Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/05/93 BAKERSFIELD MEMORANDUM March 5, 1993 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: ALAN TANDY, ¢}'TY M^N^GER ~ [~)~ SUBJECT: GENERAL INFORMATION 1. The contract with our labor negotiator, Bill Avery, expires the 24th of this month. He has agreed to work with us on an approach which would result in his contract decreasing commensurate with our City budget decreases on a renewal. I mention this to you because we would like to put it on the next Agenda for Council consideration, and I. wanted to give you some advanced notice of our.intent. 2. You will find a memo enclosed dealing with who holds a Hearing on Unmet Transit Needs. Apparently, the Council has h'eld it in the past. We are not involved in the monetary cycle. The Transit District itself is willing to take it over. We believe that this makes a lot of sense, since we cannot address the problems that ,people testify on anyway. Please let me know if you have any problem with this. 3. We are sharing our revenue proposals with the County government and working with them in the hopes that, if we do anything, it could be joint City and County to reduce discrepancies between jurisdictional boundaries. 4. SOme copies of letters dealing with problems we have had with LAFCO are enclosed. We believe we have County support in helping to eliminate some of the problems where they have caused issues with respect to our growth and development. We are actively working on that. 5. Larry Lunardini informs me that there may have been a change in school district position. -Instead of suing us over the issue of fees collected on building permits, they may settle for the $3.65 per square foot for the' interim period, until the issue on bonding appears for referendum. The BIA's response to it is, to my'knowledge, unconfirmed as of this writing. 6. There was a story on parking fees and fines going up in this week's newspaper. That was imposed by the Court system. A memo is enclosed. I am sure some of you were wondering why you were not aware of the action; I was not, either. In the future, we will attempt to convey information before it happens,, rather than having it appear as a newspaper story. 7. We had a positive meeting, with Chevron this week'. They own four sections of land in the northeast and are a key player in regard to the sewer assessment district coming together out there. Their attitude was pos!tive; in fact, they verbally agreed to add a section of'land to the assessment district. We understand that three entities are coming together HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL March 5, 1993 Page -2- to do a water master plan for the area which should give guidance as to how that issue should be resolved. 8. There is a memo enclosed dealing with some potential problems we have under investigation with regard to our Pen-Comp, or Section 125 Plan provider. 9. There is a very well written article from Trudy Slater enclosed, dealing with the issue of school crossing guards and its current status. It looks like the only option for us on that subject is to put it into the budgetary process as a new revenue source. The County does not seem willing to cooperate on any meaningful level. AT.alb Enclosures cc: Department Heads City Clerk BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: ED W. SCHULZ, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR DATE: FEBRUARY 25, 1993 SUBJECT: HEARING FOR UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS Recently we discussed the subject hearing which was required if we are to obtain any funding under the State Transportation Development Act of 1971 (TDA). This Act allows cities to claim TDA funds for Streets and Roads'in the event funds were remaining after claims by public transportation districts or authorities are satisfied, tn:order to submit_a ,.claim fOr TDA funding the law required that~we hoed ~ lhearing to determine if there are any "unmet public transportation 'needs _which Could be reasonably met".; In past years the City has filed Claims--and we also conducted the appropriate hearing. Since we no longer are able to claim TDA funds,¥my:recO-mmendati6n; is_for the-Transit District to -hold the_necessary'~''unmet' needs" h~aring~ The Transit .District is the provider of public transportation in the City and ~any unmet.needs in the City shouldt. ,app~Opriateiy be-addressedby them. ~ I:,~have discussed this with -the Transit District and Kern COG (processor of TDA claims') and both concur with this chaflge,~ A letter is forthcoming from Kern COG regarding this matter. CITY ~ANAGER-~ 26 FEB 93 TM ~ 5~ D9 TDAFUNDS. MEM BAKERSFIELD 1990 March 5, 1993 Bill Turpin, Executive Officer LAFCO. 2700 "M" Street, #302 Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Mr. Turpin: Since my arrival last summer I have been working with county representatives to reconcile city/county policies and practices relative to growth and development in the metropolitan area of Bakersfield and how it might be best served. We seem to be moving along in the same direction for the most part. As we progress, it is important that LAFCO be supportive in its approvals of annexations and sphere of influence changes. Joe Drew and I would like to meet with you to discuss ways of reducing the need for costly and premature studies, processing time and expense, and LAFCO preemption of City Council duties. From my perspective, it seems wasteful to have to · rejustify with every application the appropriateness of urbanized areas being included in the city. There are numerous examples of Unnecessary costs 'and delays or lost opportunities due to the overlapping jurisdictions of city and county and difficulties in shifting from county to city .in a timely fashion. prior to our meeting, I will prepare a list of specific examples of these. Sincerely, Alan Tandy City Manager JH:,pjt cc: Joe Drew, County Administrative Officer l\lbt City of Bakersfield · City Manager's Office'· 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield · California · 93301 (805) 326-3751 · Fax (805)325-9162 BAKERSFIELD 1990 'March 5, 1993 Joe Drew, County Administrative Officer 1115 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Joe: We have had several discussions about our budget problems and annexations. I believe we reached agreement that the unincorporated Urbanized islands and near islands in Bakersfield could be more efficiently served by the city. In a broader conceptual way, we also seem to agree that it could even be more efficient, economical and equitable for the residents of this metropolitan community if the county could lbcus resources on meeting its countywide obligations rather than having to operate and fund a parallel municipal.government for thc urbanizing areas around the City of Bakersfield and other similarly situated unincorporated communities spread about thc county. In just the Bakersfield area, we have substantial dual staff commitments to such areas as law enforcement, fire protection, planning, building inspection, transportation planning and engineering and road maintenance. Where good public service is ach'ieved, it always seems to require quite a bit of extra staff effort to achieve coordination and cooperation all the way from top level elected officials through every level of involvement from management to field crews. Most recent examples include freeway route adoption and funding, refuse collection and disposal and review of new-town proposals in the metropolitan area. I look forward to our continued cooperative efforts in developing proposals for the City Council and Board of Supervisors to consider. We have also reached a point where we both are prepared to discuss with Mr. Turpin how LAFCO can serve in a productive fashion towards', resolution of our problems rather than disrupting our progress. Attached is a letter I am'sending to Mr. Turpin outlining some of the issues I would like us to review with him for starters. Sincerely, Alan Tandy City Manager JH:pjt Attachment l\ljd City of Bakersfield · City Manager's Office · 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield · California · 93301 (805) 326-3751 · Fax (805) 325-9162 ~ JANUARY.. 28, 1993 MEMORANDUM ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER TO S. E. BRUMMER, CHIEF OF POLICE FROM REVENUE FROM PARKING CITATIONS SUBJECT EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1993, ASSEMBLY BILL NUMBER 408 WILL REMOVE PARKING · CITATIONS FROM THE CRIMINAL COURTS AND MAKE THE OFFENSE CIVIL IN NATURE. AT' THAT TIME, THE GOVERNING BODY OR THE CITY COUNCIL WILL BE ABLE TO SET FINES AND PENALTIES FOR PARKING VIOLATIONS WITH THE ABILITY TO COVER ADMINISTRATIVE FEES, ALONG WITH THE FINE. ALSO INCLUDED IN ASSEMBLY BILL 408 IS THE STIPULATION THAT BY JANUARY 1, 1994, EACH LOCAL AGENCY DESIGNATE AN EXAMINER TO HEAR CONTESTED TICKETS IN LIEU OF MUNICIPAL COURT. THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR EMPLOYING, TRAINING AND ALL THE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE EXAMINER WILL BE THE BURDEN OF THE CITY. IN ADDITION TO THE EXAMINER, ONE FULL-TIME CLERK TYPIST WILL BE NEEDED TO TRACK PARKING CITATIONS, ARRANGE FOR HEARINGS FOR CITIZENS CONTESTING CITATIONS, ETC.. DURING FISCAL YEAR 1991-92, THE TOTAL REVENUE RECEIVED FROM PARKING CITATIONS AMOUNTED TO $390,000. FROM THAT FIGURE THE PARKING ADMINISTRATION FEE AMOUNTED TO $24,500 AND FEES PAID TO WEST KERN MUNICIPAL COURT AMOUNTED TO . _ IN JANUARY 1993, THE BAIL SCHEDULE WAS MODIFIED NG O~.L~__T_IONS_, ~c~s~ ~cH ~ _~ CoURT HOUSE BUILD u.~__ OF THE ADDITIONAL FIVE DOLLAR FEE ON EACH CITATION{_ ~o~ ~~ c=~o~ ~s ,~0,000. __ ~~.. ~ ~s ~o~~ w~= .~. THE PARKING ADMINISTRATION SERVICE, $27,000 AND THE WEST KERN MUNICIPAL COURT, $100,000. THE NET RESULT FROM INCREASING OUR FEES IN JANUARY 1993, WILL BE AN ADDITIONAL $43,500 INCOME IF TICKET PRODUCTION REMAINS STEADY. THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT THE HIGHER PARKING TICKET FEE MAY RESULT IN GREATER COMPLIANCE AND THUS A Rw.~UCTION IN VIOLATIONS AND INCOME. REQUIRED TO PROVIDE AN EXAMINER AND TO TAKE BY JANUARY 1, 1994, THE CITY IS ' OVER ~ COO~TS DUTIES. WE ~ REOO~IN~ ~T TH~S SE ~,mT.~.~ %~ S~ ~'~O~Y ~LOYEE SIMIUU~ TO ~ CO0~ ~I~ REF~E. ~ CO0m~ Y $1S PER HOUR. IN ADDITION WE WILL REQUIRE A CL~-~r~IST TO D0==ES. ~-~SE ADDITIONAL COSTS CAN BE ~LED SY COUNCIL RESOL=ION INC~SING THE TICKET ~ES ,Y ~WO DOL~S PER TICKET TO COV~ AD=~S~TIVE FEES. IT IS OUR HOPE THAT WE WILL POSTPONE ASSUMING THESE DUTIES UNTIL OCTOBER 1, 1993. ............. ~ S. E. BRUMMER, C SEB/CAB/ik ~E~ 9~ ~0:30 BAKERSFIELD MEMORANDUM TO: ALAN TAND¥, CITY MANAGER FROM: JOHN W.'STIINsO~,~SISTANT CI SUBJECT: PEN-COMP SECTION 125 PLAN ~ I have recently, become aware of a number of problems involving our Section 125 benefit plan through various employee complaints and from conversations with Ginger Rubin the Benefits Technician assigned to. monitor the program. The initial concerns regarded the issue of matching contributions/payments related to having 27 instead of 26 pay periods in the 1992 plan year. This caused some question about the year end reporting for 1992 and account reconciliation, particulary if appropriate I.R.S. rePorting'was being done for the program (city employees could possibly be liable for back taxes). We currently do not have what we feel are correct financial statements for 1992 activity and exPect a full reconciliation at the end of the first quarter of 1993 when all claims have been reflected. Recently, however there have been employee complaints that claims have been paid late or in an extremely slow manner. This has been the case for both child care and medical reimbursement payments. In some cases when employees called the company they were told that there was not sufficient funds to pay the claim. There was one payment which was delayed to the provider due to a holiday but typically the City has.provided funds in a timely manner to Pen-Comp. EmPloyees who have contacted the company have been tOld that things are done based on certain rules or guidelines but when they request copies of them they are told they are not available. When calls are made to speak with the manager of Pen-Comp we are told he is out ill. There is some concern about Pen-Comp going out of business. They recently, disconnected their 1-800 phone number and had their phones disconnected for a period of time when they moved offices. Due to these problems I conducted a Meeting today with Ginger Rubin, Scott Manzer, Gil Rojas, Susan Chichester, and Laura Marino to discuss how we should proceed to solve these problems. We determined the following things should take place: ~. 1. Ginger Rubin, Gil Rojas, Susan Chichester, Vicki Morillo and Myself will visit the Pen-Comp Office in Fresno on Wednesday March lOth in order to verify the payments made to city employees under the program and to determine if appropriate I.R.S. reports have been filed. A field audit would be conducted by staff if necessary. 2. I am directing finance not to send any further employee contributions to Pen-Comp (a typical payment would average about $4,000) until we visit the Pen-Comp offices to determine if we will need to cancel our ag'reement with them. 3. Ginger Rubin will send a form to each of the 46 employees (Councilmembers Brunni and McDermott are participants) who participated in the 1992 plan to request verification and the amounts of their reimbursements for medical and child care received from Pen- Comp. 4. Scott Manzer will research alternative section 125 Plan administrators to take over the plan if necessary. 5. Ginger Rubin will contact several of the references given by Pen-Comp as part of their proposal to see if they are also having problems. (the City of Delano is listed as a client). 6. I have requested Laura Marino to prepare a letter to terminate the contract (there is a 90 day termination clause) if necessary. I have also requested that Laura research the legal aspects of changing the , 125 plan in mid-year and any I.R.S. issues regarding this situation. There may be some problem with witholding payments to Pen-Comp since this action would likely delay, reimbursement payments back to employees. This is of particular concern for those employees paying for child care who have limited cash flow abilities. I am recommending that the funds normally sent to Pen-Comp be put in a trust fund to pay employees participating in the child-care portion of the 125 plan until this matter can be resolved. I do not feel comfortable in sending any more money to Pen-Comp until we have a complete and accurate accounting of the Section 125 plan. Please let me know if you would like me to do anything other than what I have outlined above or if you have any questions. cc. Gil Rojas Ginger Rubin Laura Marino Scott Manzer Susan Chichester BAKERSFIELD MEMORANDUM · / / March 2, 1993 TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: TRUDY SLATER, ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST SUBJECT: SCHOOL CROSSING GUARDS The following is a recap of the school crossing guard issue and a review of possible alternatives which were explored to continue to fundthis service. School crossing guards were traditionally funded from the Police Department budget (General Fund). In August 1991, our Public Works Departmentcontacted the County Public Works Department to discuss the procedure whereby its county service area could be expanded to provide crossing guards within the City's limits--a metropolitan crossing guard district. In May 1992, the City Council passed Resolution No. 81-92 consenting to the CSA annexation and followed that up with a formal letter requesting the County of Kern to provide crossing guard service and implement annexation to the appropriate service areas. It is my understanding that County staff worked on this during the summer of 1992, submitting a majority of the needed applications to LAFCO for approval. On September 15, 1992, the Board of Supervisors passed Resolution 92-547 proposing metropolitan crossing guard services and that the City of Bakersfield would "continue to pay the cost of school crossing gUards until the count~ service area has collected adequate funds to provide the service.." On October 27, 1992, the County passed Resolution 92-615 rescinding Resolution 92-547 on the recommendation by the County Administrative Office, requiring that "negotiations with the City of Bakersfield be completed before proceeding with the proposed annexation" and stating that Resolution 92-547 was premature. It has been indicated that the reason the County backed out of the proposal was that it would be perceived as the County charging a fee to City residents for a service which they had previously received "free" (i.e., City's General Fund). Staff in the County Administrative Office has indicated that as a stand-alone issue, it is dead. If it were put back on the negotiating table as a bargaining point, then perhaps something could be worked out whereby both City and County would, receive a perceived benefit (i.e., property tax exchange or exchange of services). It was further indicated that if the City were to initiate its own CSA iservice area) for crossing gUards, at a future· date it is conceivable that the City could join in the County's CSA. The County's action left the City with several options, including:· 1) Not fund the crossing gUard program. 2) Continue to fund crossing guards from the General Fund. 3) "Force" the County to include the City in its CSA upon LAFCO approval of submitted applications. Alan Tandy, City Manager School Crossing Guards March 2, 1993 Page 2 4) Have the City start a "crossing guard maintenance district" which would pull the funding out of the General Fund. 5) Try to get the support of the school districts to "encourage" the County to follow up on this. It is interesting to note that a school district does not have authority to pay for or to share with a municipality or a county costs for school crossing guards. It is the duty of the governmental entity to provide crossing guards, if, in the opinion of the governmental entity, the crossing guards are necessary to protect the safety of students and funds are available for that purpose (60 Ops Arty Gen 177). Whether to continue to fund the school crossing guard program has political ramifications which the City Council may need to address given the' current economic condition. If the question to fund the crossing guard program is answered in the affirmative, the next question is how. According to Section 1463 of the Penal Code the proportion represented by fine and forfeitures collected from misdemeanors can be deposited to a "Traffic Safety Fund" which may be used to pay the compensation of school crossing guards who are not regular full-time members of the Police Department. This would "earmark" specific fines and forfeitures funds for school crossing guards. A review of the City's Traffic Safety Fund account balance over the years indicates that the total amount in the Fund in a given year is on the decline. The possibility exists that fines could be increased to cover the costs of crossing guards ($221,880 in 1992-93) if the Court concurs. (There is normally an annual review of fines and forfeitures.) However, past practice has shown that judges sometimes disallow the City's (and other agencies') portions of fines while requiring individuals to pay other related costs. This practice would not solve the issue of a stable funding source for the crossing guard program. In addition, using this source of funding would keepthe program within the General Fund. City Attorney's staff have indicated that proceedings instituted by the Board of Supervisors have to be initiated after LAFCO approval (presumably of applications submitted to it). Thus, the City could make applications for the metropolitan school crossing guard CSA, .and upon LAFCO's approval, the Board would have to hold the proceedings as required (i.e., protest hearing). This is an interesting twist until you consider that two of the five members of the Board of LAFCO which would have to approve the applications also are members of the Board of Supervisors. In any case, applications would need to be to LAFCO before July 1, 1993. LAFCO takes about six months to conduct its procedures. After LAFCO and Board approval, crossing guard funds would then be collected by the tax collector as part of its normal cycle. Alan Tandy, City Manager School Crossing Guards March 2, 1993 Page 3 As mentioned earlier, County staff indicated that if the City was to establish its own maintenance district for crossing guards ("charging" city residents for the service), at some future date the County might be amenable to absorbing that district into the County's CSA. Establishing a crossing guard maintenance district has merit, but considerations remain: a) Costs in setting up such a district may be excessive given the current economic condition (approximately $67,900) i__fviewed as a short-termstop- gap measure preceding a tie-in with the County crossing guard CSA. (See attached memo to Ed Schulz.) b) The City has nearly 65,000 parcels within it, which all would have to be notified, for set up as well as future changes (i.e., annexations). c) The maintenance district could absorb the cost of set up within the district (set up plus cost Of crossing guards) after initial costs were borne by the City--with payback out of the maintenance district the following year. d) City Attorney's staff have indicated such a procedure could be set up within four months. (See attached memo from Laura Marino.) Given the constraints which have been delineated, contacting the schools to encourage County cooperation at this point seems unlikely to be fruitful. The City of Visalia has established a volunteer crossing guard program(organized and coordinated by the city through volunteer efforts) which appears to be working well for them. Our City Attorney's Office hasindicated that the responsibility for a volunteer program would rest with the City, not the schools, and may incur a liability to the City as well. As many of the avenues listed above may not appear to be economically or politically feasible, it seems more practical--given time and fiscal constraints- -for the City to establish its own crossing guard maintenance district, thereby taking the costs out of the General Fund and possibly setting the City up for future merging with the County. Short-term disadvantages of this are the City would have to carry the funding for the program until the maintenance district funding becomes available, and it may call for a duplication of City/County effort over time. Please let me know if you need anything further. (crsgrdl) Attachments cc: Ed Schulz Laura Marino John Stinson BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: ED SCHUL.Z - PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR FROM: D~NA'~IE ST}I~NES - CIVIL ENGINEER ili 'DATE: FEBRU}~Y ~6, ~3 SUBJECT: CI~-¥~IDm CROSSING GU}~D }~iNTENANCE DISTRICT According no the Counuy Assessor~s roil, there are 6%,781 .... winhzn uhe Ciny-of Bakersfield. There il school districts whose boundaries are wiuhin ~he ~ncor~oraued area, however,' there are _ c~SS~g guards a~ 26 locations. only % school distrzc5= which have ~ '~ · These school disuric5s are: Fruinvaie, Panama-Buena. Visna, Greenfieid.and Bakersfield City School Dis5ricts. .The foiiowing is an esuima5e of mhe ccsus assoczaued wi~h Public Works !abof and maueriai: Cos5 for Pub!zcamzon of No5ice $i,000.00 Prin5ing $1,400.00 Folding and snuffing $2,000.00 $9 6OO 00 Pesnage an bulk fane ' ' Paper & Envelopes $2,700.00 Da~a Processzng ccsn 81,200.00 Public Works Staff cosn {es5.} S50,000.00. Total $67,900.00 As ureviousiy men5zoned, there are a total of 26 crossing guards whose curren5 annual connrac5 with the City is approximately $234,000.00. The uo5ai es5imaued annual cos5 for the City Wide Maintenance District is the sum of ~34 000.00 + $67 °00 00 = $301,900 00. The' total estimated annual cost per parcel would be: $301,9.00 + 64,781 = $4.66 per parcel It ~s estimaued that the impact of a City wide maintenance distric5 -- _~u~ a. minimum of' ~ Engineerin~ Technician ~o snanI would ~_"~ ' - - position ~o handle the addinionai work. load. _ Atzached is a lism of crossing guard !oca~ions-. " CF~DSS!NG GUARD LOCATIONS COLUMBUS STRE~ IBAYLOR ~E~ :CCLLE'~E AUBURN ~R~ IEISLER STRE~ E~SE:'~2~ SC:=CCL. 5CSD . ·2;TH ~E~ ~A ~RE~ .......... 3CHCCL.. ' REAL ~AD ~P~LM ~TRE~ J~ AVENUE I38TH STRE~ 4EF~N ~~ IBEALE AVENUE i~:~=~SCN :~_~,~. =~=u · , -- 4TH ~RE~ jR ~RE~ iMC:<!NLE'Y ~CMC:OL. ~CSD ' COLUMBUS ~RE~ ~BUCKNELL STRE~ NC. SLE ~C:qCCL. BCSD- · SOU~ KING ~~ IE. CALIFORNIA ~VE. "PLaNZ ROAD I~RE DRIVE o~,, -~" ,,, SC'.~C'L. ~_~ ' 'OLEANDER AVENUE ICHESTER LANE . PENN SC:~CCL. BCSD ' · . PANORAMA DRIVE ~SHILOH RANCH ST~E~T~RNE~ SC:~CL. BCSD' , E. CALIFORNIA AVENUE ~KERN ~RE~ iGUADEL~PE' SC~CL. C~T~L~C EL RIO DRIVE '!~INTER CT ~QUA!L'N~OQ SC~COL. FSD "WHITE ~NE JFAMBROUGH DRIVE :PL~NT~T:CN SC~OL. ' PLANZ ROAD ~McCOURRY 'S, ~==: .' ~WILSON ~AD IEDGEMCNT DRIVE. :C~TLc E SCHCCL. P,BV. SD ~S , N. LAURELGLEN DRIVE iEL PORTAL ~LAUREL~LE~ SC;~CL. P-BVSD I LANE ' ; S · jWIBLE ROAD JPLANZ ROAD 'J~INE ~D J FLICXER DRIVE ',STINE.~C~CL. P-BVSD JWlLSON ROAD JORIOLE ~ST!NE ~CHCCL. P-BVSD JRIO BRAVO ~KL~NPE~ ~, Va~ P-BVSD > PANAMA-BUENA VISTA SC~CL DISTRICT .. BCSD > BAKERSFIELD CI~ SC~L DiSTrICT ..GSD > GR~NFIELD SC~OL DI~RICT · FSD > FRUlTVALE SC~L DI~RICT //- MEMORANDUM Februaz~ 11, 1993 TO: TRUDY SLATER, Administrative Analyst .~ FROM: LAURA C. MARINo, Assistant City Attorney SUBJECT: SCHOOL CROSSING GUARD MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS You requested an explanation of the procedure and time frames necessary for the formation of school crossing guard maintenance districts. The authority for formation of suCh maintenance districts is provided in Sections 55530, et seq., of the Government Code. Pursuant to this statutory authority, the formation would proceed as' follows: 1. Notice of two public hearings for the formation of the districts and assessment of the property within the districts would be sent (at least 45 days prior, to the meeting at which the ordinance and assessments are adopted). 2. At the first meeting, the Public Works. Director presents his preliminary report containing a general description of the area proposed to be included in the district and an estimate of the cost of providing crossing guards within the district. The City Council approves the report and adopts a resolution of 'intention to for~ the district, fixing a time and place for. the protest hearing-(not less than 15 days nor more than 6'0 days after the date of this hearing). No notice, other than the posting of the agenda, is required for this meeting. 3. At least 15 days prior to the protest hearing, the resolution of intention is published once. 4. A copy. of the resolution of intention must be mailed to'each property owner within the proposed district at least 10 days prior to.the protest hearing. 5. The protest hearing (and first public hearing per SB 1977) is held. At, that meeting, if there is no majority protest, the Council .may sustain or deny.any or all protests. It may then have first reading of an ordinance-fixing and establishing the boundaries of the district, declaring that the district is formed; ordering the maintenance to be performed' and providing that the cost and expense of the maintenance shall be paid-by annual assessments upon the land and improvements within the district. Memo to Trudy Slater, City Manager's Office Re: SCHOOL CROSSING GUARD MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS February 11, 1993 Page 2 6. At the next meeting of the Council, which is also the second public hearing per SB 1977, the ordinance is adopted. The assessments may also be adopted. 7. The ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after the date of ius adoption. Please let me know if you have further questions. LCM/meg 0PINI0~ X'GUARD.DIS City of Alhambra RECEIVED NAR 0 February 26~ ].993 ; A¥oR'S OFFICE Hon°r~ble Mayor & Members of the City cOuncil Note: ~nis Letter is being sent to all cities in  California Dear Mayor & Councilmembers:' On February 24, the City of Alhambra and the Alhambra Redevelopment Agency filed an Original Writ/Complaint with the California Supreme Court Gateway challenging the constitutionality of the FY 92/93 State Budget Legisla- to the San Gabriel Valley tion which diverted property taxes from cities and redevelopment agencies to replace the State's constitutional obligation to fund public educa- tion.. The case is entitled City of Alhambra v. Ikemoto, Case No. S031350. /H Soutbl:irstStreet The lawsuit, as it relates'to cities, is based upon. the constitutional Alhambra provisions which prohibit the State from using city property tax to fund California 9/80/ state obligations. In particular, the case is designed to reaffirm the Home Rule powers of a city under Article XI of the State Constitution to receive and control local tax revenues. The lawsuit asserts that property taxes are local taxes which may not be used for non-local ptlr~)ses.. The argument with regard to redevelopment agencies is that Article XVI section 16 of the State Constitution prohibits the use of tax ~t funds generated by redevelopment areas for any use other than the direct. benefit of the redevelopment area frc~ which the tax is generated. This action also challenges the State's ability to preempt local taxes on tobacco. The power of a city to impose local taxes has long'been one of the fund_a_mental tenets of the Home Rule Doctrine and is supported by extensive case law.' We argue that there is no statewide interest served by prohibiting local taxation on tobacco. We urge all cities to write a letter to the Supreme COurt requesting that . the Court hear this matter. Since the court may decide whether or not to hear this case in a short period of time, the letter should be sent imme- diately. We believe that the preservation of Property tax revenue as local revenue, which this case seeks to establish, is a crucial issue to all cities. Any questions, please contact Julio J.. Fuentes, City Manager, at (818) 570-5010, or Leland C. Dolley, City .Attorney, at (213) 236-2711. Sincerely, MI(Z4AEL A. BLANCO MAYOR ?~ printed on recycled paper REPORT OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD BUILDING DEPARTMENT For the Month of February, 1993 ~: Permits Valuation Permits Permits Units Units Valuation Valuation ~ No. No. This This To Date To Date To Date To Date To Date ToDate CLASS OF BUILDING Bldgs Units Month Month, $ 1993 1992 1993 i992 1993, $ 1992, l'Single Family Residence 90 90 90 9,701,485 198 215 198 215 20,757,720 23,101,599 2 Condominium 3 Two-Family Bldg. (Duplex) 2 1 4 2 262,976 69,232 4 Three-Four Family Bldg. i 3 1 182,118 1 5 3 18 182,118 1,142,564 5 Five or more Family Bldg. I 5 I 119,286 1 . ~ 9 5 72 119,286 3,601,536 13 Hotel/Motel 1 2,950,378 I 2,950,378 18 Amusement Recreational Bldg. i 55,585 19 Church/Religious Bldg. 2 873,550 20 Warehouse Bldg. 3 673,980 21 Commercial Garage 22 Service Station/Repair 23 Hospital/Medical Office i 214,770 24 Office/Bank Bldg. I 1 75,260 i 2 75,260 532,245 25 Public Works..Bldg. 26 School/Educational Bldg. 27 Restaurant/Store Bldg. 5 5~254,532 28 Other Non-Residential Bldg. 2 2 109,362 140,866 29 Swimming Pool and/or Spa 29 426,980 49 48 .712,780 818,289 33 Garage Conversion 34 Residential Alt/Rep/Add 34 210,384 66 88 396,285 779,804 35 Fire Sprinkler System. 8 79,199 12 16 96,699 68,368 37Co~ercial Alt/Rep/Add 30 1,116,875 72 52 21170,861 2,175,02I 38Residential~arage/Ca~port. i 7,844 '3 3 13,404 19,772 40 Mobile Home AccessorY Structure. 2 2,000 2 3 2,000 3,432 41 Mobile Home=Installation 2 105,000 4 7 1851000 300,000 42 Commercial CoaCh/Office Trailer 8 220,000 8 6 220,000 203,000 45 De~olition/Single Family'Reside 2 4 3,000. 8,500. 46 DemOlition/Multi-Family Residen. 49 Demolition ~ Commercial Structu 3 10,200 4 3 40,200 4,500 50 Fire Damage Repair/Residentiai' 3 27,900 4 6 42,900 338,~50 51 Fire Damage RePair/Commercia! 1 1,800 2 3 11,800 11,200 52 Moved Bldg./Residen . 64 Other Miscellaneous 5 36,000 15 '13 72,000 196,110 54 Re-roof/Residential 16 43,701 42 54 100,751 .179,176 55 Re-roof/Commercial 4 17,390 7 4 22,250 18~690 65 Permanent Sign ' 30 74,971 52 67 154,771 162,661 66 Temporary Sign · 22 7,500 40 30 12,435 22,800 70 Mechanical Permit 19 8,500 46. 20 65,100 13,300 71 Plumbing Permit 32 10,950 69 113 24,650 65,850 72 Electrical Permit 35 11,300 66 73 59,100 318,450 73 Combination Mech/Plbg/Elect 7. 5,850 10 14 11~550 18,400 90 Other Permits 10 20 25 TOTAL 93 98 395 $15,452,871 802 897 210 30~ $29,089,406 $41,171,262 FEES COLLECTED THIS MONTH ..... FEES COLLECTED TO DATE 1993 ..... · $257,795 12 4400 HUGHES LN HOTEL 4 STORIES $2,950,378 FEES COLLECTED TO DATE 1992 · $362,184 2. 5300 CALIFORNIA AVE TENANT IMPROVEMENT $234,40b ~Rg~ 4'29