Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 4053 City of Palo Alto (ID # 4053) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 9/9/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: 2013 League of California Cities Resolutions Title: Approval of City Positions for the 2013 League of California Cities Resolutions From: City Manager Lead Department: City Manager Recommendation Staff recommends that the Council authorize the City’s voting delegate to vote on the two (2) resolutions to be considered at the Annual League of California Cities (LOCC) Conference to be held in Sacramento, September 18-20, 2013 and approve the general guidance provided below. Background Each year, the LOCC accepts resolutions from member cities, and elected officials to be adopted at its annual conference. Before the conference, the resolutions undergo review by the appropriate LOCC policy committees. On Wednesday, September 18, policy committees will meet for a final review of the resolutions. Next, the General Resolutions Committee will meet on Thursday, September 19, to consider the policy committees’ reports and to take action on their recommended positions. Resolutions that are approved by the General Resolutions Committee will then be reported on the floor of the General Assembly at the Annual Business meeting, on Friday, September 20. The voting delegates at the Annual Business meeting make the final determination on the resolutions. The two resolutions to be considered by the League’s Policy Committees are subject to change in their current form. By approving the recommendation for the resolutions, our City LOCC representatives, Councilmember Shepherd and Councilmember Scharff (as the alternate) will have the Council's general guidance for votes to be taken on each resolution and are authorized to vote on amended resolutions deemed to be in the best interest of the City. Discussion The LOCC analyses and original language of the resolutions in their current form are included in Attachment A. In addition, a summary below has been provided for each resolution and staff’s recommended City positions. City of Palo Alto Page 2 2013 Proposed League of California Resolutions 1. Resolution calling upon the governor and the legislature to work with the League of California Cities in providing adequate funding to prioritize water bonds to assist local government in water conservation, ground water recharge and reuse of stormwater and urban runoff programs. Support In 2009, the State Legislature passed and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a package of legislation that included four policy bills and an $11.1 billion water bond (The Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act). See attachment A for additional information on the major spending proposals for the bond. This resolution seeks to call upon the Governor and the Legislature to work with the League of California Cities in providing adequate funding and to prioritize water bonds to assist local governments in water conservation, ground water recharge and reuse of stormwater and urban runoff programs. Staff recommends that the City take a support position on the League of California Cities 2013 Resolution 1, submitted by Los Angeles County Division. As projects for the upcoming water bond are being contemplated, this resolution calls upon the Governor and the Legislature to work with the League of California Cities to provide adequate funding for water conservation, ground water recharge and reuse of stormwater and urban runoff in the water bond issue and to prioritize future water bonds to assist local governments in funding these programs. The City’s water utility and the waste water treatment plant are possible recipients of funds. At its January 28, 2013 meeting, the City of Palo Alto Council approved advocating for funding of water conservation programs in the 2013 Utilities Legislative Priorities Guidelines (Staff Report 3408, Resolution No. 9318): “Water Utility Guideline 11: Advocate for financing or funding for water conservation programs and recycled water projects that meet end-use needs and conserve potable water and oppose legislation that would reduce such funding.” This resolution does not call for support of the 2014 Water Bond, development of which staff will continue to monitor and bring back for review when the language is finalized. Neither does the resolution seek a specified appropriation from a water bond, which would also be further reviewed if and when incorporated into a water bond. Source: Los Angeles County Division Referred to: Environmental Quality Policy Committee City Coordination: Utilities, Public Works, Administrative Services Department, City Attorney’s Office City of Palo Alto Page 3 2. Resolution calling upon the governor and legislature to enter into discussions with the League and California Police Chiefs’ Association representatives to identify and enact strategies that will ensure the success of public safety realignment from a local municipal law enforcement perspective. Support In October 2011 the Governor proposed the realignment of public safety tasks from State Prisons to local government as a way to address certain judicial orders dealing with State prison overcrowding and to reduce State expenditures. This program shifts the prisoner burden from State prisons to local counties and cities. In signing the realignment law, the Governor noted the fiscal impacts of realignment on local government would need to be offset with constitutionally protected revenue. Since the implementation of realignment, the State has yet to identify a revenue stream to assist cities in handling additional offenders. In addition to providing revenue, issues have been identified that continue to impact local law enforcement agencies. For example, the criteria used to release non-serious, non-sexual and non-violent ("3N") criminals and the definition of recidivism. This Resolution seeks to outline the deficiencies in the State’s current public safety realignment policy, as implemented in 2011 and to identify policy changes that will assist State, county and municipal law enforcement entities to cope with the expanded universe of offenders that are now being directed to county facilities, resulting in increased related impacts on both local communities and municipal law enforcement. Staff recommends that the City take a support position on the League of California Cities 2013 Resolution 2, submitted by the Public Safety Policy Committee. Staff supports the need to adequately fund realignment and to make changes to the implementing resolution as noted in the proposed resolution. Of particular concern is the criteria used to determine an offender’s eligibility for release. The realignment law defines the most recent offense that resulted in incarceration as the only crime taken into consideration in determining 3N status. It does not take into account previous violent crimes the offender may have committed that would have made them ineligible for release. This oversight allows potentially violent offenders back into society and erroneously categorizes them as a minimal risk to the community. Source: Public Safety Policy Committee Referred to: Public Safety Policy Committee City Coordination: Public Safety, City Attorney’s office Attachments:  Attachment A. League Resolutions (PDF) Annual Conference Resolutions Packet 115th Annual Conference Sacramento September 18 - 20, 2013 Attachment A INFORMATION AND PROCEDURES RESOLUTIONS CONTAINED IN THIS PACKET: The League bylaws provide that resolutions shall be referred by the president to an appropriate policy committee for review and recommendation. Resolutions with committee recommendations shall then be considered by the General Resolutions Committee at the Annual Conference. This year, two resolutions have been introduced for consideration by the Annual Conference and referred to the League policy committees. POLICY COMMITTEES: Two policy committees will meet at the Annual Conference to consider and take action on resolutions referred to them. The committees are Environmental Quality and Public Safety. These committees will meet on Wednesday, September 18, 2013, at the Sheraton Grand Hotel in Sacramento. The sponsors of the resolutions have been notified of the time and location of the meetings. GENERAL RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE: This committee will meet at 1:00 p.m. on Thursday, September 19, at the Sacramento Convention Center, to consider the reports of the two policy committees regarding the two resolutions. This committee includes one representative from each of the League’s regional divisions, functional departments and standing policy committees, as well as other individuals appointed by the League president. Please check in at the registration desk for room location. ANNUAL LUNCHEON/BUSINESS MEETING/GENERAL ASSEMBLY: This meeting will be held at 12:00 p.m. on Friday, September 20, at the Hyatt Regency Hotel. PETITIONED RESOLUTIONS: For those issues that develop after the normal 60-day deadline, a resolution may be introduced at the Annual Conference with a petition signed by designated voting delegates of 10 percent of all member cities (47 valid signatures required) and presented to the Voting Delegates Desk at least 24 hours prior to the time set for convening the Annual Business Session of the General Assembly. This year, that deadline is 12:00 p.m., Thursday, September 19. If the petitioned resolution is substantially similar in substance to a resolution already under consideration, the petitioned resolution may be disqualified by the General Resolutions Committee. Resolutions can be viewed on the League's Web site: www.cacities.org/resolutions. Any questions concerning the resolutions procedures may be directed to Meg Desmond at the League office: mdesmond@cacities.org or (916) 658-8224 1 Attachment A GUIDELINES FOR ANNUAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS Policy development is a vital and ongoing process within the League. The principal means for deciding policy on the important issues facing cities is through the League’s eight standing policy committees and the board of directors. The process allows for timely consideration of issues in a changing environment and assures city officials the opportunity to both initiate and influence policy decisions. Annual conference resolutions constitute an additional way to develop League policy. Resolutions should adhere to the following criteria. Guidelines for Annual Conference Resolutions 1. Only issues that have a direct bearing on municipal affairs should be considered or adopted at the Annual Conference. 2. The issue is not of a purely local or regional concern. 3. The recommended policy should not simply restate existing League policy. 4. The resolution should be directed at achieving one of the following objectives: (a) Focus public or media attention on an issue of major importance to cities. (b) Establish a new direction for League policy by establishing general principals around which more detailed policies may be developed by policy committees and the board of directors. (c) Consider important issues not adequately addressed by the policy committees and board of directors. (d) Amend the League bylaws (requires 2/3 vote at General Assembly). 2 Attachment A LOCATION OF MEETINGS Policy Committee Meetings Wednesday, September 18, 2013 Sheraton Grand Hotel 1230 J Street, Sacramento Public Safety: 9:00 a.m. – 10:30 a.m. Environmental Quality: 10:30 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. General Resolutions Committee Thursday, September 19, 2013, 1:00 p.m. Sacramento Convention Center 1400 J Street, Sacramento Annual Business Meeting and General Assembly Luncheon Friday, September 20, 2013, 12:00 p.m. Hyatt Regency Hotel 1209 L Street, Sacramento 3 Attachment A KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN ON RESOLUTIONS Resolutions have been grouped by policy committees to which they have been assigned. Number Key Word Index Reviewing Body Action 1 2 3 1 - Policy Committee Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee 2 - General Resolutions Committee 3 - General Assembly ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY POLICY COMMITTEE 1 2 3 1 Water Bond Funds PUBLIC SAFETY POLICY COMMITTEE 1 2 3 2 Public Safety Realignment Information pertaining to the Annual Conference Resolutions will also be posted on each committee’s page on the League website: www.cacities.org. The entire Resolutions Packet will be posted at: www.cacities.org/resolutions. 4 Attachment A KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN ON RESOLUTIONS (Continued) KEY TO REVIEWING BODIES KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN 1. Policy Committee A - Approve 2. General Resolutions Committee D - Disapprove 3. General Assembly N - No Action R - Refer to appropriate policy committee for study Action Footnotes a - Amend * Subject matter covered in another resolution Aa - Approve as amended ** Existing League policy Aaa - Approve with additional amendment(s) *** Local authority presently exists Ra - Amend and refer as amended to appropriate policy committee for study Raa - Additional amendments and refer Da - Amend (for clarity or brevity) and Disapprove Na - Amend (for clarity or brevity) and take No Action W - Withdrawn by Sponsor Procedural Note: Resolutions that are approved by the General Resolutions Committee, as well as all qualified petitioned resolutions, are reported to the floor of the General Assembly. In addition, League policy provides the following procedure for resolutions approved by League policy committees but not approved by the General Resolutions Committee: Resolutions initially recommended for approval and adoption by all the League policy committees to which the resolution is assigned, but subsequently recommended for disapproval, referral or no action by the General Resolutions Committee, shall then be placed on a consent agenda for consideration by the General Assembly. The consent agenda shall include a brief description of the basis for the recommendations by both the policy committee(s) and General Resolutions Committee, as well as the recommended action by each. Any voting delegate may make a motion to pull a resolution from the consent agenda in order to request the opportunity to fully debate the resolution. If, upon a majority vote of the General Assembly, the request for debate is approved, the General Assembly shall have the opportunity to debate and subsequently vote on the resolution. 5 Attachment A 2013 ANNUAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION REFERRED TO ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY POLICY COMMITTEE 1. RESOLUTION CALLING UPON THE GOVERNOR AND THE LEGISLATURE TO WORK WITH THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES IN PROVIDING ADEQUATE FUNDING AND TO PRIORITIZE WATER BONDS TO ASSIST LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN WATER CONSERVATION, GROUND WATER RECHARGE AND REUSE OF STORMWATER AND URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAMS. Source: Los Angeles County Division Concurrence of five or more cities/city officials: Cities of Alhambra; Cerritos; Claremont; Glendora; Lakewood; La Mirada; La Verne; Norwalk; Signal Hill; Mary Ann Lutz, Mayor, city of Monrovia. Referred to: Environmental Quality Policy Committee Recommendations to General Resolutions Committee: Approve WHEREAS, local governments play a critical role in providing water conservation, ground water recharge and reuse of stormwater infrastructure, including capture and reuse of stormwater for their citizens, businesses and institutions; and WHEREAS, local governments support the goals of the Clean Water Act to ensure safe, clean water supply for all and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has encouraged local governments to implement programs to capture, infiltrate and treat stormwater and urban runoff with the use of low impact development ordinances, green street policies and programs to increase the local ground water supply through stormwater capture and infiltration programs; and WHEREAS, local governments also support the State’s water quality objectives, specifically Section 13241of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, on the need to maximize the use of reclaimed and water reuse and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards and the State Water Resources Board encourage rainwater capture efforts; and WHEREAS, the State’s actions working through the water boards, supported by substantial Federal, State and local investments, have led to a dramatic decrease in water pollution from wastewater treatment plants and other so-called “point sources” since 1972. However, the current threats to the State’s water quality are far more difficult to solve, even as the demand for clean water increases from a growing population and an economically important agricultural industry; and WHEREAS, the State’s Little Hoover Commission found in 2009 that more than 30,000 stormwater discharges are subject to permits regulating large and small cities, counties, construction sites and industry. The Commission found that a diverse group of water users – the military, small and large businesses, home builders and local governments and more – face enormous costs as they try to control and limit stormwater pollution. The Commission concluded that the costs of stormwater clean up are enormous and that the costs of stormwater pollution are greater, as beach closures impact the State’s economy and environmental damage threatens to impair wildlife; and WHEREAS, at the same time that new programs and projects to improve water quality are currently being required by the U.S. EPA and the State under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits and the Total Daily Maximum Load (TMDL) programs, many local governments find that they lack the basic infrastructure to capture, infiltrate and reuse stormwater and cities are facing difficult economic challenges while Federal and State financial assistance has been reduced due to the impacts of the recession and slow economic recovery; and 6 Attachment A WHEREAS, cities have seen their costs with the new NPDES permit requirements double and triple in size in the past year, with additional costs anticipated in future years. Additionally, many local businesses have grown increasingly concerned about the costs of retrofitting their properties to meet stormwater and runoff requirements required under the NPDES permits and TMDL programs; and WHEREAS, the League of California Cities adopted water polices in March of 2012, recognizing that the development and operation of water supply, flood control and storm water management, among other water functions, is frequently beyond the capacity of local areas to finance and the League found that since most facilities have widespread benefits, it has become the tradition for Federal, State and local governments to share their costs (XIV, Financial Considerations); and the League supports legislation providing funding for stormwater and other water programs; and WHEREAS, the Governor and the Legislature are currently contemplating projects for a water bond and a portion of the bond could be directed to assist local government in funding and implementing the goals of the Clean Water Act and the State’s water objectives of conserving and reusing stormwater in order to improve the supply and reliability of water supply; and now therefore let it be RESOLVED by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities, assembled in Sacramento on September 20, 2013, that the League calls for the Governor and the Legislature to work with the League and other stakeholders to provide adequate funding for water conservation, ground water recharge and capture and reuse of stormwater and runoff in the water bond issue and to prioritize future water bonds to assist local governments in funding these programs. The League will work with its member cities to educate federal and state officials to the challenges facing local governments in providing for programs to capture, infiltrate and reuse stormwater and urban runoff. ////////// Background Information on Resolution No. 1 Source: Los Angeles County Division Background: In order to meet the goals of both the Federal Clean Water Act and the State’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, which seek to ensure safe clean water supplies, cities provide critical water conservation, ground water recharge and reuse of stormwater infrastructure, including capture and reuse of stormwater for their citizens, businesses and institutions. Working with the State’s Regional Water Quality Control Boards and the State Water Resources Board through the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting process and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Programs, California’s cities implement programs to capture, infiltrate and treat stormwater and urban runoff with the use of low impact development ordinances, green streets policies and other programs to increase the local ground water supply. These actions have led to a dramatic decrease in water pollution from wastewater treatment plants and other so-called “point sources” since the adoption of the Clean Water Act in 1972. However, current threats to the State’s “non-point sources “ of pollution, such as stormwater and urban runoff are far more difficult to solve, even as the demand for clean water increases from a growing population and an economically important agricultural industry. 7 Attachment A Current Problem Facing California’s Cities The Little Hoover Commission found in 2009 that more than 30,000 stormwater discharges are subject to permits regulating large and small cities, counties, construction sites and industry. The Commission found that a diverse group of water users – the military, small and large businesses, home builders and local governments and more – face enormous costs as they try and control and limit stormwater pollution. The Commission concluded that the costs of stormwater clean up are enormous and that the costs of stormwater pollution are greater as beach closures impact the state’s economy and environmental damage threatens to impair wildlife. Additionally, new programs and projects to improve water quality are currently being required by the U.S. EPA and the State under the NPDES permits and the TMDL programs. Many local governments find that they lack the basic infrastructure to capture, infiltrate and reuse stormwater and the cities are facing difficult economic challenges while Federal and State financial assistance has been reduced due to the impacts of the recession and slow economic recovery. Cities have seen their costs with the new NPDES permit requirements triple in size in the past year, with additional costs anticipated in future years. Additionally, many local businesses have grown increasingly concerned about the costs of retrofitting their properties to meet stormwater and runoff requirements required under the NPDES permits and TMDL programs. In Los Angeles County alone, reports commissioned by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District estimate the costs of achieving region-wide compliance for implementing TMDL programs in the NPDES permits required by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) will be in the tens of billions of dollars over the next twenty years. Additionally, failure to comply with the LARWQCB’s terms could result in significant Clean Water Act fines, state fines and federal penalties anywhere from $3,000- $37,500 per day. Violations can also result in third-party litigation. Such costs are not confined to Los Angeles County and are being realized statewide. Clearly, compliance with the NPDES permit and TMDL programs will be expensive for local governments over a long period of time and cities lack a stable, long-term, dedicated local funding source to address this need. Many cities are faced with the choice of either cutting existing services or finding new sources of revenue to fund the NPDES and TMDL programs. Los Angeles County Division Resolution The Division supports strong League education and advocacy at both the State and Federal levels to help cities face the challenges in providing programs to capture, infiltrate and reuse stormwater and urban runoff. While Los Angeles County cities and other regions seek to secure local funding sources to meet the Clean Water Act and the State’s water objectives, it will simply not be enough to meet the enormous costs of compliance. The Los Angeles County Division strongly believes that State and Federal cooperation are necessary to fund programs to secure and reuse stormwater in order to improve water supply and reliability throughout the state. The Division calls for the League to engage in discussions on 2014 State Water Bond to assist cities in funding and implementing the goals of the Clean Water Act and the State’s Water objectives. This resolution does not support the 2014 bond issue, since the League and individual cities will need to make this decision at a later time upon review of the final language. However, the Governor and Legislature have reopened discussions for the 2014 water bond and funding of urban runoff and stormwater programs has taken a back seat in past bond issues, such as Proposition 84. In May, Assembly Speaker John Perez appointed a Water Bond Working Group which recently outlined a new set of Priorities and Accountability Measures for developing a water bond that would gain the support of 2/3 of the Legislature and voters. One of the priorities identified by the committee included, “Regional Self Reliance/Integrated Regional Water 8 Attachment A Management,” posing the question if stormwater capture should be included in any future bonds. The Division believes the opportunity to advocate for funding in the bond is now. ////////// League of California Cities Staff Analysis on Resolution No. 1 Staff: Jason Rhine; (916) 658-8264 Committee: Environmental Quality Summary: This resolution seeks to call upon the Governor and the Legislature to work with the League of California Cities in providing adequate funding and to prioritize water bonds to assist local governments in water conservation, ground water recharge and reuse of stormwater and urban runoff programs. Background: In 2009, the State Legislature passed and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a package of legislation that included four policy bills and an $11.1 billion water bond (The Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act). The water bond included the following major spending proposals: • $455 million for drought relief projects, disadvantaged communities, small community wastewater treatment improvements and safe drinking water revolving fund • $1.4 billion for "integrated regional water management projects" • $2.25 billion for projects that "support delta sustainability options" • $3 billion for water storage projects • $1.7 billion for ecosystem and watershed protection and restoration projects in 21 watersheds • $1 billion for groundwater protection and cleanup • $1.25 billion for "water recycling and advanced treatment technology projects" The $11.1 billion bond also included nearly $2 billion in earmarks. Projects slated for funding included: • $40 million to educate the public about California's water • $100 million for a Lake Tahoe Environmental Improvement Program for watershed restoration, bike trails and public access and recreation projects • $75 million for the Sierra Nevada Conservancy, for public access, education and interpretive projects • $20 million for the Baldwin Hills Conservancy to be used to buy more land • $20 million for the Bolsa Chica Wetlands for interpretive projects for visitors The water bond was originally scheduled to appear on the 2010 ballot as Proposition 18. However, due to significant criticism over the size of the bond, the amount of earmarked projects, and a lack of public support, the Legislature has voted twice to postpone the ballot vote. The water bond is now slated for the November 4, 2014 ballot. It is unclear whether or not the water bond will actually appear on the November 2014 ballot. In recent months, pressure has been mounting to postpone the water bond yet again or significantly rewrite the water bond to drastically reduce the overall size of the bond and remove all earmarks. The Legislature has until the summer of 2014 to act. Fiscal Impact: Unknown. This resolution does not seek a specified appropriation from a water bond. 9 Attachment A Existing League Policy: In 2008, the League formed a new Water Task Force to consider updates and revision to the Water Guidelines the League drafted and adopted 20 years earlier. These new Guidelines were formally approved by the League board of directors in Feb. 2010. Below are the most pertinent policy and guiding principles related to the proposed resolution. To view the entire water policy guidelines, go to www.cacities.org/waterpolicyguidelines. General Principles • The League supports the development of additional groundwater and surface water storage, including proposed surface storage projects now under study if they are determined to be feasible, including but not limited to: environmentally, economically, and geographically relating to point of origin. Appropriate funding sources could include, but are not limited to user fees, bonds and federal funding. • The League supports state water policy that allows undertaking aggressive water conservation and water use efficiency while preserving, and not diminishing, public and constitutional water rights. Water Conservation • The League supports the development of a statewide goal to reduce water use by 20% by 2020 through the implementation of fair and equitable measures consistent with these principles. • Accomplishing water conservation and water use efficiency goals will require statewide action by all water users, including residential, commercial, industrial and agricultural water users, local and regional planning agencies, state and federal agencies, chambers of commerce, and business, commercial and industrial professional and trade associations. Water Recycling • Wherever feasible, water recycling should be practiced in urban, industrial and agricultural sectors. This includes increasing the use of recycled water over 2002 levels by at least one million acre- feet/year (afy) by 2020 and by at least two million afy by 2030. • Increased recycling, reuse and other refinements in water management practices should be included in all water supply programs. Water Storage • The development of additional surface facilities and use of groundwater basins to store surface water that is surplus to that needed to maintain State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) Bay-Delta estuary water quality standards should be supported. Groundwater • The principle that local entities within groundwater basins (i.e., cities, counties, special districts, and the regional water quality control boards) working cooperatively should be responsible for and involved in developing and implementing basin wide groundwater, basin management plans should be supported. The plans should include, but not be limited to: a) protecting groundwater quality; b) identifying means to correct groundwater overdraft; c) implementing better irrigation techniques; d) increasing water reclamation and reuse; and e) refining water conservation and other management practices. • Financial assistance from state and federal governments should be made available to requesting local agencies to develop and implement their groundwater management plans. Financial Considerations • It is recognized that the development and operation of water supply, water conveyance, flood control and stormwater management, water storage, and wastewater treatment facilities is frequently beyond the capability of local areas to finance; 10 Attachment A • The League supports legislation to provide funding for stormwater, water and wastewater programs, including a constitutional amendment which would place stormwater fees in the category of water and wastewater fees, for the purposes of Proposition 218 compliance. Support: New this year, any resolutions submitted to the General Assembly must be concurred in by five cities or by city officials from at least five or more cities. Those submitting resolutions were asked to provide written documentation of concurrence. The following letters of concurrence were received: cities of Alhambra; Cerritos; Claremont; Glendora; Lakewood; La Mirada; La Verne; Norwalk; Signal Hill; and Mary Ann Lutz, Mayor, city of Monrovia. A letter of support was also received from the California Contract Cities Association. RESOLUTION REFERRED TO PUBLIC SAFETY POLICY COMMITTEE 2. RESOLUTION CALLING UPON THE GOVERNOR AND LEGISLATURE TO ENTER INTO DISCUSSIONS WITH THE LEAGUE AND CALIFORNIA POLICE CHIEFS’ ASSOCIATION REPRESENTATIVES TO IDENTIFY AND ENACT STRATEGIES THAT WILL ENSURE THE SUCCESS OF PUBLIC SAFETY REALIGNMENT FROM A LOCAL MUNICIPAL LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSPECTIVE. Source: Public Safety Policy Committee Concurrence of five or more cities/city officials: Cities of Arroyo Grande, Covina; Fontana; Glendora; Monrovia; Ontario; Pismo Beach; and Santa Barbara Referred to: Public Safety Policy Committee Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee: Approve WHEREAS, in October 2011 the Governor proposed the realignment of public safety responsibilities from state prisons to local government as a way to address recent court orders in response to litigation related to state prison overcrowding, and to reduce state expenditures; and WHEREAS, the Governor stated that realignment needed to be fully funded with a constitutionally protected source of funds if it were to succeed; and WHEREAS, the Legislature enacted the realignment measures, AB 109 and AB 117, and the Governor signed them into law without full constitutionally protected funding and liability protection for stakeholders; and WHEREAS, California currently has insufficient jail space, probation officers, housing and job placement programs, medical and mental health facilities, lacks a uniform definition of recidivism; and utilizes inappropriate convictions used to determine inmate eligibility for participation in the realignment program; and WHEREAS, since the implementation of realignment there have been numerous issues identified that have not been properly addressed that significantly impact municipal police departments’ efforts to successfully implement realignment; and WHEREAS, ultimately many of these probationers who have severe mental illness are released into communities where they continue to commit crimes that impact the safety of community members and drain the resources of probation departments and police departments throughout the state; and 11 Attachment A WHEREAS, an estimated 30 counties were operating under court-ordered or self-imposed population caps before realignment, and the current lack of bed space in county jails has since led to many convicted probationers being released early after serving a fraction of their time; with inadequate to no subsequent supervision, leaving them free to engage in further criminal offenses in our local cities; and WHEREAS, there is increasing knowledge among the offender population which offenses will and will not result in a sentence to state prison, and many offenders, if held in custody pending trial, that would be sentenced to county jail are ultimately sentenced to time served due to overcrowding in county facilities; and WHEREAS, there are inadequate databases allowing local police departments to share critical offender information among themselves, with county probation departments, and with other county and state law enforcement entities; and WHEREAS, local police departments have not received adequate funding to properly address this new population of offenders who are victimizing California communities; and now therefore let it be RESOLVED by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities, assembled in Sacramento on September 20, 2013, to request the Governor and State Legislature to immediately enter into discussions with League representatives and the California Police Chiefs’ Association to address the following issues: 1. The need to fully fund municipal police departments with constitutionally protected funding to appropriately address realignment issues facing front-line law enforcement; 2. Amend appropriate sections of AB 109 to change the criteria justifying the release of non-violent, non-serious, non-sex offender inmates (N3) inmates to include their total criminal and mental history instead of only their last criminal conviction; 3. Establish a uniform definition of recidivism with the input of all criminal justice stakeholders throughout the state; 4. Enact legislation that will accommodate the option for city police officers to make ten (10) day flash incarcerations in city jails for probationers who violate the conditions of their probation; 5. Establish oversight procedures to encourage transparency and accountability over the use of realignment funding; 6. Implement the recommendations identified in the California Little Hoover Commission Report #216 dated May 30, 2013; 7. Provide for greater representation of city officials on the local Community Corrections Partnerships. Currently AB 117 provides for only one city official (a police chief) on the seven-member body, six of which are aligned with the county in which the partnership has been established. As a result, the counties dominate the committees and the subsequent distribution of realignment funds. 8. Provide, either administratively or by legislation, an effective statewide data sharing mechanism allowing state and local law enforcement agencies to rapidly and efficiently share offender information to assist in tracking and monitoring the activities of AB 109 and other offenders. ////////// 12 Attachment A Background Information on Resolution No. 2 Source: Public Safety Policy Committee Background: In October 2011 the Governor proposed the realignment of public safety tasks from State Prisons to local government as a way to address certain judicial orders dealing with State prison overcrowding and to reduce State expenditures. This program shifts the prisoner burden from State prisons to local counties and cities. When the Governor signed into law realignment he stated that realignment needed to be fully funded with constitutionally protected source of funds to succeed. Nonetheless, the law was implemented without full constitutional protected funding for counties and cities; insufficient liability protections to local agencies; jail space; probation officers; housing and job placement programs; medical and mental health facilities; and with an inappropriate definition of N3 (non-serious, non-sexual, non-violent) criminal convictions used to screen inmates for participation in the program. Two-thirds of California's 58 counties are already under some form of mandated early release. Currently, 20 counties have to comply with maximum population capacity limits enforced by court order, while another 12 counties have self-imposed population caps to avoid lawsuits. At this time no one knows what the full impact of realignment will ultimately be on crime. We hope that crime will continue to drop, but with the current experience of the 40,000 offenders realigned since October 2011, and an estimated additional 12,000 offenders being shifted from State prison to local jails and community supervision by the end of fiscal year 2013-14, it will be very difficult to realize lower crime rates in the future. Beginning in October 2011, California State prisons began moving N3 offenders into county jails, the county probation and court systems, and ultimately funneled them into community supervision or alternative sentencing program in cities where they will live, work, and commit crime. Note: There is currently no uniform definition of recidivism throughout the state and no database that can deliver statistical information on the overall impact realignment has had on all cities in California. Because of this problem we have used data from Los Angeles County. The March 4, 2013 report to the Los Angeles County Criminal Justice Coordination Committee (CCJCC) shows a strong effort and progress in addressing the realignment mandate. However, there is insufficient funding. The report also states the jail population continues to be heavily influenced by participants housed locally. On September 30, 2012, the inmate count in the Los Angeles County Jail was 15,463; on January 31, 2013, the count was 18,864. The realignment population accounted for 32% of the Jail population; 5,743 offenders sentenced per Penal Code Section 1170 (h) and 408 parole violations. By the end of January 2013, 13,535 offenders were released on Post Release Community Supervision (PRCS) to Los Angeles County including prisoners with the highest maintenance costs because of medical and drug problems and mental health issues costing counties and local cities millions of dollars in unfunded mandates since the beginning of the program. Prisoners with prior histories of violent crimes are also being released without proper supervision. That is why sections of AB 109 must be amended to change the criteria used to justify the release of N3 inmates to include an offender’s total criminal and mental history instead of only their last criminal conviction. Using the latter as the key criteria does not provide 13 Attachment A an accurate risk assessment of the threat these offenders pose to society if they are realigned to county facilities, or placed on Post Release Community Supervision. Chief Jerry Powers from the Los Angeles County Probation Department recently stated the release criteria for N3 offenders “has nothing to do with reality.” He said initially the State estimated the population of released PRCS offenders would be 50% High Risk, 25% Medium Risk and 25% Low Risk. The reality is 3% are Very High Risk, 55% are High Risk, 40% are Medium Risk and only 2% are Low Risk offenders. He said the High Risk and serious mentally ill offenders being released “are a very scary population.” One of the special needs offenders takes the resources of 20-30 other offenders. Assistant Sheriff Terri McDonald who is the county Jail Administrator recently stated the Jail has only 30 beds for mentally ill offenders being released – when in fact she actually needs 300 beds to accommodate the volume of serious mentally ill offenders being released that require beds. Los Angeles County data shows 7,200 released offenders have had some sort of revocation. This number is expected to increase because of a significant increase in the first four months of year two of realignment that totals 83% of the entire first year of the program; 4,300 warrants were issued for offenders; 6,200 offenders have been rearrested; and 1,400 prosecuted. Data reveals one in 10 offenders will test positive for drugs during the first 72 hours after being released knowing they are required to report to a probation officer during that time. Only one in three offenders will successfully complete probation. There are more than 500 felony crimes that qualify State prison inmates for release under realignment. They will be spending their time in cities with little, if any, supervision. ////////// League of California Cities Staff Analysis on Resolution No. 2 Staff: Tim Cromartie (916) 658-8252 Committee: Public Safety Policy Committee Summary: This Resolution seeks to outline the deficiencies in the State’s current public safety realignment policy, as implemented in 2011 by AB 109, and to identify policy changes that will assist State, county and municipal law enforcement entities to cope with the expanded universe of offenders that are now being directed to county facilities, resulting in increased related impacts on both local communities and municipal law enforcement. Background: This resolution was brought to the Public Safety Policy Committee by individual members of that committee who are increasingly concerned about municipal public safety impacts resulting from county jail overcrowding, a problem that has intensified with realignment, resulting in certain categories of offenders doing no jail time or being sentenced to time served. This has created a climate in which some offenses receive little or no jail time, accompanied by a growing body of anecdotal evidence that property crimes have correspondingly increased, with some, such as auto theft, being committed in serial fashion. Increased criminal activity has strained the resources of many local police departments already struggling to more closely coordinate information sharing with county probation offices to effectively monitor offenders on post-community release supervision. In addition, there is growing concern about the criteria established for determining which offenders are eligible for post-release community supervision (the non-violent, non-serious, non-sex offenders). There is so much concern that a May 2013 report of California’s Little Hoover Commission recommended adjusting 14 Attachment A the criteria to examine an offender’s total criminal history rather than merely his or her last known offense, as a means of more accurately assessing the risk he or she might pose to the community. Implementation of the realignment policy is handled in part by the Community Corrections Partnerships established by AB 109, which currently have only one city representative, compared to at least four county- level representatives. Fiscal Impact: Unknown impact on the State General Fund. This resolution seeks to establish increased and constitutionally protected funding for city police departments (and county sheriff’s departments, to the degree they are contracted to provide police services for cities), but does not specify a dollar amount for the revenue stream. At a minimum, it would entail an annual revenue stream of at least the amount provided for cities for front-line law enforcement in the State’s 2013-14 Budget, $27.5 million, indefinitely – although that revenue stream has never been formally identified by the Brown Administration as having any direct connection to realignment. Existing League Policy: Related to this resolution, existing policy provides: • The League supports policies establishing restrictions on the early release of state inmates for the purpose of alleviating overcrowding, and limiting parole hearing opportunities for state inmates serving a life sentence, or paroled inmates with a violation. • The League supports increasing municipal representation on and participation in the Community Corrections Partnerships, which are charged with developing local corrections plans. • In addition, the Strategic Priorities for 2012, as adopted by the League Board of Directors, included the promotion of local control for strong cities. The resolution’s objectives of locking in ongoing funding for front-line municipal law enforcement, and increasing city participation in the Community Corrections Partnerships, are consistent with promoting local control. Support: New this year, any resolutions submitted to the General Assembly must be concurred in by five cities or by city officials from at least five or more cities. Those submitting resolutions were asked to provide written documentation of concurrence. The following cities/city officials have concurred: cities of Arroyo Grande; Covina; Fontana; Glendora; Monrovia; Ontario; Pismo Beach; and Santa Barbara. 15 Attachment A LETTERS OF CONCURRENCE Resolution #1 Water Bond Funds 16 Attachment A 17 Attachment A 18 Attachment A 19 Attachment A 20 Attachment A 21 Attachment A 22 Attachment A 23 Attachment A 24 Attachment A 25 Attachment A 26 Attachment A 27 Attachment A LETTERS OF CONCURRENCE Resolution #2 Public Safety Realignment 28 Attachment A 29 Attachment A 30 Attachment A 31 Attachment A 32 Attachment A 33 Attachment A 34 Attachment A 35 Attachment A 36 Attachment A