3j�% N of
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
JULY 29, 2013
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
GREG LARSON, TOWN MANAGER
MEETING DATE: 8/05/13
ITEM NO:.
APPOINT COUNCIL MEMBER JOE PIRZYNSKI AS THE TOWN'S VOTING
DELEGATE FOR THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL
CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 18-20,2013 IN SACRAMENTO,
CALIFORNIA
RECOMMENDATION:
Appoint Council Member Joe Pirzynski as the Town's voting delegate for the League of California
Cities Annual Conference scheduled for September I &M, 2013 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 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 government 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, Council Member Joe Pirzynski will serve as
the primary voting delegate. No Council or staff member is available to serve 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
Am-lual Business Meeting.
PREPARED BY: PAMELA S. JACOBS
.Assistant Town Manager
Reviewed by: Assistant Town Manager Town Attorney Finance
\\ Ieona \data\MGR\AdminWorkFiles\2013 Council Reports\Aug 5 \8 -5 -13. League. CA, Cities, VotingDelegate. doe
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL,
SUBJECT: APPOINT COUNCIL MEMBER JOE PIRZYNSKI AS THE TOWN'S VOTING
DELEGATE FOR THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL
CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 18-20,2013 IN SACRAMENTO,
CALIFORNIA
JULY 29, 2013
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with the Council appointment of a primary voting delegate for the
League of California Cities Annual Conference.
Attachment:
2013 League of California Cities Resolutions
2013 ANNUAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION REFERRED TO ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY POLICY COMMITTEE
1. RESOLUTION CALLING UPON THE GOVERNOR AND THE LEGISLATURE TO WORK
WITH THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES IN PROVIDING ADEQUATE FUNDING
AND TO PRIORITIZE WATER BONDS TO ASSIST LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN WATER
CONSERVATION, GROUND WATER RECHARGE AND REUSE OF STORMWATER AND
URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAMS.
Source: Los Angeles County Division
Concurrence of five or more cities /city officials: Cities of Alhambra; Cerritos; Claremont; Glendora;
Lakewood; La Mirada; La Verne; Norwalk; Signal Hill; Mary Ann Lutz, Mayor, city of Monrovia.
Referred to: Environmental Quality Policy Committee
Recommendations to General Resolutions Committee: Approve
WHEREAS, local govermnents play a critical role in providing water conservation, ground water
recharge and reuse of stormwater infrastructure, including capture and reuse of stormwater for their citizens,
businesses and institutions; and
WHEREAS, local governments support the goals of the Clean Water Act to ensure safe, clean
water supply for all and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has encouraged local governments to
implement programs to capture, infiltrate and treat stormwater and urban runoff with the use of low impact
development ordinances, green street policies and programs to increase the local ground water supply
through stormwater capture and infiltration programs; and
WHEREAS, local governments also support the State's water quality objectives, specifically
Section 13241 of the Porter - Cologne Water Quality Control Act, on the need to maximize the use of
reclaimed and water reuse and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards and the State Water Resources
Board encourage rainwater capture efforts; and
WHEREAS, the State's actions working through the water boards, supported by substantial
Federal, State and local investments, have led to a dramatic decrease in water pollution from wastewater
treatment plants and other so- called "point sources" since 1972. However, the current threats to the State's
water quality are far more difficult to solve, even as the demand for clean water increases from a growing
population and an economically important agricultural industry; and
WHEREAS, the State's Little Hoover Commission found in 2009 that more than 30,000 stormwater
discharges are subject to permits regulating large and small cities, counties, construction sites and industry.
The Commission found that a diverse group of water users — the military, small and large businesses, home
builders and local governments and more — face enormous costs as they try to control and limit stormwater
pollution. The Commission concluded that the costs of stormwater clean up are enormous and that the costs
of stormwater pollution are greater, as beach closures impact the State's economy and environmental
damage threatens to impair wildlife; and
WHEREAS, at the same time that new programs and projects to improve water quality are
currently being required by the U.S. EPA and the State under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permits and the Total Daily Maximum Load (TMDL) programs, many local governments
find that they lack the basic infrastructure to capture, infiltrate and reuse stormwater and cities are facing
difficult economic challenges while Federal and State financial assistance has been reduced due to the
impacts of the recession and slow economic recovery; and
3
WHEREAS, cities have seen their costs with the new NPDES permit requirements double and
triple in size in the past year, with additional costs anticipated in future years. Additionally, many local
businesses have grown increasingly concerned about the costs of retrofitting their properties to meet
stormwater and runoff requirements required under the NPDES permits and TMDL programs; and
WHEREAS, the League of California Cities adopted water polices in March of 2012, recognizing
that the development and operation of water supply, flood control and stone water management, among
other water functions, is frequently beyond the capacity of local areas to finance and the League found that
since most facilities have widespread benefits, it has become the tradition for Federal, State and local
governments to share their costs (XIV, Financial Considerations); and the League supports legislation
providing funding for storrnwater and other water programs; and
WHEREAS, the Governor and the Legislature are currently contemplating projects for a water
bond and a portion of the bond could be directed to assist local government in funding and implementing the
goals of the Clean Water Act and the State's water objectives of conserving and reusing stormwater in order
to improve the supply and reliability of water supply; and now therefore let it be
RESOLVED by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities, assembled in Sacramento
on September 20, 2013, that the League calls for the Governor and the Legislature to work with the League
and other stakeholders to provide adequate funding for water conservation, ground water recharge and
capture and reuse of stormwater and runoff in the water bond issue and to prioritize future water bonds to
assist local governments in funding these programs. The League will work with its member cities to educate
federal and state officials to the challenges facing local governments in providing for programs to capture, .
infiltrate and reuse stormwater and urban runoff.
Background Information on Resolution No. 1
Source: Los Angeles County Division
Background:
In order to meet the goals of both the Federal Clean Water Act and the State's Porter - Cologne Water
Quality Control Act, which seek to ensure safe clean water supplies, cities provide critical water .
conservation, ground water recharge and reuse of stormwater infrastructure, including capture and reuse of
stormwater for their citizens, businesses and institutions.
Working with the State's Regional Water Quality Control Boards and the State Water Resources Board
through the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting process and Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Programs, California's cities implement programs to capture, infiltrate and
treat stormwater and urban runoff with the use of low impact development ordinances, green streets policies
and other programs to increase the local ground water supply.
These actions have led to a dramatic decrease in water pollution from wastewater treatment plants and other
so- called "point sources" since the adoption of the Clean Water Act in 1972. However, current threats to the
State's "non -point sources " of pollution, such as stormwater and urban runoff are far more difficult to solve,
even as the demand for clean water increases from a growing population and an economically important
agricultural industry.
7
Current Problem facing California's Cities
The Little Hoover Commission found in 2009 that more than 30,000 stormwater discharges are subject to
permits regulating large and small cities, counties, construction sites and industry. The Commission found
that a diverse group of water users — the military, small and large businesses, home builders and local
governments and more — face enormous costs. as they try and control and limit stormwater pollution. The
Commission concluded that the costs of stormwater clean up are enormous and that the costs of stormwater
pollution are greater as beach closures impact the state's economy and environmental damage threatens to
impair wildlife.
Additionally, new programs and projects to improve water quality are currently being required by the U.S.
EPA and the State under the NPDES permits and the TMDL programs. Many local governments find that
they lack the basic infrastructure to capture, infiltrate and reuse stormwater and the cities are facing difficult
economic challenges while Federal and State financial assistance has been reduced due to the impacts of the
recession and slow economic recovery.
Cities have seen their costs with the new NPDES permit requirements triple in size in the past year, with
additional costs anticipated in future years. Additionally, many local businesses have grown increasingly
concerned about the costs of retrofitting their properties to meet stormwater and runoff requirements
required under the NPDES permits and TMDL programs.
In Los Angeles County alone, reports commissioned by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District
estimate the costs of achieving region -wide compliance for implementing TMDL programs in the NPDES
permits required by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) will be in the
tens of billions of dollars over the next twenty years. Additionally, failure to comply with the LARWQCB's
terms could result in significant Clean Water Act fines, state fines and federal penalties anywhere from
$3,000- $37,500 per day. Violations can also result in third -party litigation. Such costs are not confined to
Los Angeles County and are being realized statewide.
Clearly, compliance with the NPDES permit and TMDL programs will be expensive for local governments
over a long period of time and cities lack a stable, long -term, dedicated local funding source to address this
need. Many cities are faced with the choice of either cutting existing services or finding new sources of
revenue to fund the NPDES and TMDL programs.
Los Angeles County Division Resolution
The Division supports strong League education and advocacy at both the State and Federal levels to help
cities face the challenges in providing programs to capture, infiltrate and reuse stormwater and urban runoff.
While Los Angeles County cities and.other regions seek to secure local funding sources to meet the Clean
Water Act and the State's water objectives, it will simply not be enough to meet the enormous costs of
compliance. The Los Angeles County Division strongly believes that State and Federal cooperation are
necessary to fund programs to secure and reuse stormwater in order to improve water supply and reliability
throughout the state.
The Division calls for the League to engage in discussions on 2014 State Water Bond to assist cities in
funding and implementing the goals of the Clean Water Act and the State's Water objectives. This
resolution does not support the 2014 bond issue, since the League and individual cities will need to make
this decision at a later time upon review of the final language. However, the Governor and Legislature have
reopened discussions for the 2014 water bond and funding of urban runoff and stormwater programs has
taken a back seat in past bond issues, such as Proposition 84. In May, Assembly Speaker John Perez
appointed a Water Bond Working Group which recently outlined a new set of Priorities and Accountability
Measures for developing a water bond that would gain the support of 2/3 of the Legislature and voters. One
of the priorities identified by the committee included, "Regional Self Reliance /Integrated Regional Water
Management," posing the question if stormwater capture should be included in any future bonds. The
Division believes the opportunity to advocate for funding in the bond is now.
League of California Cities Staff Analysis on Resolution No. 1
Staff. Jason Rhine; (916) 658 -8264
Committee: Environmental Quality
Summary:
This resolution seeks to call upon the Governor and the Legislature to work with the League of California
Cities in providing adequate funding and to prioritize water bonds to assist local governments in water
conservation, ground water recharge and reuse of stormwater and urban runoff programs.
Background:
In 2009, the State Legislature passed and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a package of legislation
that included four policy bills and an $11.1 billion water bond (The Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water
Supply Act). The water bond included the following major spending proposals:
• $455 million for drought relief projects, disadvantaged communities, small community wastewater
treatment improvements and safe drinking water revolving fund
• $1.4 billion for "integrated regional water management projects
• $2.25 billion for projects that "support delta sustainability options"
• $3 billion for water storage projects
• $1.7 billion for ecosystem and watershed protection and restoration projects in 21 watersheds
• $1 billion for groundwater protection and cleanup
• $1.25 billion for "water recycling and advanced treatment technology projects"
The $11.1 billion bond also included nearly $2 billion in earmarks. Projects slated for funding included:
• $40 million to educate the public about California's water
• $100 million for a Lake Tahoe Ehvffonmental Improvement Program for watershed restoration, bike
trails and public access and recreation projects
• $75 million for the Sierra Nevada Conservancy, for public access, education and interpretive
proj ects
• $20 million for the Baldwin Hills Conservancy to be used to buy more land
• $20 million for the Bolsa Chica Wetlands for interpretive projects for visitors
The water bond was originally scheduled to appear on the 2010 ballot as Proposition 18. However, due to
significant criticism over the size of the bond, the amount of earmarked projects, and a lack of public
support, the Legislature has voted twice to postpone the ballot vote. The water bond is now slated for the
November 4, 2014 ballot.
It is unclear whether or not the water bond will actually appear on the November 2014 ballot. In recent
months, pressure has been mounting to postpone the water bond yet again or significantly rewrite the water
bond - to drastically reduce the overall size of the bond and remove all earmarks. The Legislature has until
the summer of 2014 to act.
Fiscal Impact:
Unknown. This resolution does not seek a specified appropriation from a water bond.
Existing League Policy:
In 2008, the League formed a new Water Task Force to consider updates and revision to the Water
Guidelines the League drafted and adopted 20 years earlier. These new Guidelines were formally approved
by the League board of directors in Feb. 2010. Below are the most pertinent policy and guiding principles
related to the proposed resolution. To view the entire water policy guidelines, go to
www.cacities.org/wateq)ol i cygui del.i.nes.
General Principles
• The League supports the development of additional groundwater and surface water storage,
including proposed surface storage projects now under study if they are determined to be. feasible,
including but not limited to: environmentally, economically, and geographically relating to point of
origin. Appropriate funding sources could include, but are not limited to user fees, bonds and federal
funding.
• The League supports state water policy that allows undertaking aggressive water conservation and
water use efficiency while preserving, and not diminishing, public and constitutional water rights.
Water Conservation
The-League supports the development of a statewide goal to reduce water use by 20% by 2020
through the implementation of fair and equitable measures consistent with these principles.
Accomplishing water conservation and water use efficiency goals will require statewide action by
all water users, including residential, commercial, industrial and agricultural water users, local and
regional planning agencies, state and federal agencies, chambers of commerce, and business,
commercial and industrial professional and trade associations.
Water Recycling
® Wherever feasible, water recycling should be practiced in urban, industrial and agricultural sectors.
This includes increasing the use of recycled water over 2002 levels by at least one million acre -
feet /year (afy) by 2020 and by at least two million afy by 2030.
® Increased recycling, reuse and other refinements in water management practices should be included
in all water supply programs.
Water Storage
® The development of additional surface facilities and use of groundwater basins to store surface
water that is surplus to that needed to maintain State Water Resource Control Board (S)ATRCB) Bay-
Delta estuary water quality standards should be supported.
Groundwater
m The principle that local entities within groundwater basins (i.e., cities, counties, special districts, and
the regional water quality control boards) working cooperatively should be responsible for and
involved in developing and implementing basin wide groundwater, basin management plans should
be supported. The plans should include, but not be limited to: a) protecting groundwater quality; b)
identifying means to correct groundwater overdraft; c) implementing better irrigation techniques; d)
increasing water reclamation and reuse; and e) refining water conservation and other management
practices.
® Financial assistance from state and federal governments should be made available to requesting
local agencies to develop and implement their groundwater management plans.
Financial Considerations
s It is recognized that the development and operation of water supply, water conveyance, flood control
and stormwater management, water storage, and wastewater treatment facilities is frequently beyond
the capability of local areas to finance;
10
• The League supports legislation to provide funding for stormwater, water and wastewater programs,
including a constitutional amendment which would place stormwater fees in the category of water
and wastewater fees, for the purposes of Proposition 218 compliance.
Support•
New this year, any resolutions submitted to the General Assembly must be concurred in by five cities or by
city officials from at least five or more cities. Those submitting resolutions were asked to provide written
documentation of concurrence. The following letters of concurrence were received: cities of Alhambra;
Cerritos; Claremont; Glendora; Lakewood; La Mirada; La Verne; Norwalk; Signal Hill; and Mary Ann Lutz,
Mayor, city of Monrovia. A letter of support was also received from the California Contract Cities
Association.
RESOLUTION REFERRED TO PUBLIC SAFETY POLICY COMMITTEE
2. RESOLUTION CALLING UPON THE GOVERNOR AND LEGISLATURE TO ENTER INTO
DISCUSSIONS WITH THE LEAGUE AND CALIFORNIA POLICE CHIEFS' ASSOCIATION
REPRESENTATIVES TO IDENTIFY AND ENACT STRATEGIES THAT WILL ENSURE THE
SUCCESS OF PUBLIC SAFETY REALIGNMENT FROM A LOCAL MUNICIPAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT PERSPECTIVE.
Source: Public Safety Policy Committee
Concurrence of five or more cities /city officials: Cities of Arroyo Grande, Covina; Fontana; Glendora;
Monrovia; Ontario; Pismo Beach; and Santa Barbara
Referred to: Public Safety Policy Committee
Recommendation to General Resolutions Commnittee: Approve
WHEREAS, in October 2011 the Governor proposed the realignment of public safety responsibilities
from state prisons to local government as a way to address recent court orders in response to litigation
related to state prison overcrowding, and to reduce state expenditures; and
WHEREAS, the Governor stated that realignment needed to be fully funded with a constitutionally
protected source of funds if it were to succeed; and
WHEREAS, the Legislature enacted the realignment measures, AB 109 and AB 117, and the
Governor signed them into law without full constitutionally protected funding and liability protection for
stakeholders; and
WHEREAS, California currently has insufficient jail space, probation officers, housing and job
placement programs, medical and mental health facilities, lacks a uniform definition of recidivism; and
utilizes inappropriate convictions used to determine imnate eligibility for participation in the realignment
program; and
WHEREAS, since the.implementation of realignment there have been numerous issues identified that
have not been properly addressed that significantly impact municipal police departments' efforts to
successfully implement realignment; and
WHEREAS, ultimately many of these probationers who have severe mental illness are released into
communities where they continue to commit crimes that impact the safety of community members and drain
the resources of probation departments and police departments throughout the state; and
11
WHEREAS, an estimated 30 counties were operating under court- ordered or self - imposed population
caps before realignment, and the current lack of bed space in county jails has since led to many convicted
probationers being released early after serving a fraction of their time; with inadequate to no subsequent
supervision, leaving them free to engage in further criminal offenses in our local cities; and
WHEREAS, there is increasing knowledge among the offender population which offenses will and
will not result in a sentence to state prison, and many offenders, if held in custody pending trial, that would
be sentenced to county jail are ultimately sentenced to time served due to overcrowding in county facilities;
and
WHEREAS, there are inadequate databases allowing local police departments to share critical
offender information among themselves, with county probation departments, and with other county and state
law enforcement entities; and
WHEREAS, local police departments have not received adequate funding to properly address this new
population of offenders who are victimizing California communities; and now therefore let it be
RESOLVED by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities, assembled in Sacramento
on September 20, 2013, to request the Governor and State Legislature to immediately enter into discussions
with League representatives and the California Police Chiefs' Association to address the following issues:
1. The need to fully fund municipal police departments with constitutionally protected funding to
appropriately address realignment issues facing front -line law enforcement;
2. Amend appropriate sections of AB 109 to change the criteria justifying the release of non - violent,
non - serious, non -sex offender inmates (N3) inmates to include their total criminal and mental
history instead of only their last criminal conviction;
3. Establish a uniform definition of recidivism with the input of all criminal justice stakeholders
throughout the state;
4. Enact legislation that will accommodate the option for city police officers to make ten (10) day flash
incarcerations in city jails for probationers who violate the conditions of their probation;
5. Establish oversight procedures to encourage transparency and accountability over the use of
realignment funding;
6. Implement the recommendations identified in the California Little Hoover Commission Report #216
dated May 30, 2013;
7. Provide for greater representation of city officials on the local Community Corrections Partnerships,
Currently AB 117 provides for only one city official (a police chief) on the seven - member body, six
of which are aligned with the county in which the partnership has been established. As a result, the
counties dominate the committees and the subsequent distribution of realignment funds.
8. Provide, either administratively or by legislation, an effective statewide data sharing mechanism
allowing 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.
/// / / / / ///
12
Background Information on Resolution No. 2
Source: Public Safety Policy Committee
Background:
In October 2011 the Governor proposed the realignment of public safety tasks from State Prisons to local
government as a way to address certain judicial orders dealing with State prison overcrowding and to reduce
State expenditures. This program shifts the prisoner burden from State prisons to local counties and cities.
When the Governor signed into law realignment he stated that realignment needed to be fully funded with
constitutionally protected source of funds to succeed. Nonetheless, the law was implemented without full
constitutional protected funding for counties and cities; insufficient liability protections to local agencies;
jail space; probation officers; housing and job placement programs; medical and mental health facilities; and
with an inappropriate definition of N3 (non- serious, non - sexual, non - violent) criminal convictions used to
screen inmates for participation in the program.
Two - thirds of California's 58 counties are already under some form of mandated early release. Currently, 20
counties have to comply with maximum population capacity limits enforced by court order, while another 12
counties have self - imposed population caps to avoid lawsuits.
At this time no one knows what the fall impact of realignment will ultimately be on crime. We hope that
crime will continue to drop, but with the current experience of the 40',000 offenders realigned since October
2011, and an estimated additional 12,000 offenders being shifted from State prison to local jails and
community supervision by the end of fiscal year 2013 -14, it will be very difficult to realize lower crime rates
in the future.
Beginning in October 2011, California State prisons began moving N3 offenders into county j ails, the
county probation and court systems, and ultimately funneled them into community supervision or alternative
sentencing program in cities where they will live, work, and commit crime.
Note: There is currently no uniform definition of recidivism throughout the state and no database that can
deliver statistical information on the overall impact realigmnent has had on all cities in California. Because
of this problem we have used data from Los Angeles County.
The March 4, 2013 report to the Los Angeles County Criminal Justice Coordination Committee (CCJCC)
shows a strong effort and progress in addressing the realigmnent mandate. However, there is insufficient
funding.
The report also states the jail population continues to be heavily influenced by participants housed locally.
On September 30, 2012, the inmate count in the Los Angeles County Jail was 15,463; on January 31, 2013,
the count was 18,864. The realignment population accounted for 32 % of the Jail population; 5,743 offenders
sentenced per Penal' Code Section 1170 (h) and 408 parole violations.
By the end of January 2013, 13,535 offenders were released on Post. Release Community Supervision
(PRCS) to Los Angeles County including prisoners with the highest maintenance costs because of medical
and drug problems and mental health issues costing counties and local cities millions of dollars in unfunded
mandates since the beginning of the program. Prisoners with prior histories of violent crimes are also being
released without proper supervision. That is why sections of AB 109 must be amended to change the
criteria used to justify the release of N3 inmates to include an offender's total criminal and mental
history instead of only their last criminal conviction. Using the latter as the key criteria does not provide
13
an accurate risk assessment of the threat these offenders pose to society if they are realigned to county
facilities, or placed on Post Release Community Supervision.
Chief Jerry Powers from the Los Angeles County Probation Department recently stated the release criteria
for N3 offenders "has nothing to do with reality." He said initially the State estimated the population of
released PRCS offenders would be 50% High Risk, 25% Medium Risk and 25% Low Risk. The reality is
3% are Very High Risk, 55% are High Risk, 40% are Medium Risk and only 2 % are Low Risk offenders. He
said the High Risk and serious mentally ill offenders being released "are a very scary population." One of
the special needs offenders takes the resources of 20 -30 other offenders. '
Assistant Sheriff Terri McDonald who is the county Jail Administrator recently stated the Jail has only 30
beds for mentally ill offenders being released — when in fact she actually needs 300 beds to accommodate
the volume of serious mentally ill offenders being released that require beds. .
Los Angeles County data shows 7,200 released offenders have had some sort of revocation. This number is
expected to increase because of a significant increase in the first four months of year two of realignment that
totals 83% of the entire first year of the program; 4,300 warrants were issued for offenders; 6,200 offenders
have been rearrested; and 1,400 prosecuted. Data reveals one in 10 offenders will test positive for drugs
during the first 72 hours after being released knowing they are required to report to a probation officer
during that time. Only one in three offenders will successfully complete probation.
There are more than 500 felony crimes that qualify State prison inmates for release under realignment. They
will be spending their time in cities with little, if any, supervision.
Leasue of California Cities Staff Analysis on Resolution No. 2
Staff: Tim Cromartie (916) 658 -8252
Committee: Public Safety Policy Committee
Summary:
This Resolution seeks to outline the deficiencies in the State's current public safety realignment policy, as
implemented in 2011 by AB 109, and to identify policy changes that will assist State, county and municipal
law enforcement entities to cope with the expanded universe of offenders that are now being directed to
county facilities, resulting in increased related impacts on both local communities and municipal law
enforcement.
Background:
This resolution was brought to the Public Safety Policy Committee by individual members of that committee
who are increasingly concerned about municipal public safety impacts resulting from county jail
overcrowding, a problem that has intensified with realignment, resulting in certain categories of offenders
doing no jail time or being sentenced to time served. This has created a climate in which some offenses
receive little or no jail time, accompanied by a growing body of anecdotal evidence that property crimes
have correspondingly increased, with some, such as auto theft, being committed in serial fashion. Increased
criminal activity has strained the resources of many local police departments already struggling to more
closely coordinate information sharing with county probation offices to effectively monitor offenders on
post - community release supervision.
In addition, there is growing concern about the criteria established for determining which offenders are
eligible for post- release community supervision (the non - violent, non - serious, non -sex offenders). There is
so much concern that a May 2013 report of California's Little Hoover Commission recommended adjusting
14
the criteria to examine an offender's total criminal history rather than merely his or her last known offense,
as a means of more accurately assessing the risk he or she might pose to the community.
Implementation of the realigmnent policy is handled in part by the Community Corrections Partnerships
established by AB 109, which currently have only one city representative, compared to at least four county -
level representatives.
Fiscal Impact:
Unknown impact on the State General Fund. This resolution seeks to establish increased and
constitutionally protected funding for city police departments (and county sheriff's departments, to the
degree they are contracted to provide police services for cities), but does not specify a dollar amount for the
revenue stream. At a minimum, it would entail an annual revenue stream of at least, the amount provided for
cities for front -line law enforcement in the State's 2013 -14 Budget, $27.5 million, indefinitely — although
that revenue stream has never been formally identified by the Brown Administration as having any direct
connection to realignment.
Existin:r League Policy:
Related to this resolution, existing policy provides:
• The League supports policies establishing restrictions on the early release of state imnates for the
purpose of alleviating overcrowding, and limiting parole hearing opportunities for state inmates
serving a life sentence, or paroled inmates with a violation.
The League supports increasing municipal representation on and participation in the Community
Corrections Partnerships, which are charged with developing local corrections plans.
• In addition, the Strategic Priorities for 2012, as adopted by the League Board of Directors, included
the promotion of local control for strong cities. The resolution's objectives of locking in ongoing
funding for front -line municipal law enforcement, and increasing city participation in the
Community Corrections Partnerships, are consistent with promoting local control.
Support:
New this year, any resolutions submitted to the General Assembly must be concurred in by five cities or by
city officials from at least five or more cities. Those submitting resolutions were asked to provide written
documentation of concurrence. The following cities /city officials have concurred: cities of Arroyo Grande;
Covina; Fontana; Glendora; Monrovia; Ontario; Pismo Beach; and Santa Barbara.
15