06 Staff report - Annual Conference Scheduled September 5-8~pW N 0
1 cos °cat~~ COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: JULY 26, 2007
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: 8/06/2007
ITEM NO:
FROM: PAMELA S. JACOBS, INTERIM TOWN MANAGER'S "SUBJECT: APPOINT MAYOR JOE PIRZYNSKI AS THE PRIMARY VOTING
DELEGATE AND VICE MAYOR BARBARA SPECTOR, PAMELA JACOBS,
INTERIM TOWN MANAGER, AND JENNY HARUYAMA,
ADMINISTRATIVE PROGRAMS MANAGER AS THE ALTERNATE
VOTING DELEGATES FOR THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES
ANNUAL CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 5-8, 2007 IN
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
RECOMMENDATION:
Appoint Mayor Joe Pirzynski as the primary voting delegate and Vice Mayor Barbara Spector,
Pamela Jacobs, Interim Town Manager, and Jenny Haruyama, Administrative Programs
Manager as alternate voting delegates for the League of California Cities Annual Conference
scheduled for September 5-8, 2007 in Sacramento, California.
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this report is to recommend a primary and alternate voting delegate for the
League of California Cities Annual Conference, scheduled for September 5-8, 2007 in
Sacramento, California.
BACKGROUND:
Each year the League of California Cities conducts an annual conference to discuss key
legislative, social, fiscal, and service issues affecting California communities. One important
aspect of the conference(i~-,i annua business meeting where the League membership takes
PREPARED BY:
ve Programs Manager
PSJ:pg 1/
N:AMGR\JHaruyama\Staff Reports\2007 League Voting Delegates.doc
Reviewed by: Assistant Town Manager -Town Attorney
Clerk Administrator Finance Community Development
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: APPOINT MAYOR JOE PIRZYNSKI AS THE PRIMARY VOTING
DELEGATE AND VICE MAYOR BARBARA SPECTOR, PAMELA JACOBS,
INTERIM TOWN MANAGER, AND JENNY HARUYAMA,
ADMINISTRATIVE PROGRAMS MANAGER AS THE ALTERNATE
VOTING DELEGATES FOR THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES
ANNUAL CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 5-8, 2007 IN
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
July 26, 2007
action on conference resolutions (Attachment 1). Annual conference resolutions guide cities and
the League in efforts to improve the quality, responsiveness, and vitality of local government in
California.
DISCUSSION:
To expedite the annual business meeting, participating cities/towns have been asked to designate
a primary and an alternate voting representative. It has been Council's practice to appoint the
Mayor as the primary and the Vice Mayor as the alternate voting delegate.
In the event of a scheduling conflict, the Mayor recommends that Pamela Jacobs, Interim Town
Manager and Jenny Haruyama, Administrative Programs Manager serve as alternate voting
delegates. Staff has confirmed with the League that under these circumstances, it is acceptable
to designate an appointed official or staff member as an alternate voting delegate in the event that
an elected official is not available.
Attached are the proposed conference resolutions. In the past, staff has provided Council with a
resolution analysis and position recommendation when resolutions are considered to be
substantive. Staff has determined that the attached resolutions are not substantive and
recommends that the Town's voting delegate determine the Town's position based on resolution
discussion and feedback at the League Annual Business Meeting.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with the Council appointment of a primary and alternate
voting delegate for the League of California Cities Annual Conference.
Attachment:
Attachment 1: 2007 League of California Cities Resolutions
III.
LOCATION OF MEETINGS
F. jt y
Policy Committee Meetings
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Hyatt Regency Hotel (Regency Ballroom)
(Located across from the Convention Center)
1209 L Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
POLICY COMMITTEES MEETING TO CONSIDER RESOLUTIONS
REFERRED TO THEM
10:00 a.m. - Noon 12:30 - 2:30 p.m.
Community Services Administrative Services
Public Safety Housing, Community & Econ. Dev.
OTHER POLICY COMMITTEES MEETING AT THE ANNUAL CONFERENCE
Employee Relations, Environmental Quality, Revenue and Taxation
Notification will be mailed to all policy committee members.
Note: Transportation, Communication & Public Works will NOT meet at the
Annual Conference.
-46
General Resolutions Committee
Friday, September 7, 2007,1:30 p.m.
Sacramento Convention Center (Rooms 317-318)
1400 J Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
-di
Annual Business Meeting and General Assembly
Saturday, September 8, 2007, 8:30 a.m.
Hyatt Regency Hotel (Regency Ballroom)
(Located across from the Convention Center)
1209 L Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
ATTACHMENT 1
111
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
Raa - Additional amendments and refer
Da - Amend (for clarity or brevity) and
Disapprove
Na - Amend (for clarity or brevity) and take
No Action
W - Withdrawn by Sponsor
Procedural Note: Resolutions that are approved by the General Resolutions Committee, as well as all
qualified petitioned resolutions, are reported to the floor of the General Assembly. In addition, League policy
provides the following procedure for resolutions approved by League policy committees but not approved by
the General Resolutions Committee:
Resolutions initially recommended for approval and adoption by all the League policy committees to which
the resolution is assigned, but subsequently recommended for disapproval, referral or no action by the
General Resolutions Committee, shall then be placed on a consent agenda for consideration by the General
Assembly. The consent agenda shall include a brief description of the bases for the recommendations by
both the policy committee(s) and General Resolutions Committee, as well as the recommended action by
each. Any voting delegate may make a motion to pull a resolution from the consent agenda in order to
request the opportunity to fully debate the resolution. If, upon a majority vote of the General Assembly, the
request for debate is approved, the General Assembly shall have the opportunity to debate and subsequently
vote on the resolution.
v
V
2007 ANNUAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION REFERRED TO ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES POLICY COMMITTEE
1. RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE RENEWAL OF THE LEAGUE
GRASSROOTS NETWORK PROGRAM
Source: League Board of Directors
Referred to: Administrative Services Policy Committee
Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee:
WHEREAS, until 2004 the cities of California were faced with continual actions by the
legislature and the administration to take city revenues and use those revenues to counter deficits in the
state general fund; and
WHEREAS, this repeated action by the legislature and the administration seriously threatened
the ability of local government to deliver essential public services to local communities; and
WHEREAS, in 2001 the Board of Directors and membership of the League of California Cities
took actions to strengthen the effectiveness of the League and to prevent the year-after-year erosion of
local public services; and
WHEREAS, he membership of the League overwhelmingly supported the establishment of the
League's Grassroots network program and the accompanying dues increase to hire and support 15 new,
professional grassroots staff positions in the organization; and
WHEREAS, the Grassroots network program in the League has been a key factor in the League's
efforts to secure passage of Proposition lA in 2004 that placed an effective constitutional restraint
against the state continuing to take local government revenues to help meet state fiscal problems; and
WHEREAS, the League grassroots network program has been effective in other statewide ballot
measures battles including Proposition 42 in 2002, protecting transportation money for transportation
purposes; and Proposition 46 in 2002, enacting a statewide bond measure for affordable housing; and the
most recent defeat in 2006 of Proposition 90 that threatened to squander taxpayer money and negate local
land use decision-making authority; and
WHEREAS, the League grassroots network program has proven to be an effective tool in support
of the League's legislative program; and
WHEREAS, the League's grassroots network program is known as one of the preeminent
grassroots programs in the country; and
WHEREAS, Article XVH, Section 3 (c) of the League bylaws provides that the membership of
the League shall be asked to vote before December 31, 2007 on the continuation of the Grassroots
program beyond December 31, 2008; and
members and city managers were asked to complete the survey. Responses were received from 467 city
officials, a strong 31% response rate. Some of the key findings were:
• City Officials are more involved with the League than they were in 2004
• Nine in ten members rate the job the League is doing as excellent or good.
• Email is the preferred communication vehicle for receiving information on grassroots action.
• Seven in 10 respondents are familiar with their regional representative.
• Compared to five years ago, (prior to the grassroots program) 84% of respondents feel that their
efforts on pending legislation and state budget issues have become more effective.
Grassroots Activities:
In its relatively short existence, the League grassroots program has been a key element in the League's
advocacy on behalf of California's cities. Grassroots activities include:
• State Budget Deliberations. The grassroots program played a significant role in preventing
legislative efforts to prevent state takeaways of local government revenues during the 2002 state
budget process.
• Proposition 1A (2004). The grassroots program was focused on building a strong coalition of
supporting organization and community groups as well as media support for a measure to
constitutionally protect city revenues from state takeaways.
• Proposition 65 Signature Gathering. The League grassroots staff coordinated a highly
successful, volunteer signature gathering effort that qualified Proposition 65 for the 2004 general
election ballot. This measure was used to leverage the passage of the measure by the legislature
that ultimately became Proposition 1A.
• Infrastructure Bonds. The League grassroots program was also directed at both the legislative
passage of the largest infrastructure bond packages ever passed in the nation, as well as the
campaign to secure voter approval of Proposition IA-E and Proposition 84.
• No on Proposition 90 Campaign. The League's grassroots program led the field operations in
the campaign to defeat Proposition 90 on the November ballot. This measure was a destructive
proposal designed to cripple local government land use authority.
Sponsorship:
This resolution is sponsored by the Board of Directors of the League of California Cities.
RESOLUTION REFERRED TO HOUSING, COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
POLICY COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION RELATING TO APPLYING 300 FOOT DISTANCE SEPARATION
FOR ALL NEW RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES
Source: City of Los Angeles
Referred to: Housing, Community and Economic Development
Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee:
WHEREAS, the intent of existing federal and state law is to offer housing and care facility
options for the elderly, mentally and physically handicapped persons, and others in need of care in
residential surroundings. The proposed legislative amendments are not intended to place undue
restrictions on residential care facilities with six or fewer people. However, the placement of an
unlimited number of facilities within close proximity of one another could lead to an over concentration
of residential care facilities and thereby significantly alter the very residential character that these homes
are seeking; and
WHEREAS, in 2006 the League supported legislation such as Assembly Bills 3005, 3006, and
3007 (Emmerson) to provide more regulatory authority to cities regarding the location of alcohol and drug
abuse recovery treatment facilities, and increase public awareness of the location of those public facilities,
but these bills were not enacted, and it became apparent that State legislation would only be feasible in the
area of the 300 foot distance separation for certain categories of residential care facilities; and
WHEREAS, there is a growing problem of more senior residential care facilities for six or fewer
people being concentrated in neighborhoods in excessive amounts; and
WHEREAS, this problem has been aggravated by differing Health and Safety Code provisions
(see chart attached, 1500, 1520.4, 1520.5, 1527, 1566, 1568, 1569 and 11834) for differing types of
residential care facilities (alcohol or drug abuse recovery/treatment facilities; adult residential; group
homes; and residential care facilities for the elderly) for six or fewer people, all of which are regulated by
a number of State agencies, and all of which are preempted from local regulation per State and federal
law; and
WHEREAS, there is no intent to stop the creation of housing and care facilities for six or fewer
people, there is a strong need to apply one state law to all such residential care facility arrangements
fairly and equitably, and this state law is the one establishing the over-concentration formula of not siting
one such facility within 300 feet of another; while this distance threshold exists for some residential care
facilities, it does not for all of them, and therein lies a powerful aggravation of the over-concentration
situation; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities, assembled in Annual
Conference in Sacramento, September 8, 2007, that the League support state legislation to require a 300
foot distance separation for all new residential care facilities.
ail
y
it U
1.4
C
z
~ z
U
.U .U
N
U
.U
.U.
zI (z
zl 10
U ~
C/] Vl
N
.U
zl z
z1 1 z
~ w
° b[
y
~ b
C."
0
z
°
z
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
V~
CIO
C/)
cn
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
¢
'b
~
n
o
°
cqj
>
°
o
n
n
m
"
m
ca
cz
u
n
Q)
a)
v
~
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
U
~
+U•
aU+
aU+
~
+U+
,U+
aU+
N
~
~
Y
C/1
cc3+
Cf)
ctl
cn
aY
cn
«S
cn
cC
cn
cC
cn
c
C
C
O
°
z
..p
I
•
3 U
~cz
U A~
In
N
U
N
N
M
N
M
cd
O
O
O
N
N
O
00
IO
1.0
N
l-
N
~c
V
O
N
00
00
LY
°
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
d
u
v
u
i
v
z
u
u
U
U
o
~
~
a
z
v~
v~
z
v~
v~
cif
z
CA
x a
c
o
`
>1
o
a
o
U
N
U )
.
o
U
°
In
T
ti
~ rnO
° ?
M
U
W
d
°
v
v
o
a
3
n
w
.z
C~ CC
~
U N
U
U
U d
U
W
-
w
ct
cq
U
bq
b
rr
W (Uj U
~
~
c
U
x
w 42
=
°
o
-o
>
a
w Q
O
v
w
Q
°
U
°
"
0
n b
m
)
°
i m
U
~
U
v
¢
w
c
=
Z
Ca
EA
7
Background Information on Resolution #4
Source: Public Safety Policy Committee
Title: Resolution Relating to the Implementation of A.B. 38; Establishing a New "Department of
Emergency Services and Homeland Security"
LEAGUE
- OF CALIFORNIA
y CITIES
SACRAMENTO
STATE
MAY 2°d, 2007
Subject: Discussion Paper: An Assessment of Collaborative Challenges and Possibilities for Emergency Services
and Homeland Security at the Local Level
Dear Mr. Henry Renteria, Director, Governor's Office of Emergency Services:
We are pleased to submit to you an advance copy of our Discussion Paper: An Assessment of Collaborative
Challenges and Possibilities for Emergency Services and Homeland Security at the Local Level. It was prepared by
the Center for Collaborative Policy, California State University, Sacramento (CCP) in collaboration with the Institute
for Local Government's Collaborative Governance Initiative (ILG). The California State Association of Counties
(CSAC) and the League of California Cities (LCC) have recently joined in partnership with CCP and ILG to address
the topics and findings outlined in the Discussion Paper. It reports the results of a focus group of expert participants
involved with state and local emergency management and homeland security programs, with subsequent interviews
completed in 2006. CCP and ILG facilitated this process. Drafts of the Discussion Paper were reviewed by all expert
participants.
The purpose of this Discussion Paper is to help state and local governments better address the complexities of
emergency services and homeland security through the use of the emerging and relevant tools of collaborative
planning, management and problem solving, multi-stakeholder consensus building, and strategies for public
involvement. While this assessment does not evaluate a specific program, it presents expert participants' insights on
where public participation and collaborative techniques have potential to support the challenges faced by state and
local emergency managers. The CCP/ILG paper also presents the recommendations drawn from these insights. The
goal is to provide a basis for interested organizations to discuss how to respond the identified challenges
Because many of the items outlined in the Discussion Paper address intergovernmental coordination, we feel it is
important that your agency be aware of its findings and take part in meaningful discussion of its recommendations.
Please take the opportunity to review the paper and its findings. Our organizations hope to meet with you to discuss
the possibility of next steps for the paper's recommendations and to strategize how to move forward with its public
release. A follow-up contact will be made in the near future to explore opportunities for a joint meeting. In the
meantime, please feel free to contact Adam Sutkus, Senior Mediator & Project Manager at CCP: 916.323.8409.
Thank you for taking time to review the Discussion Paper. Our organizations look forward to beginning a
conversation with you on ways we can work together to improve emergency services and homeland security at the
local level.
Sincerely,
Lisa Beutler
Associate Director
~7e'nter for
Collaborative Policy
JoAnne Speers
Executive Director
Institute for Local
Government
Steve Keil
Interim Executive Director
S_t~ r~
California State
Association of Counties
9
Chris McKenzie
Executive Director
League of California
Cities