer with, or receive advice from, its legal counsel regarding pending litigation when discussion in open session would prejudice the position of the local agency in the litigation and describes the circumstances which constitute pending litigation. The act requires the legal counsel, to prepare a memorandum concerning the reasons and legal authority for the closed session. This bill would specify that litigation shall not be deemed pending if contingent on some future action of the legislative body, as specified. [A> The bill would provide that statements made by legal counsel in open session as to the potential litigation consequences of actions not yet taken shall be privileged and inadmissible in any proceeding without the consent of the legislative body, as specified. <A] The bill would delete the memorandum requirement. Under the Ralph M. Brown Act, closed sessions may be held for various reasons, including matters relating to employees, as defined, and to discuss matters of national security. This bill would delete the national security exception for closed meetings, and would revise the definition of employee to exclude any elected official, member of a legislative body, or person providing services to the local agency as an independent contractor or the employee of an independent contractor. The Ralph M. Brown Act requires the legislative body to publicly.report closed session actions taken and roll call votes to appoint, employ, or dismiss a public employee. This bill would instead require the legislative body to publicly report any action taken in closed session and the vote or abstention of every member present on real estate negotiations, litigation and pending litigation issues, claims for various liability losses, various personnel actions, and certain collective bargaining matters. The bill would prescribe how the reports are to be made and would require a brief statement of the information to 5 be posted, as specified, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program. The Ralph M. Brown Act permits a legislative body to keep a minute book of the topics discussed and decisions made at closed sessions available only to the members, or the courts if a violation of the Ralph M. Brown Act is alleged to have occurred. This bill would require any legislative body of a local agency to cause all discussion in every closed session to be audiotaped and to preserve the 'tape for 150.days, commencing when a tape recorder, if the agency does not have one, and sufficient tapes, or funds therefor, are donated. [A> The contents of a tape recording would be privileged and inadmissible in evidence in any proceeding, with specified exceptions. <A] The recordings would not be public records but, if there is reasonable cause to believe a violation has occurred, would be subject to subpoena by the district attorney or the grand jury, subject to discovery in a civil action, and examination by the superior court in camera regarding potential violations of the Ralph M. Brown Act. Under the Ralph M. Brown Act, agendas and writings distributed to members of the legislative body by persons connected with the body for discussion or consideration at a public meeting of the body are public records unless specifically exempt from public disclosure. This bill would specify that writings intended for distribution to members by any person in connection with a matter subject to discussion or consideration at a public meeting are public records, and would specify that writings intended for distribution prior to commencement of a public meeting are public records, whether or not actually distributed to, or received by, the legislative body at the time of request for copying. The Ralph M. Brown Act permits closed sessions of a legislative body with the local agency's designated representatives regarding the salaries, salary schedules, or compensation paid in the form of fringe benefits of its represented and unrepresented employees. This bill would restrict those closed sessions to periods prior to and during active consultation and discussion between the local agency's designated representatives and the representatives of employee organizations or the unrepresented employees. The Ralph M. Brown Act requires the legislative body to state the general reason or reasons for holding any closed session prior to or after holding the closed session. This bill would require the reasons to be stated prior to holding the closed session and would specify the format for the statements. 6 Under the Ralph M. Brown Act, each member of a legislative body who attends a meeting of the body where action is taken in violation of the act with knowledge that the meeting violates the act is guilty of a misdemeanor. This bill would instead provide that each member who attends or participates in a meeting of the body where action is taken in violation of specified provisions of the act is guilty of an infraction and subject to specified fines. This bill, by revising the definition of the above crime, by enlarging the number of persons and bodies subject to the Ralph M. Brown Act, and by revising the definition of a meeting elsewhere in the bill would enlarge the scope of existing crimes and would create new crimes and would thereby impose a state-mandated local program. The Ralph M. Brown Act permits any interested person to commence an action by mandamus or injunction to obtain a judicial determination that an action taken by a legislative body in violation of specified provisions of the act is null and void. However, a prior demand must first be made of the legislative body to cure or correct the alleged violation. This bill would expressly permit the district attorney to commence an action and would provide that any such alleged violation taken with sufficient secrecy to prevent its reaching public attention within 30 days is subject to immediate challenge upon discovery without demand for cure or correction. The bill would also specify that such an action is null, void, and unenforceable ab initio and its subject matter may not be addressed by subsequent action of members who participated in the action. The Ralph M. Brown Act permits a court to award court costs and reasonable attorney fees to the plaintiff where the court has found that the legislative body has violated the act, and to a defendant where the defendant prevailed in a final determination of the action and the'court finds the action clearly frivolous and totally lacking in merit. This bill would require the court to make those awards. The bill would prohibit the conduct of meetings or functions in facilities inaccessible to wheelchairs or that require members of the public to make a payment or purchase. The bill would prohibit a legislative body'from adopting or enforcing any rule to penalize or discoUrage the free speech of its members, as specified. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by 7 the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement, including the creation of a State Mandates Claims Fund to pay the cost of mandates that do not exceed $1,000,000 statewide and other procedures for claims whose statewide costs exceed $1,000,000. This bill would provide that for certain costs no reimburSement is required by this act for a specified reason. However, the bill would provide that if the Commission on State Mandates determines that this bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs' shall be made pursuant to those statutory procedures and, if the statewide cost does not exceed $1,000,000, shall be made from the State Mandates Claims Fund. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: yes. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: SECTION 1. Section 54951.7 of the Government Code is amended to read: 54951.7. "Local agency" includes any nonprofit corporation, created by one or more local agencies, any one of the members of whose board of directors is appointed by the local agencies and which is formed to acquire, construct, reconstruct, maintain or operate any public work project. For the purposes of this section, "public work project" includes any structure or infrastructural improvement, and its associated services and activities, intended for public rather than private benefit. [D> SEC. 2. Section 54952.1 is added to the Government Code, to read: <D] [D> 54952.1. "Official capacity," as used in Section 54952, includes, but is not limited to, service by one or more members of a legislative body on any advisory committee or task force created . for the purpose of, or responsible for, recommending action to be considered by the legislative body. <D] SEC. 3. Section 54952.2 of the Government Code is amended to read: 54952.2. As used in this chapter, "legislative body" also means any board, commission, committee, or similar multimember body which exercises any material authority of a legislative body of a local agency delegated to it by that legislative body whether the board, commission, committee, or other body is organized and operated by the local agency or by a private corporation specifically Created to exercise the delegated authority. SEC. 4. Section 54952.3 of the Government Code is amended to read: 8 54952.3. As used in this chapter "legislative body" also includes any advisory commission, advisory committee or advisory body of a local agency, created by charter, ordinance, resolution, or by any similar formal action of a legislative body or member of a legislative body of a local agency. Meetings of those advisory commissions, committees or bodies concerning subjects which do not require an examination of facts and data outside the territory of the local agency shall'be held · within the territory of the local agency and shall be open and public, and notice thereof mUst be delivered personally or by mail at least 24 hours before the time of the meeting to each person who has requested, in writing, notice of the meeting. If the advisory commission, committee or body elects to provide for the holding of regular meetings, it shall provide by bylaws, or by whatever other rule is utilized by that advisory body for the conduct of its business, for the time and place for holding regular meetings. No notice of regular meetings, other than the posting of an agenda pursuant to Section 54954.2 in the place used by the legislative body that it advises, is required. "Legislative body" as defined in this section does not include a limited duration ad hoc committee composed solely of members of the governing body of a local agency which are less than a quorum of the governing body but does include any standing committee of a governing body irrespective of its composition. The provisions of Sections 54954, 54955, and 54955.1 shall not apply to meetings under this section. SEC. 5. Section 54952.5 of the Government Code is amended and renumbered to read: 54952.4. As used in this chapter "legislative body" also includes, but is not limited to, planning commissions, library boards, recreation commissions, and other permanent boards or commissions of a local agency. SEC. 6. Section 54952.5 is added to the Government Code, to read: 54952.5. As used in this chapter, "member of a legislative body of a local agency" includes, but is not limited to, any person who has been elected to serve as a member of a legislative body, but has not yet assumed the duties of office. SEC. 7. Section 54952.6 of the Government Code is amended and renumbered to read: 54952.7. As used in this chapter, "action taken" means a collective decision made by a majority of the members of a 9 legislative body, a collective commitment or promise by a majority of the members of a legislative body to make a positive or a negative decision, or an actual vote by a majority of the members of a legislative body when sitting as a body or entity, upon a motion, proposal, resolution, order or ordinance. SEC. 8. Section 54952.6 is added to the Government Code, to read: 54952.6. (a) As used in this chapter, "meeting" includes all of the following: (1) Any congregation of a majority of the members of a legislative body in the same time and place to hear, discuss, or deliberate upon any item that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body or the local agency to which it pertains. (2) Any use of direct communication, personal intermediaries, or technological devi~es that permits a majority of the members of the legislative body to become aware of an item that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body or the local agency, and where the purpose or effect of the use is to develop a collective concurrence as to action to be taken on that item by the members of the legislative body. (b) Nothing in subdivision (a) shall impose the requirements of this chapter upon any of the following: '(1) Individual contacts or conversations between a member of a legislative body and a constituent. (2) The attendance of a majority of the members of a legislative body at general conferences that are open to the public, that involve a discussion of broad issues, and that are attended by a broad spectrum of officials from a variety of government agencies, provided that a majority of the members do not discuss among themselves business of a specific nature that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body of the local agency. Nothing in this paragraph is intended to allow members of the public free admission to a general conference at which conference organizers have required'other participants or registrants to pay fees or charges as a condition of attendance. (3) The attendance of a majority of the members of a legislative body at an open and publicized meeting organized' to address a topic of local community concern by a person or organization other than the local agency, provided that a majority of the members do not discuss among themselves business of a specific nature that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body of the local agency. 10 (4) The attendance of a majority of the members at a purely social or ceremonial occasion, provided that a majority of the members do not discuss among themselves business of a specific nature that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body of the local agency. SEC. 9. Section 54952.7 of the Government Code is amended and renumbered to read: 54952.8. A legislative body of a local agency may require that a copy of this chapter be given to each member of the legislative body. An elected legislative body of a local agency may require that a copy of this chapter be given to each member of each legislative body all or a majority of whose members are appointed by or under the authority of the elected legislative body. SEC. 10. Section 54953 of the Government Code is amended to read: 54953. (a) All meetings of the legislative body of a local agency shall be open and public, and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of the legislative body of a local agency, except as otherwise provided in this chapter. (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the legislative body of a local agency may use video teleconferencing for the benefit of the public or the legislative body of a local agency in connection with any meeting or proceeding authorized by law. The use of video teleconferencing, as authorized by this chapter, shall be limited to the receipt of public comment or testimony by the legislative body and to deliberations of the legislative body. If the legislative body of a local agency elects to use video teleconferencing, it shall post agendas at all video teleconference locations and adopt reasonable regulations to adequately protect the statutory or constitutional rights of the parties or the public appearing before the legislative body of a local agency. The term "video teleconference" shall mean a system which provides for both audio and visual participation between all members of the legislative body and the public attending a meeting or hearing at any video teleconference location. (c) No legislative body shall take action by secret ballot, whether preliminary or final. This section shall remain in effect until January 1, 1994, and on that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, which is chaptered before January 1, 1994, deletes or extends that date. SEC. 10.5. Section 54953 of the Government Code is amended to read: 54953. All meetings of the legislative body of a local agency 11 shall be open and public, and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of the legislative body of a local agency, except as otherwise provided in this chapter. No legislative body shall take action by secret ballot, whether preliminary or final. This section shall become operative January 1, 1994. SEC. 11. Section 54953.5 of the Government Code is amended to read: 54953.5. Any person attending an open and public meeting of a legislative body of a local agency shall have the right to record the proceedings with an audio or video tape recorder or a still or motion picture camera in the absence of a reasonable finding of the legislative body of the local agency that the recording cannot continue without noise, illumination, or obstruction of view that constitutes a persistent disruption of the proceedings. Any tape or film record of these proceedings made for whatever purpose by or at the direction of the local agency shall not be erased or destroyed if a request for inspection or copying has been made, until the requested inspection or copying has been accomplished. Any inspection of a video or tape recording shall be provided without charge on a tape recorder made available by the local agency. SEC. 11.5. Section 54953.6 is added to the Government Code, to read: 54953.6. No legislative body shall prohibit or otherwise restrict the broadcast of its proceedings in the absence of a reasonable finding that the broadcast cannot be accomplished without noise, illumination, or obstruction of view that would constitute a persistent disruption of the proceedings. SEC. 12. Section 54954 of the Government Code is amended to read: 54954. (a) The legislative body of a local agency shall provide, by ordinance, resolution, bylaws, or by whatever other rule is required for the conduct of business by that body, the time and place for holding regular meetings. Unless otherwise required by state or federal law or reasonably necessary to inspect real property or personal property which cannot be conveniently brought within the boundaries of the territory over which the local agency exercises jurisdiction, all meetings of the legislative body shall be held within the boundaries of that territory. If at any time any regular meeting falls on a holiday, that regular meeting shall be held on the next business day. If, by reason of fire, flood, earthquake or other emergency, it shall be unsafe to meet in the place designated, the meetings may be held for the duration of the emergency at the place designated by the presiding officer of the 12 legislative body or his or her designee in a notice to the local media who have requested notice pursuant to Section 54956, by the most rapid means of communication operative at the time. (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), local officials may participate in meetings or discussions of multiagency significance which are outside the boundaries of a local agency's jurisdiction. However, any meeting or discussion held pursuant to this subdivision shall take place within the jurisdiction of one of the participating local agencies and be open and noticed by all participating local agencies as provided for in this chapter. (c) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), local officials may meet in the same county as their agency's jurisdiction if the agency has no suitable meeting facilities within its jurisdiction. (d) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), local officials may meet in a remote location outside their immediate jurisdiction if the meeting takes place in or nearby a facility owned by the agency provided that the topic of the meeting is limited to items directly related to the facility. (e) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), local officials may meet outside their immediate jurisdiction with elected or appointed officials of the United States or the State of California when a local meeting would be impractical, solely~to discuss a legislative or regulatory issue affecting the local agency and oVer which the federal or state officials have jurisdiction, if the local officials present a report of the substance and outcome of the meeting at their next regular or special meeting within their jurisdiction. SEC. 13. Section 54954.2 of the Government Code is amended to read: 54954.2. (a) At least 72 hours before a regular meeting, the legislative body of the local agency, or its designee, shall post an agenda containing a description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting sufficient to inform an interested member of the public about the subject matter under consideration so that he or she can determine whether to monitor or participate in the meeting of the body. The description may refer to explanatory documents, such as correspondence or the reports of a committee, staff official, or department, posted adjacent to the agenda or, if the documents are of more than one page in length, available for public inspection and copying at a stated location during the normal~ office hours of the local agency. The agenda shall specify the time 'and location of the regular meeting and shall be posted in a location that is freely accessible to members of the public. (b) No action or discussion shall be undertaken on any item not 13 appearing on the posted agenda, except that members of a legislative body may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by persons exercising their public testimony rights under Section 54954.3. In addition, on their own initiative, or in response to questions posed by the public, members of a legislative body may ask a question for clarification, provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information, or request staff to report back to the body at a subsequent meeting concerning any matter. Furthermore, a member of a legislative body, or the body itself, may take action to direct staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda. (c) Notwithstanding subdivision (b), the legislative body may take action on items of business not appearing on the posted agenda under any of the foilowing conditions: (1) Upon a determination by a majority vote of the legislative body that an emergency situation exists, as defined in Section 54956.5. (2) Upon a determination by a two-thirds vote of the legislative body, or, if less than two-thirds of the members are present, a unanimous vote of those members present, that there is a need to take immediate action and that the need for action came to the attention of the local agency subsequent to the agenda being posted as specified in subdivision (a). (3) The item was posted pursuant to subdivision (a) for a prior meeting of the legislative body occurring not more than five calendar days prior to the date action is taken on the item, and at the prior meeting the item was continued to the meeting at which action is being taken. SEC. 14. Section 54954.3 of the Government Code is amended to read: 54954.3. (a) Every agenda for regular meetings shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body on any item of interest to the public, before or during the legislative body's consideration of the item, that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body, provided that no action shall be taken on any item not appearing on the agenda unless the action is otherwise authorized by subdivision (b) of Section 54954.2. Every agenda for a special meeting at which action is proposed to be taken on an item shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body concerning that item prior to action on the item. However, in the case of a meeting of a city council in a city or a board of supervisors in a city and county, the agenda need not provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the council or board on any item that has already been considered by a committee, composed exclusively of members of the council or board, 14 at a public meeting wherein all interested members of the public were afforded the opportunity to address the committee on the item, before or during the committee's consideration of the item, unless the item has been substantially changed since the committee heard the item, as determined by. the council or board. (b) The legislative body of a local agency may adopt reasonable regulations to ensure that the intent of subdivision (a) is carried out, including, but not limited to, regulations limiting the total amount of time allocated for public testimony on particular issues and for each individual speaker. (c) The legislative body of a local agency shall not abridge or prohibit constitutionally protected speech including, but not limited to, public criticism of the policies, procedures, programs, or services of the agency, or of any other aspect of its proposals or activities, or of the acts or omissions of the legislative body, on the basis that the performance of one or more public employees is implicated, or on any basis other than reasonable time constraints adopted in regulations pursuant to subdivision (b). SEC. 15. Section 54954.5 is added to the Government Code, to read: 54954.5. (a) In addition to the description of items to be discussed or acted upon in open and public session, the agenda posted pursuant to Section 54954, any ~mailed notice given pursuant to Section 54954.1, and any call and notice delivered to the local media and posted pursuant to Section 54956 and any determination of necessity made under paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 52954.2 shall specify and disclose the nature of any closed sessions in the following form: (1) With respect to a closed session held pursuant to Section 54956.7, the item shall be designated "License/Permit Determination" and shall specify the number of license or permit applicants involved. (2) With respect to every item of business to be discussed in closed session pursuant to Section 54956.8, the item shall be designated under the heading "Conference with. Real Property Negotiator" and shall specify, by street address, parcel number, or other unique reference, the real property under negotiation, the party or parties who are directly or through an agent negotiating with the agent of the legislative body, and whether the conference will concern the price, the terms of payment, or both. (3) With respect to every item of bUsiness to be discussed in closed session pursuant to Section 54956.9, the item shall be designated under the heading ."Conference with Legal Counsel" and the subheading of either "Existing Litigation" or "Anticipated Litigation." 15 Entries under "Existing Litigation" shall identify, by reference to the claim and the claimant's name or the case number and name of the adverSe party, any claim or case under discussion pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 54956.9. If the identification would jeopardize the agency's abilitY to effectuate service of process upon one or more unserved parties, the phrase "unspecified to protect service of process" shall be used instead of the identification. If the identification would jeopardize the local agencies' ability to conclude existing settlement negotiations to its advantage, the phrase "unspecified to protect settlement advantage" shall be used instead of the identification. Entries under "Anticipated Litigation" shall refer to closed sessions called pursuant to subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 54956.9, and shall indicate, after the phrase "As defendant," the number of distinct cases or potential cases to b~ discussed as instances or anticipated litigation against the agency, and after the phrase, "As plaintiff," the number of distinct claims or cases to be discussed as instances of anticipated litigation to be filed by the agency. (4) With respect to every item of business to be discussed in closed session pursuant to Section 54956.95, the item shall be designated under the heading "Liability Claims" and shall specify, with respect to each claim to be discussed, the claimant's name and the claim number, if any, the name of the local agency claimed against, and whether the claim is classified as tort liability, public liability, or workers' compensation. (5) With respect to every item of business to be discussed in closed session pursuant to Section 54957, the item shall be designated ',Threat to Public Services or Facilities" and shall specify the name, title, and agency of any law enforcement officers to be conferred with; or shall be designated "Public Employee APpointment" and shall specify the title or description of any position to be filled by the appointment; or shall be designated "Public Employee Hiring" and shall specify the title or description of any position to be filled by hiring; or shall be designated "Public Employee Performance Evaluation" and shall specify the name and position of any employee whose performance is to be evaluated; or shall be designated "Public Employee Dismissal" and shall specify the number of employees to be considered for dismissal; or shall be designated "Public Employee Conduct-Complaints or Charges" and shall specify the number of employees whose conduct shall be reviewed unless to do so would necessarily identify the.employee or employees. (6) With respect to every item of business to be discussed in closed session pursuant to Section 54957.6, the item shall either be designated under the heading "Conference With Negotiator-Salary/Benefits" and Shall specify the name of any organization of employees with whom the negotiations to be 16 discussed are being conducted, or the names and· titles of individual employees, unrepresented by an organization, with whom the negotiations to be discussed are being conducted, or shall be designated under the heading "Conference With Negotiator-Mandatory Bargaining" and shall specify the name of any organization of employees with whom the negotiations to be discussed are being conducted, and the issues for mandatory bargaining which are under negotiation. (7) With respect to closed sessions called pursuant to Section 37606 or 37624.3 of the Government Code or Section 32106 or 32155 of the Health and Safety Code, the item either shall be headed "Report Involving Trade Secret," shall specify whether the discussion will concern a proposed new service, a proposed new program, or a proposed new facility, and shall specify the estimated month and year in which action on the proposal is expected, or shall be headed "Hearing(s)" and shall specify whether the testimony or deliberation will concern staff privileges, the report of a medical audit committee, or the report of a quality assurance committee. For the purposes of this chapter, any hospital subject to this chapter may hold closed session meetings pursuant to Section 37606 or 37624.3 of the Government Code or Section 32106 or 32155 of the Health and Safety Code, whether or not a hospital is otherwise subject to the Local Hospital District Law (Division 23 (commencing with Section 32000) of the Health and Safety Code). (b) In case of multiple items of business under the same category, lines may be added and the location of information may be reformatted to eliminate unnecessary duplication and space, as long as the relationship of information concerning the same item is reasonably clear to the reader. Nothing in this section precludes, as an alternative to the inclusion of lengthy lists of names or other information in the agenda, or as a means of adding items to an earlier completed agenda, the incorporation by reference to separately prepared documents containing the required information, as long as copies of those documents are posted adjacent to the agenda within the time periods required by Sections 54954.2 and 54956 and provided with any mailed or delivered notices required by Section 54954.1 or 54956. SEC. 15.5. Section 54955.2 is added to the Government Code, to read: 54955.2. In the case of any adjournment pursuant to Section 54955 or any continuance pursuant to Section 54955.1 for which posting of the notice or order is required, the notice or order shall also, no later than one hour prior to resumption of the adjourned or continued meeting, be communicated by telephone or facsimile transmission to each local newspaper and radio or television station which has requested notice of special meetings pursuant to Section 54956 and which has provided telephone or facsimile transmission numbers for this purpose. 17 SEC. 16. Section 54956.9 of the Government Code is amended to read: 54956.9. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent a legislative body of a local agency, based on advice of its legal counsel, from holding a closed session to confer with, or receive advice from, its legal counsel regarding pending litigation when discussion in open session concerning those matters would prejudice the position of the local agency in the litigation. For purposes of this chapter, all expressions ~of the lawyer-client privilege other than those provided in this section are hereby abrogated. This section is the exclusive expression of the lawyer-client privilege for purposes of conducting closed-session meetings pursuant to this chapter. For purposes of this section, litigation shall be considered pending when any of the following circumstances exist: (a) An adjudicatory proceeding before a court, administrative body exercising its adjudicatory authority, hearing officer, or arbitrator, to which the local agency is a party, has been initiated formally. (b) (1) A point has been reached where, in the opinion of the legislative body of the local agency on the advice of its legal counsel, based on existing facts and circumstances, there is a significant exposure to litigation against the local agency. Legal advice as to the potential litigation consequences of any action not yet taken, if provided by counsel at a meeting of the legislative body, is to be conveyed openly as a matter of public record. [A> Statements made by legal counsel in open session as to the potential litigation cOnsequences of actions not yet taken shall be priviieged and inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding without the~ consent of the legislative body in office at the time they are sought to be produced. <A] (2) Based on existing facts and circumstances, the legislative body of the local agency is meeting only to decide whether a closed session is authorized pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subdivision. (c) Based on existing facts and circumstances, the legislative body of the local agency has decided to initiate or is deciding whether to initiate litigation. Prior to holding a closed session pursuant to this section, the legislative body of the local agency shall state publicly to which subdivision it is pursuant. If the session is closed pursuant to subdivision (a), the body shall state the title of or otherwise specifically identify the litigation to be discussed, unless the body states that to do so would jeopardize the agency's ability to effectuate service of process upon one or more unserved parties, or 18 that to do so would jeopardize its ability to conclude existing settlement negotiations to its advantage. For purposes of this section, "litigation" includes any adjudicatory proceeding, including eminent domain, before a court, administrative body exercising its adjudicatory authority, hearing officer, or arbitrator. SEC. 17. Section 54957 of the Government Code is amended to read: 54957. Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to prevent the legislative body of a local agency from holding closed sessions with the Attorney General, district attorney, sheriff, or chief of police, or their respective deputies, on matters posing a threat to the security of public buildings or a threat to the public's right of access to public services or public facilities, or from holding closed sessions during a regular or special meeting to consider the appointment, employment, evaluation of performance, or dismissal of a public employee or to hear complaints or charges brought against the employee by another person or employee unless the employee requests a public hearing. The legislative body also may exclude from any public or closed meeting, during the examination of a witness, any or all other witnesses in the matter being investigated by the legislative body. For the purposes of this section, the term "employee" shall not include any elected official, member of a legislative body, or person engaged as an independent contractor who, during the engagement, provides services to multiple clients or customers other than the local agency. Nothing in this section shall limit local officials' ability to hold closed session meetings pursuant to Sections 32106 and 32155 of the Health and Safety Code. SEC. 18. Section 54957.1 of the Government Code is amended to read: 54957.1. (a) The legislative body of any local agency shall publicly report any action taken in closed session and the vote or abstention of every member present thereon, as follows: (1) Direction or approval given to the body's negotiator concerning real estate negotiations pursuant to Section 54956.8 shall be reported as soon as the agreement is final. If its own approval renders the agreement final, the body shall report that approval, the substance of the agreement, and the vote thereon' in open session at the public meeting during which the closed'session is held or, if there are no members of the public present when the closed session ends, at its next meeting. If final approval rests with the other party to the negotiations, the local agency shall disclose the fact of that approval, the substance of the agreement, and the body's vote or votes thereon upon inquiry by any person, as 19 soon as the'other party or its agent has informed the local agency of its approval. (2) Direction or approval given to the body's legal counsel to prosecute,~defend, or seek or refrain from seeking appellate review or relief, or to otherwise enter as a party, intervenor, or amicus curiae in any form of litigation as the result of a consultation under Section 54956.9 shall be reported in open session at the public meeting during which the closed session is held or, if there are no members of the public present when the closed session ends, at its next meeting. The report shall identify the adverse party or parties, any coparties with the local agency, any existing claim or order to be defended against, or any factual circumstances or contractual dispute giving rise to the local agency's complaint, petition, or other litigation initiative. (3) Approval given to the body's legal counsel of a settlement of pending litigation, as defined in Section 54956.9, at any stage prior to or during a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding shall be reported as soon as the settlement is final. If its own approval renders the settlement final, the body shall report that approval, the substance of the agreement, and the vote thereon in open session at the public meeting during which the closed session is held, or if there are no members of the public present when the closed session ends, at its next meeting. If final approval rests with some other party to the litigation, the local agency shall disclose the fact of that approval, the substance'of the agreement, and the body's vote or votes thereon upon inquiry by any person, as soon as the other party or its agent has informed the legislative body of its approval. (4) Disposition reached as to claims discussed in closed session pursuant to Section 54956.95 shall be reported as soon as reached in a manner that discloses the name of the claimant, the name of the local agency claimed against, the substance of the claim, and any monetary amount approved for payment. (5) Action taken to appoint, employ, dismiss, transfer, accept the resignation of, or otherwise affect the employment contract of a public employee in closed session pursuant to Section 54957 shall be reported at the public meeting during which the closed session is held or, if there are no members of the public present when the closed session ends, at its next meeting. The general requirement of this paragraph notwithstanding, the report of a dismissal or of the nonrenewal of an employment contract may be deferred until 24 hours after the action is taken, or until the affected employee is given actual notice of the action, whichever occurs first. Any report required by this paragraph shall name the employee and position affected and specify any change in compensation, job description, assignment, or other contract particulars and, in the case of dismissal for cause, the reason for dismissal. 20 (6) Approval given to the body's negotiator of an item proposed for or accepted under bargaining in closed session pursuant to Section 54957.6 shall be reported at the public meeting during which the closed session is held or, if there are no members of the public present when the closed session ends, at its next meeting. The report shall identify the item approved and the other party or parties to negotiation, and disclose whether the agreement with respect to that item is final with the body's approval or subject to acceptance or ratification by the'other party. (b) Reports required to be made immediately pursuant to this section may be made orally or in writing. The legislative body shall provide to any person who has submitted a written request to the legislative body within 24 hours of the posting of the agenda, or to any person who has made a standing request for all documentation as part of a request for notice of meetings pursuant to Section 54954.1 or 54956, if the requester is present at the time the closed session ends, copies of any contracts, settlement agreements, or other affected documents that were finally approved or adopted in the closed session and that embody the information required to be disclosed by immediate report. If the action taken results in one or more substantive amendments to the related documents requiring retyping, the documents need not be released until the retyping is completed during normal business hours, provided that the presiding officer of the legislative body or his or her designee orally summarizes the substance of the amendments for the benefit of the document requester or any other person present and requesting the information. (c) The documentation referred to in paragraph (b) shall be available to any person on the next business day following the meeting in which the action referred to is taken or, in the case of substantial amendments, when any necessary retyping is complete. A brief statement of the information required to be disclosed pursuant to this section with respect to an action taken in closed session, shall be posted by the close of business on the next business day following the meeting, in the place where the meeting agendas of the body are posted. (d) Nothing in this section shall be cOnstrued to require that the legislative body approve actions not otherwise subject to legislative body approval. SEC. 19. Section 54957.2 of the Government Code is amended to read: 54957.2. (a) The legislative body of a local agency may, by ordinance or resolution, designate a clerk or other officer or employee of the local agency who shall then attend each closed session of the legislative body and keep and enter in a minute book a record of topics discussed and decisions made at the meeting. The minute book made pursuant to this section is not a public record 21 subject to inspection pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1), and shall be kept confidential. The minute book shall be available only to members of the legislative body or, if a violation of this chapter is alleged to have occurred at a closed session, to a court of general jurisdiction wherein the local agency lies. The minute book may, but need not, consist of a recording of the closed session. (b) An elected legislative body of a local agency may require that each legislative body all or a majority of whose members are appointed by or under the authority of the elected legislative body keep a minute book as prescribed under subdivision (a). (c) Subject to the conditions precedent in subdivision (d), any legislative body of a local agency shall cause all discussion in every closed session to be audiotaped, and the tape of each session to be preserved for 150 days from its recording. The tape recording shall be the responsibility of any person designated to keep minutes of the closed session pursuant to subdivision (a) or, in case no person has been designated, of the presiding officer of the legislative body. Each tape so recorded shall be immediately labeled with the name of the legislative body, the date, and the elapsed time of the recording, and delivered to the city clerk in the case of meetings of legislative bodies of a city, the county clerk in the case of meetings of legislative bodies of a county, or the clerk of the district in the case of meetings of an educational or other.local district. ~ (d) [A> The contents of a tape recording made pursuant to subdivision (c), or any portion thereof, shall be privileged and inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding except to the extent that either of the following circumstances are present: <A] [A> (1) A court has determined pursuant to subdivision (c) that the information constitutes evidence of a violation of this chapter. <A] [A> (2) The legislative body in office at the time the information is sought to be produced consents to its admissibility in the proceeding. <A] [A> (e) <A] The taping requirement in subdivision (c) shall commence as follows: (1) For a local agency that does not own a tape recorder, the requirement shall Commence when a tape recorder and sufficient tapes to record 40 hours, or sufficient funds to purchase these items, are donated to the local agency. (2) For a local agency that does own a tape recorder, the requirement' shall commence when sufficient tapes to record 40 hours, or sufficient funds to purchase them, are donated to the local agency. The receipt of any tape recorders, tapes or funds for their purchase that have been donated for purposes of this section shall be publicly announced at the next meeting of the legislative 22 body, at which time the taping of any closed session shall commence. ID> (e) <DJ [A> (f) <A] The recordings so created shall not be open to public inspection pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1) but, if there is reasonable cause to believe a violation has occurred, the tape shall be subject to subpoena by the district attorney or the grand jury in order to determine whether a civil or criminal action under this chapter is warranted, and subject to discovery pursuant to the Civil Discovery Act of 1986 (Article 3 (commencing~with Section 2016) of Chapter 3 of Title 3 of Part 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure) by a plaintiff in a civil action pursuant to Section 54960.1. The recording shall be subject to examination by the superior court in camera in any proceeding under this chapter. If the court determines that a violation has occurred, the portion of the tape providing evidence of the violation shall become a public exhibit in the proceeding. SEC. 20. Section 54957.5 of the Government Code is amended to read: 54957.5. (a) Notwithstanding Section 6255 or any other provisions of law, agendas of public meetings and any other writings, when intended for distribution to all, or a majority of· all, of the members of a legislative body of a local agency by any person in connection with a matter subject to discussion or consideration at a public meeting of the body, are public records under the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1), and shall be made available pursuant to Sections 6253 and 6256. However, this section shall not ~include any writing distributed in connection with a matter subject to discussion or consideration in a closed session if the writing is exempt from public disclosure under Section 6253.5, 6254, or 6254.7. (b) Writings which are public records under subdivision (a) and which are intended for distribution prior to commencement of a public meeting shall be made available for public inspection and copying upon request prior to commencement of the meeting whether or not actually distributed to or received by the legislative body at the time of the request. (c) Writings which are public records under subdivision (a) and which are distributed during a public meeting and prior to commencement of their discussion at the meeting shall be made available for public inspection prior to commencement of, and during, their discussion at that meeting. 23 (d) Writings which are public records under subdivision (a) and which are distributed during their discussion at a public meeting shall be made available for public inspection immediately or as soon thereafter as is practicable. (e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the legislative body of a local agency from charging a' fee or deposit for a copy of a public record pursuant to Section 6257. The writings described in subdivisions (b), (c), and (d) are subject to the requirements of the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250), Division 7, Title 1), and subdivisions (b), (c), and (d) shall not be construed to exempt from public inspection any record covered by'that act, or to limit or delay the public's right to inspect any record required to be disclosed by that act, whether or not distributed to a legislative body of a local agency. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require a legislative body of a local agency to place any paid advertisement or any other paid notice in any publication. (f) "Writing" for purposes of this section means "writing" as defined under Section 6252. SEC. 21. Section 54957.6 of the Government Code is amended to read: 54957.6. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a legislative body of a local agency may hold closed sessions with the local agency's designated representatives regarding' the salaries, salary schedules, or compensation paid in the form of fringe benefits of its represented and unrepresented employees. Closed sessions of a legislative body of a local agency, as permitted in this section, shall be for the purpose of reviewing its position and instructing the local agency's designated representatives and may take place solely prior to and during active consultations and discussions between the local agency's designated representatives and the representatives of employee organizations or the unrepresented employees. For the purposes enumerated in this section, a legislative body of a local agency may also meet with a state conciliator who has intervened in the proceedings. (b) In addition to the closed sessions authorized by subdivision (a), the legislative body of a public agency, as defined by subdivision (c) of Section 3501, may hold closed sessions with its designated representatives on mandatory subjects within the scope of representation of its represented employees, as determined pursuant to Section 3504. SEC. 22. Section 54957.7 of the Government Code is amended to read: 54957.7. (a) Prior to holding any closed session, the legislative body of the local agency shall state, in an open meeting, the general reason or reasons for the closed session, and may cite the statutory authority, including the specific section and subdivision, or other legal authority under which the session is being held. In the closed session, the legislative body may consider only those matters covered in its statement. In the case of regular and special meetings, the statement shall be made in the form of the agenda disclosures and specifications required by Section 54954.5. In the case of adjourned and continued meetings, the statement shall be made with the same disclosures and specifications required by Section 54954.5 as part of the notice provided for the meeting. Nothing in this section shall require or authorize a disclosure of information prohibited by state or federal law. (b) After any closed session, the legislative body shall reconvene into open session prior to adjournment and shall make any- disclosures required by Section 54957.1 of action taken in the closed session. SEC. 23. Section 54959 of the Government Code is amended to read: 54959. Each member of a legislative body who attends or otherwise participates in a mgeting, as defined in Section 54952.6, of the legislative body where action is taken in violation of Section 54953, subdivision (b) of Section 54954.2, Section 54954.4, or Section 54956 is guilty of an infraction. (a) Actions under this section shall be brought by the district attorney. No public funds shall be expended in the defense of these actions. (b) The penalty for a violation found pursuant to this section shall be the assignment of the offending member to a training session prescribed by the Attorney General. The training session shall be designed to acquaint offending members with the law and policy of this chapter and to encourage their informed compliance. The training session may be conducted by the Attorney General or by a legal, professional, or educational institution designated by that office. Any training session shall be offered with a frequency designated by the Attorney General as appropriate to the demand, and shall be supported by fees not to exceed: (1) One hundred dollars ($100) per offending elected member for the first violation. Fees levied pursuant to this paragraph shall be the responsibility of the offending elected member and shall not be reimbursed with public funds. ~ (2) One hundred dollars ($100) per offending nonelected member for the first violation. Fees levied pursuant to this paragraph 25 shall be the responsibility of the local agency which the offending nonelected member serves and may be reimbursed with public funds, (3) Two hundred fifty dollars ~($250) per offending member for any second or subsequent violation. Fees levied pursuant to this paragraph shall be the responsibility of the offending member and shall not be reimbursed with public funds. (c) Nothing in this section shall preclude the enrollment of nonoffending public officials or private citizens in the training sessions, providing that the fee for their participation is no greater than necessary to pay the basic costs of the session. (d) In enacting the penalty provided in this section, the Legislature is mindful that members of local agencies most often serve the public with little or no compensation and do so in addition to their full-time careers. The Legislature presumes that most violations of this chapter occur because of a lack of understanding of the provisions of law, or, a misunderstanding of the importance of the mandate that deliberations and actions be taken openly. It is the intent of the Legislature that members of legislative bodies and those who advise them respect the law, prudently inform themselves of its provisions and, where judgment is called upon in close questions, err on the side of open and public government. SEC. 24. Section 54960.1 of the Government Code is amended to read: 54960.1. (a) The district attorney or any interested person may commence an action by mandamus or injunction for the purpose of obtaining a judicial determination that an action taken by a legislative body of a local agency in violation of Section 54953, 54954.2, or 54956 is null and void under this section. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent a legislative body from curingor correcting an action challenged pursuant to this section. (b) Prior to any action being commenced pursuant to subdivision (a), the interested person shall make a demand of the legislative body to cure or correct the action alleged to have been taken in violation of Section 54953, 54954.2, or 54956. The demand shall be in writing and clearly describe the challenged action of the legislative body and nature of the alleged violation. The written demand shall be made within 90 days from the date the action was taken. Within 30 days of receipt of the demand, the legislative body shall cure or correct the challenged action and inform the demanding party in writing of its actions to cure or correct or inform the demanding party in writing of its decision not to cure or-correct the challenged action. If the legislative body takes no action within the 30-day period, the inaction shall be deemed a decision not to cure or correct the challenged action, and the 15-day period to commence the action described in subdivision (a) 26 shall commence to run the day after the 30-day period to cure or correct expires. Within 15 days of receipt of the written notice of the legislative body's decision to cure or correct, or not to cure and correct, or within 15 days of the expiration of the 30-day period to cure or correct, whichever is earlier, the demanding party shall be required to commence 'the action pursuant to subdivision (a) or thereafter be barred from commencing the action. (c) An action taken shall not be determined to be null and void if any of the following conditions exist: (1) The action taken was in substantial compliance with Sections 54953, 54954.2, and 54956. (2) The action taken was in connection with the sale or issuance of notes, bonds, or other evidences of indebtedness or any contract, instrument, or agreement thereto. (3) The action taken gave rise to a contractUalobligation,' ~ ' including a contract let by competitive bid, other than compensation for services in the form of salary or fees for professional services, upon which a party has, in good faith and without notice of a challenge to the validity of the action, detrimentally relied. (4) The action taken was in connection with the collection of any tax. (d) During any action seeking a judicial determination pursuant to subdivision (a) if the court determines, pursuant to a showing by the legislative body that an action alleged to have been taken in violation of Section 54953, 54954.2, or 54956 has been cured or corrected by a subsequent action of. the legislative body, the action filed pursuant to subdivision (a) shall be dismissed with prejudice. (e) The fact that a legislative body takes a subsequent action to cure or correct an action taken pursuant to this section shall not be construed or admissible as evidence of a violation of this chapter. SEC. 25. Section 54960.5 of the Government Code is amended to read: 54960.5. A court shall award court costs and reasonable attorney fees to the plaintiff in an action brought pursuant to Section 54960 or 54960.1 where it is found that a legislative body of the local agency has violated this chapter. The costs and fees shall be paid by the local agency and sh~ll not become a personal liability of any public officer or employee of the local agency. A court shall award court costs and reasonable attorney fees to 27 a defendant in any action brought pursuant to Section 54960 or 54960.1 where the defendant has prevailed in a final determination of the action and the court finds that the action was clearly frivolous and totally lacking in merit. SEC. 26. Section 54961 of the Government Code is amended to read: 54961. No legislative body of a local agency shall conduct any meeting, conference, or other function in any facility that prohibits the admittance of any person, or persons, on the basis of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, or sex, or which is inaccessible to wheelchairs, or where members of the public may not be present without making a payment or purchase. This section shall apply to every local agency as defined in Section 54951, 54951.1, or 54951.7. SEC. 27. Section 54963 is added to the GoVernment Code, to read: 54963. No legislative body of a local agency may adopt or enforce any rule to penalize or discourage the free speech of its members. The remedy of a person aggrieved by any disclosure is limited to an action for damages against the member making the disclosure under the common law of invasion of privacy, as qualified by any common law, statutory or constitutional privileges, or defenses available in actions at the time the action is brought. Members of the legislative body who do not participate in or further these disclosures, and the local agency itself, are immune from liability. A majority of the governing legislative body of a local agency has plenary and sovereign discretion to make any disclosure that it deems, by public resolution, to be in the public interest. No action shall be brought under the law of this state for any disclosure made in the exercise of that discretion. SEC. 28. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution because the only costs which may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crim~ or infraction, changes the definition of a crime or infraction, changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, or eliminates a crime or infraction. However, notwithstanding Section 17160 of the Government Code, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of 28 Title 2 of the Government Code. If the statewide costs of the claim for reimbursement does not exceed one million dollars ($1,000,000), reimbursement shall be made from the State Mandates Claims Fund. Notwithstanding Section 17580 of the Government Code, unless otherwise specified in this act, the provisions of this act shall become operative on the same date that the act takes effect pursuant to the California Constitution. END OF REPORT - '- B A K E R S F I E L D MEMORANDUM June 3, 1992 TO' HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: TRUDY SLATER, ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST ~~ ~ SUBJECT: LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM Last year the City Council approved the attached Legislative Platform and requested the Legislative and Litigation Committee to update it annually. The Committee will be addressing the issue at its meeting of June 18 and would like to have any comments you may wish tomake regarding keeping the Platform current and up to date. If you have any suggestions on the Platform, please forward them to me by June 16 so they can be included in the discussion on the Platform at the next Committee meeting. Thank you. Enclosure (m0602921) cc' City Manager Dale Hawley City Attorney Larry Lunardini City of Bakersfield 1991-92 Legislative Platform The City of Bakersfield provides governmental decision making at the level closest to the people. It, therefore, is encumbent upon its elected officials to provide legislative leadership within the City's borders as well as when dealing with other legislative entities. The following policy statements reflect the legislative platform of the City of Bakersfield for 1991-92. GENERAL POLICY STATEMENTS Support legislation which enhances the City's ability to finance and economically, efficiently, and effectively provide local discretionary and state or federally mandated programs. Support legislation which provides for governmental decision making at the level closest to the people whenever it is most likely to produce the most effective and efficient result. Support legislation which enhances local land use decision-making authority. QUALITY Of LIFE Support legislation which promotes safe, efficient, cost effective, and responsible management of the environmental components of issues such as air quality, transportation, wastewater treatment, and solid waste management. Support legislation which increases city participation in state and federal issues of regional concern. Support legislation which provides continued fUnding of recreational and open space programs of support. Support legislation that calls for appropriate municipal representation on policy-making bodies with interjurisdictional powers (i.e., LAFCO, COG, ID-4). Support drug abuse prevention legislation. 1991-92 Legislative Platform Page 2 July 31, 1991 GENERAL GOVERNMENT Support legislation which expands the CitY's abilitY to deal on a state level with state-mandated issues affecting the financial condition of the citY. Support legislation which enhances' local control over program scope, implementation, and funding. Support legislation which provides for equitable distribution of state funds for local programs. 'Oppose legislation which intrudes into the local collective bargaining process. FINANCES Support legislation advocating responsible and reasonable methods for the costs of implementation of state-mandated programs if alternative independent sources of revenue are provided and such legislation is of clear benefit to the citY. Oppose the imposition of fees at the local level to fund state programs not related to local matters. Support legislation which reduces the negative financial and operational impacts of tax increment financing on affected agencies. Support legislation which improves local government's abilitY to finance discretionary programs. Support legislation which promotes continued economic diversification of the local economy. ('m0731911)