Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 14477 City of Palo Alto (ID # 14477) City Council Staff Report Meeting Date: 6/13/2022 Report Type: Action Items City of Palo Alto Page 1 Title: Policy and Services Committee Recommendations on Pending State Assembly Bills 2181 (VTA) and 1944, 2449, and 2647 (Local Meeting Procedures) From: City Manager Lead Department: City Manager Recommendation The Policy & Services Committee recommends that the City Council discuss recommendations on pending legislation regarding governance of Valley Transportation Authority (Assembly Bill 2181) and meeting procedures for local governing bodies (Assembly Bills 1944, 2449, and 2647) and provide direction to staff on the City’s advocacy positions. Background The Policy and Services Committee received updates on federal and state legislation on March 8, 2022 (CMR 14117; Minutes) and May 10, 2022 (CMR 14379; Minutes). The motions passed were as follows: March 8, 2022 Motion: Consider supporting Senate Bill 1100 to conduct orderly meetings. (3-0, passed unanimously) ❖ Support and encourage legislation for all participants to participate in remote meetings even during non-emergencies. (Passed, 2-1) May 10, 2022 Motion: ❖ Support Assembly Bill 1944, Assembly Bill 2449, and Assembly Bill 2647 that allow virtual meetings, remote participation, and encourage adoption of technology. (Passed, 2-1) ❖ C. Support Assembly Bill 2181 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority: board of directions. (Passed, 2-1) City of Palo Alto Page 2 B. Support with amendments Assembly Bill 1737 Children’s camps: local registration and inspections. (3-0, passed unanimously) The items with a ‘’ denote those motions that passed 2-1 and are the subject of this current staff report focused on pending State legislation for the full City Council to discuss the City’s position. The unanimous items will be brought to Council as a Consent report for the City Council to consider. Discussion As mentioned above, the bills for City Council discussion as a follow up to the Policy and Services Committee meetings are: - Assembly Bill 2181 (Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority: board of directors) - Assembly Bill 1944 (Local Government: open and public meetings) - Assembly Bill 2449 (Open meetings: local agencies: teleconferences) - Assembly Bill 2647 (Local government: open meetings) The Policy and Services Committee recommended support for each of these bills, but the votes were not unanimous. Thus, the bills are being brought forward to the City Council to consider whether to support the bills, support with amendments, oppose the bills, or oppose unless amended for each one. A description of each bill, current status, and timeline is included in Attachment A. Specific to AB 2181, there have been a variety of opinions on this bill from different municipalities. The City of Campbell supported the bill while the City of Morgan Hill and City of Mountain View opposed the bill. The City of Mountain View’s opposition letter is included in this report as Attachment B for reference. Staff and the City’s state legislative advocate from Townsend Public Affairs will be present at the City Council meeting to address questions. Timeline and Resource Impact Staff would submit the letters on behalf of the City upon direction from the City Council on these bills. As mentioned in Attachment A, the bills will be heard by various committees in the coming weeks. Attachments: • Attachment A: Townsend Updated State Legislation Memo June 2022 • Attachment B: Mountain View - AB 2181 - Oppose Unless Amended - Sen Transportation Committee State Capitol Office ▪ 925 L Street • Suite 1404 • Sacramento, CA 95814 • Phone (916) 447-4086 • Fax (916) 444-0383 Federal Office ▪ 600 Pennsylvania SE • Suite 207 • Washington, DC 20003 • Phone (202) 546-8696 • Fax (202) 546-4555 Southern California Office ▪ 1401 Dove Street • Suite 330 • Newport Beach, CA 92660 • Phone (949) 399-9050 • Fax (949) 476-8215 Central California Office ▪ 744 P Street • Suite 308 • Fresno, CA 93721 • Phone (949) 399-9050 • Fax (949) 476-8215 Northern California Office ▪ 300 Frank Ogawa Plaza • Suite 204 • Oakland, CA 94612 • Phone (510) 835-9050 • Fax (510) 835-9030 MEMO To: Ed Shikada, City Manager Chantal Cotton Gaines, Deputy City Manager From: Christopher Townsend, President, Townsend Public Affairs, Inc. Niccolo De Luca, Vice President Andres Ramirez, Senior Associate Carly Shelby, Legislative Associate Date: June 1, 2022 Subject: Updated Memo relating to state legislation on public meetings and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (AB 2181) SUMMARY Townsend Public Affairs, Inc. (TPA) has prepared this updated report for the City of Palo Alto as we move forward in the 2022 Legislative session. This memo highlights four pieces of legislation that were discussed in the Policy and Services Committee and deal with public meetings and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. The city can take a position of support, oppose, or watch. The analysis below is based off text of the legislation, committee analysis, discussions with Members, and others. Assembly Bill 1944 (Lee) Local Government: open and public meetings Last amended: May 25, 2022 Status: The bill passed out of the Assembly on a vote of 44-12 with 22 abstentions. Its now in the Senate and will be scheduled for its first Senate policy committee hearing which has not yet been set. Focus of the legislation: Allows members of a legislative body of a local agency to use teleconferencing without identifying each teleconference location in the notice and agenda of the meeting or proceeding, and without making each teleconference location accessible to the public. This measure sunsets on Jan. 1, 2030. Argument in Support: A coalition including the Urban Counties of California, the Rural County Representatives of California, the California State Association of Counties, the Association of California Healthcare Districts, the Association of California School Administrators, the California Association of Public Authorities for IHSS, and the League of California Cities, in support, write, “AB 1944 represents an important modernization to the Brown Act that protects local elected officials’ location when participating from a non-public, remote location, while improving access to members of the public via a teleconferencing option. “As you know, local agencies subject to the Brown Act were able to utilize remote participation for elected officials and for the public during the COVID-19 public health crisis. Those processes worked well, allowing for local agencies to continue to conduct the public’s business in a safe manner. In fact, many of our local agencies report increased participation and interaction with 2 members of the public who would otherwise have been unable to access such meetings as a result. At the same time, the ability for local elected officials to participate remotely without having to share the address of their whereabouts allowed them to do so without risking their own well-being and that of their families and neighbors. “While authority to maintain remote participation continues after the approval of last year’s AB 361 (R. Rivas), based on public health recommendations at the time, this authorization of remote participation by local elected officials, as well as members of the public, is slated to sunset at the end of 2023. Developing a long-term framework for remote participation is a critical update of the Brown Act. We have learned during the pandemic that such participation is effective, transparent, and encourages participation from a broader component of the public than was anticipated. “These positive effects on the conduct of the public’s business would suggest that the conditions outlined in AB 1944 are both reasonable and appropriate to incorporate into our post-pandemic practice of delivering open and public meetings.” Argument in Opposition: A coalition including the California News Publisher’s Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, the First Amendment Coalition, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Californians Aware, the Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability, the Society for Professional Journalists Los Angeles, the Orange County Press Club, and the National Writers Union of Southern California, in opposition, writes, “…we must respectfully oppose AB 1944 (Lee), which would make a fundamental change to the Brown Act, enshrining government officials’ ability to teleconference from private locations not identified or accessible to the public. While temporary accommodations may be necessary, such as to address public health needs during the COVID-19 pandemic, this bill would abolish longstanding democratic protections that require public meetings be held in public venues where government officials can be seen and engaged by the public. “Further, this bill would change the Brown Act’s requirement that a quorum be present during a teleconference, allowing government bodies to vote to allow themselves to teleconference from outside the jurisdiction, indefinitely and without justification. While this bill includes some provisions that may expand access for members of the public who wish to participate, the cost to democratic principles and public protection is too great… “AB 1944 as written, would allow a body to vote to govern themselves with a teleconference scheme that does not require members to identify the location from which they are taking the meeting, nor make that location accessible to the public. Without disclosing the locations, they are participating from there is no mechanism to ensure that a quorum of members, or any members, are within the jurisdiction about which they are making decisions Assembly Bill 2449 (Rubio) Open meetings: local agencies: teleconferences Last amended: May 23, 2022. One of the amendments includes ending these provisions by January 1, 2028. Status: The bill passed out of the Assembly on a vote of 65 - 4 with 9 abstentions. Its now in the Senate and will be scheduled for its first Senate policy committee hearing which has not yet been set. Focus of the legislation: Allows members of a legislative body of a local agency to use teleconferencing without identifying each teleconference location in the notice and agenda of the meeting, and without making each teleconference location accessible to the public, if at least a quorum of the members of the body participates in person. Argument in support: Three Valleys Municipal Water District, sponsor of this measure, writes, “As part of his response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Governor Newsom originally issued a series of Executive Orders to expand public access to meetings of local agencies by suspending some 3 of the restrictions on teleconferencing. The effect was an expanded use of teleconferencing for meetings of the legislative body, resulting in enhanced public access and increased participation by the public. “The expiration of the Executive Orders immediately gave way to the new AB 361, essentially allowing for the teleconference provisions detailed in the Executive Orders to continue during a period of emergency declaration. However, once an emergency declaration has ended, local agencies will again be required to comply with antiquated provisions of existing law, making it potentially more difficult to hold meetings of the legislative body by teleconference. While current law does allow for “teleconference locations” under normal circumstances, it requires various actions to be taken at the teleconference locations and fails to recognize in the digital age that a teleconference location is wherever there is a person with a computer, a tablet, or even a mobile phone. “AB 2449 will eliminate the previously existing concept of teleconference locations and will revise notice requirements to allow for greater public participation in teleconference meetings of local agencies. The bill does not require teleconferencing, rather it modernizes existing law to ensure greater public participation in meetings of the legislative bodies of local agencies who choose to utilize teleconferencing. Similarly, in acknowledgement of the critical importance of maintaining transparency and accountability, the bill requires that a quorum of the governing body be physically present at a clearly identified meeting location for all public meetings.” Argument in opposition: A coalition including the California News Publisher’s Association, the ACLU California Action, the First Amendment Coalition, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Californians Aware, the Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability, and the Society for Professional Journalists Los Angeles, in opposition, writes, “If enacted, AB 2449 would fundamentally alter the Brown Act by providing express authorization to members of legislative bodies to teleconference into public meetings from private locations not identified or accessible to the public at any time, without a compelling reason. While temporary accommodations may be necessary, such as during the COVID-19 public health emergency, this bill would excise the longstanding democratic protection afforded by requiring the entire legislative body to directly face the public. We must be mindful before making substantial changes to the laws that have ensured democracy at the local government level for generations. There are many examples of remote meetings increasing public participation in many respects, but there are still many lessons to learn as we continue to move out of the COVID-19 pandemic… “To be clear, we support increased public access, such as the provisions of this bill that increase remote participation for the public; however, AB 2449, as written, ties that expanded access to removal of existing requirements for those who have sought and agreed to public service in local government. We greatly appreciate that the bill has incorporated many of the provisions that were the result of discussion on AB 339 (Lee) & AB 361 (R. Rivas) last year, including requiring members to be on camera, providing telephonic access for those who do not have stable internet, addressing technological disruptions, and others. However, those bills differed in that AB 339 sought to only expand access for the public, and AB 361’s allowances for legislative bodies are confined to states of emergency and required a vote every 30 days to continue. “We are also very glad to see that a quorum must be in the same physical location with the public in this bill, but it is essential to narrow the circumstances in which members outside of the quorum can participate remotely, so that the same members cannot avoid physically appearing without circumstances that justifies limiting the public’s access to the member who is supposed to be serving their interests.” 4 Assembly Bill 2647 (Levine) Local government: open meetings Last amended: April 19, 2022 Status of the Legislation: The bill passed out of the Assembly on a vote of 62-0 with 16 abstentions. Its now in the Senate and will be scheduled for its first Senate policy committee hearing which has not yet been set. Focus of the legislation: Allows writings that have been distributed to members of a legislative body of a local agency less than 72 hours before an open meeting to be posted online to satisfy specified requirements of the Brown Act. Argument in support: The League of California Cities, sponsor of this bill, writes in support, “Recently the Third District Court of Appeals held that posting meeting documents online does not satisfy this requirement of the Brown Act, and that local governments must place physical copies of the document in a designated office open to the public. Requiring physical access at a public location as the only way to satisfy the Brown Act could impair the conduct of the people’s business. Without a legislative solution, the Court’s decision requires local agencies to keep an office open to the public during evenings and/or weekends when a writing is distributed to a local agency’s legislative body. Alternatively, the local agency would have to withhold late breaking information from the legislative body until an office is open which could impact the ability of a legislative body to be best informed with less time to consider additional information. “This measure would clarify that writings distributed to the majority of a local legislative body less than 72 hours before a meeting can be posted online if physical copies are made available for public inspection at the beginning of the next regular business hours at a public office or designated location. By reducing delays, the public and the community will be better informed to engage in the meeting with the flexibility and transparency this measure provides. This change would advance meaningful public access to government information.” Argument in opposition: There is no argument in opposition, or any opposition listed. Assembly Bill 2181 (Berman) Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority: board of directors Last amended: May 2, 2022 Status: The bill passed out of the Assembly on a vote of 69-2 with 7 abstentions. Its now in the Senate and will be scheduled for its first Senate policy committee hearing which has not yet been set. Focus of the legislation: This legislation seeks to make changes to the Board of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), including: 1) Specifies that the government of VTA shall be vested in a board of directors that shall consist of 12 voting members, as follows: a) Two representatives of Santa Clara County, who shall be appointed by the president of the board of supervisors with board of supervisors’ approval by at least a four-fifth vote, consistent with both of the following requirements: i) One representative shall be a nonelected community member with expertise in financing and accounting. ii) One representative shall be a nonelected community member with expertise infrastructure management, construction management, or project management. b) Five representatives of the City of San Jose, who shall be appointed by the mayor of the City of San Jose with city council approval, consistent with the following: i) At least two representatives shall be city council members or the mayor of the City of San Jose. 5 ii) At least two representatives shall be nonelected community members who, to the extent possible, have expertise, experience, or knowledge relative to transportation issues. iii) The mayor of the City of San Jose shall appoint at least one representative who uses public transit as their primary mode of transportation. c) Five representatives of the cities in the county, other than the City of San Jose, elected in a manner consistent with the following: i) At least two representatives shall be nonelected community members who, to the extent possible, have expertise, experience, or knowledge relative to transportation issues. ii) At least two representatives shall be city council members or mayors of the cities in the county, other than the City of San Jose. iii) To the extent possible, each regional group, as provided for by the agreements among the cities in the county, other than the City of San Jose, shall be represented on the board of directors by a representative elected pursuant to this bill. iv) The representatives shall be elected through the following ranked choice voting process: (1) VTA shall develop an application process. (2) To be eligible to be selected, a candidate shall complete an application and submit the application to VTA. (3) VTA shall create one ranked choice ballot that includes only those candidates that submitted complete applications. (4) The city council of each city in the county, other than the City of San Jose, shall in a public forum, rank those candidates using the ranked choice ballot and submit the ranked choice ballot to VTA by a date determined by VTA. (5) VTA shall count the ranked choice ballots submitted pursuant to (4) above. v) Provides that if a representative who is elected as a city council member or mayor of a city in the county, other than the City of San Jose, no longer serves in that capacity as a city council member or mayor, the representative may continue to serve on the board of directors until their term on the board of directors expires, unless as otherwise specified. 2) Specifies that in addition to the 12 voting members of the VTA Board, VTA’s Board may include ex officio nonvoting members from regional transportation or governmental bodies. 3) Requires VTA to ensure that representatives of a single city do not compose most of the board of directors. 4) Provides that a representative appointed or elected pursuant to this bill shall serve a four-year term and may be reappointed without limitation. 5) Specifies that VTA shall implement guidelines for the removal for cause of a representative appointed or elected to the Board. 6) Removes, as of January 1, 2024, the provision in existing law that provides that the term of office for each director shall be two years and until the appointment and qualification of their successor, and specified vacancy requirements. 7) Specifies that this bill shall become operative on July 1, 2023. Argument in Support: There is no formal support. Per the author, “Valley Transportation Authority provides essential public transit options that help get Santa Clara County’s two million residents to and from work, school, and home. However, three Civil Grand Jury Reports over the last 17 years have concluded that VTA’s governance structure is a root cause of the agency’s poor performance and is in need of structural reform. AB 2181 delivers this structural reform by transitioning the current board—a rotating group of 12 6 elected officials and 6 alternates in Santa Clara County—to a 12-member hybrid board composed of both elected officials and qualified members of the public. This bill honors local control by building in flexibility, while prioritizing both regional accountability and equity in using a regional ranked choice voting process. The new VTA board members would be selected by city and county officials in a transparent public process, ensuring that expertise related to transportation, infrastructure or project management, and budgetary expertise are represented on the board. A more experienced, transparent, and regionally focused VTA Board will be better positioned to meet Santa Clara County’s complex transportation needs.” Argument in Opposition: There is no formal opposition. Per the most recent Grand Jury report, “The Grand Jury concluded that today, more so than in 2004 or 2009, the VTA Board is in need of structural change to enable it to better protect the interests of the County’s taxpayers and address the many complex challenges presented by emerging trends in transportation, rapidly evolving technology and the changing needs of Silicon Valley residents. The Grand Jury recommends several changes to the governance structure and operations of the VTA Board which will improve the Board’s ability to effectively perform its important oversight and strategic decision-making functions.”