HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-City Administrator
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
From: Fred Wilson, 1..0 'f "" 'liD Subject: Resolu~ion of the. Mayor and
City Administrator V , i " / Common Council of the City of San
V Bernardino supporting the
Dept: City Administrator's Office Grassroots Network proposed by the
Board of Directors of the League of
Date: May 23, 2001 California Cities,
M/CC Meeting Date: June 4, 2001
Synopsis of Previous Council Action:
None.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt Resolution.
f<<1::
Contact person: Frad Wilson
Phone: 5122
Supporting data attached:
Yes
Ward:
N/A
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount:$13,225 Additional Cost for League of
California Cities dues in FY 01-02
($4,294 for July-Dec 2001; $8,931 for 2002)
Source: (Acct. No.) 001-092-5122
<A~ct np.!':~riptinn)
Finance:
Council Notes:
lDlJj J /)1-
Agenda Item No. ..1.0
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Staff Report
Subject: Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino
supporting the Grassroots Network proposed by the Board of Directors of the League of
California Cities.
Background: During the past two decades, California State govermnent has experienced an
unprecedented level of growth. A recent report by The California Budget Project found
that between the state budget years of 1977-78 and 2000-01 state general fund spending grew
574 percent (from $11.7 billion to $78.8 billion). This is an average of25 percent per year,
unadjusted for inflation.
While the state budget has grown at an accelerated rate, increasingly it has come at the expense
oflocal revenues and local authority. The following are examples of ways in which the state has
encroached upon local revenues, which impacts local govermnents' ability to govern effectively.
. In 1991-1992 the state began taking local property tax to fund schools without increasing
overall funding to schools. In 2001 this revenue shift cost cities statewide over $1.6 billion,
amounting to 7% of total property tax collections statewide $22 billion).
. On a statewide basis, property tax revenues have dropped from 15% (1976) to 7% (2001) of
all cities' revenue.
. Vehicle license fees were cut 25% in 1999 and 35% in 2000, with only a conditional
legislative commitment to fund the difference from the state general fund.
. The legislature continues to pass bills that impose unfunded mandates and preempt local
authority, limiting the city's ability to respond to the challenges and opportunities of the
community.
. In 2000, with a $15 billion surplus and a $100 billion state budget, the legislature and
Governor were still unwilling to restore property taxes taken from cities.
Cities are consistently outspent and out-lobbied by groups that are able to commit substantially
more resources to influence legislative decisions, and can bolster these lobbying efforts with
campaign contributions. Cities and the League are precluded from making contributions to state
officials. However, we do have a network of local elected and appointed officials with their own
extensive community contacts. Mobilizing these resources represents our best option for
changing the current imbalance of power between the state and local govermnent.
The League's strategic planning process, initiated nearly 18 months ago, has re-energized both
the League of California Cities and the membership by focusing on our primary mission, which
is to restore and protect local control for cities through education and advocacy to enhance the
quality oflife for all Californians.
The Grassroots Network proposal grew out of that process and has been refined by a special
League task force. It would provide 14 new staff members and reallocate 3 existing staff
members in ten field offices to support the League's 16 regional divisions and 476 cities in
advancing legislation that benefits all cities. These staff persons would be available to assist city
officials and the League's regional divisions to work more closely with legislators, legislative
district staff, news media, and community groups to form coalitions that will help protect city
revenues and local govemment.
In approving the Grassroots Network, the League board included a number of important
accountability measures, including:
. The board will establish long-range goals (e.g., constitutional protection of local revenues)
and annual objectives (e.g., specific legislation) for the program, and provide regular reports
to the membership;
. The board will retain a qualified firm to conduct periodic unbiased, professional evaluations
of member attitude about the program and its effectiveness; and
. After five full years of operation, the League membership will be asked to vote on whether to
continue operation of the program and the dues to fund it.
Through the Grassroots Network, activities will be organized among city officials to support the
common legislative agenda of the cities of the state; e.g., protecting local revenues, securing
additional state funding for transportation; protecting local control, etc. It is becoming clear that
we can not rely solely on efforts to lobby in Sacramento. This proposal adds a new dimension to
such lobbying efforts by carrying out activities to influence legislative outcomes in each
legislator's district.
If the Grassroots Network program is approved by 2/3 of the cities voting, the effective date of
the proposed dues increase to support the program is July 1,2001. At that time, the League will
begin recruitment of the field coordinators.
Financial Impact: The City's League of California Cities dues for Calendar Year 2001 were
$16,357, and it is anticipated that there will be a 4% increase in the cost for dues for 2002. The
additional cost to the city, if the League membership adopts the Bylaws Amendment, will be
$8,931 annually, bringing the total estimated annual cost of League membership for calendar
year 2002 to $25, 942.
Recommendation: Adopt resolution.
.
\O\.l\~D:D I"Q".-
:"'!~~II.
"" - ,1"". t
I ~(Iqll~ 01 (J IlIorlll(1 (illl'l
L~agu~ of California Citi~s
www.caCltles.org
"
OR
OIl.iC
,
"
,.
](JU\
Better Cities-A BeUer Life
May 9, 2001
Dear City Manager or City Clerk (in cities without city managers):
We each serve on the League board of directors, and we are taking the unusual step of writing
you collectively to strongly encourage your city's support of a proposal to establish a new
Grassroots Network for the League. Each one of us attended the board meeting in Vacaville on
April 28, 200 I, when we voted unanimously to support the proposal and send it to the cities of the
state for consideration.
Background
Eight months ago we were brought an exciting proposal by the City Managers Department of the
League to significantly expand our legislative influence by establishing a Grassroots Network.
We appointed a Task Force to investigate the idea. After a careful study of various options, the
Task Force strongly endorsed Grassroots Network concept and urged us to share it with the
League membership. After four months of briefings and hearings on the proposal for city officials
across the state, the Task Force took the feedback it received, made the proposal even better, and
recommended it be adopted.
Major Elements
The Grassroots Network would provide 14 new and reallocate 3 existing staff in 10 field offices
to support the League's 16 regional divisions and 476 cities in advancing legislation that benefits
all cities. These staff would be available to assist city officials and the League's regional divisions
to work more closely with legislators, legislative district staff, news media, and community
groups to fonn coalitions that will help protect city revenues and local control.
In approving the Grassroots Network, we voted to include a number of important measures to
make sure it stays accountable to all of us, including:
. Long-range goals, annual objectives and regular reporting to the membership;
. An unbiased, professional evaluation three times during its first five years.
. A vote of the membership after 5 years of operation to continue the program.
The Grassroots Network will not help us win every legislative battle, but it will equip us to
compete more effectively as we face efforts to reduce our revenues and local control in the years
ahead.
Headquarters
1400 K Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
916.658,8200
FAX 916.658,8240
Southern California Office
602 East Huntington Dr., Suite C
Monrovia, CA 91016
626,305,1315
FAX 626.305.1345
.'
,
City Managers/City Clerks - League of California Cities Proposed Bylaw Amendment
Page 2 of2
Next Steps
Information on the proposal and the voting process is enclosed, along with a disk that contains
electronic copies of the sample report to your city council and a Power Point presentation of the
Grassroots proposal. We appreciate your interest in this exciting idea, and we hope we can look
forward to your city council's support of this innovative and valuable component of our
legislative strategy in 200 I and beyond.
Tip O'Neill, former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, once remarked that "all
politics is local." The Grassroots Network capitalizes on the strengths of this fundamental truth.
Ultimately, local elected and appointed officials are the most powerful advocates for their cities.
The Grassroots Network will assist you in doing so.
Sincerely,
Officers
David Fleming, President and Mayor, Vacaville
Beverly O'Neill, I ~ Vice President and Mayor, Long Beach
John Russo, 2nd Vice President and City Attorney, Oakland
Directors
Maria Alegria, Council Member, Pinole
Harry Armstrong, Mayor, Clovis
Jim Bagley, Mayor, Twentynine Palms
Nancy Dillon, City Clerk, Thousand Oaks
Pat Eklund, Vice Mayor, Novato
Margaret Finlay, Council Member, Duarte
Lee Ann Garcia, Mayor Pro Tern, Grand
T eITace
Stewart Gary, Fire Chief,
Livermore/Pleasanton
Tom Haas, City Attorney, Walnut Creek
Tina Hansen, Council Member, Signal Hill
Sandra Hilliard, Mayor, Yuba City
Joe Hilson, Council Member, Hayward
Ron Loveridge, Mayor, Riverside
Art Madrid, Mayor, La Mesa
Kathryn McCullough, Mayor, Lake Forest
Pat McGuigan, Council Member, Santa Ana
Dave Mora, City Manager, Salinas
Phil Nyberg, Mayor, Fortuna
Alex Padilla, Council Member, Los Angeles
Bev Perry, Council Member, Brea
Bob Pinzler, Council Member, Redondo Beach
Larry Ritchie, Council Member, Westmorland
Jim Ross, Public Works Director, Santa Ana
Mike Siminski, Council Member, Lompoc
Armour Smith, Council Member, Modesto
Tom Sullivan, Planning Director, Moraga
Steve Temple, Finance Director, Hemet
Marland Townsend, Council Member, Foster City
Jerry Van Leeuwen, Block Grant Director,
Escondida
Ruth Vreeland, Council Member, Monterey
.Q.J~~Hf} la,:;
",'1",6
,,'; "I,ll
., . J:"\L
;, L,;:. I; I.' "I ';.~ t
'o~ <.:"
>(1."", ~o(.:~.,,,
Grassroots Network
Overview
PUlpOse
City officials have experienced deep frustration in recent years as the state government has amassed more reSDurces and
power at the expense of local government services. The League has a solid reputation as an advocate of city interests, but in
the new era of term Iim~s, traditional lobbying methods are often a poor match for grass roots campaigns and financial
CDntributions by other competing interests. Many organizations have already responded to the new political reality in Sacra-
mento by investing in a stronger grassroots organization, including the powerful education lobby, which recently launched a
new, high profile and well-funded grassroots organization called EdVoice. The League now has to respond in kind to this new
climate by building a solid grassroots network to coordinate city officials' efforts locally to influence legislators, their staff,
potentially helpful CDmmunity groups, and the news media.
Maior Elements
The Network would CDnsist of 10 field offices that would be staffed by 14 new and 3 existing staff (15 CDordinators/2 support).
The coordinators would work with city officials and the regional dMsions of the League to promote key League legislative
prior~ies w~h legislators, district staff, local media and other supporting CDmmunity groups. They would arrange meetings,
plan news conferences, organize letter writing and media campaigns, and coordinate grassroots efforts with CDmmunity
groups with similar agendas. In short, they would increase the impact of the League's 16 regional divisions and the already
busy city officials in each dMsion on the state legislature's and govemor's decisions affecting c~ies.
Cost
The Network would CDst c~ies an additional $1.6 million each year in dues. This is the equivalent of four one hundredths of
one percent (0.04%) of the $3.8 billion cities collect each year in sales and use taxes, and about one tenth of one percent of
the $1.57 billion cities receive each year in VLF revenues. Most observers believe both revenue sources could become
victims of legislative raids in the next recession.lndMdual city costs for the Network will vary depending on city population. For
example, a city of 50,001 to 60,000 population would pay an additional $4,643. Such a dues increase will require amendment
of the League bylaws approved by no less than 213 of the voting League membership.
MembershiD Review
The idea of the Grassroots Network originated with the City Managers Department and was more fully developed by a
special Task Force appointed by the League board of directors. Information on the program was developed and disseminated
to the full League leadership ( board, dMsions, departments, policy CDmmittees and caucuses), as well as to every city
manager. Dozens of presentations on the proposal were made to each League dMsion, many departments, and to most of
the area city manager groups throughout the state.
Accountability to the Membership
Based upon membership input, the Task Force reCDmmended, and the board adopted, significant changes to the original
proposal. These include: establishing long-term goals, annual program objectives, and regular reports to the membership; an
unbiased, professional evaluation three times during the first fIVe years; and a vote of the membership after five years to
CDntinue the program. Under the League's current bylaws, the board may also vote to disCDntinue the Grassroots Network at
any time.
Next SteDs
Cities are now asked to vote to approve the addition of article XVI to the League's bylaws relating to the establishment of the
Grassroots Network, along with a new increased dues schedule to pay for the program. A ballot will be sent to each city.
Ballots retumed to the League must be postmarked no later than July 6,2001.
Revised 05107/01
\,
".,:,':t~~1:-r18<)~^
,,-'\! '~~I'
j1~ -11..:---.....+
,.'; ,I"i
-:;. ~.."..
t'J", _,\,'-'
-t_'~{C ~OV\.
Grassroots Network
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Grassroots Coordinator Network?
The Grassroots Coordinator Network would consist of 10 field offices staffed by 14 new and 3 existing staff who
would serve as grassroots coordinators. Their job would be to work with city officials and the regional divisions of
the League to aggressively promote key League legislative priorities with legislators, district staff, local media and
other supporting community groups.
Why do we need a Grassroots Network?
The Network proposal was developed by a task force (see page 4 for a list of task force members) authorized by the
League Board of Directors as part of its strategic planning process. It responds to the deep frustration of many
local officials about the cities' loss of political clout, compared with other, better-positioned interest groups that
contribute millions of dollars to campaigns.
The concept of establishing local field offices is used very successfully by political campaigns, as well as by teach-
ers, labor and other statewide membership organizations. These groups find that a network of field offices is a well-
tested means to communicate with a dispersed membership, and to mobilize local support for the organization's
causes. A recent survey by researchers at Wake Forest University found that key congressional staff, as well as
government and public affairs executives, ranked grassroots activities as more effective in influencing the outcome
of legislation than corporate or contract lobbying, campaign contributions or advocacy advertising. California's
powerful education lobby must agree: they recently launched a new, high profile and well-funded grassroots
organization called EdVoice. These are the interests against which the League must compete in Sacramento.
How will cities benefit from this proposal?
The goal of the Grassroots Network is to focus on major issues of concern to all cities, such as fiscal reform,
increased funding for transportation and local control. Cities will benefit from the increased visibility of city issues in
local and statewide media, and by holding legislators accountable back home for the votes they cast in Sacramento.
The potential payback for this investment is enormous. For example, on a statewide basis the proposed $1.6 million
dues increase needed to pay for the network is equivalent to only four one hundredths of one percent (0.04%) of
the annual $3.8 million cities receive in sales and use taxes. It is one tenth of one percent of the $1.57 billion
cities receive each year in VLF revenues. Portions of both VLF and sales and use tax revenues are at risk from
legislative raids if the state suffers another recession.
The costs are also relatively small when compared to the expenditures made by organizations that compete with
cities and the League for the allocation of dollars in Sacramento. For example, the 1999-2000 legislative session
just two of the statewide public employee unions' that sponsored or lobbied for SB 402 (the binding arbitration bill)
reported spending about $3.1 million in campaign contributions to legislators, candidates for statewide office or
Page 2 of 4
"
current statewide office holders, in addition to their expendnures for in-house or contract lobbying. During the same
period, the Calffomia Teachers Association, which competes very effectively for funding in Sacramento, reported
spending approximately $2.7 million on lobbying expenses on education issues. In the same period, the CTA also
spent approximately $6.3 million on campaign contributions to legislators, candidates for statewide office and
current statewide office holders, and $35.2 million on initiative campaigns to further advance their policy agenda.
What would the grassroots coordinators do?
The coordinator's role is to increase the impact of the League's 16 regional divisions, by helping busy city officials
focus strategic attention on state legislators' and the governor's decisions affecting cnies. The coordinators will work
to build relationships with local elected and appointed officials, local media, and other individuals and organizations
in the region who might be called upon to be part of a local coalition on a particular League inniative or pending
legislation.
The coordinators' would:
· Arrange meetings for city officials wnh legislators, plan news conferences, organize letter wrning and media
campaigns, and coordinate grassroots efforts with community groups with similar agendas.
· Support mayors, council members and city managers in drafting sample letters from cities; and train city staff on
understanding and accessing the legislative process.
. Provide regular presentations on legislative developments and insight into the polnical dynamics influencing
legislative developments.
· Meet regularly wnh legislative staff, media representatives and community groups about the League's legislative
priornies.
What kind of person will be hired to staff the Network?
Everyone associated with this project has concluded that the best way to make this Network effective is to hire
seasoned, professional, political organizers, not policy analysts or technical people right out of college. The budget
provides an attractive salary and benefit package to do this. In addition to reassigning some League staff, we
expect to recruit savvy polnical people who have worked on legislative or local elections, staffed legislative offices,
or worked in public affairs or campaign consulting firms.
Where will the field offices be located?
The 10 field offices would be located around the state to ensure that coordinators are available to serve each of the
League's 16 geographic divisions, while still balancing the need to maintain close contact with legislative districts
and to be accessible to all cnies. A map of the distribution by region is available in the information packet developed
by the League. The League will send out Requests for Proposals (RFPs) to solicit interest by cities in hosting a
coordinator. The goal will be to achieve the highest impact on League lobbying and greatest visibility among mem-
bers, while still keeping expenses as low as possible.
Page 3 of 4
How does the Network relate to the ABC effort?
Action for Better Cities was created to make expenditures and engage il] 'political" activities such as statewide
initiative campaigns. Recently, through in-kind contributions of staff time and strategic counsel, ABC was able to
playa major role in helping to defeat Proposition 37, the initiative that would have severely limited cities' abilities to
impose fees to support local regulatory activities and provide services. While both the proposed Network and ABC
share a similar objective, namely to gain more political clout for cities, the Network coordinators will focus on
organizing local activities in support of League legislative positions. ABC will lead any initiative effort in support of
fiscal stability and similar objectives.
Our city already pays a lobbyist. Why do we need this network too?
The Network doesn't replace the ongoing need to have a strong lobbying presence in Sacramento. (In fact, part of
the task force recommendation which has been approved by the League Board of Directors is to set aside at least
$50,OOO/year in the budget to hire contract lobbyists in Sacramento to assist League staff at strategic times on
some key issues.) Cities that currently have their own contract or in-house lobbyist will probably continue to find
that having their own representation makes sense, for two reasons.
First, the League's lobbying program represents the interests of all 476 cities. It lobbies the legislature on matters of
statewide importance to cities, and cannot provide the representation needed to address the individual needs of
cities or even a single region. Second, the grassroots coordinators will be networking and organizing people, not
lobbyists. This work will support and enhance the efforts of all city lobbyists, regardless of whether they are con-
tractors or in-house staff. Several prominent contract lobbyists who represent individual cities have commented that
they see the network proposal as complementary to their ability to represent their clients.
What criteria will be used to measure the Network's effectiveness?
The League board specified that, if the Network were approved by the membership, the board would set both long-
term goals and annualized objectives for the program and report them to the membership. The board also required
that the League engage the services of a consultant to conduct a professional membership survey that establishes
a base line of information about city officials' perceptions of the effectiveness of the League's legislative advocacy
efforts and the relative level of involvement of city officials in support of that advocacy work. The board's intention is
to repeat that survey at the end of year three and following year five, comparing changing attitudes and leveis of
efforts.
How will the League be held accountable for the Network's success or failure?
In addition to the survey to assess members' perceptions and actual involvement in grassroots activities, the board
also directed the staff to (1) establish a separate Grassroots Network account in the League budget, so that mem-
bers can track Network expenses; (2) publish an annual legislative voting records report, including a ranking of
legislators and the Governor on key city issues; (3) report board goals and annual legislative and policy objectives
to the membership; (4) provide regular reports at the Executive Forum, Annual Conference and League department
and division meetings; and (5) provide periodic reports to the membership.
Will this new program have a sunset date?
On or before the end of the sixth year of the program (December 31, 2007), the board will ask the membership to
vote on the question of continuing the program. If the membership votes against the program continuation, the
Network would be shut down, and cease operations by no later than the end of the seventh year (December 31,
2008).
Page 4 of 4
What will it cost?
The estimated annualized cost is $1.6 million, spread among all member cities. This estimate is based upon the
following assumptions:
. Several current League staff members will be reassigned. Approximately 14 new staff will be hired.
. Much of the cost for the individual offices will be subsidized by the cities where the office is located, for ex-
ample, by making office space and support staff available within a city facility.
How will costs be distributed?
Costs would be distributed among all cities based upon the League's dues structure, which is based on population.
Some small cities pay only a few hundred dollars, while the largest cities pay tens of thousands of dollars. The
median dues statewide are currently about $4,930. The Network would increase median dues by approximately
$2,588.2
When would a dues increase start?
If the membership votes to approve the bylaw amendment the proposed dues increase would be effective on July 1,
2001.
Grassroots Lobbying Task Force
Harriet Miller, Mayor, Santa Barbara - Chair
John Thompson, City Manager, Vacaville, and President of the City Managers' Department - Vice Chair
Eileen Ansari, Council Member, Diamond Bar
Harry Armstrong, Council Member, Clovis
Lee Ann Garcia, Council Member, Grand Terrace
Tom Haas, City Attorney, Walnut Creek
Jim Marshall, City Manager, Merced
Patsy Marshall, Council Member, Buena Park
Dave Mora, City Manager, Salinas
Kevin O'Rourke, City Manager, Fairfield
Susan Peppler, Council Member, Redlands
Greg Pettis, Council Member, Cathedral City
Mike Siminski, Council Member, Lompoc
Armour Smith, Vice Mayor, Modesto
Anne Solem, Council Member, Mill Valley
Richard Tefank, Former Chief of Police, Buena Park
Ruth Vreeland, Council Member, Monterey
Endnote
1 The Califomia Professional Firefighters Association and the Police Officers Research Association of California,
2 For purposes of establishing the grassroots network, the $5,000 dues cap in League bylaws article 1\1, section 2, is would be
suspended for the years 2001 and 2002. The dues cap will apply to base dues without interruption and will apply to total dues in year
2003 and years following.
Grassroots Coordinator Network
, Proposed Staff Assignments:
Cities and Legislative Districts
DIVISION
# STAFF
# CITIES
#LEG. DIST.
North Bay & Redwood Empire 1 46 6
Sacramento Valley 1 58 8
South San Joaquin 1 37 7
Central Valley 1 26 4
Riverside, Inland Empire, Desert Mtn. 2 54 13
Orange County 1 34 10
Los Angeles County 3 86 33
Channel Counties 1 24 6
Peninsula, East Bay, Monterey Bay 3 86 23
San Diego, Imperial County 1 25 10
\0",:\)1:1:1 l(iPU
,,'!l~rl.
,i1. -tlnL,a,
}i'l"" ,:' ,1"1 I~ 1 ,ii", l
~O_ ...-...""q,.
"';1;/~C TOe:<:-'
Grassroots Network
Proposed Distribution oiStaff
Among League Divisions
1
Regional Divisions
1. Redwood Empire
2. Sacramento Valley
3. Central Valley
4. South San Joaquin Valley
5. Desert.Mountain
6. Inland Empire
7. Riverside County
8. Imperial County
9. San Diego County
10. Orange County
11. Los Angeles County
12. Channel Counties
13. Monterey Bay
14. Peninsula
15. East Bay
16. North Bay
2
D 1 Legislative Coordinator
iii 2 Legislative Coordiriators
. 3 Legislative Coordinators
9
8
o'.itl.'Jl:D IS
,~1.1l:li-
..' - '1,,1,
I '. -I (""""'.L+
: ,d '11)~ ~: I :,'" l
"" .
O"'i' ","<.
"""<,, ,OC.i
. Grassroots Network
Action Plan
The following dates constitute the lime frame and action steps to implement, operate, evaluate and manage the grassroots
network if approved by the League membership.
DATES
ACTION
March, 2001 - On-going
July, 2001
Develop data base for polITical action.
Implement recrUITment program for grassroots coordinators - advertise pOSITions.
Send out Requests for Proposals (RFPs) to CITies to soliCIT interest in providing
office space/equipment.
InITiate professional survey of membership perceptions of involvement WITh
League legislative advocacy.
August 2001
Deadline for coordinator candidates' resumes.
September, 2001
October, 2001
Deadline for RFPs on office space.
Interviews for grassroots coordinator candidates.
Make job offers to grassroots coordinators.
SITe Selection Committee chooses office locations.
Complete membership survey
November, 2001
Grassroots Coordinators report to work.
Training Workshops for grassroots coordinators to cover: 1) League organization,
history, goals and key issues; and, 2) Operating a grassroots program.
Board of Directors sets long-term goals/short-term objectives and distributes to
League membership.
December, 2001 - On-going
Program begins with introductions to membership and involvement in city official
meetings.
December, 2003
Complete mid-program survey of membership perceptions of involvement with
League legislative advocacy.
December, 2006
Program completes five years of operation. Third survey of membership is
inITiated to evaluate success.
December, 2007
League membership votes to continue program.
December, 2008
Grassroots program terminates, if membership turns down program. Program
continues if membership votes to retain IT.
U.
...J ...
> en
"'C 0
()
c
ro .::tt.
L-
>< 0
ro ~
.....
en (])
(]) z
- en
ro
(f) ...
0
>.e
...
.- en
() en
. . ~
Q) (9
~ "'C
(Q (])
(])
........ (.)
en ><
w
~ L-
ro
L1..
C/) en
(])
... :::s
........ c
(Q (])
..c >
(])
S 0::
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 L() 0
~
~ ('f) ('f)
ER- ER- ER-
-
tJ) ~ tJ)
-.s0e:
g CO U .2
~c:~=
tJ) :.c ~ E
tJ)~O(O
COO.!'
(500);;
Uz
Q)
en
,..~
... -
Q)LL.;e:
O....J ~.2
:..J ;:> ~La
Q) '-' ~ (0
o Q) g.....:
:2 Q):::- ~
Q)LL.
>
o
o
o
o
o
L()
ER-
000
000
L() 0 L()
- -
C\I C\I T""
ER- SUcffli! W ER-
T""
ER-
J!!
~t
ffico
'"
"'-.....
~ ~
e ~
'- 0
'lilt!)
'"
<: 5
:2"2
~ tll
8-2:
Q.",
g~
.. .s
.S'lil
u.. '"
'l5u..
~$
~ ,,;
,2!8l
~~
g>'"
l'l'1/j ~
1il;J!!
'091 CI)
<:.li!~
&: ~ '-
<: CI),2!
"l ~16-
'l5'~ Q
~-E;.2
"(-
5 c:: c::
.0" ..
ue~
~.9l",
~8 ~
i:3 >. 0
CD..Q~
_","lJ
;: c: :,
"':2"(
~~~
.S ~ 5
","0
~8s
"'''jl
.. ..
'" to.
e!j'Q.
::::=:og.:
"(Ill,,,
I
ER-
/"'-
,
r
\.w
,,-
\..,..
~(Q)r?V
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SAN BERNARDINO SUPPORTING THE GRASSROOTS NETWORK PROPOSED
BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES.
WHEREAS, the City of San Bemardino, like other California cities, has witnessed its
authority and revenues eroded in recent years by political actions at the state level of
government; and
WHEREAS, legislative acts reducing the amount of property tax allocated to cities,
mandating binding arbitration of compensation issues with public safety personnel, and other
restrictions on local discretion have reduced home rule authority available to local elected
officials who are directly accountable to the public for their decisions; and
WHEREAS, the imposition of term limits on state legislators has changed the political
dynamic in Sacramento, leading to more frequent turnover in state legislative office and greater
opportunity to advocate the cause of strong local government with state elected officials; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the League of California Cities has requested
support for the implementation of a Grassroots Coordinator Network (hereinafter "Grassroots
Network"), that would include the development of a network of a staff of ten field officers,
staffed by grassroots coordinators, and
WHEREAS, the Grassroots Network would trigger greater focus in cities across the
state on the acts of the legislature through more active involvement by city officials,
collaboration with community groups, effective media relations, and closer partnerships with
the members of the state legislature and their district office staff; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino have had
the opportunity to offer their comments on said proposal; and
WHEREAS, events of the last ten (10) years clearly demonstrate that new and
aggressive advocacy efforts such as the Grassroots Network may be necessary to advance the
cause of local control and strong cities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE MAYOR AND COMMON
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO HEREBY SUPPORT THE
PROPOSAL OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA
CITIES TO CREATE THE GRASSROOTS NETWORK AND FURTHER SUPPORTS
AN INCREASE IN LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES DUES TO FUND THIS NEW
INITIATIVE.
/11
LfLo. ! ()
~/f/r;/
"'-
c
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SAN BERNARDINO SUPPORTING THE GRASSROOTS NETWORK PROPOSED
BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Mayor
and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a
meeting thereof, held
on the
day of
,2001, by the following vote, to wit:
Council Members:
AYES
NAYS
ABSTAIN
ABSENT
ESTRADA
9 LIEN
10 MCGINNIS
11 SCHNETZ
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
SUAREZ
ANDERSON
MCCAMMACK
Rachel G. Clark, City Clerk
The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this
day of
2001.
19
20
21
Judith Valles, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
22 Approved as to
23 Form and legal content:
24 JAMES F. PENMAN,
City Attorn y
25
26 By:
C' 27
28
P'"
'-
c
c
League of California Cities
Ballot on Grassroots Network
City of
Does your city vote to approve the addition of article XVI to the
League's bylaws relating to the establishment of a League
Grassroots Network (attached as Attachment A and
incorporated by reference in this ballot), along with the dues
schedule (attached as Attachment B and also incorporated by
reference in this ballot)?
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
Ballot returned by:
City Official Name
City Official Title
Ballots must be returned by First Class Mail and postmarked no
later than July 6, 2001.
. ~,
Return ballots to:
League of California Cities
1400 K Street, 4th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Attention: Counting Committee
."""
\.,..
c
c
Attachment A:
Proposed Addition to League Bylaws
Article XVI: Establishment and Financing of
Grassroots Network
Secti~n 1: Enhancement of Advocacy Efforts.
To enhance the League's advocacy efforts on behalf of cities, the League hereby
establishes a Grassroots Network. The Grassroots Network consists of a series of field
offices throughout California, responsible for coordinating city advocacy efforts and
promoting statewide League policy priorities.
Section 2: Dues Increase
(a) Initial Financing. The dues increase approved concurrently with the addition
of Article XVI shall finance the League's Grassroots Network for the second half
of 2001 and for 2002. The increase shall be used exclusively to finance the
Grassroots Network.
(b) Continued Financing. Any subsequent dues increases shall occur in
accordance with Article IV.1
Section 3: Accountability
(a) Annual Goal-Setting and Performance Assessment. The League Board
shall set long-term goals and annual objectives for the League's Grassroots
Network. The League Board shall periodically report to the League's Member
Cities on the Grassroots Network's performance in meeting those goals and
objectives.
(b) Board Discontinuance. If at any time the League Board finds the
Grassroots Network is not meeting its objectives on behalf of cities, the League
Board may discontinue the Grassroots Network.
(c) Membership Vote on Program Continuation. On or before December 31,
2007, the Board shall ask Member Cities to vote on whether to continue the
Grassroots Network beyond December 31, 2008.2
...
1 Explanatory Note: "Article IV" is the existing section of the League's bylaws, which provide for 1) a
two-thirds vote of approval by the League board for all dues increases as well as 2) division ratification of dues
increases in excess of the Consumer Price Index. Article IV also caps individual city dues increases at $5,000
per year.
2 The League's bylaws provide that a majority of votes cast is necessary for decision on League votes.
See Article XII, 94.
Attachment B:
Proposed Dues to Establish the Grassroots Network
"'''''''' (A) (E)
Total Dues
Including
Base Grassrools
Dues Network
Paid in 2002 (Esl)
For cities having a population of: 2001 [C+D]
1 to 500 $37 $59
501 to 600 99 157
601 to 700 197 312
701 to 800 216 342
801 to 900 259 410
901 to 1,000 317 503
1,001 to 1,250 494 784
1,251 to 1,500 611 969
1.501 to 1,750 727 1,152
1,751 to 2,000 865 1,373
2,001 to 2,250 921 1.461
2.251 to 2,550 1,020 1,618
2,501 to 2,750 1,078 1,710
2,751 to 3,000 1,176 1,865
3,001 to 4,000 1.316 2,088
4,001 to 5,000 1,570 2,490
5,001 to 7,500 2,044 3,241
7,501 to 10,000 2,359 3,741
,..' 10,001 to 15,000 2,848 4,516
'-.... 15,001 to 20,000 3,279 5,201
20,001 to 25,000 4.1D5 6,511
25,001 to 30,000 4,930 7,818
30,001 to 40,DOO 6,068 9,624
40,001 to 50,000 7,382 11,708
50,001 to 60,000 8,504 13.487
60.001 to 70.000 9.346 14,823
70,001 to 80,00D 9.817 15,570
80,001 to 90,000 10,464 16,597
90,001 to 100,000 11,464 18,182
100,001 to 125,000 13,075 20,737
125,001 to 150.000 14,392 22,826
150,001 to 200,000 16,357 25,942
200,001 to 500,000 17,176 17,863 27,241
Plus 819 852 1.299
per each full over
500,001 to 640,DOO 41,693 I 43,361 I 66,125 4,
Plus 757 787 1,2D1
per each full 10,000
Over 640,000 51.950 13;637 54,028 82,393
For purposes of establishing the grassroots network, the $5,000 dues cap in League bylaws article IV, section 2. is
suspended for the years 2001 and 2002, The dues cap will apply to base dues without interruption and will appiy
to total dues in year 2003 and years following,
C The League board will consider in September whether a cost-of-living adjustment for dues will be needed in 2002.
This table shows 2002 dues w~h a cost-of-Iiving adjustment of 4%.
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
RAcHEL G. CLARK, C.M.C. . CrrY CLERK
'"
P.O. Box 1318. San Bernardino' CA92402
300 North "D" Street. San Bernardino' CA 92418-0001
909.384.5002. Fax: 909.384.5158
Business Registration Division: 909.384.5302
Passport Acceptance Facility: 909.384.5128
www.cLsan-bernardino.ca.us
June 6, 2001
League of California Cities
1400 K Street, 4th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Grassroots Network
Counting Committee,
Enclosed is a copy of City of San Bernardino Resolution 2001-145, and one original signed
ballot in support of the Grassroots Network proposed by the Board of Directors of the League of
California Cities.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (909)384-5102.
Sincerely,
O~..J.lh. ~
R~k,CMC
City of San Bernardino
Enclosure
RGC:mt
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
ADOPTED SHARED VALUES: Integrity' Accountability' Respect for Human Dignity' Honesty
.,
** FOR OFFICE USE ONLY - NOT A PUBLIC DOCUMENT **
. .
RESOLUTION AGENDA ITEM TRACKING FORM
Meeting Date (Date Adopted): (., -4-0 \ Item #
Vote: Ayes 1-'1 Nays.e-
Change to motion to amend original documents: --
\0 Resolution # 200 \ -14 S
Abstain -G- Absent..g.....
Reso. # On Attachments: - Contract term: -
Note on Resolution of Attachment stored separately: ~
Direct City Clerk to (circie I): PUBLISH, POST, RECORD W/COUNTY
Null/Void After: -
By: -
PrOle",
Date Sent to Mayor: lo - 4 -() \
Date of Mayor's Signature: (Q -5 -01
.
Date of Clerk/CDC Signature: h. S -(:, 1
Reso. Log Updated:
Seal Impressed:
,,/"
.,/
Date Memo
See Attached:
See Attached:
See
Date Returned: -
ture:
60 Day Reminder Letter Sent on 30th day:
90 Day Reminder Letter Sent on 45th day:
ed:
Yes.L No By
Yes No ..L.. By
Yes No ,/ By
Yes No ,/ By
Yes N07 By
Request for Council Action & Staff Report Attached:
Updated Prior Resolutions (Other Than Below):
Updated CITY Personnel Folders (6413, 6429, 6433, 10584, 10585, 12634):
Updated CDC Personnel Folders (5557):
Updated Traffic Folders (3985, 8234, 655, 92-389):
Copies Distributed to:
City Attorney V'
Parks & Rec.
Code Compliance Dev. Services
Police Public Services Water
EDA
Finance r/' MIS
Others: Jlrom'!'I.srRFrmQ
Notes:
BEFORE FILING, REVIEW FORM TO ENSURE ANY NOTATIONS MADE HERE ARE TRANSFERRED TO THE
YEARLY RESOLUTION CHRONOLOGICAL LOG FOR FUTURE REFERENCE Contract Term etc.
Ready to File:m-f
Date: G:, C, 01
Revised 01/12/01