Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/24/2000 BAKERSFIELD David Couch, Chair Patricia J. DeMond Jacquie Sullivan Staff: Trudy Slater SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE of the City Council - City of Bakersfield Thursday, August 24, 2000 2:30 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room Second Floor - City Hall, Suite 201 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA AGENDA t. ROLL CALL 2. ADOPT JULY 13, 2000 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING DRAFTING AN ORDINA~NCE OR RESOLUTION OUTLINING THE ANNEXATION PROCESS WITH CONSIDERATION OF SUGGESTIONS FROM THE ANNEXATION TASK FORCE; REVIEW OF DRAFT GUIDE TO ANNEXATION PROCESS 5. NEW BUSINESS A. REVIEW AND COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING LEAGUE ANNUAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS B. REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION RELATING TO PERMITS FOR VENDORS CONDUCTING SALVES FROM PORTABLE CONCESSION STANDS IN CITY PARKS C. REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION RELATING TO PORTABLE CONCESSION STAND MATTERS 1N AREAS OTHER THAN CITY PARKS 6. ADJOURNMENT F LE .; DRAFT BAKERSFIELD Alan Tandy, Gi~y Manager David Couch, Chair Staff: Trudy Slater Patricia J. DeMond Jacquie Sullivan AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE Regular Meeting . Thursday, July 13, 2000 1:15 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room 1. ROLL CALL Called to order at 1:21 p.m. Members present: Councilmember David Couch, Chair Councilmember Patricia DeMond_ Councilmember Jacquie Sullivan 2. ADOPT JUNE 22, 2000 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted. 3. PRESENTATIONS None. 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS None. DRAFT Legislative and Litigation Committee July 13, 2000 Page 2 5. DEFERRED -BUSINESS A. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A POLICY OF CERTIFICATION OF LOCAL COMMUNITY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATIONS (CHDO's) Community Development Coordinator George Gonzales provided the committee with a certification process policy, which included a housing project application, a statement of qualifications for CHDO's, and a CHDO certification review form. Committee reviewed the policy and feels no further action is needed at this time. Marvin Dean asked that consideration be given .to in-fill housing projects with a preference for distressed areas. Mr. Thiltgen indicated the City was preempted from changing/modifying federal procedures to include a local .preference procedure. B. REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING DRAFTING AN ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION OUTLINING THE ANNEXATION-PROCESS WITH CONSIDERATION OF SUGGESTIONS FROM THE ANNEXATION TASK FORCE; REVIEW OF DRAFT GUIDE TO ANNEXATION PROCESS City Clerk Pamela McCarthy presented the latest version of the proposed annexation guide. Further input was received from the public and Committee members. After lengthy discussion, Chairman David Couch reiterated the guide presented general information and was not a step-by-step annexation process. Discussion on the draft resolution ensued. A handout from a member of the public was provided to the Committee 'suggesting alternative language and in the form of an ordina.nce. Attendees were requested to provide information to Committee staff ahead of time (at least a week) in order for Committee members -to be able to review the information prior to the meeting. Councilmember Jacquie Sullivan indicated the appropriateness of using a resolution. Councilmember Couch asked Mr. Thiltgen to contact the County Counsel Bernard Barman to see if the County has ever passed an ordinance directing staff to do something. Councilmember Pat DeMond suggested removing the resolution from the workshop and presenting only the guide. It was agreed only the revised guide would be presented to Council in the information workshop on July 19 at 5:15 p.m. DRAFT Agenda Summary Report Legislative and Litigation Committee July 13, 2000 Page 3 6. NEW .BUSINESS A. REVIEWAND RECOMMENDATION RELATING TO INCREASING PENALTIES FOR LITTERING IN THE CITY Mr. Thiltgen explained that the City of Bakersfield was preempted by state law from modifying state litter laws. Councilmember Couch felt additional enforcement should be pursued. Assistant City Manager John Stinson indicated ~this could conceivably be a component of the overall community policing program. Councilmember Sullivan encouraged education to help alleviate issues relating to littering. B. RECOMMENDATIONS FORLEAGUEVOTING.DELEGATEANDALTERNATE DELEGATE TO LEAGUE ANNUAL CONFERENCE Voting Delegates and Alternates are normally appointed from among Councilmembers attending the League Annual Conference. Councilmember Couch indicated his willingness to serve again as Voting Delegate to the League meeting or as Voting Alternate if other Councilmembers wished to serve as Voting Delegate. Councilmember Couch had served as Voting Delegate the previous year. The Committee agreed that Councilmember Couch should serve as Voting Delegate if another could not do so. Councilmember Jacquie Sullivan agreed to serve as Voting Alternate. An administrative report with the Committee's recommendation will be placed on the Council agenda for its meeting in August. C. REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION OF TIME WARNER CABLE REQUEST FOR A 24-MONTH WAIVER OF FRANCHISE FEES RELATING TO ROAD RUNNER INTERNET SERVICE, INCLUDING CHARTER SECTIONS AND RESOLUTIONS. Administrative Analyst Trudy Slater provided background information on cable franchise fees and concerns'relating to Time Warner's request for exempting .fees in connection with its RoadRunner services. These included: an exemption of the RoadRunner-related fees has a impact on all Bakersfield residents because of the loss of reve'nues for use of the public's right of way (including franchise fees from customers as well as advertising revenues paid to Time Warner for use of its RoadRunner seFvices); the benefit of the exemption to a select number of cable customers; and the need to work with the cable company to provide no or Iow-cost benefits to offset the revenue loss. These were in addition .to those included in the administrative report to Council at its meeting of June 28, 2000. Other issues discussed included the possible ramifications of court rulings relative to cable companies, "open access," telecommunications, companies, and Federal Communications Commission determinations. Staff recommended denial of the exemption. DRAFT Agenda Summary Report Legislative and Litigation Committee July 13, 2000 Page 4 Committee members felt a waiver of the fees would have a long term net gain for the community, that RoadRunner service was essentially a "start up business," and that Cox Communications should be given the same exemption when it began a similar product (i.e., Cox@Home) - 24 months from time of launching the product in the Bakersfield area: Mr. Thiltgen explained the process and related time frame under which a franchise fee exemption could be granted to Time Warner for RoadRunner services. Staffwas directed to prepare a committee report recommending a one-time franchise fee exemption be granted to Time Warner for RoadRunner services with a similar agreement to be made for Cox Communications at the appropriate time. Time Warner Division President Bill Grinstead agreed with Assistant City Manager Alan Christensen that Time Warner would work with the City to explore no-cost or Iow-cost benefits to the City during the exemption period. 7. COMMITTEE COMMENTS None. 8. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m. Staff Attendees: Assistant City Manager John Stinson, Assistant City Manager Alan Christensen, City Clerk Pam McCarthy, Administrative Analyst Trudy Slater; City Attorney Bart Thiltgen; Community Development Coordinator George Gonzales; Building Director Dennis Fidler Other Attendees: Ray Allen, James Burger, Keith Crossley, Marvin Dean, Barbara Fields, Barbara Fowler, Bill Grinstead, Becky Kaiser, Ginger Mello, Larry Moxley, Brian Morrow, Maricela Solorio (L&L\L000713. MI N.wpd) DRAFT RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD ESTABLISHING AN ANNEXATION POLICY FOR INHABITED ANNEXATION AREAS WHEREAS, the City desires to enhance its annexation policy to provide residents and property owners as well as City of Bakersfield staff maximum opportunity to plan for and coordinate the activities leading to inhabited area annexations by the City of Bakersfield; and WHER.EAS, the Council approved Urban Development Committee Report 1-98 on May 20, 1998, improving and expanding opportunities for resident input on the annexation "..' process; and WHEREAS, this resolution reflects the City's current annexation policy processes relating to annexation policy incorporating criteria contained within Urban Development Committee Report 1-98; and WHEREAS, the Council as a whole, and Council members in committee, have listened to individual concerns about the legal process and pre-legal informational process followed by the City of Bakersfield; and WHEREAS, City staff members have met with concerned citizens individually, attempted to answer their questions, and attended meetings of the County of Kern's Citizens Advisory Committee on Annexations; and WHEREAS, while the City strictly follows State annexation laws and will continue. to do so, there is a consensus that additional avenues for resident input would open communications with residents affected by proposed-inhabited area annexations; and WHEREAS, the County of Kern has encouraged the City to consider the voluntary actions proposed by its Citizens Advisory Committee on Annexations. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Bakersfield that it is hereby the policy of the Council of the City of .Bakersfield that for annexations of inhabited areas initiated by the City .staff shall comply with the following requirements: 1) Provide for individual noticing of property owners of protest hearings. 2) .Provide individual noticing to all addresses in the proposed annexation area. 3) When publishing legal newspaper notices relating to annexations, use diSplay format entitled "Notice of Public Hearing" on the legal page which will include the words "proposed annexation" within the heading. Page I of 3 4) Develop and make available to the public at the City Clerk's Office an information guide which will provide a general outline of the annexation process, including examples of 1-3 above and sample written protest forms. This guide supercedes the development of.a Borderline issue detailing how the annexation process works. The guide will be annually 'reviewed by staff to determine the need for updating. 5) Place annexation information referenced in the information guide on the City's web page for access by the public, including upcoming meetings, important hearing dates, and additional information such as hypothetical examples of a property within a proposed annexation area which reflects possible changes in: a) costs or fees; b) the affects on the property tax bill; and c) a listing of potential City revenues and possible expenditures as a result of the proposed inhabited annexation. This use I - of the web page supercedes the use of the annexation hotline. 6) HOld at least one City services faire in each potential annexation area. 7) Work with proposed annexation area residents to coordinate a greater number of small neighborhood meetings in each area so that each resident has an opportunity to attend a meeting. 8) Continue to provide for no further City-initiated "bundling" of proposed annexation areas non-contiguous to each other. .......... O00 .......... Page 2 of 3 RAFT I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing.Resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIl. MEMBER CARSON, DeMOND, MA(~GARD, COUCH, ROWI. ES, SULLIVAN, SALVAGGIO NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER CITY C'LERK and EX OFFICIO of the Council of the City of Bakesfield APPROVED. BOB PRICE MAYORoftheCityofBakersfield APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: .BART J. THILTGEN CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE of the City of Bakersfield (P:~L&L~=,esalutionAnnexatie n Policy. Draft) (6-15-00) Page 3 of 3 Handout from area resident (Legislative & Litigation Committee meeting of July 13, 2000) DRAFT ORDINANCE AN oRDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD ESTABLISHING AN ANNEXATION POLICY FOR INHABITED ANNEXATION AREAS WHEREAS, the City desires to enhance its annexation policy to provide .' residents and property owners as well as City of Bakersfield staff maximum opportunity to plan for and coordinate the activities leading to inhabited areas annexations by the City of Bakersfield; and REPLACE WITH: WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield desires to establish a fair and equitable annexation policy to provide residents and property owners, as well as the City of Bakersfield staff, legal and proper annexation policies that insure the knowledge and input of all affected citizens of proposed inhabited area annexations by the City of Bakersfield; and ADD TO ORDINANCE: WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield acknowledges that County residents have the right t° freely choose to remain residents of unincorporated areas, the City respects and honors all citizens their freedom of choice recognizing that harmonious relationships within the total community is its most important priority. WHEREAS, the Council approved Urban Development Committee Report 1-98 on May 20, 1998, improving and expanding opportunities for resident input on the annexation process; and Page 1. REPLACE WITH: WHEREAS, the Council approved Urban Development Committee Report 1-98 on May 20, 1998 which addressed the annexation issue. WHEREAS, this Ordinance reflects the City's current annexation policy processes relating to annexation policy incorporating criteria contained within Urban Development Committee Report 1-98; and REPLACE WITH: WHEREAS, this Ordinance reflects the City's current annexation policy process relating to annexation policy incorporating criteria specifically listed as Item No's. 2, 3, 6 and 8 as contained within the Urban Development Committee Report 1-98; and WHEREAS, the Council as a whole, and Council members in committee, have listened to individual concerns about the legal process and pre-legal informational process followed by the City of Bakersfield; and WHEREAS, City staff members have met with concerned citizens individually, attempted to answer their questions, and attended meetings of the County of Ke. rn's Citizens Advisory Committee on Annexations; and REPLACE WITH: WHEREAS, City staff members have met with concerned citizens, attempted to answer their questions and attended some meetings of the County of Kern's Citizens Advisory Committee on Annexations; and Page 2. WHEREAS, while the City strictly follows State annexation laws and will continue to do so, there is a consensus that additional avenues for resident input would open communications with residents affected by proposed inhabited area annexations; and REPLACE WITH: WHEREAS, while the City maintains it strictly follows State annexation laws and will continue to do so, there is a consensus that residents affected by proposed inhabited area annexations must be given full and fair information in order to make an informed decision and exercise their freedom of choice. WHEREAS, the County of Kern has encouraged the City to CONSIDER the voluntary actions proposed bY its Citizens Advisory Committee on Annexations. Change the word consider to ADOPT NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Bakersfield that it is hereby the policy of the Council of the City of Bakersfield that for annexations Of inhabited areas initiated by the staff shall comply with the following requirements: REPLACE WITH: NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Bakersfield that it is hereby the policy of the Council of the City of Bakersfield that for annexations of inhabited· areas, regardless of the popul~/tion or size of the proposed annexation, the City shall comply with the 'following requirements: 1. Provide for individual noticing of property owners of protest hearings. Change to: The City will notice all individual property owners of their protest hearing by first class mail, using the most recent County assessment roll. Notices will be mailed no less .than 20 days prior to the protest hearing date. Page 3. 2. Provide individual noticing to all addresses in the proposed annexation area. Change to: The City will notice individually to all addresses in the proposed annexation area by first class mail. Notices will be mailed no less than 20 days prior to the protest hearing date. 3. When publishing legal newspaper notices relating to annexations, use display format entitled "Notice of Public Hearing" on the legal page which will include the words "proposed annexation" within the heading. Change to:' The City will, when publishing legal newspaper notices relating to annexations, use display format entitled "Notice of Public Hearing" on the legal page which will include the words "Proposed Annexation" within the heading and will include the legal annexation name and number. Please see example of newspaper notice on Page ~ of the Guide to the Annexation Process. 4. Develop and make available to the public at the City Clerk's Office an information guide which will provide a general outline of the annexation process, including examples of 1-3 above and .sample written protest forms. This guide supercedes the development of a Borderline issue detailing how the annexation process works. The -guide will be annually reviewed by staff to determine the need for updating. Change to: The City will develop and make available to the public at the City Clerk's Office the Guide to the Annexation Process which will provide a general outline of the annexation process, including examples of 1-3 above and sample written protest forms. This information, single copies, will be provided FREE OF CHARGE .to the public upon request, to be noted on the cover sheet of said Guide. This Guide will be reviewed and updated by the staff each March, but may be reviewed and updated as needed during the year. Question: Will the Borderline or a publication of a similar nature still exist? Page 4.. 5. Place annexation information referenced in the Information Guide on the City's web page for access by the public, including upcoming meetings, important hearing dates, and additional information ** such as hypothetical examples of a property within a proposed annexation area which reflects possible changes in: (a) costs or fees; (b) the affects on the property tax bill; and (c) a listing of potential City revenues and possible expenditures as a result of the proposed inhabited annexation.** This use of the web page supercedes the use .of the annexation hotline. i: Change to: The City will place annexationinformation referenced in the Guide " to the Annexation Process on the City's web page for access by the public, i".' including upcoming meetings, LAFCo hearing and protest hearing .dates, City faires and additional important information. The City wilt post its most current Guide to the Annexation Process on KGOV for public information and shall include all public meetings relating to a proposed annexation process, i.e., LAFCo public hearing date, protest hearing dates, City Services Faires, etc. Said notices to be posted 20 days prior to the hearings. The City will submit to the Bakersfield Californian and local television stations press releases containing the aforesaid information, including the legal annexation name, boundary description and annexation number 20 days prior to any hearing dates as described above. ** to ** in the City's No. 5 statement: These statements cause misgivings on our part.. We feel they may be construed as "Teubnerisms" and could :.. cause you problems. Only provable facts should be included. 6. Hold at least one City services faire in each potential annexation area. Change to: The City will hold at least one, but no more than two, City Services Faires in each potential annexation area'prior to the LAFCo hearing date, which will NOT be construed as or replace public information meetings. The City will notify the affected public 20 days before the Faire and will invite the affected public, members of the Citizen's Advisory Committee on Annexation, County Representatives; specifically the County Supervisor Page 5. representing the designated area of the. proposed annexation, as well as the City Council member who would be representing the proposed annexed area. Records of those invited and those attending will be kept and made available for public review. 7. Work with proposed annexation area residents to coordinate a greater number of small neighborhood meetings in each area so that each resident has an opportunity to attend a meeting. OMIT NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS Change to: The City will hold at least one but no more than two informational public meetings at a public meeting site located near the proposed annexation area. Written invitations to each meeting will be mailed to each address within the proposed annexation area 20 days prior to the meeting. The City WILL NOT sponsor, encourage or participate in private "neighborhood" meetings or gatherings which are not open to all residents or property owners in the proposed annexation area. 8. Continue to provide for no further City-initiated "bundling" of proposed annexation areas non-contiguous to each other. Change to: The City will not "bundle" non-contiguous areas for purposes of annexation and will use the following definition of "non-contiguous": (to be added) ADDITIONS TO THE ORDINANCE: 9. The City wi'll make available to the public all property owner and address lists used by the City of Bakersfield in the annexation and notification process. 10. The City WILL NOT begin an annexation process without written documentation of at least 5 % of the registered voters or property owners approval in the proposedannexation area. Page 6. 11, The City WILL NOT, upon a failed annexation attempt, begin a new annexation proceeding in the same area, or any part thereof, within a two (2) year period. 12. The City. WILL NOT use any tracking system of any annexation survey materials which might identify any individual respondents, their geographic location or in any way compromise an individuals right to confidentiality.. 13. The City WILL NEVER force annexation upon unwilling citizens. Page 7. .6 ATTACHMENT A CITIZENS ADVISORY COMAiITTEE ON ANNEXATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE THE ANNEXATION PROCESS To improve the annexation process involving inhabited properties without 100% land owner consent, the following actions should be considered. VOLUNTARY ACTIONS BY THE CiTY OF BAKERSFIELD 1. Provide individual notification to each property owner of an intention to initiate an annexation. Include the name of 'the annexation proceeding and information on how to participate in the annexationprocess within the notification. 2. Publish one display advertisement in the newspaper with the heading "Legal Notice" to announce a scheduled protest hearing. 3. Published notices should give 30 to 45 days advanced notice of hearings/meetings. 4. Adopt a standardized protest letter form. 5. Disclose the criteria for counting and /or disqualifying a protest letter for each. annexation. 6. Put annexation information on the web page (City). VOLUNTARY ACTIONS BY THE COUNTY 1. Notify all owners of property within the proposed annexation area upon notification of the proposal by LAFCO. 2. Notify the Citizen's Advisory Committee on Annexations of a proposed annexation. 3. County staff knowledgeable in the annexation process should attend annexation informational meetings held by the City. 1:\ KkEIN"C r~ ES\ ADVCOhCM \ IDE.AAMD3 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 1-98 MAY 20, 1998 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: ANNEXATION PROCESS The City Council referred the Annexation Program to the Urban Development Committee on March 25, 1998. · The Committee, at its April meeting, discussed proposed changes and additions to the program. The Committee listened to input from several residents on suggestions for changes to the annexation process. There was a consensus among Committee members that the program be improved and expanded to include more opportunities for resident input. The Committee recommended the following changes: 1. Improve and expand the functions of the annexation hotline to include options for getting information on upcoming meetings, important dates, etc. 2. Provide for individual noticing of protest hearings rather than relying on newspaper ads. 3. Experiment with conducting a resident forum prior to the filing of the annexation to get input from residents and notice the forum. 4. Revise the numbering system used to track survey results. 5. Coordinate a greater number of small neighborhood meetings in each area so that each resident has an opportunity to attend a meeting. 6. Hold at least one City services faire in each potential annexation area. URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 1-98 PAGE -2- MAY 20, 1998 7. Develop an issue of Border/ine which details how the annexation process works. 8. Provide 'for no further "bundling" of non-contiguous areas. The Committee unanimously approved these changes to the process and recommends Council approval. Respectfully submitted, C0u~cilmember Kevin McDermott, Chair V~ andy Rowles Councdmember P'a~nc~a M. Smith OST:jp S:\Urb-Dev-Com Rpt 1-98 August 14, 2000 TO: MAYORS AND CITY MANAGERS MEMBERS OF THE LEAGUE BOARD OF DI- RECTORS MEMBERS OF LEAGUE POLICY COMMITTEES VI 1-1 n mnnhu COMMI~'EE Note to City Managers and City Clerks: Please make immediate distribution to the mayor and to other city officials planning to attend the 2000 Annual Conference. If additional copies are required, we urge you to reproduce them in your city or print a copy from the League's CITYLINK Web site (http:l/ www.caeities.org), click on "What's New". Additional.copies are not available from the League, but a limited number will be available at the Conference. RE: TRANSMITTAL OF LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS This packet contains: I. Information and Procedure II. Guidelines for Annual Conference Resolutions III. Location of Meetings IV. Membership of General Resolutions Committee V. Preliminary History of Resolutions VI. Annual Conference Resolutions PLEASE BRING THIS PACKET WITH YOU TO THE ANNUAL CONFERENCE - - - September 7-9, 2000 m Anaheim - - - I. INFORMATION AND*PROCEDURE Resolutions Contained in this Packet. The representative from each of the League's League bylaws provide that resolutions regional divisions, functional departments, shall be referred by the president to an and standing policy committees, as well as appropriate policy committee for review and additional city officials apPointed by the recommendation. Resolutions with League president. committee recommendations shall then be referred to the General Resolutions The General Assembly will convene at committee at the annual conference. 9 a.m. on Saturday, September 9, during the Annual Business Meeting in the This year 13 resolutions have been Anaheim Convention Center to consider presented for consideration by the annual the report of the General Resolutions conference and referred to the League Committee. .policy committees. Each of the policy. commiti:ees met August 3 or 4 to review Resolutions considered by the General proposed resolutions and to formulate Assembly will retain the numbers assigned preliminary recommendations prior to the to them in this document. annual conference. The sponsors of the resolutions were notified of the time and Initiative .Resolutions. For those issues that place of those meetings, develop after the normal 60-day deadline, a resolution may be introduced with a petition This packet contains a copy of all signed by designated voting delegates of 10 resolutions that have been received and percent of all member cities (48 valid assigned to policy committees. The source signatures required) and presented to the of the resolutions, the policy committees to president of the League no later than 24 which they were assigned, and the hours prior to the time set for convening the preliminary recommendations of the policy Annual Business Session of the General committees to the General Resolutions Assembly. This year, the deadline is Committee are indicated. The Friday, September 8, 2000, 9 a.m. If the recommended actions reported in this parliamentarian finds that a petitioned packet are preliminary, resolution is substantially similar in substance to a-resolution already under Consideration of Resolutions at consideration, the petitioned resolution will Conference. Another meeting of policy be disqualified. ~committees will be held at the annual · conference on Wednesday, September 6. Any questions concerning the resolutions The location for each of these meetings is procedure should be directed to Marian shown on page iv. During these hearings, Avila in the Sacramento office of the any city official wishing to discuss any League, (916) 658-8224. resolution will have an opportunity to address the .policy committee concerned. John Ferraro, President The General Resolutions Committee will League of California Cities meet at 9 a.m. on Friday, September 8, in Council President, Los Angeles the Anaheim Convention Center, to consider the reports of the policy committees. The committee includes'one ii II. GUIDELINES FOR ANNUAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS Policy development is a vital and ongoing process within the League. The principal means for deciding policy on the important issues facing cities and the League is through the standing policy committees and the board of directorsl The process allows for timely consideration of issues in a changing environment and assures broad city officials the opportunity t° both initiate and influence · policy decisions. This influence may be exercised directly through participation as a policy committee member or as a city official visiting a committee meeting to advance a position on an ~issue under the committee's purview. If committee membership or personal attendance is not feasible, city officials may affect policy decisions indirectly through department or division representatives on the policy committees or the board of directors. Annual conference resolutions constitute an additional process for developing League policies. It is recommended that resolutions adhere to the following criteria. Guidelines for Annual Conference Resolutions 1. The issue addressed in the resolution has a direct relation to municipal.affairs. 2. The issue is not of a purely local or regional concern. 3. Generally, the recommended policy should not restate existing League policy. 4. The resolution should be directed at achieving one of the following objectives: (a) Focus public or media attention on an issue of major importance to cities. (b) Establish a general direction for the League by setting forth general principles around which more detailed policies may be developed by the policy committees and board of directors. (c) Consider important issues not adequately addressed by the policy committees and board of directors. (d) Amend the League bylaws. Resolutions to amend the League bylaws will require a two-thirds vote .by the General Assembly for approval. iii Iil. LOCATION OF MEETINGS Policy Committee meetings will be as follows: Wednesday, September 6, 2000 -- 3 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. Anaheim Hilton & Towers 777 Convention Way Anaheim Policy Committee Time Employee Relations 3 p.m. Community Services 3 p.m. Public Safety 3 p.m. **(Revenue and Taxation will not meet) Administrative Services 4:30 p.m. Housing, Comm. & Econ. Development 4:30 p.m. Environmental Quality 4:30 p.m. **(TCPW will not meet) General Resolutions Committee (Friday, September 8, 2000 at 9 a..m.) Anaheim Convention Center General Assembly at the Annual Business Meeting (Saturday, September 9, 2000, at 9 a.m.) Anaheim Convention Center IV. GENERAL RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE League of California Cities Annual Conference - Anaheim - September 7-9, 2000 Chair: Beverly O'Neill, Mayor, Long Beach Vice Chair: Oscar Rios, Mayor, Watsonville Parliamentarian: Aden Gregorio, Attorney at Law, San Francisco Stephany Aguilar, Council Member, Scotts Valley Wayne Johnson, Mayor Pro Tern, Br.awley Robert Allen, Council Member, Selma Maureen Kane, Council Member, Riverside Sheldon Baker, Council Member, Glendale Barbara Kaufman, Supervisor, San Francisco Don Bankhead, Council Member, Fullerton Gregory Kind, Dir. Community Svcs., La Habra Ken 'Blake, Council Member, La Palma Napoleon Madrid, Mayor, Delano Betty Boyle, Council Member, Pinole Rosario Marin, Council Member, Huntington Park Mary Bradley, Director of Finance, Sunnyvale Carol McCauley, Deputy Mayor, Oceanside James Cooper, Mayor, Elk Grove Tony Melo, Mayor, Mt. Shasta Rosemary Corbin, Mayor, Richmond Mark Montemayor, Mayor Pro Tern, West Sacramento Barbara Dillon, Dir. Human Resources, Fairfield William Morris, Public Svcs. Director, Costa Mesa Nancy Dillon, City Clerk, ThOusand Oaks Diana Nourse, Council Member, Hesperia Dennis Downs, Fire Chief, Ventura Alex Padilla, Council Member, Los Angeles Pat Eklund, Mayor, Novato Jim Perrine, Mayor, Marina Tony Ferrara, Mayor Pro Tem, Arroyo Grande Harry T. Price, Vice Mayor, Fairfield Denise Giordano, Mayor Pro Tem, Manteca Dan Secord, Council .Member, Santa Barbara Nancy Goodrich, Assistant Chief of Police, San Diego Ramon Silver, City Administrator, Huntington Beach Tom Haas, City Attorney, Walnut Creek Steve Simonian, Mayor Pro Tem, La Habra Terry Henderson, Council Member, La Quinta Armour Smith, Vice Mayor, Modesto Carol Herrera, Council Member, Diamond Bar Suzan Smith, Council Member, Claremont Sandy Hilliard, Mayor, Yuba City Thomas Sullivan, Planning Director, Moraga Mary Lou Holt, Mayor, Yountville Richard Tefank, Chief of Police, Buena Park Lisbeth Howard, CounCil Member, Dublin Jim Thalman, Mayor Pro Tem, Chino Hills Sam Jackson, City Attorney, Sacramento Jack Walker, Vice Mayor, Sunnyvale Robert Jehn, Council Member, Cloverdale Alice Woody, Council Member, San Jose i HISTORY OF REsOLuTIONS Reso/utions have been grouped by po/icy committees to which they have been assigned. P/ease note some reso/utions may have been assigned to more than one committee. These resolutions are noted by this sign (·). KEY TO REVIEWING BODIES KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN 1. Policy Committee - Preliminary A - Approve · 2. Policy Committee - Final D - Disapprove 3. General Resolutions Committee N - No Action 4.' General Assembly R - Refer to appropriate policy committee for study Action Footnotes - a - Amend * Subject matter covered in another resolution Aa - Approve as amended ** Policy Committee will make final Aaa - Approve with additional amendment(s) recommendation at September 6 meeting *** Existing League policy Ra - Amend and refer as amended to appropriate policy committee for study **** Local authority presently exists Raa - Additional amendments and refer Da - Amend (for clarity or brevity) and Disapprove Na - Amend (for clarity or brevity) and take No Action W Withdrawn by Sponsor [Procedural Note: Resolutions that are approved by the General Resolutions Committee, as well as all qualified petitioned resolutions, are reported to the floor of the General Assembly. At the 1998 Annual Conference, the League General Assembly approved Resolution #2, which established a procedure to give the General Assembly the additional opportunity to consider any resolutions appr(~ved by League policy committees but not approved by the General Resolutions Committee. Following the adoption of Resolution #2-1998, League policy now . ~provides that: Every resolution initially recommended for approval and adoption by all the League policy committees to which the resolution is assigned, but subsequently recommended for disapproval, referral or no action by the General Resolutions Committee, shall then be placed on a consent agenda for consideration by the General Assembly. The consent agenda shall include a brief description of the bases for the recommendations by both the policy committee(s) and General Resolutions Commit-tee, as well as the recommended action by each. Any voting delegate may make a motion to pull a resolution from the consent agenda in order to request the opportunity to fully debate the resolution. If, upon a majority vote of the General Assembly, the request-for debate is approved, the General Assembly shall have the opportunity to debate and subsequently vote on the resolution.] vi Resolutions have been grouped by policy committees to which they have been assigned. Please note some resolutions may have been assigned to more than one committee. These resolutions are noted by this sign (,). Number Key Word Index Reviewinq Body Action ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES POLICY COMMITTEE 1 2 3' 4 1 Revising and Updating Bylaws for the League of California Cities ,2 Skateboarding and Inline Skating A COMMUNITY SERVICES POLICY COMMITTEE Skateboarding and Inline Skating A School Gardens D Senior Adult Day Services A Utilization of Governor's Workforce Investment Act A (WIA) Discretionary Funds CaIWORKs Performance Incentives A EMPLOYEE RELATIONS POLICY COMMITTEE · 5 Utilization of Governor's Workforce Investment Act A (WIA) Discretionary Funds · 6' CalWORKs Performance Incentives A ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY POLICY COMMITTEE 7 Liability Insuranoe for Brownfield Clean-Ups A. 8 Changes in Current Recycling Law Aa 9 Non-Point Source Pollution ** 10 Reusable and Recycled Products a ** HOUSING, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICY COMMITTEF 11 Educational Facility Needs I Aa 12 Building Code for Workforce Investment Act (wIA~) A One-Stop Centers I · PUBLIC SAFETY POLICY COMMITTEE Il 13 I Increased Traffic Fines in School Zones I A I I I II ~ In principle vii REVENUE AND TAXATION POLICY COMMITTEF II N°te I N° res°luti°ns were assigned t° this p°licycommittee. TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS POLICY COMMITTEF IIN°te N° resolutions Were assigned t° this policycommittee. RESOLUTIONS INITIATED BY PETITION Resolution General Committee Assembly Recommendation Action Policy\acres\table00.doc VII1 VI. ANNUAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTIONS REFERRED TO ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES POLICY COMMITTEF 1. RESOLUTION RELATING TO 'REVISING AND UPDATING BYLAWS FOR THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES Source: Board of Directors Referred to: Administrative Services Policy Committee Preliminary Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee: Approve in principle. (Including Board-approved amendment; see attached 'blue page. The committee will further review the bylaws as part of its 2001 work program.) Final Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee: (Note: Adoption of amendments .or revisions of the League bylaws requires a two-thirds vote of the General Assemblv at the Annual Conference.) WHEREAS, the bylaws for the League of California Cities, which were approved several decades ago and have been amended as.needed from time to time, are in need of a comprehensive review and update; and WHEREAS, the board of directors has conducted a thorough review of the bylaws and prepared proposed revised bylaws that address the three objectives of (a) making the bylaws easier to use, (b) bringing the bylaws up-to-date with current legal standards on what a nonprofit's bylaws should contain, and (c) addressing inconsistencies and ambiguities contained in the current bylaws; and WHEREAS, information concerning the bylaws revision has been available to city officials for several months on the Internet, the revised bylaws have been distributed to all cities for.review, and a summary of major policy issues addressed in the revision is enclosed with this resolution; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, .by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities assembled in Annual Conference in Anaheim, September 9, 2000, that the League approve the proposed revised bylaws for the League of California Cities that are incorporated herein by reference. Additional information concerning resolution #I was available on the League's web site (www. cacities, orq). Background information also was mailed with the resolutions packet and was distributed at the League Executive Forum in Monterey. The background information (enclosed with this resolutions packet) includes: · A cover letter addressing the process for development and consideration of.the revised bylaws. · A two-page table summarizing major policy changes to the bylaws (yellow pages)· · The proposed revised bylaws (green pages). · The current bylaws, last revised in 1995 (yellow pages)· Note: Please substitute the amended Section 2 text (found on the blue sheet following this .page) for the text on page 5 (green pages) of the proposed 'bylaws amendments. :[Note:' 'Please Substitute the amended text=for SeCtion 2 (shoW~beloWI i~qiiiii!~iei.~,~'ox) i £O~.th~'~.'~xt~'o~se~tior~?2 :i::f~.~i,':. !-~ page 5 o f~the~'~i~O'~'e~ ~ Proposed Amended League Bylaws: Substitute Language for. Page 5 of the Green Pages The League board approved the draft .bylaws at its April meeting to allow time for member review of the proposed bylaws and feedback. The League board responded to feedback .it received at its July board meeting, at which time it approved the following modification to page 5 of the proposed amended bylaws. Please substitute the language below for the language that presently occurs on page 5 for section 2 on the green pages. Section 2. Increase in Dues. As may be warranted, the League Board of Directors by a two-thirds (_/,~) vote may increase the preceding year's dues schedule after notice and justification to the Member C$ities. as ?rc~:ided in Section ! The League Board may increase dues up to ten percent (! 0%) annually. In no event will a city's dues increase by more than $5,000 per year. This change has the effect of retaining the bylaws' present two-thirds vote requirement for dues increases. The earlier draft had proposed a majority vote, consistent with the League's general support for majority (as opposed to super-majority) vote requirements. In addition, both the League board and the Administrative Services policy committee have created mechanisms to consider additional suggestions and feedback on the League's bylaw§ on an ongoing basis in the coming year. G:\LEGAL~Js\BOARD\SubPg00.doc 2 +2. RESOLUTION RELATING TO SKATEBOARDING AND INLINE SKATING Source: Community Services Policy Committee Referred to: Administrative Services and Community Services Policy Committees Preliminary Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee: + Administrative Services Policy Committee - Approve. +Community Services Policy Committee- Approve. Final Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee: WHEREAS, section 831.7 of the Government Code defines "hazardous recreational activities;" and WHEREAS, Health & Safety Code sections 115800 and 115800.1 provide that skateboarding ancl inline skating only fall within the definition of "hazardous recreational activity" when certain requirements are met; and WHEREAS, the provision under Health & Safety Code sections 115800 and 115800.1 defining skateboarding and inline skating as a "hazardous recreational activity" has a sunset clause of January 1, 2003; and WHEREAS, recreational directors throughout the United States declare skating produces qualities such as discipline, determination, happiness, self-esteem, a sense of accomplishment, stress release, character building, camaraderie, physical fitness, and a positive attitude; and WHEREAS, California has become the skateboarding and inline skating capital of the world, with an increase in participants exceeding 700 percent during the 1990s. This creates a need to provide youth and adults a safe place to perform their maneuvers and demonstrate their skills without destroying public and private property; and WHEREAS, cities and counties are building skate parks throughout California to meet the recreational needs of youth and adults, resulting in many public agencies finding that their skate parks are a benefit to the community and are not creating predicted problems; and WHEREAS, if skateboarding and inline skating are permanently classified as a "hazardous recreational activity" and there is proper signage as to wearing of safety equipment when skating, local public agencies can continue to have immunity for skating activity accidents; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED~' by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities assembled' in Annual Conference in Anaheim, September 9, 2000, that the League-support an amendment to Government Code section 831.7 to permanently include skateboarding and inline skating within the definition of "hazardous recreational activity;' and be it further RESOLVED, that the League support amendments to Health and Safety Code section 115800 and 115800.1 to eliminate the sunset date of January 1, 2003 and to allow local public agencies operating a park or facility, maintained for the purposes of recreational skating use, which is not supervised on a regular basis, to include inline skating, as well as skateboarding in .the adoption of an ordinance and posting of signs requiring any person gathering within the boundaries of the park or facility to wear a helmet, elbow pads, and knee pads, and failure to do so may be subject to citation. 3 RESOLUTIONS REFERRED TO COMMUNITY SERVICES POLICY COMMITTEF *2. RESOLUTION RELATING TO SKATEBOARDING AND INLINE SKATING Resolution #2 referred also to Administrative Services Policy Committee. For recommendation, see Administrative Services section. 3. RESOLUTION RELATING TO SCHOOLGARDENS Source: Los Angeles County Division Referred to: Community Services Policy Committee Preliminary Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee: Disapprove. Final Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee: WHEREAS, school children, particularly in urban areas, are increasingly separated from agriculture and natural environments, missing important learning opportunities; and WHEREAS, children's health can be positively impacted through hands-on education and activities involving gardening; and WHEREAS, the State of California's Superintendent of Education has initiated the "A Garden in Every School" program, recognizing the importance of school gardens; and WHEREAS, educators, parents, and students have expressed their interest in pursuing school gardens; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities assembled in Annual Conference in Anaheim, September 9, 2000, that the League support legislation to provide technical assistance and regulatory support for the development of school gardens and on-going teacher training and materials to promote garden sustainability, and to encourage schools to partner with district agricultural associations to implement programs that may be currently available. 4. RESOLUTION RELATING TO SENIOR ADULT DAY SERVICES Source: Los'~,ngeles County Division ...R. eferred to: Community Services Policy Committee Preliminary Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee: Approve. Final Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee: WHEREAS, the fastest growing segment of the population in the United States is in the 85+ age range of our society; and WHEREAS, this special adult population includes many seniors who suffer from Alzheimer's disease and related dementia disorders and need specialized community-based care services and programs to maintain their independence within their respective communities; and WHEREAS, California cities are dedicated to enhancing_and improving .the quality of life for all senior adults within cities; now, therefore, be it 4 RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League' of California Cities assembled in Annual Conference in Anaheim, September 9, 2000, that the League support legislation that improves and expands the availability of adult day services and programs throughout the State of California. *5. RESOLUTION RELATING TO UTILIZATION OF GOVERNOR'S WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT (WIA) DISCRETIONARY FUNDS Source: City of Los Angeles Referred to: Community Services and Employee Relations Policy Committees Preliminary Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee: · Community Services Policy Committee- Approve. · Employee Relations Policy Committee- Approve. Final Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee: WHEREAS, the League of California Cities has a strong commitment to the improvement of educational and employment prospects for disadvantaged youth; and WHEREAS, one of the goals of California's Workforce Investment System is to provide youth' with the opportunities to achieve career goals that will allow them to successfully compete in the labor market and prepare them for higher education; and WHEREAS, having youth that are well prepared to enter the workforce is essential to California's economic future; and WHEREAS, the Governor may reserve up to 15 percent of the state's WIA allocation; and WHEREAS, WIA requires cities to provide more services to youth without additional funding, the number of youth that will be employed under the WIA is significantly below the number that were served under the Job Training Partnership Act; and WHEREAS, Iow-income youth in our cities still have extremely high unemployment rates; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities assembled in Annual Conference in Anaheim, September 9, 2000, that the League support legislation to allocate the state's entire youth allotment to the Local Workforce Investment Boards. · 6. RESOLUTION RELATING TO CALWORKS PERFORMANCE INCENTIVES Source: City of Los Angeles Referred to: Community Services and Employee Relations Policy Committees Preliminary Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee: · Community Services Policy Committee -Approve.' · Employee Relations Policy Committee - Approve. Final Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee: WHEREAS, on August 22, 1996, the president signed federal welfare reform legislation that shifted control of assistance for families and children from the federal government to the states; and 5 WHEREAS, in accordance with federal welfare reform legislation, the state developed the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility for Kids (CalWORKs) program that offers parents services to help them find jobs; and WHEREAS, CaIWORKs Performance Incentives offer counties a tangible incentive (dollars are given for each participant that secures employment) to help CalWORKs participants secure and retain employment; and WHEREAS, many'counties, such as Los Angeles, have collaborated with hundreds of community partners to develop self-sustaining plans that are-funded primarily by CalWORKs Performance Incentives; and WHEREAS, implementation of these plans is contingent on future state funding of CalWORKs Performance Incentives; and WHEREAS, the proposed freeze in Performance Incentive funding will seriously impact the ability of local government to provide services designed to promote the long-term self-sufficiency of Iow-income youth and their families; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities assembled in Annual Conference in Anaheim, September 9, 2000, that the League support legislation to allow counties to retain the full amount of the Performance Incentives they earn. RESOLUTIONS REFERRED TO EMPLOYEE RELATIONS POLICY COMMITTEE +5. RESOLUTION RELATING TO UTILIZATION OF GOVERNOR'S WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT (WlA) DISCRETIONARY FUNDS Resolution #5 referred also to Community Services Policy Committee. For recommendation, see Community Services section. RESOLUTION RELATING TO CALWORKS PERFO. RMANCE INCENTIVES Resolution #6 referred also to Community Services Poficy Committee. For recommendation, see Community Services section. RESOLUTIONS REFERRED TO ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY POLICY COMMITTEE 7. RESOLUTION RELATING TO LIABILITY INSURANCE FOR BROWNFIELD CLEAN-UPS Source: Los Angeles County Division Referred to: Environmental Quality Policy Committee Preliminary Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee: Approve. Final Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee: .WHEREAS, expected population growth poses challenges to California's ability to provide jobs and housing to millions more residents; and 6 WHEREAS, the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the State of California have identified redevelopment of underutilized and contaminated properties (brownfields) in California's urban areas as a way to make more productive use of already developed land and bri,~g jobs to where they are needed; and WHEREAS, lack of certainty regarding costs to clean up contaminated property can pose a major barrier to property owners obtaining financing for clean up and redevelopment and liability insurance can address this barrier; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities assembled in Annual Conference in Anaheim, September 9, 2000, that the League support legislation to establish a state- sponsored contamination-related liability insurance program to encourage the redevelopment of brownfield properties; and be it further RESOLVED, that the League encourage the state to proceed with the implementation of existing investment tax credit programs. 8. RESOLUTION RELATING TO CHANGES IN CURRENT RECYCLING LAW Source: Los Angeles County Division Referred to: Environmental Quality Policy Committee Preliminary Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee: Approve as amended. Final Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee: WHEREAS, the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989.(AB 939), as amended, requires cities and counties to divert 25 and 50 percent of their solid waste from landfills or "transformation" facilities by 1995 and the year 2000, respectively; and WHEREAS, the failure to comply with the Act's requirements, including mathematically substantiating achievement of the waste diversion mandates, may subject a local jurisdiction to penalties of up to $10,000 per day; and WHEREAS, several California jurisdictions have struggled to mathematically demonstrate achievement of the 25 percent diversion for 1995 and many more are expected to face an even greater struggle to mathematically demonstrate achievement of the 50 percent requirement for the year 2000 for several reasons, including deficiencies in the current diversion measurement system and a whole host of problems associated with numerical accounting; and WHEREAS, jurisdictions are spending an inordinate amount of time and resources doing "number crunching" which, given the limited resources available, would be best used to implement waste diversion programs that keep the waste away from landfills; and WHEREAS, the statistical accuracy and margin of error of the existing system the California Integrated Waste Management Board uses to measure jurisdictions' achievement of the waste diversion requirements of state law need to be evaluated, and the board needs to develop appropriate policies that take this margin of error into account as it evaluates jurisdictions' compliance with the waste reduction requirements of state law; and WHEREAS,.leading edge transformation technologies have the potential to divert a large portion of the waste stream that is currently destined for landfill disposal and incineration, however, 7 there are provisions in current state law that treat these technologies the same way as incineration that have become a major impediment to their development; and WHEREAS, markets for recyclable materials have lagged behind the supply of materials being collected as a result of the programs implemented by jurisdictions, and the state has not done enough to help develop markets for recyclables and assist jurisdictions in meeting the waste diversion requirements of state law; and WHEREAS, the geographical separation between jurisdictions throUghout the state and Sacramento has hampered communication between jurisdictions and the California Integrated Waste Management Board and, therefore, the ability of the board to effectively assist them in achieving the waste diversion requirements .of state law; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities assembled in Annual Conference in Anaheim, September 9, 2000, that the League: 1. Continue to support legislation to provide changes to the Act that will: a) Place more emphasis on implementation of waste diversion programs and less on strict mathematical accounting; b) Require the California Integrated Waste Management Board to.evaluate the level of accuracy of the existing system the board uses to measure jurisdictions' achievement of the waste diversion requirements of state law and develop appropriate policies, in consultation with local jurisdictions, to account for any inaccuracies in the system; c) Encourage the development of non-burn transformation technologies by providing full diversion credit for the waste jurisdictions sent to non-burn transformation facilities; d) Require the board to expand its market development activities, including providing more funding for research and development of markets for recyclable materials; e) Require the California Integrated Waste Management Board to staff its existing regional offices with personnel that can assist jurisdictions in carrying out the . requirements of the act; and 2. Approve the incorporation of the proposed legislative changes into the League's 2000 State Legislative Platform. 9. RESOLUTION RELATING TO NON-POINT SOURCE POLLUTION Source: City of Huntington Beach Referred to: Environmental Quality Policy Committee Preliminary Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee: Policy Committee will make final recommendation at September 6 meeting. Final-Recommendation to General Resolutions Commit-tee: WHEREAS; we all share in the recreational and environmental benefits of clean ocean water, migrating birds, and fishing; and WHEREAS, all California cities share in the economic benefits of living along our nation's coast; and 8 WHEREAS, a study conducted in 1998 by San Francisco State University identified $14 billion in direct revenue generated by California's beaches, with little of this revenue going back to coastal cities; and WHEREAS, non-point source pollution is a problem created by all of us and should, therefore, be shared by all of us; and WHEREAS, the coastal cities of California share the responsibility for reducing air pollution with upstream, inland cities, so should inland cities share the responsibility for reducing pollution contained in urban runoff with downstream, coastal cities because we all live upwind and downstream; and WHEREAS, the League of California Cities generally supports a watershed management approach to water quality; and WHEREAS, the State of California has recognized the need to play a role in building shared infrastructure to meet broad community needs such as highways and bridges; and WHEREAS, it follows that the State of California should extend those broad community needs' to include non-point and urban runoff;' now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities assembled in Annual Conference in Anaheim, September 9, 2000, that the League support the concept that all California cities should share in the responsibility for solving the non-point source of pollution problem; and be it further RESOLVED, that the League of California Cities encourage the State of California to play an active role in building infrastructure improvements to reduce the likelihood that pollution contained in urban runoff will reach our coastal waters. 10. RESOLUTION RELATING TO REUSABLE AND RECYCLED PRODUCTS Source: City of Los Angeles Referred to: Environmental Quality Policy Committee Preliminary Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee: Amend, and policy commit-tee .will-make final recommendation at September 6 meeting, Final Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee: WHEREAS, the City of Los Angeles has long promoted the use of reusable and recycled products through its purchasing :practices, educational efforts, and policy initiatives; and WHEREAS, approximately 3.6 million tons of solid waste are currently being landfilled.each year by the City of Los Angeles; and WHEREAS, the costs of collecting and landfilling those wastes are estimated to be over $200 million annually; and WHEREAS, the City of Los Angeles is required by state law to reduce, reuse and/or recycle 50 percent of all solid waste by 2000 and 75 percent by 2020; and 9 WHEREAS, over 14 years ago the Los Angeles City Council voted to require implementation of a citywide recycling plan; and WHEREAS, in 1990 the city disposed of 253,597 tons of plastic (6.5 percent of total disposed waste street) and in 1995 the city's plastic waste stream reached 364,092 tons (10 percent of total disposed waste stream); and WHEREAS, plastics comprise one of the fastest growing portions of the waste stream and are quickly replacing other more commonly recycled materials; and .' WHEREAS, an industry leader is leading the beverage industry to increase its use of polyethylene terephthalate plastic (PET) and moving away from the use of easily recycled glass and aluminum for its beverage containers; and ° WHEREAS, according to the U.S. EPA, the national recycling rate for PET soft drink containers has declined dramatically from a high of 53.3 percent in 1994 to 35.5 percent in 1997 and has now reached a critical stage; and WHEREAS, reversal of declining PET recycling rates requires a significant commitment by the beverage industry to increase-both the supply and the demand for recycled plastic; and WHEREAS, experience in California had demonstrated that the most effective program to increase recycling rates is container deposit legislation; and WHEREAS, the leaders in the beverage industry have vigorously lobbied against deposit legislation that would increase recycling rates in other states; and WHEREAS, it is widely acknowledged that,the use of recycled PET in the production of beverage containers would have a positive impact on the value of recycled PET, and therefore the market for material collected through curbside and buyback programs; and WHEREAS, a beverage industry leader announced in 1990 that it would use 25 percent recycled plastic in its bottles but stopped in 1994 and is currently using only minimal amounts of recycled plastic; and WHEREAS, FDA-approved technology exists to incorporate recycled PET into new beverage containers, and proven technology for refillable plastic bottles also exists, and both of these processes are currently being used by industry leaders for their overseas markets; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities assembled in Annual Conference in Anaheim, September 9, 2000, that the League support legislation to .urge the beverage industry to make a commitment to use significant amounts of recycled PET in their bottles for markets in the United States, thereby closing the loop and getting the best and highest use out of their bottles, as well as returning a measure of profitability to the operations of our nation's public and private recycling programs; and be it further RESOLVED, that the League of California Cities support legislation to urge the industry to increase its use of recycled PET, as well as support deposit legislation .and other policies that significantly increase the collection of plastic bottles; and be it further RESOLVED, that the League of California Cities support legislation to urge the beverage industry to use recycled plastic and support policies to increase national recycling rates for plastics.. 10 RESOLUTIONS REFERRED TO HOUSING, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICY COMMITTEE 11. RESOLUTION RELATING TO SUPPORT LOCAL GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT IN THE REQUIREMENT OF MITIGATION FOR PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL FACILITIES Source: Los Angeles County Division Referred to: Housing, Community and Economic Development Policy Committee Preliminary Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee: Approve as amended. Final Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee: WHEREAS investing in education is crucial, if the state is to prepare our children for the challenges of the future; and WHEREAS there is a tremendous need for new school facilities to meet increased enrollment demand of an ever-growing youth population; and WHEREAS. SB 50 was passed by the Legislature in. 1998 and imposed the most significant facility finance and developer fee reform since 1986; and WHEREAS SB 50 capped school developer fees at $1.93 per square foot for residential construction and $0.31 per square foot for commercial construction; and WHEREAS local governments are prohibited from denying a development project where a developer has paid fees in compliance with the limits described in SB 50; and WHEREAS SB 50 restricts the ability of municipalities to fully address the unique needs and challenges of their communities and mitigate environmental effects of a development project on school facilities beyond payment of statutory impact fees; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to require new development to more equitably and adequately fund the construction of new school facilities; and WHEREAS. SB 50 restricts municipality ability to fully exercise its land use authority; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities assembled in Annual Conference in Anaheim, September 9, 2000, that the League support legislation to provide for local governments to work in partnership with school districts, the state and developers to further refine the scope of SB 50 to adequately fund educational facilities; and be it further RESOLVED, that the League of California Cities allocate resources to a task force to develop and suggest refinements to SB 50 that would allow municipalities a greater role and flexibility in mitigating impacts of development, and ensure that school facilities are available commensurate with the incoming population of new development. 11 12. RESOLUTION RELATING TO BUILDING CODE FOR WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT (WlA) ONE-STOP CENTERS Source: City of Los Angeles Referred to: ' Housing, Community and Economic Development Policy Committee Preliminary Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee: Approve. Final Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee: WHEREAS, the goal of the Workforce Investment Act is to provide integrated services, including those operated by the Employment Development Department (EDD) under WlA Title Ill; and WHEREAS, the primary mechanism for providing integrated services is through the One-Stop Centers; and WHEREAS, the One-Stop 'Centers are operated under the auspices of local units of government; and WHEREAS, the State of California Executive Order D86-90 establishes seismic requirements for state employees that are significantly more stringent than those established by local units of government; and WHEREAS, these seismic requirements are creating a barrier to co-location of EDD staff to One-Stop Centers; and WHEREAS, the cost of making the structural changes necessary to meet the higher state standards is greater than the benefit of making such changes; and WHEREAS, co-location of E'DD staff to One-Stop Centers will have significant benefit for California residents; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities assembled in Annual Conference in Anaheim, September 9, 2000, that the League support legislation to exempt EDD leases from the requirements of Executive Order D66-90 when the leases are for the purpose of co- .locating EDD staff into a One-Stop facility that meets the seismic requirements of the local governmental entity. RESOLUTIONS REFERRED TO PUBLIC SAFETY POLICY COMMITTEF 13. RESOLUTION RELATING TO INCREASED TRAFFIC FINES IN SCHOOL ZONES Source: Los Angeles County Division Referred to:. Public Safety Policy Committee Preliminary Recommendation to General 'Resolutions Committee: Approve. Final Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee: WHEREAS, the safety and well being of our children is paramount; and WHEREAS, due to the growth of our youth population, the volume .of traffic in our school zones has increased dramatically; and 12 WHEREAS there is a need to find innovative means to discourage speed in school zones and preserve the well being of our youth; and WHEREAS, targeted enforcement has been shown to have a positive impact in reducing speed in areas; and, WHEREAS, a proactive approach to school traffic safety must be taken before injury or death occurs; and WHEREAS, in order to affirm our resolve that no price is too high in order to protect the lives of our children; and WHEREAS the doubling of traffic fines in our school zones will send a message to our commuters that behavior must be modified and our children must be protected; and WHEREAS an increase in traffic fines will 'draw greater attention to the penalty for unsafe speeds, increase awareness of this safety issue, and serve as a tool to modify behavior of drivers; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities assembled .in Annual' Conference in Anaheim, September 9, 2000, that the League support legislation to provide for a local government's ability to double the fine for traffic violations in school zones in an attempt to reduce speed of drivers and protect our youth. [Note: No resolutions were assigned to the Revenue and Taxation Policy Committee nor the Transportation, Communications and Public Works Policy Committee.] 13 League of hlifornia 1400 K Street Sacramento, CA 9581-5 916.658.8200 Better Cities-A Better Life FAX 916.658.8240 www. cacities.org Proposed League Bylaws Amendments (Annual Conference Resolution #1) July 2000 Background After last year's annual conference, the League board appointed a bylaws committee to review and present recommendations on the League's bylaws. The bylaws committee is comprised of League board members: Helen Kawagoe, City Clerk, Carson John Russo, Council Member, Oakland Ruth Vreeland, Council Member, Monterey The committee presented its recommendations to the League board. The League board approved the attached proposed amendments at the board's April 2000 meeting. Process: For-Membership Approval At the League Annual Conference Under the League's existing bylaws, amendments to the bylaws require a two-thirds vote of the general assembly at the annual conference. See Bylaws, art. XIII, § 1 (full text in footnote . below*). The League board considered these amendments at its April meeting, in order to give the membership an adequate opportunity to study and digest the proposed changes prior to the early September conference. The proposed bylaw amendments will be distributed to cities with the packet of annual conference resolutions and will be considered by the Administrative Services Committee, the General Resolutions Committee and General Assembly. The bylaw amendments are the initiative of the League's board of directors and reflect a great deal of effort on the part of the bylaws committee. * The existing bylaws provision on making amendments reads as follows: These bylaws may be amended at any Annual Conference of the League by a two-thirds vote of the General Assembly, provided the proposed amendment shall have first been prepared in writing and submitted to ~e Board of Directors on or before the second day of the conference in accordance with the procedure for submitting resolutions specified in Article VIII. Such amendment shall go into effect immediately unless otherwise specified in the amendment. If, within sixty days after the adoption of any amendment, one-third or more of the Member Cities submit a written protest against such amendment, it shall automatically be suspended until the next Annual Conference, when it may be taken up again for reconsideration and vote as in ..' the first instance. ! / Summary of Proposed Bylaws Amendments The proposed revisions fall into four categories: · Policy issues identified by the nominating committee and other known problem areas where the bylaws do not provide ready answers to questions that have arisen over the past ten years; · Provisions that are usually found in non-profit corporation bylaws, but are absent in the League's; Efforts to streamline and make consistent the language in the existing bylaws; and 7· Efforts to identify and avoid problems before they arise. ~,_ The proposed amendments reflect an effort to make the bylaws easier to use through formatting, more section titles, white space and a table of contents. In addition to reflecting the changes in "redlined" form, the proposed amended bylaws (see attached on green paper) include extensive footnotes with explanations of the reasons underlying the proposed change, the source of the language and background on League practices. Also for the membership's convenience and reference, a copy of the existing bylaws is included in this packet (see attached on yellow paper). A table summarizing the nature of the changes proposed is attached for League members' convenience. Attachments: 1) Table Summarizing Changes (yellow pages) 2) Proposed Amended Bylaws (green pages) 3) Current Bylaws (yellow pages) g:~legahj s~x~archOObylwcvr, dee Summary of Major Policy Changes To LeagUe Bylaws ISsUe Article IV, sections 2 and 3, · Board vote requirement for dues -:,,.., .,, .;~:: page 5 changes modified from two-thirds ; ' vote to a majority vote ~ · Division ratification necessary if increase exceeds CPI * Elimination of $50,000 dues cap (but retains $5,000 annual limit on individual city dues increases) Article V, section 6, page 8 · Presence of voting delegates from a majority of cities attending the annual ~i;iQ .... "~'~'" conference constitutes a quorum "Thr~'h'°idl · Majority of quorum necessary for ,.,Resolutions i:;:~:i'iiiiii~i[ Article VI, sections 3 and 4, · General Resolutions Committee .. "Process'. ::'~' ? ::: ?ii!;~I pages 10-11 appointment process moved up to coincide with deadlines for submitting resolutions . ?., :,,::,.,,~: · Inability of policy committees to .,,: ~,>,:<?.~:,,..~: make a recommendation does not ,:' :'.;-:: ~:i~:;~:;~":;::~ ¥ i' ~;:.::'~?~! preclude General Resolutions : ,~ ~ :~: '~:~: ,0 ':',%:: "r..~6')~;~?;~ ;~,*~ - ~ ~:;:,~?~ ',-~'~*: :,,~::.~.i::~:. ~ :~(:~:~,~ Commiaee from acting ~Board Meetings !~ Ankle VII, section 7, page · 14-day notice ofbo~d meetings ' :~ ' ~'~' ~a! 18 required, except for emergency :':'~::~ "~'::~ ~:~:~::~:~ ~ meetings (which require a good ~?~,:~,~::~,:~ ~:~:~:o, ~ effort to give 48 hours notice) ):'::',.:.~' ~¥~'*:/:; ,~)~:'~: ~'~ :;~. :'~,~'" .:.:':' .~.:'"~'~::~'.: ~; ?~: :., ~i~ ~;~ · No yearfeWer than 4 bo~d meetings a I:-.M e mgs ~gting'a't BoO, rd: X; 14 Article VII, section 10, page · No proxy voting allowed <~::::~::::~:;;::~:¢v,:~l 19 · No ch~ge to bo~d policy relating to :,',~:,~,' ~,, '::,':;::,' ;?~,;,'.-, :~';,.;:::'<¢:';:~:,~1 designation of bo~d alternates ~SUccession'in~ A~icle VIII, section 3, page · Creates ~ automatic succession of (the..Event of 5.~¢~}(~¢~ 22 first vice president to president F r ' .o matron of ~::;~ A~icle IX, section l(b), · Clarifies that new divisions require ~ew uw~s~ons~?~ page 25 bylaws amendment Article X, section l(b), page · Clarifies that new departments require 30 bylaws amendment Article XI, sections 2 and 3, · Allows use of alternative voting page 34 methods when voice voting makes it difficult to determine 'outcomes · Allows departments, in their bylaws, to deviate from "one-city one-vote" rule Article XII, sections 1 and · Limits circumstances under which 2, pages 34-35 board officer may be reelected to same office (if has served in office for more than nine months, is ineligible for reelection) · Creates an effective date for vacancy caused by leaving city service as 3 months after ceases to hold same or ,? similar office held when originally · "'"';~? elected to office Article XIII, section 2, page · Allows two-year (or other time 36 horizon) budget )~COnflicts 'of ':::i.~ Article XIV, pages 37-39 · Reflects California nonprofit law requirements for director disqualifications in transactions in which they have an interest Article XVI, pages 43-44 · Clarifies that amendments may be proposed by board or petition · Allows mail balloting for amendments · Clarifies General Assembly consideration procedures for amendments BAKERSFIELD NOTICE OF CANCELLATION OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the regular meeting of the Legislative and Litigation Committee of the City Council scheduled for Thursday, August 24, 2000, at 1:15 p.m., in the City Manager's Conference Room, Second Floor of City Hall, Suite 201, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, has been canceled. DATED: August 21,2000 Trudy Slater, Administrative Analyst TTS:jp