City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Meeting Date: _09/13/10_ Item Number: A-1
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of the City’s Position on Resolutions
for the 2010 League of California Cities Annual Conference – September 15-17 in
San Diego - and Naming of a Voting Delegate and Alternate Voting Delegate(s) for
the Conference.
Contact Person/Dept.: Shelly
Wolfberg/City Manager’s Office
Phone Number: (310) 253-6008
Fiscal Impact: Yes [] No [X] General Fund: Yes [] No [X]
Public Hearing: [] Action Item: [X] Attachments: [X]
Commission Action Required: Yes [] No [X] Date: _______________
Public Notification: Meetings and Agendas-City Council (09/08/10)
Department Approval:
Martin R. Cole (09/07/10)
City Attorney Approval:
Carol Schwab (by H. Baker) (09/07/10)
Chief Financial Officer Approval:
Jeff Muir (by M. Noller) (09/08/10)
City Manager Approval:
John M. Nachbar 09/08/10)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council consider the City’s position on Resolutions for
the 2010 League of California Cities (League) Annual Conference – September 15-
17 in San Diego - and name a Voting Delegate and Alternate(s) for the Conference.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
On June 4, 2010 the League sent a letter asking city councils to designate their
Voting Delegate and Alternate(s) (Attachment 1) at the Annual Business Meeting.
The League invites city participation in the annual meeting of the League General
Assembly to help develop League policy. League staff has indicated that the signed
Voting Delegate/Alternate Form should be submitted to the Conference Delegate
table at the Conference.
Policy development is a key part of the League’s legislative effectiveness. The
League’s Annual Conference Resolutions process is one way that city officials can
directly participate in the development of League policy. As a matter of practice, the
League President refers resolutions to the League policy committees for review and
recommendation at the Conference. Resolutions are next considered by the
General Resolutions Committee (GRC), which consists of representatives from each
division, department, policy committee and individuals appointed by the League
President. Resolutions that are approved by the GRC and resolutions that are City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
approved by the policy committees, but not approved by the GRC, are next
considered by the General Assembly. Resolutions approved by the General
Assembly become League policy. Other action on resolutions can be: Amend;
Disapprove; No Action; or Refer Back to a Policy Committee.
Resolutions to address late-breaking issues may be introduced by petition at the
Annual Conference. To qualify, a petitioned resolution must be signed by 10 percent
of the voting delegates (48 voting delegates) and submitted no more than 24 hours
before the beginning of the concluding general assembly. All qualified petitioned
resolutions are considered by the GRC and subsequently forwarded to the General
Assembly for consideration, regardless of the action recommended by the GRC.
At the Annual Conference, League Delegates will consider six resolutions introduced
by the July 16, 2010 deadline, which are included in Attachment 2 and summarized
below. The League encourages each City Council to consider the resolutions and to
determine a city position so that the Voting Delegate and Alternate can represent its
city’s position on each Resolution.
The Legislative Advocacy Program (Advocacy Program), which was adopted in
2008, primarily addresses the types of positions the City Council may take on
various subject areas. In the past, the Advocacy Program has helped guide the City
Council in its decision making with regards to the League Resolutions presented at
the Annual Conference.
The following is a summary of the Resolutions:
1. Resolution Relating to League Bylaws Amendments – Adoption of this
Resolution would resolve that the League modify its Bylaws in the following
sections :
Article VII, Section 1: Add a statement about the desire for diversity in the
composition of the League Board of Directors.
Article VII, Section 2: Change the number of Directors who compose the
Board.
Article VII, Section 5: Appointment of a substitute nominating committee
member.
Article XIV, Section 1: Addition of a Conflicts of Interest section.
Article XIV, Section 4: Addition of an Ethical Considerations section.
Supporting these proposed League Bylaws amendments would not conflict with
the Advocacy Program.
2. Resolution Relating to the National “Let’s Move” Campaign – Adoption of this
Resolution would resolve that California cities are encouraged to:
City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
a. Adopt preventative measures to fight obesity as set forth in the “Let’s
Move” campaign; and
b. Sign up as a “Let’s Move” City with the US Department of Health and
Human Services; and
c. Help parents make healthy family choices; create healthy schools; and
provide access to healthy and affordable foods; and promote physical
activity.
The Advocacy Program has a position statement to support grants, and funding for
parks and recreation programs and programs to increase the quality of life for Culver
City residents. Further, the City has applied for and plans to implement a Safe
Routes to Schools project. City Council support of this Resolution is consistent with
the Advocacy Program; however, any new programs that would provide a City
commitment of resources would be brought to the City Council for discussion.
3. Resolution Opposing the Board of Directors’ Decision to Defer Action on AB 32
and SB 375 and to Adopt the Board-Appointed Task Force Recommendations –
Adoption of this Resolution would result in the following:
a. Request that the Governor exercise his authority to delay individual AB 32
implementation deadlines;
b. Request that the California Air Resources Board take the following three
actions:
i. Revisit and update economic and growth assumptions used to
estimate 2020 business-as-usual emissions and recalculate AB 32
goal;
ii. Consider local government costs in all future studies relating to AB
32 and SB 375; and
iii. Request that the SB 375 targets be set in a way to reflect the
economy and scarce local resources.
c. Support (but not sponsor) any legislation that would suspend or delay
implementation of SB 375 until there is funding and resources in place to
implement individual mandates and requirements associated with the bill.
The Resolution further resolves that the specific recommendations developed by the
four policy committees and Task Force be considered by the General Assembly at
the Annual Conference, unless the Board of Directors reverses its deferred action
stance on AB 32 and SB 375 and adopts the Task Force recommendations. The
Policy Committee recommendations, which were reviewed by staff, are found to be
consistent with the Legislative Advocacy Program. Implementation of SB 375 and
AB 32 would place a mandate on the City without providing the funds necessary to
carry out the mandated program.
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is serving as the
Metropolitan Planning Authority for the implementation of SB 375 and is working on
this effort with the Westside Cities Council of Governments as a subregional City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
delegation. SCAG indicates that if there were to be any changes to the
implementation schedule for SB 375, it would adapt its work effort accordingly.
Further, the City plans to prepare a Climate Action Plan (CAP) that will include a
Greenhouse Gas Emission Analysis. Suspension of AB 32 and/or SB 375 would not
preclude the City from moving forward on the CAP, nor would it require that effort to
cease.
4. Resolution Relating to Responsible Banking - Adoption of this Resolution would
resolve that the League would:
a. Strongly encourage municipalities to require transparent, responsible
banking from the financial institutions receiving city funds; and,
b. Serve as a clearinghouse of information on the responsible banking
initiatives of municipalities across the country, in order to help California
cities interested in taking steps to increase transparent, responsible
banking in their own communities.
While, adoption of this Resolution does not tie in directly with the City’s Legislative
Advocacy Program, the Chief Financial Officer does not see any drawbacks from the
City Council voting in favor of the Resolution.
5. Resolution Relating to Unfunded State Mandates – Adoption of this Resolution
would require the League to:
a. Work with its member cities and other local government partners to
identify situations in which local governments must increase fees or taxes
to meet state mandated requirements; and
b. Petition the Governor of the State of California and Legislature of the State
of California to suspend or eliminate certain state mandates until
improvement of the national and California economy results in
substantially lower statewide unemployment and fiscal solvency of the
State of California and local governments; and
c. Work with Members of Congress and the government of the United States
to suspend or eliminate certain federal mandates, passed along to the
states for implementation, until the improvement of the national economy
results in substantially lower national unemployment and fiscal solvency of
the United States, the State of California and local governments; and
d. Support legislation to suspend, eliminate, or otherwise modify the negative
impacts of state mandates on local agencies, particularly in which a new
or increased local tax or fee is necessary to implement the mandate.
Supporting this Resolution would be consistent with the City’s Advocacy Program
which opposes any legislation that would place a mandate on the City without
providing the funds necessary to carry out the mandated program.
6. Resolution Relating to Enhancing Public Safety While Driving a Motor Vehicle –
Adopting this Resolution would resolve that the League encourages cities to City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
promote safe driving across California and educate the general public about the
dangers of texting while driving.
The Wireless Communications Device Law (effective January 1, 2009) makes it an
infraction to write, send, or read text-based communication on an electronic wireless
communications device, such as a cell phone, while driving a motor vehicle.
Supporting this Resolution does not present a conflict with the Advocacy Program.
And, although no funding has been identified to implement this new program, the
City could disseminate public information through the City’s website, a cable crawler,
Channel 35, and through a Press Release to educate the public.
While the City Council may take a position of support, oppose, or no position at all,
the Voting Delegate or any City representative at the General Assembly meeting
may also comment on the resolutions. These resolutions are not legislation,
however there is a potential that some of these resolutions could become the basis
for future legislation. The City Council could take a position on a bill at a later date,
once more details are known. However, if the General Assembly takes a position
collectively; it will be the League’s position.
Designation of a Voting Delegate and up to two Alternate Delegates
Staff recommends the City Council designate one Councilmember as the Voting
Delegate and up to two Councilmembers as Alternate Delegates. The Voting
Delegate (and either Alternate, if the Voting Delegate is not available) may cast the
City’s vote during the League’s General Assembly held as part of the Annual
Conference.
FISCAL ANALYSIS:
There is no fiscal impact to take positions on the Resolutions or to assign a Voting
Delegate and Alternate Voting Delegate. However, at some point in the future,
implementation of specific programs or projects as recommended in the resolutions
may result in a financial impact to the City. As specific programs and/or projects
arise, a fiscal analysis of implementing those programs/projects will be provided.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. June 4, 2010 League of California Cities Letter regarding Designation of Voting
Delegate and Alternates for the 2010 League of California Cities Annual
Conference – September 15-17, San Diego.
2. July 29, 2010 League of California Cities Letter regarding 2010 Annual
Conference Resolutions packet.
City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
MOTION:
That the City Council:
1. Adopt a City Position supporting the League Resolution relating to the League
proposed Bylaws Amendments; and
2. Adopt a City Position supporting the League’s Resolution relating to the
National Let’s Move Campaign; and
3. Adopt a City Position supporting the League’s Resolution to defer action on AB
32 and SB 375 and to adopt the Board-appointed task force recommendations;
and
4. Adopt a City Position supporting the League’s Resolution pertaining to
responsible banking; and
5. Adopt a City Position supporting the League’s Resolution pertaining to
unfunded mandates; and
6. Adopt a City Position supporting the League’s Resolution pertaining to
enhancing public safety while driving a motor vehicle; and
7. Designate _____________ as the Voting Delegate for the 2010 League Annual
Conference on September 15-17, 2010 in San Diego; and
8. Designate ____________and ___ as Alternate Voting Delegates for
the 2010 League Annual Conference on September 15-17, 2010 in San Diego.
MEETING DATE: September 13, 2010
AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of the City's Position on Resolutions for
the 2010 League of California Cities Annual
Conference — September 15-17 in San Diego - and
Naming of a Voting Delegate and Alternate Voting
Delegate for the Conference.
ATTACHMENTS
Pages
1. June 4, 2010 League of California Cities Letter regarding 1-4
Designation of Voting Delegate and Alternates for the 2010
League of California Cities Annual Conference — September
15-17, San Diego.
2. July 29, 2010 League of California Cities Letter regarding 5-29
2010 Annual Conference Resolutions packet.1400 K STREET
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
PIE (916) 658-8200
Ex: (916) 658-8240
LEAGUE
OFCALJFOftNIA
CITIES
„
U
WWW. CACITIES. ORG
Ca:lin :j ai
ñAvised by August 20, 2010
June 4, 2010
TO: Mayors, City Managers and City Clerks
RE: DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATES AND ALTERNATES
League of California Cities Annual Conference — September 15-17 — San Diego
The League's 2010 Annual Conference is scheduled for September 15-17 in San Diego. An
important part of the Annual Conference is the Annual Business Meeting (at the closing General
Assembly), scheduled for 3:00 p.m., Friday, September 17, at the San Diego Convention Center.
At this meeting, the League membership considers and takes action on resolutions that establish
League policy.
In order to vote at the Annual Business Meeting, your city council must designate a voting
delegate. Your city may also appoint up to two alternate voting delegates, one of whom may vote
in the event that the designated voting delegate is unable to serve in that capacity. Please take
care when selecting your city's delegates, as travel and attendance could be an issue for those
who observe Yom Kippur.
Please complete the attached Voting Delegate form and return it to the League's office
no later than Friday, August 20, 2010. This will allow us time to establish voting
delegate/alternates' records prior to the conference.
Please note the following procedures that are intended to ensure the integrity of the voting
process at the Annual Business Meeting.
Action by Council Required. Consistent with League bylaws, a city's voting delegate
and up to two alternates must be designated by the city council. When completing the
attached Voting Delegate form, please attach either a copy of the council resolution that
reflects the council action taken, or have your city clerk or mayor sign the fouli at-finning
that the names provided are those selected by the city council. Please note that
designating the votin g dele2ate and alternates must be done by city council action and
cammt be accomplished by individual action of the mayor or city manager alone.
• Conference Registration Required. The voting delegate and alternates must be
registered to attend the conference. They need not register for the entire conference; they
may register for Friday only. In order to cast a vote, at least one person must be present
at the Business Meeting and in possession of the voting delegate card. Voting delegates
and alternates need to pick up their conference badges before signing in and picking up
-more-the voting delegate card at the Voting Delegate Desk. This will enable them to receive
the special sticker on their name badges that will admit them into the voting area during
the Business Meeting.
• Transferring Voting Card to Non-Designated Individuals Not Allowed. The voting
delegate card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates, but
only between the voting delegate and alternates. If the voting delegate and alternates find
themselves unable to attend the Business Meeting, they may not transfer the voting card
to another city official.
• Seating Protocol during General Assembly. At the Business Meeting, individuals with
the voting card will sit in a separate area. Admission. to this area will be limited to those
individTTnls with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate
or alternate. If the voting delegate and alternates wish to sit together, they must sign in at
the Voting Delegate Desk and obtain the special sticker on their badges.
The Voting Delegate Desk, located in the conference registration area of the San Jose Convention
Center, will be open at the following times: Wednesday, September 15, 9:00 a.m.; Thursday,
September 16, 7:30 a.m.; and September 17, 7:30 a.m. The Voting Delegate Desk will also be
open at the Business Meeting on Friday, but not during a roll call vote,' should one be undertaken.
The voting procedures that will be used at the conference are attached to this memo. Please
share these procedures and this memo with your council and especially with the individuals that
your council designates as your city's voting delegate and alternates.
Once again, thank you for completing the voting delegate and alternate form and returning it to
the League office by Friday, August 20th. If you have questions, please call Mary McCullough
at (916) 658-8247.
Attachments:
• 2010 Annual Conference Voting Procedures
• Voting Delegate/Alternate Pow"
CLEAGUE
OF CALIFORNIA
CITIES
1400 K Street, Suite 400 • Sacramento, California 95814
Phone: 916.658.8200 Fax: 916.658.8240
vvvvw.cacities.org
Annual Conference Voting Procedures
2010 Annual Conference
1. One City One Vote. Each member city has a right to cast one vote on matters pertaining to
League policy.
2. Designating a City Voting Representative. Prior to the Annual Conference, each city
council may designate a voting delegate and up to two alternates; these individuals are
identified on the Voting Delegate Form provided to the League Credentials Committee.
3. Registering with the Credentials Committee. The voting delegate, or alternates, may
pick up the city's voting card at the Voting Delegate Desk in the conference registration
area. Voting delegates and alternates must sign in at the Voting Delegate Desk. Here they
will receive a special sticker on their name badge and thus be admitted to the voting area at
the Business Meeting.
4. Signing Initiated Resolution Petitions. Only those individuals who are voting delegates
(or alternates), and who have picked up their city's voting card by providing a signature to
the Credentials Committee at the Voting Delegate Desk, may sign petitions to initiate a
resolution.
5. Voting. To cast the city's vote, a city official must have in his or her possession the city's
voting card and be registered with the Credentials Committee. The voting card may be
transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates, but may not be transferred to
another city official who is neither a voting delegate or alternate.
6. Voting Area at Business Meeting. At the Business Meeting, individuals with a voting card
will sit in a designated area. Admission will be limited to those individuals with a special
sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate or alternate.
7. Resolving Disputes. in case of dispute, the Credentials Committee will determine the
validity of signatures on petitioned resolutions and the right of a city official to vote at the
Business Meeting.LEAGUE
— OF CALI FORN
CI _Ls
Li
FAX: (916) 658-8240
E-mail: mccullom@cacities.org
(916) 658-8247
VotirmDelegateLeuerl 0.doc
League of California Cities
ATTN: Mary McCullough
1400 K Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
CITY:
2010 ANNUAL CONFERENCE
VOTING DELEGATE/ALTERNATE FORM
Please complete this form and return it to the League office by Friday, August 20. 2010.
Forms not sent by this deadline may be submitted to the Voting Delegate Desk located in
the Annual Conference Registration Area. Your city council may designate one voting
delegate and up to two alternates.
In order to vote at the Annual Business Meeting (General Assembly), voting delegates and alternates must
be designated by your city council. Please attach the council resolution as proof of designation As an
alternative, the Mayor or City Clerk may sign this form, affirming that the designation reflects the action
taken by the council.
Please note: Voting delegates and alternates will be seated in a separate area at the Annual Business
Meeting. Admission to this designated area will be limited to individuals (voting delegates and
alternates) who are identified with a special sticker on their conference badge. This sticker can be
obtained only at the Voting Delegate Desk.
1. VOTING DELEGATE
Name: Title: 2. VOTING DELEGATE - ALTERNATE 3. VOTING DELEGATE - ALTERNATE
Name: Name: Title: Title: PLEASE ATTACH COUNCIL RESOLUTION DESIGNATING VOTING DELEGATE
AND ALTERNATES.
OR
ATTEST: I affirm that the information provided reflects action by the city council to
designate the voting delegate and alternate(s).
Name: E-mail Mayor or City Clerk Phone: (circle one) (signature)
Date:
Please complete and return by Friday. August 20 to:1400 K STREET
SACILWENTO, CA 95814
FIT: (916) 658-8200
Fx: (916) 658-8240
',LECIFQ0111
CITIES
July 29, 2010
• ,
n' Y. r: E
-
WWW.CACITIES.ORG
TO: Mayors, City Managers and City Clerks
League Board of Directors
General Resolutions Committee Members
Members, League Policy Committees to Which Resolutions Are Referred
RE: Annual Conference Resolutions Packet
Notice of League Annual Meeting
Enclosed please find the 2010 Annual Conference Resolutions Packet.
Annual Conference in San Diego. This year's League Annual Conference will be held September 15-17 at
the San Diego Convention Center. The conference announcement has previously been sent to all cities and
we hope that you and your colleagues will be able to join us. More information about the conference is
available on the League's Web site at www.cacities.org/ae . We look forward to welcoming city officials to
the conference.
Annual Business Meeting - Friday, September 17, 3:00 p.m. The League's Annual Business Meeting
will be held at the San Diego Convention Center, Ballroom 20ABC.
Resolutions Packet. At the Annual Conference, the League will consider the six resolutions introduced by
the deadline — Friday, July 16, 2010, 5 p.m., for submittals by regular mail, or Saturday, July 17, midnight,
for submittals by e-mail or fax. These resolutions are included in this packet. We request that you distribute
this packet to your city council.
We encourage each city council to consider the resolutions and to determine a city position so that
your voting delegate can represent your city's position on each resolution. A copy of the resolutions packet is
posted on the League's Web site for your convenience: www.cacities.org/resolutions.
This resolutions packet contains additional information related to consideration of the resolutions at the
Annual Conference. This includes the date, time and location of the meetings at which resolutions will be
considered.
Voting Delegates. Each city council is encouraged to designate a voting delegate and two alternates to
represent their city at the Annual Business Meeting. A letter asking city councils to designate their voting
delegate and two alternates has already been sent to each city. Copies of the letter, voting delegate form, and
additional information are also available at: www.cacities.org/resolutions.|109| 1
I Please Bring This Packet to the Annual Conference i|109| 1
I September 15 - 17— San Diego 1|109| 1I.
INFORMATION AND PROCEDURES
RESOLUTIONS CONTAINED IN THIS PACKET: The League bylaws provide that resolutions shall
be referred by the president to an appropriate policy committee for review and recommendation.
Resolutions with committee recommendations shall then be considered by the General Resolutions
Committee at the Annual Conference.
This year, six resolutions have been introduced for consideration by the Annual Conference and referred to
the League policy committees. Please note that two resolutions have been referred to more than one policy
committee for consideration.
POLICY COMMITTEES: Six policy committees will meet at the Annual Conference to consider and take
action on resolutions referred to them. These are: Administrative Services; Community Services;
Environmental Quality; Housing, Community & Economic Development; Revenue and Taxation; and
Transportation, Communication & Public Works. These committees will meet on Wednesday, September 15,
2010 at the Hilton Bayfront Hotel, located next to the San Diego Convention Center. Please see page iii for the
policy committee meeting schedule. The sponsors of the resolutions have been notified of the time and location of
the meetings.
Two policy committees will not be meeting at the annual conference. These committees are: Employee
Relations and Public Safety.
GENERAL RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE: This committee will meet at 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, September
16, at the San Diego Convention Center, Ballroom 20D, to consider the reports of the six policy committees
regarding the six resolutions. This committee includes one representative from each of the League's regional
divisions, functional departments and standing policy committees, as well as other individuals appointed by the
League president.
ANNUAL BUSINESS MEETING/GENERAL ASSEMBLY: This meeting will be held at
3:00 p.m. on Friday, September 17, at the San Diego Convention Center, Ballroom 20ABC.
PETITIONED RESOLUTIONS: For those issues that develop after the normal 60-day deadline, a
resolution may be introduced at the Annual Conference with a petition signed by designated voting
delegates of 10 percent of all member cities (48 valid signatures required) and presented to the Voting
Delegates Desk at least 24 hours prior to the time set for convening the Annual Business Session of the
General Assembly. This year, that deadline is 3:00 p.m., Thursday, September 16. If the petitioned
resolution is substantially similar in substance to a resolution already under consideration, the petitioned
resolution may be disqualified by the General Resolutions Committee.
Resolutions can be viewed on the League's Web site: www.cacities.org/resolutions.
Any questions concerning the resolutions procedures may be directed to Linda Welch Diamond at the
League office: Idiamonda,eacities.org or (916) 658-8224.
CoGUIDELINES 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 League's eight standing policy committees
and the board of directors. The process allows for timely consideration of issues in a changing environment
and assures city officials the opportunity to both initiate and influence policy decisions.
Annual conference resolutions constitute an additional way to develop League policy. Resolutions should
adhere to the following criteria.
Guidelines for Annual Conference Resolutions
1. Only issues that have a direct bearing on municipal affairs should be considered or adopted at the
Annual Conference.
2. The issue is not of a purely local or regional concern.
3. The recommended policy should not simply 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 new direction for League policy by establishing general principals around which
more detailed policies may be developed by policy committees and the Board of Directors.
(c)
Consider important issues not adequately addressed by the policy committees and Board of
Directors.
(d) Amend the League bylaws (requires 2/3 vote at General Assembly).
iiM.
LOCATION OF MEETINGS
Policy Committee Meetings
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Hilton Bayfront Hotel, San Diego
1 Park Boulevard, San Diego - (619) 564-3333
(Located next to the San Diego Convention Center)
POLICY COMMITTEES MEETING• AT ANNUAL CONFERENCE TO
DISCUSS AN ANNUAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTION
9:00 a.m. - 10:30 a.m.
11:00 a.m. - 12:30 n.m.
• Administrative Services - Indigo D Community Services - Indigo D
Environmental Quality - Indigo H Housing, Comm. & Econ. Dev. - Indigo 202
Revenue and Taxation - Indigo 202
Transp., Comm. & Public Works - Indigo 204
Note: These policy committees will NOT meet at the Annual Conference:
Employee Relations and Public Safety
General Resolutions Committee
Thursday, September 16, 2010,4:00 p.m.
San Diego Convention Center, Ballroom 20D
111 West Harbor Drive, San Diego, CA 92101 - (619) 525-5000
416
Annual Business Meeting and General Assembly
Friday, September 17, 2010, 3:00 p.m.
San Diego Convention Center, Ballroom 20ABC
111 West Harbor Drive, San Diego, CA 92101 - (619) 525-5000
fiiIV.
KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN ON RESOLUTIONS
Resolutions have been grouped by policy committees to which they have been assigned. Please note that two resolutions
have been assigned to more than one committee. These resolutions are noted by this sign (40-).
Number Key Word Index
Reviewing Body Action|1010| 2
3
1 - Policy Committee Recommendation
to General Resolutions Committee
2- General Resolutions Committee
3- General Assembly
ADMIMSTRATIVE SERVICES POLICY COMMITTEE|109| 2
3
COMMUNITY SERVICES POLICY COMMITTEE|109| 2
3
Let's Move Campaign
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY POLICY COMMITTEE|109| 2
AB32/ SB 375
HOUSING, COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICY COMMITTEE|109| 2 3
.3 AB32/ SB 375 •
Responsible Banking
REVENUE AND TAXATION POLICY COMMITTEE|109| 2 3
AB32/ SB 375
.4 Responsible Banking
5 Unfunded State Mandates
TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATION & PUBLIC WORKS POLICY COMMITTEE|109| 3
.3 AB32/ SB 375
6 Enhancing Public Safety
Please note: These committees will NOT meet at the annual conference: Employee Relations and Public Safety
Information pertaining to the Annual Conference Resolutions will also be posted on each committee's page on the League
Web site: www.cacities.org. The entire Resolutions Packet will be posted at: www.cacities.org/resolutions.
RESOLUTIONS INITIATED BY PETITION AT THE ANNUAL CONFERENCE
General Resolutions
General
Committee
Assembly
Recommendation
Action
ivKEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN ON RESOLUTIONS (Continued)
KEY TO REVIEWING BODIES KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN
1. Policy Committee A Approve
2. General Resolutions Committee D Disapprove
3. General Assembly N No Action
R - Refer to appropriate policy committee for
study
• Action Footnotes
* Subject matter covered in another resolution
** Existing League policy
*** Local authority presently exists
a - Amend
Aa - Approve as amended
Aaa - Approve with additional amendment(s)
Ra - Amend and refer as amended to
appropriate policy committee for study
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. In addition, League policy
provides the following procedure for resolutions approved by League policy committees but
not approved by
the General Resolutions Committee:
Resolutions 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 basis 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.V.
2010 ANNUAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION REFERRED TO ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES POLICY COMMITTEE
1. RESOLUTION RELATING TO LEAGUE BYLAWS AMENDMENTS
(2/3 vote at General Assembly required to approve)
Source: League Board of Director
Referred to: Administrative Services Policy Committee
Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee:
WHEREAS, The League of California Cities is a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation under
California law, and, as such, is governed by corporate bylaws; and
WHEREAS, the League's Board of Directors periodically reviews the League's bylaws for issues of
clarity, practicality, compliance with current laws, and responsiveness to membership interests; and
WHEREAS, the League's Board of Directors convened a Bylaws Review Committee to make
recommendations regarding various necessary amendments to ensure that the most qualified and committed
city officials are selected to serve on the League's Board, policy committees and other leadership positions,
representing a broad diversity of backgrounds, experience, abilities, geography and other factors, and that
any barriers to their selection are removed; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors approved the Bylaws Review Committee's recommendations
that identified amendments to the bylaws that: a) encourage all segments of League membership to pursue
leadership positions within the League to advance the goal that the League Board of Directors reflects the
diverse ethnic and social fabric of California; b) clarify the League Board's nomination procedures and
expand Board membership by four positions; and c) provide guidance to avoid conflicts of interest for Board
and policy committee members with the expectation that decisions should be in the best overall interests of
cities statewide; and
WHEREAS, the League's Board offers amendments and additions to the following sections of the
bylaws for the membership's consideration:
1. Article VII, Section 1; new subsection 1(b): Board Diversity Policy, Board of Directors
2. Article VII, Section 2 (c), (f): Composition, Board of Directors
3. Article VII, Section 5 (d): Nomination Process, Board of Directors
4. Article XIV, Section 1, new section: Conflicts of Interest
5. Article XIV, Section 4, new section: Ethical Considerations;
now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities assembled during the
Annual Conference in San Diego, September 17, 2010, that the League make the specified changes to the
League bylaws by amending the above-referenced sections as indicated on Attachment A.
[Please see ATTACHMENT A, following background information, for text of proposed bylaws
amendments.]
1/8/11/1/
II
6Background Information on Resolution No. I
Source: League Board of Directors
Title: Resolution Relating to League Bylaws Amendments
Background:
At its February, 2010 Board meeting the League Board authorized the President to appoint a Bylaws Review
Committee, consisting of a cross-section of current Board members, to review the provisions of League
bylaws. This included policies related to governing the nomination and election of League Board members
and officers with the goal of ensuring the most qualified and committed city officials are selected,
representing a broad diversity of backgrounds, experience, abilities, geography and other factors, and that
any barriers to their selection are removed. The Committee, chaired by First Vice President Jim Ridenour,
completed its work in four face-to-face meetings (April 2, April 29, June 17 and July 9) and submitted its
recommendations to the board. The Board approved the Committee's report and recommends the adoption of
the following five amendments to the League bylaws:
• Amendment to Article VII, Section 1. Board of Directors. The Committee reviewed a variety of
recommendations from previous task forces to encourage greater diversity on the board of directors.
It concluded that the best way to encourage greater diversity on the board of directors is to adopt a
clear and unequivocal policy statement that the various subunits of the League should encourage and
support all members to pursue leadership within the League with the ultimate goal of serving on the
board of directors. The League board recommends this proposal for approval.
• Amendment to Article VII, Section 2. Composition of Board of Directors. The Committee
examined the current composition of the board of directors and is proposing to expand the board by
two at-large positions and two large city positions to meet particular needs. Currently, the bylaws
provide for approximately 50 directors, including 16 from regional divisions, 11 from functional
departments of the League (e.g., city attorneys, city managers, etc.), 10 at-large directors, the mayors
of the 8 largest cities (ranging from Los Angeles with 4,065,585 population to Oakland with 425,068
population, and the directors on the National League of Cities Board of Directors that are from
California (approximately 2 —4 members). All must be from dues paying cities.
The Committee concluded that due to the overwhelming interest in the at-large positions (4 — 5 times
the applications as available seats each year) additional opportunities to serve on the League board
should be provided by increasing the available at-large seats from 10 to 12. The Committee also
concluded that large city representation should be adjusted to reflect the existence and political
value provided through the coalition of the state's "Big Ten" Mayors, by increasing big city mayoral
representation on the board from 8 to 10. The current make-up of the Board allows for only the
mayors of the eight largest cities. This excludes two important cities that participate regularly in the
coalition of the ten (10) largest cities in the state--Santa Ana (355,662) and Anaheim (348,467)—with
which the League works closely. The League board recommends this proposal for approval.
• Amendment to Article VII, Section 5. Nomination Process. The Committee examined problems
associated with the current process for the President selecting division representatives to serve on
the Board Nominating Committee. Each year the President selects representatives from half (8) of
the regional divisions, but the bylaws exclude those board members who are candidates for an
officer or at-large position from serving. The 'Committee concluded that a problem can arise when
the President is unable to appoint another board representative from a division if one or all of its
representatives are candidates for officer or at-large positions. The proposed change would allow the
League President to appoint a substitute nominating committee member from the same regional
division, if available. If one is not available, the President shall appoint a substitute from a nearby
regional division. The League board recommends this proposal for approval.
7• Amendment to Article XIV, Section 1 (new section). Conflicts of Interest. The Board of
Directors recently adopted a policy designed to reduce potential conflicts of interest by Board
members and policy committee members involved in the adoption of League policy and asked the
Committee to consider whether it should be proposed to be added to the League bylaws. The
Committee recommends that this step be taken. The proposed new language is a general statement
that Board members and policy committee members are expected to make decisions in the best
overall interests of cities statewide, as opposed to narrow parochial, personal, or financial interests.
The League board recommends this proposal for approval.
• Amendment to Article XIV, Section 4 (new section). Ethical Considerations. As part of the
guidance to avoid conflicts of interest by Board members and policy committee members, language
related to ethical considerations is recommended to clarify that the items described under Article
XIV as prohibited transactions represent the floor and not the ceiling for standards of ethical
conduct. The additional guidance recommends abstention from decisions where personal conflict
may exist, The League board recommends this proposal for approval.
[NOTE: Please see ATTACHMENT A (page 9) for text of proposed bylaws amendments.]
-3
8ATTACHMENT A
Amendments to League Bylaws Proposed by Resolution 1
Proposed changes indicated by bold Italks nd underlinin
Please review in conjuetion with summary provided in background information of Resolution 1
Article VII: Board of Directors
Section 1: Role and Powers; Board Diversity Policy
k Subject to the provisions and limitations of the California Nonprofit Corporation Law,
any other applicable laws, and the provisions of these bylaws, the League's activities and
affairs are exercised by or under the direction of the League's control and direction of the
League. The League Board may delegate the management of the League's affairs to any
person or group, including a committee, provided the League Board retains ultimate
responsibility for the actions of such person or group.
(b) The goal of the League is to ensure that the Board of Directors reflects the diverse
ethnic and social fabric of California. As such, each Division, Department, Caucus,
and Policy Committee should encourage and support members of every race, ethnicity,
gender, age, sexual orientation and heritage to seek leadership positions within the
League, with the ultimate goal of achieving membership on the Board of Directors.
Article VII: Board of Directors
Section 2: Composition.
The League's Board is composed of the following:
(a) A President, First Vice-President and Second Vice-President/Treasurer, who each serve a
term of one year;
(b) The Immediate Past President who serves for a term of one year, immediately succeeding
his or her term as President;
(c)
Twelve Ten Directors-at-Large,
(i) Who serve staggered two-year terms, and
(ii) At least one of whom is a representative of a small city with a population of 10,000 or less.
(d) One Director to be elected from each of the regional divisions and functional
departments of the League, each of whom serves for a term of two years;
(e) Members of the National League of Cities Board of Directors who hold an office in a
Member City; and
(f)
Bight Ten Directors that may be designated by the mayors of each of the eight ten largest
cities in California to serve two-year terms.
9(g) For purposes of this section, the population of each city is the most current population as
determined by the California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit, or its
successor agency or unit. If no successor agency or unit is named, the most current
population used to determine these dues shall be used to determine future dues until such
time as these bylaws are amended to designate a new source for determining city
population
(h) Directors hold office until their successors are elected and qualified or, if they sit on the
League Board by virtue of their membership on the National League of Cities Board of
Directors, until their terms on the National League of Cities Board of Directors conclude.
Article VII: Board of Directors
Section 5: Nomination Process.
(d) Candidates for Positions Ineligible. Candidates for officer and at-large positions on the
League Board are not eligible to serve on the nominating committee. In the event a
regional division representative on the nominating committee wishes to be a candidate
for an officer or at-large position, the League President will appoint a substitute
nominating committee member from the same regional division, if available. If one is
not available, the President shall appoint a substitute from a nearby regional division.
**********
Article XIV: Prohibited Transactions
Section 1: Conflicts of Interest
General Principle. Members of the League board as well as members of League policy committees,
and members of any standing or ad hoc committees and task forces consisting of members of the
League board or League policy committees, are expected to make decisions in the best overall
interests of cities statewide, as opposed to narrow parochial, personal, or financial interests. This
is analogous to city officials being expected to make decisions in the best overall interests of the
community as opposed to narrow private or self-interests.
Section 2. Loans.
Except as permitted by California Nonprofit Corporation Law, the League may not make any loan of
• money or property to, or guarantee the obligation of, any director or officer. This prohibition does not
prohibit the League from advancing funds to a League director or officer for expenses reasonably
anticipated to be incurred in performance of their duties as an officer or director, so long as such
individual would be entitled to be reimbursed for such expenses under League Board policies absent
that advance.
Section 3: Self-Dealing and Common Directorship Transactions.
(a) Self-Dealing Transactions. A self-dealing transaction is a transaction to which the
League is a party and in which one or more of its directors has a material financial
interest.
10
15(b) Common Directorships. "Common directorships" occur when the League enters into a
transaction with an organization in which one of the League directors also serves on the
organization's board.
(c) Pre-Transaction Approval. To approve a transaction involving either self-dealing or a
common directorship, the League Board shall determine, before the transaction, that,
(i) The League is entering into the transaction for its own benefit;
(ii) The transaction is fair and reasonable to the League at the time; and
(iii) After reasonable investigation, the League Board determines that it could not have
obtained a more advantageous arrangement with reasonable effort under the
circumstances.
Such determinations shall be made by the League Board in good faith, with knowledge of
the material facts concerning the transaction and the director's interest in the transaction,
without counting the vote of the interested director or directors.
(d) Post-Transaction Approval. When it is not reasonably practicable to obtain Board
approval before entering into such transactions, a Board committee may approve such
transaction in a manner consistent with the requirements in the preceding paragraph,
provided that, at its next meeting, the full Board determines in good faith that the League
Board committee's approval of the transaction was consistent with such requirements
and that it was not reasonably practical to obtain advance approval by the full Board, and
ratifies the transaction by a majority of the directors then in office without the vote of
any interested director.'
Section 4: Ethical Considerations.
These restrictions, of course, represent the floor not the ceiling for ethical conduct as a League
board member or policy committee member. If a board member orsolicy committee member
believes that there are circumstances under which the League's members might reasonablY
question the board member's or policy committee member's ability to act solely in the best
interests in the League and its member cities, the prudent course is to abstain. As an example,
tvoically, League board members have abstained from participating in decisions on legislation
that would affect organizations for which they work. Another example is legislation that would
uniquely benefit a board member's city. Policy committee members should also consider
abstaining in similar circumstances.
>>>>>>>>
1 See Cal. Corp. Code § 7233 (specifying under what circumstances a self-dealing transaction is void or voidable).1111/11111
12
RESOLUTION REFERRED TO COMMUNITY SERVICES POLICY COMMITTEE
2. RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE NATIONAL LET'S MOVE CAMPAIGN
Source: League Board of Directors
Referred to: Community Services Policy Committee
Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee:
WHEREAS, the League supports policies that focus on health and wellness, continuing
education, and healthier lifestyles in all communities; and
WHEREAS, many cities, counties, and schools have adopted policies, programs, and ordinances
that promote healthy lifestyles by making their communities walkable, promoting youth and senior
activities, eliminating the sale of junk food in city, county, or school facilities, providing incentives for
stores that sell fresh produce to locate in depressed neighborhoods, and providing exercise opportunities
for their residents; and
WHEREAS, city officials believe there are important, long-term community benefits to be gained
by encouraging healthy lifestyles, including a decrease in the rate of childhood obesity and its negative
health-related impacts; and
WHEREAS, cities and other community partners can work together to understand the
relationship between obesity, land-use policies, redevelopment, and community planning; and
WHEREAS, cities and other community partners can work together to ensure that there are safe
places for their residents to be active such as in parks, ball fields, pools, gyms, and recreation centers; and
WHEREAS, access to healthy foods has a direct impact on the overall health of our community
and planning for fresh food, open space, sidewalks, and parks should be a priority; and
WHEREAS, the League has partnered with the Healthy Eating Active Living (HEAL) Cities
Campaign to provide training and technical assistance to help city officials adopt policies that improve
their communities' physical activity and retail food environments; and
WHEREAS, the League wants to partner with and support the Let's Move! Campaign headed by
the First Lady of the United States, the President's Task Force on Childhood Obesity and the Secretary of
Health and Human Services, in an effort to solve the challenge of childhood obesity within a generation;
now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities, assembled during the
Annual Conference in San Diego, September 17, 2010, that the League encourages the existing 480
California cities to adopt preventative measures to fight obesity as set forth by the First Lady of the
United States of America in the Let's Move campaign; and, be it further
RESOLVED, that California cities be encouraged to sign-up with the United States Department
of Health and Human Services — Region IX office as a Let's Move! City; and, be it further
RESOLVED, that California cities are encouraged to: (1) help parents make healthy family
choices; (2) create healthy schools; (3) provide access to healthy and affordable foods; and (4) promote
physical activity.Background Information on Resolution No. 2
Source: League Board of Directors
Title: Resolution Relating to the National Let's Move Campaign
Background:
According to the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Region 9:
In February, First Lady Michelle Obama launched the Let's Move! campaign to solve the childhood
obesity epidemic within a generation. First Lady Mama is expanding the effort to include a call to
action for mayors and other elected officials to join her Let 's Move! Campaign ("Let's Move Cities
and Towns ') in an effort to leverage cities and communities unique ability to solve obesity locally and
adopt long-term, sustainable, regional approaches to fight childhood obesity.
On February 2, 2010, President Barack Obarna established the Task Force on Childhood Obesity,
which includes senior administration officials. The Task Force developed an interagency plan after
incorporating input from more than 2,500 public comments in 90 days. The plan details a coordinated
strategy, identifies key benchmarks, and outlines an action plan to end the problem of childhood
obesity within a generation.
League adopts resolution in 2004: This resolution related to "encouraging healthier lifestyles for
children, adults, and seniors in cities throughout California." This resolution directed the League to
encourage cities to embrace policies that facilitate activities that promote healthier lifestyles, including
healthy diet and nutrition, and adopt city design and planning principles that enable citizens to undertake
exercise with the goal of achieving a more active and healthy community.
League adopts resolution in 2006: This resolution related to "encouraging health and wellness in cities."
This resolution directed that the League in cooperation with related League committees, departments, and
the CCS Partnership, work together to develop a clearinghouse of information that cities can use to
promote wellness policies and healthier cities. It also directed the League to develop a toolkit on the
League's Website for cities to visit in order to share, find and develop successful models of health and
wellness to use in their respective communities. It also established that health and wellness programs
become a topic of the Helen Putnam Awards Program beginning in 2007.
Previous Legislation: SCR 31 was introduced by Senator Alex Padilla in 2007, which established
Healthy Communities Awareness Month. This Senate Concurrent Resolution recognized the importance
of health and wellness in communities and declared the month of May as Healthy Communities
Awareness Month. This was a League sponsored resolution.
League Partners with the Healthy Eating Active Living (REAL) Cities Campaign: The HEAL Cities
Campaign provides training and technical assistance to help city officials adopt policies that improve
their communities' physical activity and retail food environments. The HEAL Cities Campaign, funded
by Kaiser Pennanente and the Vitamin Cases Consumer Settlement Fund, is a partnership of the League
of California Cities, the California Center for Public Health Advocacy, and the Cities Counties and
Schools Partnership. At its core the HEAL Cities Campaign believes that supporting healthy choices is
essential to address the obesity epidemic among California's children and adults, which they purport
currently costs the state nearly $50 billion annually in healthcare and lost productivity. Forty cities have
adopted resolutions and adopted specific action steps and a timeline in one of the several key campaign
areas (e.g., language in general plan, zoning ordinances governing street design or community gardens,
joint use of recreational facilities, and employee wellness). The HEAL campaign goals are:
13• To provide city officials information about the statewide obesity epidemic and demonstrate how the
community food environment, physical activity environment, children's out-of-school
environment(s), and soda consumption perpetuate the epidemics; and,
• To inform city officials about the role they can play locally to fight the obesity and inactivity
epidemics through policy adoption, and to recommend those policies that would improve the physical
activity and food environments of their cities and make their community healthier.
Existing League policy on Healthy Cities: The League encourages cities to embrace policies that
facilitate activities that promote healthier lifestyles, including healthy diet and nutrition, and to adopt city
design and planning principles that enable citizens to undertake exercise with the goal of achieving a
more active and healthy community.
Institute for Local Government (mG) On Healthy Neighborhoods: EL,G heads the Healthy
Neighborhoods Project, which provides support and resources local officials can use to protect and
improve community health by integrating health considerations into their planning, land use and other
decisions. The resources the 1LG Website offers are geared to strengthen the efforts of local officials,
staff, planning and development professionals, and community residents in creating healthier
communities.
According to the Healthy Neighborhoods Project, healthy neighborhoods provide:
(1) Places where walking and bicycling are safe and convenient and where residents of all ages and
abilities have the opportunity to be physically active; (2) Nutritious, fresh, culturally appropriate food —
grown locally whenever possible — is affordable and accessible, promoting health and boosting the local
economy; (3) A place where residents aren't exposed to environmental ha _ards or pollutants that
endanger their present or future health or well-being. LLG's Healthy Neighborhoods' Website provides
current, relevant resources to aid in adapting general policies and strategies to reverse the negative trends
related to physical inactivity, unhealthy eating, and environmental hazards.
National League of Cities (NLC) Commends First Lady Michelle Obama for Including Cities and Towns
in Let's Move Campaign: In a press release dated June 11, 2010, NLC commends First Lady Michelle
°barna for her newest initiative to combat childhood obesity, Let's Move Cities and Towns. The release
continued that "NLC looks forward to working with the First Lady in encouraging local leaders to be
proactive in their approach against childhood obesity."
Through its Institute for Youth, Education and Families, NLC works to combat childhood obesity by
raising awareness among municipal leaders and providing them with tools and resources to make changes
in their communities. Most recently, NLC and the Foundation for the Mid South, with support from
Leadership for Healthy Communities, a national program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation,
launched the Municipal Leadership for Healthy Southern Cities project This initiative will help local
officials in Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi advance policies to promote healthy eating and active
living in order to reduce childhood obesity. NLC also recently collaborated with the American
Association of School Administrators on a report, Community Wellness: Comprehensive City-School
Strategies to Reduce Childhood Obesity. For more information on this NLC initiative visit
www.n1c.org/iyef.
>>>>>>>>>>
19
14RESOLUTION REFERRED TO ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY POLICY COMMITTEE
+3. RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS' DECISION TO DEFER
ACTION ON AB 32 ANT) SB 375 AND TO ADOPT THE BOARD-APPOINTED TASK
FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Source: Desert/Mountain Division
Referred to; Environmental Quality Policy Committee; Housing, Community & Economic
Development Policy Committee; Revenue and Taxation Policy Committee; and Transportation,
Communication & Public Works Policy Committee
Recommendations to General Resolutions Committee:
• Environmental Quality Policy Committee:
+ Housing, Community and Economic Development Policy Committee:
• Revenue and Taxation Policy Committee:
• Transportation, Communication & Public Works Policy Committee:
WHEREAS, the Desert/Mountain Division of the League of California Cities has broad concerns
about the economy; and
• WHEREAS, these concerns extend both to the ability of cities to deliver vital public services and
the viability of businesses which are critical to the State's economic recovery; and
WHEREAS, the Desert/Mountain Division of the League of California Cities is concerned that
cities lack the resources to implement existing State mandates imposed at either the regional or local
level; and
WHEREAS, the League of California Cities Board of Directors appointed a Task Force to craft
a recommendation regarding AB 32 and SB 375, based upon the recommendations developed by four
policy committees; and
WHEREAS, the Task Force recommended that the League of California Cities Board of
Directors request specific actions by Governor Schwarzenegger and the California Air Resources Board
to delay certain deadlines and take other actions with respect to AB 32 and SB 375; and
WHEREAS, the League of California Cities Board of Directors rejected the specific
recommendations of the Task Force and four policy committees by deferring action on AB 32 and
SB 375; and
WHEREAS, the Desert/Mountain Division of the League of California Cities wishes to file an
official protest of the Board of Directors' decision to defer action on a position regarding AB 32 and
SB 375; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities, assembled during the
Annual Conference in San Diego, September 17, 2010, that the League of California Cities finds,
determines and orders the adoption of the consolidated recommendations of four policy committees and
the Board appointed Task Force, as follows:
1. Request that the Governor exercise his authority to delay individual AB 32 implementation
deadlines.
LO
152. Request that the California Air Resources Board take the following three actions:
• Revisit and update economic and growth assumptions used to estimate 2020
business-as-usual emissions and recalculate AB 32 goal;
• Consider local government costs in all future studies relating to AB 32 and SB 375; and
• Request that the SB 375 targets be set in a way to reflect the economy and scarce
local resources.
3. Support (but not sponsor) any legislation that would suspend or delay implementation of
SB 375 until there is funding and resources in place to implement individual mandates and
requirements associated with the bill; and, be it further,
RESOLVED, that the specific recommendations developed by the four policy committees and
Task Force be considered by the General Assembly at the Annual Conference unless the Board of
Directors reverses its deferred action stance on AB 32 and SB 375 and adopts the Task Force
recommendations.
• MOH/
Background Information on Resolution No. 3
Source: Desert/Mountain Division
Title: Resolution Opposing the Board of Directors Decision to Defer Action on AB 32 and
SB 375 and to Adopt the Board-Appointed Task Force Recommendations
Background:
The Desert/Mountain Division adopted a Resolution formally opposing the Board of Directors decision
to defer action on the Task Force's recommendations regarding AB 32 and SB 375. We took this action
out of concern of the impact these regulations will have on our economy and our ability to serve our
constituents, and do not want to be complicit by remaining silent on this issue.
The recommended revisions to the League's current positions on AB 32 and SB 375 were crafted by a
Board-appointed Task Force after study of the issue by four League policy committees. The changes
recommended specific actions by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and the California Air Resources
Board to delay certain deadlines and take other actions with respect to AB 32 and to suspend or delay the
implementation of SB 375 until state funding is provided for the implementation of its mandates.
The Desert/Mountain Division believes that the Board's decision to defer action on the specific
recommendations developed by the four policy committees and Board-appointed Task Force does not
represent the majority of the member cities. This Resolution is being presented for consideration by the
General Assembly at the Annual Conference to allow the entire membership to weigh in on the decision
of whether or not to adopt the Task Force recommendations regarding AB 32 and SB 375.
>>>>>>>>>>
21
16RESOLUTION REFERRED TO HOUSING, COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
POLICY COMMITTEE
*3. RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS DECISION TO DEFER
ACTION ON AB 32 AND SB 375 AND TO ADOPT THE BOARD-APPOINTED TASK
FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Resolution #3 also referred to these policy committees: Environmental Quality; Revenue and
Taxation; and Transportation, Communication & Public Works. Please see Environmental
Quality Policy Committee section for the resolution and background information.
/NMI
+4. RESOLUTION RELATING TO RESPONSIBLE BANKING
Source: Richard Alarcon, Council Member, Los Angeles and
Karen Avilla, City Treasurer, Carson
Referred to: Housing, Community & Economic Development Policy Committee; and
Revenue and Taxation Policy Committee
Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee:
• Housing, Community and Economic Development Policy Committee:
• Revenue and Taxation Policy Committee:
WHEREAS, cities strive to spend taxpayer dollars wisely on services; and
WHEREAS, cities invest taxpayer dollars with a range of institutions that provide financial
service contracts each year; and
WHEREAS, it is important to ensure that taxpayer dollars are invested in institutions that are not
just fiscally sound, but are committed to investing back into our communities, generating positive
investment and lending in our cities; and
WHEREAS, cities can help support the nation's economic recovery by supporting financial
institutions that in turn re-invest in our local communities; and
WHEREAS, the national Community Reinvestment Act, passed by the U.S. Congress in 1977;
pioneered the use of transparent, responsible banking, by starting a federal rating system to measure
banks' local lending and investment activity in the communities they take deposits from, providing
accountability to the communities that institutions serve; and
WHEREAS, three decades have passed since the original passage of the Community
Reinvestment Act (CRA), and due in part to the dramatic changes in the U.S. banking system since this
time, CRA does not provide the level of detail needed for local municipalities to determine our financial
partners' lending activity and investment within a single city alone; and
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2002, the City of Philadelphia signed into law a requirement that all
banks authorized to receive deposits from the City submit an annual statement of community
reinvestment goals within Philadelphia, including but not limited to a summary of the home loans, small
business loans, and other lending and investment activity within Philadelphia, which independent studies
eL(L
17have confirmed has resulted in increased access to credit among Philadelphia's minority and low- and
moderate-income communities; and
WHEREAS, the City of Cleveland enacted into law a similar Community Reinvestment
Depository Ordinance in 1991, and since that time has negotiated over $10 billion in lending
commitments and investments through designated Community Reinvestment Initiative agreements with
designated depository banks, with an independent study by the Brookings Institution confirming that
compared to comparable midwestem cities Cleveland's CRA Ordinance has resulted in "more bang for
the community development buck;" and
WHEREAS, on March 5, 2010, the Los Angeles City Council unanimously passed a Responsible
Banking Initiative that requires financial institutions with which the City contracts to provide an annual
"report card" detailing investment and lending activity within Los Angeles, to allow the City to reward
institutions that re-invest in Los Angeles by adding extra points to these institutions' applications during
the City's RFP process for financial service providers; and
WHEREAS, many municipalities could benefit from increased transparency about which of the
financial institutions their city taxpayer dollars are invested in are in turn re-investing in their city's
homes, businesses, and non-profits, which will allow cities to hold banks to a higher standard of re-
investment by offering increased city business to those that are generating higher levels of investment,
lending, and community service activity within their city; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities, assembled during the
Annual Conference in San Diego, September 17, 2010, that the League of California Cities strongly
encourages municipalities to require transparent, responsible banking from the financial institutions
receiving city funds; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the League of California Cities serve as a clearinghouse of information on the
responsible banking initiatives of municipalities across the country, such as those of Philadelphia,
Cleveland, Los Angeles and Carson, California; in order to help California cities interested in taking
steps to increase transparent, responsible banking in their own communities.
8////////
Background Information on Resolution No. 4
Source: Richard Alarcon, Council Member, Los Angeles and Karen Avilla, City Treasurer, Carson
Title: Resolution Relating to Responsible Banking
Background:
As a CounciLmember from the City of Los Angeles and a Treasurer from the City of Carson, we know
that stewards of public funds must strive to ensure that taxpayer dollars are invested in businesses and
institutions that are not just fiscally sound, but committed to investing back into our communities.
On Friday, March 5, 2010, the Los Angeles City Council unanimously passed a Responsible Banking
Initiative that Councilmember AlarcOn introduced last year, which will require fmancial institutions with
which the City of Los Angeles does business to provide an annual "report card" detailing the institution's
investment and lending activity within the City.
The purpose of the report card is to determine which institutions the City does business with are in turn
reinvesting in the City, by extending credit to residents and businesses, and investing capital in
.23
1819
communities and development projects. The report card will allow policy makers to reward institutions
with above average rates of impact in the City, while decreasing business with those institutions that do
not recycle dollars back into the local economy.
This effort could be likened to a local version of the federal Community Reinvestment Act, by allowing
local polieymakers to review the community reinvestment activity of the financial institutions with which
the City invests. It builds on the work of existing law in the cities of Philadelphia and Cleveland. Both the
City of Philadelphia, in 2002, and the City of Cleveland, in 1991, passed laws requiring annual
statements of community reinvestment goals from the institutions that manage their City deposits.
The City of Cleveland reports that, from 1991 through 2008, Cleveland has negotiated over 10 billion
dollars in lending commitments and investments with designated depository hanks as a result of their
responsible banking law. In a 2003 report, the independent Brookings Institution compared three
Midwestern cities and praised the City of Cleveland for achieving "more bang for their community
development buck" through the use of their Community Reinvestment and other innovative City laws.
• We owe it to the current and future residents of our Cities to ensure that taxpayer dollars are invested in
responsible banking institutions that are creating opportunities for investment and lending in our
communities. That's why we urge the League of California Cities to encourage municipalities to require
transparent, responsible banking from financial service providers. With the strength of our collective
wallets combined, Cities will be sending a powerful message to banks: invest in us, and we will invest
in you.
>>>>>>>>>>
RESOLUTIONS REFERRED TO REVENUE AND TAXATION POLICY COMMITTEE
•3. RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS DECISION TO DEFER
ACTION ON AB 32 AND SB 375 AND TO ADOPT THE BOARD-APPOINTED TASK
FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Resolution #3 also referred to these policy committees: Environmental Quality; Housing,
Community & Economic Development; and Transportation, Communication & Public Works.
Please see Environmental Quality Policy Committee section for the resolution and
background information.
1111111111
+4. RESOLUTION RELATING TO RESPONSIBLE BANKING
Resolution #4 also referred to the Housing, Community & Economic Development Policy
Committee. Please see the Housing, Community & Economic Development Policy
Committee section for the resolution and background information.
- Continued, Revenue and Taxation Resolutions -5. RESOLUTION RELATING TO UNFUNDED STATE MANDATES
Source: City of Santa Clarita
Referred to: Revenue and Taxation Policy Committee
Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee:
WHEREAS, unfunded mandates imposed upon local governments, including cities, counties and
special districts, by the State of California place a tremendous financial burden upon local governments; and
WHEREAS, some of the mandates placed upon local governments are the result of actions by
Boards and Commissions not directly accountable to the electorate; and
WHEREAS, the State of California and many local governments within the state are under
financial duress due to the continuing national economic crisis, and
WHEREAS, approximately twelve percent of Californians, are currently unemployed and
struggling to pay for basic life necessities, well above the national average; and
WHEREAS, mandates enacted by the State of California may result in the need for local agencies
to increase fees or taxes to satisfy the requirements of the mandate; and
WHEREAS, as eitied in a 2005 report on state mandates published by the League of California
Cities, the original intent of Property Tax Relief Act of 1972, which established the concept of state
reimbursement of local agencies for state mandated activities, was to limit the ability of local agencies to
levy taxes; and
WHEREAS, in 1979 the voters of the State of California approved Proposition 4 adding Article
XIII B to the California Constitution, requiring the state to provide a subvention of funds to local
governments for costs associated with state mandated programs, under specified conditions, and through
subsequent legislation creating the Commission on state mandates; and
WHEREAS, in 2004, the voters of the State of California adopted Proposition 1A expanding the
constitutional protections for local governments regarding state mandates; and
WHEREAS, the State of California has struggled to balance its budget for the past several years
and has chosen to borrow funds from local governments, thus reducing traditional revenues to local
governments, forcing additional local program and service reductions and cutbacks; and
WHEREAS, various federal and state laws and regulations may result in the imposition of state
mandates on local governments; and
WHEREAS, an example of state imposed mandates are the establishment of Total Maximum
Daily Loads (TMDL) for such things as bacteria, chloride, metals, and toxicity, and
WHEREAS, in order to meet the obligations imposed by Regional Water Quality Control Boards
throughout California, local agencies may need to implement or increase fees and taxes to pay for new
programs or facilities, in order to avoid penalties for non-compliance; and
25
20WHEREAS, there appears to be no correlation between the imposition of state mandates, taxpayer
funded resources to pay for the costs of state mandates, California's high unemployment rate, and the fiscal
conditions of the State of California and local governments; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities, assembled during the
Annual Conference in San Diego, September 17, 2010, that:
1. The League of California Cities work with its member cities and other local government partners
to identify situations in which local governments must increase fees or taxes to meet state
mandated requirements; and
2. The League of California Cities petition the Governor of the State of California and Legislature
of the State of California to suspend or eliminate certain state mandates until improvement of the
national and California economy results in substantially lower statewide unemployment and
fiscal solvency of the State of California and local governments; and
3. The League of California Cities work with Members of Congress and the government of the
United States to suspend or eliminate certain federal mandates, passed along to the states for
implementation, until the improvement of the national economy results in substantially lower
national unemployment and fiscal solvency of the United States, the State of California and local
governments; and
4. That the League of California Cities will support legislation to suspend, eliminate, or otherwise
modify the negative impacts of state mandates on local agencies, particularly in which a new
local tax or fee or tax or fee increase is necessary to implement the mandate.
//////////
Background Information on Resolution No. 5
Source: City of Santa Clarita
Title: Resolution Relating to State Unfunded Mandates
Background:
Reaching back at least forty years, local governments, including cities, counties and special districts, have
struggled with mandates placed upon them by the State of California. Under California law, whenever
the Legislature, Governor, or a state agency enacts a new law, executive order, regulation, or rule that
requires a local government to implement a new program or provide a higher level of service to an
existing program, the state shall reimburse the local agency for the increased cost.
Over the past two decades, the California Legislature has made a practice of borrowing, transferring,
shifting, or otherwise conveying from local governments to the State of California, as part of the state
budget balancing process, what have historically been considered local revenues. The failure of the State
of California, for the most part, to repay these funds to local governments has led to ballot measures
restricting the ability of the state to use local revenues to balance its continual budget deficit.
Against this backdrop, state regulatory agencies continue to impose requirements upon local
governments, which may result in the need to increase local fees or taxes. Failure to implement the
regulatory requirements may result in the imposition of substantial financial penalties, which must be
paid for by the local government and ultimately, taxpayers or rate payers within the jurisdiction.
21At a time when California's unemployment rate is in excess of 12%, which is well above the national
unemployment rate, and California businesses are struggling to stay afloat in the worst national recession
since the great depression of the 1930s, the question of regulatory relief must be considered.
For example, many communities throughout the State of California are facing establishment of Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) requirements for such things as bacteria, chloride, metals, and toxicity.
While the environmental or other goals that are sought to be achieved are laudable, regulatory
requirements must be sensitive to the overlaying statewide and national economic climate and the ability
of local governments to pay for new programs and enhancements. In the Santa CIarita area, the Los
Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, through imposition of a Chloride TMDL mandate and its
required implementation, is causing local sanitation district ratepayers to pay a 50% fee increase over
four years for increased operational and new facility expenses and committing to long term additional
increases. Failure to approve the increase will likely invite substantial fines, totaling in the millions of
dollars collectively for the ratepayers.
In a time of economic uncertainty and high unemployment, is it appropriate to require California
taxpayers to pay for new regulatory requirements or is it reasonable to suspend or eliminate certain state
mandates until such time as unemployment levels return to more traditional levels and national, state and
local governments return to financial stability?
>>>>>>>>»
RESOLUTIONS REFERRED TO TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATION &
PUBLIC WORKS POLICY COMMITTEE
• •3.
RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS DECISION TO DEFER
ACTION ON AB 32 AND SB 375 AND TO ADOPT THE BOARD-APPOINTED TASK
•
FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Resolution #3 also referred to these policy committees: Environmental Quality; Housing,
Community & Economic Development; and Revenue and Taxation.
Please see Environmental
Quality Policy Committee section for the resolution and background information.
6. RESOLUTION RELATED TO ENHANCING PUBLIC SAFETY WHILE DRIVING
A MOTOR VEHICLE
Source: City of Elk Grove
Referred to: Transportation, Communication & Public Works Policy Committee
Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee:
WHEREAS, cities throughout the State of California hold the health and safety of their residents
as a paramount concern; and
WHEREAS, the use of text messages has grown exponentially in recent years; and
WHEREAS, any time a driver attempts to send an electronic text message while driving, his or
her attention is diverted from the road; and
WHEREAS, a recent Virginia Tech study showed sending electronic text messages while driving
makes an accident 23 times more likely; and
22WHEREAS, a study conducted by The Transport Research Laboratory in the United Kingdom
showed that sending text messages while driving is riskier than driving under the influence of alcohol or
drugs; and
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 28 and California Vehicle Code Section 23123.5 ban writing, sending,
or reading electronic text messages while operating a motor vehicle in the state of California; and
WHEREAS, the League supports this type of traffic safety enhancement as demonstrated through
their support of motorcycle helmets, child restraints, seat belt and speed limit laws; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities, assembled during the
Annual Conference in San Diego, September 17, 2010, that the League encourages cities to promote safe
driving across California and the education of the general public about the dangers of texting while driving.
/111111111
Background Information on Resolution No. 6
Source: City of Elk Grove
Title: Resolution Relating to Enhancing Public Safety While Driving a Motor Vehicle
Background:
On September 24, 2008, the Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, signed Senate Bill 28
("SB 28") into law. SB 28 is codified in section 23123.5 of the California Vehicle Code and prohibits
any person from driving a motor vehicle while using an electronic wireless communications device to
write, send, or read a text-based communication. SB 28 complements an existing law which Governor
Schwarzenegger signed in 2006 requiring motorists to use hands-free devices while talking on a mobile
phone when driving a motor vehicle.
Many studies recognize that the distraction that occurs while using electronic devices while operating a
motor vehicle is very dangerous:
• It is estimated that 28% of crashes — 1.6 million crashes per year— can be attributed to cell
phone talking and texting while driving. (Source: National Safety Council)
• Drivers who use hand-held devices are four times as likely to get into crashes serious enough to
injure themselves. (Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety)
• Using a cell phone while driving delays a driver's reactions as much as having a blood alcohol
concentration at the legal limit of .08 percent. (Source: University of Utah)
Because the health and safety of the residents of Elk Grove is paramount to the members of the City
Council; on May 12, 2010, the Elk Grove City Council unanimously adopted a resolution promoting
awareness of the dangers of texting while driving. The City is embarking on an aggressive, yet
economical, public outreach campaign to educate its residents about the dangers of texting while driving,
which includes: educational links on the City's Web site, a flyer in the city's utility billing insert which
reaches every household, free promotional items for residents specifically geared toward this topic, and a
spotlight feature in the City's bimonthly newsletter.
Other cities in California are encouraged to enhance public safety in their community by educating
residents about the dangers of texting while driving a motor vehicle. Educational outreach will benefit
23drivers, passengers, by-standards, bicyclists, walkers and runners. Local governments have the ability to
implement cost-effective educational tools to communicate with residents about this important public
safety issue.
All local government officials and employees in California want to protect their families, themselves, and
others. Please put down your phone when you are driving or use a bands-free device and do not text. It's
safe and it's the law.
>>>>>>>>>>
[NOTE: No resolutions were assigned to the following policy committees: Employee Relations and
Public Safety.]
#######114#
24
29