HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/22/95
- ,4. . I
..-, ~ .
í
-
B A K E R 5 F I E L D
MEMORANDUM
December 22, 1995
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGE~
SUBJECT: GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Attached is a memorandum from Chief Brummer and a letter he received from
the president of the Carnation Tract Association expressing thanks for the
Police Departmentls efforts in their neighborhood.
2. At long last - the recycling center is now movi ng from behind the
Convention Center. That will allow us to complete the new parking lot. I
think live noticed you of this three times - each before was followed by a
new court filing and delay. This time, however, trucks are moving material
to the new location. A memorandum from the Ci ty Attorney IS offi ce is
enclosed referencing this process.
3. There is correspondence enclosed from the Public Works Department to the
Environmental Health Services Department regarding the landfill closure.
4. There is a memorandum from the Economic Development Department reporting
communication with the General Servi ces Admi ni strati on regardi ng thei r
intentions for the Federal Building at 800 Truxtun.
5. Attached is the Council resolution supporting the State Route 58
Alternative Study.
6. A memorandum is enclosed from Public Works regarding the traffic signal at
Gosford and North Lauelglen. The programming has been modified to
eliminate the unnecessary delay on left turns.
7. We have received notifications from Cox Cable and Time Warner Cable of rate
increases and service upgrades. Details are enclosed. We do not control
these rates.
8. The League of Cal ifornia Cities has sent an update regardi ng the case
challenging Proposition 62.
9. The 1 atest 1 etters from citi zens regardi ng The Marketplace proj ect are
attached.
-.
,,- . ~)o.
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
December 22, 1995
Page -2-
10. We are working on the Council referral regardi ng the Buena Vi sta Fi re
Station. We cannot buil d wi thout County approval of the 1 ocati on and
coverage area under the JPA. They move slowly.
11. We will study what changes in our development regulations will be needed as
a result of the Marketplace lawsuit loss. We don't think it will have to
be terribly extensive.
12. Attached is correspondence from Public Works to Castle & Cooke regarding
the status of the Cityls application for FAA grant funding to acquire a
clear zone at the Bakersfield Municipal Airport.
MERRY CHRISTMAS!
AT:GW:rs
cc: Department Heads
Carol Williams, City Clerk
Trudy Slater, Administrative Analyst
.'"""'; ~
MEMORANDUM
December 13, 1995
TO Alan Tandy, City Manager .1;
FROM S. E. Brummer, Chief of police~
SUBJECT Police Activity in Central Bakersfield
In light of concerns expressed recently regarding criminal activity
in central Bakersfield, I thought you might find the attached letter
of interest. I am encouraged by Miss Johnson's comments and I hope
we can improve neighborhood safety in the future. Officers Greg
Jehle and Joe Aldana are assigned to this area as part of the
C.O.P.P.S. Program. They are working hard to establish a trusting
relationship with residents and I think they are making progress in
that regard.
SEB/vrf ::z-¿Æ :.>
Mtac~ent, L~ter fr= citizen Sharon Jo~son ~~
RECEIVED
I
I DEC I 8 1995 ;:
.:¡
~!,!!, MANAGER'S OFP .
~- -
. - '."" ..,
I ~
136 "U" STREET
~AKERSFIELD, CALIF.
OCTOBER,26, 1995
DEARQOFFICERS GREG AND JOE:
WE THE PEOPLE OF THE CARNATION TRACT ASSOCIATION HAVE NOTICE
THE CHANGE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. WE NO LONGER,=SEE A PARADE OF
PROSTITUTES WALKING "V" STREET AND THE HElXVY TRA.:FFIC THROUGH
THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS SLOWED DOWN A LOT.
WE DO GIVE THANKS TO THE BAKERSFIELD POLICE DEPT. AND ITS
OFFICERS FOR THE HELP IN TRYING TO RESTORE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD
BACK TO A SAFE AND PEACEFUL PLACE TO LIVE AND RAISE OUR
CHILDREN.
IT IS A HARD JOB ENFORC~Nç THE LAW. THANK GOD FOR YOU AND FOR
THOSE WHO DO.
SINCERELY,
SHARON JOHNSON, PRESIDENT
CARNATION TRACT ASSOCIATION
I
- ~- ~I
- --------
'.~
. . '¥
-;7 -
P-
I '~\ M E M 0 RAN DUM
December 18, 1995
TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER
JUDY SKOUSEN, CITY ATTORNEY
RAUL ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
DON ANDERSON, REAL PROPERTY MANAGER
FROM: CARL HERNANDEZ, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ø-
SUBJECT: RECYCLING CENTER ORDER FOR IMMEDIATE POSSESSION
As we discussed this morning,the Department of Conservation
has informed us that the Recycling Center's transfer certification
has been approved. We were informed of this late in the afternoon
on Thursday, December 14, 1995.
As I have explained on previous occasions, the Superior Court
has ruled that the City is entitled to immediate possession of the
property on December 26, 1995 or whenever the Recycling Center's
transfer certification is granted, whichever occurs first.
For us to properly serve the order of immediate possession
based on the issuance of the certificate, we must have a copy of
the certificate to serve with the order. The copy of the
certificate will serve as proof of the occurrence of one of the
conditions of the court's order.
The lead person responsible for issuing the permit was not in
her office on Friday, December 15,1995 and our consistent contacts
with one of her co-workers that day did not provide any results.
Today, December 18, 1995, our office contacted the Department
of Conservation who reassured us that there is another division
within the Department which is finalizing the permit and that they
will be able to provide us with a faxed copy of the certification
today.
As I informed you in the meeting today, the City will be able
to assert its right to possession once the order is served. We
will then attempt to assert our right to possession and insist thab
the tenants cooperate in their removal. RECE\VED
¡ \ DEC 2 0 œi "
ÿ . i
~!TY MANAGER'S orT"
._°'
------------ - ---------~--------~----- --
-, ~
... .' '. \,
/-
..
C~'.
Memorandum
RE: Recyling Center
December 18, 1995
Page Two
If the tenants physically resist City attempts in a manner
which does not allow the City to reasonably move forward with
possession, we will immediately seek a writ of assistance from the
court ordering the Sheriff to physically remove the tenants from
the property.
I will keep you each further informed of what occurs in this
matter. Should you have any other questions, please feel free to
contact me.
CH/mm
cc: Bob Sherfy
A :\Mise 1 \Memos\RecCenter .CH
~
Æ .
I
-
B A K E R S F I E L 0
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ~
1501 TRUXTUN AVENUE
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 9330 I
(805) 326-3724
RAUL M. ROJAS. DIRECTOR. CITY ENGINEER' Ge/J ~
December 12, 1995 ¡¡/~
William 0' Rullian, R.E.H.S. -,-
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT
2700 "M" Street, Suite #300
Bakersfield, CA. 93301
RE: BAKERSFIELD LANDFILL CLOSURE
Dear Mr. 0' Rullian:
This is to provide you with an update on the City's activities and to request information
from your agency for this project.
1. The new landfill gas collection and flare system is up and running. However,
the City and its consultant (Kleinfelder Co.) still need your guidance to
develop an adequate system of probes for the southern boundary of the
landfill.
2. The City has provided dirt cover for exposed burn material along the top of
the bluffs, per the August 25, 1995 request by Peter Janicki of the California
Integrated Waste Management Board. However, the question of acceptable
soil contamination levels for the final closure still remains, as well as the
public health question. Please recall that the City and County promised
information on this. in the September meeting with residents, and provide it
to us as soon as possible. The City needs it to proceed with a newsletter and
the closure consultant needs it for planning.
~= .' =-=--=
Thank you for your prompt attention to these matters. RECE~VED
\
Sincerely, L DEC I 5 1=95 - .
//]~~
"~~.~ANA§~E!!'S OF!~ . :
RAUL ROJAS cc: Alan Tandy, City Manager
Public Works Director ' Daphne Washington, Director KCWM
Dave Norman, Senior Project Manager, Kleinfelder
ø KB:slr
kr.close
" \
¡'
¿. ,
y- ~ \¡¡
'., ~-.:----¡,."
Æ .
t:a~
-
BAKERSFIELD ¡,
Economic and Community Development Deparbnent \
MEMORANDUM i
December 18, 1995
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager @
FROM: Jake Wager, Economic Development Direc r -
SUBJECT: Contacts with Federal General Services Administration (GSA)
Following Don Anderson's inquires regarding this department's interaction with GSA, I thought it
would be useful to provide you with a brief report. As you will recall a number of months ago the
Bakersfield Californian ran an article discussing the eventual relocation of the Federal Agencies that
currently occupy Truxtun Avenue (at the intersection of "Q" and Truxtun). As a result of a prior
request by this department to the GSA we were contacted by Wayne Lim (GSA - San Francisco).
At the initial meeting held in my office we discussed continued suitability of the downtown for
Federal offices. We also discussed zoning issues and possible CDDA assistance to private
developers. Our main thrust was to convey to GSA in the clearest tenns possible the City's interest
in keeping as many Federal Agencies as possible downtown.
As a result of this meeting and the limited response generated by GSA's solicitation for office site
Mr. Lim contacted this office to ask us to set up a developerlbroker's meeting. The purpose was to
acquaint any interested party with GSA's practices and procedures. This meeting took place on
Thursday, August 31, 1995 in the Bank room at the Convention Center. Prior to the commencement
of the general meeting David Lyman and I met with the GSA delegation as well as reviewing our
expectations of the meeting to follow we also indicated the City's interest in assisting the GSA in
securing short tenn tenants. GSA had indicated that the building at this time is approximately fifty
percent vacant and that they would rent (on a month-to-month basis) space to either private or public
sector entities. I asked that they provide me with a property description detailing space availability,
utilities, standard tenns and conditions, etc. I have yet to receive this infonnation.
Over the succeeding months I have had several other conversations with Wayne Lim. In fact Mr.
Lim has on at least two occasions referred individuals from his client agencies to me for assistance
(as recently as the week of December 9, 1995). If it is any measure of success, after years of trying
GSA has finally started working the with the City. ~~ ~
\ RECEiVED \
, /I I
t DEG I 9 t995 I
I ~ ,
.:~TY MANAGER'S OFFiCE
"~---- =-~-~ ------'
0
,
¡;:'"~\ ,-=.\
'1 Ó;I// "
I
In discussing their future plans, it is clear that they will, over the next few years (that's as speCific
as they have been), be vacating the entire building. The form and timing of the ultimate disposition
remains unclear. This decision is based on GSA's estimate of the cost to retrofit their existing
building to their current standards. At this time, their focus is to relocate their Federal tenants.
My interest in working with the GSA follows (in order of priority):
I) Retain as many Federal Agencies as possible in the downtown.
2) Assist GSA in locating all possible Federal Agencies within our City limits.
3) In the short term, assist GSA in locating suitable month-to-month tenants.
4) In the long term, assist GSA with the disposition of 800 Truxtun Avenue for a use
which is complimentary to the City's efforts to further revitalize our downtown.
Should you desire additional information please call.
dlt:jw8
gsal,mem
- - -----
I
\ I
'--'
!b¡~
M E M 0 R A N D U M
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: Raul M. Rojas, Public Works Director~
DATE: December 18, 1995
SUBJECT: City Council Referral No. WFOOO0720 / 001, Re: Support of
Route 58 Adoption Study
Public Works Staff prepared a resolution to this effect which was
included in the City Council Agenda on November 19,1995, certified
copies of which were sent to Caltrans District No.6, Kern Council
of Governments and Kern County Transportation Management.
~
~"~ RECEIVED
, DEC 19m¡ "
- ..JI
":ITY MANAGER'S QFP'
--~>~
RR\ms\mdf
P:\memos\rte58
---- -- -------
.~
f'
I FAX TRANSMITTAL
PUBUC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, California 93301
Fax No. (805) 328-1027
DA TE:_O~L. I c;i .19~
PLEASE ROUTE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO:
NAME COMP ANY /0 RGANlZA nON FAX NO.
AJ.a^ H c. {¡ 1 II f\ ~ð8 - q\~S
'2rfJ (I, (~ ~ ~~
, I .
~ ?J)q 4'fs - (0378.
-fG')t'\ ßrr1 nvY'.~:it ~f-~Zls
f(,oì~ ßre ~~4- )7l5
FROM:
NAME: ---H.a (" ì a 11 :==) ~Q..u.J
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD DEPARTMENT:1ZJdrc, fAJm:.þ; - Úìqf1.
OFFICE PHONE NO.: (805) ?:J.ÚJ -~5"1 '1
DEPT. CODE (3 Digit Sub Program #):
NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING TInS SHEET): a
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:
J<~~[ll. .¡{)() ì n ~/f'.~ of- S~~YYV1 ~. ~~d
Q^~~P~ burrtk.1zt" ~jMe~
FORRS:\FAXF~."LT
II .~AD_STRA11VE REPORT
-f"
;
AGENDA SEmON: Wortsbop ITEM NO:
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council APPROVED
FROM: Raul Rojas, Public Works Director D EP AR'IMENT BEAD W-
QATE: November 15, 1995 CI'IY A1TORNEY ~
~
CI'IY MANAGER
SUBJECf: S.R.58 (Kern River Freeway) Route Adoption Study - Update on Project and Project
Funding (Public Works)
RECOMMENDATION:
BACKGROUND: Alan McCuen, CalTrans District 6 Deputy District Director for Planning and
Programming, will be presenting to the council aD update on the State Route 58 Route Adoption
Study, which encompasses both engineering and environmental aspects and is required prior to the
State's adoption of a Specific Plan Line. This study, which was prO&lammed in the fall of 1992.
will result in a route adoption in late 1996.
In addition, Mr. McCuen wiD update the Council on the prOgtamming of funds for this
project. As you are aware, the funding for the acquisition of right-of-way is in serious jeopardy
(see the attached memo). Both CaITrans and City staff desires the Council's input in regards to
the various options facing us to insure continued funding for this very important transportation
project. , ",
~~\
. . ... ,", , i \
. ..,,' .'." t "..-"." ," \
:"'. ' . . . ~ ' ,'?; 1 ' :.' \
c~o.-~ ~<;" Lø
P:\ADMIN\13DECt&~." "erf'
.----'
N.... 1..-. 1'- 1995. 3:OIIp8
--- - -
-
- --
")o:""-$'ç--,- - -1.<-';<-_. --' 1 9 4 - 9 5.
' RESOLUTION NO.
.
.- A RESOLUTION OF THE Cm COUNCIL OF THE Cm OF
- BAKERSFIELD IN SUPPORT OF THE STATE ROUTE 58
ALTERNATE STUDY AND PROPOSED BUILDABLE
-- SEGMENT
-
WHEREAS. the Kern River alternative of the State Route 58 Alternative
Study is an integral part of the City of Bakersfield's and the County of Kern's transportation
network, as evidenced by the Circulation Element of the adopted Metropolitan Bakersfield
-,- 2010 General Plan; and
- - WHEREAs. the State Route 58 Alternate Adoption Study must be COmpleted
prior to the adoption of the specific plan line; and
WHEREAs, the City of Bakersfield and the County of Kern are jointly
punuing the construction of a buildable segment on the Kern River specific plan line, said
segment being approximately three and one-half miles long and spanning between Coffee
/ Road and Stockdale Highway one-half mile west of Allen Road; and
/'
WHEREAs. the City and County have a local funding SOurce to provide a
local match for constJuction of the "buildable segmene' in our Metropolitan Bakersfield
Transportation Impact Fee Program; and
WHEREAs, the proposed revision to the existing Metropolitan Bakersfield
Transportation Impact Fee Program will include 10% of the construction cost of the Kern
- River Freeway ($19.6 million) for the construction of the "bnildable segment" and an
additional $5 million for the construction of the connection of said segment to the City and
County's transportation network. .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City COUDCÜ of the City of
Bakersfield, as follows:
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by
reference.
2. In consideration of the above, the City Council of the City of Bakersfield
requests that the California Transportation Commission keep the State Route 58 Alternate
Study on the current 1996-1997 State Transportation Improvement Program at its current
funding level.
------000------
<', ?,,~KE.r.;
Q' ,(¡'"
~ , ,.
I- ~
<,;) r::.-,
t)R!G;~;':'l
- -
-- _n ~n~_~~n~~~~-'.~~.~~-~=~~~~.~~~~~_.-
-..
.. ,.
. ..
.'
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted
by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on
DEe 1 t SIi . by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIlMEMBER 'C IMgt~SON, SMITH, Uè9ERMa'IT, ROWlES. SUWVAN. 5At1J~M8a
NOES: COUNCILMEM8ER 'iV\()rY ~ ~)" JLA ~ S.Í)
(\'
ABSTAIN: COUNCIIJÆMBER I "^ e
ABSENt: COUNClL.MaEER n ( Y\ ~' "
~~~~~
CfIY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED: DEC 1 3 1995
APPROVED as to form:
-1ØfG. ~
þ{UDY K. SKO SEN
CITY A TIORNEY of the City of Bakersfield
, .
ftMn: œ CALIFORNIA)..
CoImty of Júm)
I, CAROL WILLIAMS, CIty aà of the at, " Bù8d8Id, sa. of
CaIfomi a, h enby oertiify ~ and It - - ~ ~' true and CCIT88t
8OpJ of the original í~ - q r
CII1 file in this affice and that I haw CO8IP8J'*i. the ...... with the ~ '
CI_: \IIIIP\REIDI..crC W1TNES8lQ,Ybandancb..Ubia L. J:b. d.yof~C. 19 qS-.
-
CABaL WILLIAMS. Ci~ Clerk
By
Br.
",;. \:.'¡";;'l:.~
, C'- '~f..
- . n
.....
ë ^.
-
O:~::~::::'~
'._~- "....-- ...,-,-... .'~"-"'" -..' ..---
'. t"':"~' '- ". JAfÓíUJl fIT¡;; /:¿j¡fl /9"- .~.
~ City of Bakersfield - "" ..' -- -
WORK REQUEST PAGE 1
ŒQ/JOB: WPOOOO720 I 001 PROJECT: DATE PRINTED: 12101195
REQUEST DATE: 11129l95
~: SCHEDULE DATES
STAR¿; ~~l29195
c.oCATI:OB: COMPLE'l'I:ON: 12713795
;EN. LOC: WARD4 FACILITY NODES
FROM:
?ACILITY ID: TO:
REF NBR: WORKSI1Ul'
~EQ DEPT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL PRIORITY: HIGH
:ŒQUESTOR: REFERRAL - MCDERMOTT ORIGIN: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL
WORK TYPE: REFERRAL
DESClUPTION: SUPPORT OF ROUTE 58 ADOPTION STUDY
REQUEST COMMENTS
***RBPBRRAL TO PUBLJ:C WORKS***
MCDERIIO'rr: REQUESTED STAFF PREPARE A RESOLUTION IN
SUPPORT OF CALTRANS ROUTE 58 (KERN RI:VER FREEWAY)
ROUTE ADOP'l'I:ON STUDY-AND BRING BACK TO NEXT
COUNCI:L MEETING.
'"
JOB ORDER DESCRI:PTI:ON: SUPPORT OF ROUTE 58 ADOPTION STUDY
TASK: RESPONSE TO REFERRAL
ASSIGNED DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
START DATE -, _I - COMPLETI:ON DATE _I _I -
~.
Æ .
-
B A K E R 5 F I E L 0
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: . Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: Raul Rojas, Public Works Direc~
DATE: December 20, 1995
SUBJECT: SIGNAL OPERATION AT GOSFORD & NORTH LAURELGLEN
As requested, the signal operation at the intersection of Gosford and North Laur~lglen
was investigated for problems. Staff had received calls from residents, on the same day this
inquiry was made, regarding the signal operation. The signal was found to be programmed
to use a feature of the signal operation that was not needed at this intersection. That
feature would cause unneeded delay to the left turns under some conditions. The signal
programming has been modified and the change appears to have eliminated the observed
problem.
Traffic Engineering staff will continue to monitor this signal, along with others in the area,
for operation improvements.
0/"'- tÍ>- ¿øv-x p' !
ì
¿J~ ~ ~\# 0 -[.
RECE~VE[)
v~L=J eV \
~ ~~. ~ ~ DEC 2 , ms
'
d' J I ij
<-<.. '
~ITY MANAGER'S OFP'
~~ ~=.-
~..~. ---
GOSFORD.MGR
------
Jill Campbell 820 22nd Street
Vice President & Bakersfield, California 93301
General Manager ph \805) 327-3463
c' fax (805) 327-7921
f~/tA
~\ CO~
December 13, 1995
COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Alan Tandy
City Manager
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, California 93301
Dear Alan:
I am writing to first let you know that effective February 1, 1996, Cox
Communications will experience a rate increase on complete basic
cable of $.90. We will also be adding WGN to our basic line up on
that date. We have had many requests for this channel so we are
excited about adding this service to our channel line up.
Secondly, ,the upgrade of our cable plant to 750 Mhz is almost
complete. 'This new state-of-the-art fiber optic system gives us
greater reliability and picture quality as well as additional channels.
By mid-year all of our customers will receive the following new basic
channels: Bravo, Home Shopping Channel, and Court TV. In
addition, we have added "Cox Select," a new tier consisting of
Turner Classic Movies, ESPN 2, The History Channel and Encore,
which customers can elect to subscribe to in addition to basic
service. We are also adding additional pay-per-view channels as
well as Showtime 2.
As always, should you have any questions, please give me a call at
327-3463.
~Y' '. ,~--~._~ ",
RECE~VED
r-~ "
Jill. Campbell li . DEC I 5 1995 ,
VicE! ~resid~ntl. . ' . l:" " ~
General Manager ':
.;ITY MANAGER'S OFFiCE
:,'~ '0' ."-~'~--"
!¿/ !C::/::;';;;¡ !o:"'O OUI'<K!o 1Ht(~1 ,IHI'<I'.C.III'II.:I" 1II'It: W OHK~:;"-I ) 1'tU,~ t"1::)1"<U-""""'
I f þ ~ to ? . M
~ þ. ¡ y
I b~~~
' )
" --- - -~ -
H¡w (u~" "¡~
Ga/aVlsI6n "
Spanish Language
Television
~ Now You Get All The Best
CO{JRfF¡ Cable Has to Offer With
Real, live
I courtroom drama Time Warner Cable! ~Ì4tt~G:"
~ ~Q(¡ '1b ~ ~
I ~ .~~
. Watch first-run Hollywoçd hits, Classic films ~ .
and original motion pict1!lIes that you can only _..
get on cable! - -
. Enjoy ,ha<h'n', pmg"mming,
educational series and biograplùes on
America's foremost cable channels.
. "'oh with Sond",
comedy, variety shows
and more! ~i,f,
- ~ ~F"'"""",
You get all the top-notch concerts, ~
24-hQur news updates and sporting
eventii found o~y on cable!
rí. OK As Is
" ~ ~, q OK w/l'loled Corrections
U Please Show RevisIons
~ ..... .".
~ OIhl!"
.". H¡W ~TíÇ
..,. - Dol"!:
~~¿f) 5i9: j)o.I!d~'(JPAL,1~:
4
.. '""
SERVICE CUUENT NEW CIfANGE SI!RVTCE CURIIl.NT NEW CHANGE
\. Progrwnming Suviccs ,\ Standard Ptui $23,40 $25.47 $ 2.07
Basic $ 7,55 $ 6,70 ($0,85) Includes TotaJ ~a '( . The Ol$t\f{ Channel and addressab18 CIIlM!rtBr
Standard TIer (CSPT)' $12,35 $15,95 $3.60 Sight & Sonpd PIC $30.92
New Product Tier (NPT) $ 1,50 N. Chan..' IncJude$ To!3I $¡Jnd~d, MuslcCllolce, LA SooM. IntJo..ctive
.., Total SllIIIdarCl Service $21,40 $24,15 $2,75 Remotll Con1roI~ PF'V Conwrter,
~ A la carte Serviœs Di$COunted Stat
~ H80 $10,95 511.65 $0.70 Premium ~ackages .-
Showtime $ 9,9S $10,85 $0,70 AJI pado¡ges i1&de To12I Stlndard Sorvice with
Cinemax $ 9,95 5 I Q.65 $0,70 The Olsney Chlhne.1 and atldl!$!3bl. convel1ðr --
Th. Movl. ChOMel $ 9,95 S10,65 $0,70 ** 2 Starl
Þ. A la cert. (WGN) S 1.00 No Chang-
A la carte (TBS) $ 1.00 No Chane- Premium <[:hannel
Encore + $ 1.00 No Chan.. Discount ~............$ 42,35 $ 45.12 $ 2.77
~ Your choice of , from HBO..Showtlmo, Clnemax
Equipment Chugc$ orT1l$Mo"'¡e~nel
BMlc Converl.r $0.60 SO.50 ($0.10) *** 3 Star
~ Addressable Converte, $2,00 $1.32 ($0,68) Premiwn c;:.hannel
6.sic Remote Control No Month', Ch_rt- Discount ~c ............$ 49,35 $ 52.12 $ 2.77
Other Your chalco of ... from HBG, Showtlrno, ClnBmax
or The MO'vie E;þnnel .
Music Choice $5.95 $5.45 ($0,50) ****4$tar
L.A, Sound (FM) $1.95 No Chane-
1'1 Guide $2,99 No Chango Premiwn ~anne!
Beslc/St8ndard Oullets ~AEEI N. Chango Di$COunt Pac............$ 57,35 $ 60.12 $ 2.77
Premium Outlets S395 No Chango Include. HaO, $t1owtlms. CII1tmax
(1"<1"'" Con"""",) iIld The Mll'ioKJhannoI
-..... Tho CWoy C......... "
TW'" QF
"
.Þ- .... ...
- -...
-~
.~-'~:::.
I '. ~I.."
I .< ~I... bØ2 .:z;,:æ, ~ vi
I QI.... League of California Cities ~dy' ~
01...
~I..a. 1400 K STREET. SACRAMENTO, CA 95814. (916) 658-8200
;1..---
California Cities
Work Together
MEMORANDUM .-~----~------ -- -
TO: Mayors, City Managers and City Attorneys
FROM: Sedalia Sanders, League President and Mayor, City ofEI Centro
DATE: December 4, 1995
RE: Update on Santa Clara /Proposition 62 Case
Enclosed is an update on the League's efforts with respect to Santa Clara County Local
Transportation Authority v. Guardino case (involving the constitutionality of Proposition 62).
The League will be providing cities with regular updates on judicial and legislative developments
on the case. As of this writing, we still have no word from the California Supreme Court on the
petition for rehearing. The League submitted a letter in support of rehearing, which is enclosed
for city officials' information.
Because of the importance of this matter to cities, the League board has created a special working
group to give League staff direction with respect to developments in the Proposition 62 area.
The membership of that group is as follows:
Sedalia Sanders, League President, Mayor, El Centro
Jim Worthen, League First Vice President, Council Member, Eureka
. Ron Bates, League Second Vice President, Council Member, Los Alamitos
Mary Andrews, League Immediate Past President, Council Member, Chico
Grant Brimhall, City Managers Board Representative, City Manager, Thousand Oaks
Tom Mauk, City Managers Department President, City Manager, Whittier
Natalie West, City Attorneys Department Board Representative, City Attorney,
Brentwood
Dan Hentschke, City Attorneys Department President, City Attorney, Oceanside and
Solana Beach
John Witt, League Board Member, City Attorney, San Diego
This group will be meeting, by conference call or in person, to anticipate and respond to events.
I know each member of the group would welcome any thoughts or comments you may have
regarding this issue.
- ~ -
g: \legal\j s \prop62\bdfllwp. doc RECE'VED
,
I
1 ~EC I 8 1995
o~¿1
'ITV MANAGER'S 0;:' ,
,~=~_.,
""
61...
il... League of California Cities
g.....
§r¡¡¡ ...
il..... 1400 K STREET. SACRAMENTO, CA 95814. (916) 658-8200
~Hi . .....
California Cities
Work Together
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayors, City Managers and City Attorneys
FROM: Don Benninghoven, Executive Director
DATE: December 4, 1995
RE: Update on Santa Clara /Proposition 62 Case
Rehearing Developments
At its November 17 and 18 meeting, the League's board of directors approved a recommendation
from the League's Legal Advocacy Committee to support the petition for rehearing in the Santa
Clara County Local Transportation Authority v. Guardino case (involving the constitutionality
of Proposition 62). The board and the committee both interpreted the California Supreme
Court's extension of the deadline for acting on the petition for rehearing to December 27 as a
possible signal the court may be taking a close look at the implications of its decision.
The court could make its decision on the request for rehearing at any time, which is why it was
important to submit the letter to the court as soon after the board's decision as possible. Under
the" court rules, the California Supreme Court acts on a request for rehearing by an "order." At
least four justices have to agree to rehearing; the order should specify what will happen from
there (in other words, whether the court will ask for further briefing and hearings).
If four justices do not agree to rehear, the decision becomes final (and effective) when the court
denies the request for rehearing. The court also has the option of simply allowing the time in
which it can act to run out. If this happens, the decision becomes final December 27, the last day
on which the court can act. See generally Cal. R. Ct. 27(e); 24(a).
If the justices do agree to rehear, the court clerk has indicated to the League the court would issue
a new decision on the merits within 90 days.
As of December 4, the court had not issued a decision on whether it will rehear.
Informational Activities
The board directed League staff to share a copy of the letter sent in support of rehearing with
each city; accordingly, a copy of that letter is enclosed. The board also directed staff to provide
cities with regular updates concerning the case and the League's advocacy efforts. This
-- -
l . .
I
Santa Clara Update
December 4, 1995
page 2
transmittal is the first of those updates. Future updates will be on a special letterhead entitled "In
the Red."
Moreover, as promised at the annual conference, the city attorneys department is putting the
finishing touches on its analysis of some of the legal issues associated with the case. That
document, which is about 30 pages long, is being transmitted to you under separate cover.
Legislative Activities
In addition, the League is continuing to pursue a legislative solution to the retroactivity issue, as
indicated in the November 16, 1995 Legislative Bulletin. Helpful in this'respect will be the
infomiation cities provided in response to the request for financial impact of the decision sent out
on October 30.
According to the 187 general law cities which responded, approximately $160 million is at stake
in ongoing revenues; up to $360 million is at stake in terms o'frefund liability. This information
will be very helpful in persuading the Legislature that the public interest dictates that this
decision apply prospectively only, ifthe court declines to rehear the case.,
1
Thank you to all cities thatlresponded to the survey. Please continue to speak with your local
legislators about the specific effects of this decision on your cities while they are in their districts
for the interim.
Enclosure: I) Santa Clara Letter
g: \1 egal\j s \prop62 \bdfllwp. doc
--- ---
, -,,'
I ,
II.."
II...
II... League of California Cities
II...
11..a 1400 K STREET. SACRAMENTO, CA 95814. (916) 658-8200
II.."'"
California Cities
Work Together
MEMORANDUM
TO: Members of the League's Board of Directors
FROM: Don Benninghoven, Executive Director
JoAnne Speers, General Counsel and Assistant Director, Customer Services
DATE: December 4, 1995
RE: I) Transmittal of Letter Sent in. Santa Clara Case;
2) Further Information on Right to Vote Initiative
As the board requested, enclosed is the letter the League sent to the California Supreme Court in
the Santa Clara County Local Transportation Authority v. Guardino case. The letter follows
through on the board's decision to support rehearing in this case. Thank you for your comments
and suggestions on points to emphasize in the letter; they were very helpful. .
As. the board also directed, the letter will be sent to each city. In addition, each division staff
member will take copies to the next round of division meetings for those at the meeting who may
want a copy. A copy of the transmittal to each city is attached.
Also following up on the board's discussion, enclosed is information about the Right to Vote on
Taxes Act, being proposed for the ballot. As we discussed during the meeting, this would amend
the California Constitution and would affect local government's, including charter cities',
authority to impose taxes, fees and assessments. Although the effective date of many. of its
provisions is July 1, 1997, there is one provision relating to general taxes that requires a
confirming vote of taxes "imposed, extended or increased, without voter approval" on or after
January 1, 1995. See Proposed Cal. Const. art. XIIIC, § 2(c).
Enclosures: I) Santa Clara Letter;
2) Transmittal to Each City
3) Summary and Text of Right to Vote Initiative
g: \legal\j s \prop62\bdfllwp. doc
--------- --
" -'
>
iîl...
nil...
./ I.." League of California Cities
....
....
I..""
Hand-Delivered
November 22, 1995
The Honorable Chief Justice Malcolm Lucas and RECEIVED
Honorable Associate Justices
California Supreme Court NOV 2 21995
900 N Street, Room 400, Clerk's Office
Sacramento, CA 95814 Clerk Supreme Court
(SAC)
Re: Santa Clara County Local Transportation Agency v. Guardino (Howard Jarvis Taxpayers
Association), 11 Cal. 4th 220, 45 Cal. Rptr. 2d 207 (September 28, 1995); Support for Rehearing
Dear Chief Justice Lucas and Associate Justices:
The League of California Cities! supports the request for rehearing in the above case. See Cal. R. Ct. 27,
14(b). The League is concerned the narrowness of the facts of this case may have belied the far-reaching
and dramatic impact of the court's decision on cities' ability to provide essential services to the citizens
of the state.
I. The Court's Opinion Affects A Wide Range of Governmental Entities.
In Santa Clara, this court concluded that relevant parts of Proposition 62, a voter-initiated statute, is
constitutional. Proposition 62 requires, among other things, 1) a majority vote of approval for general
taxes and 2) a two-thirds vote of approval for special taxes. See Cal. Gov't Code §§ 53722,53723.
In ruling that Proposition 62' s voter-approval requirements for special taxes by this kind of special
district is constitutional, this court has impliedly ruled that Proposition 62's voter-approval requirements
for general taxes also pass constitutional muster. This ruling affects not only special purpose agencies
like the transportation agency involved in this litigation, but literally hundreds of general purpose
governmental entities in the state, including the state's 386 general law cities and 58 counties.
I The League of California Cities is an association of all California cities united in promoting the general welfare
of cities and their citizens. The League is advised by its Legal Advocacy Committee which is comprised of 23 city attorneys
representing all of the League's divisions from all parts of the state. The committee monitors appellate litigation affecting
municipalities and identifies those which are of statewide significance. The League's board of directors approved the
sending of this letter at its November 18, 1995 board meeting.
CONFERENCE REGISTRATION OFFICE HEADQUARTERS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA OFFICE
BOX 1519, LAFAYETTE, CA 94549 1400 K STREET, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 602 EAST HUNTINGTON DR., SUITE C
(510) 283-2113 (916) 658-8200 MONROVIA, CA 91016
FAX (510) 283-7833 (818) 305-1315
FAX (916) 658-8240 FAX (818) 305-1345
" "
! '
j !
Santa Clara County Local Transportation Authority v, Guardino.
Page 2
November 22, 1995
II. The Santa Clara Decision Puts Hundreds of Millions of Dollars at Risk and Jeopardizes
the Continuing Financial Viability of Numerous Cities.
A. Cities Enacted Taxes in Reliance on Court of Appeal Decisions.
I
The result is particularly disastrous for many cities because city officials relied on earlier appellate
rulings finding Proposition 62's voter-approval provisions unconstitutional. As this court is aware, a
number of appellate courts had ruled Proposition 62's voter-approval requirements violate the state
constitution's exclusion of tax levies from the referendum power. See City of Westminster v. County of
Orange, 204 Cal. App. 3d 623, 628, 251 Cal. Rptr. 511, 514 (4th Dist. 1988) (finding that requiring
local tax measures be submitted to the electorate by either referendum or initiative to be a gross
interference with local officials' fiscal responsibilities, see id. at 630, 251 Cal. Rptr. at 515), rev. denied
(December 15, 1988); 2 City of Wood lake v. Logan, 230 Cal. App. 3d 1058,282 Cal. Rptr. 27 (1991)
(holding Proposition 62 "effectively ties the hands oflocal government with respect to future budget
planning," see¡id. at 1068,282 Cal. Rptr. at 33). See generally Cat Const. art. II, § 9.
In both instan4es, this court declined to review Proposition 62' s constitutionality. 3 During the past nine
years, city attdrneys have advise~ decision-makers based oIf the constitution's referendum provisions ..
and the only precedent available--those court of appeal decisions holding the voter-approval requirement
is inconsistent with those provisi~ns.4 In general, that advice was that, although the California Supreme.
Court has not addressed the issue, the prevailing weight of authority suggests a city can levy or increase
a general purpose tax without a popular vote. The Santa Clara decision changes that advice and calls
into question the validity of business license, utility, transient occupancy and other local taxes adopted
by cities across the state.
The potential effect of the Santa Clara decision is staggering. The preliminary results of a League
survey to assess the effects of the Santa Clara decision indicate that the decision puts at risk at least
$160 million in ongoing revenues for general law cities alone.s These are revenues cities have built
their budgers around--taxes which were enacted before the date of the Santa Clara decision and now, in
some cities; amount to a third or more of cities' general fund budgets.
2 A northern California court of appeal reached the same conclusion but was decertified from publication. See
Schopflin v. Dole, 208 Cal. App. 3d 617,256 Cal. Rptr. 318 (1st Dist. 1989), decertified (May 18, 1989).
¡
3 The League understands the request for review in Woodlake came from a non-party, the Pacific Legal Foundation.
4 City officials also looked to the language this court used in Rossi v. Brown, 9 Cal. 4th 688, 38 Cal. Rptr. 2d 363
(1995). In Rossi, this court seemed to endorse the holdings in Westminster and Woodlake, insofar as the court referred to
Proposition 62 as "subject[ing] local tax measures to the referendum." See Rossi v. Brown, 9 Cal. 4th 688, 710 n. 15,38 Cal.
Rptr. 2d 363,376 n.15 (1995) (emphasis added). In using this tenninology, city attorneys believed the court was agreeing
with their conclusion that indeed Proposition 62 in effect created a referendum on tax levies.
5 Some 187 general law cities responded to the survey.
0 ,." >
Santa Clara County Local Transportation Authority v. Guardino
Page 3
November 22, 1995
In other words, this ruling potentially creates a huge prospective revenue shortfall in many city budgets.
Of course, even shortfalls of just five percent or less mean layoffs, including layoffs of police and fire
personnel. Furthermore, many cities have entered into leases and other financial commitments based on
projected general fund revenues which may now be at risk.
According to the League's survey, the potential refund liability amounts to over $360 million dollars.
These are taxes which were enacted before the date of the Santa Clara decision which have already been
collected and spent on public facilities and services. Cities have indicated that being liable for refunds
would literally force their cities into bankruptcy.
B. These Tax Increases Were Precipitated by Forces Beyond Cities' Control.
Why did cities and elected officials find it necessary to impose these tax increases? Certainly the
decision to impose taxes, with all of the attendant political consequences, was not made lightly in each
community. However, city officials found themselves at various points in the last several years having
to immediately address fiscal imperatives of an unprecedented magnitude. Over the last 15 years, one of
the ways in.which the state has grappled with its fiscal problems is to shift nearly $4 billion dollars in
tax revenues away from cities.
To make up for the shortfalls in revenues these shifts produced, local officials were forced to make cuts
in essential services. To prevent service levels from slipping too far, particularly in police, fire and other
essential public safety services, city officials also were forced to consider increases in existing taxes and
impositions of new taxes.
In deciding how to proceed, city officials and their legal counsel reviewed the only authority available--
the various court of appeal decisions. In addition, city officials did not have the luxury of being able to
wait for an election to be scheduled (with an election's attendant costs), particularly if such elections
were not legally required.
III. Proposition 62 Substantially Impairs Essential Government Functions.
As an initiated statute, Proposition 62 is subject to the long-standing rule which says the electorate's
powers of initiative and referendum do not extend to matters which would substantially impair or wholly
destroy the efficacy of some governmental power. See Simpson v. Hite, 36 Cal. 2d 125, 134,222 P.2d
225, 230 (1950) ("The initiative or referendum is not applicable where 'the inevitable effect would be
greatly to impair or wholly destroy the efficacy of some other governmental power, the practical
application of which is essential. . . "'). The League believes Proposition 62's voter-approval
provisions achieve just such an impairment.
,
" " ,.
I Santa Clara County Local Transportation Authority v. Guardino
Page 4
November 22, 1995
A. Precedent Supports the Conclusion Proposition 62 Affects Essential Government
Functions.
This court acknowledged the power to tax for revenue purposes has long been held to be one of the most
vital and essential attributes of government See Watchtower B. & T Society v. County of Los Angeles,
30 Cal. 2d 426,429, 182 P.2d 178, 180 (1947) (noting that without such power, government cannot
function), cert. denied, 332 U.S. 811,68 S. Ct. 112,92 L. Ed. 389 (1947). See also Campen v. Greiner,
15 Cal. App. 3d 836, 843, 93 Cal. Rptr. 525, 529 (1971) (concurring with the conclusion on this point in
Watchtower); Dare v. Lakeport City Council, 12 Cal. App. 3d 864,869,93 Cal. Rptr. 525 (1970) (also
concurring with Watchtower).
B. Amici Represented Proposition 62 Substantially and Inevitably Impairs the Taxing
Function.
This court has suggested the transportation agency in this case did not make a sufficient factual showing
concerning what essential government power would inevitably be impaired or destroyed by imposing a
voter-approval requirement on taxes. See Santa Clara, 11 Cal. 4th at 254, 45 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 228. The
League notes that the court has the representation of some 84 city and county amici in support of the
proposition that upholding Proposition 62's voter-approval requirements would indeed substantially and
inevitably impair the power to tax.6 See Amicus Curiae Brief of the California State Association of
Counties and Various Counties, Cities and Towns in Support of Petitioner Santa Clara County Local
Transportation Authority, May 16, 1994, at pages 29-31. The League believes these entities' opinions
concerning the inevitable impairment of the power to tax is deserving of the court's consideration and
respect in this case.
C. The Constitution Supports the Proposition that Voter-Approval of Taxes Inevitably
Impairs the Taxing Function. .
Moreover, the court can look to the state constitution's exclusion of tax levies from the referendum
power to support the proposition that subjecting tax levies to voter-approval inevitably impairs the
power to tax. See generally Gieger v. Board of Supervisors, 48 Cal. 2d 832,839-40,313 P.2d 545, 549
(1957). This court itself has explained that one of the reasons, if not the chief reason, the constitution
excepts tax levies from the referendum power is to prevent disruption of the administration of fiscal
powers and policies. Id.
The policy underlying the exclusion is that the need to manage government's fiscal affairs is one of the
reasons that elected representatives have been entrusted with the duty of managing local governments'
financial affairs and prescribing the method of raising money. Id. at 840, 313 P .2d. at 549. This court
cited Gieger on this issue with approval in Rossi. See Rossi v. Brown, 9 Cal. 4th 688, 703, 38 Cal.
Rptr. 2d 363,372 (1995).
6 One could also argue the [mancial effect of Proposition 62 in general is to substantially impair essential
government functions. Cities simply cannot afford an ongoing loss of $160 million or a refund liability of $360 million.
,,',.. .,'
" ., "
I
Santa Clara County Local Transportation Authority v. Guardino
Page 5
November 22, 1995
D. Practical Considerations Support the Proposition That Voter-Approval
Requirements Inevitably Impair Government's Taxing Function.
1. Timing and Other Constraints Will Limit Local Officials' Ability to Respond
to Fiscal Crises.
Moreover, the inevitability of Proposition 62's effect on the power to tax is clear from the way in which
Proposition 62 will operate. City officials will now lose their ability to immediately respond to
unforeseen events like state revenue take-aways. When the state acts in July to balance its budget on the
backs of local government, local officials will not be able to respond by making decisions to balance
their own budgets by raising local revenues.
Instead, they will immediately have to cut services, make layoffs and otherwise ~lash expenditures. A
determination of whether service levels can be restored will have to wait until an election. Of course,
the result of such an election is itself an uncertain proposition, particularly given the restrictions on the
proposing entity's ability to campaign in support of its proposal.7 As a result, Proposition 62 inevitably
impairs local officials' ability to use taxation to respond immediately to unforeseen fiscal developments.
2. The SpeciaVGeneral Tax Distinction Creates A Hobson's Choice In
Communicating with Voters.
The inevitability of the impairment also results from the virtually impossible situation Proposition 13
creates for government officials. If asked to vote on whether to approve a new tax, most voters
reasonably want to know how the money will be spent and have some assurance that indeed it will be
spent in the manner promised. However, under the restrictions of Proposition 13, if city officials are too
specific in committing to spend the money in a particular way, the tax becomes a special tax subject to a
two-thirds vote requirement. See generally Neecke v. City of Mill Valley, - Cal. App. 4th -' -
Cal. Rptr. 2d _,95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 14345 (1st Dist. October 25, 1995) (explaining the
distinction between general and special taxes).
The results of this dynamic have not fully materialized because, prior to the Santa Clara decision,
general taxes were not subject to voter-approval. However, ifthe Santa Clara decision stands, the give-
and-take of electoral politics will increase the pressure on city officials to specify how proposed taxes
will be spent. One possible result is that city officials will not be able to give voters the assurance they
desire, resulting in the defeat of the proposed tax. Alternatively, city officials will provide the assurance
7 See generally Stanson v. Mott, 17 Cal. 3d 206, 130Cal. Rptr. 697 (1976). See also Tenwolde v. County of San
Diego, 14 Cal. App. 4th 1083, 17 Cal. Rptr. 2d 789 (4th Dist. 1993) (requiring public employee to reimburse the agency for
resources improperly used for campaign activities); People v. Battin, 77 Cal. App. 3d 635, 143 Cal. Rptr. 731 (4th Dist.
1978) (criminal prosecution of public official for campaign activities during county business hours on county property).
These constraints mean entities with the most information concerning the need for and benefits of a new tax will be limited
in their ability to communicate those needs and benefits to the public.
r. ",
Santa Clara County Local Transportation Authority v. Guardino
Page 6
November 22, 1995
and the city will find itself being sued for stepping over the line separating a special tax from a general
tax.
Either way, the general tax fails and the power to simply impose the tax has been inevitably and greatly
impaired.
E. Proposition 62's Supporters Believed Voter-Approval Inevitably
Impairs the Taxing Function.
An impairment of government's power to tax was the expressed objective of Proposition 62. This is
what voters were told in the ballot argument in favor of Proposition 62:
When politicians can raise taxes on their own without a vote of the people, you can bet
your bottom dollar those taxes are going to go up and up. They have already risen
sharply in communities all over California. And that's just the beginning unless we stop
them now with Proposition 62.
Ballot Argument in Favor of Proposition 62, California Ballot Pamphlet, November 4, 1986, at page 42
(emphasis added; copy attached for the court's convenience). Thus even Proposition 62's supporters
believed and represented to the voters Proposition 62 would inevitably impair government's power to
tax.
IV. The Bottom Line Is Proposition 62 Automatically Subjects Every Tax Levy To A
Referendum.
The constitution says "the referendum is the power ofthe electorate to approve or rèject statutes." See
Cal. Const. art. II, § 9(a). Proposition 62 now gives the electorate the right to approve every local tax
measure. Every tax measure is subject to a vote; the referendum on tax levies is now automatic.
Proposition 62's proponents have achieved what the constitution forbids and they have achieved it in
spades.
Apart from the constitution's language, this court itself acknowledges that the term "referendum" as
used by both the courts and in common speech means any kind of popular vote or plebiscite on a public
question or measure. See Santa Clara, II Cal. 4th at 243,45 Cal. Rptr. at 221. The usual rule of
statutory and constitUtional construction is that constitutional provisions should be construed according
to the natural and ordinary meaning of their words. See City and County of San Francisco v. County of
San Mateo, 10 Cal. 4th 554, 562, 41 Cal. Rptr. 2d 888, 893 (1995).
This court, the United States Supreme Court and Webster's Dictionary, have all used the term
"referendum" as including voter-approval requirements. See Santa Clara, 11 Cal. 4th at 243 n.14, 45
CaI. Rptr.at 221 n.14. This in itself would seem to be sufficient evidence of "natural and ordinary"
usage to warrant the conclusion that Proposition 62's automatic referral of tax measures to the voters
constitutes an impermissible referendum within the meaning ofthe state's constitution. City officials are
~
~
,
I
Santa Clara County Local Transportation Authority v. Guardino
Page 7
November 22, 1995
perplexed about why the court's decision seemed to go out of its way to use a construction of the term
"referendum" which is at odds with both the constitution's language and the usual use of the term,
particularly when the consequences of doing so are so great.
V. Conclusion.
F or all of these reasons, the League believes the issues raised by the Santa Clara decision merit this
court's further attention. The League therefore joins those who urge the court to grant the petition for
rehearing in this case.
Respectfully submitted,
~~~
JoAnne Speers
General Counsel
League of California Cities
State Bar Number 119344
Enclosures: 1) Proof of Mailing
2) Ballot Argument in Favor of Proposition 62
g:\I egaillaclsupctlguardno. doc
0
$
1 PROOF OF SERVICE BY U.S. MAIL
(C.C.P. 1013a, 2015.5)
2
3 I, JoAnne Speers, am employed in the County of Sacramento,
4 State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to
5 the within action. My business address is LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA
6 CITIES, 1400 K Street, 4 th Floor, Sacramento, California 95814.
7 On November 22, 1995, I served the foregoing document
8 described as a LETTER TO THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MALCOLM
9 LUCAS AND HONORABLE ASSOCIATE JUSTICES on the interested parties
10 in this action by placing true copies thereof enclosed in sealed
11 envelopes addressed as follows:
12
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
13
I caused such envelopes with postage fully prepaid to be
14
deposited in the United States mail at Sacramento, California. I
15
am readilyfàmiliar with the League's practice of collecting and
16
processing correspondence for mailing with the United States
17
postal service. The League deposits mail postage fully prepaid
18
with the U.S. postal service on the same day in the ordinary
19
course of business. I am aware that on motion of party served,
20
service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or
21
postage meter date is more than one day after the date of deposit
22
for mailing in affidavit.
23
Executed on November 22, 1995, at Sacramento, California.
24
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the
25 State of California that the above is true and correct.
26
~PE~
27
28 -
,.
1 SERVICE LIST
2 Court of Appeal Robin B. Johansen
3 Sixth Appellate District Charles C. Marson
333 West Santa Clara Street Wendy S. Strimling
4 San Jose, CA 95113 Remcho, Johansen & Purcell
5 220 Montgomery St., Ste. 800
John G. Hursh San Francisco, CA 94104
6 Blase, Valentine & Klein
7 1717 Embarcadero Road
P.O. Box 51050
8 Palo Alto, CA 94303
9
Jonathan M. Coupal
10 Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Ass'n
11 921 11th Street, Suite 1201
Sacramento, CA 95814.
12
13 Timothy J. Morgan
14 Attorney at Law
905 Cedar Street
15 Santa Cruz; CA 95060
16 Trevor A. Grimm
17 Kaplanis & Grimm
621 South Westmoreland Avenue
18 Los Angeles, CA 90005
19
Thomas W. Hiltachk
20 Bell & Hiltachk
21 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 530
22 Alvin S. Kaufer
23 Winfield D. Wilson
Nossaman, Guthner, Knox &
24 Elliott
445 S. Figueroa St., 31st Fl.
25 Los Angeles, CA 90071-1602
26 Andrew L. Faber
Berliner, Cohen
27 Ten Almaden Blvd., 11th Fl.
San Jose, CA 95113
28
I
I
.\ ~i
;'-
0
,
~
-- - ~~::~~f~~~~ ~~~ ~C ALIF 0 RNIA BALLOT P AMP HLE;r
$./ -:1Y,- -, ....~, - '. .
l ' ~
p' .. ~ GENERAL ELECTION ' AVISO '_:::;;.£'.:
NOVEMBER 4, 1986 Una tradueeión al español de este folIe to
de la balota þuede obtenerse si completa y
nos envía la tarjeta con porte pagado que
eneontrará entre las páginas 32 y 33. Escriba'
su nombre y direeeión en la tarjeta en lÈl'RA
DE MOLDE Y regrésela a más tardar el 22 de
oetubre de 1986.
8elt '
IV 0 t It eard, .
~ el'ded
YOU'RE NEEDED' OTE:!
FOR A GROUP
. "DECISION l
,----..-
,." I
'.'~ '
" .....
L-:", p -- C"
Ref. " .
E . Compiled by MARCH FONG EU . Secretary of State
272 ~~~yses by JOH~ L.. VICKERMAN. Acting Legislative Analyst
C153cb
11{86
-- -
.~
Taxation.. Local Governments and Districts. Initiative Statute
Official Title and Summary Prepared by the Attorney General
TAXATION. LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND DISTRICTS. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Enacts statutes regarding new or
increased taxation by local governments and districts. Imposition of special taxes, defined as taxes for special purposes,
will require approval by two-thirds of voters. Imposition of general taxes, defined as taxes for general governmental
purposes, will require approval by two-thirds vote of legislative body; submission of proposed tax to electorate; approval
by majority of voters. Contains provisions governing election conduct. Contains restrictions on specified types of taxes.
Restricts use of revenues. Requires ratification by majority vote of voters to continue taxes imposed after August 1, 1985.
Summary of Legislative Analyst's estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact: The measure prevents
imposition of new or higher general taxes by local agencies without voter approval. It also could reduce existing tax
revenues to local agencies, if a majority of their voters do not ratify the continuation of new or higher taxes adopted
after August I, 1985. As this is a statutory, not a constitutional, initiative, the provisions of this measure imposing penalties
and requiring voter approval cannot be applied to charter cities.
Analysis by the Legislative Analyst :
Background information. For example, the ordinance must state the
Under the State Constitution, charter cities have broad method of collection and the proposed use of the special
authority to impose new or higher taxes. General law cities tax revenues.
have been granted similar authority by the Legislature. 3. Penalizes local agencies that fail to comply with the
Counties and certain special districts, including transit dis- above requirements. The measure requires a reduction in
tricts, have limited authority to impose new or higher the agency's property tax allocations equal to the revenues
taxes. derived from the new or higher tax.
The taxes imposed by these local government agencies 4. Requires local agencies to stop collecting any new or
are classified as either general or special taxes. A general higher general tax adopted after July 31, 1985, unless a
tax raises money for general governmental purposes. Con- majority of the voters approve the tax by November 5,
versely, the revenue generated by a special tax must be 1988.
used for a specific purpose. Because this measure is not a constitutional amend-
New or higher general taxes must be approved by at ment, the approval requirements for the adoption of new
.least a majority of the local agency's governing body. In or higher general taxes, and the penalty provisions, would
some cases, approval also must be given by a majority of not apply to charter cities. Thus, this measure does not
the voters. New or higher special taxes must generally be change the constitutional authority of charter cities to im-
approved by at least two-thirds of the voters. pose new or higher general taxes by a majority vote of the
Proposal city council.
This measure establishes new requirements for the Fiscal Effect
adoption of new or higher general and special taxes by This measure would prevent the imposition of new or
local agencies. In particular, this measure: higher general taxes without voter approval by local agen-
1. Requires all proposals for a new or higher general tax cies other than charter cities. The measure also could
to be approved by two-thirds of the local agency's govern- reduce the amount of tax revenues collected by local
ing body, and by a majority of the voters. agencies in the future, if a majority of their voters do not
2. Requires all local ordinances or resolutions proposing authorize the continuation of new or higher taxes adopted
a new or higher general or special tax to contain specific after August 1, 1985.
Be a ballot boxer. Vote.
David Eaton, Roseville
40 G86
--
>
¡
Text of Proposed Law
This initiative measure is subnùtted to the people in the election on any tax pr&osed pursuant to this Article
accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8 of shall be held at any date ot erwise perrnÍtted by law. The
the Constitution. local go\'ernment or district shall bear the cost of any
This initiative measure adds sections to the Govern- election helc:Æursuant to this subdivision. An election held
ment Code; therefore, the new provisions proposed to be pursuant to 's subdi\'ision shall be deemed at the request
added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are of the local government or district calling such election, .
new. and shall not be deemed a state mandate.
PROPOSED LAW (e) The revenues from any special tax shall be used
only for the purpose or service for which it was imposed,
Article 3.7 is hereby added to Chapter 4 (Financial AI- and for no other purpose whatsoever.
fairs) of Part 1 (Powers and Duties Common to Cities, 53725. (a) Except as permitted in Section 1 of Article
Counties and other agencies) of Div. 2 (Cities, Counties XIII A of the California Constitution, no local government
and other Agencies) of Title 5 (Local Agencies) of the or district may impose any ad valorem taxes on real prop-
Government Code, commencing with Section 53720. erty. No local government or district ma,v impose any
ARTICLE 3.7 transach'on tax or sales tax on the sale of real property
VOTER APPROVAL OF TAXES within the dty, county or district.
(b) Taxes permitted b.v Subdivision (b) of Section 1 of
53720. DEFINITIOIVS. Article XIII A of the CaliFornia Constitution shall not be
As used in this Arh'cle: subject to the vote requirements prescribed b,v this Arti-
(a) "local government" means any county, city, city cleo ~
and county, including a chartered dty or county, or any 53726. Except as set Forth in Section 53727, this Article
public or munidpal corporation; and, shall not be construed to repeal or afFect any statute enact-
(b) "district" means an agency of the state, Formed pur- ed prior to August 1,1985 which authorizes the imposition
suant to general law or spedal act, for the local perForm- of a spedal tax. .
ance of governmental or proprietary Functions within lim- 53727. (a) Neither this Article, nor Article XIII A of
ited boundaries. the CaliFornia Constitution, nor Article 3.5 of Division 1 of
53721. .4ll taxes are either special taxes or general Title 5 of the Go\'ernment Code (commencing with Sec-
taxes. General taxes are taxes imposed For general govern- tion 50075) shall be construed to authorize an:", local fov-
mental purposes. Special taxes are taxes imposed For spe- ernment or district to impose anYjeneral or specia tax
ciFic purposes. which it is not othen,,'ise authorize to impose; provided,
53722. No local government or district may impose any however, that any special tax imposed pursuant to Article
special tax unless and until such special tax is submitted to 3.5 of Division 1 of TÌtie 5 of the Government Code prior
the electorate of the local government, or district and to August 1, 1985 shall not be aFFected b,v this section.
approved by a two-thirds vote of the I'oters voting in an (b) Any tax imposed b,v any local government or dis-
election on the issue. trict on or aFter August I, 1985, and prior to the effective
53723, No local government, or district. whether or not date of this Article, shall continue to be imposed only iF
authorized to lel'Y a propert,I' tax, ma.I' impose any!eneral approved b,\' a majority \'ote of the voters voting in an
tax unless and until such general tax is submitte to the election on the issue of imposition, which election shall be
electorate of the local government, or district and ap- held within two vears of the eFFective date of this ,4rticle,
pro\'ed by a majority \'Ote of the voters voting in an elec- An.I' local government or district which Fails to seek or
tion on the issue, obtain such majority approl'al shall cease to impose such
53724, (..) A tax subject to the vote requirementsrre- tax on and aFter .'\'ovember 15, 1988,
scribed bv Section 53722 or Section 53723 shal be 53728. If any local government or district imhoses any
prd:°sed by an ordinance or resolution of the legislative tax without complying with the requirements 0 this Arti-
bo ,\' oFthe local gO\'ernment or district:. The ordinance or cle, or in excess of its authority as clarified by Section
resolution proposing such tax shall include the type of tax 53727. whether or not any pro\'ision of Section 53727 is
and rate or tax to be le\'ied, the method or collection, the held not applicable to such jurisdiction, the amount of
date i:.°n which an election shall be held on the issue, property tax revenue allocated to the jurisdiction pursu-
and, i a special tax, the purpose or sen'ice For which its ant to Chapter 6 or part 0.5 of DÙ'ision 1 of the Revenue
imposition is sought. and Taxation Code (commencing with Section 95) shall be
(b) No tax subject to the vote rjUirement prescribed reduced by one dollar (Sl,OO) for each one dollar (Sl.00)
by Section 53723 shall be presente at an election unless of revenue attributable to such tax For each year that the
the ordinance or resolution proposing such tax is approved tax is collected. .'\'othing in this section shall impair the
by a two-thirds "'ote of all members of the legislabl'e body right of any citizen or taxpayer to maintain any action to
or the local government or district. im'ahdate any tax imposed in \'iolation of this Article,
(c) Except as prol'ided in subdÙ1sion (d), the election 53729, This ,4rticle may only be amended by vote of
on any tax proposed pursuant to this Article shall be con- the electorate of the State of Cahfornia. .
solidated with a statewide primM}' election, a statewide 53730. If any provision or this Article, or the applica-
general election, or a regularly scheduled local election at tion thereof to any person, organization, local govern-
which all of the electors of the local government or district ment, district, or drcumstance is held invahd or unconsti-
are entitled to vote. tutional, the pro~'ision to other persons, organizations,
(d) Notwithstanding subdi\'ision (c), the legislative local governments, districts, or circumstances shall not be.
body of the local government or district may pro\'ide that affected thereby but shall remain in Full Force and eFfect.
G86 41
,.-' nn_-
"
Taxation~ Local Governments and Districts. Initiative Statute
Argument in Favor, of Proposition 62
A YES vote on Proposition 62 gives back your right to the beginning unless we stop them now with Proposition
vote on any tax increases proposed by your local govern- 62,
ments. You can take back your right to vote on your new or
Proposition 62 will decide whether government con- increased local taxes by voting "YES" on Proposition 62,
trois the people, or people control the government, the Taxpayers' Voting Rights f\ct,
'In 1978, Proposition 13 rèturned the power to control Proposition 62 requires new or increased local, general
tax increases to the people, where it belongs. However, purpose taxes be approved by a majority vote at an elec-
the State Supreme Court twisted the language of Proposi- tion, after a two-thirds vote by a legislative body of the
tion 13 in a 1982 decision (City and County of San Fran- local government or agency puts the tax on the ballot.
cisco vs, Farrell) which took away your right to vote on Proposition 62 gives you the right to vote on new taxes
city and county tax increases. as well as increases in existing taxes.
Since the Supreme Court decision, politicians in over Guarantee your right to vote on your taxes, VOTE YES
108 cities already have increased taxes over 300 million ON PROPOSITION 62.
dollars without a vote of the people. In all, 138 taxes have HOWARD JARVIS :
been increased, and the figures are growing. Author of Proposition 13
Chairman, California Tax Reduction Ilfovement '.
When politicians can raise taxes on their own without a PAUL CARPENTER (D)
vote of the people, you can bet your bottom dollar those State Senator, 33rd District
taxes are going to go up and up. They have already risen JOHN J. LYNCH
sharply in communities all over California. And that's just Deput.,. .4.ssessor, Los Angeles County
Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Proposition 62
Those claims for Proposition 62 are misleading. Sacramento
Proponents say taxes have risen "sharply" since 1982. San Bernardino
With 20,900,000 people in California cities, their estimate San Diego
averages $14,35 each-not enough to take a family of four San Francisco
to the movies. It's hardly evidence that city councils are San Jose
running wild raising taxes. Santa Ana
This proposition is so poorly written that it wouldn't do Santa Barbara
what proponents claim. Stockton
It probably wouldn't require a vote on tax increases. It Sunnyvale
would require a complex process to impose new taxes, but Torrance
says nothing about a vote to increase existing taxes. Nor Ventura ,
does it apply to fees or assessments. Like others before it, That leaves mostly small- and medium-sized cities,
Proposition 62 would lead to yearS' of costly lawsuits. which already generally have lower taxes than charter
The authors even neglected to make this a constitution- ci ties.
al amendment. That means they've left out charter cities, On the other hand, Proposition 62 will cost California
which have constitutional authority to govern themselves. cities millions in extra interest costs. Investors will be
They've left out 82 cities, including: reluctant to buy California municipal bonds because
Anaheim Proposition 62 will make it difficult for noncharter cities
Bakersfield to resolve any future fiscal crisis.
Downey Proposition 62 is unnecessary.
Fresno It wouldn't do what proponents claim.
Glendale It would increase interest costs.
Huntington Beach And it would keep lawyers busy for years to come.
Irvine VOTE "NO" 0:\ PROPOSITION 62.
Long Beach TED COOKE
Los Angeles President, California Police ChieFs Association
Marysville BILL TEIE
Oakland President, CaIiFo",i" Fire ChieFs Association
Pasadena ROY VLRICH
Riverside California Common Cause
42 Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency G86
,.,',
.
,
.
,
Taxation. Local Governments and Districts. Initiative Statute
Argument Against Proposition 62
WE URGE YOU TO VOTE "NO" ON PROPOSITION Current law provides little flexibility in financing local
62, needs when existing revenue sources fall short, some ex-
. because it unnecessarily interferes with local control, ceptional need arises, or the people demand more or bet-
. because it would prevent local government from ter services.
meeting critical local needs, and During the recent recession, cities throughout Califor-
. because it imposes a cumbersome and unworkable nia worked hard to maintain adequate levels of police, fire
process on our system of representative government. and paramedic protection and other basic services. They
There's no indication a need exists for a statewide law economized, dropped programs, laid off workers, and
to further limit your city's ability to provide the level of delayed repairs of streets and other public structures.
police and fire protection and the quality of parks, street When no other means could be found, some cities had to
maintenance and other services you want. raise revenues to keep police officers and firefighters on
If taxes are too high in anyone community, voters can the job. . .
. use the initiative process at the local level to reduce their Take away that flexibility and you leav.e your city coun-
own taxes-or turn their elected officials out of office. cil with all the responsibility for meeting your needs, but
Why restrict all California cities, when local voters al- none of the authority they must have to get the job done.
ready have the authority to control the amount of local Not all Californians are alike, nor are all California cities.
taxes they pay? Why treat them as if they come from the same mold?
Why impose a statewide law when a local initiative will DON'T put statewide restrictions on all California cities
do? when local problems should be solved by local laws.
The fact is Proposition 62 goes far beyond the taxpayer DON'T tie the hands of the people you elect to repre-
protections of current law. It requires an overly restrictive sent you.
and cumbersome two-step process. In practice, it would DON"T make it harder to get what you need from City
prevent local government from raising necessary reve- Hall.
nues-no matter how great the need. DO make sure your city council has the tools it needs to
Your city council members already are prohibited by meet your needs.
law from raising the property tax or sales tax. They can't VOTE "NO" ON PROPOSITION 62.
impose an income tax. They may charge fees for some LINDA BRODER
services, but only enough to cover the cost of providing President, League o£ Women \:oters o£ CaliFornia
those services. State law also limits how much your city.
can spend. LE!'\NY GOLDBERG
And your city council members know they will face Executive Director, CaliFornia Tax ReFonn Association
your wrath at the next election if they've misjudged your DA!'\IEL A. TERRY
wishes. Pre.~ident. Federated Firefighters o£ CaliFornia
Rebuttal to Argument Against Proposition 62
The argument against Proposition 62 says nothing at all more than 300 million dollars with no vote of the people.
about the real objective of Proposition 62. The real objec- Unless Proposition 62 passes, you can expect much higher
tive is winning back your right to vote. taxes from local government every year and you won't
Lincoln said it best: "Government of, by and for the have a say.
people." It is in your interest to vote YES ON' PROPOSITION 62.
The opponents' argument makes it clear- It will bring back rights the State Supreme Court took
1. They want to deny the people's right to vote on tax away from us, which we won with Proposition 13.
raises the people would have to pay. HOWARD JARVIS
2. They want government to control the people by un- Author o£ Proposition 13
limited taxation rather than people controlling the gov- Chainnan, CaliFornia Tax Reduction Movement
ernment. PAUL CARPE1'Io'TER (D)
3. They say this proposition "interferes with local con- State Senator, 33rd District
trol." Local control by whom? Certainly, not the people. JOH!'\ J. LYNCH
Recently, some lOB local governments have raised taxes Deputy Assessor, Los Angeles County
G86 Argwnents printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency 43
-- - .-
-~~-------~
. .'
" .
Elections Division
(916) 657-2166
Bill Jones 1500 - 11th Street For He:uing éll1d Speech
Secretuy of St41te S41cromento, CA 95814 Imp41ired Only: (800) 833-8683
#683
November 30, 1995
TO ALL REGISTRARS OF VOTERS. OR COUNTY CLERKS. AND PROPONENTS 195147)
Pursuant to Section 336 of the Elections Code, we transmit herewith a copy of the Title and
Summary prepared by the Attorney General on a proposed Initiative Measure entitled: ;
.
VOTER APPAOV AL FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT TAXES.
LIMITATIONS ON FEES, ASSESSMENTS, AND CHARGES.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Circulatino and Filino Schedule
,
1. Minimum number of signatures required. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 693,230
Cal. Const., Art. II, Sec. SIb)'
2. Official Summary Daté .....................,........... Thursdav.11/30/95
Elec. C., Sec. 336.
3. Petition Sections:
a. First day Proponent can circulate Sections for
signatures .....................................Thursdav.11/30/95
Elec. C., Sec. 336.
b. Last day Pro~.onent can circulate and file with
the county. All sections are to be filed at
the same time within each county. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Monday. 04/29/96*
Elec. C., Sees. 336, 9030(a)
c. Last day for county to determine total number of
signatures affixed to petition and to transmit total
to the Secretary of State. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Thursday. 05/09/96
Elec. C." Sec. 9030(b)
(If the Proponents file the petition with the county on a date prior to 04/29/96, the county
has eight working days from the filing of the petition to determine the total number of
signatures affixed to the petition and to transmit the total to the Secretary of State.) Elec.
C., Sec. 9030(b).
. Date adjusted for official deadline' which falls on Saturday. Elec. C., Sec. 15.
.
" ,.
VOTER APPROVAL FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT TAXES.
LIMITATIONS ON FEES, 'ASSESSMENTS, AND CHARGES.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
November 30, 1995
Page 2
d. Secretary of State determines whether the total
number of signatures filed with all county clerks
meets the minimum number of required signatures,
and notifies the counties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Saturdav. 05/18/96B
Elec. C., Sec. 9030(c)
e. Last day for county to determine total number of
qualified voters who signed the petition, and to
transmit certificate with a blank copy of the petition.
to the Secretary of State. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mondav. 07/01/96
Elec. C., Sec. 9030(d) .:
.:
(If the Secretary of State notifies the county to
determine the number of qualified voters who signed
the petition on a date other than 05/18/96, the last
day is no later than the thirtieth day after the
county's receipt of notification.)
. Elec. C., Sec. 9030(d), (e).
f. If the signature count is more than 762,553 or less
than 658,569 then the Secretary of State certifies
the petition has qualified or failed, and notifies the
counties. If the signature count is between 658,569
and 762,553 inclusive, then the Secretary of State
notifies the counties using the random sampling
technique to. determine the validity of 2!! signatures Thursday. 07/11/96"
Elec. C., Secs. 9030(f), (g); 9031 (a)
g. Last day for county to determine actual number of 2!!
qualified voters who signed the petition, and to
transmit certificate with a blank copy of the petition
to the -Secretary of State. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Thursday. 08/22/96
Elec. C., Sec. 9031 (b), (c)
(If the Secretary of State notifies the county to
determine the number of qualified voters who have
signed the petition on a date other than 07/11/96,
the last day is no later than the thirtieth working day
after county's receipt of notification.)
Elec. C., Sec. 9031 (b), (c).
h. Secretary of State certifies whether the petition has
been signed by the number of qualified voters
required to declare the petition sufficient. . . . . . . ... Mondav. 08/26/96"
Elec. C., Sec. 9031(d), 9033 .
.. Date varies based on receipt of county certification.
- ._--------- ---~.- . ,-_. ------- --------..--- - ---no_. ..------.-.....--- --_..- ~ .--_._-
.
~
VOTER APPROVAL FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT TAXES.
. LIMITATIONS. ON FEES, ASSESSMENTS, AND CHARGES.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
. November 30, 1995
Page 3
4. The Proponents of the above-named measure are:
Joel Fox, Richard L. Gann, and Lee A. Phelps
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
621 South Westmoreland Avenue, #202
Los Angeles, CA 90005
(213) 384-9656
5. Important Points:
(a) California law prohibits the use of signatures, names and addresses gathered on initiative
petitions for any purpose other than to qualify the initiative. measure for the ballot. This
means that the petitions cannot be used to create or add to ;mailing lists or similar lists for
any purpose, including fund raising or requests for support. Any such misuseconstiWtes a
crime under California law. Elections Code section 18650; Bilofsky v. Deukmejian (1981)
123 Cal.App. 3d 825, 177 Cal.Rptr. 621; 63 Ops. CaI.Atty.Gen. 37 (1980).
(b) Please refer to Elections Code sections 100, 101,104, 9001, 9008, 9009, 9021, and 9022
for appropriate format and type consideration in printing, typing, and otherwise preparing
your initiative petition for circulation and signatures. Please send a copy of the petition
after you have it printed. This copy is not for our review or approval, but to supplement our
file.
(cl Your attention is directed to the campaign disclosure requirements of the Political Reform
Act of 1974, Government Code section 81000 et seq.
Cd) When writing or calling state or county elections officials, provide the official title of the
initiative which was prepared by the Attorney General. Use of this title will assist elections
officials in referencing the proper file.
(e) When a petition is presented to the county elections official for filing by someone other
than the proponent, the required authorization shall include the name or names of the
persons filing the petition.
(f) When filing the petition with the county elections official, please provide a blank petition for
elections official use.
NOTE TO PROPONENTS WHO WISH TO QUALIFY FOR THE NOVEMBER 5, 1996 GENERAL
ELECTION: This initiative must be certified for the ballot 131 days before the election (June
27, 1996). Please remember to time your submissions accordingly. For example, in order
to allow the maximum time permitted by law for the random sample verification process, it
is suggested that proponents file their petitions to county elections officials by April 19,
1996. If a 100% check of signatures is necessary, it is advised that the petitions be filed
by February 28, 1996.
Sincerely,
(!/~
CATHY MITCHELL
ELECTIONS SPECIALIST
Attachment: POLITICAL REFORM ACT .OF 1974 REQUIREMENTS
<, '¡.
DANIEL E. LUNGREN State of California
Attorney General DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
13001 STREET. SUITE 125
P.O. BOX 94425S
SACRAMENTO. CA 942~25S0
(916) 44S-9SSS
Facsimile: (916) 323-2137
(916) 324-5490
November 30, 1995
FILED
In tho off"a 01 !he !ecNfory of S,-
of III. ~ 01 CQØfol'llla
Bill Jones
Secretary of State NOV 3 0 1995
1500 - 11th Street :
Sacramento, CA 95814 :
Dr BILL ~~ ~~I~ q:
Re: Initiative Title and Summary Deputy Seçretary of State
Subject: ' VOTER APPROVAL FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT TAXES.
LIMIT A TIONS ON FEES. ASSESSMENTS. AND CHARGES.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
File No: SA 95 RF 0028
Dear Mr. Jones:
Pursuant to the provisions of sections 9004 and 336 of the Elections Code, you
are hereby notified that on this day we mailed to the proponents of the above-identified
proposed initiative our title and summary.
Enclosed is a copy of our transmittal letter to the proponents, a copy of our title and
summary, a declaration of mailing thereof, and a copy of the proposed measure.
According to information available in our records, the names and address of the
proponents are as stated on the declaration of mailing.
Sincerely,
DANIEL E. LUNGREN
~~~&~
KATHLEEN F. DaROSA
Initiative Coordinator
KFD:ms
Enclosures
._,--~- - ,~
,
>
Date: November 30, 1995
File No: SA95RFO028
The Attorney General of California has prepared the following title and summary of the chief
purpose and points of the proposed measure: .
VOTER APPROVAL FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT TAXES. LIMITATIONS ON FEES,
ASSESSMENTS, AND CHARGES. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
,
Limits authority of local governments to imþose taxes and property-related assessments, fees,
and charges. Requires majority of voters approve increases in general taxes and reiterites
that two-thirds must approve special tax. Assessments, fees and charges must be submitted
to property owners for approval or rejection, after notice and public hearing. Assessments
are limited to the special benefit conferred. Fees and charges are limited to the cost of
providing the service, and may not be imposed for general govenunental services available to
the public. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal
impact on state and local governments: Annual local government revenue losses, pocentially
exceeding $100 million annually, due to restrictions on taxes, assessments, and fees. Annual
state and local costs - potentially tens of millions of dollars.- to pay property assessments and
- -
for new procedural and election requirements.
.
.
,
'0
å. HOWARD IIJMS. ........ (1903-1986'
HOWARD JARVIS ESŒLI.EJARVIS. Honorary Chaimwl
~ IOEL fOx. """'m'
, TAXPAYERS TlŒVOR GRIMM. General Counsel
i.~ (. E I V £tjSOCIATION ¡ONA1HAN>LCOUP^,-"-,"_AfW.
DOT 4 1995
r'-'~' '-: ::CC:(DINATC?
.:¿¡:':':""-"".'SOFF~. ~
September 28, 1995
Ms. Kathleen F. DaRosa
Initiative Coordinator
Attorney General's Office
1515 K Street, 6th Floor :
Sacramento, CA 95814 :
Dear Ms. DaRosa:
By this letter, we respectfully request the Attorney General
to prepare a title and summary of the chief purpose and
points of the Right to Vote on Taxes Act Initiative, a copy
of which is attached. Also enclosed is a check made payable
to the State of California in the sum of $200.
Any correspondence regarding this initiative should be
directed to the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association,. 621 S.
Westmoreland Avenue, Suite 202, Los k~geles, California,
90005. The telephone number is 213-384-9656.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact any of
us.
Sincerely,
~ FIff ~ æ:.~s
HEADQUARTERS: 621 South W"';tmoreland Avenue. Suite: ~ Los Angel...,. CA 90005-3971 . (21313114-9656. Fò1X: (21313114-9Ii7O
nn:t,...,. nF' Fr.A I A R""Ro;. "'1 nth StTftt. Suit~ I:!IlI. 5.RT~m"nh'. C." "SIll" . (9Ibl-UI-lJ'ISO. F,1x: (9161 ~.IIIf'..3
".- -----
---------- --- _n______-
7 '
~
RIGHT TO VOTE ON TAXES ACT
SECTION 1. TITlE. This Act shall be known and may be cited as the Right to Vote
on Taxes Act.
SECTION 2. FINDINGS AND DECLARATIONS. The People of the State of California
hereby find and declare that Proposition 13 was intended to provide effective tax relief
and to require voter ,approval of tax increases. However, local governments have
subjected taxpayers to excessive tax, assessment, fee and charge increases that not
only frustrate the purposes of voter approval for tax increases" but also threaten the
economic security of all Californians and the California economy itself. This measure
protects taxpayers by,limiting th~ methods by which local governments exact revenue
from taxpayers without their consent.
.
SECTION 3. VOTER APPROVAL FOR LOCAL TAX LEVIES. Article XIIIC of the
Ca!ifornia Constitution is hereby added:
SEC. 1. Definitions.
As used in this Article:
(a) "General tax" means any tax imposed for general governmental
purposes.
(b) "Local government" means any county, city, city and county, including
a charter city or county, any special 'district, or any other local or regional
governmental entity.
(cl "Special District" means an agency of the state, formed pursuant to
general law or special act, for the local performance of governmental or
proprietary functions with limited geographic boundaries including, but
not limited to, school districts and redevelopment agencies.
(d) "Special tax" means any tax imposed for specific purposes including
taxes imposed for specific purposes which are placed into a general fund.
SEC. 2. Local Government Tax Limitation.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution:
(a) All taxes imposed by any local government shall be deemed to be either
general taxes or special taxes. -Special purpose districts or agencies,
including school districts, shall have no power to levy general taxes.
- -. . _...
"
"
< I
Right to Vote on Taxes Act
Page 2
(b) No local government may impose, extend or increase any general tax
unless and until such tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by
a majority vote. A general tax shall not be deemed to have been
increased if it is imposed at a rate not higher than the maximum rate so
approved. The election required by this subdivision shall be consolidated
with a regularly scheduled general election for members of the governing
body of the local government exc~pt in cases of emergency declared by
a unanimous vote of the governing body.
ec) Any general tax imposed, extended or increased, without voter approval,
by any local government on or after January 1, 1995, and prior to the
effective date of this Article, shall continue to be imposed only if
approved by a majority vote of the voters voting in an election q"n the
issue of the imposition, which election shall be held within two years of
the effective date of this Article and in compliance with subdivision (b)
of this section.
(d) No local government may impose, extend or increase any special tax
unless and until such tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by
a two-thirds vote. A special tax shall not be deemed to have been
increased if it is imposed at a rate not higher than the maximum rate so
approved.
SEC. 3. Initiative Power For Local Taxes, Assessments, Fees and Charges.
NotWithstanding any other provision of this Constitution, including, but not limited to,
Article II, Sections 8 and 9, the initiative power shall not be prohibited or otherwise
limited in matters of redlJcing or repealing any local tax, assessment, fee or charge.
The power of initiative to affect local taxes, assessments, fees and charges shall be
applicable to all local governments and neither the legislature nor any local government
charter shall impose a signature requirement higher than that applicable to statewide
statutory initiatives.
SECTION 4. ASSESSMENT AND PROPERTY RELATED FEE REFORM.
Article XIIID of the California Constitution is hereby added:
SEC. 1. Application.
NotWithstanding any other provision of law, the provisions of this Article shall
apply to all assessments, fees and charges whether imposed pursuant to state
-- n ~____n
Õ >
>
Right to Vote on Taxes Act
Page 3
statute or local government charter authority. Nothing in this Article or Article
XIIIC shall be construed to:
(a) provide any new authority to any agency to impose a tax,
assessment, fee or charge;
(b) affect existing laws relating to the imposition of fees or charges
as a condition 9f property development; or
(c) affect existing laws relating to the imposition of timber yield taxes.
:
SEC. 2. Definitions. .
As used in this article:
(a) "Agency" means any local government as defined in Article XIIIC,
Section 1 (b).
(b) "Assessment" means any levy or charge upon real property by an
agency for a special benefit conferred upon the real property.
"Assessment" includes, but is not limited to, "special
assessment," "benefit assessment," "maintenance assessment"
and "special assessment tax."
(c) "Capital cost" means the cost of acquisition, installation,
construction, reconstruction or replacement of a permanent public
improvement by an agency.
(d) "District" means an are'a determined by an agency to contain all,
parcels which will receive a special benefit from a proposed public
improvement or property-related service.
(e) "Fee" or "charge" means any levy other than an ad valorem tax,
a special tax or an assessment, imposed by an agèncy upon a
parcel or upon a person as an incident of property ownership,
including user fees or charges for a property related service.
(f) "Maintenance and operation expenses" means the cost of rent,
repair, replacement, rehabilitation, fuel, power, electrical current,
care, and supervision necessary to properly operate and maintain
a permanent public improvement.
~
-
~
.-
~
Right to Vote on Taxes Act
Page 4
(g) "Property ownership" shall be deemed to include tenancies of real
property where tenants are directly liable to pay the assessment,
fee, or charge in question.
(h) "Property-related service" means a public service having a direct
relationship to property ownership.
(i) "Special benefit" means a particular and distinct benefit over and
above general benefits conferred on real property located in the
district or to the public at large. General enhancement of property
value does not constitute "special benefit."
;
SEC. 3. Property Taxes, Assessments, Fees and Charges Limited. :
:
(a) No tax, assessment, fee or charge shall be assessed by any agency upon
any parcel of property or upon any person as an incident of property
ownership except:
(1 ) The ad valorem property tax imposed pursuant to Article XIII and
Article XIII A of this Constitution.
(2) Any special tax receiving a two-thirds vote pursuant to Article
XIIIA, Section 4 of this Constitution.
(3) Assessments as provided by this Article.
)
(4) Fees or charges for property related services as provided by this
Article.
- .
(b) For purposes of.this Article, fees for the provision of electrical or gas
service shall not be deemed charges or fees imposed as an incident of
property ownership.
SEC. 4. Procedures and Requirements for All Assessments.
(a) An agency which proposes to I~vy an assessment shall identify all
parcels which will have a special benefit conferred upon them and
upon which an assessment will be imposed. The proportionate
special benefit derived by each identified parcel shall be
-determined in relationship to the entirety of the capital cost of a
public improvement or the maintenance and operation expenses
of a public improvement or for the cost of the property related
.
.
, '. -.
.
,.
Right to Vote on Taxes Act
Page 5
service being provided. No assessment shall be imposed on any
parcel which exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional
special benefit conferred on that parcel. Only special benefits are
assessable, and an agency must separate the general benefits
from the special benefits conferred on a parcel. Parcels within a
district that are owned or used by any agency, the State of
California or the United States shall not be exempt from
assessment unless the agency can demonstrate by clear and
convincing evidence that such publicly owned parcels in fact
: receive no special benefit.
:
(b) All assessments must be supported by a detailed engineer's report
prepared by a registered professional engineer certified BY the
State of California.
(c) The amount of the proposed assessment for each identified parcel
shall be calculated and the record owner of each parcel shall be
given written notice by mail of the proposed assessment, the total
amount thereof chargeable to the entire district, the amount
chargeable to the owner's particular parcel, the duration of such
payments, the reason for such assessment and the basis upon
which the amount of the proposed assessment was calculated,
together with the date, time, and location of a public hearing on
the proposed assessment. Each notice shall also include, in a
conspicuous place thereon, a summary of the procedures
applicable to the completion, return and tabulation of the ballots
required pursuant to subdivision (d), including a disclosure
statement that the existence of a majority protest, as defined in
subdivision (e), will result in the assessment not being imposed.
:
(d) Each such notice mailed to owners of identified parcels within the
district shall contain a ballot which includes the agency's address
for receipt of any such ballot once completed by any owner
receiving such notice whereby each such owner may indicate his
or her name, reasonable identification of the parcel and support or
opposition to the proposed assessment.
(e) The agency shall conduct a public hearing upon the proposed
assessment not less than 45 days after mailing the notice of the
proposed assessment to record owners of each identified parcel.
At the public hearing, the agency shall consider all protests
against the proposed assessment and tabulate the ballots. The
agency shall not impose an assessment if there is a majority
~--- - -~-- ~ - - ---- ----------- - ---. «---
~ ~----
"
.
"
I . Right to Vote on Taxes Act
Page 6
protest. A majority protest exists if, upon the conclusion of the
hearing, ballots submitted in opposition to the assessment exceed
the ballots submitted in favor of the assessment. In tabulating the.
ballots, the ballots shall be weighted according to the proportional
financial obligation of the affected property.
(f) In any legal action contesting the validity of any assessment, the
burden shall be on the agency to demonstrate that the property or
properties in Question receive a special benefit over and above the
benefits conferred on the public at large and that the amount of
: any contested assessment is proportional to, and no greater than,
the benefits conferred on the property or properties in Question.
.:-
.:-
(g) Because only special benefits are assessable, electors residing
within the district who do not own property within the district
shall not be deemed under this Constitution to have been deprived
of the right to vote for any assessment. If a court determines that
the Constitution of the United States or other federal law requires
otherwise, the assessment shall not be imposed unless approved
by a two~thirds vote of the electorate in the district in addition to
being approved by the property owners as required by Section
4(e).
SEC. 5. Effective Date
Pursuant to Article II, Section 10(a), the provisions of this Article shall become
effective the day after the election unless otherwise provided. Beginning July
1, 1997, all existing, new or increased assessments shall comply with this
Article. Notwíths~anding the foregoing, the following assessments existing on
the effective date of this Article shall be exempt from the procedures and
approval process set forth in Section 4:
(a) any assessment imposed exclusively to finance thè capital costs
or maintenance and operation. expenses for sidewalks, streets,
sewers, water, flood control, drainage systems or vector control.
Subsequent increases in such assessments shall be subject to the
procedures and approval process set forth in Section 4;
(b) any assessment imposed pursuant to a petition signed by the
persons owning all of the parcels subject to the assessment at the
time the assessment is initially imposed. Subsequent increases in
such assessments shall be subject to the procedures and approval
process set forth in Section 4;
~ .. - -
'-
~ Co' .
,- .
..
Right to Vote on Taxes Act
Page 7 .
(c) any assessment the proceeds of which are exclusively used to
repay bonded indebtedness of which the failure to pay would
violate the Contract Impairment Clause of the Constitution of the
United States of America; or,
(d) any assessment which previously received majority voter approval
from the voters voting in an election on the issue of the
assessment. Subsequent increases in such assessments shall be
subject to the procedures and approval process set forth in
Section 4.
SEC. 6. Property Related Fees and Charges. ..
(a) Procedures for New or Increased Fees and Charges. An agency shall
follow the procedures pursuant to this section in imposing or increasing
any fee or charge as defined pursuant. to this Article including, but not
limited to, the following:
(1 ) The parcels upon which a fee or charge is proposed for imposition
shall be identified. The amount of the fee or charge proposed to
be imposed upon each parcel shall be calculated. The agency
shall provide written notice by mail of the proposed fee or charge
to the record owner of each identified parcel upon which the fee
or charge is proposed for imposition, the amount of the fee or
charge proposed to be imposed upon each, the basis upon which
the amount of the proposed fee or charge was calculated, the
reason for the fee or charge, together with the date, time, and
location of a public hearing on the proposed fee or charge.
(2) The agency shall conduct a public hearing upon the proposed fee
or charge not less than 45 days after mailing the notice of the
proposed fee or charge to the record owners of each identified
parcel upon which the fee or charge is proposed for imposition.
At the public hearing, the agency shall consider all protests
against the proposed fee or charge. If written protests against the
proposed fee or charge are presented by a majority of owners of
the identified parcels, the agency shall not impose the fee or
charge.
(b) Requirements for Existing, New or Increased Fees and Charges. A fee
or charge shall not be extended, imposed or increased by any agency
unless it meets all of the following requirements:
1 _-
---
. -,- .
., ,r
I '
Right to Vote on Taxes Act
Page 8
(1) Revenues derived from the fee or charge shall not exceed the
funds required to provide the property related service.
(2) Revenues derived from the fee or charge'shall not be used for any
purpose other than that for which the fee or charge was imposed.
(3) The amount of a fee or charge imposed upon any parcel or person
as an incident of property ownership shall not exceed the
proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcel.
(4) No fee or charge may be imposed for a service unless that service
is actually used by, or immediately available to, the owner <;»f the
property in question. Fees or charges based on potential or future
use of a service are not permitted. Standby charges, whether
characterized as charges or assessments, shall be classified as
assessments and shall not be imposed without compliance with
Section 4 of this Article.
(S) No fee or charge may be imposed for general governmental
services including, but not limited to, police, fire, ambulance or
library services where the service is available to the public at large
in substantially the same manner as it is to property owners.
Reliance by an agency on any parcel map including, but not limited to,
an assessor's parcel map, may be considered a significant factor in
determining whether a fee or charge is imposed as incident of property
ownership for purposes of this Article. In any legal action contesting the
validity of' a fee or charge, the burden shall be on the agency to
demonstrat~ compliance with this Article.
(c) Voter Approval for New or Increased Fees and Charges. Except for fees
or charges for sewer, water, and refuse collection services, no property
related fee or charge shall be imposed or increased unless and until such
fee or charge is submitted and approved by a majority vote of the
property owners of the property subject to the fee or charge or, at the
option of the agency, by a two-thirds vote of the electorate residing in
the affected area, The election shall be conducted not less than 45. days
after the public hearing. An agency' may adopt procedures similar to
those for increases in assessments in the conduct of elections under this
subdivision.
(d) Beginning July 1, 1997, all fees or ,charges shall comply with this
Section.
.
---~--
f ß' 'r-
~ ~ .- >.
¡ .J'
I Right to Vote on Taxes Act
I
Page 9
SECTION 5. LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION. The provisions of this Act shall be liberally
construed to effectuate its purposes of limiting local government revenue and
enhancing taxpayer consent.
SECTION 6. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this Act, or part thereof, is for any
reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, the remaining sections shall not be .
affected, but shall remain in full force and effect, and to this end the provisions of this
Act are severable.
:
~
,'- ~
,~, E.CE.\\lE-O
"","~."-=- '. -.~~ - Ç\ .
RECEIVED \ ~ W~J
December 12, 1995 Oie r-::
\ ~ ~r\C.-
~,c. 0
¡: DECI 5 1995 'ì-M)" 'Í 0 v
Honorable Mayor Bob Price I
Office of the Mayor ï ,
1501 Truxtun Avenue : CITY MANAGER"S OFF!Cf -.
Bakersfield, CA 93301 ._.~._.'
Dear Mr. Mayor:
We would like to take this opportunity to comment on the proposed Marketplace
Shopping Center.
We moved to Bakersfield nearly two years ago to manage a new $40 MM building
products manufacturing facility in Shafter. As our business (and our livelihood) is
contingent upon growth and construction, we are definitely not 'anti-growth.' We do,
however, have concerns regarding the proposed center.
When we purchased a home in Haggin Oaks, we discussed the empty property in
question and were given a description of the original mixed-use facility proposed by the
developer. As this seemed to be a 'neighborhood friendly' proposal (smaller and a
mixture of specialty, retail, office and residential) we chose to proceed with a purchase.
To say that we're disappointed with the direction taken by the developer since that time
would be an understatement.
We've read the recent Environmental Impact Report, and our specific objections to the
Marketplace are quite simple:
1. It's too large. 18,710 vehicles per day, 5 new traffic signals, 17 semis, and 25 step
van deliveries per day, 14 movie screens.... The original plan was a good fit for
the area, this is not.
2. The change in proposed tenants is inappropriate. The developer has moved from
'upscale specialty retail' to gasoline retail, fast food, convenience retailers, double
the theater size, and 'mystery tenants' in two additional 1 acre retail sites.
In sum, the contents of this proposal and its size are not appropriate for the site selected.
What is being proposed is a regional shopping center, not a neighborhood shopping
center as was originally planned. This proposal will negatively impact our property
values and our family's way of life. )
We have chosen to work with the SCAC in their efforts to reduce the scale of this
development and attempt to mitigate the negative effects on surrounding residential
property. As relatively new residents we know little of their history, but share their
perspective that this project should be subjected.to..revie.w....and.that.review..should result
b Ø1 ::z; 76
-----------
-
.--
in a downsizing which will allow it to be a compliment to the area rather than a
detriment.
We appreciate your time and the opportunity to provide input.
~~
Gus and Jan Freshwater
920 I McInnes Boulevard
Bakersfield, CA 93311
805-663-4437
------- -- --- ----------- u_--- ----- -----~-
CE.\\lE-O
f\E: \ A \q9~
\)iC -ç
~ ~ \Iv --
?-'SO
,,^ (\,,0
December 13, 1995
Mayor Bob Price:
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, California 93301
Dear Mr. Price:
The students of Highland High School have had numerous opportunities of helping
in the community the last five years. This includes the Looking Good Neighborhood
Project, working monthly at the Bakersfield Homeless Center, helping to stamp out
graffiti through the City of Bakersfield Economic and Development Corporation,
working with kids at the Y.M.C.A., helping out at C.A.L.M. and other worthy projects.
As a resident of The Oaks, I am not able to support all of your decisions, particularly
that relating to The Marketplace, its upsizing, Castle and Cooke's attempt to divide the
Haggin Oaks neighborhood with signs, and its apparent lack of regard for this
minature community and environmental impact reports.
Now we are hoping that you will help us. I noticed when reading the editorial in the
Bakersfield Californian on Friday, December 8, 1995 that Destec Corporation has
designated $500,000 for recreation use in a specific boundary of Northeast
Bakersfield. We hope that you see the benefits of placing a substantial portion of that
money toward the Highland High facility as it would I) provide a first class facility on the
east side of the town, 2) allow for Pop Warner football to be played, 3) promote soccer
programs, 4) allow for a facility to be used by the community, and 5) allow the east side
the same type of environment afforded schools like Centennial High, who has major
corporate allies.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this project. I continue to look forward
seeing you in the Council chambers.
Sincerely,
/{lúI~ ~ ~ tI ~
Richard G. Quiring
---------- --- - - -- - -- ----
----
NEIGHBORHOOD PROBLEMS WITHOUT THE MARKETPLACE
Bakersfield City Council €.\\JE.O
1501 Truxton Ave. ~£.C A \~qj
Bakersfield, CA 93301 \)t.~ \ Cç
ff\ -'
December 7, 1995 "" 5 0
~,^r.\'{O
Dear Council Members,
I AM IN FAVOR OF THE PROPOSED NEW MARKETPLACE SHOPPING CENTER.
I am a Seven Oaks resident in Southwest Bakersfield. My family has
lived here two years.
I know the 2010 plan, and know what to expect of our community in
terms of growth, traffic, pollution, crime and job availability.
I am familiar with EIR's and their intended purpose.
I believe the City will suffer great losses if the Marketplace and
the City continue to be sued.
I think that a community that says NO to this project will be
saying NO to any future growth, larger companies, new residents,
and NO to its current citizens for much needed services in this
area.
Some of the literature I have received from SCAC indicates to me
that the SCAC committee is composed of selfish, misinformed,
pouting-and predjudice people who are afraid to have an "outsider"
enter their "prestigious area."
WHY THEN DO THEY INVITE ALL THAT THEY ABHOR EVERY CHRISTMAS SEASON
WITH THEIR FANCY LIGHT SHOW?
I THINK THEY SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO FETCH AN EIR FOR ALL THAT
TRAFFIC, POLLUTION, LIGHTING, CRIME (I'VE ALREADY HEARD - OF
DECORATIONS BEING STOLEN THIS YEAR!) AND BUS LOADS OF "OUTSIDERS"
THEY INVITE TO THE SOUTHWEST EACH SEASON.
Sort of ironic isn't it?!
I hope you will support the Marketplace for the benefit of the
- whole City of Bakersfield. Do not veto the project for just an
elite and vociferous few.
Thanks for listening,
'~OJj'\.Q.L ~ ~
. !J
Nayree Davis
. ..--. - -'-
-, ",cO
.... ~\"iV
~ ,. ~~c ~ \C1i':1 (
~~\, \ \'-~\,c'
December 15, 1995 ~S 0
1908 Nantes Way ,f\~'\O
Bakersfield, CA 93 311 ~ ~
:,"~~='~-""~"iii-'
:; -----l~'
Dear Mayor Bob Price, 0 I 0 :1
The people impacted by commercial development speak, but the Bakersfield ~ U. ~
W N c..?
City Council does not listen. How many times must residents step forward and say U t3 . ~
W 0 <{
that they want their residential neighborhoods to remain just that---residential? a: . ~
!:::
Initially, the Georgetown Center plan was palatable---small, upscale, and
enhancing to the surrounding community. Now we are threatened with the third
largest shopping mall in Kern County~ complete with gas station, fast food restaurant, and
a mere fourteen screen theater. I maintain that Castle and Cooke's concept of
"elegant" and "upscale" is questionable and not compatible with the surrounding
community.
May I suggest that the City Council and the City Planning Commission
consider the existing "white elephants" of Bakersfield ( the former Price Club, Zody's,
Sackett and Peters, Copelands, and PetsMart) and the high rate of vacancies in
existing shopping malls. Perhaps the downtown area warrants development rather than
encouraging urban sprawl and inter-city blight. These other commercial locations
would be welcomed sites for development by all Bakersfield residents. Perhaps Castle
and Cooke should go where they are not only desired, but also needed.
The issue that concerns me most is that any company with a few bucks can
come into Bakersfield and build whatever they want without regard to the surrounding
community and our City Council acquiesces. Are our city official so short sighted and
spineless that they turn a deaf ear to the citizens that elect them when conftonted by
-------
, ," ,'. ,..' --, "..- ',,-..-
A
'7
..
..,.
a large corporation and some "bigger than life" egos?
I urge you to be responsive to the residents that will be directly affected by
the Marketplace.
Sincerely,
/ ../ _/ r---°)o
-;:f' ç/44 ~ "'(}
/Man1y~ L. Jakovich-
- ---------- u- --- -- --------
"
I 'ê
r:.CE.\\}fD
Rc. .'
r"C \?> \99J
0(. "
f\("'"
Oç: .~) ".
OR'S'
MÞ- "(
The Honorable Bob Price
Mayer of Bakersfield
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Dear Mayor Price,
My husband, family, and I were born and raised in Bakersfield as were most of our
neighbors. We are all unaccustomed to the media hype and do not enjoy being the center
of &uch h0!5b1e ødvcreity. Ats you arc DWarc we, thc original residents of Høggin Oab,
never read, or signed a disclosure regarding the shopping center upon purchase of our
homes. You (the planning conumssion) only required the contractor to read and sign the
disclosure, and that infonnation was never required to be fOIwarded to the resident. TIús
should be remedied in the future.
TIús is our neighborhood you are "wheeling and dealing" with, and yes we are
concerned with the size of the shopping center across the street ftom us. The added traffic
increase of over 10,000 cars a day will impact this neighborhood adversely (air and noise
pollution, amongst others). There are three infants and one toddler in my cul-de-sac on
Gascony Ct backing up to Ming Ave. They, amongst others will be affected biologica1ly
due to the' caustic chemicals that will be released be this by the cars and merchants. All of
this across fÌom the proposed shopping center site.
Please can't we all compromise and make this a neighborhood center and not a
regional center. This proposed center should be a positive addition to our neighborhood,
not a center that will create blight and boarded up vacancy. Help us solve this problem
and go back to our çe, quiet, God fearing lives.
I
I
R~~ . c#~
'~ .
Sus(n Ford / t:2 - I - 9 :Ç'
Haggin Oaks Resident
9000 Gascony Ct
Bakersfield, CA 93311
., '" ,',,' "" ,', '..,', " .,', "" ","',',,'..", ,,--
'I ,,-..- -- ,--.. u""" '-- .."..,.._,..,..--" ",-,...-.._,----~--_.._---,~--_.__.._--_.._--
, '" ('>0'" õ(")'- ,
. , ~ a: ~ 0 0. g go i I, the undersigned, am Dp-po.s.ed..to the proposed Marketplace Regional Shopping
~ ß. g ~ ~ ~ Center which is slated to be over 345,000 sq, ft. of retail space, I petition the City
r/) "'d > Z - õ Š. '" ~ Š. to downsize the entire complex to a considerably smaller, "quality" mixed-use
-:I: t:I~ 0 - S' -, 2". ° '
~ 0 t:I ::g ~ ( Q ~ g: ¡a, Neighborhood Shopping Center which would be more compatible with
> ~ ~, , ~ ïr ~ if ¡;;' q; surrounding residential and college communities and the 2010 General Plan, I
g , , ~ f:... 0. ~ g: g ~ F- object to the huge increase in air pollution, noise,..çn,' me and-trMfie-tbecenter will
~ ~,," \), ' ~~' [ ~' [ 3 cause, I oppose development which causes ho~valuation such as tills will.
~ "\J ~.g~1» ogÕ( ç -1
'\ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,š. .g g" NAME: Ç:cCLtL> /))4 C7A:¿t.t-b. 't
~ "ì ~ ~ a = 8 B 0--'
\ ~ ,,~ '- ~~' ~ g ~ - ADDRESS: f' f;" 5' Rj~..<L~~tt-/ ¡»
\, ~" ~"I:I CD W 0
" (.., ::r!2.('>~I»~- ' ,--
f\ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ [~ ~ g .~! ¡~7) J.ip:t[.. (! IJ Ç1 ~ J II - / 7- /~ I
~ ~ . "t ~ 0 3 ::r fe, g .., Cd.
' \, t'> \. '\ CD.? co.o
~ ~} ~ ~ is ~: ~ ; $, ~ PHONE: t {' Ç' J & ?. ¿j - / 2 ~ ¿.
~ '( '\ '- 0 ¡;;' CD - t::r ::þ CD I, "
~ .... '3CD"'0..:<, 0. t ß t.-v-, ~
 } ~:o ~ g" "'3 g, 3: SIGNATURE: ~'h(t:,-///'47... P.-ttz¡
\ ) J". ... CD ;:1,0.3 ~ e: .
, '" ~\ \, <3gooê:c:š"
'I æ. CD CD .., CD -.-
'^ C I» CD .'" -'1:1
~ '\ \.!' ~ ~ ~ .g=] [ i'~-~~:.;'> 0:' ';,;,,;:::;L,:-,,'~~:;,; " ";:',:.."':::',:;¡'~:':':',c,,,;:.,:,,:,~:.:..',~..
~ .,y ~"'å!Q'g~~~
~ ~ g. 0 g !t ~ ;; ~, I, the undersigned, am opposed to the proposed Marketplace Regional Shopping
~ ~ g- ~ ~ Ë!,~' ~ Center which is slated to be over 34~. ft. of retail space. I petition the City
~ ~ g ~ ë: ~ g';; to downsize the entire complex to a considerably smaller, "quality", mixed-use
~ ~ ~ è ~ 5" Neighborhood Shopping Center which would be more compatible with
¡:::: i - ~ ~~. surrounding residential and college communities and the 2010 General Plan. I
.....; ~. Jg object to the huge increase in air pollution, noise, crime and traffic the center will
cause. I oppose development which causes home devaluation such as this will.
";;-",b"1.:'i;~~'!.':i~,";.-.,,,;s;!,-"'¡'!é;;~'.-.-,\)1i.y,~j':/¡;"¡;;",,,.'i:~~i""";;""'>, N~:_(~'~ VA-t\c...~
00'" -(")- c; V 0' ~
~ * ~ . ~ g"go ADDRESS: -\( O't ~(,5Q.. ~~ yr,
000 0 ¡:þ °
_..,- - ~ Z :... ~ ~ ~ ~ § ~,~.tU5{".'~\J. U\ q ~3 ¡(
r/) , '" 0 -, _. ::T 0.
::8 :I: ~ "é go = N -, ~
::~ ~ t:lS; æ ]; ~ ; ê".¥J. PHONE: {g(;cf -q~(Ú
- .. -c'" °"'=
"';:;':¡ ,OJ " ( Q -. ° ~
-c:: ,. ~ g-°g- g~p. .
-?; \P .. < S'::!. '1:1 ~' ¡:þ E SIGNATURE: ~ '---L
/:tj _1°0-' oo.::!
-'A -:::y,õ ët e.~, 0 -
, ::: ~ 9 Þ~. ~ ~. 8. ~ ~ ~ ~ -~----~-~-~~"-'~~""~~-C-"----C--"~--'--~, _.._-..-------...- -..
~i 'J" ::!.=o õo~' " """"'~ -----
~ 0 ~ 2:. ß )( ~ Q.
I ~ - C)J~.g ~ Ii ~ ~ ~ I, the unde~sig,ned, am opposed-tG-the proposed Marke~place Region~, Shoppin~
11 Þ ~ g: g ~ 8 ~, ~ Center which IS slated to be over'345Jl{)0 sq. ft. of retaIl space. I petItIon the CIty
()J (T ~ >= ~ g. § g. §, g a to downsize the entire complex to a considerably smaller, "quality", mixed-use
~ ~ ,.... ~ ~ ~ § ~ ~ ..p "§ Neighbo~hood .Sbo~ping Center which wo~~d be more compatible with
) 0 ~ 6" 9. ¡;: E. ~ ::þ ° surrounding residentIal and college communItIes and the 2010 General Plan. I
k" D ~ ~ ~ ~ Q" ;, ~ object to the huge increase in air pollution, noise, crime and traffic the center will
^,' D l/ g- 8. 8. 03 S ~ ~ cause, I oppose development which causes borne devaluation such as tills will.
~ <3 oe.s-¡:'f
1) e. ° g- ët ~ :=;.g Iv{ , ,-
-D ~, § tV g . : ~ ~ NAME: ~h tL- l71, ¿) <? l' ~ 4f-
.. ,- 0 0. 0 3 ,Q I» o
,"" 1) =~Õ"éí~~ ' 1/
~ :: tP ~ Si ~ ~~. -~, ADDRESS: 11- () 9 f-e.. V e//~ j) // '
c: IJ ::T 0 = - : "g 0
-'" ~ V' ~ go~ CD å g,~ ~,.,¿J C?1 135d/
7\ 0 ° e. ~ -. -. - ~ '
I J ig~~~g~ 'I
'" = I» 0. ~ 0 JJ2 ('" ..1J ~'
~. !i? ~ \if:g PHONE: 9 ì -3 /. 5 7
",~,- . OJ! ~
=" ",'<,- ", :SIGNATURE; "" "/ ',' ","~,"'" "",;
; " " " " ~ ',:, ,:': '" >".. ;~~,~:_--
.',"'.~:~,,:,' ~-7;'~-:-::~"T'-"7'7'-',"'::':~ """',--:--C-:~'~-'~'~-:'. . -' '
\
~
---~- -
¿~ Æ
'" ~ . tf:'! rJ-" ~ ~
'.
- t~
B A K E R 5 F I E L D
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
1501 TRUXTUN AVENUE ~~-
BAKERSFIELD. CALIFORNIA 93301
(805) 326-3724
RAUL M. ROJAS. DIRECTOR. CITY ENGINEER
December 19, 1995
James Carstensen
Castle & Cooke Communities, Inc.
P.O. Box 1165
Bakersfìeld, CA93389
Dear Mr. Carstensen,
Thìs letter ìs to brìng you up to date on the status of the Cìty's
applìcatìon for Federal Avìatìon Admìnìstratìon grant fundìng for
acquìsìtìon of a clear zone at the Bakersfìeld Munìcìpal Aìrport.
The last contact we had wìth Mr. Kevìn Flynn, Federal,Avìatìon
Western Regìon project Manager was around October 23, 1995. Mr.
Flynn ìndìcated our grant request was ìn lìmbo untìl the Federal
Government adopted a budget. We have made several recent attempts
to contact Mr. Flynn and have been unsuccessful. As you know, the
Federal Government budget negotìations are currently at an impasse
and there does not appear to be an immedìate resolution.
We will keep you apprised of all further developments relatìve to
our grant applicatìon as they become avaìlable.
If you have any questions, please contact Darnell w. Haynes at
(805) 326-3572.
Very tr~s.
b. ROJAS
publìc Works Dìrector
cc: Alan Tandy
Larry Jamìson RECEIVtb
i;
I; -,
I'
I! DEC 20 1995
¡I
, . j
~.c'.TY MANAGER'S OFF~ ,:
~'.
I
" Æ
r .
-
B A K E R 5 F I E L D
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
1501 TRUXTUN AVENUE
BAKERSFIELD. CALIFORNIA 93301
(805) 326-3724
RAUL M. ROJAS, DIRECTOR. CITY ENGINEER
.. November 20. 1995
J
Mr. Bruce Freeman. President
Castle & Cooke Homes, Inc.
10000 Ming Avenue
Bakersfield, CA. 93311
RE: Bakersfield Municipal Airport FAA Grant
Dear Bruce.
The last contact the Public Works staff had with the Federal Aviation Administration Western-
Pacific Region regarding the grant for acquisition of a clear zone was on October 3. 1995. During
that discussion my staff was informed that funding for the FAA grant for Bakersfield was
dependant upon approval of the Federal budget for the current federal fiscal year. As you know.
the Federal budget process is currently at an impasse.
Recent attempts by my staff to contact the Federal Aviation Administration Western-Pacific
Region have been unsuccessful. A prerecorded message indicates the telephone number that we
normally call is not in service at this time. Again. this could be due to the current Federal budget
lD1passe. As soon as my staff is able to contact our Federal Aviation Administration Western-
Pacific Region Project Manager, we will bring you up to date on the status of the Bakersfield
Municipal Airport FAA Grant.
Very truly yours,
RAUL M. ROJAS
Public Works Director
By: C¡) ruwJ1 E#~
Darnell Haynes
Assistant to the Public Works Director
cc: Alan Tandy
I .
I
- ---------
."--"':':-'.'~"'-;".,""ii1"'~'-"-""'-;:"4.:""~""""""';':'"""','.. -'""""""-"""",".',,.'-'-.. '.. --'------- .- -- -' -.. .. '-. -- ------..- . -
"..
I r'
.
RECEiVED
-;-:---0--..'0'--==""'-- "-'-C--'C'-"'-~-="-'-"7"-'-~' - '~--- ~~-~..-" -- -...- --- '... --,-
------------ DEC !t:..i9_95___-- ,-
- ...JI'.. --.._- PUBLIC WORKS DEPAR ENT
~ ! "'" - ", . -- ..,-, -
;)
..-ti~
: :,+!-,;, , ,
" -- .._----
f! ,----------
I'
'..~~' _./ ~ð ~ t b~-/,;~ ~;- ~__--n-
---~~- vI ~~ R / J"" c:<- e-v- .... - .T{---;?
.. "-----fW:i'~ f.Llt-.?1-~_J~:L... -.--...
./ ----H¡-~: '/'w t '. ~""T ( u ---
"
, , ------
j,', --
I'
" " .~. -~ -- -I
- ! ' ¡
, I: --
: ¡I ----
--=-:---== --::(;HL-.--C- ' ", , =- - ------ ,,-
- H
- '. II '
------JL --
If ~---- ---j
, J -
"--
... --- --.." -- -- 'W " ------
--- ' -
--
I ì - ',- -
~n
"
,I.. ,~
. .
..
I I --
II ~-i~:{ ,.,:,},'" - --- .-.
- --~--- - ,- I ¡
---=- . ,I
',-- -...-.11.----..
-I .. ._.'.i'i"l.é-. 'J
_. -
- _. .';w.-.
! '
- " ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER
'"
.. i
l I
MEMORANDUM !
I
I
)
DECEMBER 15, 1995
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: WILLIAM C. DESCARY, TREASURER ~
SUBJECT: MONTHLY INVESTMENT REPORT
Attached is a Monthly Investment Report dated November 30, 1995.
~fI¡ .
tJl 1
--11 0 Au ~IA
r Q..,Ct~
#
O~'l y'
1\ -r h"1 ",\ \ n~ ,
cOR t\^" ~;.,}" ~ \
/>.",. , ',' ,
\Nr ¡; ,1\;c'1 ~,~......,. " ,.~r~r-D
,¡" ,.-...",!;.ç"¡-'\r
, " r-..."": ':~",;\ ',j.. ( ,; \"j :~ ~ -
,,~ 0 f""."~', \: .:;, '<"",
" ~...~,~,\\i-~~'
~. ~ ~.
krc
MIR.MEM
cc: City Manager
Finance Director
-',
;¡- RECEIVED i: I
8.";: ,j
I
'i
(~ITY MANAGER'S O~~ICE~
-~ ~
; ,
~ - ,¡
.
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
MONTHLY INVESTMENT REPORT
SUMMARY BY CATEGORY
11-30-95
PERCENT OF
INVESTMENT CATEGORY AMOUNT PORTFOLIO
BAN KERS ACC EPT ANC ES $ 6,911,238 6.33
FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 10,000,000 9.17
FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 9,000,000 8.25
FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORP. 11,003,034 10.08
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSN. 9,998,125 9.16
MONEY MARKET FUNDS 4,915,488 4.51
REPURCHASE AGREEMENTS 10,769,015 9.87
STATE (LAI F) I NVESTMENT POOL 18,900,000 17.32
TIME CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT 20,199,000 18.51
U. S. TREASURY BILLS 2,919,617 2.68
U. S. TREASURY NOTES 4,496,537 4.12
TOTAL $ 109,112,054 100.00
MI RS l¡M
_u
-
:- -., CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
I MONTHLY INVESTMENT REPORT
11 -30-95
TYPE OF DATE OF RATE OF MARKET
INSTITUTION INVESTMENT' MATURITY INTEREST VALUE* AMOUNT TOTAL
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
LOCAL AGENCY LAIF-A SEE BELOW 5.805 5,700,000
INVESTMENT FUNDS LAIF-B SEE BELOW 5.805 6,100,000
LAIF-C SEE BELOW 5.805 7,100,000
FIDELITY CALIFORNIA
MONEY MARKET FUND MMF** SEE BELOW 5,470 3,928,247
FRANKLIN GOVERNMENT
MONEY MARKET FUND MMF** SEE BELOW 5.273 987,241
SANWA BANK CALIFORNIA T -BILL 12-28-95 5,446 2,919,617
BANK OF CALIFORNIA T -NOTE 02-28-97 6.892 1,017,500 999,688
MERRILL LYNCH T-NOTE 01 -31 -96 4.131 998,776
T - NOTE 01 -31 -96 4.123 499,388
T-NOTE 02-28-97 6.875 1,016,410 1,000,560
T - NOTE 08-31 -97 6.101 1,007,660 998,125 3,496.849
SANWA BANK CALIFORNIA REPO 12-01 -95 5.688 10.769,015
I BANK OF CALIFORNIA BKACPT 01-12-96 5.771 989,373
MERRILL LYNCH BKACPT 01 -08-96 5.761 985,958
BKACPT 01 -11 -96 5.789 986,359
BKACPT 01 -26-96 5.803 990,896
BKACPT 01 -30-96 5.760 986,116
BKACPT 02-23-96 5.737 986,636
BKACPT 02-26-96 5.721 985,900 5,921,865
LAIF FUNDS CAN BE DEPOSITED OR WITHDRAWN DAILY IN MULTIPLES OF $1 ,000 AND THE MINIMUM
TRANSACTION AMOUNT IS $5,000.
MMF FUNDS CAN BE DEPOSITED OR WITHDRAWN DAILY WITH NO MINIMUM TRANSACTION AMOUNTS.
**MMF USED FOR THE INVESTMENT OF BOND PROCEEDS ONLY.
.
" ," CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
(¡ MONTHLY INVESTMENT REPORT
11 -30-95
TYPE OF DATE OF RATE OF MARKET
INSTITUTION INVESTMENT MATURITY INTEREST VALUE* AMOUNT TOTAL
BANK OF AMERICA FFCB/C 08-21 -97 6.280 1,005,000 1,000,000
FFCB/C 10-15-97 6.000 1,005,000 1,000,000
FFCB/C 10-30-98 6.170 1,005,000 1,000,000
FFCB/C 11 -12-98 6.000 501,250 500,000 3,500,000
BANK OF CALIFORNIA FFCB/C 12 -01 -95 6.700 1,000,000
FFCB/C 12 -01 -95 5.940 500,000
FFCB/C 01 -02-96 7.210 500,000
FFCB/C 06-03-96 6.070 1,000,000
FFCB/C 06-09-97 6.190 1,002,190 1,000,000
FFCB/C 10-23-97 6.030 502,005 500,000
FFCB/C 08-28-98 6.600 1,007,370 1,000,000
FFCB/C 11 -06-98 6.140 1,004,460 1,000,000 6,500,000
I BANK OF AMERICA FH LB/C 03-18-96 5.020 1,000,000
FNMA/C 03-21 -97 7.010 1,003,750 1,000,000
FNMA/C 07-29-97 6.140 1,005,000 998,125
FNMA/C 07-29-97 6.170 1,007,500 1,000,000
FHLMC/C 08-15-97 6.270 1,007,813 1,002,613
i FNMA/C 09-30-97 6.050 1,007,188 1,000,000
I
I FHLB/C 10-30-97 6.110 1,000,000 1,000,000
FHLMC/C 07-03-98 6.340 1,010,000 1,000,000
FNMA/C 07-08-98 6.310 1,009,375 1,000,000
FNMA/C 07-10-98 6.480 1,011,250 1,000,000
FHLMC/C 08-04-98 6.433 1,010,000 1,000,000
FHLMC/C 10-02-98 6.280 1,009,375 1,000,000 12,000,738
BANK OF CALIFORNIA FHLB/C 01 -02-96 6.800 1,000,000
FHLB/C 01 -04-96 7.310 1,000,000
FHLMC/C 02-20-96 6.790 2,000,000
FHLB/C 04-12-96 5.530 1,000,000
FHLMC/C 01 -06-97 8.050 2,003,120 2,000,000
FH LB/C 04-07-96 5.650 1,006,340 1,000,000
Step-up 04-07-97 6.700
FNMA/C 04-14-97 6.770 1,016,480 1,000,000
FHLMC/C 08-18-97 6.275 999,375 1,000,421
FHLMC/C 09-08-97 6.180 1,000,000 1,000,000
FNMA/C 05-01 -98 6.030 1,000,000 1,000,000
FHLMC/C 09-18-98 6.290 1,007,190 1,000,000
FNMA/C 10-15-98 6.240 1,007,990 1,000,000 14,000,421
I ;
~,' '- -, CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
~ MONTHLY INVESTMENT REPORT
11 -30-95
TYPE OF DATE OF RATE OF MARKET
INSTITUTION INVESTMENT MATURITY INTEREST VALUE* AMOUNT TOTAL
GRUNTAL & CO. INC. FHLB/C 01 -24-97 4-530 987,500 1,000,000
FHLB/C 01 -27-97 4.820 990,000 1,000,000
FNMA/AC 02-10-97 DAILY 926,250 1,000,000
FHLB/C 03-04-96 5.000 997,500 1,000,000 4,000,000
Step-up 09-04-96 6.000
Step-up 03-04-97 7.000
FIRST CHARTER BANK TCD 06-05-96 6.100 99,000
FIRST FEDERAL BANK OF
CALIFORNIA TCD 08-19-96 5.900 100,000
GREAT WESTERN BANK TCD 07-26-96 6.100 1,000,000
TCD 08-23-96 6.100 1,000,000
TCD 09-06-96 6.200 1,000,000
TCD 09-20-96 6.100 1,000,000
TCD 10-07-96 6.200 1,000,000
TCD 10-21-96 6.200 1,000,000
TCD 02-21-97 7.000 1,000,000 1,000,000
TCD 03-07-97 7.000 1,000,000 1,000,000
TCD 03-21 -97 7.000 1,000,000 1,000,000
TCD 04-04-97 7.000 1,000,000 1,000,000
TCD 05-30-97 6.500 1,000,000 1,000,000
TCD 06-13-97 6.500 1,000,000 1,000,000 12,000,000
HOME SAVINGS OF AMERICA TCD 12-15-95 6.070 1,000,000
TCD 12-29-95 5.140 500,000
TCD 01-19-96 6.070 500,000
TCD 02-09-96 6.000 1,000,000
TCD 02-23-96 6.000 1,000,000
TCD 03-22-96 6.070 1,000,000
TCD 08-09-96 6.110 1,000,000
TCD 08-26-96 6.000 1,000,000
TCD 09-23-96 6.000 1,000,000 8,000,000
TOTAL $109,112,054
*GIVEN FOR SECURITIES WITH A MATURITY OF MORE THAN 12 MONTHS.
TYPE OF INVESTMENT LISTED ON NEXT PAGE.
~- nn~-
~, ~~ ~
--d'
¡/" ¡:.. CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
¡ - -<-/ MONTHLY INVESTMENT REPORT
11 -30-95 i'
TYPE OF DATE OF RATE OF MARKET
INSTITUTION INVESTMENT MATURITY INTEREST VALUE. AMOUNT TOTAL
TYPE OF INVESTMENT:
LAIF = LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND
MMF = MONEY MARKET MUTUAL FUND
T -BILL = U.S. TREASURY BILL
T-NOTE = U.S. TREASURY NOTE
FFCB = FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANKS DISCOUNT NOTE
FFCB/C = FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANKS COUPON BOND/NOTE
FHLB = FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK DISCOUNT NOTE
FHLB/C = FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK COUPON BOND/NOTE
FHLMC = FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION (FREDDIE MAC) DISCOUNT NOTE
FHLMC/C = FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION (FREDDIE MAC) COUPON BOND/NOTE
FNMA = FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION (FANNIE MAE) DISCOUNT NOTE
FNMA/C = FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION (FANNIE MAE) COUPON BOND/NOTE
FNMA/AC = FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION (FANNIE MAE) ADJUSTABLE COUPON NOTE
REPO = REPURCHASE AGREEMENT
BKACPT = BANKERS ACCEPTANCE
TCD = TIME CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT
/
THE ABOVE INVESTMENTS ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY'S INVESTMENT POLICY.
FIREMEN'S DISABILITY AND RETIREMENT FUND INVESTMENTS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THIS
REPORT AS THIS FUND IS ADMINISTERED SEPARATELY UNDER MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 2.92.
THE IMMEDIATE AVAILABILITY OF LAIF MONIES, INVESTMENT MATURITIES AND REVENUES WILL
ALLOW THE CITY TO MEET ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE REQUIREMENTS IN THE COMING MONTH.
~