City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council (1) designate a Councilmember as the City’s
Delegate and up two other Councilmembers as the City’s alternate delegate(s) and
(2) take positions on the five resolutions to be considered by the League’s General
Assembly at the League of California Cities Annual Conference to be held in San
Diego from September 5 – 7, 2012 (Annual Conference).
BACKGROUND:
The City of Culver City is a member of the League of California Cities (League).
Each year, the League holds an Annual Conference during which the General
Assembly votes on various matters of policy, including any resolutions presented to
the General Assembly in accordance with the League’s by-laws.
To allow Culver City the ability to vote on those policy matters, the League’s by-laws
require the City Council to designate the Voting Delegate (and, if desired, up to two
Voting Delegate–Alternates) to represent the City’s interests during the General
Assembly.
DISCUSSION:
This year, Councilmembers Clarke, O’Leary and Sahli-Wells will be attending the
Annual Conference. Councilmember O’Leary currently serves on the Board of
Directors for the Los Angeles County Division of the League of California Cities and
the Legislative Committee. Councilmember O’Leary also serves as the Vice Chair on
Meeting Date: 08/13/12 Item Number: A-3
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM: (1) Designation of the City’s Voting Delegate and
up to Two Alternate-Delegates and (2) Taking of Positions on the Five Policy
Resolutions Submitted to the General Assembly for the League of California
Cities.
Contact Person/Dept.: Shelly Wolfberg Phone Number: (310) 253-6008
Fiscal Impact: Yes [X] No [] General Fund: Yes [X] No []
Public Hearing: [] Action Item: [X] Attachments:
Public Notification: (E-Mail) Agenda and Meetings – City Council (08/09/12)
Department Approval:
Martin R. Cole (08/08/12)
City Attorney Approval:
Carol Schwab (by H. Baker) (08/08/12)
Chief Financial Officer Approval:
Jeff Muir (by N. Kimball) (08/08/12)
City Manager Approval:
John M. Nachbar (08/09/12) City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
the League’s Employee and Human Relations Committee along with Human
Resources Director Serena Wright as a Department Appointee. Assistant Chief Scott
Bixby serves on the League’s Public Safety Policy Committee as a Department
Appointee.
This year, the General Assembly will consider five resolutions. Based upon the City
Council adopted legislative plan, staff recommends the City Council take the
following positions (the City Council may give general direction to SUPPORT,
OPPOSE, or ABSTAIN):
Summary of Resolution Comment and Suggested Position
Fines and Forfeitures – Urges the
League to clarify the authority for
cities to audit the distribution of court
imposed fines, fees, penalty
assessments and administrative
costs for criminal and traffic
violations.
This resolution is consistent with the
City Council adopted Legislative
Advocacy Program’s regarding the
actions that divert revenues from
cities. Suggested Position: Support
Internet Crimes Against Children –
To increase public awareness of
internet crimes against children. To
request the League advocate for
legislation that recreates tougher
laws and more funding for Internet
Crimes Against Children Task
Forces.
This resolution is consistent with the
City Council adopted Legislative
Advocacy Program’s statement on
supporting the enhancement of
services provided to children and
supporting additional funding for City
services. Suggested Position:
Support
Desert Protection Act – Encourages
California Cities to oppose the
California Desert Protection Act of
2011.
This matter relates to geographic
areas beyond Culver City’s jurisdiction.
Suggested Position: Abstain
Global Warming – Among other
actions, this resolution encourages
California Cities to adopt resolutions
suspending the implementation of
some, if not all, of the regulations
promulgated under the California
Global Warming Solutions Act (AB
32) until several issues are
addressed.
This resolution is consistent with two
different Legislative Advocacy
Program Statements, which potentially
create a conflict on a singular position
the City Council may decide to take.
The City’s program opposes unfunded
mandates, but it also supports
legislation to improve air quality.
Suggested Position: Abstain
Emergency Management Mission for
California Cities – Creates a clear
statement of support for emergency
This resolution is consistent with the
City Council adopted Legislative
Advocacy Program’s statement to City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
preparedness in the League’s
existing policy and guiding
principles.
enhance local capabilities to mitigate,
prepare, respond, and recover from
small to large scale incidents and
emergencies. Suggested Position:
Support
In recent years, a resolution presented before the General Assembly was expected
to be passed without much or any opposition (and the City Council had adopted a
support position). However, based upon discussion at the General Assembly, the
motion became the subject of significant conversation and debate amongst the
delegates. To allow the Voting Delegate and Voting Delegate–Alternate sufficient
discretion to react to a similar situation should it arise at the 2012 Conference (and
vote in a fully informed manner consistent with the general direction of the City
Council), the City Council is requested to allow for some leeway for the
Councilmember voting at the General Assembly.
FISCAL ANALYSIS:
Neither designation of the Voting Delegate/Voting Delegate–Alternates nor taking
positions on the various resolutions create a fiscal impact on the City. However,
should state or federal legislation change in accordance with the intent of some or all
of the resolutions, the City may experience a fiscal impact, the degree of which is
difficult to estimate at this time.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Designation of Voting Delegates Information
2. Annual Conference Resolution Packet
MOTIONS:
That the City Council:
1. Designate Councilmember _______________ as the Voting Delegate and
Councilmembers ______________ and __________as Voting Delegate–
Alternates; and,
2. Take the positions regarding the five resolutions presented to the General
Assembly for consideration as outlined in the staff report; and, City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
3. Authorize the Voting Delegate and Voting Delegate–Alternates to cast
votes exercising reasonable discretion in the case circumstances at the
General Assembly warrant a change in vote.
MEETING DATE: August 13, 2012
AGENDA ITEM: (1) Designation of the City's Voting Delegate and up to
Two Alternate-Delegates and (2) Taking of Positions on
the Five Policy Resolutions Submitted to the General
Assembly for the League of California Cities
ATTACHMENTS
Pages
Designation of Voting Delegates Information
1-4
Annual Conference Resolution Packet 5-31 ATTACHMENT 1
LEAGUE
OF CALIFORNIA
CITIES
1400 K Street, Suite 400 • Sacramento, California 95814
Phone: 916.658.8200 Fax: 916.658.8240
www.cacities.org
Council Action Advised by August 3, 2012
May 3, 2012
TO: Mayors, City Managers and City Clerks
RE: DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATES AND ALTERNATES
League of California Cities Annual Conference — September 5 - 7, San Diego
The League's 2012 Annual Conference is scheduled for September 5 - 7 in San Diego. An
important part of the Annual Conference is the Annual Business Meeting (at the General
Assembly), scheduled for noon on Friday, September 7, 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 complete the attached Voting Delegate form and return it to the League's office
no later than Wednesday, August 15, 2012. 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 form affirming
that the names provided are those selected by the city council. Please note that
designating the voting delegate and alternates must be done by city council action and
cannot 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. To register for the conference, please go to our website:
www.cacities.org . 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
-over-
1 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
individuals 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 Diego
Convention Center, will be open at the following times: Wednesday, September 5, 9:00 a.m. —
6:30 p.m.; Thursday, September 6, 7:00 a.m. — 4:00 p.m.; and September 7, 7:30-10:00 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 Wednesday, August 15. If you have questions, please call Mary
McCullough at (916) 658-8247.
Attachments:
• 2012 Annual Conference Voting Procedures
• Voting Delegate/Alternate Form
2 LEAGUE
OF CALIFORNIA
CITIES
1400 K Street, Suite 400 • Sacramento, California 95814
Phone: 916.658.8200 Fax: 916.658.8240
wvvw.cacities.org
Annual Conference Voting Procedures
2012 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 ease 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.
3 LEAGUE
- OF CALIFORNIA
CITY:
2012 ANNUAL CONFERENCE
VOTING DELEGATE/ALTERNATE FORM
Please complete this form and return it to the League office by Wednesday, August 15,
2012. 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 Wednesday. August 15 th, to:
League of California Cities
FAX: (916) 658-8240
ATTN: Mary McCullough
E-mail: mmecullough@eacities.org
1400 K Street
(916) 658-8247
Sacramento, CA 95814
4 ATTACHMENT 2
LEAGUE
OF CALIFORNiA
CITIES
1400 K Street Suite 400 • Sacramento, California 95814
Phone: 916.658.8200 Fax: 916.658.8240
www.cacities.org
July 12, 2012
TO: Mayors, City Managers and City Clerks
League Board of Directors
RE: Annual Conference Resolutions Packet
Notice of League Annual Meeting
Enclosed please find the 2012 Annual Conference Resolutions Packet.
Annual Conference in San Diego. This year's League Annual Conference will be held September 5 - 7 at
the San Diego Convention Center in San Diego. 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/ac . We look forward to welcoming
city officials to the conference.
Annual Luncheon/Business Meeting - Friday, September 7, 12:00 p.m. The League's Annual Business
Meeting will be held at the San Diego Convention Center.
Resolutions Packet. At the Annual Conference, the League will consider the five resolutions introduced
by the deadline, Saturday, July 7, 2012, midnight. 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 website for your convenience: www.cacities.orgiresolutions.
The 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.
Please Bring This Packet to the Annual Conference
September 5- 7 — San Diego
5 I.
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, five resolutions have been introduced for consideration by the Annual Conference and referred
to the League policy committees.
POLICY COMMITTEES: Three policy committees will meet at the Annual Conference to consider and take
action on resolutions referred to them. The committees are Environmental Quality, Public Safety, and Revenue
& Taxation. These committees will meet on Wednesday, September 5, 20)2, at the San Diego Marriott
Marquis & Marina Hotel in San Diego. 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 other policy committees may also be meeting: Administrative Services and Employee Relations.
Administrative Services will meet pending League Board (July 19 & 20) action to determine whether the
committee will review any November General election ballot initiatives. Employee Relations will meet if the
Legislature acts on pension reform in August. If pension reform is passed, the committee will meet to discuss the
details of the proposal. For now, please plan to attend the meeting at the Annual conference. If for some reason
this changes, League staff will send an email notifying the committee.
Three policy committees will not be meeting at the annual conference. These committees are: Community
Services; Housing, Community & Economic Development; and Transportation, Communication, & Public
Works.
GENERAL RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE: This committee will meet at 1:00 p.m. on Thursday,
September 6, at the San Diego Convention Center, to consider the reports of the three policy committees
regarding the five 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. Please check in at the registration desk for room location,
ANNUAL LUNCHEON/BUSINESS MEETING/GENERAL ASSEMBLY: This meeting will be held at
12:00 p.m. on Friday, September 7, at the San Diego Convention Center.
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 12:00 p.m., Thursday, September 6. 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 Meg Desmond at the League
office: mdesmond,cacities.org or (916) 658-8224.
6 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 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).
7 HI.
LOCATION OF MEETINGS
Policy Committee Meetings
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
San Diego Marriott Marquis & Marina Hotel
333 W. Harbor Drive, San Diego
POLICY COMMITTEES MEETING AT ANNUAL CONFERENCE TO
DISCUSS AN ANNUAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTION
9:00 a.m. — 10:30 a.m.
Environmental Quality;
Revenue and Taxation
10:30 a.m. — 12:00 p.m.
Public Safety
TENTATIVE POLICY COMMITTEE MEETINGS AT ANNUAL CONFERENCE
TO DISCUSS OTHER ISSUES
9:00 a.m. — 10:30 a.m.
Administrative Services
10:30 a.m.— 12:00 p.m.
Employee Relations
Note: These policy committees will NOT meet at the Annual Conference:
Community Services
Housing, Community & Economic Development
Transportation, Communication & Public Works
0,v .5
General Resolutions Committee
Thursday, September 6, 2012, 1:00 p.m.
San Diego Convention Center
cvi
Annual Business Meeting and General Assembly Luncheon
Friday, September 7, 2012, 12:00 p.m.
San Diego Convention Center
8 IV.
KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN ON RESOLUTIONS
Resolutions have been grouped by policy committees to which they have been assigned. Please note that one
resolution has been assigned to more than one committee. This resolution is noted by this sign (0.
Number Key Word Index Reviewing Body Action
2
3
1 - Policy Committee Recommendation
to General Resolutions Committee
2 - General Resolutions Committee
3 - General Assembly
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY POLICY COMMITTEE
1 2
3
Desert Protection Act
4 Global Warming
PUBLIC SAFETY POLICY COMMITTEE
2
3
+1 Fines and Forfeitures
2 Internet Crimes Against Children
5 Emergency Management Mission for California Cities
REVENUE AND TAXATION POLICY COMMITTEE
1 2
3
+1I Fines and Forfeitures
Please note: These committees will NOT meet at the annual conference: Community Services; Housing,
Community & Economic Development; and Transportation, Communication & Public Works
Information pertaining to the Annual Conference Resolutions will also be posted on each committee's page on
the League website: www.caeities.org . The entire Resolutions Packet will be posted at:
www.caeities.org/resolutions.
9 KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN ON RESOLUTIONS (Continued)
KEY TO REVIEWING BODIES
1. Policy Committee
2. General Resolutions Committee
3. General Assembly
Action Footnotes
* Subject matter covered in another resolution
** Existing League policy
*** Local authority presently exists
KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN
A - Approve
D - Disapprove
N - No Action
R - Refer to appropriate policy committee for
study
a - Amend
Aa - Approve as amended
Aaa - Approve with additional amendment(s).
Ra - Amend and refer as amended to
appropriate policy committee for study
- 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.
10 V.
2012 ANNUAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTIONS REFERRED TO ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY POLICY COMMITTEE
3. RESOLUTION ENCOURAGING CALIFORNIA CITIES TO OPPOSE THE
CALIFORNIA DESERT PROTECTION ACT OF 2011
Source: City of Needles
Referred To: Environmental Quality Policy Committee
Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee:
WHEREAS, in 1993 Senator Diane Feinstein introduced the California Desert Protection Act of
1994 which became federal law and was passed by the United States Congress on October 8, 1994, and
WHEREAS, this act established the Death Valley and Joshua Tree National Parks and the Mojave
National Preserve in the California desert; and
WHEREAS, this act designated 69 wilderness areas as additions to the National Wilderness
Preservation System within the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA), the Yuma District, the
Bakersfield District, and the California Desert District of the Bureau of Land Management permits grazing
in such areas; and
WHEREAS, the Act abolished Death Valley National Monument, established in 1933 and 1937,
and incorporated its lands into a new Death Valley National Park administered as part of the National Park
System. Grazing of domestic livestock was permitted to continue at no more than the then-current level. The
Act also required the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability of lands within and outside the
boundaries of the park as a reservation for the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe; and
WHEREAS, the Act abolished Joshua Tree National Monument, established in 1936, and
incorporated its lands into Joshua Tree National Park; and
WHEREAS, the Act established the Mojave National Preserve, consisting of approximately
1,419,800 acres (5,746 km; 2,218.4 sq mi), and abolished the East Mojave National Scenic Area, which was
designated in 1981. The preserve was to be administered in accordance with National Park System laws.
Hunting, fishing and trapping were permitted as allowed by federal and state laws, with certain exceptions.
Mining claims were governed by the National Park System laws, and grazing was permitted to continue at
no more than the then-current level; and
WHEREAS, the Act required the Secretary of the Interior to ensure that American Indian people
have access to the lands designated under the Act for traditional cultural and religious purposes, in
recognition of their prior use of these lands for these purposes. Upon the request of an Indian tribe or
-religious community, the Secretary must temporarily close specific portions to the general public to protect
the privacy of traditional cultural and religious activities; and
WHEREAS, flights by military aircraft over the lands designated by the Act were not restricted or
precluded, including over flights that can be seen or heard from these lands; and
WHEREAS, Congress found that federally owned desert lands of southern California constitute a
public wildland resource of extraordinary and inestimable value for current and future generations; these
desert wildlands have unique scenic, historical, archeological, environmental, ecological, wildlife, cultural,
11 scientific, educational and recreational values; the California desert public land resources are threatened by
adverse pressures which impair their public and natural values; the California desert is a cohesive unit
posing difficult resource protection and management challenges; statutory land unit designations are
necessary to protect these lands; and
WHEREAS, Senator Dianne Feinstein, author of the 1994 California Desert Protection Act
has introduced legislation "California Desert Protection Act of 2011" that will set aside new land in
the Mojave Desert for conservation, recreation and other purposes; and
WHEREAS, the proposed legislation will take AN ADDITIONAL 1.6 million acres of
Bureau of Land Management land out of potential development, including mining exploration, by
designating two new "National Monuments", one adjacent to the Mojave National Preserve which
will take 1.5 million acres out of BLM multiple use in addition to 800,000 acres out of private
ownership and one adjacent to the Joshua Tree National Park; and
WHEREAS, this legislation will result in just about every square inch of the desert spoken for,
either for military use, national parks, wilderness and special conservation areas, Indian reservations and
other types of land management (half of the lands under BLM management are protected under wilderness
or special conservation area restrictions); and
WHEREAS, projects, such as California mandated solar energy development, that would disturb or
destroy habitat must make up for that loss by purchasing private habitat at ratios of at least three acres for
every one acre disturbed; and
WHEREAS, at that rate, even in the nation's largest county, San Bernardino, just three solar
projects on federal land will require an amount of private land acquisition of 22,000 acres, or roughly 34
square miles, land will come off of the county's tax rolls and we will literally run out of mitigation land after
a handful of projects; and
WHEREAS, the Federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires that 10,000 megawatts of renewable
energy be generated on public land in the west. To meet California's mandate of having 33 percent of OUT
energy come from renewable sources, it requires more that 20,000 megawatts of production and they are
looking mainly at public lands. If we approve that much solar, the result would be a regulatory lockdown on
the rest of the Desert by the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service and the State Department of Fish and Game;
and
WHEREAS, the Desert Protection Act of 1994 encompassed 1.5 million acres or 2,218.4 square
miles plus an additional 800,000 acres of private land or 1,250 square miles; Fort Irwin, 1,000 square miles;
29 Palms Marine Base, 931.7 square miles and they have also applied for an additional 420,000 acres in
2008, or 659.375 square miles totaling 6,059.48 square miles; and
WHEREAS, the California Desert Protection Act of 2011 will take OVER 2,300 square miles, not
including the acreage of wilderness located outside any of the above mentioned areas (this total mileage
would roughly encompass Rhode Island, Delaware, and Connecticut); and
WHEREAS, these public lands have long supported a range of beneficial uses and efforts have
been made to protect the desert inhabitants. Let's not destroy the desert or our ability to use and enjoy it.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of
California Cities assembled at the Annual Conference in San Diego, September 7, 2012, that the
12 League encourages California cities to adopt resolutions in opposition to the California Desert
Protection Act of 2011.
//////////
League of California Cities Staff Analysis
Staff:
Kyra Ross, Legislative Representative, (916) 658-8252
Committee:
Environmental Quality Policy Committee
Summary:
This resolution encourages California cities to oppose the California Desert Protection Act of 2011.
Background:
The California Desert Protection Act of 2011 (S. 138) is legislation proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein
which would provide for conservation, enhanced recreation opportunities, and development of renewable
energy in the California Desert Conservation Area. The Measure would:
• Create two new national monuments: the 941,000 acres Mojave Trails National Monument along
Route 66 and the 134,000 acres Sand to Snow National Monument, which connects Joshua Tree
National Park to the San Bernardino Mountains.
• Add adjacent lands to Joshua Tree National Park, Death Valley National Park and Mohave National
Preserve;
• Protect nearly 76 miles of waterways;
• Designate five new wilderness areas;
• Designate approximately 250,000 acres of Bureau of Land Management wilderness areas near Fort
Irwin;
• Enhance recreational opportunities; and,
• Designate four existing off-highway vehicle areas in the California Desert as permanent.
S. 138 is a re-introduction of S. 2921, the California Desert Protection Act of 2010 which is now dead. S.
138 was introduced in January 2011 and was referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources. The measure has not yet been set for hearing by the Committee.
Fiscal Impact:
Unknown. No direct fiscal impact to city general funds.
Existing League Policy:
The League's Mission Statement is "to expand and protect local control for cities through education and
advocacy to enhance the quality of life for all Californians."
Specific to this Resolution, existing policy offers no specific policy on this issue.
The League's Strategic Priorities for 2012, as adopted by the League Board of Directors, include:
2) Promote Local Control for Strong Cities: Support or oppose legislation and proposed constitutional
amendments based on whether they advance maximum local control by city governments over city revenues,
land use, redevelopment and other private activities to advance the public health, safety and welfare of city
residents.
>>>>>>>>>>
13 4. RESOLUTION REQUESTING CONSIDERATION OF SUSPENSION OF .
IMPLEMENTATION OR REVISION OF THE CALIFORNIA GLOBAL WARMING
SOLUTIONS ACT (AB 32 of 2006)
Source: City of Needles
Referred To: Environmental Quality Policy Committee
Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee:
WHEREAS, in 2006 the California Legislature adopted the California Global Warming
Solutions Act, commonly referred to as AB 32 (Health & Safety Code §§38500 et seq.); and
WHEREAS, AB 32 aims to reduce California's greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) to 1990
levels by 2020 (Health & Safety Code §38550) and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050; and
WHEREAS, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is the government agency charged with
determining how the AB 32 goals will be reached (Health & Safety Code §38510); and
WHEREAS, CARB's implementation of A1332 aims to reduce California's GHG emissions
by 169 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2E) through a variety of
strategies, including sector-specific regulations, market mechanisms, voluntary measures, fees,
incentives and other policies and programs; and
WHEREAS, there are portions of the state that have been designated as nonattainment for
the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for Ozone and PM, nonattainment for state
ambient air quality standards (SAAQS) for Ozone, PM, Sulfates and Hydrogen Sulfide, and identified
by CARB pursuant to as overwhelmingly impacted by transported air pollution from upwind air basins;
and
WHEREAS, areas designated nonattainment are mandated under the provisions of the Federal
Clean Air Act (FCAA) to require pursuant to New Source Review (NSR) rules, Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) and offsetting emissions reductions (Offsets) on major new or modified stationary
sources of those nonattainment air pollutants and their precursors (42 U.S.C. §§7502(c)(5), 7503)
regardless of whether or not the area so designated has any control or not over the pollution causing the
nonattainment finding; and
WHEREAS, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USFPA) has requested that a
program be developed to implement the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) which will
require additional analysis for new or modified sources of attainment pollutants including but not
limited to greenhouse gases, which will also necessitate emissions reductions and BACT in some
cases for attainment pollutants; and
WHEREAS, due in part to the limited number of existing sources of air pollutants and the
overwhelming impact of transport some or a majority of the cities have few if any available emissions
reductions available to provide such offsets; and
WHEREAS, many technologies used to attain BACT levels of air pollution control are
based upon the combustion of fossil fuels which also causes emissions of GHGs; and
14 WHEREAS, there are a variety of Federal regulations promulgated and proposed by the
USEPA regarding greenhouse gasses that have the potential to conflict both directly and in their
implementation with regulatory measures to implement AB32 as adopted and proposed by CARB;
and
WHEREAS, there are a variety of other mandates and regulations at the State level
(municipal waste diversion, renewable energy mandate etc.) which have the potential to conflict both
directly and in due to their implementation with regulatory measures to implement AB32 as adopted
and proposed by CARB; and
WHEREAS, such conflicts severely impede the cities or state as well as regulated industry
efforts to comply with both the applicable Federal regulations and regulations implementing AB32;
and
WHEREAS, the existing and proposed regulations on both the State and Federal level result in
an overall regulatory structure that is inconsistent and confusing making it virtually impossible or
incredibly slow to start any new large scale projects within the State at a time where California
infrastructure and its economy are in most need of refurbishment; and
WHEREAS, the existing and proposed regulations and unclear guidelines will also make it more
difficult for smaller, pollution transport impacted air districts like the MDAQMD, to properly
implement and enforce the regulations;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of
California Cities assembled at the Annual Conference in San Diego, September 7, 2012, that the
League encourages the existing 482 California cities to adopt resolutions requesting a suspension of
the implementation of some, if not all, the regulations promulgated under the California Global
Warming Solutions Act (AB 32 of 2006) until such time as the legal and regulatory inconsistencies can
be resolved; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that California cities request the California Air Resources
Board and other applicable state agencies examine the impact of the regulations promulgated pursuant
to AB 32 and for potential direct and indirect conflict with other existing regulations at both the State
•and Federal level including but not limited to the potential for gains in one area to jeopardize progress in
another; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that California cities request the California Air Resources
Board and other applicable state agencies examine the overall economic impact of the regulations
promulgated pursuant to AB 32 and their interaction with other existing regulations with emphasis upon
the potential for job and other economic activity "flight" from California; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that California cities request the State of California by
and through its Governor, Legislature, and applicable state agencies should encourage the resolution
of internal conflicts between and among existing Federal programs by supporting items including but
not limited to: reopening the Federal Clean Air Act, New Source Review Reform, and efforts to regulate
GHGs under a comprehensive Federal program.
1111111111
15 League of California Cities Staff Analysis on Resolution No. 4
Staff:
Kyra Ross, Legislative Representative, (916) 658-8252
Committee:
Environmental Quality Policy Committee
Summary:
This resolution encourages California cities to:
1.) Adopt resolutions requesting the suspension of the implementation of some, if not all, the
regulations promulgated under the California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) until such
time as the legal and regulatory inconsistencies can be resolved;
2.) Asks cities to request the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and other applicable state
agencies examine the impact of the regulations promulgated pursuant to AB 32, and for potential
conflict with other existing regulations at both the State and Federal level including, but not limited
to, the potential for gains in one area to jeopardize progress in another; and,
3.) Asks cities to request the CARB and other applicable state agencies examine the overall economic
impact of the regulations promulgated pursuant to AB 32 and their interaction with other existing
regulations with emphasis upon the potential for job and other economic activity "flight" from
California; and,
4.) Asks cities to request the State to encourage the resolution of internal conflicts between and among
existing Federal programs by supporting items, including but not limited to:
a. Reopening the Federal Clean Air Act;
b. New Source Review Reform; and,
c. Efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under a comprehensive federal program.
Background:
AB 32 passed in 2006 and requires the State to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. As
the implementing agency, CARB developed and passed a Scoping Plan in 2008, outlining emission
reduction measures to help the state meet its statutory reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Since 2008, a
number of measures outlined in the Scoping Plan have been implemented. Measures of interest to cities
include: voluntary local government 15% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions; regional transportation-
related greenhouse gas targets; landfill methane control; and green building codes.
At the same time, many of California's 15 air basins are facing ongoing challenges to meeting federal air
quality standards. It's important to note that regulation of air quality in California is separated into two
levels of regulation. CARB regulates air pollution from cars, trucks, buses and other sources, often referred
to as "mobile sources". Local air districts regulate businesses and industrial facilities. Local air districts are
the bodies that regulate ozone, PM 2.5 and PM 10. Ground level ozone (ozone), more commonly referred to
as smog, is a pollutant that forms on hot summer days (not to be confused with the ozone that forms in the
upper atmosphere or stratosphere). Ozone is not directly emitted by one source but comes from a
combination of volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides. In the presence of sunlight, especially on
hot summer days, this mixture forms ozone. Particulate Matter (PM) is made up of fine solid or liquid such
as dust, fly ash, soot, smoke, aerosols, fumes, mists, and condensing vapors. US EPA has set health based
standards for particles smaller than 10 microns (PM 10) and particles smaller than 2.5 microns (PM 2.5).
When these particles become airborne, they can be suspended in the air for long periods of time. Both PM
10 and PM 2.5 have been determined to cause serious adverse health effects.
According to an April 2012 report by the California Air Pollution Control Officer's Association
"California's Progress Toward Clean Air":
Despite significant improvements, air quality remains a major source of public health concern in
large metropolitan areas throughout California The San Joaquin and South Coast Air Basin
16 continue to face significant challenges in meeting the federal health-based standards for ozone and
fine particles, despite their regional and state-level controls on mobile and stationary sources that
are the most stringent in the nation. In 2007, both regions sought extension for meeting the 1997 8-
hour federal ambient air quality standard for ozone. A comparable challenge faces each region
with respect to attainment of the 1997 P11.12.5 standard. Due to continued progress in health
research, the federal EPA lowered the ambient concentration for the 8-hour ozone and 24-hour PM
2.5 standards in 2008 and 2006, respectively. The net effect of these stricter standards is to raise
the performance bar for California air basins. This will extend the timeframe for attainment in
highly polluted regions as well as increase the number of basins with non-attainment status.
Challenges also exist for air districts across California who are in attainment with the federal
standards, as they continue to strive for attainment of the State 's health-based ozone and PM
standards, which are more stringent than the standards adopted by the US EPA.
According to the Sponsor, areas designated nonattainment are mandated under the provision of the federal
Clean Air Act to require (pursuant to New Source Review Rules) Best Available Control Technology
(BACT) and offsetting emissions reduction on major new or modified stationary sources of those
nonattainrnent air pollutants and their precursors regardless of whether or not the area so designated has any
control and not over the pollution causing the nonattainment finding.
The Sponsor also notes that there are a variety of other mandates and regulations at the state level that have
the potential to conflict both directly and indirectly with the implementation of AB 32 measures being
proposed and implemented by GARB. Two measures pointed out by the Sponsor are the existing mandate
for local jurisdictions to divert 50% of solid waste from landfills (Public Resources Code 41780) and the
state Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) that requires all retail sellers (Investor Owned Utilities, electric
service providers, and community choice aggregators) and all publicly owned utilities to procure at least
33% of electricity delivered to their retail customers from renewable resources by 2020,
Fiscal Impact:
Unknown. No direct fiscal impact to city general funds.
Existing League Policy:
Specific to this Resolution, existing policy states:
Air Quality
• The League believes cities should have the authority to establish local air quality standards and programs
that are stricter than state and federal standards, The League opposes efforts to restrict such authority.
• The League opposes legislation redirecting the funds authorized by Health and Safety Code Section
44223, which are currently used by local governments for locally based air quality programs.
• The League opposes air quality legislation that restricts the land use authority of cities.
Climate Change
• The League recognizes that climate change is both immediate and long term, with the potential for
profound environmental, social and economic impacts to the planet and to California.
• Through the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32 (Nufiez) Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006)
California has embarked on a plan that requires the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels
by 2020. Although uncertainty remains about the pace, distribution and magnitude of the effects of
climate change, the League recognizes the need for immediate actions to mitigate the sources of
greenhouse gas emissions and has adopted the following principles:
1. Action Plans for Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Encourage local governments to complete
17 an inventory of greenhouse gas emissions, set appropriate reduction targets, and create greenhouse
gas emission reduction action plans.
2. Smart Growth. Consistent with the League's Smart Growth policies, encourage the adoption of land
use policies designed to reduce sprawl, preserve open space, and create healthy, vibrant, and
sustainable communities.
3. Green Technology Investment Assistance. Support tax credits, grants, loans and other incentives to
assist the public, businesses, and local agencies that invest in energy efficient equipment and
technology, and fuel efficient, low emission vehicles.
4. Energy and Water Conservation and Efficiency. Encourage energy efficiency, water efficiency, and
sustainable building practices in new and existing public, residential and commercial buildings and
facilities. This may include using the U.S. Green Building Council's LEED program or similar
systems.
5. Increase the Use of Clean Alternative Energy. Promote the use and purchase of clean alternative
energy through the development of renewable energy resources, recovery of landfill methane for
energy production and waste-to-energy technologies.
6. Reduction of Vehicle Emissions in Public Agency Fleets. Support the reduction of vehicle emissions
through increased fuel efficiency, use of appropriate alternative fueled vehicles, and/or low emission
vehicles in public agency fleets. Encourage the use of appropriate alternative fueled vehicles, and/or
low emission vehicles in private fleets.
7. Climate Change Impacts. Encourage all levels of government to share information to prepare for
climate change impacts.
8. Coordinated Planning. State policy should encourage and provide incentive for cities to coordinate
and share planning information with neighboring cities, counties, and other governmental entities so
that there are agreed upon regional blueprints and strategies for dealing with greenhouse gas
emissions.
9. Water Supply for New Development. Encourage exchange of water supply information between
state and local agencies, including information on the impacts of climate change on state and local
water supplies.
10. Recycles Content and Green Purchasing Policies. Encourage the adoption and implementation of
recycled content and green procurement policies, if fitness and quality are equal, including the
adoption of an Environmental Management System and authorization of local agencies to consider
criteria other than only cost in awarding contracts for services.
Additionally, the League's Mission Statement is "to expand and protect local control for cities through
education and advocacy to enhance the quality of life for all Californians."
Finally, the League's Strategic Priorities for 2012, as adopted by the League Board of Directors, include:
In addition, the Strategic Priorities for 2012, as adopted by the League Board of Directors, are to:
1) Support Sustainable and Secure Public Employee Pensions and Benefits: Work in partnership with state
leaders and other stakeholders to promote sustainable and secure public pensions and other post-employment
benefits (OPEBs) to help ensure responsive and affordable public services for the people of our state and
cities.
2) Promote Local Control for Strong Cities: Support or oppose legislation and proposed constitutional
amendments based on whether they advance maximum local control by city governments over city revenues,
18 land use, redevelopment and other private activities to advance the public health, safety and welfare of city
residents.
3) Build Strong Partnerships for a Stronger Golden State: Collaborate with other public and private groups
and leaders to reform the structure and governance, and promote transparency, fiscal integrity, and
responsiveness of our state government and intergovernmental system.
RESOLUTIONS REFERRED TO PUBLIC SAFETY POLICY COMMITTEE
+I A RESOLUTION CALLING UPON THE GOVERNOR AND LEGISLATURE TO
ENACT LEGISLATION THAT WOULD CORRECT INEFFICIENCIES IN THE
AUDIT SYSTEM, DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM AND INEQUITIES IN THE
FORMULAS FOR DISTRIBUTING COURT ORDERED ARREST AND CITATION
FINES, FEES AND ASSESSMENTS GENERATED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
Source: City of Glendora
Referred to: Public Safety and Revenue & Taxation Policy Committee -
Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee:
WHEREAS, the primary purpose of criminal and traffic laws is to improve safety for the public,
where the cost involved to implement enforcement falls primarily upon local law enforcement agencies
throughout the State; and
WHEREAS, if State laws are to be effectively enforced then local cities must have a fair revenue
structure to pay the cost of making arrests and issuing citations for criminal and traffic violators; and
WHEREAS, the significant inequity in the amount cities receive in relation to the full cost of a
citation and/or arrest results in an unfair distribution of revenue to cities that are generated by court fines,
fees, surcharges, penalties and assessments levied on offenders; and
WHEREAS, the current inefficiencies in the system makes it practically impossible for cities to
insure transparency and effectively audit, administer and manage public funds that are generated by cities
and distributed by the State and County; and
WHEREAS, to adequately protect and serve the public during this time of declining revenue and
deteriorating services the inequities in the system needs to be changed; and
WHEREAS, court-ordered debt collection and revenue distribution is a complex system where
there are few audits, if ever, done to determine if cities are receiving their fair share of disbursements; and
WHEREAS, once a debt has been collected, in whole or in part, distributing the money is not
simple as there are over 150 ways collection entities are required to distribute revenue collected from traffic
and criminal court debts. Depending on the fine, fee, surcharge or penalty assessment imposed by the court
has more than 3,100 separate court fines, fees, surcharges, penalties and assessments levied on offenders that
appear in statutes spanning 27 different state code sections; and
WHEREAS, the current system makes it practically impossible for cities to effectively administer
and manage public funds that are generated by cities. Because of the complex system cities cannot
determine if they are receiving their fair share of the fines collected; and
19 WHEREAS, Counties and the State have statutory responsibility and power to conduct their audits,
while cities do not currently have clear legal standing to demand access to court records for purposes of
conducting audits in a thorough and transparent manner which further shrouds the understanding of when
and how revenue is distributed; and
WHEREAS, in December 2011 at the request of the Glendora Police Department the Los Angeles
Superior Court conducted a sample audit of 15 Glendora Police Department-issued citations from 2010. The
results of the sample audit revealed the City of Glendora received about 12% ($253) of the $2,063 in paid
fines for the 12 of the 15 citations submitted. Three (3) of the citations in the audit were sent to collection
or warrants. Based on those results, the city received an average of $21, while the State and County
received an average of $172 for each of the 12 citations. The percentage breakdown for the city was 12.25%
as compared to the State and County's share of 86.75%; and
WHEREAS, issuing a typical vehicle code violation citation can involve up to an hour of the
issuing officer's time and the time of a records clerk tasked with entering citations into the database costing
approximately $82 per hour. If the citation is challenged the cost increases another $135 to cover the cost of
court time and handling of the notices associated with such an appeal. Therefore, the cost incurred to issue a
citation currently is between $82 and $217, while the sample audit reveals the city is receiving about $21 in
cost recovery; and
WHEREAS, officials with Superior Court openly admit that similar results would be expected for
almost every jurisdiction in the State issuing citations due to the complexity and "Priority of Distribution"
they must follow from the State of California. "Priority Distribution" is triggered when a court reduces a
fine for a citation. This process prohibits Judges from reducing penalty assessments and thus the only
discretion Judges have in reducing fines, fees and costs is to reduce the base fine, or city portion, of the total
fine. This process has a significant impact on the amount of money cities issuing the citation will receive.
Rarely is the reduction in the fine taken from other stakeholders. Cities are one of the lowest priorities on the
distribution list and often find themselves receiving significantly less share-or no share after deducting State
and County fees and surcharges; and now there let it be
• RESOLVED by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities, assembled in San Diego
on September 7, 2012, that the League of California Cities calls upon the State Legislature and Governor to:
1. Create an efficient system to provide cities with a clear authority to audit the distribution of
fines, fees, assessments and administrative costs for criminal and traffic violations;
2. Enact legislation that changes the "Priority Distribution" mandate so cities receive the total cost
of issuing, processing and testifying in court on criminal cases and traffic violations; and
3. That any reduction in fines, fees, assessments or costs should be equally distributed from the
total fine imposed, not just from the city base fine.
Background Information on Resolution No. 1
Source:
City of Glendora
20 Background:
Court-ordered debt collection and revenue distribution is a complex system where there are few audits, if
ever, done to determine if cities are receiving their fair share of disbursements. The current system makes it
practically impossible for cities to effectively administer and manage public funds that are generated by
cities. Because of the complex system cities cannot determine if they are receiving their fair share of the
fines collected.
Once a debt has been collected, in whole or in part, distributing the money is not simple as there are over
150 ways collection entities are required to distribute revenue collected from traffic and criminal court
debts, depending on the fine, fee, surcharge or penalty assessment imposed by the court and California has
more than 3,100 separate court fines, fees, surcharges, penalties and assessments levied on offenders that
appear in statutes spanning 27 different government code.
County and state have statutory responsibility and power to conduct their audits, while cities do not
currently have clear legal standing to demand access to court records for purposes of conducting audits in a
thorough and transparent manner which further shrouds the understanding of when and how revenue is
distributed.
At the request of the City of Glendora, in December 2011, the Los Angeles Superior Court conducted a
sample audit of 15 Glendora Police Department-issued citations from 2010. The results of the sample audit
revealed the Glendora received about 12% ($253) of the $2,063 in paid fines for the 12 of the 15 citations
submitted. Three (3) of the citations in the audit had been sent to collection or warrants. Based on those
results, the city received an average of $21, while the state and county received an average of $172 for each
of the 12 citations. The percentage breakdown for the city was 12.25% as compared to the state and
county's share of 86.75.%
Issuing a typical vehicle code violation citation can involve up to an hour of the issuing officer's time and
the records clerk tasked with entering citations into the database costing approximately $82 per hour. If the
citation is challenged the cost increases another $135 to cover the cost of court time and handling of the
notices associated with such an appeal. Therefore, the cost incurred to issue a citation that is currently
between $82 about $217, while the sample audit reveals the city is receiving about $21 in cost recovery.
Officials with Superior Court openly admit that similar results would be expected for almost every
jurisdiction in the state because when a court reduces a fine it triggers a process called "Priority
Distribution." This process prohibits Judges from reducing penalty assessments imposed by the county and
state and thus the only discretion that Judges have in reducing fines is to reduce the Base Fine (City Portion?
of the total fine. This mandate has a significant impact on the amount of money cities issuing the citation
receive. Rarely is the reduction in the fine taken from other stakeholders. Cities are one of the lowest
priority on the distribution so often they find themselves receiving significantly less share-or no share after
deducting state and county fees and surcharges.
The primary cost to implement enforcement falls upon local law enforcement agencies throughout the state.
This Resolution calls upon the State Legislature and Governor to create an efficient system to provide cities
with a clear authority to audit the distribution of fines, fees, assessments and administrative costs for
criminal and traffic violations. In addition, legislation should be developed and passed that changes the
"Priority Distribution" mandate so the cities receive the total cost of issuing, processing and testifying in
court on criminal cases and traffic violations and that any reduction in fines, fees, assessments or costs
should be equally distributed from the total fine imposed.
111M111
21 League of California Cities Staff Analysis on Resolution No. I.
Staff:
Dorothy Holzem, Assoc. Legislative Representative, (916) 658-8214
Committee:
Public Safety Policy Committee
Staff:
Dan Carrigg, Legislative Representative, (916) 658-8222
Committee:
Revenue and Taxation Policy Committee
Summary:
This Resolution urges the League of California Cities, through legislative or administrative means, to clarify
the authority for cities to audit the distribution of court imposed fines, fees, penalty assessments and
administrative costs for criminal and traffic violations.
It also urges the League to seek legislative changes to the "Priority Distribution" statutory formula so that
cities receive the total cost of issuing, processing and testifying in court on criminal cases and traffic
violations. The current statutory formula allows reductions to the base fine but maintains the same level of
penalty assessments, based upon the full penalty charge.
Finally, any reductions that may occur in fines, fees, assessments or costs determinations should be equally
distributed from the total fine imposed, not just from the city base fine.
This Resolution raises several policy questions:
1) Should cities have the authority to request audits and receive reports from a county or the state on the
local share of revenue resulting from criminal and traffic violation penalties?
2) Should cost-recovery be a driving factor in setting monetary penalties for criminal or traffic violations?
3) Should reductions (as ordered by a judge) to the fines owed by violators be taken just out of the base fine,
or should the base fine and related penalty assessments be reduced proportionately?
Background:
In California, criminal offenders may have additional penalty assessments made to their base fines. These
penalty assessments are based on the concept of an "abusers fee," in which those who break certain laws
will help finance programs related to decreasing those violations. For example, drug and alcohol offenses
and domestic violence offenses are enhanced by special assessments on fines that directly fund county
programs designed to prevent the violations. All other criminal offenses and traffic violations are subject to
penalty assessments that are used to fund specific state programs.
According to the Resolution sponsor, the City of Glendora, the court-ordered collection of penalty fines and
additional assessments, as well as the subsequent revenue distribution, is a complex system where few audits
are conducted to determine if cities are receiving their share of collections. The current system makes it
practically impossible for cities to effectively administer and manage public funds that are generated by
cities.
The League recently held in-depth policy discussions related to audit authority in light of the misconduct
charges against the City of Bell in 2011. The League convened a technical working group to review audit
legislation and administrative efforts by the State Controller's Office. Following the work of this group, the
League Board adopted principles supporting transparent, accurate financial and performance information.
(See "Existing Policy" section below.) However, these principles did not address expanding cities' audit
authority over the state, counties, or other public agencies.
22 The sponsors state that there are over 150 ways collection entities are required to distribute revenue
collected from traffic and criminal court debts. Depending on the fine, fee, surcharge or penalty assessment
imposed, there are more than 3,100 separate court fines, fees, surcharges, penalties and assessments levied
on offenders that appear in statutes spanning 27 different state code sections.
Generally, the base fines for criminal and traffic citations are significantly lower than the additional penalty
assessments levied by the state and counties. In some instances, the penalty assessment for state and local
programs can be three or four times the amount collected by the city or county agency that issued the
citation through their local enforcement authority. The amount each program account receives is based on a
statutory formula. For example, if a driving under the influence (DUI) fine is $1000, specific dollar amounts
proportionate to the base fine are added under six different code sections for a total price tag of $3,320 for
the offense.
Some examples of program accounts receiving penalty assessment revenues include Peace Officer Standards
and Training (POST), victim witness protection and services, court security, court construction, forensic
laboratories for DNA identification, and automated fingerprint identification. The impact of programs
largely funded, if not solely funded, by penalty assessment revenue casts a wide net of stakeholders
including counties, sheriffs, district attorneys, public defenders, fish and game wardens, victim advocates,
and access to the judicial system advocates. Cities are also partial benefactors of penalty assessment funded
programs related to law enforcement.
For the last three decades, this policy area has been under great scrutiny and study but with little reform
taking place. The recommendations from past studies and reports to consolidate penalty assessment accounts
or their collections efforts, which would require legislative action, have likely not gained traction because of
the inevitable loss of revenue for the specific programs and the affected interest groups.
In 1986, the Legislature enacted Senate Concurrent Resolution 53, requiring the Legislative Analyst Office
(LAO) to study the statutory penalty assessments that are levied by the courts on offenders and the state
programs that the funds support. The completed 1988 study found a complicated system of collection and
distribution of penalty funds. The LAO was unable to fully identify the source offenses that generated
penalty revenues because of limitations in most county collection systems.
In 2005, the California Research Bureau issued a report for the Assembly Public Safety Committee on
county penalty assessments that drew similar conclusions. They stated the complexity of the system means
poor revenue collection, disproportionate justice for debtors, and undermines the usefulness of fines as a
punishment or deterrent. They recommended efforts to streamline and consolidate collections, funding, and
appropriations.
After some delay, the state created the Administrative Office of the Court's Court-Ordered Debt Task Force,
which is charged with evaluating and exploring means to streamline the existing structure for imposing and
distributing criminal and traffic fines and fees. This Task Force has been asked to present preliminary
recommendations to the Legislature regarding the priority in which court-ordered debt should be satisfied
and the use of comprehensive collection programs. Currently, the League of California Cities has two
appointments to the Task Force. However, the Task Force has been put on hiatus and has not met for
approximately 12 months due to significant state cuts to the court budget in recent years.
Currently, legislation was introduced this year to address the issue of cities not recouping the costs of
issuing citations. The response has been to increase the base fine and not change penalty assessments.
Assembly Bill 2366 (Eng) would increase the base fine of "fix-it" tickets from $10 to $25 dollars. This has
largely been successful in the legislative fiscal committees because with every increase to the base fine for
the issuing agency, so increases the state and county share of penalty assessments proportionately.
23 Lastly, in most instances when the legislature takes into consideration a fine increase, be it for manufacturer
product responsibility or criminal acts, the legislature focuses on how the increased fine will alter behavior,
not on recovering the costs of enforcing that violation.
Fiscal Impact:
Unknown. Potential additional revenue received by cities, if any, would vary based on total citations issued
and collected.
Existing League Policy:
Related to this Resolution, existing policy offers:
• Cities and the League should continue to emphasize efficiency and effectiveness, encouraging and
assisting cities to achieve the best possible use of city resources.
• The League supports efforts to preserve local authority and accountability for cities, state policies must
ensure the integrity of existing city revenue sources for all cities, including the city share and situs
allocation, where applicable, of property tax, sales tax, vehicle license fee, etc.
Audit Principles Adopted by the League Board
• Given the State already has substantial authority to examine local government financial practices, and
recognizes the significant resources required by auditors and local governments to complete audits,
additional authority should only be granted to a State agency when there are documented insufficiencies
in its existing authority,
• Governmental financial audits and performance audits ensure financial integrity and promote efficient,
effective and accountable local government.
• Transparent, accurate financial and performance information is necessary for citizens to have confidence
that their interests are being served, and for decision makers to be accountable for ensuring that public
funds are spent appropriately and effectively,
• Public trust is inspired when auditors perform their work with independence, objectivity and integrity,
remaining free from personal, external and organizational impairments to that independence, both in fact
and in appearance.
• Public confidence in government is maintained and strengthened when financial and performance
information is collected, managed and reported in accordance with nationally recognized professional
accounting and auditing standards.
The League's Mission Statement is "to expand and protect local control for cities through education and
advocacy to enhance the quality of life for all Californians."
In addition, the Strategic Priorities for 2012, as adopted by the League Board of Directors, are to:
1) Support Sustainable and Secure Public Employee Pensions and Benefits: Work in partnership with state
leaders and other stakeholders to promote sustainable and secure public pensions and other post-employment
benefits (OPEBs) to help ensure responsive and affordable public services for the people of our state and
cities.
2) Promote Local Control for Strong Cities: Support or oppose legislation and proposed constitutional
amendments based on whether they advance maximum local control by city governments over city revenues,
24 land use, redevelopment and other private activities to advance the public health, safety and welfare of city
residents.
3) Build Strong Partnerships for a Stronger Golden State: Collaborate with other public and private groups
and leaders to reform the structure and governance, and promote transparency, fiscal integrity, and
responsiveness of our state government and intergovernmental system.
>>>>>>>>>>
2. RESOLUTION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES RAISING PUBLIC
AWARENESS AND SUPPORTING TOUGHER LAWS RELATED TO INTERNET
CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN
Source: San Diego County Division
Referred To: Public Safety Policy Committee
Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee:
WHEREAS, technology has brought significant changes to our society over the past two decades,
many of which have had a positive effect on our quality of life while some have threatened the safety and
well- being of our young children; and
WHEREAS, the internet has made victimization of children easier than ever before; and
WHEREAS, the interne has also significantly increased the availability of child pornography, with
more than 6.5 million images being shared via the intemet , compared to only a few hundred photos less
than a generation ago; and
'WHEREAS, some see viewing child pornography as a "victimless crime," however these images are
never completely eradicated from the internet and the victims continue to have their horrific photos viewed
over and over again by pedophiles for sexual gratification; and
WHEREAS, in 2007 the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children reported it had
identified 9.6 million images and videos of child pornography and believed there were millions more not
identified; and
WHEREAS, in the 2006 Butner Redux Study, 98 percent of convicted child pornographers had
molested children before their capture; and
WHEREAS, the United States is the number one producer and consumer of child pornography in the
world, with more than 624,000 child pornography users identified nationwide.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the General Assembly of the League of
California Cities assembled at the Annual Conference in San Diego, September 7, 2012, that the
League of California Cities:
1. Desires to increase public awareness and educate others about the critical issue of intemet
crimes against children statewide.
2. Requests the League advocate for the State Legislature to adopt tougher laws for child
pornographers.
25 3. Requests the League advocate for additional and more permanent funding for Internet Crimes
Against Children Task Forces (ICAC) statewide.
//////////
Background Information on Resolution No. 2
Source:
San Diego County Division
Back2round:
Technology has brought significant changes to our society over the past two decades. While most have had a
positive effect on our quality of life, many have threatened the safety and well-being of our young children.
The intemet has made victimization of children much easier than ever before. Today, pedophiles can
network with one another online, encourage one another to commit crimes against children, and share tips on
evading law enforcement. Worse yet, they often use the internet — social media sites, in particular — to find
and prey on young children. Many times, these innocent children are lured away from their homes by these
perpetrators and never seen again.
The internet has also significantly increased the availability of child pornography. More than 6.5 million
child abuse images are being shared via the internet today. Before this technology was in place, the number
of photos available numbered in the few hundreds.
While some see viewing child pornography as a "victimless crime," nothing could be further from the truth.
One study showed that 98 percent of convicted child pornographers had molested children before being
captured (Butner Redux Study, 2006).
Additionally, these images can never be completely eradicated from the internet once they are placed online.
Therefore, victims continue to suffer the irrevocable damage of knowing their horrific photos are being
viewed over and over again for sexual gratification by pedophiles.
Many believe these horrendous crimes happen mostly in other countries. Sadly, the United States is the
number one producer and consumer of child pornography in the world, and American children are the
primary victims. More than 624,000 child pornography users have been identified nationwide and thousands
of these reside in San Diego County.
While the intemet is exploited by these predators to harm children, it ironically is the same tool used by law
enforcement to track down and arrest these criminals.
Your help is urgently needed to secure resources for this effort, increase public awareness, work to
support tougher laws and educate others on this critical issue. While San Diego has one of the nation's 61
ICAC task forces, its six trained investigators are overwhelmed with cases due to funding shortfalls.
With your help, these predators can be taken off the street and our children will be safer. Here is what needs
to be done:
Change state law. The current "wobbler" (misdemeanor and felony) wording should be eliminated. All
child pornography charges should be made a straight felony.
Strengthen sentencing. State sentencing on child pornography cases needs to be more in line with
26 federal sentencing.
Toughen discovery statutes. State discovery statutes should be amended to comply with the Adam
Walsh Act. Child pornography is contraband that is easily reproduced and should be treated as such.
Change pornography evidence rules. Stop the practice of giving copies of child pornography evidence
to the defense. Instead, provide the defense a secure area where they can view the evidence but not take
procession of it.
Strike current law about possession/distribution of child pornography. Currently, state law allows
for a defendant's conviction for possession and distribution of child pornography to be set aside if he/she has
complied with all probation conditions, pursuant to Penal Code Section
1203.4.
Strengthen disclosure laws. If applying for any job other than public office, licensure by any state or
local agency, or for contracting with the state lottery, a convicted possessor of child pornography does not
need to disclose their prior conviction. That allows people who have been convicted of possessing or dealing
in photos of child exploitation to get closer to children. PC
1203.4 already has exceptions for convictions of PC 286(c), 288, 288a(c), 2813.5, 289m, felony
261.5(d) and 42001(b) of the Vehicle Code. These convictions may not be set aside per PC
1203.4 and must always be disclosed. PC 311.1, 311.2, 31L3,311.4, 311.10 and 311.11 should be added to
the list of charges to which this type of relief does not apply.
Update reporting laws. The existing mandatory reporting law should be updated to include librarians
and computer technicians.
Provide permanent funding for ICAC. Significantly more permanent funding is needed for Internet
Crimes Against Children Task Forces (1CAC's). They are tasked with investigating crimes against children
involving electronic devices. The crimes include child pornography, child molestation and peer-to-peer
bullying. ICAC task force's are severely undersized and underfunded to keep up with the magnitude of the
growing problem.
Increase public awareness. Public awareness of the issue needs be heightened particularly to
parents and children as well as all public officials and the community in order to protect our children against
these unspeakable crimes.
/II/MN
League of California Cities Staff Analysis on Resolution No. 2
Staff:
Dorothy Holzem, Assoc. Legislative Representative, (916) 658-8214
Committee:
Public Safety Policy Committee
Summary:
This Resolution seeks to increase public awareness of the prevalence of internet crimes against children. To
help promote this goal, the Resolution requests the League of California Cities advocate for legislation that
creates tougher laws for child pornographers and provides additional, more permanent funding for Internet
Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Forces.
Background:
According to the Resolution sponsors, the U.S. Census Bureau (2005) estimates that there are over 24.5
million interne users in the United States between the ages of 10 and 17. They cite that the rapid growth of
intemet accessibility has brought forth helpful tools for our children and youth. Unfortunately, it has also
brought with it the increased potential for online victimization including unwanted exposure to sexual
material, unwanted sexual solicitations, and online harassment.
27 The Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Program was created to help federal, state and local law
enforcement agencies enhance their investigative responses to offenders who use the intemet, online
communication systems, or computer technology to sexually exploit children. The program is funded by the
United States Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, The program is
a national network of 61 coordinated task forces representing over 3,000 federal, state, and local law
enforcement and prosecutorial agencies. These agencies are engaged in proactive investigations, forensic
investigations, and criminal prosecutions.
In FY 2009, ICAC Program received $25 million under the Omnibus Appropriation Act to support ICAC
task forces, training, and technical assistance. The ICAC Program received an additional $50 million
through the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act to support ICAC task forces, training, technical
assistance, and research. In each of the past two fiscal years, the program received $30 million nationally.
Existing California law addresses the policy area extensively in the areas of solicitation, pornography, and
harassment with additional penalties often levied when the victim is a minor less than 14 years of age.
Internet-based crimes against minors have been a popular topic in recent legislative proposals especially as
new web-based technology is brought into the market. Legislation has included both increased penalties and
greater protections or remedies for victims.
Fiscal Impact:
Unknown. No direct fiscal impact to city general funds.
Existin2 League Policy:
Related to this Resolution, existing policy offers:
The League believes that the children of California must be recognized as our state's most valuable
resource. Their development, education, and well-being are key to our state's future. Further, it is essential
that each child have the support needed to become a productive citizen in the world of the 21' Century.
The League supports the promotion of public safety through stiffer penalties for violent offenders.
The League's Mission Statement is "to expand and protect local control for cities through education and
advocacy to enhance the quality of life for all Californians."
In addition, the Strategic Priorities for 2012, as adopted by the League Board of Directors, are to:
1) Support Sustainable and Secure Public Employee Pensions and Benefits: Work in partnership with state
leaders and other stakeholders to promote sustainable and secure public pensions and other post-employment
benefits (OPEBs) to help ensure responsive and affordable public services for the people of our state and
cities.
2) Promote Local Control for Strong Cities: Support or oppose legislation and proposed constitutional
amendments based on whether they advance maximum local control by city governments over city revenues,
land use, redevelopment and other private activities to advance the public health, safety and welfare of city
residents.
3) Build Strong Partnerships for a Stronger Golden State: Collaborate with other public and private groups
and leaders to reform the structure and governance, and promote transparency, fiscal integrity, and
responsiveness of our state government and intergovernmental system.
>>>>>>>>>>
28 5. A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR AN EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT MISSION FOR
CALIFORNIA CITIES
Source: League Public Safety Policy Committee
Referred To: Public Safety Policy Committee
Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee:
WHEREAS, emergency management is a basic responsibility of city government and a fundamental
duty of all city employees; and
WHEREAS, prepared, disaster resilient communities save lives, prevent injuries, protect property,
promote economic stability, and rapid recovery; and
WHEREAS, employees who have a family plan and supplies will be more likely to stay at work or
come to work after an emergency incident; and
WHEREAS, the National Incident Management System (NIMS) provides guidelines and
requirements to ensure a national coordinated emergency response system, including training requirements;
and
WHEREAS, the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) provides the foundation for
California cities to ensure a state-wide coordinated, standardized emergency response system. SEMS is
intended to be flexible and adaptable to the needs of all emergency responders in California; and
WHEREAS, emergency managers are responsible for promoting and encouraging personal, family
and community preparedness and readiness. It is critical to focus on and support public education and
training to ensure that the public understands that government entities may need time to recover from
disaster situations, and to spread the message that disaster resilience, or the ability to recover from a disaster
situation, requires participation from the whole community; and
WHEREAS, The League of California Cities (League) recognizes that cities, counties and the state
do not have the reserves to support residents with food, water, and other necessary supplies after an
"emergency event". Now, therefore let it be
RESOLVED, at the League General Assembly, assembled at the League Annual Conference on
September 7, 2012, in San Diego, that the League encourages cities to actively pursue employee and resident
emergency preparedness. In addition, the League encourages cities to actively engage residents in
emergency preparedness programs that promote creating a family plan, including having supplies of food
and water, in the promotion of self-reliance.
1111111111
League of California Cities Staff Analysis on Resolution No. 5
Staff:
Dorothy Holzem, Assoc. Legislative Representative, (916) 658-8214
Committee:
Public Safety Policy Committee
Summary:
This Resolution seeks to create a clear statement of support for emergency preparedness in the League of
California Cities existing policy and guiding principles. Specifically, it requests that the League encourages
cities to actively pursue employee and resident emergency preparedness and to engage residents in
29 emergency preparedness programs that promote creating a family plan, that includes provisions for supplies
of food and water, in the promotion of self-reliance, with the ultimate goal of creating "disaster resilient"
cities.
Background:
This resolution was brought to the Public Safety Policy Committee by that committee's Emergency and
Disaster Preparedness Subcommittee to create a clear statement of support for emergency response,
management, and recovery efforts as a community. While the League has extensive policy that supports
related activities, there is no explicit statement of support in the existing policy or guiding principles.
In addition, numerous articles in Western City Magazine, the League's monthly publication, have featured
case studies and best practices about emergency response and disaster preparedness. This topic has been a
key component of the Public Safety Committee's work program for the last five years.
Fiscal Impact:
Unknown. This Resolution does not seek to create new requirements for the League or cities. Possible costs
to cities that take steps to educate community members about disaster preparedness could be off-set by
future limited damage and loss of life or injury due to those preparedness efforts.
Existing League Policy:
Related to this Resolution, existing policy provides:
The League supports the 2-1-1 California telephone service as a non- emergency, human and community
services and disaster information resource.
The League supports "Good Samaritan" protections that include both medical and non-medical care when
applicable to volunteer emergency, law enforcement, and disaster recovery personnel. The League also
supports providing "Good Samaritan" protections to businesses that voluntarily place automated external
defibrillators (AEDs) on their premises to reduce barriers to AED accessibility
The League supports activities to develop and implement statewide integrated public safety communication
systems that facilitate interoperability and other shared uses of public safety spectrum with local state and
federal law enforcement, fire, emergency medical and other public safety agencies.
The League supports a single, efficient, performance-based state department (the California Emergency
Management Agency) to be responsible for overseeing and coordinating emergency preparedness, response,
recovery and homeland security activities.
The League supports disaster recovery legislation that includes mitigation for losses experienced by local
government.
The League's Mission Statement is "to expand and protect local control for cities through education and
advocacy to enhance the quality of life for all Californians."
In addition, the Strategic Priorities for 2012, as adopted by the League Board of Directors, are to:
1) Support Sustainable and Secure Public Employee Pensions and Benefits: Work in partnership with state
leaders and other stakeholders to promote sustainable and secure public pensions and other. post-employment
benefits (OPEBs) to help ensure responsive and affordable public services for the people of our state and
cities.
2) Promote Local Control for Strong Cities: Support or oppose legislation and proposed constitutional
amendments based on whether they advance maximum local control by city governments over city revenues,
30 land use, redevelopment and other private activities to advance the public health, safety and welfare of city
residents.
3) Build Strong Partnerships for a Stronger Golden State: Collaborate with other public and private groups
and leaders to reform the structure and governance, and promote transparency, fiscal integrity, and
responsiveness of our state government and intergovernmental system.
>>>>>>>>>>
RESOLUTION REFERRED TO REVENUE AND TAXATION POLICY COMMITTEE
•1 A RESOLUTION CALLING UPON THE GOVERNOR AND LEGISLATURE TO
ENACT LEGISLATION THAT WOULD CORRECT INEFFICIENCIES IN THE
AUDIT SYSTEM, DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM AND INEQUITIES IN THE
FORMULAS FOR DISTRIBUTING COURT ORDERED ARREST AND CITATION
FINES, FEES AND ASSESSMENTS GENERATED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
Resolution #1 also referred to Public Safety Policy Committee. Please see Public Safety
Policy Committee section for the resolution, backeround and staff analysis information.
31