Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/27/2001 BAKERSFIELD Sue Benham, Chair David Couch Jacquie Sullivan Staff: Trudy Slater REGULAR MEETING NOTICE LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMI'I-I'EE of the City Council- City of Bakersfield Monday, August 27, 2001 1:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room Second Floor - City Hall, Suite 201 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL 2. ADOPT JUNE 25, 2001 'AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. DISCUSSION AND REVIEW RELATING TO LAFCO ANNEXATION PROCEDURES (INVITED GUEST: BILL TURPIN) 5. NEW BUSINESS ..... ~ DISCUSSION, REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION.REGARDINGMINUTES OF CLOSED SESSIONS B. DISCUSSION, REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PROPOSED LEAGUE RESOLUTIONS 6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 7. ADJOURNMENT DRAFT BAKERSFIELD Alan nager Sue Benham, Chair Staff: Trudy Slater David Couch Jacquie Sullivan AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION' COMMITTEE Regular Meeting Monday, June 25, 2001 1:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room 1. ROLL CALL Called to order at 1:05 p.m. Members present: Councilmember Sue Benham, Chair Councilmember David Couch Councilmember Jacquie Sullivan arrived at 1:35 p.m. 2. ADOPT APRIL 23, 2001 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted. 3. PUBL, IC STATEMENTS None. 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION RELATING TO PERMITS FOR VENDORS CONDUCTING SALES FROM PORTABLE CONCESSION STANDS IN ClT~ PARKS City Attorney Bart Thiltgen explained permanent vending structures in City parks had been removed and the proposed changes focused on portable vendors. The ordinance would replace the current moratorium, set to expire in July, which had been issued to give staff an opportunity send out RFPs to ascertain interest in a limited number of vendors presenting a uniform and consistent way of dealing with park concessions. Response to the RFPs was minimal. The proposed changes will eliminate commercial activity in City parks unless the applicant is a non-profit entity or a vendor that contracts with the City and clarifies that City- sponsored events are exempt from the regulations, as well as those vendors that contract with the City at a City-sponsored event. Agenda Summary Report Legislative and Litigation Committee June 25, 2001 Page 2 Recreation and Parks Director Stan Ford explained the reasons behind the previous removal of 'permanent vending structures in City parks, including the deterioration of the buildings and other health-related issues.. In response to Committee Chair Sue Benham's questions related to the La Rosa carts, Mr. Thiltgen responded that La Rosa carts were currently allowed on the sidewalks and not meant to be in the parks; the ordinance would not affect this aspect. The La Rosa vendor would not be able to get a permit under the new changes as they focused on non-profits and city contractors. Committee Member David Couch motioned the proposed ordinance be forwarded to Council for approval, Chairperson Benham seconded, and the motion carried. B. REVIEW AND'RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PUBLIC ACCESS TELEVISION Mr. Thiltgen indicated that of the five entities surveyed, four of their franchises included provisions which allowed them to require their respective cable companies to provide public access. The fifth entity had formed a cable television commission which followed closely the limitations set'forth in Time Warner's policy. He-indicated the City's franchises do not have such 'requirements and the City cannot force them in to it. Mr. Jeff Thielscher, financial officer for KCPA-TV, provided Chairperson Benham with a folder labeled KCPA-TV Proposal to FCC containing a paper trail. He feels Time Warner is breaking the law and would like the City to help KCPA-TV negotiate with-them. He stated the County would not help them. Mr. D. K. Mason, KCPA-TV, indicated he would like the City to offer them some support, even a token. He stated he felt this would send a positive signal to the community. Committee-Member Couch asked which and-what laws had been broken, and Mr. Thielscher indicated they would get an attorney after receiving non-profit status to assist them. Time Warner was a bully. Committee Chair Benham restated the three minute limit on speakers. She reiterated that Mr. Thiltgen's stance was that Time Warner had broken no laws. After further discussion, the Committee concluded no action was needed at this time. A report to Council would be made. Staff was directed to include the public access television -. proponents in future cable company negotiations causedby changing federal laws or in future franchise agreement negotiations. 5, NEW BUSINESS A. REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION RELATING TO SKATEBOARD RESTRICTIONS IN THE AREA OF OLD TOWN KERN Mr. Thiltgen explained that business owners in the Old Town Kern area had been having '~'-~,: ~-~'. problems with skateboarders and had asked for assistance. A proposed change to the-City Agenda Summary Report Legislative and .Litigation Committee · AFT June 25, 2001 Page 3 ordinance would have extended the City's prohibition of skateboarding in the central traffic district to any sidewalk within all City commercial zones. City Manager Alan Tandy indicated such a change would be virtually impossible to enforce, and police representatives noted a lower-level priority 4 call (such as a skateboarding violation) could have a 90-minute to'2-hour delay. Committee Member Jacquie Sullivan mentioned the damage done by skateboarders in Centennial Plaza and the posting of signs as done in the downtown area. The Committee generally agreed there was skateboarding abuse, but felt the proposal was too 'broad and needed to be more specific. Staff was directed to limit the skateboard prohibition to the Central District and Old Town Kern and to bring the issue back to Committee at-the next meeting. B. DISCUSSION, REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING TOBACCO SELF SERVICE DISPLAY ORDINANCE Mr. Thiltgen 'reviewed the history behind the City's current resolution asking for voluntary compliance in limiting self service tobacco displays and commented on current tobacco court cases. Mr. Johnathan Cartier, Kern CountyDepartment of Public Health (KCDPH), and Mr. Bill Mason, KCDPH Tobacco Education Program, urged the City to establish an ordinance banning self service tobacco displays. Committee Member Sullivan indicated she wanted Bakersfield to take the lead with a hard stance on the issue and wanted the ordinance moved forward. The motion was made, seconded and passed to direct staff to forward the ordinance to Council for approval. The ordinance was .not to become effective until January 1, 2002, to allow adequate time for businesses to comply with the new requirements. Committee Chair Benham requested that the second reading be delayed until the Council meeting of August 22 as she was unable to attend the prior Council meeting. C. DISCUSSION REGARDING LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL MEETING Administrative Analyst Trudy Slater explained the role the Legislative and Litigation COmmittee plays in both recommending to Council a Voting Delegate and Alternate to the League's annual meeting and also recommending positions on proposed League resolutions. Voting delegates were normally chosen from among those planning to attend the conference. Ms. Slater indicated those who had indicated plans to attend the annual conference.this year were Mayor Hall and Councilmember Carson, as well as Committee Members Couch and Sullivan. Although Committee Member CoUch indicated the Chair of the Legislative and Litigation Committee often served as the Voting Delegate, Committee Chair Benham indicated her schedule would not allow her to attend the conference this year. After further discussion, the Committee directed staff to determine if Mayor Hall Would be willing to serve as Voting Delegate. Committee Member Sullivan was recommended as Alternate. Both Councilmembers Couch and Sullivan indicated their willingness to serve as Voting Delegates or Alternates, if needed. Recommendations would be forwarded to Council for approval'. Agenda Summary-Report D AFT Legislative and Litigation Committee June 25, 2001 Page 4 D. REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION RELATING TO PROPOSED TAXICAB ORDINANCE REVISIONS Mr. Thiltge ~ explained the minor changes proposed in the taxicab ordinance revisions and that there l~ad been no opposition to them. Police Lt. Alan Zachary indicated the changes clean up tt~e ordinance and provide for customer observable taxicab driver identification. There was nothing of a punitive nature within the proposed changes After discu~sion, it was motioned, seconded, and passed to forward the proposed ordinance changes t(~ Council for approval. E. STAI~'~ F REPORT AND COMMI'R'EE RECOMMENDATION REGARDING REVISION TO CHAPTER 5.32 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO MASSAGE EST/~BLISHMENTS IN ORDER TO CONFORM WITH STATE LAW Mr. Thiltgen explained the proposed changes conform with State law and added, based upon discussion§ with the Bakersfield Massage Training Institute, 100 hours of classroom time plus 100 hours of internship for massage technician permits. Declaring this an urgency item eliminates lhe normal 30-day wait before an ordinance takes effect. / Ms. Marga,ret Hust, Director/InstrUctor of the Agape School of Massage, Agape Restoration Center, indicated her support for the proposed changes. A motion was made, seconded, and passed to move the urgency ordinance forward to -Council.foi its approval.' 6, COMMI'I'rEE COMMENTS None. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeti~g adjourned at 2:30 p.m. Staff Attendees: City Manager Alan Tandy, Administrative Analyst Trudy $1ater; City Attorney Bart Thiltgen, Deputy City Attorney Virginia Gennaro; Lt. Alan Zachary, Police Officer Bill Ware, Lt. Mci Scoff, Detective Scott Carvel; Treasurer Bill Descary Other Attendees: Denny Art, Jeff Thielscher, James Burger, D. K. Mason, Bill Martin, Johnathan Cartier, Matthew Morrow, John Lay, Margaret Hust JULY 17, 2001 MRS. SUE'BENHAM, COUNCILWOMAN CITY OF BAKERSFIELD BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA DEAR SUE: AFrER ATI'ENDING A RECENT LAFCO MEETING, AND SPEAKING WITH THE DIRECTOR, I WANTED TO SHARE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION WITH YOU; HE SAID THEY HAVE COMPLETED THE JANUARY Is~ PORTION OF THEIR WORK, SOI ASKED HIM IF rr WAS NECESSARY FOR THE CITY TO WAlT ANY FURTHER ON LAFCO'S COMPLETION BEFORE THE CITY COULD PROCEED WITH 1TS PRELEGAL PORTION AND HE SAID ~NO, THIS tS NOT NECESSARY." HE ALSO STATED HE WOULD'BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ANYONE-MIGHT 'HAVE ABOUT THEIR PROGRESS - THAT ALL ANYONE NF.~ DO IS GIVE HIM A CALL. I BELIEVE YOU WOULD FIND:HIM VERY HELPFUL AND FORTHCOMING WITH INFORMATION. 1T APPEARS TnvIE'S AWASTING, WI'ITI THE COUNCIL BEING LEAD TO BELIEVE THAT THE CITY IS FROZEN IN TItVIE, UNABLE TO PROCEED WITH YOUR GUIDELINES. NOT TRUE! THE ANNEXATION GUIDELINES ARE SO NECESSARY AS WE ARE DEEPLY CONCERNED THAT PRESENTLY THERE ARE NO wRrrfEN PROTECTIONSFOR THE CITIZF. NS AS 1T RELATES TO THE PRELEGAL PROCESS, PARTICULARLY IN THE AREA OF NEIGHBORHOOD ~.~GS THAT ARE SO EASILY MANIPULATED AS OPPOSED TO OPEN, PUBLIC MEETINGS. THIS WAS PARTICUL~Y TRUE IN THE PALM/OLIVE ANNEXATION WHERE THE MAJORITY OF THE CITIZRNS WERE EXCLUDED AND YET IT WAS REPORTED BY STAFF THAT THE DESIRE TO BE ANNEXED WAS "OVERWHELMING". 'ITIE PIIEI.F. GAL PORTION ALSO CONTAINS OTHER AREAS WHICH NEE. r) TO BE ADDRESSED. A LOOK AT CITY DOCUMENTS FOR OUR ANNEXATION WII.I, CONFIRM WHY WE ARE SO CONCERNED. rr HAS BEEN STATED THAT THE PRESENT COUNCIL IS NOT INTERESTED IN NEW, FORCED ANNEXATIONS. PERHAPS NOT, BUT THERE IS NO ASSURANCE OF FLYrURE COUNCIL ATTITUDES, SO PRECAUTIONARY STEPS MUST BE TAKEN SO WE CAN TRULY GET ON W1THOLIR LIVES RATHER THAN CONTINUE ~'ELING t,ncE nOS?AGES IN OUR OW~ HOMES. ViE ARE ^WARE THE CITY tS RACn~G AHEAD wrm ~wIONS AS WE SPEAI<, SO rr ts tMPO~tWAN'r EOR GtnD~S TO BE IN PL^CE FOR EVERYONE'S PROTECrtON, cnnz~s AND crrY ALnCE. THESE CONCER~S MAY mFEA~ ~ WO SOME t,uvrm wt-m ~IOME UNDER SEIGE IS ONE'S OWN HOME. NOT HAVING PROPERGUIDELINES IS AN OPEN INVITATION mo ABUSE OF POWER HOWEVER IT MAY LATER BE EXCUSED AND/USTIFIED. I RECEIVED A CALL FROM A GENTLEMAN.I DO Nor KNOW, TELLING ME OF A RECENT NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING HELD IN HIS AREA ATTENDED BY ~ LA RACHELLE, MP,. IOatotSmV AND D^VtD COUC~ LEAVING SOME OF THEM ~m,iNO tn~C~TAIN A~ WORaIED. SO, E~S WinS BEGUN ALREADY wrm YET A~OT~R NEtGt-mORHOOD TOPa~ APART BY COmaZO~¥? COZY, SELECmI) NE~GHBORaOOD MEETINGS SPAaK SUCH CONTROVERY AND FEAR. THIS BEGS THE QUESTION: WHEN DO PEOPLE JUST GET mo LIVE IN PEACE AND WHY IS THERE SUCH A NEED FOR'AI,L-CITY CONTROL? HOW DOES THE CITY SENm'r nZOM SUCH FEASt AND NEGAWtVITY~i WE OFFER OUR ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION IN GETrING THE GUIDELINE PROCESS UNDERWAY AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP IN THIS MATTER. -.- SINCERELY,  MEMORANDUM July 26, 2001 TO: LEGISLATION AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE Sue Benham - Chair David Couch Jacquie Sullivan FROM: BART J. THILTGEN, City Attorney SUBJECT: LAFCO PROCEDURES In accordance with the new Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Gov. Code, § 56000, et seq.), LAFCO has adopted the attached procedure regarding Protest Hearings. It is our information that no other new procedure has been adopted by LAFCO. LAFCO has adopted a fee schedule and budget. This information is being provided to the Committee in preparation for the August 27, 2001 committee meeting. BJT:las cc: Trudy Slater, Administrative Analyst S:\COUNCIL\MEMOS\Leg&Lit LAFCO Proc re Protest Hrgs.wpd K~n Coun~ LAFCo 07/2S/01 ~4:~0P P.~ SECTION L: Prote~'t Hearings I. lntrodfietion. Pursuant to Government Code Section $?000(a), LAFCO shall hold protest proceedings in any change o£organi~fion or reorganization which has been approved by LAFCO. Subject to all other requh'ements of state law regarding the noticing and conducting of protest hearings, the following proeed~es shall be followed in counting or valuing written protests: II. Written Protest.~ The following constitute the requirements for a valid protest change of organization or reorgan~_.ation approved by LAFCO: A. The ~rotest shall be in writing and must be signed with the date of the signature shown tbereot~. Any protests which are unsigned or which are dated prior to the date of'publication of the notice published by LAFCO of the protest hearing shall be disregarded for purposes of ascertaining the value of any v, vitten protest. B. Each protest shall stale whether it is made by a. landowner or registered voter and contain the name and address of the landowner and the address or other description of'the property affected by the proceeding or thc 'name and addrcss of the registered voter as it appears on the voter's affidavit of registration. C. A protest must be filed with LAYCO prior to conclusion of the protest hearing. D. For purposes of'evaluating the sufficiency of any protest signed by owners-of land, the following rules will apply: 1) The Executive Officer will determine, to ~e extent possible, the total number o f'landowners within the territory which is the subject of the protest hearing and the total assessed valuation of all of'the land within such territory as determined by the most recent assessment roll being prepared by the county at the time the Commission adopts a resolution of application. The assessed value' t° be given land exempt fi.om "taxation or owned by a public agency shall be determined by thc County Assessor, at the request of the Executive Officer, in thc same amount as the County Assessor would assess that land, if the land wer~ not e.xempt from taxat[°n or owned by. a Public agency. 2) Thc Executive Ot~iccr shall determine the total number of. landowners represented by the protests filed and not withdra.wn in the change of organization or reorganb,.atlon and thc total assessed valuation of the land owned by the lando~vners. Kern Ceun~ LAFCo 07/Z5/0~ ~)4,~0P a) Protests submitted on behalf oran owner of land by an agent shall be accepted if thc authority of the agent is in writing and a . copy of the authority is flied with the protest. b) Protests made on behalfofa private eo,q~orafion which is an owner of land may be made by any officer or employee of the corporation without written authorization for same, provided however that the of I~ee or,he officer, title of the employee, or other designation of the employee shall be so stated on the protest. 3) In determining the assessed value of the land 5n Paragraph (2) imme~Jately above, the value given to land held in joLnt tenancy or tenancy in common shall be determined in proportion to the proportionate interest in the land of the person signing the protest or on whose behal£the protest is signed. 4) A4a. y protest signed by a person not shown as owner'on the most recent assessment roll being prepared by the County at the time LAFCO adopts a resolution of appllcation shall be disregarded unless, prior to certification, written evidence is furnished to LAFCO satisfactory to the Executive Officer that .the .signer meets any of the following requirements:. a) ls a legal representative o. fthe owner; or b) Is entitled to be shown as owner of land on the next assessment roll; or e) Is a purcha.~r of'land under a recorded written agreement of sale; or d) Is authorized, to sign for, and on behalf of, any public agency owning l~md. E. For protests signed by registered voters, the Executive OfFicer shall cause the names o f the signers of' the protests to be compared w~th the Voters Register in thc o~cc of the County Clerk or Registrar of Voters and ascertain both of -, the following: 1.) The number of'registered voters in the affected territory; and 2) Whether or not the person signing the protest appears on the Voters Register. F. A form of protest for either landowner or registered voter is available from the Executive Officer. However, any voter or landowner wishing to file a protest may do so whctht.-r or not utilizing the foregoing forms provided the Protest btherwise CompLies With the foregoing and the law. IIL Caveat. The foregoing represents some of the relevant and pertinent provisions pertaining to protest hearings contained in the Cortese. Knox. Hcrtzbcr8 Government Reorga~;?ntion Act o['2000 contained at Government Code Sections 56000 et seq. (thc "Act"). However, the foregoing is only intended ~ a summary and reference is made herein to the Act for a review o~'all ofthe provisions rclating to protest hearings and a more complete description of the requirements pertaining thereto. Nothing herein is intended .to modi~ the Act and each and every provision of'the'Act is · incorporated herein by reference. Ke~n C~unt~ LAF¢o 07/2S/010~-:lOP P.004 REGISTERED VOTER PROTEST In accordance with Pad. 3, Division 3, Title 5 of the California Government Code (commencir~g with Section 56000. (Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reocganiza/ion Act of 2000), the undersigned hereby protest the following change of organization or reorganization: (Title of Proposal) (LAFCO Assigned Designation) EaCh of the Undersigned states: 1. I personally signed this protest. 2. ! am a registered and qualified voter of the City of o'r the District. 3. I personally affixed hereto the date of my signing this protest and my place of residence, or if no street or number exists, then a designation of my place of residence that will enable the location to be readily ascertainable. 4. My residence and address are correct[ywritten after my name. · ' OFFICIAL NAME OF RESIDENCE USE SIGNER ADDRESS DATE ONLY . Sign Print Sign Print Sign Print Sign Print I .... ~nly protests dated and Submitted between the date of .publication ~f the heaHnq notice and the conclusion of the protest hearinq wil be consl.dered in ascertalnin._q the value of written protest. LAN DOWN ER PROTEST In accordancb with Part 3, Division 3, Title 5 of the California Government Code (commencing with Section 56000, (Cortese-Knox-Her'tzberg Local Government Reorgani?ation Act of 2000), the undersigned hereby protest the following change of organi;,ation or reorganization: (Title of Proposal) (LAFCO Assigned Designation) 'Each' of the Undersigned states; 1. I personally signed this protest. 2. ! am a landowner: w~thin the affected territory. 3. I personally affixed hereto the date of my signing this ~otest and the address(es) and/or the Assessods Parcel Number(s) such that the location of the property is readily ascertainable. ADDRESS AND I OR OFFICIAL NAME OF ASSESSOR'S USE __ 'SIGNER ..P.A. RCEL NO. DATE ONLY Sign Print sign Print Sign Prin~. Sign Print Sign Print Only. ~¢oteSts dated and submitted between the date of publication of thc hearinq notice and the conclusion of the protest hearinq will be considered in ascerta, inin.q the value of written protest  MEMO'RANDUM August 16, 2001 TO: LEGISLATIVE & LITIGATION COMMITTEE Sue Benham - Chair David Couch Jacquie Sullivan FROM: BART J. THILTGEN, City Attorney SUBJECT: CLOSED SESSION- MINUTE BOOK Council member Couch referred to the Legislative & Litigation Committee the issue of a "minute book" record of closed sessions. The following provides a status of the law (Brown Act) regarding such, as well as a description of our current practice. LAW In general, the most common purpose of a closed session is to avoid revealing confidential information which may, in specified circumstances, prejudice the legal or negotiating position of the City or compromise the privacy interests of employees. In recognition of this underlying principle, Government Code section 54957.2 provides, in pertinent part: (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 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. Such minute book may, but need not, consist of a recording of the closed session. As specifically provided in the statute, the keeping of a minute book is permissive, rather than mandatory. Further, the extent of the records maintained is also left to the discretion of the legislative body, ranging from the minimum of a record of the topics discussed and decisions made up to actually tape recording all conversation which occurred during the closed session. The statute specifically states that the minute book S:\COUNCIL~VIEMOS~eg & Lit - Closed session record keeping.wpd LEGISLATIVE & LITIGATION COMMITTEE August 16, 2001 Page 2 shall be kept confidential and is not subject to inspection. However, it must be pointed out that the statute also provides that upon an allegation of an improperly held closed session, such minute book must be submitted to the court for an in camera review. In the event the court determines that a violation of the Brown Act occurred (or, arguably, in the judge's view, there appears to have been a violation), then the minute book of such an "illegal" closed session is no longer confidential and will be disclosed to the public. Even if the legal proceeding is ultimately decided in favor of the public entity (whether at trial or on appeal), the confidentiality of the closed session will have been lost. CURRENT PRACTICE No record was located which indicated the City Council has taken any official action to direct that a "minute book" be kept of closed session activity. Accordingly, no specific clerk or employee has been assigned the responsibility to maintain such a minute book. However, in order to ensure the City Attorney is providing appropriate legal services to its client, this office has been maintaining a record of the closed session activities. Attached are two forms this office currently uses to maintain the closed session record. The two forms are for litigation matters and non-litigation matters, respectively. Completion of the forms would entail, in addition to the obvious areas, a record of the motions made and the individual Council members' votes. In addition to the form record, any notes of the City Attomey which were made in preparation of the closed session and any materials distributed to the Council during the closed session 'are maintained with the form record. The entirety of these records are maintained by the City Attorney as privileged and confidential documents within the City Attorney's Office. Since the City Attorney's record is privileged, it is exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act. Further, the record is available to be reviewed by any member of the legislative body as such review would be their right as the client. While the above records are being prepared and maintained by the City Attomey for the purpose of ensuring the provision of appropriate .legal services, it should be noted that the content of the .record consists of more than the minimum as permitted in the Brown Act. Therefore, while no specific Council action has directed that a minute book be maintained, the City Attorney's Office has, to conform with its legal, and ethical responsibilities, performed the function. BJT:las Attachments cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council Alan Tandy, City Manager Trudy Slater, Administrative Analyst S:\COUNCIL~MEMOS~Leg & Lit - Closed session record keeping.wpd MEMO TO FILE OF HOLDING CLOSED SESSION ON LITIGATION MATTER Date of Closed Session: Authorized by Government Code section: Name of Case and Court Number (if applicable): Action(s) Taken: Councilmembers present and their votes: Mayor Hall (non-voting) Councilmember Salvaggio, Vice Mayor Councilmember Benham Councilmember Hanson Councilmember Couch Councilmember Carson Counciimember Maggard Councilmember Sullivan VOTING TALLy Staff present: Deferral of Public Report Recommended (check if yes): Legal' Justification (if yes): Disclosure would interfere with service of process [Gov. Code, § 54957.1(a)(2)] Disclosure would impair ability to settle [Gov. Code, § 54957.1(a)(2)] Settlement agreement requires approval/ratification by another party or court [Gov. Code, § 54957, l(a)(3)(B)] Dated: BART THILTGEN, City Attorney MEMO TO FILE OF HOLDING CLOSED SESSION ON REPORTABLE NONLITIGATION MATTER Date of Closed Session: Applicable Government Code section: 54956.6: Real Property Negotiations 54957: Status of Employee 54957.6: Labor Negotiations Action(s) Taken: Councilmembers present and their votes: Mayor Hall (non-voting) Councilmember Salvaggio, Vice Mayor Councilmember Benham Councilmember Hanson Councilmember Couch ,. Councilmember Carson Councilmember Maggard Councilmember Sullivan VOTING TALLy Staff present: Deferral of Public Report Recommended (check if yes): Legal Justification (if yes): Final approval of the agreement rests with other party to real property negotiations [Gov. Code, §. 54957(a)(1)(B)] Administrative remedies re employment not yet exhausted [Gov. Code, § 54957.1(a)(5)] Final approval of labor negotiations agreement not yet ratified by other party IGor. Code, § 54957.1(a)(6)] Dated: BART THILTGEN, City Attorney BAKERSFIELD MEMORANDUM August 27, 2001 TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: ROBERTA GAFFORD, ASSISTANT ClT,,~CLERK ~r-- THROUGH: PAMELA A. MCCARTHY, CITY CLER~ SUBJECT: MINUTE BOOK FOR CLOSED SESSIONS Fifty-nine (59) cities responded to the City Clerk's Office request for information regarding formal minutes for Closed Sessions. The following is a summary of those reporting: · 32% (19 cities) maintain some form of record other than regular session minutes · 17% (10 cities) require the Clerk to attend Closed Sessions · 15 cities file their record with the Clerk and 4 cities h'ave their record maintained by the City Attorney Specific information regarding the 19 cities identified in the attached table include: · Six (6) cities maintained formal minute books. · With the exception of five (5) cities, the minutes are "action only" (similar to what we currently do on our regular minutes). · Fresno and Capitola allow for some general discussion topics to be included · Mill Valley has the City Manager prepare a summary of what transpired · Cupertino sometimes includes background or an explanation of handouts on Closed Session items · San Clemente includes any specific Council direction to staff which was stated at the meetings · 53% of the cities require the Clerk to take the record while 26% assign the City Attorney, 16% City Manager and 5% Assistant City Manager · None reported recording meetings. Attachments c. John W. Stinson, Assistant City Manager Alan Christensen, Assistant City Manager Bart Thiltgen, City Attorney S:~MISC\Gafford~ninute books memo AlanT.wpd Cd.. ED SESSION MINUTE BOQ' i3 CITY MINUTE BOOK ACTION ONLY PREPARED BY MAINTAINED BY RECORDED CLERK PRESENT Arroyo Grande yes yes City Attorney City Clerk no no California Citynotes only yes City Attorney City Clerk no no Capitola binder /es + some discussion City Attorney City Attorney no , no Cupertino folder !yes + background City Clerk City Clerk no yes Downey folder yes Asst. City Mgr. City Clerk no no Eureka yes yes City Clerk City Clerk no yes Fresno , sealed envelopes )'es + some discussion City Clerk City Attorney no yes Grass Valley notes only. yes City Clerk City Clerk no yes Hesperia yes yes City Attorney City Attorney no no Lathrop folder yes City Manager City Clerk no no Lodi .report form yes City Clerk City Clerk no yes Mill Valley yes brief summary City Manager 'City Clerk no no Napa yes yes City Clerk City Clerk no yes Paradise files yes City Clerk City Clerk no yes San Clemente notes only yes + s~a;; direction City Clerk City Clerk no yes Santa Maria sealed envelopesyes City Manager City Clerk no no Victorville notes only City Clerk City Clerk no yes Walnut notes only yes City Attorney City Attorney no no Whittier yes yes City Clerk City Clerk no yes Listing of Responding Cities. City of Albany City of Murrieta City of Arroyo Grande City of Napa City of Bellflower City of Norwalk City of Buena Park City of Palmdale City of California City City of Paso Robles City of Capitola City of Petaluma City of Ceres City of Pinole City of Chino City of Pismo Beach City of Clovis City of Redondo Beach City of Cupertino City of Rio Vista City of Delmar City of Riverside City of Downey City of Rocklin City of El Cajon City of San Ramon City of Eureka City of San Clemente City of Ferndale City of Santa Maria City of Fresno City of Scotts Valley City of Fullerton City of Sebastopol City of Garden Grove City of Stockton City of Grass Valley City of Taft City of Hanford City of Thousand Oaks City of Hesperia City of Victorville City of La Canada Flintridge City of Walnut Creek City of Laguna Hills City of Walnut City of Lakewood City of West Sacramento City of Lathrop City of Whittier City of Lawndale City of Windsor City of Lemon Grove City of Woodside City of Lodi City of Yucca Valley City of Mill Valley Town of Paradise City of Moreno Valley LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION COUNTY OF KERN PROCEEDURES, STANDARDS AND POLICIES · FOR THE EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS WHEKEAS, the concept of the Local Agency Formation Commission, as established by state law, is based on the belief that the structure of local government in California should be determined and effected on a local basis rather than be determined and imposed by another level of government such as the state; and WHEKEAS, the function of the Local Agency Formation Commission, county of Kern, is to help bring about orderly development in the local governmental structure within the area of Kern county with the objective of assuring that the citizens of this area are provided adequate governmental services at a reasonable cost; and WHEREAS, sections 563750) and (j) of the Government Code require that the Local Agency Formation Commission, county of Kern, adopt procedures, standards and policies for the evaluation of proposals for the creation of cities or special districts as well as proposals for the annexation of territory to local agencies within the county, and to serve as guidelines for use by the community in organizing its governmental structure to cope with present and future growth; and WHEREAS, the historical development and tradition in the State of California is for municipal services in h}ghly urbanized areas to be provided by city government rather than by county and special district government and WHEREAS, the State Legislature in government Code Section 56001 recognizes that urban population densities and intensive residential, commercial, and industrial development necessitate a broad spectrum and high level of community services and controls. The Legislature also recognizes that when areas become urbanized to the extent that they need the full range of community services, priorities must be established regarding the type and levels of such services that the residents of an urban community need and desire; that community service priorities be established by weighing the total community service needs against the total financial resources available for securing community services; and that such community service priorities must reflect local circumstances, conditions, and limited financial resources. The Legislature finds and declares that a single governmental agency, rather than several limited purpose agencies, is better able to assess and be accountable for community service needs and financial resources and, therefore, is the best mechanism for establishing community services priorities; and WHEREAS, the Local Agency Formation-Commission, county of Kern, believes that in considering the intent and provisions of the law and also in considering the nature of the urban development taking place in the areas of Kern county, it should adopt standards which will tend to discourage further extensive development of single- purpose autonomous districts and the creation of a multiplicity of small municipalities; NOW, THEKEFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Local Agency Formation Commission, County of Kern, hereby adopts that following Procedures, Standards and Policies for the Evaluation of Proposals submitted to this Commission: APPENDICIES APPENDIX A PROCEDURES, STANDARDS AND POLICIES APPENDIX B REGULATIONS AND FEE SCHEDULE APPENDIX C CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE APPENDIX D PROCEDURES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CEQA APPENDIX E RALPH M. BROWN OPEN MEETING LAW APPENDIX F KERN COUNTY SPECIAL DISTRICTS Section A: ENVIRONMENTAL hMPACT ASSESSMENT: 1. All environmental factors introduced by the proposals shall be considered as outlined in the "Local Agency Format~ion Commission, County of Kern, Regulations and Procedures for the Implementation of the Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (CEQA) Section B: DETERMINATION OF BOUNDARIES: 1. Boundary descriptions of proposals for the annexation of territory to local agencies or the formation of new local agencies shall be definite and certain. (Section 56841 (F).) 2. To the greatest possible extent, boundaries should follow existing political boundaries, and natural or man-made features such as rivers, lakes, railroad tracks and freeways. Where boundaries do not meet this standard, the proponent shall justify the reason for non-conformance. (Section 56841 (a), (e), (f).) 3. Boundaries should not be drawn so as to create and island, corridor, or strip either within the proposed territory or immediately adjacent to it. Where such an island, corridor or strip is created, the proponent shall justify the reasons for non-conformance with this standard. (Section 56841 (f).) 4. Whenever practicable, boundary lines of areas proposed to be annexed to cities and/or districts shall be so located that all streets and right-of-way will be placed within the same jurisdiction as the properties which abut thereon and/or for the benefit of which such streets and rights-of-way are intended. (Section 56841(0.) 5. The creation of boundaries that divide assessment parcels should b~ avoided, whenever possible. Where such division occurs, the proponents shall justify to the commission the necessity for such division. (Section 56841 (f).) 6. Boundaries should avoid dividing an existing identifiable community, commercial district, or any other area having social or economic homogeneity. Where such division occurs, the proponents shall justify the reasons for non-conformance to this standard. (Section 56841(c).) 7. The following guidelines apply to the preparation of maps for proposals submitted to this commission. a. The following should not be allowed: (1) City limits within the road right-of-way. (2) Road islands of County maintained roads. (3) Islands of road caused by annexation on both sides. (4) Strip annexation of road. b. In the following cases where the road is the boundary the street or road should be retained by the County. These roads would not have direct access from the property: (1) County freeways - access is restricted. (2) County arterials. (a) roads which carry through traffic. (b) Planned development by developer or city which provides limited access and protects the capacity of the road. *Note: Each case should be considered in its own merit. 2 c. The following roads should be annexed to the city. These roads would have direct access to the annexing property and would serve the residents of the property. (1) Minor or local roads. (2) When the street will be used for the city sewer lines, water lines, or storm drains. (3) Piecemeal development by developer causing difficult coordination between two or more agencies. (4) Where the annexation will complicate drainage or traffic control. Section C: CONFOP~MANCE WITH CITY OR COUNTY GENERAL AND SPECIFIC PLANS: 1. Each proposal should be consistent with the appropriate city or county general and specific plans. Where the proposal does not abide by these plans, the proponent shall specify the reasons for plan non-conformance. Section D: ' DUPLICATION OF AUTHORITY TO PERFORM SIMILAR FUNCTIONS: 1.. The effect of the approval of a proposal which would result in two or more districts or a city and a district possessing, in any common territory, the authority to perform the same or similar functions shall be considered by the commission. The views of the governing body of the city or special district possessing authority to perform the same or similar function in the subject territory shall be made known to the commission. Proponents must justify the need for annexation proposals which result in duplication of authority to perform similar functions. (Section 56841(b), (c), (h), (i).) Section E: CONSIDERATION OF ECONOtMIC FACTORS AND EXISTING SERVICES: 1. If the proposal is for the formation of a new agency, the proponents shall demonstrate the economic feasibility of the proposed formation, taking into account both the assessed valuation of the subject territory as well as any other sources of revenue. (Section 56841(a), (b), (c).) 2. Proposals which could result in significant or serious operational or economic problems for, or in the disruption of existing services provided by the county, cities and/or special districts shall be discouraged. The availability of feasible measures which would mitigate such adverse impacts shall be congidered. (Section 56841(a), (b), (c).) 3. Any proposal shall take into account not only the present needs of the subject area, but also the future growth and expansion. (Section 56841 (h).) 4. Territory shall be annexed to a city or special district only if such agency has or soon will have the capability to provide the requested services. Section F: CON'FORMANCE WITH DESIGNATED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE: 1. The proposal should conform with the appropriate local agency sphere of influence when adopted and determined by the Local Agency Formation Commission, County of Kern. Where a proposal is inconsistent with the adopted sphere of influence the applicant shall justify reasons for amending the sphere of influence. 3 a. Proposals for amendment or creation of a sphere of influence shall provide the information required under Government Code Section 56425 so that the commission can adopt the written findings required by that section. b. Minor sphere amendments, which include (1) an area less than 1% of the total jurisdiction of the affected agency; if that is (2) an area less than 100 acres in size; or (3) an area more than 50% developed for which a general plan, adopted or updated within the past five years, depicts urban land uses shall provide the following information: (1) The present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open-space lands. (Section 56425(a)(1).) (a) General Plan designations of areas to be added. (b) The agency's growth policies and annexation programs. (c) Explanation of why the proposal would not conflict with the goals of Government Code Section 56377. (d) Urban infill policies. (e) Agricultural and open space conservation plan or policies if project includes prime ag land or open space. (2) The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area. (Section 56425(a) (2).) (3) The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services which the agency provides or is authorized to provide. (Section 56425(a) (3).) (a) Availability of urban services and public facilities. (b) Service agencies providing urban services. (4) The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area. (Section 56425(a) (4).) (a) Identity. of community of interest and needs (reason for application). (b) Impediments to annexation and rationale to overcome said impediments. c. Ail other sphere amendments, except decreases, shall include all of the above information and shall also include a written summary of projected capital facilities and need of capacities. d. Government Code Section 56428 (B) prohibits a hearing on such a proposal until there has been compliance with CEQA. 2. It is the policy of this commission that no special service districts or county service areas will be formed within the sphere of influence of a city unless the city by legislative action declares it cannot service the area. 3. To implement the foregoing, the following steps shall be taken: a. The proponents ora potential proposal to form a special service district or a county service area shall, in writing, inform the Local Agency Formation Commission's Executive Officer of the proposal prior to any legislative action by a local agency in connection therewith or prior to the circulation of a petition. The information furnished to the Executive Officer shall include maps setting forth the area involved. b. The Executive Officer shall determine whether the area involved is within the sphere of influence ora city and if it is so determined then the Executive Officer shall promptly, by U.S. mail, notify the city involved, in writing, of the potential formation within the sphere of influence. c. The subject city shall have 30 days from the date ofmailing ofthe notice to respond to the Executive Officer as to whether it intends to forthwith provide the services contemplated to 4 provided by the proposal. Said response shall be approved by the city council. Failure to respond within said 30 days shall be deemed to be a determination that the city cannot provide the services requested and the commission shall consider the requirement of Section F, 2 as having been met. d. Nothing contained in this preliminary procedure shall effect the powers, authority and discretion of the commission as provided in the Government Code to approve or disapprove a proposal. 4. An annexation to an existing special.district or county service area of territory within the sphere of influence of a city shall be treated as a formation for purposes of this Section F. Section G: OPEN SPACE AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS: 1. This Commission, through its actions, desires to maintain the physical and economic integrity of lands in an agricultural preserve as may be established by either the Board of Supervisors of the County of Kern or a city council within the county. (Section 56841(e).) 2. This commission will attempt to guide the provision of governmental services and development to areas other than those classified as prime agricultural lands as defined in Sections 56060 and 56016 of the Government Code except where such development .would promote the planned, orderly and efficient development of that area. (Section 56337 (a).) 3. This commission encourages and will assist to implement the development of existing vacant or non- prime agricultural lands for urban uses within an agency's existing jurisdiction or within an agency's sphere of influence before it will consider with favor or wi'Il approve any proposal which would allow for or lead to the development of existing open-space lands for non-open-space uses which are outside of the agency's existing jurisdiction or outside of an agency's existing sphere of influence. (Section 56477(b).) 4. It is the policy of this commission to encourage and to seek to provide for planned, well-ordered, efficient urban development patterns ~vhile at the same time remaining cognizant of the need to give appropriate consideration to the preservation of open-space lands within such patterns. (Section 56300.) 5. In determining xvhether an annexation or incorporation proposal may affect prime land, the .~¢ommission shall apply the definition of "prime agricultural land" established under section 56064. 6. Annexation or incorporation proposals which would allow or likely lead to the conversion of prime agricultural land or other open-space land to other than open-space uses shall be discouraged by the commission unless such an action would promote the planned, orderly efficient development of an area or the affected land use planning jurisdiction has accomplished the following: a. Identified within its sphere of influence all "prime agricultural land" as defined under Government Code Section 56064; b. Demonstrated to LAFCO that effective measures have been adopted to preserve for agricultural use those prime agricultural lands identified in (a). Such measures may include, but not be limited to, establishing agricultural preserves pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act; designating land for agricultural or other open-space uses on that jurisdiction's general plan, adopted growth management plan, or applicable specific plan; adopting an agricultural element to its general plan; and undertaking public acquisition of prime agricultural lands for the purpose of leasing back such lands for agricultural use; c. Prezoned pursuant to Government Code Section 56375(a) (2), both territory within the agency's general planning area to be maintained for agricultural use, and also territory within the annexation area to indicate anticipated level of development. 5 7. In reviewing a proposal which will lead to the conversion of agricultural or open-space land to urban uses, the commission will consider the following criteria to determine whether the proposed action would (a) adversely aff'ect the agricultural resources of the community, or (b) not promote the planned orderly7, efficient development of an area; a. The agricultural significance of the proposal area relative to other agricultural lands in the region (soil, climate, and water factors); b. The use value of the proposal area and surrounding parcels; c. Determination as to whether any of the proposal area is designated for agricultural preservation by adopted local plans, including the county General Plan, Land Use and Open Space Element and Growth Management Policies; d. Determination of: (1) Whether public facilities would be extended through or adjacent to any other agricultural lands to provide services to the development anticipated on the proposal property; (2) Whether the proposal area is adjacent to or surrounded by existing urban or residential development. (3) Whether surrounding parcels may be expected to develop to urban uses within the next five years. (4) Whether natural or man-made barriers would serve to buff'er the proposal area from existing urban uses. 8. The commission shall encourage proposals that result in in-filling, particularly where the prime agricultural land represents a small unit and is essentially surrounded by non-agricultural land. 9. The commission shall discourage proposals that intrude on prime agricultural land when such intrusion would lead to the disruption of viable agricultural units and the encouragement of further urban development on such lands. 10. The commission shall encourage proposals for land uses adjacent to prime agricultural land which would result in compatible uses (i.e., green belts, greenhouses, linear parks, light industry). Similarly, the commission shall discourage proposals which would result in less compatible uses (e.g., residential and retail commercial uses), and Section I-I: ORDER OF PREFERENCE OF GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES: 1. New or consolidated service should be provided by one of the folloWing governmental agencies in the descending order ofpref'erence: a. Annexation to an existing city. b. Annexation to an existing district of which the Board of Supervisors is the governing body. c. Annexation to an existing multiple purpose special district. d. Annexation to another existing district e. Formation ora County Service Area. f. Incorporation ora new city. g. Formation ora new multiple purpose special district. h. Formation of'a new single purpose special district. 2. At the same time, the number of independent government agencies shall be minimized and duplication of service avoided. 6 Section I: STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATING SERVICE PLANS IN PROPOSALS FOR CHANGE OF ORGANIZATION OR. REORGANIZATION OF CITIES: 1. No proposal petitioning annexation to a city should be submitted prior to prezoning ofthe subject territory by the city. Environmental review should be conducted at the time of'prezoning by the city and the commission should be noticed as a responsible agency in accordance with CEQA. 2. Whenever a city submits a resolution of application for a municipal reorganization, a reorganization which includes a change of organization for such city, or a change of'organization, the city shall submit with the resolution of application a plan for providing services within the affected territory. Such plan shall be in sufficient detail to enable the commissionto determine the city's capability to provide services in a timely and financially feasible manner. The plan for providing services shall include, but not be limited to: a. The changes in land use and land use controls which would occur if proceedings were completed. b. The nature of each service to be provided. c. The location from which each service is to be provided. d. The service level capacity from that location e. The service level to be provided. f. Any action necessary to increasing service level capacities in order to serve the affected territory, and 'the costs involved. g. A description of where such services will be provided within the affected territory. h. A timetable for the feasible extension of services to the affected territory. i. Any conditions which would be imposed or required within the affected territory, such as, but not limited to, improvement or upgrading of structures, roads and sewer or water facilities. j. A description of how such services and improvements will be financed. The resolution of application shall not be accepted for filing by the Executive Officer unless accompanied by the plan for providing services. (Section 56653 & 563750).) 3. A plan for providing services may consist of: a. A master plan for providing services throughout all or a portion ora city sphere of influence for use in evaluating all proposals affecting the area covered in the master plan; and b. A proposal-specific supplement which updates and/or provides a higher level of detail than is contained within the master plan for services. Such supplement may include by reference or in summary form those pertinent sections of the master plan for services which remain valid. The supplement need discuss in detail only that information which is not current or discussed in sufficient detail in the master plan for services. 4. A city application for annexation of an unincorporated island without an election shall, in addition to the plan for providing services, be supplemented by sufficient information to enable the commission to determine within the affected territory: a. The total acreage of the unincorporated island and the boundaries of all cities and/or counties which border thereon b. The presence or absence ofprime agricultural land as defined in Section 56065.. c. The availability of public utility services. 7 a. A master plan for providing services throughout all or a portion of a city sphere of influence for use in evaluating all proposals affecting the area covered in the master plan; and b. A proposal-specific supplement which updates and/or provides a higher level of detail than is contained within the master plan for services. Such supplement may include by reference or in summary form those pertinent sections of the master plan for services which remain valid. The supplement need discuss in detail only that information which is not current or discussed in sufficient detail in the master plan for services. 4. A city application for annexation of an unincorporated island without an election shall, in addition to the plan for providing services, be supplemented by sufficient information to enable the commission to determine within the affected territory: a. The total acreage of the unincorporated island and the boundaries of all cities and/or counties which border thereon b. The presence or absence of prime agricultural land as defined in Section 56064. c. The availability of public utility services. d. The presence of public improvements. e. Existing zoning. f. The presence or absence of physical improvements upon each parcel. g. The benefits from such annexation or the benefits now being received from the annexing city. Section J: POLICIES FOR FORMATION OF COUNTY ~SERVICE AREAS: 1. All proposals for fOrmation of county service areas shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the ( . resolution of intention of the Board of Supervisors initiating proceedings before this commission. 2. All proposals shall comply with Section F(2) of these rules. 3. The commission shall make its approval conditioned upon the requirement that the services to be provided be limited to those specified in the resolution of intention adopted by the board of Supervisors and then only after a satisfactory showing that such services are needed and the county service area will be capable of rendering the same. 4. Authorization for additional services to be provided in addition to those initially authorized, shall, pursuant to Government Code Section 25210.31, be effective only after application by the Board of Supervisors and approval by the commission. Section K: URBAN SERVICE AREAS: 1. It is the policy of the commission to not establish urban service areas or urban service area boundaries unless requested by the effected city to do so. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the evaluation of a proposal this commission shall consider these Procedures, Standards and Policies, the staff report and the evidence presented by all interested parties at the public hearing, in relation to the functions and objectives of this commission as heretofore stated. **NOTE: All numbers within parenthesis refer to California Government Code Sections. 8 i AUG I 32001 ! . August 10, 2001 ........... TO: MAYORS AND CITY MANAGERS MEMBERS OF THE LEAGUE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEMBERS OF LEAGUE POLICY COMMITTEES MEMBERS OF GENERAL RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE Note to City Managers and City Clerks: Please make immediate distribution to the mayor and to other city officials planning to attend the 2001 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://www.cacities.org/200'l resolutions). 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 12-15 - Sacramento ~ ~ ~ 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. 9:15 a.m. on Saturday, September 15, during the Annual Business Meeting in This year nine resolutions have been the Sacramento Convention Center to presented for consideration by the annual consider the report of the General . conference and referred to the League Resolutions Committee. policy committees. Each of the policy committees met July 19 or 20 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 14, 2001, 9:15 a.m. If recommended actions reported in this the 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 12. 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. David Fleming, President The General Resolutions Committee will League of California Cities meet at 9:30 a.m. on Friday, September Mayor, Vacaville 14, in the Sacramento 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 directors. The process allows for timely consideration of issues in a changing environment and assures broad city officials the opportunity to 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 III. LOCATION OF MEETINGS Policy Committee meetings will be as follows: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 -- 1 p.m. and 2:30 p.m. Hyatt Regency Hotel 1209 L Street Sacramento Policy Committee Time Employee Relations 1 p.m. Community Services 1 p.m. Revenue and Taxation 1 p.m. [Note: Public Safety will not meet.] - - Administrative Services 2:30 p.m. Housing, Comm. & Econ. Development 2:30 p.m. Environmental Quality 2:30 p.m. Transportation, Communications & Public Works 2:30 p.m. General Resolutions Committee (Friday, September 14, 2001 at 9:30 a.m.) Sacramento Convention Center General Assembly at the Annual Business Meeting (Saturday, September 15, 2001, at 9:15 a.m.) Sacramento Convention Center Resolutions have been grouped by po/icy committees to which they have been assigned. Number Key Word Index Reviewing Body Action ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES POLICY COMMITTEF 1 2 3 4 Revising Bylaws for the League of California Cities A COMMUNITY SERVICES POLICY COMMITTEF Day Care Services for Children, Adults and Seniors Aa EMPLOYEE RELATIONS POLICY COMMITTEF II 3 I Excess Retirement System Assets and M°re Opti°ns I Aa I I II for Employer Use of Those Assets ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY POLICY COMMITTEF 4 Flexibility in the Wastewater Permitting Process by California State and Regional Water Quality Control ** Boards as Allowed by Law 5 Modification of California SB 709 (Mandatory Penalties) and the Federal Clean Water Act ** Regarding Frivolous Citizen Lawsuits HOUSING, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICY COMMITTEI- Incentives to Improve the Balance of Jobs and Aa Housing in California PUBLIC SAFETY POLICY COMMITTEF No resolutions were assigned to this policy committee. REVENUE AND TAXATION POLICY COMMITTEF 7 Supporting the Passage of a Ballot Measure to Aa Stabilize and Reform Local Government Financing 8 Return of ERAF Funds to Cities D TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WORKS POLICY COMMITTEI- Telephone Area Codes A vii RESOLUTIONS INITIATED BY PETITION Resolution General Committee Assembly Recommendation Action Policy\acres\table01.doc .;. Vlll IV. GENERAL RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES Annual Conference- Sacramento- September 12-15, 2001 Chair: John Russo, City Attorney, Oakland Vice Chair: Mo J. "Mac" Dube, Mayor, Twentynine Palms Parliamentarian: Aden Gregorio, Attorney at Law, San Francisco Stephany Aguilar, Vice Mayor, Scotts Valley Tim Raney, Council-Member, Citrus Heights Harry Armstrong, Council Member, Clovis Mike Serpa, Council Member, ModeSto Ken Blake, Council Member, La Palma Sophia Scherman, Mayor Pro Tem, Elk Grove Rosemary Corbin, Mayor, Richmond Linda Shahinian, Planning Commissioner, Culver City Peggy Corrales, Mayor, Hollister Marry Simonoff, Mayor Pro Tem, Brea Pat Dando, Council Member, San Jose Michael Smith, Fire chief, Fresno Nancy Dillon, City Clerk, Hayward Craig Steckler, Police Chief, Fremont Carole Dillon-Knutson, Council Member, Fairfield John Thompson, City Manager, Vacaville Dennis Downs, Fire Chief, Ventura Marland Townsend, Mayor, Sunnyvale Pat Eklund, Council Member, Novato Barbara Underwood, Finance Director, Vista Rusty Fairly, Council Member, Santa Barbara Pat Vorreiter, Council Member, Sunnyvale Maxine Gonsalves, Council Member, Pacifica Kurt Wilson, Council Member, Rialto Henry Hearns, Vice Mayor, Lancaster Terry Henderson, Council Member, La Quinta Peter Herzog, Council Member, Lake Forest Jack Hoffman, Personnel & Emp. Rel. Dir. Glendale Erling Horn, Council Member, Lafayette Michael Kashiwagi, Dir. of Public Works, Sacramento Cheri Kelley, Council Member, Norwalk Lucille Kring, Council Member, Anaheim Al Leiga, Council Member, Claremont Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney, Calistoga & Moraga Carol McCauley, Council Member, Oceanside Kathryn McCullough, Mayor, Lake Forest Jere Melo, Mayor, Fort Bragg Ernie Mitchell, Fire Chief, Pasadena Mark Montemayor, Mayor, West Sacramento Dave Mora, City Manager, Salinas Rudy Natoli, Mayor, Pismo Beach Lyle Norton, Director of Parks, Recreation & Arts Diana Nourse, Council Member, Hesperia Karen Oslund, Vice Mayor, Willits Jim Perrine, Mayor, Marina Miguel Pulido, Mayor, Santa Aha V V. HISTORY OF RESOLUTIONS Resolutions have been grouped by policy committees to which they have been assigned. 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 12 meeting Ra - Amend and refer as amended to *** Existing League policy 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 approved 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 Committee, 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 VI. ANNUAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION REFERRED TO ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES POLICY COMMITTEE 1. RESOLUTION RELATING TO REVISING BYLAWS FOR THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES Source: Board of Directors Referred to: Administrative Services Policy Committee Preliminary Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee: Approve. Final ReCommendation to General Resolutions Committee: (Note: Adoption of amendments or revisions of the League bylaws requires a two-thirds vote of the General Assembly at the Annual Conference.) WHEREAS, the bylaws for the League of California Cities were extensively updated and revised in 2000; and WHEREAS, during last year's revision process, the Administrative Services Policy Committee of the League recognized additional technical and substantive changes to the bylaws it wished to consider and, therefore, as part of its 2001 work. program has reviewed and recommended additional amendments to the bylaws; and WHEREAS, the board of directors has conducted a thorough review of the proposed revisions and approved a final series of bylaws amendments; and WHEREAS, information concerning the proposed bylaws amendments has been available to city officials on the Internet, the revised bylaws have been distributed to all cities for review, and a summary of major policy issues addressed in the amendments is attached to this resolution; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities assembled in Annual Conference in Sacramento, September 15, 2001, that the League approve the proposed revised bylaws for the League of California Cities that are incorporated herein by reference. Additional information concerning resolution ttl is available on the League's web site (wwvv. cacities, or.q/draflbylaws). Background information also was mailed to all cities with the resolutions packet. The background information includes: · A cover letter addressing the process for development and consideration of these amendments to the bylaws, and a summary of major policy changes proposed by these amendments. · A redline version of the bylaws showing the cu~rrent language and the proposed amendments (green pages). ...OVER 1 Summary of .Proposed Bylaws Changes · League Purpose and Objectives. Updated to incorporate the new League mission statement adopted as part of League strategic plan and to have a less program-specific orientation. Adds the objective engaging the membership in a continuing analysis of member needs. See pages 1 and 2 of Proposed Draft Revised Bylaws. · Dues/Finances; New dues language accommodates possibility of dues increases of over ten percent; new language requires member ratification of all dues increases that exceed consumer price index or five percent (whichever is greater); member ratification is necessary for any dues increase over ten percent. Maintains $5,000 dues cap. Majority vote required for member ratification of dues increases. See pages 3 through 4 of Proposed Draft Revised Bylaws. Also requires .League budget to be transmitted to division presidents. See page 27 of Proposed Draft Revised Bylaws. · Resolutions Committee. Allows divisions, departments and policy committees to designate the individuals to be appointed by the League president to the resolutions committee; limits presidential appointments to 10, at least five of whom must be elected officials. See page 7 of Proposed Draft Revised Bylaws. · Resolutions Process. Requires (instead of permits) referral of substantive resolutions to policy committees. See page 8 of Proposed Draft Revised Bylaws. Clarifies Parliamentarian role with respect to evaluating petitioned resolutions for substantial similarity to other resolutions and germane-ness to city issues. Parliamentarian's report is made to Resolutions Committee chair and Resolutions Committee may disqualify resolution on these grounds. See page 9 of Proposed Draft Revised Bylaws. · Nominating Committee/Elections. Adds nominating process for officers and League board at- large members to bylaws (as opposed to being specified by board policy). Nominating committee members are appointed by League president from specified divisions on a rotating basis (one set of eight divisions determine nominating committee membership in even years, the other set determines in odd years). See pages 12 and 13 of Proposed Draft Revised Bylaws. · Committees. Consolidates two bylaws sections on committees into one section. Adds policy committees as League standing committees. Requires feedback to policy committees on recommendations. See pages 14, 15 and 17 of Proposed Draft Revised Bylaws · Mail Ballot Procedures. Moves mail balloting procedures to general "voting" section of the bylaws and makes conforming changes to sections that refer to the mail balloting process. See pages 25-26 of Proposed Draft Revised Bylaws (see also pages 4 and 35). · Vacancies. Adds "missing three consecutive convened meetings" as a basis for finding a vacancy in any League office (in addition to resignation and leaving city service). See page 26 of Proposed Draft Revised Bylaws. . · Bylaws Amendments. Clarifies that two-thirds of those voting must vote in favor of a proposed bylaw amendment. See page 32 of Proposed Draft Revised Bylaws. Specifies bylaws amendments go into effect upon expiration of protest period. See page 34 of Proposed Draft Revised Bylaws. There are a number of other proposed substantive, consistency and grammatical changes and city officials are encouraged to review the redline version to identify all the changes. 2 RESOLUTION REFERRED TO COMMUNITY SERVICES POLICY COMMITTEE 2. RESOLUTION RELATING TO DAY CARE SERVICES FOR CHILDREN, ADULTS AND SENIORS Source: Community Services Policy Committee Referred to: Community Services Policy Committee Preliminary Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee: Approve as amended. Final Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee: WHEREAS, there are approximately 3.5 million seniors (65 years and older) in the State of California and this number is growing annually with the aging of the "baby boomers;" and WHEREAS, intergenerational activities between seniors, teenagers; children and preschoolers can be one of natural allies, mentors, and stimulation; and WHEREAS, healthy seniors and youth will need to volunteer to assist each other and help those who are frail through various programs, such as meals on wheels, telephone calls, and visitation to shut-ins that will give much needed relief to caregivers; and WHEREAS, seniors need the stimulation of interaction with youth, while the youth need the mentoring from the seniors; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities assembled in Annual Conference in Sacramento, September 15, 2001, that the League encourage cities to recognize seniors as a valuable state resource and develop and improve intergenerational programs and activities; and be it further RESOLVED, that the League support legislation that would provide funding for side-by-side day care facilities for California's youth, adults, and seniors. RESOLUTION REFERRED TO EMPLOYEE RELATIONS POLICY COMMITTEE 3. RESOLUTION RELATING TO EXCESS RETIREMENT SYSTEM ASSETS AND MORE OPTIONS FOR EMPLOYER USE OF THOSE ASSETS Source: Employee Relations Policy Committee Referred to: Employee Relations Policy Committee Preliminary Recommendation ~to General Resolutions Committee: Approve as amended. Final Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee: WHEREAS, the past performance of investments of the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) has produced super-funded accounts; and WHEREAS, employers should be given the greatest amount of flexibility to utilize those excess retirement assets within the parameters of state and federal retirement law; and WHEREAS, employers should have the option to amend contracts if funds are depleted; and WHEREAS, the PERS Board and the Legislature have taken unilateral actiOns to increase retirement benefits and increase the obligations of local contracting agencies; and 3 WHEREAS, local agency and local taxpayers interests are disregarded; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities assembled in Annual Conference in Sacramento, September 15, 2001, that the League support legislation and any other effort to allow local agencies the option to utilize excess PERS investment assets as determined exclusively by the affected local contracting agency, and as permitted by law. RESOL'UTIONS REFERRED TO ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY POLICY COMMITTEF 4. RESOLUTION RELATING TO FLEXIBILITY IN THE WASTEWATER PERMITTING PROCESS BY CALIFORNIA STATE AND REGIONAL WATER CONTROL BOARDS AS ALLOWED BY LAW Source: City of Fortuna Referred to: Environmental Quality Policy Committee Preliminary 'Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee: Policy Committee will make .final recommendation at September 12 meeting. Final Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee: WHEREAS, the Clean Water Act allows citizens to file lawsuits alleging violations of the Clean Water Act for the prior five-year period; and WHEREAS, few lawsuits were filed by citizens between the 1970s and early 1990s, and since the early 1990s the number of lawsuits filed has increased; and WHEREAS, a citizen's lawsuit bypasses all the normal enforcement options, including verbal requests, notices of violations, and cease and desist orders issued by the enforcement agency; and WHEREAS, if a judge or jury certifies one violation over a five-year period, it is sufficient for the court to award civil penalties, attorney fees, and expert witness fees to the plaintiff; and WHEREAS, it is almost impossible to not have some violations over a five-year period; and WHEREAS, it costs between $0.6 and $1.0 million to defend a lawsuit, pay any penalties assessed by the court, and pay the plaintiff's attorney fees; and WHEREAS, almost all local governments and private businesses settle suits out of court due to the substantial cost to defend a lawsuit and, as a result, there is little case law to support the arguments of defendants in citizen lawsuit cases; and WHEREAS, the effectiveness, and more importantly, the intent of the Clean Water Act is lost when plaintiffs' attorneys receive large awards at the'expense of environmental remediation or upgrades to wastewater treatment systems; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities assembled in Annual Conference in Sacramento, September 15, 2001, that the League: 1) Coordinate city efforts and actively engage the State and Regional Water Quality Control Boards in an effort to negotiate the issuance of attainable discharge permits rather than a zero tolerance standard at all times. Permits should recognize the goals of the Clean Water Act but should consider the true operational capabilities of a wastewater or stormwater treatment system, the unique 4 geography and weather patterns of a region, the budgetary capabilities of the city, and whether the city is under a notice of violation or cease and desist order; and 2) Encourage the State and Regional Water Quality Boards to fully recognize that multiple violations caused by a single, unforeseen event be.treated as a single violation. 5. RESOLUTION RELATING TO MODIFICATION OF CALIFORNIA SB 709 (MANDATORY PENALTIES) AND THE FEDERAL CLEAN WATER ACT REGARDING FRIVOLOUS CITIZEN LAWSUITS Source: City of Fortuna Referred to: Environmental Quality Policy Committee Preliminary Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee: Policy Committee will make final recommendation at September 12 meeting. Final Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee: WHEREAS, Section 13385 of the California Water Code was amended in 1999 to require that regional water quality control boards impose a mandatory penalty of $3,000 for certain violations of NPDES permits; and WHEREAS, Section 13385 was amended in 200 to provide relief to cities and community service districts serving populations of less than 10,000; and WHEREAS, the current methodology for assessing mandatory penalties is not fair and equitable in that an assessment of $27,000 for nine violations in a city with a population of 10,500 would represent 3.5% of the annual operational cost of the city's wastewater treatment plant, and the same assessment in a city with a population of 180,000 would represent only 0.2% of their operational costs; and WHEREAS, section 13385 of the Water Code should be amended to provide more discretion; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities assembled in Annual Conference in Sacramento, September 15, 2001, that the League actively pursue changes in California law that would accomplish the following: 1) Return the Regional Water Quality Control Board's discretion in setting penalties associated with discharge permit violations. 2) Allow penalties to be used as matching funds to complete approved corrective projects within the city. 3) Any mandatory penalties should consider the ability to pay, i.e., population of the city or district, staff capacity to complete upgrades to a wastewater or stormwater treatment system, the true operational capabilities of a wastewater treatment system, the severity of any potential environmental damage associated with a violation, the unique geography and weather patterns of a region, significant storm events, and other similar issues; and be it further RESOLVED, that the League actively pursue modification of the Federal Clean Water Act to accomplish the following for the purpose of limiting frivolous citizen lawsuits for personal gain: · 1) Define "initiated action" by local Water Quality Control Bo'ards as any notice of violation or other communication provided to a city or jurisdiction by the local Board indicating that the local Water Quality Control Board is addressing an alleged violation. 2) Limit the "recovery" of legal and consulting fees by citizen groups to "not exceed the penalties imposed for the violation by the court or local water quality control board under the law." 3) Continue to allow injunctive relief for violations, but eliminate citizens' ability to collect civil penalties. 'RESOLUTION REFERRED TO HOUSING, COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICY COMMITTEE 6. RESOLUTION RELATING TO INCENTIVES TO IMPROVE THE BALANCE OF JOBS AND HOUSING IN CALIFORNIA Source; Desert Mountain 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, the League of California Cities has adopted a mission statement and core beliefs declaring that cities are vital to the strength of the California economy, and furthermore that the vitality of cities is dependent upon their fiscal stability and local autonomy; and WHEREAS, the League has adopted Principles for Smart Growth that supports the building of strong communities by providing a balance of jobs and housing within communities; and WHEREAS, the State of California has established as one of its primary goals to improve the jobs/housing balance, thereby reducing traffic congestion and the need for costly future infrastructure investments, discouraging urban sprawl and the inefficient use of land resources; and WHEREAS, state government has focused on the development of housing in California communities through various financial, regulatory and policy incentives as the primary solution to the jobs/housing problem; and WHEREAS, despite recent economic growth and record-level unemployment in most areas of the state, many regions, particularly rural communities, have not benefited from the improved economy and have experienced exceptionally high unemployment rates and minimal job growth; and WHEREAS, housing:rich/jobs-poor communities tend to have minimal economic diversification, and furthermore do not possess the necessary public infrastructure and funding mechanisms to promote, encourage and facilitate job creation and retention; and WHEREAS, the state's current approach to the production of housing to mitigate the jobs/housing imbalance does not serve the interests of the housing-rich/jobs-poor communities and could hinder the creation of jobs, further exacerbate unemployment problems and undermine the state's goal of economic sustainability and enhancement of our citizen's quality of life; and WHEREAS, in 2000, the State Legislature approved, and the Governor signed, AB 2864 establishing the Jobs-Housing Balance Improvement Program that established an incentive-based 6 strategy to encourage the construction of housing in housing poor regions and to attract jobs to areas that lack a sufficient employment base; and WHEREAS, the primary focus, and therefore funding, in AB 2864 was for the production of housing and not job creation; and WHEREAS, it is sound smart growth policy to make investments in job creation and infrastructure where people already live; and WHEREAS, the future social and economic success of California is dependent on ensuring that all its cities are prosperous and livable communities that are vital and health places for all residents to live, work, obtain an education, and raise a family; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities assembled in Annual Conference in Sacramento, September 15, 2001, that the League support legislation to amend Health and Safety Code Chapter 3.7, the Jobs-Housing Balance Improvement Act, to provide tangible and productiVe tools and .incentives to support job creation and retention in housing-rich, jobs-poor communities, such as: a. Awarding direct grants to fund the development of infrastructure that results in the creation and. retention of jobs; and b. Eliminating matching dollar requirements for economic development and infrastructure state grants; and c. Providing grant funding for infrastructure planning and design and the creation of economic development strategies; and d. Allowing cities maximum flexibility in the use of state funds toward local priorities that support job creation; and be it further RESOLVED, that the League encourage the state to adopt policies and programs that establish'a comprehensive solution to the infrastructure and jobs/housing needs of all communities within the state. RESOLUTIONS REFERRED TO REVENUE AND TAXATION POLICY COMMITTEE- 7. RESOLUTION RELATING TO SUPPORTING THE PASSAGE OF A BALLOT MEASURE TO STABILIZE AND REFORM LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCING Source: League Board of Directors Referred to: Revenue and Taxation Policy Committee Preliminary Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee: Approve as amended. Final Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee: WHEREAS, the need for greater constitutional protection of local government revenues in California is a matter of grave necessity in order to protect the autonomy and quality of life in communities throughout the state; and WHEREAS, as a result of a series of constitutional ballot measures dating back to 1978, state government has been given increased authority to utilize local revenues and taxes to cover state general fund deficiencies; and 7 WHEREAS, actions by the state over the past 20 or more years have seriously eroded and destabilized the local government revenue base; and WHEREAS, due to continuing population growth, the erosion of local government revenues have and will continue to degrade the quality of local services and public facilities, so that today local government is unable to meet pressing local needs and fulfill citizens' 'reasonable and legitimate expectations; and WHEREAS, local government revenues must be stabilized before any long-term planning and public facility construction and rehabilitation can be seriously undertaken by local government; and WHEREAS, the issue of local government revenue stabilization and reform of the state-local fiscal relationship has not been a priority of the Legislature and Governor; and WHEREAS, local government representatives have repeatedly petitioned their state representatives seeking redress of the imbalanced nature of the state-local fiscal relationship, and received no lasting, reliable, substantial relief; WHEREAS, a proposal to stabilize and reform local government finance should be placed before the voters of California for a resolution of this continuing problem; now therefore be it RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities assembled in Annual Conference .in Sacramento, September 15, 2001, that the membership of the League support the passage of a ballot measure designed to stabilize local government revenues and enhance the ability of California's .cities, counties and special districts to meet the growing service and public facilities needs of Californians. 8. RESOLUTION RELATING TO RETURN OF ERAF FUNDS TO CITIES Source: Community Services Policy Committee Referred to: Revenue and Taxation Policy Committee Preliminary Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee: Disapprove. Final Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee: WHEREAS, the shift of ERAF has negatively affected cities in California, with a loss of $1.6 billion to California's cities since 1992, and a loss of over $300 million in the year 2000; and WHEREAS, the shift of ERAF has affected cities throughout California, for example, the City of Albany has community services unfunded capital project needs in excess of $8.5 million in park restoration and drainage repairs, park creation, sports fields relocation, earthquake retrofit of city buildings and traffic safety projects; and annual unfunded operating costs of $1 million, including library hours and street maintenance, and cities throughout California have similar unfunded projects and operating costs; and WHEREAS, taxpayers throughout California have already shouldered a fair share of the city's financial loss by passing tax measures to backfill community services, yet more needs remain; and WHEREAS, the State of California has mandated unfunded affordable housing quotas; and WHEREAS, California cities are facing increased costs of energy, construction and staff; and WHEREAS, property taxes are the primary source of reliable income to cities; and .. , · WHEREAS, citizens expect their property taxes to primarily support their cities, yet only about 18% of their property tax payments go to cities; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities assembled in Annual Conference in Sacramento, September 15, 2001, that the League request the State of California return ERAF funds to California's cities. RESOLUTION REFERRED TO TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS AND PUBLIC WORKS POLICY COMMITTEE 9. RESOLUTION RELATING TO TELEPHONE AREA CODES Source: Los Angeles County Division Referred to: Transportation, Communications and Public Works Policy Committee Preliminary Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee: Approve. Final Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee: WHEREAS, there are currently 25 common telephone area codes within the State of California; and WHEREAS, 21 of the existing area code regions are being considered for geographic modification; and WHEREAS, consistency in area code designation is important to maintain community identity in regional planning and economic development; and WHEREAS, the negative physical and economic impact on individuals and businesses includes increased inconvenience to individuals forced to adapt to new dialing habits, the costs of reprinting stationery, notifying customers and changing advertisements; and WHEREAS, the cumulative costs of repeated area code splits to businesses may discourage economic development in California; and WHEREAS, wireless telephone carriers continue to receive phone numbers in blocks of 10,000 instead of 1,000, creating an artificial shortage of telephone numbers; and WHEREAS, other reasonable alternatives exist to satisfy the demand for telephone numbers; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, by the'General Assembly of the League-of California Cities assembled in Annual Conference in Sacramento, September 15, 2001, that the League work with the California Public Utilities Commission, the various telephone companies and federal regulatory agencies to improve telephone area code planning in California. 9 League of California Cities Proposed Resolutions Annual Conference, September 12-15,2001 RESOLUTION NUMBER/ Prelim Poi Dept ~:ei~:~i~:~ i: Council Comments DESCRIPTION: Approve (A); Com Head :p0sition~;;;::::?::~;; Position Disapprove (D); No Action (N); Position/s Position (from CC Amend (a); Amend and take No :~f':8~2~:0'1!):~::;:: mtg. of Action (Na); Approve as Amended i! i! 0-5-0'1) 1. Revising Bylaws for A A the League of California Cities 2. Day Care Services for Aa A Children, Adults and Seniors 3. Excess Retirement Aa A) Pro - Exclusive use of PERS System Assets and excess investment assets by local More Options for contracting agency. Employer Use of B) Con - Too broad with no Those Assets controls. (P:~&L~eagueResolutions\EXHBA-2-01) League Annual Conference Resolutions Sept. 12-15,2001 Page 2 RESOLUTION NUMBER/ Prelim Poi Dept ~:~ ~!! Council Comments DESCRIPTION: Approve (A); Com Head I:i:P0siti~'n~:~::,:i%:::::~:I Position Disapprove (D); No Action (N); Position Position (from cc Amend (a); Amend and take No ;i;i::~f~:.'8~2~i0:1);::i:;: mtg. of Action (Ns); Approve asAmended ii!i :i i~!ii!ii!i i!!i 9-5-01) (Aa) ........ ........ ............ ::~,~::~ 4. Flexibility in the Poi,'Com, A Can lead to consideration of Wastewater Decision geography in monitoring and Permitting Process by on 9-12 reporting requirements California State and Regional Water Quality Control Boards as Allowed by Law 5. Modification of Poi. Com. D Uneven penalties for same California SB 709 Decision violations (Mandatory Penalties) on 9-12 and the Federal Clean Water Act Regarding Frivolous Citizen Lawsuits (P:~&L~eagueResolutions\EXHBA-2-01) League Annual Conference Resolutions Sept. 12-15,2001 Page 3 RESOLUTION NUMBER/ Prelim Poi Dept Council Comments DESCRIPTION: Approve (A); Com Head Position Disapprove (D); No Action (N); Position Position (from CC Amend (a); Amend and take No mtg. of Action (Na); Approve as Amended 9-5-01) (Aa) 6. Incentives to Improve Aa A the Balance of Jobs and Housing in California 7. Supporting the Aa A Attempts to protect local revenues Passage of a Ballot through a ballot measure Measure to Stabilize and Reform Local Government Financing 8, Return of ERAF D A Continues effort to return ERAF Funds to Cities monies; has not been successful in past efforts 9. Telephone Area A A Codes (P:%&L\LeagueResolutions\EXHBA-2-01) DRAFT BAKERSFIELD Alan T ager Sue Benham, Chair Staff: Trudy Slater David Couch Jacquie Sullivan AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE Regular Meeting Monday, August 27, 2001 ' 1:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room 1. ROLL CALL Called to order at 1:03' p.m. Members present: Councilmember Sue Benham, Chair Councilmember David Couch Councilmember Jacquie Sullivan 2. ADOPT JUNE 25, 2001 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted. 3.PUBLIC STATEMENTS None. 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. DISCUSSION AND REVIEW RELATING TO LAFCO ANNEXATION PROCEDURES (INVITED GUEST: BILL TURPIN) Chairperson Sue Benham thanked Mr. Bill Turpin, Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) Executive Director, for being able to meet with the Committee. In response to several questions, Mr. Turpin explained the procedures used and to be implemented by LAFCo regarding the legal process to be followed relating to annexation. He handed out LAFCo Procedures, Standards and Policies for the evaluation of Proposals and indicated LAFCo would not have a policy relating to procedures to be followed in addition to the legat annexation process. DRAFT Agenda Summary Report Legislative and Litigation Committee August 27, 2001 Page 2 Mr. Turpin felt the guide City staff had worked to compile was similar to the County's and was not needed; to reproduce what the County does seems to him to be a duplication. He felt the prior proposed city guide focused on the legal as opposed to pre-legal area. He indicated he would not presume to dictate what a city does, but a simple and clarifying document with the citizen as the audience relating to the City's pre-legal area could be very helpful. City Attorney Bart Thiltgen explained in the pre-legal area, the City could establish whatever guidelines the Council wanted. A discussion followed relating to ways to provide information to the public in inhabited areas under consideration for annexation, including conducting professional surveys geared to the population size of the annexation; prezoning; resolution of application; appropriate general plan designation; proper documentation; and pros and cons of neighborhood meetings, public meetings, and public hearings. Chairperson Benham opened questions of Mr. Turpin to the county residents attending the · meeting. Statements from county residents included their desire for annexation facts in written statements identifiable as originating with the city; the separation of legal vs. pre-legal areas; notification to everyone within an inhabited annexation area; following a given policy exactly; avoiding "bundling" of annexation areas; getting a good reading of the neighbOrhood before moving ahead with annexation efforts; and providing a petition on de-annexation procedures. In response to Chairperson Benham's question regarding whether sending out a letter was good, it was indicated this could be good if done differently. Chairperson Benham indicated she was glad to know that what was being contemplated in the pre-legal area would not be in conflict with LAFCo. In response to a question, Mr. Turpin indicated his board could create county islands, within certain restrictions. Councilmember David Couch had several questions for.staff, including: A suggestion was made that prior to a resolution of annexation being passed by the City Council a hearing be held; if that is a possibility, please tell him how many staff thinks the City should hold. Should they be in front of the City Council, in front of the Planning Commission, or a separate committee that would hold the hearing? Could an area meeting take the place of the public hearing? With regard to neighborhood meetings and public meetings, how many should be held, and how would people be notified? How do you conduct a survey, by phone, at a public meeting? How do you get an adequate sampling? He felt population size should be considered in different inhabited annexation efforts. There is a need to get the best information and noticing possible at the lowest per unit cost, while considering budgetary constraints. He wants staff to provide information in this regard. Councilmember Couch indicated he wanted to go on record in support of neighborhood meetings. He believed there were some people who do not want to speak in a large group, or who cannot attend the public meeting, or who wish to meet with him and three or four of their neighbors. He wanted to be able to respond to their requests, to have the flexibility to go and meet with them if he wanted to or if they wanted him to. He wants to retain that Councilmember ability. He also indicated his support for providing services to those individuals who desire to be annexed even when they were in a location not directly contiguous to the City (as in a county island example) so that service to those wanting to Agenda Summary Report Legislative and Litigation Committee DRAFT August 27, 2001 Page 3 become part of the City would not be impeded by those not wanting City services. He encouraged City staff and Mr. Turpin to work together to further this goal. Mr. Turpin indicated he would be happy to do so. In response to a question on annexation area boundaries from Councilmember Jacquie Sullivan, Mr. Turpin indicated that annexation boundaries are very important in whether a majority of residents will support an annexation effort. He explained that the way you draw the areas affects the public opinion of which voters you include. Councilmember Sullivan noted very strongly the need to honor the desires of a majority of an annexation area's residents rather than a vocal minority. Upon Councilmember Sullivan's question regarding "bundling" of annexation areas, City Attorney Thiltgen indicated that direction to staff was clear that proposed annexation areas would no longer be bundled. Audience response to Councilmember Sullivan's question regarding whether they had attended the Casa Loma annexation meeting was in the affirmative. Councilmember Sullivan reiterated her strong belief that councilmembers and city staff are by their service dedicated to being proactive City representatives and their actions should be reflective of this stance. Service should be responsive to city residents rather than responding to influences from those not wanting to be in the city. In response to a question from Chairperson Benham, City Attorney Thiltgen indicated he would be able to provide a report back at the next committee meeting based on what Councilmember Couch had requested. Staff will put together alternatives for committee review. Chairperson Benham suggested that audience members could put in writing specific items for staff to consider prior to the next meeting which has this as an agenda item. Submissions should be presented to staff by ten days before the next meeting. The item will continue at that time with further Committee comments, questions and open discussion. 5. NEW BUSINESS A. DISCUSSION, REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING MINUTES OF CLOSED SESSIONS City Attorney Thiltgen explained the process followed by the City Attorney's Office relative to closed sessions, such as votes and notes on actions relating to the votes. Notes are kept by the City Attorney's Office and are considered protected from disclosure by attorney-client privilege. The notes are available for review by councilmembers. Councilmember Couch expressed his concerns where, in a couple of instances, over time what had been said appeared to have been forgotten. Upon Councilmember Benham's questions, City Attorney Thiltgen explained that detailed notes would be difficult without tape recordings, which would possibly be open to disclosure in case of challenges of a violation of the Brown Act, and could tend to stifle open communications. As a legal opinion, he strongly recommended against disclosing what individual councilmembers say in closed session as it puts the public agency at a DRAFT Agenda Summary Report Legislative and Litigation Committee August 27, 2001 Page 4 disadvantage. Chairperson Benham indicated councilmembers were free to take their own notes. City Clerk Pam McCarthy handed out a survey of the process used by other cities, explaining they had 59 responses out of 100, and 19 of those .kept some type of written documents. Staff was directed to return at the next meeting with additional information from ten survey size cities. The item will be placed under deferred business for the September meeting. B, DISCUSSION, REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PROPOSED LEAGUE RESOLUTIONS Administrative Analyst Trudy Slater described the resolutions and recommendations from staff contained within the packet handout, explaining that final Council decision on each resolution would be presented by the City's Delegate (Mayor Harvey Hall) at the League's General Assembly Meeting at the Annual Conference September 12-15. The nine resolutions included two which directed the League to support efforts for a ballot measure protecting local revenue sources and continuing support for the return of ERAF funding to cities. One resolution proposed exclusive control of excess PERS funds to the local contracting agencies on which department heads were split on support or opposing. Councilmember Couch moved to support staff's recommendations on ReSolutions 1,2, 4, 6, 7, 9, and 8 (with support forResolution 8 based on the ballot measure prOposed in Resolution 7 not passing the electorate) and oppose Resolution 5; and moved to remain neutral on Resolution 3, with direction to the Voting Delegate to pull the resolution off the League's consent calendar for separate consideration and make comment, prepared by the City Attorney, relating to concerns on the broadly worded language regarding the "exclusive use by the affected local contracting agency" relative to excess PERS investment assets. Motion was approved unanimously. 6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS None. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 2:47 p.m. Staff Attendees: Assistant City Managers John Stinson and Alan Christensen, Administrative Analyst Trudy Slater, Assistant to the City Manager Darnell Haynes, City Clerk Pam McCarthy; and Assistant City Clerk Roberta Gafford Other Attendees: Bill Turpin, Executive Director, Local Agency Formation Commission; Stuart Baugher, James Burger, Ginger Mello, Barbara Fields, Brian K. Morrow, Liz Keogh, and Becky Kaiser