8 - Delegates for League of California Cities Annual Conference.~Qw N~ aF
,. //~.a
~.'••' a`
tosE,c~SOS COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: JULY 27, 2010
MEETING DATE: 8/2/2010
ITEM NO:
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: GREG CARSON, TOWN MANAGE
SUBJECT: APPOINT VICE MAYOR JOE PIRZYNSKI AS THE PRIMARY VOTING
DELEGATE AND MAYOR DIANE MCNUTT AS THE ALTERNATE VOTING
DELEGATE FOR THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL
CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 15-17, 2010 IN SAN DIEGO,
CALIFORNIA
RECOMMENDATION:
Appoint Vice Mayor Joe Pirzyriski as the primary voting delegate and Mayor Diane McNutt as the
alternate voting delegate for the League of California Cities Annual Conference scheduled for
September 15-17, 20.10 in San Diego, 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 is its annual business meeting where the League membership takes action on conference
resolutions .Annual conference resolutions guide cities and the League in efforts to improve the quality,
responsiveness, and vitality of local govermnent in California.
To expedite the annual business meeting, participating cities/towns have been asked to designate a
primary and an alternate voting representative. This year, Vice Mayor Joe Pirzynski will serve as the
primary voting delegate and Mayor Diane McNutt as the .alternate voting delegate.
Attached are the proposed conference resolutions. It has been. the past practice to have the Town voting
delegate determine the Town's position based on resolution discussion and feedback at the League
Annual Business Meeting.
PREPARED BY: PAMELA S. JACOBS
Assistant Towri Manager
PSJ:pg
N:\MGR\AdminWorkFiles\2010 Co~uicil Reports\8-2-lOLeague Voting Delegates.docx
Reviewed by: Assistant Town Manager Town Attorney
Clerk Administrator Finance Community Development
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: APPOINT VICE MAYOR JOE PIRZYNSKI AS THE PRIMARY VOTING
DELEGATE AND MAYOR DIANE MCNUTT AS THE ALTERNATE VOTING
DELEGATE FOR THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL
CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 15-17, 2010 IN SAN DIEGO,
CALIFORNIA
July 27, 2010
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,
Attaclunent: 2010 League of California Cities Resolutions
V.
2010 ANNUAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION REFERRED TO ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES POLICY COMMITTEE
1. RESOLUTION RELATING TO LEAGUE BYLAWS AMENDMENTS
(2/3 vote at General Assembly required to approve)
Source: League Board of Director
Referred to: Administrative Services Policy Committee
Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee:
WHEREAS, The League of California Cities is a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation under
California law, and, as such, is governed by corporate bylaws; and
WHEREAS, the League's Board of Directors periodically reviews the League's bylaws for issues of
clarity, practicality., compliance with current laws, and responsiveness to membership interests; and
WHEREAS, the League's .Board of Directors convened a Bylaws Review Committee to make
recommendations regarding various necessary amendments to ensure that the most qualified and committed
city officials are selected to serve on the League's Board, policy conunittees and other leadership positions,
representing a broad diversity of backgrounds, experience, abilities, geography and other factors, and that
any barriers to their selection are removed; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors approved the Bylaws Review Committee's recommendations
that identified. amendments to the bylaws that: a) encourage all segments of League membership to pursue
leadership positions within the League to advance the goal that the League Board of Directors reflects the
diverse ethnic and social fabric of California; b) clarify the League Board's nomination procedures and
expand Board membership by four positions; and c) provide guidance to avoid conflicts of interest for Board
and policy coirunittee members with the expectation that decisions should be in the best overall interests of
cities statewide; and
WHEREAS, the League's Board offers amendments and additions to the following sections of the
.bylaws for the membership's consideration:
1. Article VII, Section 1; new subsection 1(b): Board Diversity Policy, Board of Directors
2. Article VII, Section 2 (c); (f): Composition, Board of Directors
3. Article VII, Section 5 {d): Nomination Process, Board of Directors
4. Article XIV, Section 1, new section: Conflicts of Interest
5. .Article XIV, Section 4, new section: Ethical Considerations;
now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities assembled during the
Annual Conference in San Diego, September 17, 2010, that the League make the specified changes to the
League bylaws by amending the above-referenced sections as indicated on Attachment A.
[Please see ATTACHMENT A, following background information, for text of proposed bylaws
amendments.]
//////////
Background Information on Resolution No. 1
Source: League Board of Directors
Title: Resolution Relating to League Bylaws Amendments
Background:
At its February, 2010 Board meeting the League Board authorized the President to appoint a Bylaws Review
Conunittee, consisting of across-section of current Board members, to review the provisions of League
bylaws. This .included policies related to .governing the nomination and election of League Board members
and officers with the goal of ensuring the most qualified and conunitted city officials are selected,
representing a broad diversity of backgrounds, experience, abilities, geography and other factors, and that
any ban•iers to their selection are removed. The Committee, chaired by First Vice President Jim Ridenour,
completed its work in four face-to-face meetings (April 2, April 29, June 17 and July 9) and submitted its
recommnendations to the board. The Board approved the Conunittee's report and reconunends the adoption of
the following five amendments to the League bylaws:
Amendment to Article VII, Section 1. Board of Directors. The Conunittee reviewed a variety of
recommendations from previous task forces to encourage greater diversity on the board of directors.
It concluded that the best way to encourage greater diversity on the board of directors is to adopt a
clear and unequivocal policy statement that the various: subunits of the League should encourage and
support all members to pursue leadership within the League with the ultimate goal of serving on the
board of directors. The League board recommends this proposal for approval.
Amendment to Article VII, Section 2. Composition of Board of Directors. The Commmittee
examined the current composition of the board of directors and is proposing to expand the board by
two at-large positions and two large. city positions to meet particular needs. Currently, the bylaws
provide for approximately 50 directors, including 16 from regional divisions, 11 from functional
departments of the League (e.g., city attorneys, city managers, eta.), 10 at-large directors, the mayors
of the 8 largest cities (ranging. from Los Angeles. with 4,065,585 population to Oakland with 425,068
population, and the directors on the National League of Cities Board of Directors that are fi•oin
California (approximately 2 - 4 members). All must be from dues paying cities.
The Committee concluded that due to the overwhelming interest in the. at-large positions (4 - 5 times
the applications as available seats each year) additional opportunities to serve on the League board
should be provided by increasing the available at-large seats from 10 to 12. The Committee also
concluded that large city representation should be adjusted'. to reflect the existence and political value
provided through the coalition of the state's "Big Ten" Mayors, by increasing. big city mayoral
representation on the board from. 8 to 10. The cun•ent make-up of the Board allows for only the
mayors of the eight largest cities. This excludes two important cities that participate regularly in the
coalition of the ten (10) largest cities in the state--Santa Ana (355,662) and Anaheun (348,467)--with
which the League works closely. The League board recormmends this proposal for approval.
Amendment to Article VII, Section 5. Nomination Process. The Connnittee examined problems
associated with the current process for the: President selecting division representatives to serve on the
Board Nominating Corrunittee• Each year the President selects representatives from half (8) of the
regional divisions, but the bylaws exclude those board members who are candidates for an officer or
at-large position from serving. The Committee concluded that a problem can arise when the
President is unable to appoint another board representative from a division if one or all of its
representatives are candidates for officer or at-large positions. The proposed change would allow the
League President to appoint a substitute nominating coirunittee member from the same regional
division, if available. If one is not available, the President shall appoint a substitute from a nearby
regional division. The League board reconunends this proposal for approval,
Amendment to Article XIV, Section 1 (new section). Conflicts of Interest. The Board of Directors
recently adopted a policy designed to reduce potential conflicts of interest by Board members and
policy committee members involved in the adoption of League policy and asked the Committee to
consider whether it should be proposed to be added to the League bylaws. The Committee
recommends that this step be taken. The proposed new language is a general statement that Board
members and policy committee members are expected to make decisions in the .best overall interests
of cities statewide, as opposed to narrow parochial, personal, or financial interests. The League board
recommends this proposal for approval.
Amendment to Article XIV, Section 4 (new section). Ethical Considerations. As part of the
guidance to avoid conflicts of interest by Board members and policy committee members, language
related to ethical considerations is recormnended to clarify that the items described under Article
XIV as prohibited transactions represent the floor and not the ceiling for standards of ethical conduct.
The additional guidance recommends abstention from decisions where personal conflict may exist_
The League board recommends this proposal for approval.
[NOTE: Please see ATTACHMENT A (page 9) for text of proposed bylaws amendments.]
A1'TACIIMLNT A
Amendments to League 3•ylaws Proposed by Resolution 1
(Proposed. changes indicated by bold' Itnli~cs and underlinin~~) -
Please review in conjuction with summary provided in background informatio» of Resolution T
Article VII: Board of Directors
Section 1: Role and Powers; Board Diversity Policy
,(~, Subject to the provisions and limitations' of the California Nonprofit Corporation Law,
any other applicable laws,. and the provisions of these bylaws, the League's activities and
affairs are exercised by or under the direction of the League's control and direction of the
League, The League Board may delegate the management. of the League's- affairs to any
person or group, including a cormnittee, provided the League Board retains ultimate
responsibility for the actions of such person or group.
(b) The goal of the LeaQUe is to ensure that the Board of Directors reflects the diverse
ethnic and social fabric of California. As such, each Division, Department, Caucus,.
and Policy Committee should encourage and support members of every race, ethnicity,
Qender, aye, sexccal orientation and heritage to seek leadership positions within the
League, with the ultimate goal of achieving membership on the Board of Directors.
Article VII: 'Board of Directors
Section 2: Composition.
The League's Board is composed of the following:
(a) A President, First Vice-President and Second Vice-President/Treasurer, who each serve a
term of one year;
(b) The hnmediate Past President. who serves for a tei7n of one year, immediately succeeding
his or her tei•~n as President;
(c) Twelve ~ Directors-at-Large,
(i) Who serve staggered' two-year terms, and
(ii) At least one of whom is a representative of a small city with a population of 10,000 or less.
(d) One Director to be elected from each of the regional divisions and fiinctional
departments of the League, each of whom. serves for a term of two. years;
(e) Members of the National League of Cities Board of Directors who hold an office in a
Member City; and
(f) £igl}t Ten Directors that maybe designated by the mayors of each of the eight ten largest
cities in California to serve two-year terms.
9
(g) For purposes of this section, the population of each city is the most current population as
determined by the California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit, or its
successor agency or unit, If no successor agency or unit is named, the. most current
population used to determine these dues shall be used to determine future dues until such
time as these bylaws are amended to designate a new source for determining city
population. .
(h) Directors hold office until their successors are elected and qualified or, if they sit on the
League Board by virtue of their membership on the National League of Cities Board of
Directors, until their terms on the National League of Cities Board of Directors conclude.
Article VII: Board of Directors
Section 5: Nomination Process.
(d) Candidates for Positions Ineligible.. Candidates for officer and at-large positions on the
League Board are not eligible to serve on the nominating committee: In the event a
regional division representative on the nominating committee wishes to be a candidate for
an officer or at-large position, the League President will appoint a substitute nominating
committee member from the same regional division, ifavazlable. If one is not available,
the President slTall appoint a substitute from a nearby regional division.
Article XIV: Prohibited Transactions
Section 1: Conflicts oflnterest
******~:x~~
General Principle. Members ofthe League board as well as members of League policy committees,
and members of any standing or ad hoc committees and task forces consisting of members of the
League board or League policy committees, are expected to make decisions in the best overall
interests of cities statewide, as opposed to narrow parochial, personal, or financial interests. This
is analogous to city officials being expected to make decisions in the best overall interests of the _
community as opposed to narrow private orself-interests.
Section 2. Loans.
Except as permitted by California Nonprofit Corporation Law, the League may not snake any loan of
money or property to, or guarantee the obligation of, any director or officer. This prohibition does not
prohibit the League from advancing funds to a League director or officer for expenses reasonably
anticipated to be incurred in performance of their duties as an officer or director, so long as such '
individual would be entitled to be reimbursed for such expenses under League Board policies absent
that advance.
Section 3: Self-Dealing and Common Directorship Transactions.
(a) Self-Dealing Transactions. Aself-dealing transaction is a transaction to which the
League is a parry and in which one or more of its directors has a material financial
intexest.
10
(b) Common Directorships. "Common directorships" occur when the League enters into a
transaction with an organization in which one of the League directors also serves on the
organization's board•
(c) Pre-Transaction Approval. To approve a transaction involving either self-dealing or a
common directorship, the League Board shall determine, before the transaction, that,.
(i) The League is entering into the transaction for its own benefit;
(ii) The transaction is fair and reasonable to the League at the time; and
(iii) After reasonable investigation, the League Board determines that it could not have
obtained a more advantageous arrangement with reasonable effort under the
circumstances.
Such determinations shall be made by the League Board in good faith, with knowledge of
the material facts concerning. the transaction and the director's interest in the transaction,
without counting the vote of the interested director or directors.
(d) Post-Transaction Approval. When it is not reasonably practicable to obtain Board
approval before entering into such transactions, a Board committee may approve such
transaction. in a manner consistent with the requirements in the preceding paragraph,
provided. that, at its next meeting, the full Board determines in good faith that the League
Board committee's approval of the transaction was consistent with such requirements and
that it was not reasonably practical to obtain advance approval by the full Board, and
ratifies the transaction by a majority of the directors then in office without the vote of any
interested director. t
Section 4: Ethical Consider^ations.
These restr^ictions, of tour^se, r^eUresent the floor^ not the ceiling for^ ethical conduct as a Lead
board member or policy committee member. If a board member or policy committee member
believes that there are circumstances under which the League's members might reasonably
question the board member's or policy committee member's ability to act solely in the best
interests in the LeaQUe and its member cities,. the prudent tour^se is to abstain. As an example,
typically, League board members have abstained from participating in decisions on legislation
that would affect or^Qanizations for which they worlr. Anotlier example is legislation that would_
uniquely benefit a board member's city. Policy committee members should also consider
abstaining in similar circumstances.
»»»»
' See Cal. Corp. Code § 7233 (specifying. under what circumstances a selfttealing transaction is void or voidable).
11
RESOLUTION REFERRED TO COMMUNITY SERVICES POLICY COMMITTEE
2. RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE NATIONAL LET'S MOVE CAMPAIGN
Source: League Board of Directors
Referred to: Cormnunity Services Policy Cormnittee
Recommendation to General Resolutions Conunittee:
WHEREAS, the League supports policies that focus on health and wellness, continuing
education, and healthier lifestyles in all communities; and
WHEREAS, many cities, counties, and schools have adopted policies, programs, and ordinances
that promote healthy lifestyles by malting their communities walkable, promoting youth and senior
activities, eliminating the sale of junk food in city, county, or school facilities, providing incentives for
stores that sell fresh produce to locate in depressed neighborhoods, and providing exercise opportunities
for their residents; and
WHEREAS, city officials believe there are irnportant, long-teen community benefits to be gained
by encouraging healthy lifestyles, including a decrease in the rate of childhood obesity and its negative
health-related impacts; and
WHEREAS, cities and other community partners can work together to understand the relationship
between obesity, land-use policies, .redevelopment, and cormnunity planning; and
WHEREAS, cities and other cormnunity partners can work together to ensure that there are safe
places for their residents to be active such as in parks, ball fields, pools, gyms, and recreation centers; and
WHEREAS, access to healthy foods has a direct impact on the overall health of our community
and planning for fresh food, open space, sidewalks, and parks should be a priority; and
WHEREAS, the League has partnered with the Healthy Eating Active Living (HEAL) Cities
Campaign to provide training and technical assistance to help city officials adopt policies that improve
their communities' physical activity and retail food enviromnents; and
WHEREAS, the League wants to partner with and support the Let's Move! Campaign headed by
the First Lady of the United States, the President's Taslt Force on Childhood Obesity and the Secretary of
Health and Human Services, in an .effort to solve the challenge of childhood obesity within a generation;
now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities, assembled during the
Annual Conference in San Diego, September 17, ZO10, that the League encourages the existing 480
California cities to adopt preventative measures to .fight obesity as set forth by the First Lady of the
United .States of America in the Let's Move campaign; and, be it further
RESOLVED, that California cities be encouraged to sign-up with the United States Department
of Health and Human Services -Region IX office as a Let's Move! City; and, be it further
RESOLVED, that California cities are encouraged to: (1) help parents snake healthy family
choices; (2) create healthy schools; (3) provide access to healthy and affordable foods; and (4) promote
physical activity.
12
Baclc~round Information on Resolution No. 2
Source: League Board of Directors
Title: Resolution Relating to the National Let's Move Campaign
Background:
Accordine to the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Re ig•on 9:
In February, First Ludy Michelle Obama launched the Let's Move! campaign to solve the childhood
obesity epidemic within a generation. First Lady Obama is expanding the. effort to inclacde a call to
action foJ^ mayors and other elected officials to join her Let's Move! Campaign ("Let's Move Cities and
Towns') in an effort to leverage cities and communities unique ability to solve obesity locally and
adopt long-term, sustainable, regional approaches to fight childhood obesity.
On February 2, 2010, President Barack Obama established the Taslz Force on Childhood Obesity,
which includes senior administration officials. The Taslz Force developed an interagency plan after
incorporating input from more than 2,500 public comments in 90' days. The plan details a coordinated
strategy, identifies Izey benchmarizs, and outlines an action plan to end the problem of childhood
obesity within a generation.
Lea ug e adopts resolution in 2004: This resolution related to "encouraging healthier lifestyles for
children, adults, and seniors in cities throughout California." This resolution directed the League to
encourage cities to embrace policies that facilitate activities thatpromote healthier lifestyles, including
healthy diet and nutrition, and adopt city design and planning principles that enable citizens to undertake
exercise with the goal' of achieving a more active and healthy community.
Lea ug e adopts resolution in 2006: This resolution related to "encouraging health and wellness in cities."
This resolution directed that the League in cooperation with related League conunittees, departments, and
the CCS Partnership, work together to develop a clearinghouse of information that cities can use to
promote wellness policies and healthier cities. It also directed the League to develop a toolkit on the
League's Website for cities to visit in order to share, find and develop successful models of health and
wellness to use in their respective communities. It also established that health and wellness programs
become a topic of the Helen Putnam Awards Program beginning in 2007.
Previous Legislation; SCR 31 was introduced by Senator Alex Padilla in 2007, which established
Healthy Communities Awareness Month. This Senate Concurrent Resolution recognized the importance
of health and wellness in communities and declared the month of May as Healthy Commnunities
Awareness Month. This was a League sponsored resolution.
League Partners with the Healthy Eating Active LivingSHEAL) Cities Campaign: The HEAL Cities
Campaign provides training. and technical assistance to help city officials adopt policies that improve their
commmunities' physical activity and retail food environments. The HEAL Cities Campaign, funded by
Kaiser Pennanente and the Vitamin Cases Consumer Settlement Fund,. is a partnership of the League of
California Cities; the California Center for Public Health Advocacy, and the Cities Counties and Schools
Partnership. At its core the HEAL Cities Campaign believes that supporting healthy choices is essential
to address the obesity epidemic among California's children and adults, which they purport currently
costs the state nearly $50 billion annually in healthcare and lost productivity. Forty cities have adopted
resolutions and adopted specific action steps and a timeline in one of the several lcey campaign areas (e. g.,
language in general plan, zoning ordinances governing street design or colrununiry gardens, joint use of
recreational facilities, and employee wellness). The HEAL campaign goals are:
13
• To provide city officials infoi~nation about the statewide obesity epidemic and demonstrate how the
commmunity food enviromnent, physical activity enviromnent; children's out-of-school
enviromnent(s), and soda consumption perpetuate the epidemics; and,
• To inform city officials about the role they can play locally to fight the obesity and inactivity
epidemics through policy adoption, and to recormnend those policies that would improve the physical
activity and food environments of their cities and make their corrimunity healthier.
Existine, League policy on. Healthy Cities: The League encourages cities to embrace policies that
facilitate activities that promote healthier lifestyles, including healthy diet and nutrition, and to adopt city
design and planning principles that enable citizens to undertake exercise with the goal of achieving a
more active and healthy community.
Institute for Local Govermnent (ILG) On Healthy Nei hg borhoods: ILG heads the Healthy
Neighborhoods P~°oject, which provides support and resources local officials can use to protect and
improve community health by integrating health considerations into their planning, land use and other
decisions. The resources the ILG Website offers axe geared to strengthen the efforts of local officials,
staff, planning .and development professionals, and community residents in creating healthier
communities.
According to the Healthy Neighborhoods Project, healthy neighborhoods provide:
(1) Places where walking and bicycling are safe and convenient and where residents of all ages and
abilities have the opportunity to be physically active; (2) Nutritious, fresh, culturally appropriate food -
grown locally whenever possible - is affordable and accessible, promoting health and boosting the local
economy;- (3) A place where residents aren't exposed. to environmental hazards or pollutants that
endanger their present or future health or well-being. ILG's Healthy Neighborhoods' Website provides
current, relevant resources to aid in adapting general policies and strategies to reverse the negative h•ends
related to physical inactivity, unhealthy eating, and environmental hazards.
National League of Cities (NLC) Commends First Lady Michelle Obama for Including Cities and Towns
in Let's Move Campaign: In a press release dated June 11, 2010, NLC commends First Lady Michelle
Obama for her newest initiative to combat childhood obesity, Let's Move Cities and Towns. The release
continued that "NLC looks forward to working with the First Lady in encouraging local leaders to be
proactive in their approach against childhood obesity."
Through its Institute for Youth, Education and Families, NLC works to combat childhood obesity by
raising awareness among municipal leaders and providing them with tools and resources to make changes
in their commmunities. Most recently, NLC and the Foundation for the Mid South, with support from
Leadership for Healthy Comrnunities, a national program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation,
launched the Municipal Leadership for Healthy Southern Cities project. This initiative will help local
officials in Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi advance policies to promote healthy eating and active
living in order to reduce childhood obesity. NLC also recently collaborated with the American
Association of School Administrators on a report, Coimnunity Wellness: Comprehensive City-School
Strategies to Reduce Childhood Obesity. For more information on this NLC initiative visit
w~vwarlc.or~T/i ref.
»»»»»
14
RESOLUTION REFERRED TO ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY POLICY COMMITTEE
e3. RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS.' DECISION TO DEFER
ACTION ON AB 32 AND SB 375 AND TO ADOPT THE BOARD-APPOINTED TASK
FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Source: Desert/Mountain Division
Referred to: Enviromnental Quality Policy Committee; Housing, Conununity & Economic
Development Policy Committee; Revenue and Taxation Policy Committee; and Transportation,
Commnunication & Public Works Policy Committee
Reconunendations to General Resolutions Cormnittee:
e Enviromnental Quality Policy Committee:
~ Housing, Community and Economic Development Policy Conunittee:
~ Revenue and Taxation Policy Committee:
~ Transportation, Communication & Public Works Policy Committee:
WHEREAS, the Desert/Mountain Division of the League of California Cities has broad concerns
about the economy; and .
WHEREAS, these concerns extend both to the ability of. cities to deliver vital public services and
the viability of businesses which are critical to the State's economic recovery; and
WHEREAS, the Desert/Mountain Division of the League of California Cities is concerned that
cities lack the resources to implement existing State mandates imposed at either the regional or local
level; and
WHEREAS, the League of California Cities.Board of Directors appointed a Task Force to craft
a recommendation. regarding. AB 32 and SB 375, based upon the recommmendations developed by four
policy committees; and
WHEREAS, the Task Force recommended that the League of California Cities Board of
Directors request. specific actions by Governor Schwarzenegger and the California Air Resources Board
to delay certain deadlines and take other actions with respect to AB 32 and SB 375; and
WHEREAS, the League of California Cities Board of Directors rejected the specific
recommendations of the Task Force and four policy committees by deferring action on AB 32 and
SB 375; and
WHEREAS, the Desert/Mountain Division of the League of California Cities wishes to file an
official protest of the Board of Directors' decision to defer action on a position regarding AB 32 and
SB 375; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities,. assembled during the
• Annual Conference in San Diego, September 17, 2010, that the League of California Cities f"mds,
determines and orders the adoption of the consolidated recommendations of four policy committees and
the Board appointed Task Force, as follows:
1. Request that the. Governor exercise his authority to delay individual AB 32 implementation
deadlines.
15
2. Request that the California Air Resources Board take the following tln•ee actions:
• Revisit and update economic and growth assumptions used to estimate 2020
business-as-usual emissions and recalculate AB 32 goal;
• Consider local government costs in all future studies relating to AB 32 and SB 375; and
• Request that the SB 375 targets be set in a way to reflect the economy and scarce
local resources.
Support (but not sponsor) any legislation that would suspend or delay implementation of
SB 375. until there is funding and resources in place to implement individual mandates and
requirements associated with the bill; and, be it further,
RESOLVED, that the specific recommendations developed by the four policy committees and
Task Force be considered by the General Assembly at the Annual Conference unless the Board of
Directors reverses its defei7•ed action stance on AB 32 and SB 375 and adopts the Task Force
recommendations.
//////////
Background Information on Resolution No. 3
Source: Desert/Mountain Division
Title: Resolution Opposing the Board of Directors Decision to Defer Action on AB 32 and
SB 375 and to Adopt the Board-Appointed Task Force Recommendations
Background:
The Desert/Mountainbivision adopted a Resolution formally opposing the Board of Directors decision to
defer action on the Task Force's recommnendations regarding AB 32 and SB 375. We took this action out
of concern of the impact these regulations will have on our economy and our ability to serve our
constituents, and do not want to be complicit by remaining silent on this issue.
The recommended revisions to the League's current positions on AB 32 and SB 375-were crafted by a
Board-appointed Task Force after study of the issue by .four League policy committees. The changes
recommended specific actions by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and the California Air Resources
Board to delay certain deadlines and take other actions with respect to AB 32 and to suspend or delay the
implementation of SB 375 until state .funding is provided for the implementation of its mandates.
The Desert/Mountain Division believes that the Board's decision to defer action on the specific
recommendations developed by the four policy committees and Board-appointed Taslc Force does not
represent the majority of the member cities. This Resolution is being presented for consideration by the
General Assembly at the Annual Conference to allow the entire membership to weigh in on the decision
of whether or not to adopt the Task Force recommendations regarding AB 32 and SB 375.
»»»»»
16
RESOLUTION REFERRED TO HOUSING, COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
POLICY COMMITTEE
~3. RESOLUTION OPPOSING TIIE BOARD OF DIRECTORS DECISION TO DEFER
ACTION ON AB 32 AND SB 375 AND TO ADOPT THE BOARD-APPOINTED TASK
FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Resolution #3 also referred to these policy committees; Envirommental Quality; Revenue and
Taxation; and Transportation, Communication & Public Works. Please see Environmental
Quality Policy Committee section for the resolution and background info~7nation.
//////////
04. RESOLUTION RELATING TO RESPONSIBLE BANKING
Source: Richard Alarcon, Council Member, Los Angeles and
Karen Avilla, City Treasurer, Carson
Refen•ed to: Housing,.. Commmunity & Economic Development Policy Committee; and
Revenue and Taxation Policy Committee
Recolmnendation to General Resolutions Conunittee:
~ Housing, Community and Economic Development Policy Commmittee:
o Revenue and Taxation Policy Commmittee:
WHEREAS, cities strive to spend taxpayer dollars wisely on services; and
WHEREAS, cities invest taxpayer dollars with a range of institutions that provide financial
service contracts each year; and
WHEREAS, it is important to ensure that. taxpayer dollars are invested in institutions that are not
just fiscally sound, but are cormnitted to investing back into our communities, generating positive
investment and lending in our cities; and
WHEREAS,. cities can help support the nation's economic recovery by supporting financial
institutions that in turn re-invest in our local communities; and
WHEREAS, the national Community Reinvestment Act, passed by the U.S. Congress in 1977,
pioneered the use of transparent, responsible banking; by starting a federal rating system to measure
banks' local lending and investment activity in the communities they take deposits from, providing
accountability to the communities that institutions serve; and
WHEREAS,. t1n•ee decades have passed since the original passage of the Community
Reinvestment Act (CRA), and due in part to the dramatic changes in the U.S. banking system since this
tune, CRA does not provide the level of detail needed for local municipalities. to detennine our financial
partners' lending activity and investment within a single city alone; and
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2002, the City of Philadelphia signed into law a requirement that all
banks authorized to receive deposits from the City submit an annual statement of conununity reinvestment
goals within Philadelphia, including but not limited to a suirunaiy of the home loans, small business loans,
and other lending and investment activity within Philadelphia, which independent studies
17
have confirmed has resulted in increased access to credit among Philadelphia's minority and low- and
moderate-income communities; and
WI~EREAS, the City of Cleveland enacted into law a similar Community Reinvestment
Depository Ordinance in 1991, and since that time has negotiated over $10 billion in lending
corrunitments and investments through designated Community Reinvestment Initiative agreements with
designated depository banks, with an independent study by the Brookings Institution confirming that
compared to comparable midwestern cities Cleveland's CRA Ordinance has resulted in "more bang for
the community development buck;" and
.WHEREAS, on March 5, 2010, the Los Angeles City Council unanimously passed a Responsible .
Banking Initiative that requires financial institutions with which the City contracts to provide an annual
"report card" detailing investment and lending activity within Los Angeles,. to allow the City to reward
institutions that re-invest in Los Angeles by adding extra points to these institutions' applications during
the City's RFP process for financial service providers; and
WHEREAS, many municipalities could benefit from increased transparency about which of the
financial .institutions their city taxpayer dollars are invested in are in turn re-investing in their city's
homes, businesses, and non-profits, which will .allow cities to hold banks to a higher standard of re-
investment by offering increased city business to those that are generating higher levels of investment,
lending, and cormunity service activity within their city; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities, assembled during the
Annual Conference in San Diego, September 17, 2010, that the League of California Cities strongly
encourages municipalities to require transparent, responsible banking from the financial institutions
receiving city funds; and, be it further
RESOLVED, that the League of California Cities serve as a clearinghouse of information on the
responsible banking initiatives of municipalities .across the country, such as those of Philadelphia,
Cleveland, Los Angeles and Carson, California; in order to help California cities interested in taking steps
to increase transparent, responsible banking in their own communities.
//////////
Background Information on Resolution No. 4
Source: Richard Alarcon, Council Member, Los Angeles and Karen Avilla, City Treasurer, Carson
Title: Resolution Relating to Responsible Banking '
Background:
As a Councilmember from the City of Los Angeles and a Treasurer from the City of Carson, we-know
that stewards of public funds must strive to ensure that taxpayer dollars are invested in businesses and
institutions that are not just fiscally sound, but committed to investing back into our conununities.
On Friday, March 5", 2010, the Los Angeles City Council unanimously passed a Responsible Banking
Initiative that Councilmember Alarcon introduced last year, which will require financial institutions with
which the City of Los Angeles does business to provide an annual "report card" detailing the institution's
investment and lending activity within the City.
The purpose of the report card is to determine which institutions the City does business with are in turn
reinvesting in the City, by extending credit to residents and businesses, and investing capital in
18
communities and development projects. The report card will allow policy makers to reward institutions
with above average rates of impact in the City, while decreasing business with those institutions. that do
riot recycle dollars back into the local economy.
This effort could be likened to a local version of the federal Conununity Reinvestment Act, by allowing
local policymakers to review the conununity reinvestment activity of the financial. institutions with which
the City invests. It builds on the work of existing law in the cities. of Philadelphia and Cleveland. Both the
City of Philadelphia, in 2002, and the City of Cleveland, in 1991, passed laws requiring annual statements
of coirununity reinvestment goals from the institutions that manage their City deposits.
The City of Cleveland reports that, from 1991 tlu•ough 2008, Cleveland has negotiated over 10 billion
dollars in lending conunitments and investments with designated depository banks as a result of their
responsible banking law. Ina 2003 report,. the independent Brookings Institution compared three
Midwesteri cities and praised the City of Cleveland for achieving "snore bang for their community
development buck" tluough the use of their Community Reinvestment and other innovative City laws.
We owe it to the current and. future residents of our Cities to ensure that taxpayer dollars are invested in
responsible banking institutions that are creating opportunities for investment and' lending in our
communities. That's why we urge the League of California Cities to encourage municipalities to require
transparent, responsible banking from financial service providers. With the strength of our collective
wallets combined, Cities will be sending a powerful message to banks: invest in us, and we will invest
in you.
»»»»»
RESOLUTIONS REFERRED TO REVENUE AND TAXATION POLICY COMMITTEE
~3. RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS DECISION TO DEFER
ACTION ON AB 32 AND SB 375 AND TO ADOPT THE BOARD-APPOINTED TASK
FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Resolution #3 also referred to these policy corrunittees: Envirommental Quality; Housing,
Community & Economic Development;. and Transportation, Coimnunication & Public Works.
Please see Environmental Quality Policy Committee section for the resolution and background
information.
~4. RESOLUTION RELATING TO RESPONSIBLE BANKING
Resolution #4 also referred to the Housing, Commmunity & Economic Development Policy
Committee. Please see the Housing, Community & Economic Development Policy
Committee section for the resolution and background information.
//////////
- Continued,. Revenue and Taxation Resolutions -
19
5. RESOLUTION RELATING TO UNFUNDED STATE MANDATES
Source: City of Santa Clarita
Refen•ed to: Revenue and Taxation Policy Committee
Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee:
WHEREAS, unfunded mandates imposed upon local governments, including cities, counties and
special districts, by the State of California.place atremendous financial burden upon local governments; and
WHEREAS, some of the mandates placed upon local governments are the result of actions by
Boards and Commissions not directly accountable to the electorate; and
WHEREAS, the State of California and many local govermnents within the state are under
financial duress due to the continuing national economic crisis, and
WHEREAS, approximately twelve percent of Californians, are cun•ently unemployed and
struggling to pay for basic life necessities, well above the national average; and
WHEREAS, mandates enacted by the State of California may result in the need for local agencies
to increase fees or taxes to satisfy the requirements of the mandate; and
WHEREAS, as citied in a 2005 report on state mandates published by the League of California
Cities, the original intent of Property Tax Relief Act of 1972, which established the concept of state
reimbursement of local agencies for state mandated activities, was to limit the ability of local agencies to
levy taxes; and
WHEREAS, in 197.9 the voters of the State of California approved Proposition 4 adding Article
XIII B to the California Constitution, requiring the state to provide a subvention of funds to local
govermnents for costs associated with state mandated programs, under specified conditions, and through
subsequent legislation creating the Coimnission on state mandates; and
WHEREAS, in 2004, the voters of the State of California adopted Proposition lA expanding the
constitutional protections for local governments regarding state mandates; and
WHEREAS, the State of California has struggled to balance its budget for the past several years
and has chosen to borrow funds from local governments, thus reducing traditional revenues to local
goverrunents, forcing additional local program and service reductions and cutbacks; and
WHEREAS., various federal and state laws and regulations may result in the imposition of state
mandates on local govermments; and
WHEREAS, an example of state unposed mandates are the establishment of Total Maximum
Daily Loads-(TMDL) for such things as bacteria, chloride, metals, and toxicity, and
WHEREAS, in order to meet the obligations unposed by Regional Water Quality Control Boards
throughout California, local agencies may need to implement or increase fees and taxes to pay for new
programs or facilities, in order to avoid penalties for non-compliance; and
20
WHEREAS, there appears to be no correlation between the imposition of state mandates, taxpayer
funded resources to pay for the costs of state mandates,. California's high.unemployment rate, and the fiscal
conditions of the State of California and local govermnents; now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities, assembled during the
Annual Conference in San Diego, September 17, 2010,. that:
1. The League of California Cities work with its member cities and other local goverrunent partners
to identify situations in which local governments must increase fees or taxes to meet state
mandated requirements; and
2. The League of California Cities petition the Governor of the State of California and Legislature of
the State of California to suspend or eliminate certain state mandates until improvement of the
national and California economy results in substantially lower statewide unemployment and fiscal
solvency of the State of California and local govermnents; and
3. The League of California Cities work with Members of Congress and the govermnent of the
United States to suspend or eliminate certain federal mandates, passed along to the states for
implementation, until the iinproveinent of the national economy results in substantially lower
national unemployment and fiscal solvency of the United States, the State of California and local
govermnents; and
4. That the League of California Cities will support legislation to suspend, eliminate, or otherwise
modify the negative impacts of state mandates on local agencies, particularly in which a new local
tax or fee or tax or fee increase is necessary to implement the mandate.
//////////
Background Information on Resolution No. 5
Source: City of Santa Clarita
Title: Resolution Relating to State Unfunded Mandates
Background:
Reaching back at least forty years, local govermnents, including cities, counties and special districts, have
struggled with mandates placed upon them by the State of California. Under California law, whenever
the Legislature, Governor; or a state agency enacts a new law, executive order, regulation, or rule that
requires a local government to implement a new program or provide a higher level of seivice to an
existing program, the state shall reimburse the-local agency for the increased cost. '
Over the past two decades, the California Legislature has made a practice of borrowing; transferring,
shifting, or otherwise conveying from local govermnents to the State of California, as part. of the state
budget balancing process, what have historically been considered local revenues. The failure of the State
of California, for the most part, to repay these funds to local govermnents has led to ballot. measures
restricting the ability of the state to use local revenues to balance its continual budget deficit.
Against this. backdrop, state regulatory agencies continue to impose requirements upon local
goverrments, which may result in the need to increase local fees or taxes. Failure to implement the
regulatory requirements may result in the imposition of substantial financial penalties, which must be paid
for by the local government and ultimately, taxpayers or rate payers within the jurisdiction.
21
At a time when California's unemployment rate is in excess of 12%, which is well above the national
uneinployinent rate; and California businesses are struggling to stay afloat in the worst national recession
since the great depression of the 1930s, the question of regulatory relief must be considered.
For example, many communities throughout the State of California are facing establishment of Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) requirements for such things as bacteria, chloride, metals, and toxicity.
While the environmental or other goals that are sought to be achieved are laudable, regulatory
requirements must be sensitive to the overlaying statewide and national economic climate and the ability
of local governments to pay for new programs and enhancements. In the Santa Clarita area, the Los
Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, through imposition of a Chloride TMDL mandate and its
required implementation, is causing local sanitation district ratepayers to pay a 50% fee increase over four
years for increased operational and new facility expenses and committing to long teen additional
increases. Failure to approve the increase will likely invite substantial fines, totaling in the millions of
dollars collectively for the ratepayers.
In a time of economic uncertainty and high unemployment, is it appropriate to require California
taxpayers to pay for new regulatory requirements or is it reasonable to suspend or eliminate certain state
mandates until such time as unemployment levels .return to more traditional levels and national, state and
local governments return to financial stability?
»»»»»
RESOLUTIONS REFERRED TO TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATION &
PUBLIC WORKS POLICY COMMITTEE
03. RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS DECISION TO DEFER
ACTION ON AB 32 AND SB 375 AND TO .ADOPT THE BOARD-APPOINTED TASK
FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Resolution #3 also referred to these policy committees: Environmental Quality; Housing,
Cormnunity & Economic Development; and Revenue and Taxation. Please see Environmental
Quality Policy Committee section for the resolution and background information.
6. RESOLUTION RELATED TO ENHANCING PUBLIC SAFETY WHILE DRIVING
A MOTOR VEHICLE
Source: City of Elk Grove
Referred to: Transportation, Communication & Public Works Policy Committee
Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee:
WHEREAS, cities tloughout the State of California hold the health and safety of their residents
as a paramount concern; and
WHEREAS; the use of text messages has grown exponentially in recent years; and
WHEREAS, any time a driver attempts to send an electronic text message while driving, his or
her attention is diverted from the road; and
WHEREAS, a recent Virginia Tech study showed sending electronic text messages while driving
makes an accident 23 trines more likely; and
22
WI-IEREAS, a study conducted by The Transport Research Laboratory in the United Kingdom
showed that sending text messages while driving is riskier than driving under the influence of alcohol or
drugs; and
WHEREAS,, Senate Bi1128 and California Vehicle Code Section 23123.5 ban writing, sending, or
reading electronic text messages while operating a motor vehicle in the state of California; and
WHEREAS, the League supports this type of traffic safety enhancement as demonstrated tlnough
their support of motorcycle helmets, child restraints, seat belt and speed limit laws; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities,. assembled. during the
Annual Conference in San Diego,. September 17, 2010, that the League encourages cities to promote safe
driving across California and the education of the general public about the dangers of texting while driving.
BaclcEround Information on Resolution No. 6
Source: City of Elk Grove
Title: Resolution Relating to Enhancing Public Safety While Driving a Motor Vehicle
Background:
On September 24, 2008, the Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, signed Senate Bill 28
("SB 28") into law.. SB 28 is codified in section 23123.5 of the California Vehicle Code and prohibits
any person from driving a motor vehicle while using an electronic wireless communications device to
write, send, or read atext-based communication. SB 28 complements an existing law which Governor
Schwarzenegger signed in 2006 requiring motorists to use hands-free devices while talking on a mobile
phone when driving a motor vehicle.
Many studies recognize that the distraction that occurs while using electronic devices while operating. a
motor vehicle is very dangerous:
+ It is estimated that 28% of crashes - 1.6 million crashes per year - can be attributed to cell
phone talking and texting while driving, (Source: National Safety Council)
• Drivers who use hand-held devices are four trines as likely to get into crashes serious enough to
injure themselves. (Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety)
• Using a cell phone while driving delays a driver's reactions as much as having a blood alcohol
concentration at the legal lunit of .08 percent. (Source: University of Utah)
Because the health and safety of the residents of Ellc Grove is paramount to the members of the City
Council; on May 12, 2.010, the Elk Grove City Council unanimously adopted a resolution promoting
awareness of the dangers of texting while driving. The City is embarking on an aggressive, y.et
economical, public outreach campaign to educate its residents about the dangers of texting while driving,
which includes: educational links on the City'.s Web site, a flyer in the city's utility billing insert which
reaches every household, free promotional items for residents specifically geared toward this topic, and a
spotlight feature in the City's bimonthly newsletter.
Other cities in California are encouraged to enhance public safety in their community by educating
residents about the dangers of texting while driving a motor vehicle. Educational outreach will benefit
23
drivers, passengers, by-standards, bicyclists, walkers and runners. Local governments have the ability to
implement cost-effective educational tools to communicate with residents about this important public
safety issue.
All local government officials and employees in California want to protect their families, themselves, and
others. Please put down your phone when you are driving or use ahands-free device and do not text. It's
safe and it's the law.
»»»»»
[NOTE: No resolutions were assigned to the following policy committees: Employee Relations and
Public Safety.]
##########
24
THIS PAGE
INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK