Loading...
Attachment 1 Annual Conference Resolutions Packet 2017 Annual Conference Resolutions Sacramento, California September 13 – 15, 2017 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, two resolutions have been introduced for consideration by the Annual Conference and referred to the League policy committees. POLICY COMMITTEES: One policy committee will meet at the Annual Conference to consider and take action on the resolutions referred to it. The committee is Public Safety. The committee will meet from 9:00 – 11:00 a.m. on Wednesday, September 13, at the Hyatt Regency. The sponsors of the resolutions have been notified of the time and location of the meeting. GENERAL RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE: This committee will meet at 1:00 p.m. on Thursday, September 14, at the Hyatt Regency in Sacramento, to consider the report of the policy committee regarding the 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 12:30 p.m. on Friday, September 15, at the Sacramento 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 Meeting of the General Assembly. This year, that deadline is 12:30 p.m., Thursday, September 14. 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 1 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 is through the League’s seven 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 principles 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). 2 LOCATION OF MEETINGS Policy Committee Meetings Wednesday, September 13 Hyatt Regency Sacramento 1209 L Street, Sacramento 9:00 – 11:00 a.m.: Public Safety General Resolutions Committee Thursday, September 14, 1:00 p.m. Hyatt Regency Sacramento 1209 L Street, Sacramento Annual Business Meeting and General Assembly Luncheon Friday, September 15, 12:30 p.m. Sacramento Convention Center 1400 J Street, Sacramento 3 KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN ON RESOLUTIONS Resolutions have been grouped by policy committees to which they have been assigned. Number Key Word Index Reviewing Body Action 1 2 3 1 - Policy Committee Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee 2 - General Resolutions Committee 3 - General Assembly PUBLIC SAFETY POLICY COMMITTEE 1 2 3 1 Implement Strategies to Reduce Negative Impacts of Recent Changes to Criminal Laws 2 Local Control for Emergency Medical Response Information pertaining to the Annual Conference Resolutions will also be posted on each committee’s page on the League website: www.cacities.org. The entire Resolutions Packet will be posted at: www.cacities.org/resolutions. 4 KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN ON RESOLUTIONS (Continued) Resolutions have been grouped by policy committees to which they have been assigned. 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 a Amend+ * Subject matter covered in another resolution Aa Approve as amended+ ** Existing League policy Aaa Approve with additional amendment(s)+ *** Local authority presently exists Ra 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: The League of California Cities resolution process at the Annual Conference is guided by the League Bylaws. A helpful explanation of this process can be found on the League’s website by clicking on this link: Resolution Process. 5 2017 ANNUAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION REFERRED TO PUBLIC SAFETY POLICY COMMITTEE 1. A RESOLUTION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES CALLING UPON THE GOVERNOR AND LEGISLATURE TO ENTER INTO DISCUSSION WITH LEAGUE AND OTHER PUBLIC SAFETY STAKEHOLDERS TO IDENTIFY AND IMPLEMENT STRATEGIES THAT WILL REDUCE THE UNINTENDED NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF EXISTING CRIMINAL LAW Source: City of Whittier Concurrence of five or more cities/city officials: Cities: La Mirada; Lakewood; Monrovia; Pico Rivera; Rolling Hills; Santa Fe Springs; and South Gate Referred to: Public Safety Policy Committee Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee: WHEREAS, during the past several years, State legislative changes have made fundamental alterations to the fabric of California’s criminal justice system. Many of those changes have been needed and necessary, as not all crimes should be punished with jail sentences; and WHEREAS, California cities, counties, and the State, however, are facing increased crime which endangers the health and safety of police officers, residents, business owners, and property due to some of these legislative changes which created a situation where violent and career criminals are serving little to no prison time; and WHEREAS, negative impacts from State legislative changes have been far reaching and crime rates and the number of victims are skyrocketing throughout California. The negative impacts of these laws were unintended when voters and legislators approved the laws, which were instead intended to help lower the prison population in California prisons and appropriately rehabilitate non-violent offenders; and WHEREAS, incentives for offenders to voluntarily enroll in substance abuse programs have diminished, which has had the effect of eroding the safety of our communities; and WHEREAS, AB 109 transferred nearly 45,000 felons from the State prison system to local jail facilities, which were not designed to house criminals on a long-term basis and were unprepared for such an increase in incarcerations, resulting in lower-level criminals being released early, directly impacting rising property crime rates throughout the State; and WHEREAS, many probationers who have severe mental illness are released into communities where they continue to commit crimes that adversely impact the safety of community members and drain the resources of probation departments and police departments throughout the state; and 6 WHEREAS, Proposition 47, The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, downgraded a number of serious crimes from felonies to misdemeanors—drug possession, repeated shoplifting, forging checks, gun theft, and possession of date-rape drugs; and WHEREAS, Proposition 57 categorizes rape by intoxication, rape of an unconscious person, human trafficking involving sex with minors, drive-by shooting, assault with a deadly weapon, domestic violence, hate crime causing physical injury, and corporal injury to a child as “non-violent” felonies and offenders convicted of violating such laws are able to avoid appropriate prison sentences; and WHEREAS, under Proposition 57, criminals who commit multiple crimes against multiple victims will be eligible for release at the same time as offenders who only committed a single crime against a single victim and allows repeat criminals to be eligible for release after the same period of incarceration as first time offenders; and WHEREAS, cities must join together to voice their concerns for these legislative changes that have created an adverse impact on the safety of residents and businesses in local communities. NOW, THEFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities, assembled in Sacramento on September 15, 2017, to: 1. Direct League staff to consider creating a task force with other organizations and jointly commission a report on the unintended negative impacts of recent and future criminal law based on appropriate documentation by local agencies to identify necessary changes, working with key stakeholders to promote support for resulting advocacy efforts. 2. Promote an amendment of appropriate sections of AB 109 to change the criteria justifying the release of non-violent, non-serious, non-sex offender inmates to include their total criminal and mental health history instead of only their last criminal conviction. 3. Continue to advocate to place into law that for the purposes of Section 32 of Article I of the California Constitution, a violent offense includes any of the following: • Murder or voluntary manslaughter. • Mayhem. • Rape. • Sodomy by force, violence, duress, menace, or threat of great bodily harm. • Oral copulation by force, violence, duress, menace, or threat of great bodily harm. • Lewd acts on a child under the age of 14 years. • Any felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state prison for life. • Any other felony in which the defendant inflicts great or serious bodily injury on any person, other than an accomplice, that has been charged and proven, or any felony in which the defendant uses a firearm which use has been charged and proven. • Attempted murder. • Assault with intent to commit rape or robbery. 7 • Assault with a deadly weapon or instrument on a peace officer. • Assault by a life prisoner on a non-inmate. • Assault with a deadly weapon by an inmate. • Arson. • Exploding a destructive device or any explosive with intent to injure. • Exploding a destructive device or any explosive causing great bodily injury. • Exploding a destructive device or any explosive with intent to murder. • Robbery. • Kidnapping. • Taking of a hostage by an inmate of a state prison. • Attempt to commit a felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state prison for life. • Any felony in which the defendant personally used a dangerous or deadly weapon. • Escape from a state prison by use of force or violence. • Assault with a deadly weapon. • Extortion as defined in Penal Code section 518, or threats to victims or witnesses as defined in Penal Code section 136.1, which would constitute a felony violation of Penal Code section 186.22. • Carjacking. • Discharge of a firearm at an inhabited dwelling, vehicle, or aircraft. • Throwing acid or flammable substances with intent to injure. • Continuous sexual abuse of a child. 4. Request the State to improve the Smart Justice platform to provide an effective statewide data sharing to allow state and local law enforcement agencies to rapidly and efficiently share offender information to assist in tracking and monitoring the activities of AB 109 and other offenders. 5. Encourage the collection and organization of real world data from cities and counties on the universe of post-release community supervision (PRCS) offenders. 6. Encourage cities throughout California to join in these advocacy efforts to mitigate the unintended negative impacts of recent policy changes to the criminal justice system. 7. Call for the Governor and the Legislature to work with the League and others stakeholders to consider and implement such criminal justice system reforms. ////////// 8 Background Information on Resolution No. 1 Source: City of Whittier Background: During the past several years, State legislative changes have made fundamental alterations to the fabric of California’s criminal justice system. Some changes have been needed, as not all crimes should be punished with jail sentences. These changes included AB 109 as well as Propositions 47 and 57. Approved in 2011, AB 109 was approved, transferring nearly 45,000 felons from the State prison system to local jail systems, resulting in lower-level criminals being released early. Then, Proposition 47, so called The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, was approved by California voters in 2014. It reclassified and downgraded a number of serious crimes from felonies to misdemeanors. Similarly, Proposition 57, called The Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act, was approved by voters in 2016 and allows the State to provide for the release of up to 30,000 criminals convicted of “non-violent” felonies, including rape by intoxication, driveby shooting, human trafficking involving sex act with minors, assault with a deadly weapon, to name a few. Additionally, under Prop 57 repeat criminals are eligible for release after the same period of incarceration as first time offenders. Now, California cities and counties are facing increasing crime rates which are being connected to these legislative actions which created a situation where violent and career criminals are serving little to no prison time while low-level offenders commit multiple crimes with limited consequences. This increasing level of crime endangers the health and safety of our residents, police officers, and property. Negative impacts from these State legislative changes have been far reaching, and crime rates and the number of victims are increasing throughout California. The negative impacts of these laws were unintended when voters and legislators approved the laws, which were instead intended to help lower the prison population in California prisons and appropriately rehabilitate non-violent offenders. As an example, the Public Policy Institute of California reports since 2015: • California has experienced an uptick in overall crime • Property crime is up 145%, violent crime up 54% • One in four Californians view violence and street crime in their community as a substantial problem • Arrests dropped 31% for property crimes and 68% for drug offenses (due to Prop. 47) • The report concludes auto theft increase is a direct result of AB109 To make matters even worse, during the past two years we’ve seen officers shot, wounded and killed in communities throughout California including Whittier, Downey, Lancaster, Palm Springs, San Diego, Stanislaus County, and Modoc County. Further, the number of U.S. police officers killed in the line of duty hit a five-year high in 2016. The National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund’s preliminary report shows that this year's 135 fatalities were a 10% increase over the 123 officers who died in the line of duty last year. 9 When taken together the increases in crime in our communities and reductions in arrests for many crimes plus violent attacks against police officers underscores the need for a call to action amongst California’s state and local leaders. This conference resolution is an important first step and seeks to initiate both a dialogue as well as actions to begin reforming California’s criminal justice system by requesting that League staff analyze the negative impacts of recent criminal law, identify necessary changes, and work with stakeholders to promote support for such advocacy efforts. The resolution also calls on the Governor, Legislature, cities, and other stakeholders to work together toward reforms. The resolution contains three specific reforms: 1. Address Issues with AB 109 The conference resolution promotes the amendment of appropriate sections of AB 109 to change the criteria justifying the release of non-violent, non-serious, non-sex offender inmates to include their total criminal and mental health history instead of only their last criminal conviction. 2. Revise the Definition of Violent Crime The resolution calls for the League to advocate to place into law for the purposes of Section 32 of Article I of the California Constitution, a violent offense includes any of the following crimes: • Murder or voluntary manslaughter • Mayhem • Rape • Sodomy by force, violence, duress, menace, or threat of great bodily harm • Oral copulation by force, violence, duress, menace, or threat of great bodily harm • Lewd acts on a child under the age of 14 years • Any felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state prison for life • Any other felony in which the defendant inflicts great or serious bodily injury on any person, other than an accomplice, that has been charged and proven, or any felony in which the defendant uses a firearm which use has been charged and proven • Attempted murder • Assault with intent to commit rape or robbery • Assault with a deadly weapon or instrument on a peace officer • Assault by a life prisoner on a non-inmate • Assault with a deadly weapon by an inmate • Arson • Exploding a destructive device or any explosive with intent to injure • Exploding a destructive device or any explosive causing great bodily injury • Exploding a destructive device or any explosive with intent to murder • Robbery • Kidnapping • Taking of a hostage by an inmate of a state prison 10 • Attempt to commit a felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state prison for life • Any felony in which the defendant personally used a dangerous or deadly weapon • Escape from a state prison by use of force or violence • Assault with a deadly weapon • Extortion as defined in Penal Code section 518, or threats to victims or witnesses as defined in Penal Code section 136.1, which would constitute a felony violation of Penal Code section 186.22 • Carjacking • Discharge of a firearm at an inhabited dwelling, vehicle, or aircraft. • Throwing acid or flammable substances with intent to injure. • Continuous sexual abuse of a child. 3. Data Sharing The resolution requests the State to improve the Smart Justice platform to provide an effective statewide data sharing to allow state and local law enforcement agencies to rapidly and efficiently share offender information to assist in tracking and monitoring the activities of AB 109 and other offenders. ////////// League of California Cities Staff Analysis on Resolution No. 1 Staff: Tim Cromartie Committee: Public Safety Summary: This Resolution seeks to address increases in crime in the wake of AB 109 (2011), Proposition 47 (2014), which reclassified a host of felony offenses as misdemeanors, and Proposition 57 (2016), which revised the rules of parole for what are designated “non-violent” offenders under the California Penal Code, but in fact comprise a number of criminal acts that are violent in nature, or may be committed to facilitate a violent outcome (for example, discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle). This Resolution would direct staff to seek legislation expanding the term “violent felony” as defined in the California Penal Code; to tighten the criteria for the release of non-violent, non- serious, non-sex offender inmates; to mandate consideration of an inmate’s entire criminal history as part of the deliberations involving whether to grant in individual parole; and to consider creation of a task force that would be charged with issuing a report recommending further changes in law, and supported by documentation collected by local agencies and other key stakeholders. 11 Background: Since 2011, changes in state law, starting with AB 109, altered the fabric of California’s criminal justice system. In 2011, AB 109 began to shift nearly 45,000 felons from the state prison system to local county jails. Prior to AB 109, many of California’s more heavily populated counties already had jail systems that were operating under court-ordered or self-imposed population caps. As a result, AB 109 implementation triggered changes in that county jails experienced over time an influx of a rougher class of offender, and many lower level petty criminals committing new offenses were simply booked and released, serving no jail time at all. Proposition 47 followed in 2014, reclassifying a host of felony offenses as misdemeanors and increasing the threshold amount for a felony charge of grand theft from $450.00 to $900.00. The effect of this change was to significantly stimulate the volume of petty theft, shoplifting, auto theft, and organized retail theft (shoplifting involving multiple persons with cell phones, designated getaway drivers, and a pre-determined escape route often involving a short trip to a major highway). Proposition 57, approved by voters in 2016, facilitates the potential early release of a large number of “non-violent” offenders by providing that inmates are eligible for parole once they have served 100% of their base sentence, without regard to any time served as a result of any sentencing enhancements. The universe of “non-violent” offenders could include individuals who have committed the following offenses: rape by intoxication, attempted drive-by shooting, assault with a deadly weapon, throwing acid with the intent to disfigure, to name but a few offenses. Since current law defines a “non-violent offender” based on the individual’s most recent commitment offense, even if the individual is a repeat offender, the State Parole Board must still consider that person’s parole application. This state of affairs includes factors such as a higher proportion of offenders at large on our city streets, many of whom have had little in the way of rehabilitation programming while incarcerated, some with drug habits, who are more violent now that when initially incarcerated. Unless they engage in major illegal activity (murder, rape, arson, armed robbery), the available sanctions for any violations they commit, such as flash incarceration, i.e. temporary incarceration for 48-72 hours in a city or county jail, scarcely provide a meaningful deterrent to further criminal activity. Communities in California are now facing increasing crime rates which can be linked to these recent legislative changes, which probation officers and local law enforcement are struggling to monitor and contain a situation in which a dramatically increase universe of offenders are at large in our communities. The Public Policy Institute of California reports that since 2015: • California has experienced an increase in overall crime • Property crime is up 145% • Violent crime is up 54% • One in four Californians view violence and street crime in their community as a substantial problem • Arrests dropped 31% for property crimes and 68% for drug offenses (due to Prop. 47) • The report concludes auto theft increase is a direct result of AB 109 12 Support: Cities of La Mirada, Lakewood, Monrovia, Pico Rivera, Rolling Hills, Santa Fe Springs, and South Gate Opposition: None received. Fiscal Impact: The collective and cumulative effect of the current criminal justice policies has led to increased pressure on county general funds for increased resources for probation supervision and incarceration in county jails, as well as identical pressure on municipal general funds related to increased law enforcement activity and in some areas, increased emergency medical services calls. Should the objectives outlined by the resolution be achieved, those pressures will be alleviated to a significant but undetermined amount. Comment: This measure is a response to a trend of rapidly mounting frustration among cities beset by calls for more law enforcement resources as a result of ongoing, sustained criminal activity. There is a growing sense among law enforcement professionals and local elected officials that current policies which have reduced criminal penalties, reclassified felonies as misdemeanors and facilitated what amounts to early release of many offenders who are not truly non-violent, will in time result in a high-profile tragedy involving significant loss of life. Existing League Policy: In regard to incarceration policy, the League supports stiffer penalties for violent offenders. In 2014, the League joined the California Police Chiefs in opposing Proposition 47, which reduces sentencing penalties for specified non-serious and non-violent drug and property crimes. It directed that the following offenses would be treated as misdemeanors, in most instances irrespective of the circumstances: • Commercial Burglary • Forgery • Passing Bad Checks • Grand Theft • Receipt of Stolen Property • Petty Theft with a Prior Offense • Drug Possession In 2013, the League Board of Directors approved a resolution pertaining to AB 109 (2011), which implemented Public Safety Realignment and brought significant changes to the state’s incarceration policy. Specifically, it provided that specified categories of felony offenders previously sentenced to state prison, would prospectively be sentenced to terms in county jails. The League’s Resolution had two significant components relevant to this resolution: 1) It urged the Governor’s office to adjust the implementation of Public Safety Realignment so that the criteria examined to evaluate the appropriateness of release of non-violent, non-serious, non-sex offender inmates would include their total criminal and mental 13 history, instead of merely the most recent criminal conviction for which they are currently committed; and 2) It urged the Governor’s office to expedite the development of an effective statewide data sharing mechanism allowing state and local law enforcement agencies too rapidly and efficiently share offender information to assist in tracking and monitoring the activities of AB 109 and other offenders. Finally, the League in 2016 opposed Proposition 57, which altered rules for parole eligibility for non-violent felons, potentially facilitating parole before an individual has served any time toward a sentencing enhancement, and ushered in new rules for good time behavior seeking to incentivize inmates to undergo rehabilitation programming of an educational/vocational nature. RESOLUTION REFERRED TO PUBLIC SAFETY POLICY COMMITTEE 2. A RESOLUTION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES SUPPORTING LEGISLATION AMENDING GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 38611 TO CLARIFY THE DEFINITION OF LOCAL CONTROL PROVIDING BROAD STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR LOCAL OFFICIALS TO DETERMINE EMERGENCY SERVICE LEVELS AND DIRECT EMERGENCY MEDICAL RESPONSE WITHIN THEIR JURISDICTIONS Source: City of Tracy Concurrence of five or more cities/city officials: Cities: Lathrop, Lodi, Manteca, Stockton, and Consumnes Fire Department (Cities of Elk Grove and Galt) Referred to: Public Safety Policy Committee Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee: WHEREAS, Government Code Section 38611 was last amended in 1957 and does not contain language clarifying the broad scope of emergency services as provided by present day fire departments; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 38611 requires further definition for general law and charter cities in determining service levels for the delivery of emergency services commensurate with the resources provided by the local government body; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 7 of Article XI of the California Constitution, municipal governments are vested with police power which imposes on the responsibility to protect public safety and public health and municipal governments must provide or contract for fire and/or emergency medical services; and WHEREAS, the local provision of fire protection services, rescue services, emergency medical services, hazardous material emergency response services, ambulance services, and other services relating to the protection of lives and property is critical to the public peace, health, and safety of the state; and 14 WHEREAS, local fire and/or emergency medical services are financed by local taxpayers and the availability and use of such services is determined by the local governing body of the jurisdiction to which services are directly provided; and WHEREAS, amending Government Code Section 38611 would provide the chief of a fire department specific authority to protect public safety and public health within the jurisdictional boundaries of the fire department. RESOLVED, that the League of California Cities General Assembly, assembled at the League Annual Conference on September 15, 2017 in Sacramento, calls for the Governor and the Legislature to work with the League and other stakeholders to amend Government Code Section 38611 clarifying the definition of local control, providing broad statutory authority for local officials to determine emergency service levels and direct emergency medical response within their jurisdictions. ////////// Background Information on Resolution No. 2 Source: City of Tracy Background: In 1980, the State Legislature enacted the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Act in response to the development of paramedic services and a concern that there was a lack of medical oversight and coordination of emergency medical services. The EMS Act contains 100 different provisions in nine separate chapters of the California Health and Safety Code. The EMS Act created a two-tiered system that established a State EMS Agency to coordinate state-wide EMS activities and to develop state-wide minimum EMS policies and a local tier (Local EMS Agency) to plan, implement and evaluate an EMS System. The statute also includes language that establishes “The medical direction and management of an emergency medical services system shall be under the medical control of the medical director of the local EMS Agency.” In each county, the local EMS Agency sets local EMS policy, administers and provides medical oversight for cities and special fire districts to deliver EMS services within the county. In the late 1970’s, as the EMS Act was being developed, the League of California Cities weighed heavily concerning the impact of the proposed EMS Act on cities. The League of California Cities argued against depriving a city of local control over EMS service levels. The League of California Cities wrote, “We believe (local control) is important because city taxpayers financially support (EMS) programs and city management is responsible for their efficient utilization. The city council is responsible for the level of service and the cost of the program, wholly unrelated to the medical questions.” Based on that argument, additional language was included in the EMS policy that allowed local agencies that were providing EMS service to continue (and even obligated) them to continue to provide EMS services at the same levels as prior to 1980. This addition to the EMS Act (Section 1797.201 – became known as “201 15 Rights”) has been very controversial and has led to several lawsuits between cities/special districts and local EMS Agencies. The City of Tracy in San Joaquin County has become the epicenter on the issue of local control as it relates to who has the authority to determine which resources will respond to medical emergencies. Several incidents have been noted where poor patient outcomes were the result of a failed county policy (SJCEMS Agency Policy 3202) that restricts local fire departments from responding to “low-level” emergencies. The EMS policy decisions within San Joaquin County have potential implications on every local community within the state of California and increasingly threaten local control. Proposed Amendment The proposed amendment to Government Code Section 38611 would clarify local control and allow the local governing bodies to determine which services are directly provided within their respective jurisdictions. The existing law is extremely limited in scope having been last amended in 1957, at a time when fire departments did not routinely provide many of the specialized services of today. Changes in services provided include but are not limited to hazardous materials response, specialized rescue, and emergency medical services. The amendment aims to support the long-standing tradition in California of local control over the types, levels, and availability of these services. ///////// League of California Cities Staff Analysis on Resolution No. 2 Staff: Tim Cromartie Committee: Public Safety Summary: This resolution calls for the Governor and the Legislature to work with the League and other stakeholders to amend Government Code Section 38611 clarifying the definition of local control, providing broad statutory authority for local officials to determine emergency service levels and direct emergency medical response within their jurisdictions. Background: In 1980, the State Legislature enacted the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Act in response to the development of paramedic services and a concern that there was a lack of medical oversight and coordination of emergency medical services. The EMS Act contains 100 different provisions in nine separate chapters of the California Health and Safety Code. The EMS Act created a two-tiered system that established a State EMS Agency to coordinate state-wide EMS activities and to develop state-wide minimum EMS policies and a local tier (Local EMS Agency) to plan, implement and evaluate an EMS System. The statute also includes language that establishes “The medical direction and management of an emergency medical services system shall be under the medical control of the medical director 16 of the local EMS Agency.” In each county, the local EMS Agency sets local EMS policy, administers and provides medical oversight for cities and special fire districts to deliver EMS services within the county. In the late 1970’s, as the EMS Act was being developed, the League of California Cities weighed heavily concerning the impact of the proposed EMS Act on cities. The League argued against depriving a city of local control over EMS service levels. The League wrote, “We believe (local control) is important because city taxpayers financially support (EMS) programs and city management is responsible for their efficient utilization. The city council is responsible for the level of service and the cost of the program, wholly unrelated to the medical questions.” Based on that argument, additional language was included in the EMS policy that allowed local agencies that were providing EMS service to continue (and even obligated) them to continue to provide EMS services at the same levels as prior to 1980. This addition to the EMS Act (Section 1797.201 – became known as “201 Rights”) has been very controversial and has led to several lawsuits between cities/special districts and local EMS Agencies. The City of Tracy in San Joaquin County has become one of the epicenters on the issue of local control as it relates to who has the authority to determine which resources will respond to medical emergencies. Several incidents have been noted where poor patient outcomes have been attributed by some observers to a county policy (SJCEMS Agency Policy 3202) that restricts local fire departments from responding to “low-level” emergencies. The EMS policy decisions within San Joaquin County have potential implications on every local community within the state of California and increasingly threaten local control. Support: Cities of Lathrop, Lodi, Manteca, City of Stockton, and Consumnes Fire Department (Cities of Elk Grove and Galt) Opposition: None received. Fiscal Impact: This resolution, if its directive can be achieved, will have no direct fiscal impact on cities. It will however, provide an atmosphere in which cities that have invested significant resources in building up and maintaining an independent EMS capability can have confidence that it will be deployed as intended. Comment: While this resolution calls for very specific action to clarify the rules governing emergency medical services, ideally it would be more generally worded to allow greater flexibility in pursuing legislative and other solutions to a problem that has existed for decades, spawning both legislation and multiple incidents of litigation. However, it accurately expresses the legitimate frustration of cities in their efforts to provide emergency medical services (EMS) while abiding by the directives of their local emergency medical services authorities (LEMSA’s), which are county entities. Counties have broad 17 discretion under existing case law in how they administer EMS under the doctrine of medical control. To the degree there is dissatisfaction on the part of cities within a given county or counties, the following should be noted: 1) A task force convened by the California Emergency Medical Services Authority, the state entity with jurisdiction over this subject matter, made significant headway in crafting regulations governing the provision of ground emergency medical transport -- until disputes over local control and the criteria under which a local (municipal) agency could lay claim to the exclusive right to provide EMS in a specific operating area led to a lawsuit being filed by the California Fire Chiefs Association. That suit effectively suspended the work of the Task Force. 2) Over the past two decades, multiple attempts at legislation to resolve this issue have been tried, most without success. It was in part the multiple attempts at legislation that triggered the formation of the above-referenced task force. Existing League Policy: The League supports the fire service mission of saving lives and protecting property through fire prevention, disaster preparedness, hazardous-materials mitigation, specialized rescue, etc. as well as cities’ authority and discretion to provide all emergency services to their communities. The League supports and strives to ensure local control of emergency medical services by authorizing cities and fire districts to prescribe and monitor the manner and scope of pre-hospital emergency medical services, including transport through ambulance services, all provided within local boundaries for the purpose of improving the level of pre-hospital emergency medical service. The League supports legislation to provide the framework for a solution to longstanding conflict between cities, counties, the fire service and LEMSA’s particularly by local advisory committees to review and approve the EMS plan and to serve as an appeals body. Conflicts over EMS governance may be resolved if stakeholders are able to participate in EMS system design and evaluation and if complainants are given a fair and open hearing. The League opposes legislation, regulations and standards that impose minimum staffing and response time standards for city fire and EMS services since such determinations should reflect the conditions and priorities of individual cities. The League supports Emergency 911 systems to ensure cities and counties are represented on decisions affecting emergency response. 18 LETTERS OF CONCURRENCE Resolution No. 1 Implement Strategies to Reduce Negative Impacts of Recent Changes to Criminal Laws 19 20 21 2 2         July 12, 2017 General Resolutions Committee League of California Cities 1400 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: 2017 Conference Resolution Strategies to Improve Negative Impacts of Criminal Law Notice of Support Dear Committee: The City of Pico Rivera supports the League of California Cities Annual Conference Resolution calling on the Governor and Legislature to enter into discussion with the League and other public safety stakeholders to identify and implement strategies that will improve the unintended negative impacts of existing criminal law. The City of Pico Rivera has seen increases in property crime that may have resulted from a combination of legislative actions and voter-approved initiatives. Following are some specific impacts provided by the Pico Rivera Sheriff’s Department: Part I crimes Robbery is up 10.26% in 2017 compared to 2016 Larceny Theft is up 4.09% in 2017 compared to 2016 Part II crimes Weapon Law is up 9.68% in 2017 compared to 2016 Felony Transport & or Sales of controlled substance (except Marijuana) is up 44.44% compared to 2016 Misdemeanor Possession of a Controlled Substance (excluding Marijuana) is up 56.06% compared to 2016 Under the influence of Narcotic is up 28.57% in 2017 compared to 2016 The proposed annual conference resolution seeks to turn around these negative impacts from existing criminal law and considers proactive measures that could reduce such impacts. (562) 801‐4379  Web: www.pico‐rivera.org ∙ e‐mail: rbobadilla@pico‐rivera.org  23 24 2 5 2 6 William K. Rounds, Mayor • Jay Sarno, Mayor Pro Tem City Council Richard J. Moore • Juanita Trujillo • Joe Angel Zamora City Manager Thaddeus McCormack July 11, 2017 General Resolutions Committee League of California Cities 1400 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: 2017 Conference Resolution Strategies to Improve Negative Impacts of Criminal Law Notice of Support Dear Committee: The City of Santa Fe Springs supports the League of California Cities Annual Conference Resolution calling on the Governor and Legislature to enter into discussion with the League and other public safety stakeholders to identify and implement strategies that will improve the unintended negative impacts of existing criminal law. The City of Santa Fe Springs has seen increases in property crime that may have resulted from a combination of legislative actions and voter-approved initiatives. In addition, the City of Santa Fe Springs contracts with the Whittier Police Department for Law Enforcement Services. In February, Whittier Police Department Officer Keith Boyer was gunned down by a AB 109 offender in a heinous act of indiscrimate violence. We feel strongly that AB 109 and the loosening of oversight and control over recidivist offenders was atleast partially responsible in Officer Boyer’s death. We believe that the proposed annual conference resolution seeks to turn around these negative impacts from existing criminal law and considers proactive measures that could reduce such impacts. The resolution directs League staff to consider creating a task force with other organizations and jointly commission a report on the unintended negative impacts of recent criminal law to identify necessary changes, working with key stakeholders to promote support for resulting advocacy efforts. The resolution also promotes an amendment of appropriate sections of AB 109 to change the criteria justifying the release of non-violent, non-serious, non-sex offender inmates to include their total criminal and mental health history instead of only their last criminal conviction. It encourages continued advocacy to make “violent offenses” include crimes that meet the plain language definition of “violent”. The resolution further asks the State to improve the Smart Justice platform to allow state and local law enforcement agencies to rapidly share information to track offenders, and encourages data collection on post-release community supervision offenders. 27 William K. Rounds, Mayor • Jay Sarno, Mayor Pro Tem City Council Richard J. Moore • Juanita Trujillo • Joe Angel Zamora City Manager Thaddeus McCormack July 10, 2017 Page 2 2017 Conference Resolution The passage of this resolution would provide a range of important reforms that would enhance public safety in our community. For these reasons, the City of Santa Fe Springs strongly supports this resolution to strategically address criminal justice reforms. Sincerely, William K. Rounds, Mayor City of Santa Fe Springs 28 2 9 LETTERS OF CONCURRENCE Resolution No. 2 Local Control for Emergency Medical Response 30 31 32 CITY COUNCIL DOUG KUEHNE, Mayor ALAN NAKANISHI, Mayor Pro Tempore MARK CHANDLER BOB JOHNSON JOANNE MOUNCE CITY OF LODI CITY HALL, 221 WEST PINE STREET P.O. BOX 3006 LODt, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910 (209) 333-6702 t FAX (209) 333-6807 www.lodi.qov citvclerk@lodi.qov July 19,2017 The Honorable JoAnne Mounce, President League of California Cities 1400 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE RESOLUTION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES SUPPORTING LEG¡SLAT|ON AMENDING GC 5386ll TO CLARIFY DEFINITION OF LOCAL CONTROL PROVIDING BROAD STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR LOCAL OFFICIALS TO DETERMINE EMERGENCY SERVICE LEVELS AND DIRECT EMERGENCY MEDICAL RESPONSE WITHIN THEIR JURISDICTIONS The City of Lodi supports the proposed resolution to support legislation amending Government Code 538611 to clarify the definition of local control providing broad statutory authority for local officials to determine emergency service levels and direct emergency medical response within their jurisdictions. Accordingly, we concur in the submission of the resolution for consideration by the League of California Cities General Assembly at its annual meeting on September 15, 2017. Government Code Section 38611 does not contain language clarifying the broad scope of emergency services as provided by present day fire departments. The code requires further definition for general law and charter cities in determining service levels for the delivery of emergency services commensurate with the resources provided by the local government body. Amending Government Code Section 38611 would provide the chief of a fire department specific authority to protect public safety and public health within the jurisdictional boundaries of the fire department. The City of Lodi is in strong support of providing statutory authority for local officials to determine emergency service levels and direct emergency medical response within their jurisdictions. Since rely, Doug STEPHEN SCHWABAUER City Manager JENNIFER M. FERRAIOLO CitY Clerk JANICE D. MAGDICH City Attorney ne Mayor,ity of Lodi DIIJMF cc: Larry Rooney, Fire Chief, City of Lodi Randall Bradley, City of Tracy, randall. bradlev@ci.tracy. ca. us Stephen Qualls, League of California Cities, squalls(ôcacities.orq N:\Administration\CLERK\Councit\CORRESP\LETTERS\lemergencyservices2.doc 33 34 July 13, 2017 The Honorable JoAnne Mounce, President League of California Cities 1400 K Street Sacramento, CA 95814 SUBJECT: Resolution of the League of California Cities Supporting Legislation Providing Broad Statutory Authority for Local Officials to Determine Emergency Service Levels - SUPPORT Dear President Mounce, On behalf of the City of Stockton, I wish to voice our support of the City of Tracy proposed resolution for consideration by League membership. Stockton supports this resolution for the following reasons: 1) The City of Stockton Legislative Program seeks the broadest authority for the City Council to make decisions locally, particularly related to the local exercise of police powers; 2) The City of Stockton Legislative Program advocates for efforts that impact the City’s ability to enhance the well-being, quality of life, health, and safety of residents; 3) The City of Stockton has experienced challenges and frustrations in delivering the highest quality of emergency medical services to our residents due to provision of the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Act. 4) Amendments to the EMS Act would clarify local control and allow governing bodies to determine which services are directly provided within their respective jurisdictions. For these reasons, the City of Stockton concurs with and supports the City of Tracy proposed resolution for consideration by League membership. MICHAEL TUBBS MAYOR MT:cc cc: Stockton City Councilmembers Kurt Wilson, Stockton City Manager MICHAEL TUBBS Mayor ELBERT HOLMAN Vice Mayor District 1 DAN WRIGHT District 2 SUSAN LOFTHUS District 3 SUSAN LENZ District 4 CHRISTINA FUGAZI District 5 JESÚS ANDRADE District 6 OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY HALL  425 N. El Dorado Street  Stockton, CA 95202 209 / 937-8244  Fax 209 / 937-8568 35