Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-02-23 City Council (3)TO: City of Palo Alto Manager’s Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL ATTENTION: POLICY AND SERVICES COMMITTEE FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY MANAGER FEBRUARY 23, 1999 DEPARTMENT:CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE CMR:i53:99 PROPOSED 1999 LEGISLATIVE OBJECTIVES RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Policy and Services Committee approve the proposed 1999 legislative objectives (Attachment A) and recommend that the City Council adopt these objectives as the basis for the City’s legislative advocacy in 1999. BACKGROUND The City’s 1998 legislative objectives were reviewed by the Policy and Services Committee in March 1998 (CMR:154:98) and adopted by Council in April 1998 (CMR:217:98). The 1998 legislative platform included 32 objectives in a range of areas (e.g. housing, employee relations, revenue and taxation, etc.). Theseobjectives were compiled from staff suggestions regarding legislative items that would impact the City and be likely to require action in 1998. It had been decided in 1998 to develop from the ground up a more focused platform than the one adopted in 1997. The 1997 platform included more than 100 objectives that had been basically continued from previous years. Analysis indicated that a platform of this size was difficult to take meaningful action on. In addition, the 1997 objectives did not contain many of the items of importance to the City that arose during the course of the year. Consequently, it was felt that a shorter set of objectives focused on current priorities would allow for a more effective legislative program. DISCUSSION Analysis of 1998 Legislative Activi _ty. The City did not see a significant improvement in the results of its legislative activities in 1998, achieving a 50/50 success rate. The City took action by writing letters, passing resolutions, etc. on 22 separate items (see Attachment B) with the following results: CMR:153:99 Page 1 of 3 The City took action on only one quarter of the priorities in the adopted 1998 Legislative Objectives. Half of the issues the City took action on were not previously identified in the adopted objectives. Half of the issues the City took action on were resolved in a favorable way (i.e. the legislation the City supported passed or the legislation the City opposed failed only 50 percent of the time). There were only four issues that the City took significant action on (i.e. writing multiple letters at different stages in .the legislative process, providing information to the public, passing a Council resolution, etc.). The City’s interests prevailed in two of the four issues that received significant attention. For example, the City joined many other municipalities and groups to oppose the State’s repeal of the Vehicle License Fee. In the end, cities’ interests prevailed: local government funding was protected and the size of the repeal was reduced and made contingent on a continued surplus. Process for Developing 1999 Legislative Ob_iective,s The analysis ofl~t year’s results indicates that it is very difficult to predict every issue that might arise in the year of importance to the City. It is also difficult, as one city with limited staff resources dedicated to legislative advocacy, to greatly influence the fate of State or Federal legislation or to even act on every piece of legislation of interest. This suggests the need for a further refinement in the process of developing legislative objectives. A new process is being proposed that will focus the adopted objectives on the key issues likely to affect local cities this year as identified by the League of California Cities (LCC), Santa Clara County Cities Association (SCCCA) and Palo Alto staff. Such a platform will provide an opportunity for greater effectiveness since Palo Alto’s efforts will be leveraged by those of other cities. In addition, it will be easier to take more significant, repeated action on a relatively small list of legislative items. The priorities for 1999’ identified by the LCC and SCCCA include suchissues as a Social Security mandate, revenue base protection, transportation funding, Interact taxation, Federal Emergency Management Agency reform and takings. These issues have been reviewed and amended by City staff, with additions, deletions and changes made to ensure that the proposed 1999 City of Palo Alto Legislative Objectives (Attachment A) adequately reflects the City’s priorities. As in previous years, it will be possible to take legislative action on items that are not covered by the adopted objectives in order to enable a timely response to new issues. As the Council and staff identify issues throughout the year that are important to the City but not expressly included in the 1999 platform, the Mayor is empowered to sign legislative advocacy letters that have been analyzed by the City Manager or her designee and found to be consistent with the following principles: CMR:153:99 Page 2 of 3 Protects local revenue sources (e.g. taxes~ fees, etc. designated for Use by local governments) Protects/increases local government discretion Protects/increases funding for specific programs or services (e.g. park bonds, etc.) - Supports key pro~.~atic goals (e.g. expansion ofrecyclable materials, etc.) Prevents unfunded mandates Is consistent with existing City policy Is consistent with other adopted legislative objectives RESOURCE IMPACT This report does not represent any change to existing City resource allocation. POLICY IMPLICATIONS This report does not represent any change to existing City policies. Upon adoption by the City Council, the 1999 legislative objectives will immediately become the basis for the City’s legislative advocacy. Analysis of the legislative action taken by City departments and the process to develop the City’s 2000 legislative platform will begin in the Winter of 1999. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The adoption of legislative objectives is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Attachment B: Proposed 1999 Legislative Objectives Analysis of 1998 Legislative Activity PREPARED BY:Audrey Seymour, Senior Executive Assistant City Manager’s Office CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: "~(~. ~~Q_ ]~IILY HARRISON Assistant City Manager CMR:153:99 Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT A CITY OF PALO ALTO 1999 PROPOSED LEGISLATIVE OBJECTIVES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Support efforts to maximize funding levels and flexibility for the Federal Community Development Block Grant program. COMMUNITY SERVICES Support efforts to maintain Federal funding for the Summer Youth program. Support efforts to fund support services such as child care and transportation for low-income working people, tailored to fit the needs oftho~e they serve. EMPLOYEE RELATIONS Oppose any attempt at the Federal level to mandate that newly hired public employees be included in the Social Security system. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ¯Support efforts to improve the ways in which the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) delivers disaster assistance, including provisions to ensure an opportunity for public comment by local governments prior to the adoption of any new or modified policies. ¯Oppose efforts to eliminate Federal disaster assistance for critical local public facilities. °Support efforts to increase State funds allocated to local municipalities to fund emergency management. HOUSING Support increased Federal and State funding for low income housing development and preservation, including the establishment of a permanent State funding source. page 1 Support policy changes in the allocation systems for housing funding and tax credits so that a larger proportion of applicants from Santa Clara County can receive available*housing subsidies. Increase the Federal low income housing tax credit cap and make permanent the temporary two year $15 million increase in the State housing tax credit: Support efforts to amend the private activity bond provisions of the Federal Taxpayer Relief Act of 1998 to eliminate or shorten the phase-in period for the bond cap increase. Support Housing California and the Regional Steering Committee’s statewide platform on homelessness and affordable housing, including its recommendations for housing, jobs and income and supportive services. Support efforts to provide more transitional housing, housing for those with special needs, and services linked to permanent housing. Suppgrt efforts to provide funding for permanent emergency shelter capacity as an altemative to the use of armories and authorize use of the armories as winter shelter space until there is adequate emergency shelter capacity. Support efforts to increase funding for supportive housing. LAND USE Oppose Federal takings legislation that, allows developers to bypass State courts, curtail local land use decision making, and bring about premature and expensive lawsuits against cities. PUBLIC RECORDs Support legislation which enables ~ities to charge fees to cover the costs associated with the research and retrieval of documents for tlie public. PUBLIC SAFETY Support legislation to maximize funding levels and flexibility for key local law enforcement programs, including the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program and the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant program. Oppose the Federal "Community Protection Act" or similar legislation which would allow p~e2 private citizens unlimited authority to carry a concealed weapon under broadly crafted circumstances, and supersede California’s law of strict standards and police discretion in issuing concealed-carry licenses to residents. Support legislation to prohibit the sale, manufacture and/or possession of assault weapons. Support legislation to allow local agencies to use radar for speed enforcement on residential arterial streets without the raising of speed limits. Support legislation that would require statewide bicycle licensing to occur at the pointof sale. ’ " REVENUE AND TAXATION Support legislation and/or efforts to protect the revenue base of local governments, which may include: -The return of Education Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) property taxes -The return of bank-in-lieu taxes -The protection of Interact sales taxes -Constitutional protection of local taxes TRANSPORTATION Support legislation that increases the allocation of State transportation funding to cities for street and road repair. Support efforts fo ensure that the Federal Department of Transportation fully implements the League of California Cities’ Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) principles incorporated in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), including: maintenance of the overall ISTEA program structure, including the Surface Transportation Program and the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Program; preservation of the role of local governments in the transportation decision-making process; and streamlining of Federal regulatory oversight over transportation projects. UTILITIES Support local control of decision-making for local utilities, including: rate-making; regulatory authority; utility transfers to the general fund; bundling of telecommunications services with electric or other utility services; use of poles, conduits and other utilities infrastruetui’e; water purchases and implementation ofthe Best Management Practices of the page 3 California Urban Water Conservation Council. Support legislation for electric utility industry restructuring that: -Maintains the concept of municipal utilities -Improves the efficiency of the electric system for the benefit of all consumers -Retains existing regulatory authority and contractual commitments made on behalf of those consumers Facilitates customer choice, effective competition and market participation and opposes Federal restructuring proposals which undermine customer choice Provides fair stranded cost recovery Provides liability protection for electric utilities that have constructed their facilities according to safe practices Opposes changes to Federal power prieiag policies fi’om cost-based to current market rate Opposes the transfer of control or ownership of the Federal power marketing administrations (PMAs) to private entities Supports the goals of the Federal Central Valley Project Improvement Act and its implementation in a manner that does not unfairly burden CVP power customers Oppose limits to cities’ abilities to directly or indirectly provide telecommunications se~wices or infrastructure under terms that are established locally. Support efforts to develop a more open and competitive market for water. Oppose the imposition of a financial charge on urban water retail suppliers that would be used to specifically fund rural safe drinking.water grants, groundwater clean-up and fish and wildlife enhancements. Support water quality standards based upon known health risks as determined from scientific evaluation. Support Clear definition and legislation of business confidentiality fights for publicly operated utilities and their customers. WASTE MANAGEMENT Support Federal and State policies and legislation that promote improved markets for recyclable materials, including efforts to: Minimize the negative impact of the deregulation of the electricity industry on markets that divert wood waste from landfill disposal; -Require minimum recycled content in products sold in California; -Adopt national standards for minimum recycled content in manufactured goods; page 4 assure that the concept of post-consumer waste is retained in the definitions; Create economic incentives for the use of recycled materials through procurement preferences, tax policies, and permit assistance; Expand the Beverage Container Recycling Program to include wine, liquor, fruit juice, water and other nonearbonated beverage containers; Support administrative and legislative decisions regarding the Beverage Container Recycling Program that.provide financial support to jurisdictions for local recycling programs; Support Federal legislation aimed at setting new manufacturing and packaging standards that would reduce the amount 0fsolid waste generated on a national level; Support Federal legislation that creates economic incentives for the use of recycled materials through procurement preferences and tax policies; Support Federal legislation that standardizes definitions of such terms as "recyelable" and "recycled." Oppose Federal and State legislation that preempts local planning decisions regarding solid waste facility siting and/or local solid waste and AB 939 fee-setting authority. Oppose State or Federal legislation that would impose taxes or fees on local refuse programs not directly related to fund statewide programs. Monitor legislation to further modify AB939 and related solid waste management requirements. Oppose legislation that would require burdensome changes to locally adopted plans. Continue support of existing AB939 diversion requirements. Support action to establish alternative funding sources for integrated waste management programs, since funding continues to be a problem for every waste prevention program. Sources could include: Legislation to implement advance disposal fees (ADFs) to help support local household hazardous waste collection programs; -ADFs on,other products, such as polystyrene; aseptic packages; white goods; -Legislation/regulations to increase consistency of grant opportunities over time, and to provide longer notice/lead time for submission of applications. Support legislation/regulations to require State facility cooperation with local jurisdictions on waste reduction to meet AB 939 goals. Since local jurisdictions are required to count the wastes generated by state facilities in their total waste stream for AB 939 purposes, jurisdictions must also be able to rely on cooperation of state facilities in meeting the waste reduction goals mandated by the state (i.e. universities, local schools). Support elimination of local government liability under Superfimd for the disposal of ordinary municipal waste, provide expedited de minimis settlements for hazardous material generated by local government operations, and allocate cost on the basis of toxicity rather p~e5 assure that the concept of post-consumer waste is retained in the definitions; Create economic incentives for the use of recycled materials through procurement preferences, tax policies, and permit assistance; Expand the Beverage Container Recycling Program to include wine, liquor, fruit juice, water and other noncarbonated beverage containers; Support administrative and legislative decisions regarding the Beverage Container Recycling Program that provide financial support to jurisdictions for local recycling programs; Support Federal legislation aimed at setting new manufacturing and packaging standards that would reduce the amount of solid waste generated on a national level; Support Federal legislation that creates economic incentives for the use of recycled materials through procurement preferences and tax policies; Support Federal legislation that standardizes definitions of such terms as "recyclable" and "recycled." OpposeFederal and State legislation that preempts local planning decisions regarding solid waste facility siting and/or local solid waste and AB 939 fee-setting authority. Oppose State or Federal legislation that would impose taxes or fees on local refuse programs not directly related to fund statewide programs. Monitor legislation to further modify AB939 and related solid waste management requirements. Oppose legislation that would require burdensome changes to locally adopted plans. Continue support of existing AB939 diversion requirements. Support action to establish alternative funding sources for integrated waste management programs, since funding continues to be a problem for every waste prevention program. Sources could include: Legislation to implement advance disposal fees (ADFs) to helpsupport local household hazardous waste collection programs; -ADFs on other products, such as polystyrene; aseptic packages; white goods; -Legislation/regulations to increase consistency of grant opportunities over time, and to provide longer notice/lead time for submission of applications. Support legislation/regulations to require State facility cooperation with local jurisdictions on waste reduction to meet AB 939 goals. Since local jurisdictions are required to count the wastes generated by state facilities in their total waste stream for AB 939 purposes, jurisdictions must also be able to rely on cooperation of state facilities in meeting the waste reduction goals mandated by the state (i.e. universities, local schools). Support elimination of local government liability under Superfund for the disposal of ordinary municipal waste, provide expedited de minimis settlements for hazardous material generated by local government operations, and allocate cost on the basis of toxicity rather page 5 than the volume of municipal waste. Superfund reform should also provide a level of protection to third party investors, lenders, and developers ofbrownfields sites. Maintain fmancial support for beneficial use of landfill gas and other biomass energy. Support Federal legislation that would authorize state and local government designation of mixed municipal waste to managed facilities through flow control ordinances, franchises, and contracts. Support national performance standards and use of alternative cover for landfills. OTHER Support efforts at the Federal level to ensure that a local review process is enacted that gives local governments the authority to review census data for their area and forward recommendations to the Bureau of the Census before the 2000 census is completed. PROCESS TO ADDRESS LEGISLATIVE OBJECTIVES NOT IDENTIFIED ABOVE It is acknowledged that legislative issues will arise during the year that are not specifically enumerated in the preceding objectives. Therefore, it is necessary to maintain the flexibility traditionally afforded in the City’s process for legislative advocacy to ehable a timely response to new issues. As the Council and staff identify issues throughout the year that are important to the City but not expressly included in the 1999 platform, the Mayor is empowered to sign legislative advocacy letters that have been analyzed by the City Manager or her designee and found to be consistent with the following principles: 0 0 Protects local revenue sources (e.g. taxes, fees, etc. designated for use by local governments) Protects/increases local government discretion Protects/increases funding for specific programs or services (e.g. park bonds, etc.) Supports key programmatic goals (e.g. expansion ofreeyelable materials, etc.) Prevents unfunded mandates Is consistent with existing City policy Is consistent with other adopted legislative objectives page 6 ~0 0 0 ¢~ o