Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout04) 7C League of CA Cities ResolutionsCity Council August 21, 2012 Page 2 during the annual conference on Friday, September 7 , 2012 in San Diego . The City Council has appointed Councilmember Carl Blum as the City 's voting delegate and Mayor Vincent Yu as the alternate delegate. The League's primary means for developing policy is through their standing policy committees and Board of Directors. Additionally, any city, elected or appointed city official, or League Division, Department, or Policy Committee may submit a resolution sixty days before the business meeting. The deadline to submit resolutions for the 2012 conference was July 7, 2012 . Resolutions signed by at least 48 delegates may be introduced during the annual conference for issues that developed after the July 7, 2012 deadline. During the conference, the respective League Policy Committees and General Resolutions Committee will consider making recommendations on the following Resolutions 1 through 5 before they are voted on by the delegates in General Assembly. Below is a brief summary of each of the resolutions : 1 . Resolution Relating to Arrest and Citation Inefficiencies . Submitted by City of Glendora This resolution provides cities with a more efficient system and clear authority to audit the distribution of fines, fees assessments and administrative cost for criminal and traffic violations. Adoption of this resolution would allow the League to call upon the State Legislature and Governor to enact legislation that changes the priority distribution of these fines and fees , so that cities receive the total cost of issuing and processing criminal and traffic violations. 2. Resolution Relating to Internet Crimes against Children. Submitted by San Diego County Division of the L eague, which include s the 18 citie s in that County This resolution seeks to increase public awareness and education on internet crimes against children statewide and advocates that the Legislature adopt tougher laws for child pornography. The resolution also requests the League to advocate for additional and more permanent funding for Internet Crimes Aga inst Children Task Forces (ICAC) statewide. Cit y Council August 21 , 2012 Page 3 3 . Resolution the California Desert Protection Act of 2011 Submitted by City of Needles This resolution encourages cities to oppose the California Desert Protection Act of 2011 proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein which would prov ide conservation, and development of renewable energy in the California Desert Conservation Area. This proposed legislation is a re-introduction of S 2921 , the California Desert Protection Act of 2010 , which was not scheduled for a hearing and is now dead legislation . Council support of Resolution 3, which opposes the legislation would alternatively promote local control for cities. 4 . Resolution Relating to Global Warming Solutions Act (AB32) Submitted by City of Ne edle s This resolution request suspension of the implementation of the regulations under the California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) until the legal and regulatory inconsistencies can be resolved . As background, the California Legislature adopted the California Global Warming Solutions Act , commonly referred to as AB 32, in 2006. It requires the State to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. This resolution encourages California Cities to do the following : • Adopt resolutions requesting suspension of the implementation of some, if not all of the regulations ; • Request the California Air Resources Board (CARS) and other state agencies to examine the impact of the regulations pursuant to AB 32 ; • Request that State agencies work to resolve internal conflicts between AB 32 and existing Federal programs ; 5. Resolution Calling for an Emergency Management Mission fo r all California Cities Sub mitte d by The League Pu blic Safety Policy Committee This resolution encourages cities to actively pursue employee and resident emergency preparedness and engage residents in programs that promote creating a family plan promoting self-reliance . Th is resolution does not seek to create new requirements for the League or cities. Staff recommends that Council authorize the City's delegate to vote in support of the resolutions included in the League 's Resolutions Packet (Attachment "A "). City Council August 21,2012 Page 4 CONCLUSION : The City Council is requested to approve and support the League 's resolutions which align with the City's practices for open , accountable government , fiscal management, and community education and safety . Support of the League resolutions does not commit cities to adopting or implementing any League position in their local communities. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact to the current Fis cal Year (FY) 2012-13 City Budget. ATTACHMENT(S): A. League of California Cities Resolution Packet Attachment A ~ ~ ~ ~F~~9ol-2~ ~CITIES 1400 K Street, Suite 400 • Sacramento, California 95814 Phone: 916.658.8200 Fax : 916 .658.8240 www.cacities.org July 12,2012 TO: Mayors, City Managers and City Clerks League Board of Directors RE: Annual Conference Resolution s Packet Notice of League Annual Meeting Enclosed please find the 2012 Annual Conference Resolutions Packet. Annual Conference in San Diego. This year's League Annual Conference will be held September 5 -7 at the San D iego Convention Center in San Diego. The conference announcement ha s previously been sent to all cities and we hope that you and your colleagues will be able to join us . More information about the conference is avai lab le on the League's Web site at www.cac ities .or g/ac. We look forward to welcoming city officia ls to the conference. Annual Luncheon/Business Meeting-Friday, September 7, 12:00 p.m. The League's Annual Business Meeting will be held at the San Diego Convention Center. Resolutions Packet. At the Annual Conference, the League will consider the five resolutions introduced by the deadline, Saturday, July 7, 2012, midnight. These resolutions are included in this packet. We request that yo u di stribute this packet to your city council. We encourage each city council to consider the resolutions and to determine a city position so that your voting delegate can represent yo ur city 's position on each resolution . A copy of the resolutions packet is po sted on the Leag ue 's website for your convenience: www.cacities.org/r eso lut ions . The resolutions packet contains additional information related to consideration of the resolution s at the Annual Conference. This includes the date , time and location of the meetings at which resolution s w ill be considered. Voting Delegates. Each city council is encouraged to designate a voting delegate and two alternates to represent their city at the Annual Business Meeting. A letter asking city councils to designate their voting delegate and two alternates ha s al ready been sent to each city. Copies of the letter, voting delegate form, and additional information are also ava ilabl e at: www.cacities .o r g/resolut io ns . . ---------------------------------------------------------. : Please Bring This Packet to the Annual Conference : : September 5 - 7 -San Diego : I. INFORMATION AND PROCEDURES RESOLUTIONS CONTAINED IN THIS PACKET: The League bylaws provide that reso lutions shall be referre d b y the presi den t to an appropriate policy committee for review and recommendation. Resolutions with committee recommendations sh all then be considered by the General Resolutions Committee at the Annual Conference . This year, five resolutions have been introduced for consideration by the Annual Conference and referred to the Leagu e policy committees . POLICY COMMITTEES: Three policy committees will meet at the Annual Conference to consider and take action on resolutions referred to them. The committees are Environmental Quality, Public Safety, and Revenue & Taxation. These committees will meet on Wednesday, September 5 , 2012, at the San Diego Marriott Marquis & Marina Hotel in San Di ego. Please see page iii for the policy conunittee meeting schedule. The sponsors of the resolutions have been notified of the time and location of the meetings. Two other p oli cy committees may also be meeting: Administrative Services and Employee Relat io n s. Administrative Services w ill meet p ending League Board (July 19 & 20) action to detemline whether the committee will review any November General election ballot initiatives. Employee Relations will meet if the Legislature acts on pension reform in August. If pension reform is passed, the committee will meet to discuss the details of the proposal. For now, please plan to attend the meeting at the Annual conference. If for some reason this changes, L eague staff will send an email notifying the committee . Three policy committees w illllot be meeting at the annual conference. These committees are: Cotnmunity Services; Housing, Community & Economic D evelopment; and Transp ortation, Communication, & Public Works. GENERAL RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE: This committee will meet at 1:00 p.m. on Thursday, September 6, at the San Diego Convention Center, to consider the reports of the three policy committees regarding the fi ve resolutions. This committee includes one representative fro m each of the League's regional div ision s , funct ional department s and st anding policy committees, as well as other indiv idua ls appointed by the League president. Please check in at the registration desk for room location. ANNUAL LUNCHEON/BUSINESS MEETING/GENERAL ASSEMBLY: T hi s m eeting will be held at 12:00 p .m . on Frida y, September 7, at the San Diego Convention Center. PETITIONED RESOLUTIONS : For those issues that develop after the normal 60-day deadline, a resolution m ay be introduced at the Annual Conference with a petition sign e d by designated voting delegates of 10 p er cent of all me mber c ities ( 48 valid s ignatures r e quired) and presented to the Voting Delegates Desk at least 24 hours prior to the tim e set for convenin g the Annual Business Session of the Genera l Assembly . This year, that deadline is 12:00 p .m ., Thursda y, Septe mb er 6. If the petitioned resolution i s substantially similar in sub stance to a resolutio n already under consideration, the petitioned resolution ma y b e disqualified by the General Resolutions Committee. Resolutions can be viewed on the L eague's Web site : www.cacit ies.org/resolution s. Any questions concerning the resolutions procedures may be directed to Meg Desmond a t the League office: mdesmond@cacities.org or (916) 658-8224. II. GUIDELINES FOR ANNUAL CONFERENCE RES OLUTIONS Policy developme nt is a vita l and ongoing process within the League. The principal mean s for dec id ing policy on th e importan t iss ues facing cities and th e Leag ue is thro ugh th e League's e ig ht standing p o li cy committees and the board of di rectors. The process allows fo r timel y consideration of issues in a changing environment and assures city official s the opportunity to both initiate and influence policy decisio ns. A nnual conference resolutions constitute an additional way to develop League policy. Resolutions shou ld adh ere to the fo ll owing c riteri a. Guidelines for Annual Conference Resolutions 1. Only issues that have a direct bearing on municipal affairs shoul d be considered or adopted at the Annual Conference . 2. The issue i s not of a purely local or regiona l concern. 3. The recommended polic y shoul d not simply resta te exis ting League policy. 4. The reso lution should be directed at achiev ing one of the following objectives: (a) Focus p ublic or medi a attention on an iss ue of major impottance t o cities. (b) Establi sh a n ew direction for League policy by establishing general principal s around which more detailed policies may be developed by policy comm ittees and the Board of Directors. (c) Con sider impmtant issue s not adequatel y addressed by the policy committees and Board of Directors. (d) Amend the League bylaw s (re quires 2/3 vote at General Assem bl y). ii Ill. LOCATION OF MEETINGS Policy Committee Meetings Wednesday, September 5, 2012 San Diego Marriott Marquis & Marina Hotel 333 W. Harbor Drive, San Diego POLICY COMMITTEES MEETING AT ANNUAL CONFERENCE TO DISCUSS AN ANNUAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTION 9:00a.m.-10:30 a.m. 10:30 a.m. -12:00 p.m. Environmental Quality; Revenue and Taxation Public Safety TENTATIVE POLICY COMMITTEE MEETINGS AT ANNUAL CONFERENCE TO DISCUSS OTHER ISSUES 9:00a.m.-10:30 a.m. 10:30 a.m. -12:00 p .m. Administrative Services Employee Relations Note: These policy committees will NOT meet at the Annual Co nference: Community Services Housing , Community & Eco nomic Development Transportation, Communication & Public Works General Resolutions Committee Thursday, September 6, 2012, 1:00 p.m. San Diego Convention Center Annual Business Meeting and General Assembly Luncheon Friday, September 7, 2012, 12:00 p.m. San Diego Convention Center 111 IV. KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN ON RESOLUTIONS Resolutions have been grouped by policy committees to w hich they have been a ssigned. Please note that one resolution has been assigned to more than one committee. This resolution is noted by this sign(+). Number I I Key Word Index Reviewing B ody Action I 2 I 3 1 -Policy Conunittee Recomm e ndation to General Resolutions Committee 2 -General Resolutions Conunittee 3 -General Assembly ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY POLICY COMMITTEE I 2 3 Desert Protection Act I 4 Global Warming PUBLIC SAFETY POLICY COMMITTEE 2 3 +1 Fines and Forfeitures 2 Internet Crimes Against Children 5 Emergency M a nagement Mission for California Cities REVENUE AND TAXATION POLICY COMMITTEE 2 3 +I l Fines and Forfeitures Please note: These committees will NOT meet at the annual conference: Community Services; Housing, Community & Economic Development; and T ransportation, Communication & Public Works Infonnation pertaining to the Annu a l Conference Resolution s wi ll also be posted on each co mmittee's page on the League website: www.cacities.org. The entire Resolutions Packet will be posted at: www .cacities.org/resoluti ons. l V KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN ON RESOLUTIONS (Continued) KEY TO REVIEWING BODIES 1. Policy Committee 2 . General Re so luti ons Committee 3. General Assembly Action Footnotes * Subject matter covered in another r esolution ** 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 a mended to appropriate policy committee for study Raa -Additional amendments and refer Da -Amen d (for clarity or brevity) and Disapprove Na -Amend (for clarit y 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 pol icy provides the following procedure for re solutions approved by League policy committees but n o t 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 subsequentl y 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 Assemb ly. The consent agenda sha ll include a brief description of the basis for the recommendations by both the policy committee(s) and General R esolutions Committee, as well as th e recommended action by each. Any voting delegate may make a motion to pull a re solution from the consent agenda in order to request the opportunity to full y debate the resolution. If, upon a majority vote of the General Assembly, the request for d e bate is appr oved, the General Assembly shall have the opportunity to debate and sub sequently vote on the resolution. v v. 2012 ANNUAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTIONS REFERRED TO ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY POLICY COMMITTEE 3. RESOLUTION ENCOURAGING CALIFORNIA CITIES TO OPPOSE THE CALIFORNIA DESERT PROTECTION ACT OF 2011 Source: City of Needles Referred To: Environmental Quality Policy Committee Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee: WHEREAS , in 1993 Senator Diane Feinstein introduced the California De sert Protect ion Act o f 1994 which became federal law and was passed by the United States Congress on October 8, I 994, and WHEREAS, this act established the Death Valley and Joshua Tree National Parks and the Mojave National Preserve in the California desert; and WHEREAS , thi s act designated 69 wilderness areas as additions to the Nat ional Wilderness Preservation System within the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA), the Yuma District, the Bakersfield District, and the California Desert District of the Bureau of Land Management pennits grazing in such areas; and WHEREAS, the Act abolished Death Valley National Monument, established in 1933 and 1937, and incorporated its lands into a new Death Valley National Park administered as part of the National Park System. Grazing of domestic livestock was pennitted to continue at no more than the then-current level. The Act al so required the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability of lands within and outside the bounda rie s of the park as a reservation for the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe; and WHEREAS, the Act abolished Joshua Tree National Monument, established in 1936 , and incorporate d its lands into Jos hua Tree National Park; and WHEREAS, the Act established the Mojave National Preserve, consisting of approximately 1,419,800 acres (5 ,746 km; 2,2 I 8.4 sq mi), and abolished the East Mojave National Scenic Area, which was designated in 1981. The preserve was to be administered in accordance with National Park System laws. Hunting, fishing and trapping were pennitted as allowed by federal and state laws, with certain exceptions. Mining claims were governed by the National Park System laws , and grazing was pennitted to continue at no more than the then-current level; and WHEREAS, the Act required the Secretary of the Interior to ensure that American Indian people have access to the lands designated under the Act for traditional cultural and religious purpo ses, in recognition of their prior use of these lands for these purposes. Upon the request of an Indi an tribe or religious community, the Secretary mu st temporarily close specific portions to the general public to protect the privacy of traditional cultural and religious activities ; and WHEREAS, flights by military aircraft over the lands designated by the Act were not restricted or precluded, including over flights that ca n be seen or heard from these land s; and WHEREAS, Congress found that federally owned desert lands of southern California constitute a public wildland resource of extraordinary and inest imable value for current and future generations; these desert wildlands have unique scenic, historical , archeological, environmental, ecological, wildlife , cultural, 6 scientific, educational and recreational values; the California desert public land resources are threatened by adverse pressures which impair their public a nd natural values; the California desert is a cohesive unit posing difficult resource protection and management challenges; statutory land unit designations are necessary to protect these lands; and WHEREAS, Senator Dianne Feinstein, author of the 1994 Californi a Desert Protection Act has introduced legi slation ·'Califo rni a Desert Protection Act of 2011 ''that will set as id e new land in the Mojave Desert for conservation, recreation and other purposes ; and WHEREAS, the proposed legislation will take AN ADDITIONAL 1.6 million acres of Bureau of Land Management l and out of potential development, including mining expl oration, by designating two new "National Monuments'', one adjacent to the Mojave National Preserve which will take 1.5 million acres out of BLM multiple use in additi on to 800,000 acres out of private ownership and one adjacent to the J oshua Tree National Park; and WHEREAS, thi s legislation will result in just about every square inch of the desert spoken for , either for military use, national parks, wilderness and special conservation areas, Indian reservations and other types of land management (half of the lands under BLM management are protected under wilderness or special conservation area restrictions); and WHEREAS, projects, such as California mandated so lar energy development, that would disturb or destroy h abitat must make up for that los s by purchasing private habitat at ratios of at least three acres for every one acre disturbed; and WHEREAS, at that rate , even in the nation's largest county, San Bernardino, just three so lar projects on federal land will require an amount of private land acquisition of 22,000 acres, or roughly 34 square miles, land will come off of the county's tax rolls and we will literally run out of mitigation land after a handful of projects; and WHEREAS , the Federal Energy Policy Act of2005 requires that 10,000 megawatts of renewable energy be generated on public land in the west. To meet Cal ifornia 's mandate of havin g 33 percent of our energy come from renewable sources, it requires more that 20,000 megawatts of production and they are looking mainly at public lands. If we approve that much solar, the result would be a regulatory lockdown on the res t of the Desert by the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service and the State Department ofFish a nd Game; and WHEREAS, the Desert Protection Act of 1994 encompassed 1.5 million acres or 2 ,2 18.4 square miles plus an additional 800,000 acres of private land or 1,250 square miles; Fort Irwin, 1,000 square miles; 29 Palms Marine Base, 931.7 square miles and they have also applied for an additional420,000 acres in 2008, or 659.375 square miles totaling 6,059.48 square miles; and WHEREAS, the California Desert Protection Act of2011 will take OVER 2 ,3 00 square miles, not including the acreage of wilderness lo cated outside any of the above mentioned areas (this total mileage wou ld roughly encompass Rho de I sland, Delaware, and Connecticut); and WHEREAS, these public lands have long supported a range of beneficial use s and efforts have been made to protect the desert inhabitants. Let's not destroy the desert or our ability to use and enjoy it. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities assembled at the Annual Conference in San Diego, September 7, 2012 , that the 7 League e ncoura ges Californi a c ities t o adopt resoluti on s in oppositi o n to th e California Desert Protection Act of 2011. ////Ill/// League of California Cities Staff Analysis Staff: Committee: Kyra Ross, Legislative Repre sentative, (916) 65 8 -8252 Environmental Quality Policy Committee Summary: Thi s reso luti on encourages Californi a cities to oppose th e Cal ifomia Desert Protection A ct of 2 011 . Background: The Califomia D esert Protection Act of 2011 (S. 13 8) is legislation prop osed b y Senator Dianne Fe in stein which would provide for conservation, enhanced recreati on oppmtunities, and development of renewable energy in th e Califomia Desert Con servation Area. The Measure would: • Create two n ew national monuments: the 941 ,000 acres Mojave Trail s N ational Monument a long R oute 66 and the 134 ,0 00 acres Sand to Snow National Monument , which connects Jo shua Tree N ation a l Park to the San B e mardino Mou nta ins. • Add adjace nt lands to Joshu a Tree National Park, De ath Valley Natio n a l Park and M ohave N ational Preserve; • Protect n early 76 miles o f wa terways; • Design ate five new wilde rness area s; • D es ignat e approximate ly 250,000 acres of Bureau o f L and Managem ent wild erness ar eas n ear F ort Irwin; • Enha n ce r ecreational o p portunities; and, • D es ignate fo ur existing off-highw ay v ehicle a reas in the Califo rnia D esert as perma nent. S. 138 is a r e-introduction ofS. 2 921 , the Califomia Desert Protection A ct of 2 010 which is now dead. S. 138 w as intr o du ced in J anu ar y 20 11 and was refe1Ted to the Se n a te Committee on Energy a nd Na tural Resourc es. The me asure has n ot yet b een set for hearing b y the Committee. Fiscal Impact: Unknown . N o di rec t fi s cal impac t to c it y gen e ral fund s . Existing League Policy: The Le ague 's Mi ss ion Statem e nt is "to expand and protect loc al control f or cities through education and advo cacy t o e nhance the quali ty of life f or all C alifo rnian s.'' Specific to this R esolution, ex isti ng p oli cy offe rs no s pecifi c policy on thi s issu e . The Leagu e's Strateg ic Prio riti es fo r 2 01 2, as adop ted by the L eague Board of Directors, include: 2) Promot e L ocal Control for Stron g Citi es: Support or oppose le gis lati on and pro p osed constitu t ional a mendm ents based on wh eth er they advance ma ximum local control by city go vernments over c ity re venues, land use, re developm e nt and other private activiti es to advan ce the pub li c health , safety and welfare of city residents. >>>>>>>>>> 8 4 . RESOLUTION REQUESTING CONSIDERATION OF SUSPENSION OF IMPLE MENTATION OR REVISION OF THE CALIFORNIA GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS ACT (AB 32 of 2006) Source: C it y of Needles Referre d T o: Environmenta l Quality P ol icy Committee Recommendation to General Re solutions Committee: WHEREAS, in 2006 the California Legislature adopted the Cali fornia Global Warming Solutions Act, conunonly r eferred to as AB 32 (Health & Safety Code §§38500 et seq .); and WHEREAS, AB 32 ai m s to r educe California's gr eenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) to 1990 levels by 2020 (Health & Safety Code §38550) and to 80 percent below 1990 leve ls by 2050; and WHEREAS, the Califomia A ir Resources Board (CARB) is the government age ncy charged w ith determining how the AB 32 goals w ill be reached (Health & Safety Code §3851 0); and WHEREAS, CARE's implementation of AB32 a im s to reduce California's GHG emissions by 169 million metri c ton s of carb on dioxide equiva l ent (MMTC02E) throu gh a variety of stra tegies, includi ng se ctor-spec ifi c regu la ti on s, market m echan isms, voluntary measures, fees, incentives and other policies a nd programs; and WHEREAS, there are porti ons of the s t ate that have been design a ted as nonattainment for the n at i onal ambient air qu a lity standards (NAAQS) for Ozon e a nd PM, n onatta imnent for st a te ambi ent air quali t y st andards (SAAQS) for Ozon e, PM , Sulfates and H ydrogen Sulfide, and identified b y CARB purs u a n t t o as overwhelming ly impacted by trans p orted air po llu t ion from upwind air basin s; and WHER E AS , areas designated n onattaimnent are mand a t ed under the provi si ons o f t he Federa l C lean Air Act (FCAA) to requir e pursuant to New Source R evi ew (NSR) rules, Best Availab le Control Technology (B ACT) and offsetting emissions reductions (Offsets ) on major new or modified stationary sources of those nonattainm e nt air pollutants and their precursors (42 U.S.C. §§750 2(c )(5), 7503 ) regardless of whether or not the a r ea so d esignated h as any contro l or not over the p oll ution caus in g t he nonattaimne nt fin d in g; and WHE REAS , the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has r e quested t h at a program be d eveloped to imple ment the Prevention of Sig nifi c ant D e t e rioration (PSD) w hi ch w ill r e quire a ddit iona l a nalys is for new or m odified sources o f attai nm ent pollut ants inc luding but n o t limited to g reenhous e gases, w hich w ill a lso n ecessitate e mi ssi o n s r e ductions and BACT in some cases for attainme nt pollutants; and WHEREAS, due in part to the limite d number of existing sources of air pollutants and the overwh el ming impact of trans port some or a majority of t he c ities have few if any ava il ab le emiss ions redu c tion s availa ble to prov ide such offsets; and WHEREAS, m any t echnolog i es u sed to attain BACT levels of air pollution c ontro l are ba sed upon the combustion of fo ssil fue l s whic h al so cau ses e missi ons of GHG s; a nd 9 WHEREAS , there a re a variety of Fed e ral regulations promulga te d and proposed by the USEPA regarding green hou se gasse s that h ave the potential to con fli ct both directl y a nd in their im p lemen tat ion w ith regulatory measures to implement AB 32 a s ado pt e d and proposed by CARB; and WHEREAS, there are a vari ety of o ther mandates and regula tions at the S tate level (m unicipal waste diversion, renewable e n ergy m anda te etc.) which have the potential to confli ct both direc tl y and in due to their implementation with regulatory m easures to implement AB32 as adopted a nd proposed b y CARB; and WHEREAS, such confli cts severely imped e the ci t ies or s tate as well as regulated indu stry effort s to comply with both the applicable Federal regu lation s and regulations imp lem en ting AB32; and WHEREAS, the exi s ting and proposed regulations on both the State and Federal level re sult in an overall regul a tory structu re that is in con s istent and confu s in g m a kin g it v irtually impossi ble or in credibl y slow to start a n y new large scale projects within the State at a time where California infrastructure and its economy a re in most need of refurbishment ; and WHEREAS, the ex isti ng and proposed regulation s a nd unclear g uidelines will also make it more difficult for smal ler, pollution t ransport i mp act e d air districts like the MDAQMD , to properl y imp lement and enforce th e r egulations ; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Gen era l Assem bly of th e League of Californ ia Cit i es assembl ed at the Annual Confere n ce in San Di ego , September 7 , 20 12, that the League e n courages the exis ting 4 82 California citi es to adopt resolutions requesting a su s p e n s ion of the imp l e m entation of some, if not all, the regulati ons promulgated und er the Cali forn ia Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32 of 2 006) until such time as the legal a nd regulatory inconsistencies can be reso lved ; and BE IT FURTHER R E SOLVED, t hat California cities r equest the California Air Resources Board a nd other app lic ab le state agencies examine the impact of the regulations promulgated p urs u ant to AB 32 and fo r potential di rect and indirect conflict with oth er existing regulations at both the St a te and Federal level including but not limited to t h e potential fo r gains in one area to jeopardize progress in anoth er; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, tha t California cities request the Cali fornia Air R esources Board and oth e r appli cable state agencies examine the overall economic imp act of the r egul ation s promulgated purs u ant to AB 32 a nd th eir interaction with other existing regulations with e mphasi s upon the potential for job and o ther economic ac ti v it y "flight" from California; a nd BE IT FURTHER R E SOLVED , th at Cali forn ia cities r e quest the State of Californ ia b y and through it s Governor, Legisl ature, and applicable s tate agencie s should e n courage the r eso lution of interna l conflicts between and am o n g ex is ting F ederal programs by supporting items including b ut not limited to : reopening the Federal Clean Air Act, New Source Review Reforn1, and efforts to regulate GHGs under a comprehen sive Federal program. 11111111/1 10 League of California Cities Staff Analysis on Resolution No.4 Staff: Committee: Kyra Ross, Legi slative Representative, (916) 658-8252 Environmenta l Quality Policy Committee Summarv: This resolution encourages California cities to: 1.) Adopt resolu ti ons reque sting the suspen sion of the impl ementation of some, if not all, the regulation s promulgated under the California G lobal Wanning Solutions Act (AB 32) until such time as the legal and reg ul atory inconsistencies can be resolved; 2.) Asks cities to request the California Air Re so urce s Board (CARB) and other applicable state agencies examine the impact of the regulations promulgated pursuant to AB 32, and for potential conflict with other existing regulations at both the State and Federal level including, but n ot limited to , the potential for gains in one area to jeopardize progress in another; and, 3.) Asks cities to request the CARB a nd other applicable state agencies examine the overall economic impact of the regulations promulgated pursuant to AB 32 and their interaction with other existing regulations with emphasis upon the potenti al for job and ot her economic activ ity "flight'' from California; and, 4.) Asks ci ti es to request the State to encourage th e resolutio n of internal conflicts between and among existing Federal programs by supporting items, including but not limited to : a. Reopening the Federal C lean Air Act; b. New Source Review Re fmm ; and , c. Efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under a comprehensive federal program. Background: AB 32 passed in 2006 and require s the State t o reduce gre enhouse gas emissions to 1990 leve ls by 2020. As the impl ementin g agency, CARB developed and passed a Scoping Pl an in 2008, outlining em is sion reduction measures to help the state meet its statutory reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Since 2008, a number of measures outlined in the Scoping Plan have been implemented. Measures of interest to c ities include: voluntary local government 15% reduction in greenhouse gas emiss ions; regional transportation- re lated greenhouse gas targets; landfill methane control; and green building codes. At the same time, many of Cali fornia 's 15 air basins a re fac in g ongoing c ha ll enges to meetin g federal air quali ty standards. It's imp o rtant to note that regulati o n of air quality in Califo rnia is separated into two level s of r egulation. CARB regulates air pollution from cars, trucks, buses and other sou rc es, often referred to as ·'mobi le sou rces". Local air districts regulate businesses and indu strial facilities. Local air di stricts are the bodi es that regulate ozone, PM 2.5 and PM 10. Ground level ozone (ozo n e), more commonly referred to as smog, i s a p ollutant that forms on hot su mmer days (not to be confused with the ozone that forms in the upper atmosphere o r stratosphere). Ozone is not directly emitted by one sou rc e but comes from a combination of vol a tile o rgani c compounds and ni tro gen oxides. In the presence of sunlig ht , especially on hot summer days, this mi xture fonns ozone. Particul at e Matter (PM) is made up of fine so lid or liquid such as dust, fly ash, soot , smoke, aerosols, fumes, mi sts, and condensing vapors. US EPA has set health based standards for particles small er than 10 microns (PM 10) and particles small er than 2.5 microns (PM 2.5). When these particles become airbome, they can be suspended in the air for long periods oftime. Both PM 10 and PM 2.5 have been determined to c ause serious adverse health effect s. According to a n Apri l 2012 rep01t by the Californ ia Air Pollutio n Contro l Officer's A ssoc iation "California 's Pr ogre ss Toward C lean Air": De::.pite sign~ficant improvements, air quality remains a major source ofpub!ic health concern in large metropolitan areas throughout Cal~fornia. The San Joaquin and South Coast Air Basin II continue to .face sign(ficant challenges in mee ting thefederal h ealth-based standards/or ozone and fine particles, despite th e ir regional and state-level controls 011 mobile and stationcu:y sources that are th e most stringent in th e nation. In 2007, both regions sought extension for meeting th e 1997 8- hour.federal ambient air q uality standard for ozone. A comparable challenge faces each region with resp ect to attainment ofthe 1997 PM2.5 s tandard. Due to continued progress in health research , th e federal EPA lowered th e ambie nt concentration for th e 8-hour ozone and 24-hour PM 2.5 s tandards in 2008 and 2006, re.\pectively. The net e.ffect r~lth ese stric ter standards is to ra is e th e p e1:(ormance barfor Cal(lornia air basins. This will extend th e time.fi·amefor attainme nt in highly polluted regions as well as increase the number of basins with non-attainment status. Challenges also existfor air districts across Cahfomia who are in attainment with thefederal standards , as they continue to strive for atlainment of the State's h ealth-based ozone and PM standards, which are more stringent than th e s tandards adopted by the US EPA . According to the Sponsor, areas designated nonattainment are mandated under the provision of the federal Clean Air Act to require (pursuant to New Source Review Rules) Best Available Control Technology (BACT) and offsetting emissions reduction on major new or modified stationary sources of those nonattainment air pollutants and their precursors regardless of whether or not the area so designated has any control and not over the pollution causing the nonattaimnent finding. The Sponsor also notes that there are a variety of other m andates and regulations at the state level that have the potential to conflict both directly and indirectly with the implementation of AB 32 measures being proposed and implemented by CARB. Two meas ures pointed out by the Sponsor are the existing mandate for local jurisdictions to divert 50% of solid waste from landfills (Public Resources Code 41780) and the state Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) that requires a ll retail sellers (Investor Owned Utilities, electric service providers, and community choice aggregators) and all publicl y owned utilities to procure at le ast 33% of electricity delivered to their retail customers from renewable r esources by 2020. Fiscal Impact: Unknown. No direct fiscal impact to city general fund s. Existing League Policv: Specific to this Resolution, existing policy states: Air Quality • The L eague believes cities should have the autho ri t y to establi sh local air quality standards and programs that are stricter than state and federal standards. The League opposes efforts to restrict such authority. • The League opposes leg islation redirecting the funds authorized by H ealth a nd Safety Code Section 44223, which are currently u sed by local govemments for locally based air quality programs. • The League opposes air quality legislation that restricts the land use authority of cities. Climate Change • The League recognizes that climate change is both immediate and long tem1, with the potential for profound environment al, social and economic impacts to the planet and to Califomia. • Through the G loba l Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32 (Nunez) Chapt er 488, Statutes of 2006) California has embarked on a plan that requires the reduction of greenh ouse gas emissions to 1990 l evels by 2020 . Alt hough un certainty remains about the pace, distribution and magnitude of the effects of climate change, th e League recognizes t he need for immediate actions to mitigate the sources of g reenhouse gas emissions and ha s adopted t he following principles : 1. Action Plans for Miti::ating Greenhouse Ga s Emiss ions . Encourage local govemment s to complete 12 an inventory of greenhouse gas emissions, set appropriate reduct ion targets, and create greenhouse gas e mi ssion reduction action plans. 2. Smart Growth. Consistent with the League's Smart Growth policies, encourage the adoption of land use policies designed t o reduce sprawl, preserve open space, and c reate healthy, vibrant , and sustainable communities . 3. Green Technolocy Investment Assistance. Support ta x credits, grants, loans a nd other incenti ves to assist the public, bu sinesses, and l ocal agenc ies that invest in energy efficient equipment and technology, and fuel efficient, low emission vehicles. 4. En e my and Water Conservation and Efficiency. Encourage energy efficienc y, water efficiency, and sustainable building practic es in new and existing public, residential and commercial buildings and fac il it ies. This may include using th e U.S. Green Building Council's LEED progra m or similar systems . 5. Increase the Use of Clean A lt e rn ative Energy. Promot e the u se and purchase of c lean alternative energy through the developme nt of r en ewable energy resources, recovery of landfill methane for energy production and waste-to-energy technologies. 6. Reduction of Vehicle Emissions in Public Agency Fleets . Support th e reduction of vehi c le emissions through increased fuel effi c iency, u se of appropriate alternative fueled vehi cles, an d/o r low emission vehicles in public agency fl eets. Encourage the u se of appropriate altemative fue led vehicles, and/or low emission v ehicles in private fleets. 7. C limate Change Impacts . Encourage all levels of go vernment to share infonnation to prepare for climate change impacts. 8. Coordinated Planning. State policy sh ould encourage and prov ide incentive for c ities to coordinate and share planning information with neighboring cities , counties, and other govenunental entities so tha t there are agreed upon r egional b lueprints and strategies for dealing with greenhou se gas emissions. 9. Water Supply for New D evelopm ent. Encour age exchange of water s upply information between state and local agencies, including infonnation on the impacts of climate change on state and local water supplies. 10. Recycles Content and Green Purc hasing Policies. Encourage the adoption a nd implementation of recycled content and green procurement p o licies, if fitness and qual ity are equal, including the adoption of an Envirmunental M anagement System and authorization of local agen cies to consider criteria other than only cost in awarding contracts for services. Additi onall y, the League 's Mission Statement is "t o expand and protect local control for cities through e ducati o n and advocacy to enhance th e qu a lity of life for all Californians." F in ally , the Le ague 's Strategic Priorities for 2 012, as adopted by the League B oard of Directors, include: In addition, the Strategic Prior ities for 2012 , as adopte d by the League Boar d of Directors, are to: I) Support Sust ainable and Secure Public Employee Pension s and Benefits: W a rk in partnership with st ate leaders and oth e r stakeholders to promote s u stai nable and secure public pensions an d other post-employment benefits (OPE B s) to help ens ure respon sive a nd affordable public services for th e people of our state and c ities. 2) Promote Local Control for Strong Cities: Support or oppose legislation and proposed constitutiona l amendments based on whether they advance maximum local control by city governments over city revenues, 13 land u se, redevelopment and ot her private activities to a dvance the public hea lth, safety and welfare of city residents . 3) Build Strong Partnerships for a Stronger Golden St ate: Collaborate with other public and private groups a nd leaders to re form t he st ructure and governance, and promote transparency, fisca l int e grity, and responsiveness of our stat e government and intergovemmental system. RESOLUTIONS REFERRED TO PUBLIC SAFETY POLICY COMMITTEE +1 A RESOLUTION CALLING UPON THE GOVERNOR AND LEGISLATURE TO ENACT LEGISLATION THAT WOULD CORRECT INEFFICIENCIES IN THE AUDIT SYSTEM, DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM AND INEQUITIES IN THE FORMULAS FOR DISTRIBUTING COURT ORDERED ARREST AND CITATION FINES, FEES AND ASSESSMENTS GENERA TED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT. Source: City of Glendora Referred to : Public Safety and Revenue & Taxation Policy Committee Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee: WHEREAS, the prima ry pu rpose of criminal and traffic laws is to improve safety for the public, where th e cost inv ol ved to implement enforcement fall s primarily upon local law e nforcement agencies throughout the State; a nd WHEREAS, if State laws are to be effectively e nforced then local cities must have a fair revenue structure to p ay the cost of making a rrests and issuing citati on s for criminal and traffic v iol ators; and WHEREAS, the significant inequity in the amount cities recei ve in r e lation to the full cost of a citation and/or arrest re su lts in an unfair distribution of revenue to c ities that a re generated by court fines , fees, surcharges, penalties and assessments levied on offenders; and WHEREAS, th e current inefficiencies in th e system makes it practicall y impossible for cities to insure tran sp a rency a nd effectively audit, admini ster and manage publi c funds that are generated by citi es and d istributed by the St ate and Count y; and WH EREAS, to a dequ ately protect and serve the public during this t ime of declining revenue and deteriorating services the inequities in t he system needs to be changed; and WHEREAS, court-ordere d debt collec tion and revenue di stribution is a complex system where ther e are few audits, if ever, done to detennine if cities are receiving their fa ir share of di sbursements; and WHEREAS, once a debt h as b een collected, in whole or in part, distributing the m oney is not simple as ther e are over 150 ways coll ection e ntities are re quire d to di stribute revenue collected fro m traffic a nd criminal comi debts. Depending on the fine, fee, surcharge or p enalty assessment imposed b y the court ha s more tha n 3,100 separate comi fines, fees, surcharges, penalties and a ssessments lev ied on offenders that appear in statut es spam1ing 27 different state code sect ions; and WHEREAS, the current system makes it practically impossible for cities to effe c ti vely administer and ma nage public funds t hat are generated by cities. Because of the complex system cit ies cannot d etennine if the y are receiving their fair share of the fines collected; a nd 14 WHEREAS, Co unt ies and the State have statutory responsibility and power to conduct their audits, while citi es do not currently have clear legal standing to demand access to court records for purposes of conducting audits in a thorough and tran sparent manne r which further shrouds the understanding of when and how revenue i s distributed; and WHEREAS, in Dece mb e r 2011 at the req uest of the G lendora Police Department the Los Angeles Superior Court conducted a sample audit of 15 Glendora Police Department-i ssued citatio ns from 2010. The results of the sample audit revealed the City of Glendora received about 12 % ($253) of the $2,063 in paid tines for the 12 of the 15 citations submitted. Three (3) of the ci tations in the audit were sent to collection or wanants. Based on those results, the city received an ave rage of $21, while the State and County received an average of $172 for each of the 12 citations. The percentage brea kdown for the city was 12 .2 5% as compared to the State and County's share of 86. 75%; and WHEREAS, issuing a typical vehicle code violation citation can involve up to an hour of the issuing officer's time and the time of a records clerk ta sked with entering c it ations into the databa se costing approximately $82 per hour. If the citation is challenged the cost increases another $135 to cover the cost of court time and handling of the notices associated with such an appeal. Th er e fore, the cost incuned to issue a citation cunently i s between $82 and $217, while the sample audit reveals the city is receiving about $21 in cost recovery; and WHEREAS, officials with Superior Court openly admit that s imilar results would be expected for almost every jurisdiction in the State issuing citations due to the complexity and "Priority of Di stribution'' they mu st follow from the State ofCal ifomia. ''Priority Distribution'' is triggered when a court reduces a fine for a citation. This process prohibits Judges from reducing penalty assessments and thus the only discretion Judges have in reducing fines, fees and costs is to reduce the base fine, or city p o rtion, of the total fine. Thi s process h as a sig nificant impac t on the amount of money cit ies issuing the citation will receive. Rarely is the reduction in the fin e taken from other stakeholders. Cities are one of the lowest priorities on the di stribution lis t and often find themselves receiving s ignificantly Je ss share-or no share after d e du cting State and County fees and surcharges; and now there let it be RESOLVED by the General Assemb ly of th e Le ague of California Cities, assembled in San Diego on September 7, 2012 , that the League of Cali fornia Cities c a lls upon the State Legi slature and Governor to : Source: 1. Create an efficie nt syst em to provide cities with a clear authority to audit the di stribution of fine s, fe es, assessments and admi ni strative costs for criminal and traffic vi ol ations; 2. Enact legislat ion that changes the "Priority Di stribution" mandate so c ities receive the total cost of is suing, process ing and te stifying in court on criminal cases and traffic violations; and 3. That a ny redu ction in fines , fe es, a ssessme nt s or costs should be equally distributed from the total fine imposed, not just from the c ity base fine . //Ill///// Background Information on Resolution No. 1 City of Glendora 15 Background: Court-ordered debt co ll ection a nd revenue distributi on is a compl ex system where t here are few audits, if ever, done to detenni ne if cities a re re ceiving their fair share of di sbursement s. The cun·en t system makes it practically impossib le for cities to effectively administer and manage public funds that are generated by cities. Becau se of the complex system cities ca nnot detennine if they are r e ceiving their fair share of the fi nes collected. Once a debt has been collected, in who le or in part, distribut ing the money is not simple as there are over 150 ways collection entities are required to distribute revenue collecte d fro m traffic and criminal com1 debts, depending on the fine, fee, su rch arge or penalt y as sessment impo sed by the com1 and California h as m ore than 3 ,100 sepa rate cou rt tines, fees, surcharges, p e nalties and assessments levied on offenders that appear in statutes spanning 27 different government code. County and state have statutory responsibility and power to conduct their aud its, while cit ie s do not currentl y have c lear legal standing to d emand access to court records for purposes of conducting audits in a thorough and transparent manne r which furth e r shrouds the understanding of when and how revenue is di s tributed. A t the r equest of the City of G lendora, in December 2011 , the Los Angel es Superior Court conduct ed a samp le audit of 15 G lendora Po li ce Depa rtment-issued citations from 2010. The results of the sample audit revea led the G le n dor a received about 12% ($253) of the $2,063 in paid fines for th e 12 of the 15 citation s submitted. Three (3) of the citations in th e audit had been sent to collection o r warrants. Based on those results , the city received an average of $2 1, while the sta te a nd county received an average of $172 for each of the 12 cit ations. The perce ntage breakdown for the city was 12 .25% as compared to the state and co un ty's share of 86 .75.% Issuing a t yp ical vehi cle code violat io n ci tati o n can in vo lve up to an ho u r of the iss uing officer 's time a nd the record s clerk t aske d wi th entering citations into the databa se costing approximatel y $82 per h our. If the c itation is ch a ll enged th e cost increases another $135 to cover the cost of court ti me and h andling of th e notices assoc iat e d with such an appeal. The refore, the cost incurred to issue a citation that is currently between $82 a bout $2 17, while the sample audit reveals the city is receiving about $2 1 in cost recove1y. Officials with Superior Com1 openly admit that simil ar results wo uld be expected for almost every jurisdiction in th e state because wh en a court red uc es a fine it triggers a process call ed "Priority Di stributio n." T hi s process prohibits Jud ges f ro m re du cing penalty assessments imposed by the county and state and thu s the only di scretion th at Judges have in reducing fines is to reduce the Bas e Fine (City Portion ) of the total fine. This mandate h as a significant impact on the amou nt of money cities issuing the citat ion receive. Rare ly i s the reduction in the fine taken from other stakeholders. Cities are one of the lowest priority on the distribution so often they find themselves receiv ing significantly le ss share-or no share after deducting state and county fees and surch arges. The primary cost to implement enforcement falls upon local law e nforcement agencies throughout the state. This Resolution call s upon th e State Legisl ature and Governor to create an efficie nt system t o provide cit ies w ith a clear authorit y to audi t the distribution of fines , fee s, assessm e nt s and administrative costs for criminal and traffic vi olations . In a ddition, legi sl ation should be developed and passed that ch anges the "Priority Di strib ut io n'· man date so the citi es re ceive th e total cost of iss uing, processing and testifying in court on cr imina l cases and traffic viol ations and th at any reduction in fines , fees , assessment s or cos ts should be equ a ll y distributed from the total fine imp osed . IIIII///// 16 Staff: Committee: Staff: Committee: Summary: League of California Cities Staff Analysis on Resolution No. I Dorothy Holzem , Assoc. Legi slative Representative, (916) 658-8214 Public Safety Policy Committee Dan Carrigg, Legislative Representative, (916) 658-8222 Revenue and Taxation Policy Committee This Resolution urges the League of Califomia Cities, through legislative or admini strative means, to clarify the authority for cities to audi t the distribution of court imposed fines , fees, penalty assessments and administrative costs for criminal and traffic violations. It a lso urge s th e League to seek legislative chan ges to the "Priority Di stribution" statutory formula so that ci ties receive the total cost of iss uing , processing and testifYing in court on criminal cases and traffic vio lations. The current statutory formula a ll ows reductions to the base fine but maintains the same level of penalty assessments, based upon the full penalty charge. Fina lly, any reductions that may occur in fines, fees, assessments or costs detenninations should be equally di st ributed from the total fine imposed, not just from the city base fine. This Resolution raises several policy questions: 1) Should cities have the authority to request audits and receive repmis from a county or the state on the local share of revenue resulting from criminal and traffic violation penalties? 2) Should cost-recovery be a driving factor in setting monetary penalties for criminal or traffic violations? 3) Should reductions (as ordered by a judge) to the fines owed by violators be taken just out of the base fine, or should the base fine and related penalty assessments be reduced proportionately? Background: In California, criminal offenders may have additional penalty assessments made to their base fines. These penalty assessments are based on the concept of an "abusers fee ,'' in which those who break cetiain laws will help finance programs related to decreasing those violati ons. For example, drug and alcohol offenses and domestic violence offenses are enhanced by special assessments on fines that directly fund county programs designed to prevent the violations. All other criminal offenses and traffic violations are subject to penalty assessments that are used to fund specific state programs. According to the Resolution sponsor, the City of Glendora, the court-ordered collection of penalty fines and additional assessments, as well as the sub sequent revenue distribution, is a complex system where few audits are conducted to determine if cities are receiving their share of collections. The current system makes it practically impossible for cities to effectively administer and manage public funds that are generated by cities. The League recently held in-depth policy di scu ssions related to audit authority in light of the misconduct charges against the City of Bell in 2011. The League convened a technical working group to review audit legislation and administrati ve efforts by the State Contro ller's Office. Following the work of thi s group, the League Board adopted principles supporting trans parent, accurate financial and perfonnance infonnation. (See ''Existing Policy" section below.) However, these principles did not address expanding cities' audit authority over the state, counties, or other public agencies. 17 The sponsors state that there are over 150 ways collection entities are required to distribute revenue collected from traffic and criminal court debts. Depending on the fine, fee , surcharge or penalty assessment imposed, there are more than 3 ,100 separate com1 fines , fees, surcharges, p enalties and a ssessments levied on offenders that appear in statutes spanning 27 different state code sections. Generally, the base fines for criminal and traffic citations are significantly lower than the additional penalty assessments levied by the state and counties. In some instances, the penalty assessment for state and local programs can be three or four times the amount collected by the city or county agency that issued the citation through their local enforcement authority. The amount each program account receives is based on a sta tutory formula . For example, if a driving under the influence (DUI) fine is $1000, specific dollar amounts proportionate to the base fine are added unde r six different code sections for a total price tag of $3,320 for the offense. Some examples of program accounts receiving penalty assessment revenues include Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST), victim witness protection and services, court securit y, court construction, forensic laboratories for DNA identification, and automated fingerprint identification. The impact of programs la rgely funded, if not solely funded, by penalty assessment revenue casts a wide net of stakeholders including counties, sheriffs, di strict attomeys, public defenders, fish and game wardens, victim advocates, and access to the judicial system advocates . Cities are also partial benefactors of penalty assessment funded progra ms related to law enforcement. For the last three decades, this policy area has been under great scrutiny and study but with little reform taking place. Th e recommen dat ions from past studies and reports to consolidate penalty assessment accounts or their collection s efforts, which would require legislative act ion, have likely not gained traction because of the inevitable loss of revenue for the specific programs and the affected interest groups. In 19 86, the Legislature enacted Senate Concurrent Resolution 53, requiring the Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) to study the statutory penalty assessments that are levied by the court s on offenders and the state programs that the funds support. T he completed 1988 study found a complicated system of collection and distribution of penalty funds . The LAO was unable to fully identify the source offenses that generated pena lty revenues becau se of limitations in most county collection systems. In 2005, the Califomia Research B ureau issued a report for the Assembly Public Safety Committee on county penalty assessments t hat drew similar conclusions. They stated th e complexity of the system means poor revenue collection, disproportionate justice for debtors, and undem1ines the usefulness of fines as a punishment or deterrent. They reconunended effmts to streamline and consolidate collections, funding, and appropriations. After some delay, the state created the Administrative Office of the Court's Comt-Ordered Debt Task Force, which is charged with evaluating and exploring means to streamline the existing structure for imposing and distributing criminal and traffic fines and fees. This Task Force has been asked to present preliminary recommendations to t he Legislature regarding the priority in which court-ordered debt s hould be satisfied and the u se of comprehensive collection programs. Currently, the League of Califomia Cities has two appointments to the Task Force. However , the Task Force has been put on hiatu s and has not met for approximately 12 months due to significant state cuts to the court budget in recent years. Currently, legislation was introduced this year to address the issue of cities not recouping the costs of issuing citations. The response has been to increase the base fine and not change penalty assessments . Assembly Bill 2366 (Eng) would increase the base fine of "fix-it" tickets from $10 to $25 dollars. This has largely been successful in the legislative fiscal conm1ittees because with every increase to the base fine for the issuing agency, so increases the state and county share of penalty assessments proportionately. 18 Lastly, in most instances when the legislature takes into considerati on a fine increase, be it for manufacturer product responsibility or criminal acts, the legislature focuses on how the increased fine will alter behavior, not on recovering the costs of enforcing that violation. Fiscal Impact: Unknown. Potential additional revenue received by cities, if any, would vary based on total citations issued and collected . Existing League Policv: Related to this Resolution, existing policy offers : • Cities and the League shou ld continue to emphasize efficiency and effectiveness, encouraging and assisting cities to achieve the best possible use of city resources. • The League supports efforts to preserve local authorit y and accountability for cities, state policies must ensure the integrity of existing city revenue sources for all cities, including the city share and situs allocation, where applicable, of property tax, sa les tax , vehicle license fee, e tc . Audit Principles Adopted by th e League Board • Given the State already has substantia l authority to examine local government financial practices, and recognizes the significant re sources required by auditors and local governments to complete audit s, additional authority should only be granted to a State agency when there are documented insufficiencies in its existing authority. • Governmental financial audits and performance audits ensure financial integrity and promote efficient, effective and accountable local government. • Transparent, accurate financial and performance information is necessary for citizens to have confidence that their interests are being served, a nd for decision makers to be accountable for ensuring that public funds are spent appropriately and effectively. • Public trust is inspired when auditors perform their work with independence, objectivity and integrity, remaining f ree from personal, external and organizational impainnents to that indep endence, both in fact and in appearance. • Public confidence in government is maintained and strengthened when financial and perfonnance infonnation is collected, managed and repo11ed in accordance with nationally recognized professional accounting and auditing standards . The League 's Mission Statement is "to expand and protect local control for cities through educat ion and advocacy to enhance the quality of life for a ll Californians." In addition, the Strategic Priori ties for 2012 , as adopted by the League Board of Directors, are to: 1) Support Sustainable and Secure Public Employee Pensions and Benefits: Work in partnership with state leaders and other stakeholders to promote susta inable and secure public pensions and other post-employment benefits (OPEBs) to help ensure responsive and affordable p ublic services for the people of our state and cities. 2) Promote Local Control for Strong Cities: Support or oppose legislation and proposed constitutional amendments based on whether they advance maximum local control by city governments over city revenues, 19 land use, re dev e lopment and other p ri va te activities to advance the publi c health, safety and welfare of city residents. 3) Build St ro n g Pm1nerships for a Stronger Golden State: Collaborate wit h other public and private groups and leaders to r efonn the struc tu re and governance, and promo te transparency, fiscal integrity, and respons iveness of our state governme nt and intergovernmental system. >>>>>>>>>> 2. RESOLUTION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES RAISING PUBLIC AWARENESS AND SUPPORTING TOUGHER LAWS RELATED TO INTERNET CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN Source: San Diego County Division Referred To: Public Safety Policy Committee Recommendation to General Reso lutions Committee: WHEREAS, teclmology has brought s ignifi can t changes to our society over the past two decades, many of which h a ve had a positive effe ct on our quality of life while some have threatened the safety and well-be ing of ou r young children; and WHEREAS, the internet has made victimization of children easi e r than ever before; and WHEREAS, the internet has also signifi cantly increased the avai la bility of c hild pornography, with mo re than 6.5 million linages being s hared v ia the internet , comp ar ed to only a few hundr ed photos l ess than a generation ago; and WHEREAS, some see viewing child p ornography as a "victimless crime," h owever these images are neve r completely eradicated from the internet and th e victims continue to have their horrific photos v iewed over and over again by pedophiles for sexual gratification; and WHEREAS, in 2007 the Natio nal Center for Missing and Exploited C hildren reported it had identified 9.6 million im ages and videos of child pornog raphy and believed the re were milli ons mor e n o t identified; and WHEREAS, in the 2006 Butner Redux Study, 98 percent of convicted child pornographers had mol ested children before thei r capture; and WHEREAS, t he United States is the number one producer a nd con s umer of child pomography in the world , wi th more than 624,000 child pornography u sers identified n at io nwide. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the General Assembly of the L eague of California Cities assembled at the A nnua l Conference in San Diego, September 7, 2012, that the League ofCalifornia Cities : 1. D es ires to increase public aware ness and educate others about the criti cal i ssue of intemet crimes against children s tatewide. 2. Requests the League advocate for the Stat e L egis lature to adopt t ougher laws for c hild p omographer s. 20 3 . Requests the League advocate for additional and more permanent funding for Intemet Crimes Against Children Task Forces (ICAC) statewide. IIIII///// Background Information on Resolution No. 2 Source: San Diego County Division Background: Technology has brough t significant changes to our society over the past two decades. While most have had a positive effect on our quality of life, many have threatened the safety and well-being of our young children. The internet has made victimization of children much easier than ever before. Today, pedophiles can network with one another online, encourage one another to commit crimes against children, and share tips on evading law enforcement. Worse yet, they often use the internet -socia l media sites, in pa11icular-to find and prey on young children. Many times, these innocent children are lured away from their homes by these perpetrators and never seen again. The intemet has also significantly increased the availability of child pomography. More than 6.5 million child abuse images are being shared via the intemet today. Before this technology was in place, the number of photos avail able numbered in the few hundreds. While some see viewing child pomography as a "victimless crime,'' nothing could be further from the truth. One study showed that 98 percent of convicted child pornographers had molested children before being captured (Butner Redux Study, 2006). Additionally, these images can never be completely eradicated from the intemet once they are placed online. Therefore, victims continue to suffer the irrevocable damage of knowing their horrific photos are being viewed over and over again for sexual gratification by pedophi les. Many bel ieve these hon·endous crimes happen mostl y in other countries . Sadly, the United States is the number one producer and consumer of child pomography in the world, and American chi ldren are the primary victims. More than 624,000 child pomography users have been identified nationwide and thousands of these reside in San Diego County. While the intemet is exploited by these predators to harm children, it ironically is the same tool used by law enforcement to t rack down and arrest these criminals. Your help is urgently needed to secure resources for this effort, increase public awareness, work to support tougher laws and educate others o n this critica l issue. While San Diego ha s one of th e nation's 61 ICAC task forces, its six trained investigators are overwhelmed with cases due to funding shortfalls. With your help, these predators ca n be taken offthe street and our children will be safer. Here is what needs to be done: Change state law . The current "wobbler" (misdemeanor and felony) wording should be eliminated. All child pornography charges should be made a straight felony. Strengthen sentencing. State sentencing on child pornography cases needs to be more in line wit h 21 federal sentencing. Toughen discovery statutes. State discovery sta tutes should be am ended to comply with the Adam Walsh Act. Child pomography is contraband that is easily reproduced and sho uld be treated as such . Change pornography evidence rules. Stop the practice of giving copies of c hil d pomography evidenc e to the defense. In stead, provide th e defense a secur e area wh ere t hey can view the evidence but no t take procession of it. Strike curre nt law about possession/distribution of child pornography. Cun-ently, st ate law allows for a defendant's conviction for possession and distribution of child pornography to be set aside if he/she has complied with a ll probation conditions, pursuant to Penal Code Sec ti on 1203.4. Strengthen disclosure laws. If applying for any job other than public office, li censure by any state or local agency, or for contra cting with the st ate lottery, a convicted possessor of c hild pornography does not nee d to d isclose t heir prior conviction. T hat allow s people who have been con victed of possess ing or dealing in photos of chi ld explo it ation to get closer to children. PC 1203.4 already has exceptions for convictions of PC 286( c), 288, 288a( c), 2813.5, 289m , felony 261.5(d) and 4 200 1(b) of the Vehicle Code. These convictions may not be set aside per PC 1203.4 and mu st always b e di sclosed. PC 311.1, 311.2, 3 1 1.3, 31 1.4, 311.10 and 311.11 should be added to the li st of charges to which thi s type of relief does not app ly. Update reporting laws. The existing mandatory rep01t ing law shou ld be updated to include librarians a nd computer technicia ns. Provide p ermanent funding for ICAC. Significantly more pennane nt fundi ng is needed for lntemet Crimes Against Children Task Forces (lCAC's). They are tasked with investigating c rime s against children involving electronic devices. The crimes include child pornography, child mo lestat i on and peer-to-peer bu llying. ICAC ta sk force 's are severely undersized a nd underfunded to keep up with the magni tude of the growing problem. Increase public awareness. Public awareness of the issue needs be heightened particularly to parents and chi ldren as well as all public offi cials and the community in order to protect our children against these unspeakable crim es. Staff: Committee: Summary: IIIII/III/ L eague of California C ities Staff A nalys is on Reso lution No. 2 Dorothy Holzem , Assoc. Legislative Representativ e , (916) 658-82 14 Publi c Safety Policy Committ ee This Resoluti on seek s to increase public awareness of the prevalence of internet crimes agai nst children. To he lp promote this goal, the Resolution request s the League of Califomia Cities advocate for legis la tion that creates tougher laws for c hil d pornograph e rs and provides additional, more pennanent fundin g for lntemet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Forces. Background: According to th e Resolution sponsors, the U.S. Census Bureau (2005) es timat es th at there are over 2 4 .5 mi lli on intemet users in the United States b e tween the ages of 10 and 17. They cite that the rapid growth of intemet accessibility has brought forth he lpfu l tool s for our children and youth . Unfortunately, it has also brought with it the increased p otentia l for online victimiza tion including unwanted exposure to sexual material, unw anted sexual solicitations, and online harassmen t. 22 The Intemet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Program was c rea te d to h e lp federal , state and l ocal law enforcement agenc ies enhance their investigative respon ses to offenders who use th e internet, online communication systems , or computer technology to sex ually expl o it children. The program is funded by the United States Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention . The program is a national network of 6 I coordinated task forces representing over 3,000 federal, state, and local law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies. These agencies are engaged in proactive investigations, foren sic investigations, and c riminal prosecutions. In FY 2009, ICAC Program received $25 million under the Omnibus Appropriation Act to support ICAC task forces, training, and technical assistance. The ICAC Program r eceived an additiona l $50 million through the American Reinve stm ent and Recovery Act to support ICAC ta sk forces, training , techni ca l assistance, and research . In each of the past tw o fi scal years , the program r eceived $3 0 million nationally . Existing Califomia law addresses the poli cy area extensively in the areas of solicitation , pomography, and harassment with add itional penalties often levied when the vic tim is a minor less tha n 14 years of age. Internet-based crim es against minors have been a popular topic in recent legisl ative proposals especiall y as new web-based t echnology is brought i nto the market. Legisl ation has included both increased pena lties and greater protections or remedies for victims. Fiscal Impact: Un known. No direct fiscal impact to city general fund s. Existing League Policy: Related to this Re so lution, existing policy offers: The League be li eves that th e c h i ldre n of Ca lifornia mu st be recogni zed as o ur state 's most va luable r esource. Their development, education, and we ll-be in g are key to o ur state 's fut ure. Further, it is essential that each child have the support needed to become a productive citizen in the world of the 2 151 Century. The League sup ports the promotion of public safet y through stiffer penalties for v iolent offenders. The Leag ue's Mission St ate me nt is "to expand a nd protect loca l contro l for cities t hrough education and advocacy to enh anc e th e quality o f life for a ll Californi ans.'" In addition, th e Strategic Priorities fo r 2012, as adopted by th e League Board of Directors, are to: 1) Support Sustainabl e and Secure Public Employee P ensions and Benefit s: Work in partnership with state leaders and other stakeh olders to promote su stainable and sec ure public pensions a nd other post-employment benefits (OPEBs) to help ensu re responsive and affordabl e public services for the people of our state and cities. 2) Promote Local Control for Strong Cities: Support or oppose legislation and proposed constitutional amendments based on whether t hey ad vance max imum local contro l by city governm e nts over c ity r evenue s, land u se, redevelopment and other private activities to advanc e the public health, safety and wel fa re of city residen ts. 3) Build Strong Partnership s for a Stronger Golden State: Coll aborate with ot her public and private groups and leaders to reform the st ru cture an d governance, and promote transparency, fiscal integrity, and responsiveness of our state government and inter govenunenta l system . >>>>>>>>>> 23 5. A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR AN EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT MISSION FOR CALIFORNIA CITIES Source : League Public Safety Policy Committee Refened To: Public Safety Policy Committee Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee: WHEREAS, emergency management is a basic responsibility of city govemment and a fundamen tal duty of all city employees; and WHEREAS, prepared, di saster resilient communities save li ves, prevent injuries, protect property, promote economic stability, and rapid recovery ; and WHEREAS, employees who have a family plan and supplies will be more likely to stay at work or come to work after an emergency incident; and WH EREAS, the National Incident Management System (NIMS) provides guidelines and requirement s to ensure a national coordinated emergency response system, including training r equirem ents; and WHEREAS, th e Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) provides the foundation for Califomia cities to ensure a state-wide coordinated, standardized emergency response system. SEMS is intended to be flexible and adaptable to the needs of all emergency responders in Califomia; and WHEREAS, emergency managers are re sponsib le for promoting and encouraging personal , family and community preparedness and readiness. It i s critical to focus on and su pport public education and training to en sure that the public understands that government entities may need time to recover from di sast er situations , and to spread the message that di saster res ili ence, or the ab ility to recover from a di saster situation, require s participation from th e whole community; and WHEREAS, The League ofCalifomia Cities (League) recogni zes that cities, counti es and the state do not have the reserves to support residents with food, water, and other necessary supplies after an "emergency event''. Now, therefore let it be RESOLVED, at the League General Assembly, ass embled at the League Annual Confer ence on September 7, 2012, in San Diego, that the League encourages ci ties to actively purs ue employee and resident emergency preparedness. In addition, the League encourages cities to active ly engage re sidents in emergency preparedness programs that promote creating a family plan, including having supplies of food and water, in the promotion of se lf-re li ance. Staff: Committee: Summary: ll////l/1/ League of California Cities Staff Analysis on Resolution No. 5 Dorothy Holzem , Assoc. L egislative Re presentative, (916) 658-8214 Public Safety Policy Committee T his Resoluti on seeks to create a clear statement of su pport for emergency pre paredness in the Le ague of Ca lifomia Cities existing policy and guiding principles . Specifically, it requests that the League encourages cities to actively pursue empl oyee and re sident emergency preparedness and to engage residents in 24 emergency preparedness progr ams that promote creating a family plan, that includ es provisions for suppl ies offood and water, in t he promotion of self-re li a nce. wi th the ultimate goa l of c re ating ··di saster resi lie nt'' cities. Background: This resolution was brought to th e Publi c Safety Pol icy Committee by that committee's Emergen cy and Disaster Preparedness Subcommittee to create a clear statement of support for emergency r esponse, management , a nd reco very effort s a s a community . While the League has extensive policy that support s related activities, there is n o explicit statem ent of su pport in the existing p olicy or guidin g prin ciples. In addition, numerous articles in Weste rn City Magazine, the League's mo nthl y publication , h ave featured case studies and best practices about emer gency r esponse a nd disaster preparedness. This topic h as been a key comp o nent of the Public Safety Committee's work program for th e la st five years. Fiscal Impact: Unknown. This Resolution do es not seek to create n ew requirements fo r the League or cities. Possibl e costs to c it ies th a t take steps to educate community m em bers about disaster preparedn ess cou ld b e off-set b y fut ure limited da mage and loss of life o r injury due to tho se preparedness efforts. Existing League Policy: Related t o this Resolution, existing policy provides: The League suppo rt s the 2-1-1 California telephone service as a non-emergency, human and community services and di saster information reso urce. T he League s uppmts "Good Samaritan'· protection s that include both medic al and non-medical care when applicable to vo lunteer emergen cy, l aw enforcement, and disaster recovery personn el. The League also s uppo rt s providing ''Good Samaritan '· protections to bu s ine sses that voluntaril y pl ace automat ed exte rnal defibrillators (AEDs) on their premises to reduce b arriers to AED a ccessibil ity The League supports activities to develop and implement statew ide integrated public safety commu nication system s that faci lit ate interopera bility and other shared u ses of public safety spectrum with local state and federal l aw e nfor cement, fire, emergency medical and other public safety agencies. The League s upports a single , efficient, performance-based state department (the Califomia Emergen cy Management Agency) to be responsible fo r overseeing and coordinating emergency preparedness, response, recovery and h omeland security activities. The League s upports disaster recovery legisla tion that includes mitigation for losses experienced by local govern ment. The League's Mi ss ion Statement is ''to expand a nd protect local con tr o l for cities th rough edu cat ion and a dv oc acy to e nhance the quality of l ife for a ll Californi ans." In addition, the Strategic Prioritie s for 2 012, as adopted by the League Boar d of Directors, are to: 1) Support Sustainable and Secu re Public Employee Pens ions and Benefits: Work in partnership with state le ader s and o th er st akeh old ers to p romote susta inable and secure public pensions and other post-employment ben efits (OPEB s) to help ensure responsive and afforda bl e public servic es fo r the people of our s tate and cit ies . 2) Prom ote Local Control for Strong Cities: Support or oppose legislation and proposed constit ution a l amendments based on whether they advance maximum local control by city govenunent s over city revenues, 25 land use, redeve lopment and other private activit ies to advance the public health, safety and welfare of c it y residents. 3) Build Strong Partnerships for a Stronger Gol den State: Co llaborate with other public and private grou ps and leaders to reform the structure and governance, and promote tran sparency, fiscal integrity, and responsiveness of our state government and intergovernmental system. >>>>>>>>>> RESOLUTION REFERRED TO REVENUE AND TAXATION POLICY COMMITTEE +1 A RESOLUTION CALLING UPON THE GOVERNOR AND LEGISLATURE TO ENACT LEGISLATION THAT WOULD CORRECT INEFFICIENCIES IN THE AUDIT SYSTEM, DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM AND INEQUITIES IN THE FORMULAS FOR DISTRIBUTING COURT ORDERED ARREST AND CITATION FINES, FEES AND ASSESSMENTS GENERA TED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT. Resol ution #1 also referred to Public Safety Policy Committee. Please see Public Safety Policy Committee section for the resolution, background and staff analvsis information. 26