Loading...
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