Cotati City Council
Agenda Staff Report
Item type: REGULAR AGENDA (ACTION)
To: City Council
Subject: DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION ON POTENITAL LETTERS
OF OPPOSITION TO AB 2561 AND AB 2557
Date: August 13, 2024
Written by: Damien O'Bid, City Manager
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a motion authorizing the Mayor to sign letters of opposition to AB 2561 and AB 2557 and potentially discuss this position with state legislators.
Background
The City is a member of the League of California Cities (Cal Cities), which advocates for city interests at the State Legislature. At times, Cal Cities issues Action Alerts when Cal Cities has taken a position on pending legislation that is believed to significantly affect cities, either negatively or positively. Action Alerts are requests of all member cities to support Cal Cities efforts in Sacramento with letters of support or opposition.
On August 7, 2024, Cal Cities issued an Action Alert for two pieces of pending legislation, AB 2561 and AB 2557, described in more detail below.
Analysis/Discussion
Background on AB 2561
Sizable vacancy rates exist in the public sector — for both state and local employers. In fact, the vacancy rate for the state of California has consistently been above 10 percent statewide for the past 20 years.
Local government decision-makers and public agency department heads recognize the impact of long-term vacancy rates on both current employees and those who receive city services. Many specialty positions like planners are experiencing nationwide workforce shortages and a dwindling pipeline for new entrants, driven by both an expansion of services and an aging workforce. To further complicate recruitment, local governments are competing with both the private sector and other government agencies. Local governments are implementing innovative ways to try to boost recruitment and incentivize retention, including sign-on bonuses and housing stipends.
What does AB 2561 specifically do?
Requires each public agency exceeding a vacancy rate of 15% for more than 180 days to:
• Meet and confer with the recognized employee organization within 21 days about strategies to fill the vacancies. Such requests are limited to once per calendar year for each bargaining unit.
• Hold a public hearing within 90 days about high vacancy rates, any obstacles in the hiring process, and the public agency’s strategies to fill vacancies. • Entitles the employee organization to make a presentation at the public hearing. • Specifies that the meet and confer obligation imposed by these provisions are in addition to the meet and confer responsibilities of existing law.
Talking Points:
• AB 2561 does not address the root causes of low labor force participation rates in California. Instead, the measure will create additional layers of bureaucracy that detract from meaningful efforts to recruit and retain the public sector workforce. • Local agencies are carrying out initiatives to expand pipeline programs, build pathways into public sector jobs, modernize the hiring process, and offer competitive compensation.
• If the true intent of AB 2561 is to provide a path for public agencies to reduce staff vacancies, diverting staff away from core service delivery and mandating they spend time producing reports on their vacancy rates will not achieve that goal. • We welcome a partnership on workforce strategies and believe there is a more productive and economical pathway than AB 2561. AB 2561 is the wrong approach.
A sample letter of opposition, provided by Cal Cities, is provided.
Background on AB 2557:
There are more than 4,800 local agencies in the state. Most of them rely — at least in part — on contractors for a variety of local programs and services. Given current public sector workforce shortages, it would be difficult to provide these services without their assistance.
What does AB 2557 specifically do?
The bill would require anyone who enters a special services contract for over $100,000 with a city to perform functions that are currently — or were in the last five years — performed by city employees represented by an employee organization to follow extensive reporting requirements.
This is an expensive endeavor that would require considerable investment in IT infrastructure and staff for local agencies.
These onerous requirements mean that contractors will have to provide considerable information that may not be directly applicable to the work that they are contracted to do or may be duplicative of other mandated reporting requirements associated with their work.
Cities must also give reasonable notice to the affected workforce’s union, in writing, of its intent to modify or renew the contract at least 30 days before the contract’s modification or renewal.
There are several vague provisions in AB 2557 which will certainly lead to disputes and implementation delays. This includes an unclear definition of “reasonable” notification and “beginning a procurement process.”
Talking Points:
• AB 2557’s new requirements for local agencies may result in fewer nonprofit providers, community-based organizations, and other private service providers willing to engage with local agencies.
• This bill undermines the importance of a collaborative and productive working relationship between cities and private sector and non-profit partners. These partners are essential to meeting cities’ statutory obligations and effectively serving our residents. • AB 2557’s new online posting requirements will be an expensive endeavor that would require considerable investment in IT infrastructure and staff for local agencies. • The reporting requirements mean that employee data would be accessible to any member of the public. This could subject private sector employees to the same harassment sometimes endured by public employees, further discouraging contractors and nonprofits from engaging in these contracts.
• We also anticipate exacerbated caseloads and workloads for existing city staff, as well as increased costs and delays for local agencies. These delays are not compatible with contracts for urgent needs.
• The bill prevents flexibility for emergency services. Local agencies are first responders and need flexible and accessible contracting protocols with a clear understanding of the required services.
• The issues addressed by the bill are better addressed at the bargaining table where local conditions can be appropriately considered.
A sample opposition letter, provided by Cal Cities, is attached.
Financial Considerations
There are no financial impacts for issuing a position letter on the pending legislation. If the legislation were to become law, there would be an unquantified impact on City operations.
Environmental Issues
Issuing the proposed letters of opposition will have no impact on the environment. Where it can be determined with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA review. This general rule can be applied to activities which could be subject to the CEQA process, but which logic dictates should not be subject to CEQA review. Therefore, based on the information provided above, the proposed resolution is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 14.03.021 of the CEQA Guidelines in that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant impact on the environment.