Loading...
02-04-2003 - League of California Cities City Council Liaison MeetingsI • City of West Covina Memorandum AGENDA TO: Andrew G. Pasmant, City Manager ITEM NO. G - 2 and City Council DATE February 4, 2003 FROM: Artie A. Fields, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES CITY COUNCIL LIAISON MEETINGS RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council receive & file this informational report. r DISCUSSION: Members of the City Council have been appointed to serve as liaisons on various regional committees and boards. Councilmember Miller attended the League of California Cities Public Safety Policy Committee and Environmental Quality Policy Committee meetings Attached are the highlights and agendas of these meetings, which Councilmember Miller wishes to submit to the City Council for their information. FISCAL IMPACT: None. Prepared by: a � 7 0(: Chris Freeland Administrative Analyst H Attachments Reviewed & approved by: Artie A. Field Assistant City.Vanager Michael L. Miller 735 East Herring Avenue West Covina, California 91790 To: City Council Members January 28, 2003 City Manager From: Mike Miller City Council Member Subject: Public Safety Policy Committee League of California Cities I attended the January 23, 2003 meeting of this Committee. The attached is an annotated agenda that provides an overview. The notable Committee highlights are: ➢ Current funding and any reserves associated with the maintenance operation and upgrade of our 9-1-1 Emergency System are proposed by the Governor to be use to help balance the State budget. The funds at a fee/tax on every telephone bill that was dedicated to the 9-1-1 System in the State. Everyone bill payer assumes it will be used for this purpose. Now the Governor has proposed to "shift" (aka. take) the operational funding from the 9-1-1 systems and transfer it. The $41 million would be transferred to the California Highway Patrol and $10 would be transferred to the California Department of Forestry and Department of Health Services. The Committee voted to support the City Fire and Police Chiefs in the State to keep the 9-1-1 System funded and up to date to serve the emergency needs of our residents and business. A copy of the background papers on this subject is attached. ➢ The Governor is proposing to move the Emergency Medical Services Authority into the Department of Health Services (DHS). The Fire Service Officers believe if a transfer occurs it should be to the Office of Emergency Services (OES). OES is an action agency responding to emergencies. DHS is health care related, not an emergency agency. The Committee voted to support the transfer to OES. A background paper is attached. RECOUNENDAUON It is recommended that this report be received and filed. Mike Miller Council Member • 11 PUBLIC SAFETY POLICY COMMITTEE Thursday, January 23, 2003 10 a.m. — 3 p.m. Ontario Convention Center AGENDA I. Indian Gaming Policy (attached) II. Emergency Medical Services Authority (attached) III. 911 Critical Issues Committee (attached) Speaker: Barry Silva, Modoc Co. Sheriffs Office Speaker: Virginia Ferral, Placer Co. Sheriffs Office IV. Legislation V. 2003 Work Program (attached) VI. 2003 Strategic Goals and Strategies (attached) VII. Revised Annual Conference Resolutions (attached) VIII. State Budget Update IX. Other Business X. Next Meeting -Thursday, March 27, 2002, Sacramento Convention Center Brown Act Reminder: The League of California Cities' board of directors has a policy of complying with the spirit of open meeting laws. Generally, off -agenda items may be taken up only if: 1) Two-thirds of the policy committee members find a need for immediate action exists and the need to take action came to the attention of the policy committee after the agenda was prepared (Note: If fewer than two-thirds of policy committee members are present, taking up an off -agenda item requires a unanimous vote); or 2) A majority of the policy committee finds an emergency (for example: work stoppage or disaster) exists. A majority of a city council may not, consistent with the Brown Act, discuss specific substantive issues among themselves at League meetings. Any such discussion is subject to the Brown Act and must occur in a meeting that complies with its requirements. NOTE: Policy committee members should be aware that lunch is usually served at these meetings. The state's Fair Political Practices Commission takes the position that the value of the lunch should be reported on city officials'statement of economic interests form. Because of the service you provide at these meetings, the League takes the position that the value of the lunch should be reported as income (in return for your service to the committee) as opposed to a gift (note that this is not income for state or federal income tax purposes just Political Reform Act reporting purposes). The League has beet: persistent, but unsuccessful, in attempting to change the FPPC's mind about this interpretation. As such, we feel we need to let you know about the issue so you can determine your course of action. If you would prefer not to have to report the value of the lunches as income, we will let you know the amount so you can reimburse the League. The lunches tend to run in the $20 to $30 range. To review a copy of the FPPC's most recent letter on this issue, please go to u,ha,iv.cacities.org/FPPCIetter on the League's website. PUBLIC SAFETY POLICY COMMITTEE Thursday, January 23, 2003 10 a.m. — 3 p.m. Ontario Convention Center SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA ACTION ITEMS Indian Gaming Policy Issue: Should the League continue to support each of these principles as written to serve as guidance during any potential renegotiations and legislative debates related to Indian gaming? Staff Recommendation: The League should adopt these principles. These principles are intended to ensure adequate d� mitigation for the public health and safety impacts of Indian gaming operations. Also, fee to trust criteria would provide local governments and tribes with an understanding of the issues that the Governor and Legislature think are important when considering whether to consent to tribal gaming on fee to trust lands. II. Emergency Medical Services Authority Issue: If consolidation of EMSA is inevitable, should the League support the transfer of the EMSA to DHS? Staff Recommendation: The League should oppose a transfer of the EMSA to DHS. The League Fire Chiefs Department should continue to monitor the transfer proposal and work with the established fire and EMS coalition in an attempt to ensure that EMSA is transferred to the Office of Emergency Services. 911 Critical Issues Committee Issue: Should the League support the 911 Issues Committee's Dif3� Legislative Proposals? Staff Recommendation: The League should support the creation of an Administrative Board which could potentially benefit PSAP administration agencies. The League should work with any ���V �,� potential bill sponsor to ensure balanced representation on the ��� Board..of- ,(�j1���F 0 9-1-1 CRITICAL ISSUES COMMITTEE BACKGROUND: The 9-1-1 Critical Issues Committee was conceived in August 2002 by the Northern California Public Safety Dispatch Association at the request of one Sheriff who was angered and frustrated by the current funding problems. Representatives met with the California State Sheriffs' Association in September 2002 during their Annual Conference in Mt. Shasta. CSSA formed a committee and asked for continued information and a legislative solution to the problem. The California Police Chiefs' Association and the California Peace Officers' Association joined CSSA in this effort. A letter was sent via email to all County Coordinators in September 2002 outlining the issues. In October 2002 a meeting was held with the State 9-1-1 Office. Shortly afterward, drafts of the Position Letter, Administrative Board concept, and the Database Issues were sent to the State Office. On October 23, 2002 at the CALNENA Quarterly Meeting in San Francisco, although no time was allotted for discussion of this topic, John Bush did advise the group that CALNENA would be joining other groups who were moving forward toward positive changes in the 9-1-1 Program. The members present were in agreement with this action. In November 2002 CaINENA retained the services of Nick Warner & Associates as their Legislative Advocate. Nick represents all PSAPs, telephone service providers, and customer premise equipment vendors equally within CaINENA. As John Bush has pointed out, we are all equal partners in California 9-1-1. At this point CALNENA became the primary sponsor of this effort along with the other supporters. Also in November, SBC Pacific Bell and Verizon, (who came to the table to meet and confer on the complex database issues), joined the Committee. We want to continue to work as partners toward a better understanding and utilization of the MSAG and ALI databases. In December 2002 we had a meeting regarding legislation at the State Capitol. Nick Warner will give a legislative update at the Thursday morning General Session. Additionally, the California Highway Patrol, League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties have shown interest in supporting our efforts. -7- 0 On January 6, 2003 we received a written response to the Position Letter sent to Daphne Rhoe at the 9-1-1 Emergency Communications Office. Both of those documents are attached with this packet. CURRENT FUNDING ISSUES: We contend the current method of determining the number of positions and the amount of funding dollars available to a PSAP for customer premise equipment using the Erlang Formula is neither accurate nor adequate. According to the PSAPs currently seeking funding, the statistics included in the formula vary. In some cases 7-digit calls or various transfer calls are included. Additionally, PSAPs must then follow up with various verbal and written correspondences that generally result in increased funding. The State 9-1-1 Office has said funding amounts are confidential, stating that one needs to get that information from each individual agency. Since this is a public program funded with taxpayer dollars, we would like to review the current funding levels for each PSAP, in order to determine the average funding level for similar PSAPs. The current situation has caused excessive work for the PSAPs, who are being offered reductions of up to 75% of their former funding. Several of the customer premise equipment vendors have reported business losses of up to 80% under this formula. PSAPs are being encouraged to buy equipment from vendors they are not familiar with. If the PSAP chooses to stay with their current vendor in whom they have confidence, they must pay out of pocket to maintain the current.level of service. Additionally, if they choose a different vendor based on a lower price, the agency is burdened with the cost of training employees on new equipment. Here are some specific examples of current funding problems: City of San Diego: The second largest city in the State of California was given $2.9 million in1998 to fund an all -new 36-position system, including back room equipment and workstations. That written request was submitted on 12/31/97 and was completed and returned with final approval on 2/11/98, (only 42 days). On 3/28/02 the City submitted a request for funding of the workstation equipment only. Two estimates were received from vendors around $1.5 million, half of their former request. 193 days later on 10/7/02 they received a letter indicating San Diego qualifies for $648,000 to fund 17 approved positions, ($38,000 per seat). ($725,000 would be only 25% of their former funding). To receive final funding approval, they must submit a purchase order package detailing the terms of the proposed contract. Needless to say, this amount is unacceptable to San Diego, who routinely has more than 17 employees on a shift. Contra Costa County: The County built a new communications center in 1997. At that time the Sheriff wanted a 20-year growth plan and opted to pay for 14 of it's 27 positions with his own funding. The State funded $180,000 for the remaining 13 positions, (this appears to be an annual amount according to the TD280). They have been currently offered $65,000, (again, annually), for 5 of those positions. The county's maintenance agreement expired last year, and they pay $62,000 per year for their system. Their manager received an email from the State 9=1-1 analyst with a list of State and Federal grant sites that they could try and apply to for additional position funding. As an aside, the same analyst gave the consolidated fire dispatch center in the county a funding increase from 7 to 12 positions. City of Costa Mesa: The City was previously funded for 8 positions. This funding cycle they were initially approved for 6 positions. After one year of negotiating with the State, which included disputing and gathering additional statistical data, providing additional information, verbal and written communications with the 9-1-1 Program Administration, they were increased to 7 positions. Although they were able to fund an eighth position by negotiating their service contract, the time and effort spent on this process was unacceptable. In addition, they received a letter indicating that they had additional monies available to them, however they had to spend that money by the end of the fiscal year, as the State could not hold funds over. (It appears this is a new policy or rule that cannot be located in the current 9-1-1 Manual). The Costa Mesa City Attorney also noted another new problem. Now that the State Program doesn't sign the contract with the vendor, it leaves the local jurisdiction totally liable for all costs should there be a funding issue. DATABASE ISSUES: This is by far the most complex issue facing the California 9-1-1 system. There are actually two 9-1-1 databases, the MSAG and the ALI. In addition, we need to consider the eventual wireless database. In our initial efforts we stated several problems concerning mostly the access and control of these databases. There was an immediate willingness to meet and confer on these complex issues by both SBC Pacific Bell and Verizon. We want to thank Patricia Bell from SBC for raising our awareness on two points in particular. First, we need to concentrate on an issue that affects a statewide level. Secondly, we need to focus clearly on a particular issue, rather than a convoluted group of ideas. We were informed that certain ideas could have severe negative impacts on the system as a whole, while seemingly improving one small piece. For example, the early idea to competitively bid on the ALI retrieval services to lower pricing and improve perceived customer relations issues could open the door for SBC and Verizon to discontinue their frame relay services to rural California. This could lead to waiting for a new telephone service provider to provide 9-1-1, Internet and CLETS services to those areas. Some issues that we are considering for the future include: A statewide "Non Disclosure Form" to be signed by anyone that has access to the database information, similar to CLETS documents. While similar documents currently exist with each of the service providers, there is really no legislative protection for their information as it filters downstream. There are 0 also no mandates for each agency to ensure compliance with misuse and/or abuse issues. Such legislation does exist for DMV and CLETS databases. A NENA Standard database format, (NENA 3.1 for example), in which all applicable fields are accessible to the PSAPs, and could be displayed if desired, such as including the name of an apartment complex or trailer park in the "Location" field. Such a statewide standard would simplify data exchange between service providers and PSAPs. Achieving a single person in each county, (most likely the County Coordinator), that is solely responsible for MSAG information, eliminating some of the current issues with information conflicts. This problem exists in some areas due to a lack of communication between planners and 9-1-1 staff. Some County Coordinators are far more proactive than others. We want to continue to work as partners toward a better understanding and utilization of the MSAG and ALI databases, without the possible repercussions that were pointed out to us. While we welcome any competitive offer of equal or better equipment, services, and support; we must evaluate that which is in the best interest of the 9-1-1 system overall. We do not want to lose the services and support of the two largest telephone service providers that have a vested interest in the California 9-1-1 system. PLANNED FUTURE PROJECTS: The Telcordia Next Generation project allegedly based its needs assessment study on the information gathered from 5 PSAPs out. of 500+ in California. If that information were correct, there would seem to be no possibility of having adequate information to complete a needs assessment study with such limited data. In addition, the customer premise equipment vendors and the telephone service providers have told us they declined to complete the surveys sent to them. Should we rely on a company without a current vested interest in the California 9-1-1 system to tell us what the future path of our system should be? It is our understanding the current contract with Telcordia expires in March 2003. We strongly encourage the State 9-1-1 Office not to enter into further contracts, but to consult the current California 9-1-1 stakeholders for their input on the future of our system. There is also a draft California 9-1-1 Management Information System package developed by the State Office. It is designed to gather 9-1-1 call statistics and be available on the Internet. But most of the information is not available to the 9-1-1 community. The State has full access to all data, but only PSAP Managers can look at their own data. All statistical data has been declared confidential outside of your own PSAP. According to the draft, (but possibly in error), County Coordinators have no access to any data. This system is planned to go out to bid, possibly bringing another outside vendor in to duplicate information currently supplied by telephone service providers. Would it not be more sensible to again ask the current California stakeholders to accommodate these changes? -10- LEGISLATIVE GOALS: There are three main legislative goals we are trying to achieve: Establish an Administrative Board composed of the 9-1-1 system stakeholders that make binding decisions for funding and operating the system. (A Draft Concept of such a Board has been attached to this packet). The Board should be a balance of the stakeholders, with the CaINENA membership electing the majority of the members. Adopt and mandate the National Emergency Number Association, (NENA), Standards. Although the telephone service providers and customer premise equipment vendors are currently in compliance for the most part, there are some small details that need attention. The Standards would ensure that all 9-1-1 stakeholders operate at the same level of quality, and would facilitate data and technical interfaces. Add statutes to the Penal Code or Government Code to afford the same level of protection to the 9-1-1 Database that currently exists for the Criminal History Record Information and the Department of Motor Vehicle record information. There are currently no such statutes for prosecuting the misuse or abuse of this data. LEGISLATION: Nick Warner will give a presentation on our legislative efforts at Thursday's General Session. CLOSING COMMENTS: These are two quotes from the newly revised Introduction to the State 9-1-1 Manual: From the "Program Objective" paragraph: "The 9-1-1 Program continues to provide the services and equipment necessary to deliver 9-1-1 calls promptly and efficiently to over 500 PSAPs in California". From the "Implementation and Operation of 9-1-1" paragraph: "In concert with all PSAPs, the State of California is dedicated to providing its citizens with the best emergency services possible". With the California 9-1-1 Emergency Communications Office having identified these goals, we ask for their support in our efforts to obtain these goals and making them reality. �v �vr9 Y 7 -�1- Draft Proposal For the State 9-1-1 Administrative Board MEMBERSHIP: 11 voting members, composed from the following: • 1 representative from the California 9-1-1 Emergency Communications Office, either the Statewide Manager or their designee • 1 representative from the CaINENA Board, either the President or their designee • 1 representative from the California Highway Patrol Public Safety Answering Points, appointed by the California Highway Patrol Commissioner • 2 representatives from City Public Safety Answering Points, appointed by the California Police Chiefs' Association • 2 representatives from County Public Safety Answering Points, appointed by the California State Sheriffs' Association • 1 representative from the telephone service providers, elected by the CaINENA membership • 1 representative from the customer premise equipment vendors, elected by the CaINENA membership • 2 representatives from any Public Safety Answering Point, elected by the CaINENA membership CRITERIA: The qualifications for the Board shall be current National Emergency Number Association (NENA) membership and current employment as a Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) Manager or County Coordinator. Exceptions to the employment requirement would occur wherein a specific representation is defined, for example: the president of CaINENA, those representatives from the telephone service providers, and the customer premise equipment vendors. Each member shall serve a two-year term, with the exception that only one-half of the first Board will be replaced at two years, and one-half annually thereafter, to allow for continuity. -12- Additionally, the following term limitations and exceptions shall apply: • The presiding California 9-1-1 Emergency Communications Statewide Manager shall serve for the duration of their tenure. The CaINENA President shall serve a one-year term in accordance with the term of the CaINENA position. This person could be elected by the CaINENA membership the previous year or the post -presidential year to facilitate a two- yearterm. The Califomia Highway Patrol position shall serve at the discretion of the Commissioner. It is recommended that members be reimbursed for salary, travel and per diem for time spent on Board related issues. The Board should meet quarterly, in open sessions. This would allow for attendance and participation by any interested party. Items for the agenda, (such as customer premise equipment funding requests), would be due 30 days prior to the meeting. This would allow time for review and quick action by the Board at the meeting. The meeting agenda will be set by the Board, and posted on the CaINENA and the State 9-1-1 websites. GOALS: Some of the goals of the Board would be to: • Establish Policies and Procedures for the California 9-1-1 system • Create appropriate funding models for customer premise equipment, reimbursement, database management, geographic information systems, and wireless 9-1-1 Make binding decisions for funding and operation of 9-1-1 centers QUESTIONS and CONCERNS: • Does the Board need to function with a simple majority rather than a quorum, which could impede decisions and action on issues? Should a member be removed from the Board for multiple absences? We don't want to create a bureaucracy; the Board needs to be flexible and reactive. -13- The 9-1-1 Office does not currently have spending authority for monies in the Reserve Fund. Can we create an interest bearing account in which to deposit monthly surcharge deposits? Can we protect this fund from future "transfers"? -14- n California State Sheriffs Association California Police Chiefs Association California Peace Officers Association California Chapter of the National Emergency Number Association (CAL NENA) November 25, 2002 Ms. Daphne Rhoe Statewide Manager California 9-1-1 Emergency Communications Office Department of General Services 601 Sequoia Pacific Blvd. MS-911 Sacramento, CA 95814-0282 Subject: Emergency 911 Dear Ms. Rhoe: Thank you for taking time to meet with California State Sheriffs' Association 9-1-1 Issues Committee representatives Virginia Ferral and Barry Silva on October 10. We have been advised that you graciously made the offer to increase the value that you and your staff place on input from the California Emergency Services Advisory Board, 9-1-1 directors, and public safety leaders when making critical funding and operational decisions regarding the 9-1-1 system. Since that meeting, representatives from the California Police Chiefs Association and California Peace Officers Association have shared their mutual concerns regarding the same issues. We have met and collaboratively documented core issues that the leaders of the above law enforcement organizations feel are imperative to be brought to your attention. While we very much appreciate the spirit of your offer to give the voice of the system operators and public safety officials more volume in your office, we respectfully submit that there are core issues in the distribution of funding and the state administration of 9-1-1 that, if left unchecked, stand to irreparably damage the viability of the 9-1-1 systems in California. The leaders of the above named law enforcement organizations write to clearly communicate to you our concerns as they relate to 9-1-1. This letter serves to: • Detail our concerns regarding 9-1-1 funding and operations;. • Advise you that we are considering the possibility of pursuing jointly sponsored legislation; and • Provide an opportunity for you to respond to these concerns in the forum of your choice. -15- • 0 Problem Statement: We suggest that the stakeholders — those who operate the emergency 9-1-1 centers — are best suited to make effective budgetary and programmatic decisions for the 9-1-1 systems. The current decision process through DGS and your office is unilateral, often times arbitrary and there is no recourse for appeal. In addition, please note the following concerns: Emergency 9-1-1 has experienced a reduction in funded Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) positions. We dispute both the accuracy and the formula for these funding decisions. This basis for funding has encouraged the misuse of the 9-1-1 system for the purpose of increasing statistics to increase the level of funding. • The termination of funding for the 7-digit emergency numbers is both inappropriate and it places huge and unnecessary strains on emergency 9-1-1 centers in many areas. Essentially, agencies are punished for educating the public that 9-1-1 should be used for emergency only and providing information on what numbers to use in a non -emergency. The imposition of a Customer Premise Equipment funding limit that excludes a number of vendors from selling their products at the bid price they submitted. This discriminatory act places the financial responsibility for the balance of the costs on the PSAP. This price regulation is reminiscent of the 1995 Motorola case decision against the Department of General Services. At that time, DGS had adopted a policy of limiting payments to amounts charged by a "Local Exchange Carrier", (LEC), for the same equipment or services. LECs were identified as Pacific Bell and GTE. According to the complaint, this scheme coerced the local agencies into doing business with the LECs alone. The 9-1-1 stakeholders should benefit from annual interest on the $138 million in surcharges collected and retained by the Service Providers. Citizens pay these fees to go toward 9-1-1 services; that is not happening with respect to the interest earned. We understand that legislative changes may be necessary to recoup these losses. Proposed Legislation: The above named organizations are considering the possibility of seeking legislation to create a stand-alone committee or board that will make binding decisions for funding and operations of emergency 9-1-1 centers_ We endeavor to replicate the very successful models used by the Board of Corrections, the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST), and most recently, (see SB 1396, Dunn, 2002), an appeal process in the Judicial Council relative to court security costs. We suggest that the end -user and public safety community should be making these critical public safety decisions. -16- Clearly, a state agency such as DGS must play a role in facilitating, staffing, establishing criteria, contracting with vendors and making suggestions to the executive and the legislative branches of government; however, we suggest that better models than the one being used today exist for making these critical decisions. Legislation may also include having the National Emergency Number Association Standards adopted and mandated in California. Conclusion: We appreciate your willingness to provide a forum to hear our concerns. We look forward to taking you up on your offer to give our collective concerns greater weight in your office. Our goal with this letter and with possible legislation will be to improve the emergency 9-1-1 services that we provide for the citizens of California. We hope and expect that as we move forward on addressing these critical issues that you and your agency will support us in our efforts. We stand ready to work with you — not against you — in this endeavor. Feel free to contact any of the co -signors of this letter or our legislative representatives Nick Warner (916-443-7318) or John Lovell (916- 447-3820). Thank you. Warren Rupf CSSA President Sam L. Spiegel CPOA CPCA -17- John Bush Cal NENA 176-dwAlflWA T EMS AUTHORITY PROPOSED TRANSFER TO DHS SUBMITTED BY A COALITION OF FIRE SERVICE OFFICERS The current fiscal issues facing California require all levels of government seek ways to accomplish their missions more efficiently. The Governor's spending reduction proposals include the consolidation of the Emergency Medical Services Authority (EMSA) into the Department of Health Services (DHS). Judging that a consolidation of this function is inevitable, the fire service constituent members met to consider how best to accomplish the Governors mandate and preserve or possibly enhance the mission of the EMSA. This resulting concept paper is submitted to all EMS constituent groups for consideration in hopes of building a broad consensus position from which to take action. The Fire Service believes that the relocation of the EMSA to the Governors Office of Emergency Services is the best possible alternative to a standalone agency. Twenty years ago, the same constituent groups considering this consolidation today redesigned the EMS oversight structure to its present form to more effectively address the challenges of that time. Given the changed threat environment that all emergency services face following the events of September 11, 2002, a more contemporary view recognizes that there is no longer an easily defined distinction between public health and public safety in protecting Californians. Because OES is an emergency management agency with a proven ability to integrate and coordinate public health and public safety concerns, it is well suited to carry on the important functions of the EMSA in this new environment. Listed below are five operating principles critical to successfully consolidating EMSA into OES. • Allows A New Structure To Combat A New Threat o Changing threats dictate new approaches o Would better align with the Federal Homeland Security Act m <l • Possible to Enhance EMSA Function Because Of Integration with OES o Functional transfer of oversight with minimal redesign o Retain existing regulatory and statutory responsibilities o o Carry expertise intact from EMSA to OES- • Retains historical perspective and experience eels 1pA , /,L��L� o Consolidation with resulting unified management creates an opportunity for concentration of resources for increased efficiency o OES is a proven emergency planning, response, and recovery coordination agency Creation Of An EMS Division Under OES o Medical & Clinical oversight functions must retain existing autonomy o Medical Director • Physician works for OES Director • Physician review provides benefit to existing OES programs o Enhanced medical coordination: State, Federal, Local o Reduces existing duplication of disaster planning efforts o Allows more comprehensive strategic planning "under one roof' • Maintain EMS Commission structure and function o Same role with reduced costs o Maintains ongoing multi -disciplinary review of system Revenue o Preserve direct access to current revenue resources o Preserve EMS grants for. EMS purposes o OES has experience as distribution point of federal funds o Consolidation provides opportunity for more efficient use of Anti -Terrorism and WMD funding GALEGISLTV\POLICY\PS\Position Paper EMSA Transfer to OES - Gilbert.doc -6- Michael L. Miller 735 East Herring Avenue West Covina, California 91790 To: City Council Members January 28, 2003 City Manager From: Mike Miller City Council Member Subject: Environmental Quality Policy Committee League of California Cities Attached is the annotated agenda for the Janyary24, 2003 meeting of this Committee. This information provides an overview. The highlights are: 1. The Committee voted to recommend to the League Board an approach to implement ACA 11 if it is adopted by the voters. An issues paper id attached. The recommended approach provide 25% distribution per capita, 15 % via competitive grants and 50 % for transpiration based on existing allocation formulas in Propositions 42. 2. Proposed State legislation is being in considered to establish a Curbside Disposable Diaper Recycling Program. Although this is to be a voluntary program, the Committee was concerned about the eventual evolution to a mandatory program. The voluntary program would be financed, in part, by a 2.5 cent "diversion and recycling fee" on each disposable diaper. It is not likely that these funds would cover all the costs of a curbside collection and diversion program. Santa Clarita will complete a pilot program I May. The Committee will take this up again at their June meeting. A briefing paper on this subject is attached. RECOMNIENDATION It is recommended that this report be received and filed. Mike Miller Council Member ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY POLICY COMMITTEE Friday, January 24, 2003 10:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. Ontario Convention Center AGENDA �-I. Welcome and Introductions f/II. Committee Subject Areas and Protocols Z-4I. Legislative Update (attached) k-IV. 2002 Annual Conference Resolution #7 (attached) 2003 League Strategic Goals and Strategies (attached) G'VI. Work Program - Review 2002 Work Program (attached) - 2003 Proposed (attached) ` -VII. Revised Annual Conference Resolutions Procedures (attached) jiVlll. State Budget Update IX. Other Business X. Next Meeting - Friday, March 28, 2003, Sacramento Convention Center Brown Act Reminder: The League of California Cities' board of directors has a policy of complying with the spirit of open meeting laws. Generally, off -agenda items may be taken up only if: 1) Two-thirds of the policy committee members find a need for immediate action exists and the need to take action came to the attention of the policy committee after the agenda was prepared (Note: if fewer than two-thirds of policy committee members are present, taking up an off -agenda item requires a unanimous vote); or 2) A majority of the policy committee finds an emergency (for example: work stoppage or disaster) exists. A majority of a city council may not, consistent with the Brown Act, discuss specific substantive issues among themselves at League meetings. Any such discussion is subject to the Brown Act and must occur in a meeting that complies with its requirements. NOTE: Policy committee members should be aware that lunch is usually served at these meetings. The state's Fair Political Practices Commission takes the position: that the value of the lunch should be reported on city officials' statement of economic interests form. Because of the service you provide at these meetings, the League takes the position that the value of the lunch should be reported as income (in return for your service to the committee) as opposed to a gift (note that this is not income for state or federal income tax purposes just Political Reform Act reportingpurposes). poses). The League has been persistent, but unsuccessful, in attempting to change the FPPC's mind about this interpretation. As such, we feel we need to let you know about the issue so you can determine your course of action. If you would prefer not to have to report the value of the lurches as income, we will let you know the amount so you can reimburse the League. The hunches tepid to run in the $20 to $30 range. To review a copy of the FPPC's most recent letter on this issue, please go to h+•ir•)v.cacities.org/FPPCletter on the League's website. 0 COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY January 24, 2003 Supplemental Agenda Information For Item 2 2. Infrastructure Funding. ACA 11 Implementation. No Bill Yet (Richman and Canciamilla). STAFF UPDATE. !� As indicated in the background information included in the EQ agenda packet, discussions are underway about how to allocate the potential revenue to local governments if ACA 11 is adopted by the voters. Based upon early discussions among the authors and representatives of the League, CSAC, the Association of California Water Agencies, the California Association of Sanitation Agencies, and the California Parks and Recreation Society, the authors have proposed an initial allocation of funds. This preliminary proposal, which is anticipated to be introduced in bill form soon, suggests allocating the money as follows. Of the 50% of the funds that would be allocated for local government purposes: jV/rr,t cal,-97-371,;' • 50% would be distributed to cities and counties for transportation purposes, based upon the allocation formula in Proposition 42. • 15% would be distributed to existing state competitive grant programs for cities, counties, cities and counties, water districts and waste water districts for water water recycling, wastewater and storm water infrastructure projects. 15% would be distributed to cities, counties, cities and counties, park districts and conservancies for arks and open space according to the per ca ita formula used in previous park bonds. Each city or district wou d be entitled to a minimum allocation of $20,000 and each county would be entitled to a minimum allocation of $100,000. 20% would be distributed to cities and counties on a per ca ita basis, with 75% going to cities and 25% going to counties, as a block gran to be used for .tr , water or o en s ace ro*ects. Each city would be eligible to receive a min-imurn allocation of $20,000 a d each county would be eligible to �ycLdP�,�/lr receive a minimum allocation of $100,000. �,•+q o �� 7�p h .�J*17a9 A PAP, y� It is important to note that existing League policy already supports 50% of the local share being allocated for transportation. Thus, the League needs to evaluate what is the most appropriate allocation formula for the remaining share of the local government portion. Issue: What position should the League take on the ACA 11 trailer bill? Is the allocation formula proposed above acceptable? Does the mix of projects make sense? Should the League suggest changes? Should the League adopt a general position and provide staff with direction and flexibility in order to negotiate as the bill moves ahead? - over - Key questions to consider include the following: 1. Is the allocation formula described above reasonable and appropriate? 2. Should the open space category receive the same percentage as the water category (both currently are proposed to receive 15%)? If not, which should receive a greater share? 3. Are the minimum funding amounts appropriate? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends following: • Staff recommends that the League adopt an initial support position to the proposal provided above. • Staff recommends inclusion in the League's position of the committee's recommendations on the three questions noted above. • Staff recommends that the minimum allocation formula for the per capita grants be modified to account for potential higher funding availability and instead to consider a sliding scale formula so that if revenues are higher, then minimum grants are increased as well. • Staff aiso recommends (and requests) that staff be given flexibility to continue negotiations and support, even if some portions of the distribution formula change, as it likely will during the legislative process. EQJ= supplemental.doc 7 D�v:✓oi� t� LI�o-� f�ovs�'r.-�oT�s - ism COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUATV_� Legislative Agenda January 24, 2003 Ontario Convention Center (* denotes consent item)�2 &,c P,QGL/�Si SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING 1 1. Disposable Diaper Curbside Recycling Program. No Bill Number Yet. Author to be Senator Perata. 'lD Background: Senator Don Perata will shortly introduce legislation to promote the curbside recycling of disposable diapers. The bill is sponsored by a Canadian company J called Knowaste, which is running a pilot disposable diaper curbside recycling program jointly with the City of Santa Clarita. Currently, most if not all, disposable diapers go to a solid waste facility, thus putting what essentially is raw sewage into landfills. The goal of the proposed Perata bill is to establish a funding source for local governments that will encourage development of the infrastructure to expand curbside recycling opportunities for disposable diapers. As proposed to be introduced, Senator Perata's bill would add a one quarter cent ($.0025) diversion and recycling fee to each disposable diaper sold in California. Qualifying diapers would include both adult and infant disposable diapers. Money collected from the fee would be deposited in the Personal Care Product Recycling Account administered by the California Integrated Waste Management Board. Eligible local governments would be able to receive grants from this fund for the purpose of funding programs for the recycling and diversion of landfill disposal of disposable diapers. Eligibility criteria would include the following: • require the collection and separation of thirty percent or more of disposable diapers during the first year of operation, fifty percent or more the second year, and eighty percent or more during the third and subsequent years; • require the service to be offered to residences and institutions; • require that the materials collected be processed so that the human waste is in a condition that allows treatment by the local entity's sewage treatment facility or allows marketing to a business that uses the byproduct in conformance with all laws and regulations; • require the materials collected and separated to be processed so that the plastic and paper will be of a quality and type that may be used in the manufacturing of new products; ? e require that any local government receiving a grant must, in each of the immediately preceding three years, have been within five percentage points of meeting the 50% AB 939 goals and must have in operation a program for the diversion and recycling of disposable diapers. The author's office has requested support of the League and has shared with staff the language that will be 'introduced. This bill is generally consistent with existing League policy of supporting advance disposal fees on materials that go to landfill. In addition, the problem of disposable diapers being disposed in landfills is a serious one. Issue: What position, if any, should the League take on Senator Perata's bill to encourage recycling of disposable diapers? Does the bill propose a reasonable funding source to encourage curbside recycling of disposable diapers? Is it consistent with existing League policy? Staff has identified two minor issues with the existing concept and has discussed them with representatives of the sponsor. While the bill requires eligible grantees to meet certain recycling goals in order to receive the grant funds, it is silent on what happens if the agency does not meet the goals. For example, the company with which the city contracts for the program could experience financial or technical problems, resulting in the jurisdiction not meeting the 30%, 50% and 80% criteria. The grant recipient should not be subject to enforcement or be required to return the money if it does not reach the goals if it is not responsible. Also, the requirement that a grant recipient must have met or been within five percentage points of the 50% recycling goal is probably too strict and could limit the number of eligible agencies. Staff has discussed these issues with representatives of the sponsor with agreement to work out a resolution to these issues. Staff Recommendation: Support, assuming the above two issues can be satisfactorily resolved. Committee Recommendation: WATER 2. Infrastructure Funding Water. ACA 11 Implementation. No Bill Number Yet. (Richman and Canciamilla). Background: Last year, the legislature passed ACA 11 (Richman), which will appear on the March 2004 ballot. The bill creates a source of dedicated "pay-as-you-go" infrastructure financing for state and local infrastructure and uses a formula that allocates a portion of the growth in the state's general fund revenue. The formula in the bill provides that the initial transfer would be 1% and begins either in 2006-07 or in the first year thereafter when revenue growth exceeds inflation plus 4%. Transfers would increase by 0.3% annually until reaching 3% of general fund revenues, which would be the ongoing transfer percentage. Increase in the transfer percentage would be delayed in any year that revenues do not increase by inflation plus 4%. ACA 11 also includes PA several triggers which would reduce or suspend the revenue transfers depending upon certain revenue and general fund situations. ACA 11 allocates 50% of the funds for state projects and 50% for local projects for cities, counties and special districts. Types of funding categories include transportation, water, parks and open space. The exact allocation of the funds into these categories will be determine by subsequent statute, to be introduced in 2003. If passed by the voters, and assuming annual general fund revenue growth after 2002-03 of about 5%, one projection done last year of the amount set aside for the infrastructure based upon the ACA 11 formula would be about $950 million in 2006-07. This would grow, assuming no reductions or suspensions as prescribed in the bill, to about $4.4 billion in 2015-2016, and would thereafter grow by $30 million for every $1 billion in general fund revenue growth. Other more recent projects suggest a much lower amount which would start several years later, due to the state's current fiscal situation. Assembly Members Richman and Canciamilla will co-author a bill this year to provide implementing direction on how the money generated in ACA 11 are to be allocated, assuming, of course, that ACA 11 is approved by the voters in 2004. Existing League policy, adopted last year during discussions of earlier drafts of ACA 11, support a 50% allocation of the local government portion of the funds to be used for transportation projects. However, the League has no existing policy as to how the remaining 50% of the o aT�funds should be allocated. In addition to transportation, funds may be spent on parks and open space and water. Eligible uses of the water funds, according to .Assembly Member Richman, include drinking water supply, waste water and storm water infrastructure. For the parks and open space component, it appears that funding may be used for the purchase of open space and parks and for infrastructure improvements in parks and open space. Discussions are currently ongoing among the various water stakeholder organizations regarding potential allocation options. The League is part of those discussions. Also, the League will work closely with the California Parks and Recreation Society on the parks and open space element. At this time, however, there is considerable debate and discussion as to how much and how to allocate the water funds among the three water sub -categories, and how to balance allocation between cities, counties and special districts. The author of ACA 11, Assembly Member Richman, has stated emphatically that his goal and preference is to provide local governments with the maximum amount of flexibility in deciding how to spend the funds. Issue: Especially complex and difficult to craft will be the allocation for water projects. In order to be an active and productive player in the discussions over ACA 11 implementation and funding allocations, the League needs to establish some guidelines and acceptable (and unacceptable) options. For example, do we prefer per capita type grants or competitive grants or a combination of both? Do we prefer a specified percentage for each of the three water categories (water supply, waste water and storm water) or do we prefer a state agency to determine the most deserving projects to receive 3 funding? How should special districts be considered? In some cities, the city itself provides the water or waste water service. In some other cities, a special district provides that service. Should parks and open space and water projects receive the same percentage of funding or should one category receive a greater share of the local government portion? Staff Recommendation: Staff is engaged in discussions with other water stakeholder associations (i.e., the Association of California Water Agencies, the California Association of Sanitation Agencies and CSAC) and with CPRS for the parks and open space element. At the January 23 EQ meeting, staff will provide a written and verbal update on potential options to consider. Staff recommends that the Committee discuss various options, indicate preferences and non -preferences and adopt general guidelines staff can use in negotiating the ACA I 1 implementation legislation. Committee Recommendation: EQJan03.doc 4