HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 8.3 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