The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About8.3 LeagueGrassrootsNetwkCITY CLERK FILE 140-20 AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 6, 2001 SUBJECT: League of California Cities Grassroots Coordinator Network Report Prepared by: Jason Behrmann, Administrative Analyst ATTACHMENTS: RECOMMENDATION: 1) 2) Grassroots COordinator Network Information Packet Letter Expressing the City' s Support For the Grassroots Coordinator Network /~Authorize the Mayor to execute the letter indicating the City' s support for the League's Grassroots Network Proposal FINANCIAL STATEMENT: If the Grassroots Network is approved, the City's dues would increase from $6,068 to $9,254 annually. DESCRIPTION: The League of California Cities provides cities with legislative lobbying services and acts as an advocate of city interests in Sacramento and throughout the State. Recently cities have experienced frustration as the State has amassed more resources and power at the expense of local government services. During this time, it has become evident that the League's traditional lobbying methods are a poor match for grassroots campaigns and financial contributions by other competing interests. In order to compete with the efforts of other powerful special interests, the League's City Manager' s Department suggested developing a Grassroots Coordinator Network to coordinate city officials? efforts locally to influence legislators, their staff, potentially helpful community groups, and the news media. The Network would consist of 10 field offices that would be staffed by 14 new and 3 existing staff. Three would be located in the Bay Area. The coordinators would arrange meetings, plan news conferences, organize letter writing and media campaigns, and coordinate grassroots efforts with community groups with similar agendas. The Network would cost cities an additional $1.6 million each year in dues. The impact to the City of Dublin would be a dues increase of $3,186 annually from $6,068 to $9,254. At its November 2000 meeting, the League Board of Directors endorsed the proposal in concept and requested that the proposal be shared widely with member cities and League Divisions for review and comment. City officials are encouraged to send written comments to the Board regarding the proposal. H/cc-forms/agdastmt.doc COPIES TO: ITEM NO. The Board will revisit the proposal at its April 2001 meeting when, depending on feedback from its membership, it will decide whether to submit it to each member city for action in the form of a bylaw amendment. If approved by the Board, the City would be asked to vote on the bylaw amendment at a future Council Meeting. An amendment to the League bylaws must be approved by no less than 2/3 of the League membership. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Council consider the Grassroots Coordinator Network proposal and authorize the Mayor to execute the letter indicating the City's support for the proposal. Grassroots Coordinator Network Overview Purpose City officials have experienced deep frustration in recent years as the state government has amassed more resoumes and power at the expense of local govemment services. The League has a solid reputation as an advocate of city interests, but traditional lobbying methods are often a poor match for grassroots campaigns and financial contributions by other compet- ing interests. With term limits legislators have become more sensitive to the importance of maintaining solid local political relationships and have begun to locate their key staff in their district offices. Many organizations have already responded to the new political reality in Sacramento by investing in a stronger grassroots organization. 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 community groups, and the news media. Major Elements The Network would consist of 10 field offices that would be staffed by 14 new and 3 existing staff (15 coordinators/2 support). The coordinators would work with city officials and the regional divisions of the League to promote key League legislative priorities with legislators, district staff, local media and other supporting community groups. They would arrange meetings, plan news conferences, organize letter writing and media campaigns, and coordinate grassroots efforts with community 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 division on the state legislature's and governors decisions affecting cities. Cost The Network would cost cities an additional $1.6 million each year in dues. This is the equivalent of 1/4 of one percent of the $650 million cities lose each year due to the ERAF Property Tax Shift and less than 1/8 of one percent of the $1.42 billion cities receive each year in VLF revenues, which most observers believe will become a victim of legislative raids in the next recession. Individual city amounts will vary depending on city population. For example, a city of 50,001 to 60,000 population would pay an additional $4,857. Such a dues increase will require amendment of the League bylaws approved by no less than 2/3 of the League membership. Process The idea of the Grassroots Network originated with the City Managers Department. The League board of directors ap- pointed a special Task Force, chaired by Santa Barbara Mayor Harriet Miller, to review the proposal. After careful study, the Task Force unanimously recommended its approval. In November 2000 the board overwhelmingly endorsed the proposal in concept and requested that the proposal be shared widely with member cities and League divisions, departments, policy committees and caucuses for review and comment. 'Next Steps City officials are invited to participate in a dialogue about the Network at upcoming meetings of the divisions, departments, policy committees, and caucuses of the League. Written comments are welcome as well. The board will revisit the proposal again at its April 2001 meeting when, depending on feedback from the membership, it will decide whether to: submit it to each member city for action in the form of a bylaw amendment. ATI'ACHMENT 1 Grassroots Coordinator Network Proposed Distribution o/Staff Among ]League Divisions 1 2 D1 Legislative Coordinator D2 Legislative Coordinators 3 Legislative Coordinators 16 3 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 5 Grassroots Coordinator Network ?rop osed Staff Jssign men ts: Cities and Legislative Districts DIVISION # STAFF # CITIES # LEG. DISI'. North Bay & Redwood Empire 1 46 6 Sacramento Valley 1 58 8 South San 3oaquin 1 37 7, Central Valley Riverside, Inland Empire, Desert Mtn. Orange County 1 26 4 2 54 13 1 .33 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 Grassroots Coordinator Network Cost Analysis Putting It All Into Perspective [] [] [] [] Cost of Grassroots Network- $1.6 million Current median dues - $4,930 Median dues increase - $2,810 New median total dues - $7,740. Putting the Cost of the Grassroots Network into Perspective 650 million $1.6 million ,.~ $1.42 billion Annual Cost of Total Annual Vehicle License Fee Grassroots Annual ERAF Backfill to Cities Coordinator Losses of Cities (at r/s/c /n case of anob~er recess/on) ' Network NOTE: Zf drawn to sca/e/ the $650 m////on and $2.42 b////on figures wou/d be substant/a//y /arger and exceed the //m/tat/ons of space prov/ded. $400,000 $350,000 $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 S- City Population BERAF Growth 00-01 from prior year Grassroots Coordinator Network Cost Grassroots Coordinator Network Perfectires Costs Annual Growth in ERAF Shift versus League Grassroots Coordinator Network Cost 10,001 ~ I under10,000 to 25,000125 001 to 50 000t $8,536 i $23,737 ] $52,173 $902 j $1,893 $3,523 50,001 to 100,001 to 100,000 150,000 $105,090 $189,257 $5,455 $7,781 150,001 to I Over350,000 350,000 population* $312,555 $2,612,364 $10,608 $24,089 $3,500,000 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $0 Lobbying and Campaign Contributions 999-00 Legislative Session (7 quarters repoffing) League v. Some SB 402 Sponsors League of California Cities SB 402 Supporters Source: California Secretary of State reports Grassroots Coordinator;Network Perspectives on Costs $7,000,000 $6,000,000 $S,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 Lobbying and Campaign Contributions $0 League of California Cities E! Lobbying $1,649,255 EICandidate Contributions S- inprop 38 & 39 Initiative Source: California Secretary of State reports 1999-00 Legislative Session (7 quarters reporting) Some Comparisons California Applicants' Attorneys Assn $1,092,750 $584,04-~ Cal~ Prof Firefighters Association $559,909 $1,203,089 Peace Officers ·California Research Asn Correctional of California Peace Officers $548,652 $841,826 $796,503 $3,274,843 California Teachers Association $2,763,796 $6,341,068 $35,239,492 Campaign Contributions 1999-00 Legislative Session (7 quarters reporting) Some Comparisons $7,000,000 $6,000,000 ........................ $5,000,000,- .......... $4,000,000 ........................... $3,000,000 ................. $2,000,000 .................. $1,000,000 ..... $0 Leagueof California Cities California ~ Caiif Prcf Applicants' Firefighters Attorneys Assn Association Peace Officers Research Asn of California $- $584,045 $1,203,089 $796,503 Source: Ca~fomia Secretary Of State reports California Teachers Association $35,239,492 $6~341,068 ] .L~. ,. '; ~. California Correctional Peace Officers $3,274,843 Grassroots Coordinator 'Network What People Are Saying q'his is a smart, reasonable, cost effective approach 'to change the political dynamic cities'face in Sacramento. We can't compete on the basis of campaign contributions, but we can organize for real influence and impact." Harriet Miller, Mayor, Santa Barbara Chairperson, Grassroots Lobbying Task Force "Cities need to put more structure and resources into developing local support for our issues if we want to better com- pete with other groups in Sacramento. We'll continue to be disappointed in the results if we don't change our strategies. It's time for a bolder approach! The Grassroots Network is a common sense initiative that shows real promise for making the impact we desire:' :' John Thompson, City Manager, Vacaville President Of the League's City Managers Department q'his is a different and powerful way for us to exert our collective strength: Carol Herrera, Mayor Pro Tem, Diamond Bar; President, Los Angeles County Division "... I wholeheartedly endorse the proposal for the establishment of new and additional field offices and legislative coordinators .... (The network proposal) ... creates the opportunity for the League to capitalize on its special advantage of a network of locally elected officials on a scale the League has never before attempted. It will succeed if it is skillfully · implemented and if council members and city managers fully embrace it. The proposal represents the League's last best chance to gain a significant measure of political muscle in Sacramento. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain." Kenneth Emanuels, Lobbyist Kenneth Emanuels and. Associates '... the recommended Grassroots Network Proposal iS the silver bullet we have all been waiting for:' Art Madrid, Mayor, City of La Mesa Director, San Diego Division "Residents need to know where their tax dollars are being spent, because they are not going to local government in the amounts that they think they do: Lee Ann Garcia, Councilmember Grand Terrace President, Inland Empire Division "An extremely effective method of offsetting the monetary strength and resulting influence of campaign contributions is to have a rock-solid Grassroots Network in position, ready to thrust our own points forward with overwhelming clarity, unity and the totality of League support. This makes me want to be a participant rather than a bystander!' M. J. "Mac" Dube, Mayor, Twentynine Palms Chairperson, League~ Environmental Quality Committee "Congratulations to the League Board and to the many city officials who worked on this concept. The Proposed 'Grassroots Coordinator Network may not ensure that we will win every public policy debate, but it will certainly improve our probability for success. One thing is certain - maintenance of the status quo is not a rational option:' Michael Arnold, Lobbyist Michael J. Arnold and Associates, Inc. "Cities must stand united to protect our local revenues. This program is a small cost to us and will give us the capacity to compete with powerful campaign contributions in Sacramento. I support this important program, and urge other city officials to'join me." Maria Aiegria, Mayor, Pinole President, Latino Caucus "A strong, effective grassroots network at the local level is a powerful tool for any lobbyist to draw upon: It's a great way to underscore the importance of an issue to a legislator's constituents:' John E. Arriaga, Lobbyist JEA & Associates "This program calls for a small' investment on the part of cities to help reverse the trend of ERAF and potential VLF (Vehicle License Fee),losses, SB 402 and other mandates, and all the other many ways that cities are hurt by bad state legislative decisions. Its time that we start equipping ourselves to compete more effectively in the legislative arena:' Tim Hartsen, City of San Leandro, Finance Director "Business as usual just hasn't seemed to be effective. This new grassroots approach has a lot of promise for cities:' Sam Racadio, City Manager, Highland "Cities' have a tremendous resource with mayors 'and' council members throughout the State of California. Therefore, if a grassroots network uses these strengths it will be a benefit to all of us working in the legislative process.~ Anthony Gonsalves, Lobbyist Joe A. Gonsalves & Son - · ' Grassroots Coordinator 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 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. 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 slatewide basis the proposed $1.6 million dues increase needed to pay for the network is equivalent to only 1/4 of one percent of the annual $650 million annual ERAF loss to cities. It is less than 1/8 of one percent of the $1.42 billion cities receive each year in VLF revenues'- portions of which they could lose 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, during the first seven quartera of the 1999-2000 legislative session just two of the statewide public employee unions~ that sponsored oi~ lobbied for SB 402 (the binding arbitration bill) reported spending almost $2 million in campaign contributions to legislators, candidates for statewide officeor current statewide office holders, in addition to their expenditures for in-house or contract lobbying. During the same period, the California Teachers Association, which competes very effectively for funding in Sacramento, reported spending approximately $6.3 million on lobbying expenses on education issues during the first seven quarters of the 1999-00 legislative session. In the same period, the CTA also spent approxi- mately $3.8 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. iSee fact sheet entitled 'Network Costs" for detailed information on this issue.) Page 2 of 4 - What would the grassroots coordinators do? /~,{ IV'.,- 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 cities. 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 initiative or pending legislation. The coordinators' would: o Arrange meetings, plan news conferences, organize letter writing 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 !egislative process. ~ ' " o Provide regular presentations on legislative developments and insight into the political dynamics influencing · legislative developments. 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 cities. A map of the distribution by region is available in the information packet developed by the League, but no decision has been made yet about specific locations. The goal is to achieve the highest impact on League lobbying and greatest visibility among members, while still keeping expenses as low as possible. How was the decision made to locate the grassroots coordinators? The task force studied several alternatives. It considered factors such as the current boundaries of the 16 League regional divisions, statewide population distribution, legislative district boundaries, coverage of major media mar- kets, and driving distances within each coverage area. One option was to locate field offices primarily in densely populated areas with high concentrations of legislative districts, such as the Bay Area, Los Angeles, and Orange County areas. This option would require fewer coordinators, because the service areas would cover smaller geographic areas. The task force concluded, however, that to mobilize the resources of the entire League member- . ship the coordinators would need to be visible and accessible to all the geographic divisions statewide. How does the Network relate to the ABC effort? Action for Better Cities was created to make expenditures and engage in 'political" activities such as statewide initiative campaigns. Recently, through in-kind contributions of staff time and strategic counsel, ABC was able to play a 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. Page 3 of 4 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,O00/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 475 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 rep. rese.nt.their clients. --._ , 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 political people who have worked on legislative or local elections, staffed legislative offices, or worked in public affairs or campaign consulting firms. 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 wilt 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 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 $2,810.2 Additional information on the dues increase is available on the information sheet entitled "Cost Analysis". What is the process of considering the dues hike? Membership briefings and dialogue will take place between January and April to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to review and comment on the proposal. The League Board will gather and review this feedback when it meets in April 2001, make whatever changes in the concept it deems appropriate to respond to member concerns, and consider whether to submit the proposal with the dues increase to a vote of the entire membership. Page 4 of 4 - When would a dues increase start? If the Board votes in April to propose dues increase, it would schedule a mailed ballot election on an amendment to the League bylaws to implement a proposed dues increase for March/Spring of 2001, with an effective date of July 1,2001. Support from 2/3 of the cities would be needed to pass the bylaw amendment. Grassroots Lobbying Task Force Harriet Miller, Mayor, Santa Barbara - Chair John Thompson, City Manager, Vacaville, and President of the City Managers' Department- Vice Chair Been Ansari, Council Member, Diamond Bar Harry Armstrong, Mayor, Cloyis Lee Ann Garcia, Council Member, Grand Terrace Tom Haas, City Attorney, Walnut Creek Jim Marshall, City Manager, Marcad Patsy Marshall, Council Member, Buena Park Dave Mora, City Manager, Salinas Kevin O'Rourke, City Manager, Fairfield Susan Peppier, Council Member, Redlands Greg Pettis, Council Member, Cathedral City Mike Siminski, Councii Member, Lompoc Armour Smith, Vice Mayor, Modesto Anne Solem, Council Member, Mill Valley Richard Tefank, Chief of Police, Buena Park Ruth Vreeland, Council Member, Monterey Endnotes ~ The California Professional Firefighters Association and the Police Officers Research Association of California. 2 Part of the Network proposal requires temporary suspension of a current $5,000 cap on the growth in dues for any city. The proposal would suspend the cap only for this one-time dues increase. It would then reinstate a cap of $8,000, reflecting the percent- age League dues have grown since 1984, the year the cap was adjusted. EAST BAY, DIVISION City Alameda Albany Antioch Berkeley Brentwood Clayton Concord Danviile Dubiin Et Cerrito Emeryville Fremcnt Hayward Hercules Lafayette Livermore Martinez Moraga Newark Oakland Oakley Odnda Piedmont Pinele Pittsburg Pleasant Hill Pleasanton Richmond San Leandro San Pablo San Ramon Union City Walnut Creek Population 80,815 17,836 84,485 109,463 23,09G 11,373 114,932, 40,484 32,519 23,874 7,3tl 208,026 129,610 19,552 24,360 74,303~ 37,034 17,006 43,043 402, 104 34,488 17,436 11,625 18,657 54,383 33,169 65,930 94,369 76,736 26,827 45,704 "~7,240 64,710 2001 Dues' $10,465 3,279 10,465 13,075 4,105 2,848 13,075 7,382 6,068 4,105 2,044 17,176 14,392 3,279 4,105 9,816 6,068 3,279 7,382 33,562 6,068 3,279 2,848 3,279 8,504 6,068 9,346 11,464 9,816 4,930 7,382 9,346' 9,346 Grass roots Network $5,494 1,721 5,494 6,864 2,155 1,495 6,864 3,878 3,188 2,155 1,073 9,017 7,556 1,721 2,155 5,153 3,186 1,721 3,876 17,620 3,186 1,721 1,495 1,721 4,465 3,186 4,907 6,019 5,153 2,588 3,876 4,907 4,907 Dues with Grassroots Network $15,.959 5,000 15,959 19,939 6,260 4,343 19,939 11,258 9,254 8,260 3,117 26, 193 21,948 5,000 6,260 14,969 9,254 5,000 11,258 51,182 9,254 5,000 4,343 5,000 12,969 9,254 14,253 17,483 14,969 7,518 11,258 14,253 14,253 CITY OF DUBLIN P.O. Box 2340, Dublin, California 94568 City Offices, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568 March 6, 2001 League of Califomia Cities Board of Directors 1400 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814 Subject: Grassroots Coordinator Network Honorable Members of the Board; The City of Dublin realizes the importance of improving local government lobbying efforts. Local government issues are consistently brushed aside as powerful and well- funded special interest groups receive the majority of both political and media attention to the detriment of our communities. The League's proposal to form a Grassroots Coordinator Network may be just what cities need to level the playing field and bring local government issues to the forefront. At its meeting of March 6, 2001, the City Council reviewed the Network proposal and directed that I communicate the City' s support for the proposal to League Board of Directors. The City feels that the new program is a cost-effective way of giving cities a greater voice in the legislative arena. The City of Dublin applauds the League and the many city officials who worked on this greatly needed program. Sincerely, Guy S. Houston Mayor ATTACHMENT 2 Administration (925)833-6650 · City Council (925)833-6605 · Finance (925)833-6640 · Building Inspection (925)833-6620 Code Enforcement (925) 833-6620 · Engineering (925) 833-6630 · Parks & Community Services (925) 833-6645 Economic Development (925)833-6650 · Police (925)833-6670 · Public Works (925)833-6630 Community Development (925) 833-6610 · Fire Prevention Bureau (925) 833-6606