HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/03/93 BAKERSFIELD
MEMORANDUM
December 3, 1993
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COU~~
FROM: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Responses to Council Referrals are enclosed regarding merit step increase actions,
California Avenue widening and billing system for parking tickets.
2. The next couple of weeks will probably represent the most critical time period on
the Hotel project. The firming-up of marketing the bonds should take place, as
well as the adoption of the DDA on December 15th. There will also be a large
number of bond-related documents on that Agenda, both for the PFA and the
Council. Several "pounds" worth, I'm afraid. The prospects for getting the bonds
marketed are looking better and better - not for sure, but we are optimistic.
3. We are experiencing significant problems in several parts of the organization in
paperwork flow. The Planning Commission has expanded its number of meetings
that require formal minutes to double what was done before. The Clerk's Office
is receiving unprecedented levels of requests for transcripts of Planning
Commission' and Council meetings. Finally, we are having to prepare for the
Brown Act, which will necessitate advanced notice and more comprehensive
minutes on all of the Committees, for the Council, Planning Commission and
CDDA. I forewarn you that we will probably develop a plan to add some clerical
staff within the organization to deal with these problems. We are not meeting the
timelines required of Councilmembers, either in production of Committee minutes,
or of Planning Commission minutes. If you want the desirable timelines met, you
may need to accommodate us with some staff assistance, or a consulting contract
of some kind.
4. 'We have agreed, administratively, to go along with a downtown business
promotion and make the parking garage free for nine days around the Christmas
holidays. It is a very small revenue loss and a cooperative gesture being made
towards promotion with the DBPOA.
5. Enclosed is a copy of a flyer from ACCEL showing some insurance-related
information, including a significant rebate we received.
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
December 3, 1993
Page -2-
6. You will find enclosed a copy of the anticipated schedule for the Bikepath
Extension construction proposed in the northeast.
7. You will find enclosed a copy a document which provides the costs for the Bank
of America trustee services on our pool bond issue, which was requested at the
last Council Meeting.
8. Enclosed is a memo discussing the possibility of televising Council Meetings. We
do not know how much time and effort to put in to resolve the potential technical
and other problems that exist with this concept. It is probably closer to being
brought to successful conclusion than it has been in the past, but there are still
obstacles. We do not know what priority the Council places on this. You may
wish to give us guidance in some form on that topic.
9. A response to a Council inquiry is enclosed regarding processing time for parcel
map waivers and lot line adjustments. It is in response to concerns received that
the processing has been slow.
10. Enclosed is a letter we received regarding preliminary traffic studies for the
proposed Amtrak Station.
AT. alb
Enclosures
MEMORANDUM
NOVEMBER 17, 1993
TO: JOHN STINSON, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER .,~~'~
SUBJECT: REPORT ON MERIT STEP INCREASES
QUARTER PERIOD JULY - SEPTEMBER 1993
Per the City Council's request, attached is a listing by department those employees who
were eligible and received "merit" step increases for the quarter period of July -
September 1993.
Thirty-five (35) employees received "merit" increases from a Total of thirty-nine (39) who
were eligible.
STEP INCREASE REPORT
JULY-SEPTEMBER 1993
17-Nov-93
.......... ,::,::,:,:,:,,:,,,: ::::::::::::::::::::::::: ...... ...............;.;.;.;.;,;,;.;,;.;,;,;,,;,;.:.................. ....... .......,;.;.;,;,;.:;.: ...... .:,.,.,.,:, .,.....................:.:,.,,.,..,.,.,.....,...,.,..........,,. :..,:,:,:.:,:
EXECUTIVE '1 I .... 1 1
FINANCE 3 3 2 2 I 1
ATTORNEY I ! .... I 1
POLICE 3 3 1 1 2 2
FIRE 6 6 3 3 3 3
PUBLIC WORKS 15 .13 6 4 9 9
WATER & SANIT 3 2. .... 3 2
COMM SVCS 4 4 3 3 1 1
DEV SVCS 2 2 2 2 ....
ED/CD I " 0 .... 1 0
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: Ed W. Schulz, Public Works D~rector '~ .
DATE: November 30, 1993
SUBJECT: City Council Referral Record #12651
(California Avenue Widening)
This memorandum is in response to a councilmember's
question as to the feasibility to widen California Avenue east of
Oak Street.
A feasibility study to widen California Avenue east of Oak
Street will be scheduled for the 1994/95 fiscal year. This study
will determine the geometries involved to provide three
eastbound and three westbound through lanes east of Oak
Street to match improvement now scheduled west of Oak
Street. The study will determine right of way needs.
My recommendation is to budget funds and purchase the
necessary right of way in fiscal year 1994-95 and budget funds
for construction in fiscal year 1995-96.
CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL
MEETINO OF: 11/10/93
NOV 1 G 1993
REFERRED TO: PLANNING'DEPT J HARDISTY ?UBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
REFERRED TO:
ITEM: RECORD# 12651
Resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit to
allow a Family Entertainment Center located at
the northwest corner of California Avenue and Oak
.Street, known as 1251 Oak Street (Camelot Park).
(Ward 5) (Action was deferred from October 27,
1993)Correspondence was received from: Craig
Carve, CalOak Development Properties, on November
8, 1993, submitting copies of school and PTA
recommendations for Camelot Park; and Camelot
Park Family Entertainment Centers, dated November
9, 1993, regarding Exhibit A - Discretionary
Conditions for Conditional Use Permit No. 5512.
· ACTION TAKEN BY COUNCIL:
MOTION ~0 ADOPT RESOLUTION WITH MODIFICATIONS TO
CONOITIONS.APPROVED. NS: PD. STAFF (PUBLIC
WORKS) TO DO FEASIBILITY STUDY ON WIOENING
CALIFORNIA AVENUE AND OAK STREET FOR THE FY 94/95
BUDGET YEAR.
BACKUP MATERIAL ATTACHED: YES
DATE FORWARDED BY CITY CLERK: 11/15/93
COUNCIL REFERRAL TRACKING SYSTEM
RECORD #12599 (PARKING TICKETS)
Staff is reluctant to operate a billing system that has been
successfully outsourced to the private sector. In 1984 the Budget
& Finance Committee issued Report ~17-84 that recommended the
current provider (Judicial Data Services)· be hired due to a lower
price than West Kern Municipal Court. Since the City and Judicial
Data Services entered into a service contract on September 1, 1984
there has been no increase in price for their service. In
addition, the committee report also discussed the possibility of
processing citations "in-house" but due to the additional staff
necessary to process the citations, the Committee did not support
"in-house" processing. Staff reductions in 1993-94 us from
absorbing the large task of "in-house" processing.
krc
MGR'92
CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL
MEETING OF' 10/27/93
REFERRED TO' FINANCE G KLZNKO
ITEM: RECORD¢ 12599
Parking Tick'e%s. (DeMond)
ACTION TAKEN BY COUNCIL:
DEMOND REQUESTED STAFF CONSIDER DEVELOPING A
COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR.THE NEW COMPUTER THAT WI L
ALLOW IN-HOUSE BILLING OF PARKING TICKETS'INSTEAD
OF USING A BILLING SERVICE IN SANTA AMA.
BACKUP MATERIAL ATTACHED: NO'
DATE FORWARDED BY CITY CLERK' 10/29./93
RESPOND BY: 11/10/93 (CH)
NOTE- STATUS CHANGES ARE TO BE ENTERED FOR EACH REFERRAL
AT LEAST ONCE A HONTH EVEN IF NO ACTION HAS BEEN TA~:EN!
m mERs ACCEL RETURNS!
Anaheim, Thomas Vance From Second Program Year
Bakersfield, Scott Manzer
The ACCEL Bo~d of Di~ d~l~ av~labl~ ~ for r~m to m~m~
Burban~ John Nicoll of th~ FY 87/88 prog~ y~r to~ll~g $5,290,5~; approxi~tdy $1,~,~
moro ~ ~oir ~ti~ de~si~. ~s is ACCEL's ~ond R~ffo~tiv~ Adjust-
ment. ~y a~ c~ulat~ ~glnnlng fivo y~ a~er ~ end of~o ~ch prog~m
Modesto, Donald ~ Norris
y~. As of ~e 30, 1993 ACCEL had ~ execs of $35,~,~ ~ ~d~g,
cow~g ~ m~mbe~ of~o Au~ofity to a $10,~,~ li~t ofliabili~ at grater
Moaterey~ Ma~ Sue Ba~r th~ a 90 ~ confidonco l~vol.
Mountain View~ Janet Boggia B~auso of ACCEL's low loss ~sto~, si~lar ro~s aro oxp~t~ as prog~m
y~ ~nt~u~ to ~ro wi~ newer mom~rs also r~i~g ~ Retrosp~tiw
Onta~o, Edward Gallardo Adjustment. ~fial ~c~afio~ p~j~t ~at n~t J~y~s ret~ ~il ~so
~c~d $~,0~,0~, for the ~ird y~r in a ~w, ~h ~e follo~ y~
~at~ to ret~ in ~c~ of $7,000,0~ to the p~i~pafi~ ~fi~.
Palo ~to, Randy Rafoth
ACCEL w~ fo~ to ~1 common m~icipal risk on a ~gh level ex.ss b~is
Santa Barbar~ Brad Landreth ~d sha~ ~e cost of ~ loss~ ~ongst the member entitle. ACCEL r~uir~
~t all mem~ ~ve a ~ll-time 6sk ~ager, ~d a eomprehe~ive ~sk
Santa Monic~ Tom Phillips ~gement prog~. To &te, t~s p~l h~ ~n ve~ ~ess~l, wi~ o~y
tM~ paid loss~ ~d nomln~ rese~es pend~g.
Visali~ Shirl~ Setser
, ~e ~en y~ average ~ of AC~L s~ ~fion is $. 176.
~ ~,~ ex~ ~ ~ of $.55 to .75 (when a~le) for ~ sine $9~ xs $1~
~,, ,,~ ~ layer. ~e fo~o~ng c~ iH~ ~s:
~ 1987~
· ~ ~ (in 1000s) DEPOSIT PD CLMS.* &~NR* (w/o
- ~"-- ~', ~ I 2 689,010 8,268,120 875,422 0 .127
~ ~~E~ I$ ~m I t ...........................
'~~,uo,~,,,._~. I !TM....... 4~.:: 450,716 5,408,595 191,400 , 164,677 .079
. ~,, ~... 6 358,802 4,305,623 465,597 2,456,844 .611
- '"'~~ ~ TOT~ $3,048,947 ~6,587,370 $2,044,919 $3,755,3~ .176
A~O~TY ~R C~I~A CI~ EXC~ LI~I~
c/o ~k J~ ~b~ ~fi~ Group
P.O. ~x 7~1, ~ ~o, CA 9412~7~1 (41~ 9~-~
-- I FY 93/94 Rate Reduction
.~ ~
....... The Authority's 1991 actuarial study demonstrated that the pool could
~ lower it's member contribution rate from $1.20 (per 100 of payroll) to a
.....,o-,-,.~.~,-~t,~-,~.t~' $.60 rate and still maintain a 90% confidence level. To be prudent, the
Board elected to set the rate at $.90 for two years effective July 1991.
:,, Based on ACCEL's continuing excellent loss history, and a similar
actuarial recommendation, the Board reduced the 1993/94 contribu-
--.- tion to $.60.
I History of ACCEL I
,, ~ ~ The Authority for California Cities Excess Liability (ACCEL) pool is now in its
m.~,.oo 8th program year of self-funding municipal liability exposures. ACCEL was
...... designed to pool catastrophic losses as a viable alternative to high-cost excess
liability insurance. It was originally conceived by its members at a meeting held
'~"~""~'~'~'~G¥'" at PARMA in January, 1986 and established by July 1 of that year with seven
members. Presently consisting of eleven member cities, the pool provides
.,0 coverage of $9,000,000 per occurrence, excess of a $1,000,000 SIR.
-~'~' The pool demands active participation by members in the management of the pool;
s ,,,~.~ an aspect of the pool that members feel is a real "plus". Each member is involved
~,r~.. a....d ~. in, and responsible for, the success of on-going programs. The Board of Directors
meet at least five times a year in various statewide locations. The Authority is
successful because of the involvement and commitment of the member city's
representatives. These individuals are involved in at least one committee,
-- addressing important aspects of pool management that lead to reduced cost for all
~_ ~ members of the Authority.
...... There arc two optional programs available for ACCEL members. The Optional
~ ExcessLiabilityProgramprovidespartieipatingeitieswithtotallimitsofliability
;''~;~0~-~,99.-t,~ry.,' up to $20,000,000. The Optional Workers' Compensation Program provides
coverage for each member to a statutory limit per city. []
ACCEL Funding
Is
.-~,6,.-'Cc~,,~ 30,
Million
15,
87 88 89 90 91 92 93
AUTHORITY FOR CALIFORNIA CITIES EXCESS LIABILITY
c/o Sedgwick James Public Eafity Group
P.O. Box 7601, San Francisco, CA 94120-7601 (415) 983-5600
BAKERSFIELD.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: Ed W. Schulz, Public Works Director
DATE: November 29, 1993
SUBJECT: Bike Path Extension East of Manor Drive
Following is a schedule for construction of the subject project:
- Environment document has been p~epared by the Planning Department and
has been approved.
- Initial project on east side of Manor Drive including retaining wall, grading
and guard rail has been awarded to R. L.' Morton Welding, Inc. Construction
has not yet begun.
- Preliminary survey is complete and center line alignment established.
- Final design is scheduled to be completed by January 1994.
- Construction is scheduled during the month of April 1994 with completion
during the month of May.
CZ'iT TM '" ,~"'
30 :~IOV 95 5~ 56
M:112993.2
JL:wrn
Bank of America
333 South Grand Avenue, Suit~ 1740
Los Aag~es, California 90071
November 19, 1993
Mr. Gregory J. Klirnko
· Finance Director
The City of Bakersfield
1501 Tmxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Re: City of Bakersfield Public F'mancing Authority Marks-Roos Bond Pool 1993
Dear Greg:
I appreciated speaking to you over the phone last week. As a follow-up to that
conversation, enclosed is our proposal for Trustee, Registrar and Paying Agent
services for the referenced issue. By way of background, Bank of America Corporate
Trust .and Agency Group has been providing Corporate Trust services for over 60
years. We operate as a business of the Institutional Trust and Securities serVices
Group of Bank of America BlT & SA. We Provide Trustee services for over 4,200
issuers, both corporate and municipal, with over $200 billion in bonds outstanding.
In combination with our 17 offices nationally, i we are the largest Municipal Trust unit
in the country.
· COMMITMENT
Our commitment 'to Corporate Trust services may be measured in terns of our
professional, highly trained personnel and systems. We have divided personnel into
three distinct units: Marketing, which is responsible for sales and pricing;
Administration, which oversees implementation of the requirements of the documents
and applicable state and federal regulations; and Operations which provides support to
the Trustee functions in serving bondholders. Administration has 38 administrative
officers with offices in Downtown Los Angeles, while Operations, located in
Glendale, has 260 support persons. Both facilities are available for your inspection.
If you are ever in our area, I would be happy to set up a tour'for you.
· CLOSING
We can accept appointment as Trustee only after approval by Corporate Trust
Administration and Credit Review. This will require a review of Mr. Hammons'
fully audited Financial Statements plus any additional financial and/or .credit
information that will evidence his ability to meet the proposed obligation. The items
listed on Page 4 of the File Memo dated October 21, 1993 from Mr. Graham and Ms.
Caponigro will also be helpful in our review. I have discussed this matter with
Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association
Frances Mayers of Fieldman. Rolapp and Associates. He assures me that the
requested information will be forthcoming as soon as possible.
If we are appOinted, please insure that two sets of documents are sent to Dennis
Wong, Senior Counsel. The .administrator assigned to our relationship with the City
of Bakersfield continues to be Ms. Debbie Young.' Both Dennis and Debbie's address
and phone numbers are on the enclosed contact list.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. I trust that the
competitive pricing presented reflects a long term commitment to our relationship
with the City of Bakersfield and our endeavor to make each transaction mutually
beneficial. I look forward to the oppOrtunity to work with you on this transaction.
Sincerely,
Smart M. Weiss
Vice President
Corporate Trust Marketing
Enclosures
cc: Frances Mayers
Debbie Young
Debbie Anderson
ll189301.smw
BANK OF AMERICA NT & SA
Schedule of Fees for Services as Trustee, Registrar and Paying Agent
City of Bakersfield PUblic F'mancing Authority Marks-Roos Bond Pool 1993
Approximately $79.56 million
~ *Estimated Fees
ACCEPTANCE FEE:
(A one time charge covering review of documents by administration and liaison with underwriter, issuer, and
attorneys. ' Payable at closing. If the transaction is more complex than anticipated, or if draft documents are
not provided in a timely manner, there may be an additional charge.)
0.544 b.p. or 0.00544%: $4,325.00
TRUSTEE COUNSEL FEES: $2,500.00
(Covers initial document review.)
(Covers ordinary duties and responsibilities per annum or portion thereof.
Payable annually in advance. Minimum annual fee: $3,000.00)
.993 b.p. or 0.00993%: . $7,900.00
Disbursements (Processing of Requisitions):
Up to 12 Per annum, payable annually in advance: $250.00
In excess of 12 per annum , .each disbursement: $50.00
Any payment by wire'transter: · $25.00
Investments:
Directed purchases/sales, each transaction (includes collateral substitutions): $75.00
Guarante&t Investment Contracts, eactt transaction: $25.00
Transaction Charges. for use of Sweep Vehicles: NONE
Letter of Credit Draws:
Direct pay, per draw: $75.00
Standby, per draw: $250.00
Variable Rate Transactions:
New York Tender Agent A .cceptance Fee_0,ayable at closing): $1,000.00
New York Tender Agent Administration Fee 6oayable annually in advance): $1~000.00
Each Tender Transaction: $75.00
Custody of Pledged Bonds, per day: $100.00
Calculation of Variable Rate per annum: $500.00
Rate Conversions, each occurrence 6axed to variable and ace versa): $1,000.00
Secondary Market Disclosure Transmi~ions: (each occurrence) $50.00
NOTE: There may be a charge when letters of credit are substituted, 'documents are
supplemented or the account is terminated prior to maturity.
REGISTRAR/PAYING AGENT SERVICES
Physical Securities:
Payment of Interest, per check ($1oo minimum per payment period): $0.55
Payment of P.rincipal, per check ($500 minimum per maturity/redemption): $2.90
AnY payment by wire transter: . $25.00
Tax Reporting, per fo .rIr!: ' . $1.00
Initial Issuance of Certiticates, eacl~: $1.50
Subsequent Issuance/Cancellation of Certificates, each: $2.00
Each Certificateholder account maintained per month ($1oo minimum per annum): $0.25
Book Entry Securities, per annum: $250.00
Out-of-Pocket Expenses: AT COST
(Plus indirect out-of-pocket at 3% of annual fee plus activity charges)
· Based on principal amount of bonds outstanding at the time of computation.
DATED: November'lg, 1993 CONFIDENTIAL
Bank of America
BANK OF AMF, RICA NT&SA
CORPORATE TRUST DIVISION CONTACT LIST.
City of Bakersfield .Public Financing Authority
ADMINISTRATION: Corporate Trust Division
333 South Beaudry Avenue, 25th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
FAX: (213) 345-Facsimile #1
Account Administrator: Deborah Young, Assistant Vice President
(213) 345-1409
Team Manager Teresa Wall, Vice President
(213) 345-
Manager: Jenni Minardi, Vice President
(213) 345-6588
Division Manager: Connie Marmet, Vice President & Manager
One Embarcadero Center, 20th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
(415) 953-4289 FAX: (415) 953-4066
SALES / MARKETING: Corporate Trust Marketing
333 South Grand Avenue, Suite 1740
Los Angeles, CA 9007
FAX: (213) 229-2850
Southern California: Stuart M. Weiss, Vice President
(213) 229-2929
Manager: John F. Shope, Vice President & Manager
(415) 953-2015
DOCUMF. NT REVIEW: Legal Department
555 South Flower Street, 8th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
FAX: (213) 228-2397
Manager: Denni.~ Wong, Senior Counsel
(213) 228-4999
OPERATIONS: Corporate Trust Operations
701 South Western Avenue
Glendale, CA 91201
Bondholder Inquiries: Toll Free: (800) 423-5041
New York Tender Agent: Stephen M. Bruce, Assistant Vice President
BankAmerica National Trust Company
2 Rector Street, 9th Floor
New York, NY 10006
(212) 978-5023 FAX: (212) 978-5060
Bank of America
BAKERSFIELD
MEMORANDUM
December
1,
1993
TO- ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER ///// /
FROM: TRUDY SLATER, ADMINISTRATIVE~/ANALYSTIII
SUBJECT: TELEVISING COUNCIL MEETINGS
A long-standing, although not top priority due to the extensive costs invo_~¥ed,
directive from the Council has been to look into the feasibility of having
Council meetings televised. Over the years, staff has met with cable personnel,
both technical and administrative, several times as well as with County
administratiOn to look at joint ventures.
On November 16, I met with Dan Crisp, Clarence Medders, and Valley Wireless's
operations chief in an exploratory meeting to discuss the possibility of Valley
Wireless televising Council meetings. Mel Perry, from Telecommunications, was
also there to assist in technical considerations.
Mr. Crisp has tentatively offered to provide the equipment needed, free of charge
to the City, which would allow Valley Wireless to televise City Council meetings
live. This would require an adequate "line of sight" transmission {as Valley
Wireless uses airwaves to transmit its signals}. Mr. Crisp indicated that they
would check to see if "line of sight" was available/feasible for them.
I indicated in the meeting that all Bakersfield citizens would need an
opportunity to see the Council meetings and not just Valley Wireless customers.
Mr. Crisp indicated that the other two cable companies could pick up his
transmissions with special equipment which would probably only cost them $500.
Since that meeting, I have talked informally with both Cox and Warner regarding
the possibility of receiving Valley Wireless transmissions for carriage on their
lines. (Please see attached memo from Cox Cable.} Conceptually, it could be
done, but there are constraining factors.
Clarence Medders also called me on November 30 to see if this was something the
City would like to further explore. Valley Wireless had not at the time of his
call determined the feasibility of the "line of sight" issue.
There are several issues which should to be explored prior to making a commitment
on the part of the City. From the City's perspective, televising the Council
meetings would disseminate information to Bakersfield citizens who would not or
could not normally attend City Council meetings, a proactive step to take. As
those viewing at home would not have the advantage of seeing the written agenda,
it might be necessary to have City staff hold televised "pre-meeting briefings"
before the Council meeting so that viewers would know what was to be discussed.
ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER
December 1, 1993
Page 2
Another televised option might be scrolling of the agenda on the screen. This
would also impact City staff workload. City staff would need to work with Valley
Wireless to provide them the information they needed in the manner in which they
needed it.
Some general questions, such as the following, would need to be answered:
Is the set up of the Council Chambers adequate for televising, even with
equipment provided by an outside organization? What costs would the City have
to incur to bring the Council Chambers up to adequate standards? Would the City
have a liability regarding the use/placement of the equipment provided and
utilized by Valley Wireless or any other organization's equipment?
Would the City create a liability allowing Valley Wireless this type of
consideration without the same being provided to other interested companies, both
cable and broadcasters? Is there enough interest to justify the expenses in time
and personnel which would need to be incurred? What would be the legal
ramifications upon the City of such an undertaking?
On what channels would the meetings be broadcast? Would transmissions all be live
or relayed later? What would be the fiscal impact upon organizations other than
Valley Wireless in order to "pick up" its lead?
Would transmission be of acceptable quality on all transmitting companies for
viewership reception? Who would have responsibility for feeding the information
in a timely fashion to all broadcasting participants? Who would be responsible
.for solving technical problems, especially important if more than one company
were transmitting?
Would the County want to be involved? I believe they have been working with
cable and wireless over the last few years to get Supervisors meetings "on line"
and are still in the discussion stages.
Given the current fiscal constraints of the City, it would be prudent to review
these and other questions which may arise during a further review of the issue
before a commitment on the part of the City is made. We do, however, need to
respond to the tentative offer of Valley Wireless so they can take appropriate
fiscal and technical actions on their part.
If we were to decide to further explore their offer, I feel that a meeting with
cable, broadcasting, and County representatives would be in order.
Please let me know how you wish to proceed on this.
{m1201934)
Attachment
Cox Cable Bakersfield A Subsidiary of
820 22nd Street Cox Communications, Inc,
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Cox Cable
· Bakersfield
November 24, '1993
· Ms. Trudy Slater
City of Bakersfield
150'1 Truxtun Avenue
Second Floor
Bakersfield, California 9330~
Dear Trudy:
I checked with our engineering folks about what it would take
technically to air the City Council meetings live on Cox Cable. John
King, Plant Operations Manager, indicated to me that if the City
gives us the video, we would need a return amplifier to our system
to get the video from City Hall to Cox. He estimates this would run in
the neighborhood of $20,000 - $30,000. He is going to do an actual
cost analysis for us to get us a belier number, but he thinks this is
close.
If it looks like this idea is coming closer to being a reality, please let
me know, as I would need to include this cost in our budget. Thanks.
Sincerely,
Jill Campbell
Vice President/
General Manager
JC/cs
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager ir~ec~
FROM: Ed W. Schuiz, Pubhc Works r
DATE: November 23, 1993
SUBJECT: Processing Time for Parcel Map Waivers and Lot Line Adjustments
This memorandum is in response to a question you had received regarding
delays and/or processing time in the Parcel Map Waiver and Lot Line Adjustment process.
The Subdivision Map Act requires the advisory agency (Planning Commission)
to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove a tentative map (tracts or parcel maps)
within 50 days after filing. The time period commences after certification, that the CEQA
requirements have been met. The time for decision for Parcel Map Waivers or Lot Line
Adjustments is the same. The Bakersfield Municipal Code requires the advisory agency
(City Engineer) to act upon the application within 50 days after the application is accepted
for filing.
Steps in the Parcel Map Waiver/Lot Line Adjustment process are as follows:
1. Application is filed with the Planning Department which requests a
review by the Site Plan Review Committee.
C£T~
2. The map, with Committee comments and conditions, is transmitted to
23 ~0v 95 4: I~ Public Works, usually within two weeks after the application is filed.
3. At Public Works, the request goes through a review and compilation
of conditions and, basically, a final map check process prior to
providing a decision in writing to the applicant.
4. Upon the applicant's compliance with the terms and conditions, a
Certificate of Compliance is completed and transmitted to the County
Recorder.
Variations in the processing time occur because of the number and timing of
applications, complexity of the requests and other matters needing immediate attention
taking precedence.
Alan Tandy, City Manager
Subject: Processing Time for Parcel Map Waivers/
Lot Line Adjustments
November 23, 1993
Page 2
In July 1986, City Engineer was designated the Advisory Agency for Parcel
Map Waivers and Lot Line Adjustments and the Public Works Department assumed
responsibility for review, rendering a decision, and final processing. Since that date, the
average time for completing 408 applications was 29 days. I would like to have this average
lowered to not more than 20 days.
Additional personnel have not been assigned to assist in the processing of
minor land divisions or lot line adjustments because a higher priority has been placed on
the processing of subdivision improvement plans and final subdivision maps (tracts and
parcel maps). If the current processing time for parcel map waivers and lot line adjustments
does not improve, then the priority for these applications will be adjusted and the processing
time will be brought into acceptable limits.
D12 CITYMGR2.MEM
November 23, 1993 Architecture
Planning
Mr. Alan Tandy, City Manager
City of Bakersfield InteriorDesign
1501 Truxtu n Landscape Architecture
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Re: :Bakersfield Amtr~k>Rai [-~Station-~TFaf~_Studyf;
LPA
Projed
No.
Dear Mr. Tandy:
Caltrans Division of Rail and Amtrak have authorized our firm to proceed with studies
leading to required environmental ClearanCes for the-above :referenced projed be~een
Pine Street and 'D' Street, south of 16th Street in the Ci~ of Bakersfield. As pan of
CEQA Initial Study to be prepared by our environmental consultant, The Keith
Companies, a Tra~c Impact Analysis will be prepared by the firm of Robert Kahn, John
Kain & Associates~ Inc. (RK] K), Transportation Planners and Tra~c Engineers, of NeWpo~
Beach, California., · : .. -... ....
Mr~ Robe~Kahn; pri'n0p~l:0~ REJK~: ~il!-b~ contacting you andthe City Tra~c Engineer
for-~ssistance :in-c6mpiling information ~uch 'as intersedion Iocatio~ _to :be studied;,
~umulative projeds,, and"land use data.-: Your staff's assistance in this regard is
appreciated.
We look fo~ard to the Ci~'s comments and Pa~icipation in this process in the months
ahead, and will be noticing you of upcoming meetings and document availability. In
the meantime~ should you have questions concernin~ this environmental proCess~
please conrad Ms. Lynn Riley, Caltrans Senior Environmental Planner at (209) 488-4358,
or me at (714) 753-1001.
Sincerely,
LPA~ Inc.
O~ce
Orange County
San Diego
AIA 5acramento
Taiwan, R.O.C
cc: /Fred Holton, CT Division of Rail
One Venture
. Lynn Riley/D. Alan McCuen, CT DistriCt 06 ' Su~t~ ~o0
Jim Shaffer, Amtrak ~,
Thomas Holm, The Keith Companies ~ax
Robe~ Kahn, RKJK
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: Ed W. Schulz, Public Works Director ~ .
DATE: November 23, 1993
SUBJECT: Wastewater Master Plan and EIR
Attached are the two progress reports we have received to date
for the subject project. I will continue to provide these to you
as they become available.
.torO
Attachment
24 '<OV 93 ~: 2/
D12 CITYMGR3. MEM
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN AND EIR
MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT NO. 1
BROWN AND CALDWELL
H:\bakrsfld~mon~hly.001 ~,
MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT
REPORT NO. 1 Period Ending: September 30, 1993
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
o On August 11, 1993, .the City Council approved the Agreement for Engineering
Services between the City of Bakersfield and Brown and Caldwell, for preparing
a wastewater master plan and environmental impact report (EIR).
o On August 25, 1993, held an initial meeting with the City staff to discuss project
management, project initiation , available data, and study area. In attendance
from the City were Ed Schulz, Fred Kloepper and Joe Turner. Present from BC.
was Eric Mische.
o On September 13, 1993, the City issued authoriZation to proceed with the project.
MAJOR ACTIVITIES ACCOMPLISHED THIS MONTH
o On September 14, 1993, attended a preliminary meeting with the City staff to
discuss the kickoff meeting to be held later that afternoon. In attendance from
the City were Fred Kloepper, Joe Turner and Dave Daniels. Mr. Chuck Lackey,
Kern Sanitation Authority, also attended this meeting. Present from BC were
Eric Mische, steve Tanaka, Bill Ferry and Paul Scheidegger. Established the
study area boundary to be used for the project.
o On September 14, 1993, conducted a project kickoff meeting, in conjunction with
the City, to discuss the~ 'overall wastewater master plan and EIR project.
Numerous agencies were represented at this meeting, including the City of
Bakersfield, Kern' County, other sewerage or service areas, the Regional Water
Quality Control Board, and others. Meeting minutes with an attached attendance
list, were prepared and transmitted to the City.
o On September 15, 16 and 17,- 1993, BC conducted a brainstorming session with
the City to bring to light all ideas, approaches, and issues related to this project.
In attendance from the City were Joe Turner, Dave Daniels, and Fred Kloepper.
In attendance from BC were Eric Mische, Steve Tanaka, Azee Malik, Warren'
Uhte, Bob Finn, and Paul Scheidegger.
o . Prepared project note binders for BC staff and the City, for keeping track of all
pertinent project notes, minutes, milestone reports and technical memoranda.
H:\bakrsfld~moulhly .001 Page 1
o On September 27, 1993, Steve Tanaka met with the Regional Board in Fresno to
discuss two issues: 1) carbonaceous BOD versus total BOD requirement at
Plant 2; and 2) re-rating of Plant 2 capacity. Meeting minutes were prepared,
and included in the project note binders.
o Completed the project management plan (PMP), and provided the City with a
copy of the Plan for their files.
o Prepared m~ting minutes for the two meetings on September 14~ 1993, 'and the
brainstorming session (September 15, 16 and 17, 1993), and transmitted these
minutes to the City in project binders.
o Prepared a master reference list of all information collected thus far, indicating
which documents are on loan from the City. This' reference list has also been
inserted into the project binders.
o prePared a master project contact list, and included the list in the project binders.
o Selected three subcontractors for the project, and established scopes of work in
the areas of population/land use (Northcutt & Associates), biology (Diane
Mitchell), and archaeology (Cultural Resource Facility, CSU Bakersfield). · These
subcontractors meet the approval of the City of Bakersfield.
'MAJOR ACTIVITIES PLANNED FOR THE CURRENT MONTH
o Review all data related to population and' planning, and calculate poPUlation
projections and wastewater flows. Also, finalize future wastewater characteristics
for use in this study. Submit the findings of the population projections,
wastewater flows and characteristics to the City for review and comment.
o Meet with the City to review the population/land use data,~ projected wastewater
flows and characteristics developed, and overall project status.
o Complete the evaluation of deficiencies of existing Plants 2 and 3, and begin
preparing sections of the master plan pertaining to process treatment alternatives.
o Begin preparation of components of the draft EIR.
Page
QUALITy ASSURANCE ACTIVITIES PERFORMED THIS MONTH'
o Mike Anderson and Pervaiz Anwar reviewed, commented on, and approved the
final project management plan for this project.
o On September 22 and 29, 1993, Eric Mische and Steve Tanaka met in Pasadena
to discuss project status, staffing needs, and work schedules.
CHANGES TO SCOPE OF WORK
o 'None.
AREAS OF CONCERN
o None.
S GT: EFM: sgt
Page 3
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN AND EIR
MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT NO. 2
BROWN AND CALDWELL
H: \bakrs fid\monthly.002
MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT
REPORT NO. 2 Period Ending: October 31, 1993
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
o On August 1 I, 1993, the City Council approved the Agreement for Engineering
Services between the City o.f Bakersfield and Brown and Caldwell, tbr preparing
a wastewater .master plan and environmental impact report (EIR).
o On August 25, 1993, held an initial meeting with the City staff to discuss project
management, project initiation , available data, and study area. In attendance
from the City were Ed Schulz, Fred Kloepper and Joe Turner. Present from BC
was Eric Mische.
o On September 13, 1993, the City issued authorization to proceed With the project.
MAJOR ACTIVITIES ACCOMPLISHED THIS MONTH
o On October 26, 1993, attended a meeting with the City staff and Kern Sanitation
v Authority to discuss progress to date and to review the population~ flow and
wastewater characteristics data. In attendance from the City were Fred Kloepper,
Joe Turner, Dave Daniels and Mark Gautier. Mr. Chuck Lackey, Kern
Sanitation Authority, also attended this meeting. Present from BC were Eric
Mische and Steve Tanaka. Decisions were made at this meeting with regards to
the projected populations, flows and waste characteristics. In general, the City
felt that the approach for population projections were reasonable. This was later
confirmed through a telephone conversation between Fred KloePper and Eric
Ivlische. Populations tbr all areas may initially see rapid growth, but beyond the
year 2010, growth rates are expected to diminish. The projections for the Mount
Vernon area were too high, as indicated by Chuck Lackey. Per capita, flows for
Plants 2 and 3 were discussed, and it was decided that for Plant 2, a per capita
flow of 120 gpcd would be used tbr all existing development through the
year 2040. All new development would use'120 gpcd through the year 2010,
then diminish to I00 gpcd due to future water conservation measures, For
Plant 3, per capita flows for existing development would be 100 gpcd through the
year 2040; new development would generate 100 gpcd through the year 2010,
then diminish to 80 gpcd by the year 2040. Influent BOD .and suspended solids
of 300 mg/L and 260. mg/L were discussed as being reasonable wastewater
characteristics for purposes of the master plan study. Eric Mische discussed the
issue of re-rating Plant No.' 2, and provided the City with an outline of steps for
conducting the evaluation. The City began the initial monitoring for
carbonaceous BOD at various locations at the plant.
H: \ba/~.rs ad\monthly. 002 Page
o On October 26 and 27, 1993, Steve Tanaka and Eric Mische attended meetings
with the North of the River Sanitary District (Don Glover), Kern County
Environmental Health Department (Steve McCalley and Lloyd Weese), California
Water Service (Emil Schaub), Kern County Water AgenCy (Rick Iger,
Lloyd Fryar), .and Lamont Public Utilities District (Dennis Dickey). A walk
through of the Mount Vernon/Panorama wastewater plant was also conducted.
o Continued preparation of Tasks 1. i through 1.4 (review data, establish projec, ted
wastewater flows, project waste discharge requirements, and evaluate Plants 2
and 3). The progress report for these tasks is due November 12, 1993.
MAJOR ACTIVITIES PLANNED FOR THE CURRENT MONTH
o On November 12, 1993, submit the progress report for Tasks 1.1 thi'ough 1.4.
o' Develop project alternatives, cost curves and criteria for screening of the
alternatives. Obtain preliminary information on environmental concerns in
proposed' metro plant site locations, to be used as part of the screening of
alternatives. Evaluate and screen alternatives to select the three most viable
alternatives.
o Continue preparation of components of the draft EIR.
QUALITY ASSURANCE ACTIVITIES PERFORMED THIS MONTH
o On October i4, 1993, Eric Mische, Steve Tanaka and~ Azee Malik met 'in
Pasadena to discuss project status, staffing needs, work schedules and
development of planning criteria.
CHANGES TO SCOPE OF WORK
o Nolle.
AREAS OF CONCERN
o' None.
SGT:EFM:sgt
Page 2
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKSDEPARTMENT
M EM ORAN DUM
TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER ~~
FROM: ED W. SCHULZ, PUBLIC WORKS DIR
DATE: NOVEMBER 22, 1993
RE: SURVEY OF MUNICIPAL NPDES STORI~WATER PERMIT COMPLIANCEz,
WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAMS. ~
The above referenced report, prepared by the State Storm
Water Quality Task Force, gives an overview and summary of what
various municipalities are doing to comply with NPDES monitoring
regulations. Four medium-sized cities were included in the survey:
Bakersfield, Fresno-Clovis, Modesto and Stockton.
The report indicates the medium-sized municipalities have
monitoring programs costing between ours at $66,000 per year to
Modesto's at $500,000 per year. Staff's efforts locally have been
to perform the minimum program that satisfies the NPDES
regulations. Obviously it is possible to expand the program almost
limitlessly to create a large operation and bureaucracy. This
invariably results in the formation of a "storm water utility" to
generate a steady stream of operational funds.
This is furnished for your information. I thought you
might find the report interesting.
22 ,~GV 9} 4: U(~
FLK. sch
SURVEY OF MUNICIPAL NPDES STORM WATER PERMIT COMPLIANCE
WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAMS
FINAL REPORT
October 7, 1993
· Prepared By
State Storm Water Quality TaSk Force: Monitoring Sub-Committee
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose Of Survey
1.2 Methodology
1.3 Background
2.0 MONITORING PROGRAMS
2.1 Program Costs
2.2 Municipal Programs (>250,000 population)
2.3 Municipal Programs (>100,000 Population)
3.0 FIELD SCREENING
3.1 Regulatory Requirements
3.2 Field Screening Programs
4.0' URBAN RUNOFF MONITORING
· 4.1 Regulatory Requirements
4.2 Runoff Monitoring Programs
5:0 RECEIVING WATERS MONITORING
5.1 Regulatory Requirements
5.2 Receiving Waters Monitoring Programs
6.0 DISCUSSION
BIBLIOGRAPHY
TABLES
Table 1: Annual Monitoring Program Costs
Table 2: Urban Runoff Characterization/Trend AnalysiS
Table 3: Field Screening
Table 4: Receiving Waters Monitoring
Table 5: BMP Monitoring/Special Studies
APPENDIX
Appendix 1: Program Coordinators
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose of Survey
The objective of this study was to gather data on the extent of surface water quality monitoring
activities being undertaken by municipalities as part of an NPDES Storm Water permit
compliance program. Throughout the report, this data is compared to the strategic and
methodological expectations of the federal regulations and guidance manuals (EPA; 1990,' 1991,
and 1992) pertaining to storm water quality. This comparison provides the basis for
recommendations regarding the future direction of monitoring efforts.
1.2 Methodology
A questionnaire survey was undertaken in June 1993. The questionnaire requested information
regarding:
Urban Runoff Monitoring - Monitoring of a watershed for the purpose of urban runoff
characterization and/or load assessment
Receiving Water Monitoring - Monitoring to assess the impact of urban runoff discharges
on receiving waters and compliance with water quality objectives
Field Screening - Monitoring for the purpose of detecting gross contamination arising
from illegal dumping or discharges from illicit connections
Special Studies
1.3. Background.
The 1987 Water Quality Act added to the Clean water Act (CWA) a provision [Section 402(p)]
that directed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish final regulations
governing storm water discharges under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program. Final regulations, subsequently published in 1990, established a two-part
permit application process for municipal separate storm drain systems serving populations greater
than 250,000 and populations greater than 100,000 but less than 250,000.
Prior to EPA's final rule, staff of EPA Region IX and the California State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB) worked with many municipalities to obtain their early NPDES storm
water permitting. This was done to give municipalities and their respective Regional Water
Quality Control Boards the flexibility to develop permits specific to the climate and conditions of
the region. The central tenets of the federal regulations are, however, reflected in these permits.
pan 1 of the permit application requires information on the types and characteristics of storm
water discharges including a proposed characterization plan for more intensive investigation of
discharges from 5-10 outfalls. Part 2 of the application requires the sampling results for the 5-10
1
previously designated oUtfalls and the development and implementation of a monitoring program
covering the term of the permit.
The regulations and the Part I and Part 2 permit application guidance manuals are specific in the
types of water quality monitoring data to be collected and the methodologies for its collectiOn.
Municipalities have, however, considerable latitude in developing their long-term monitoring
programs. Indeed, EPA requires only that the long-term m°nitoring effort support specific go. als,
including:
· * Characterizing discharges;
· Evaluating the sOurce of specific pollutants;
· Evaluating the performance of specific source controls; and
· Identifying the full range of chemical, physical, and biological water quality
impacts.
2.0 MUNICIPAL MONITORING PROGRAMS
2.1 Program Costs.
Table 1 shows the estimated annual COSt.of the monitoring, including sample collection, sample
analysis, data analysis, and report preparation. Equipment costs, which are often substantial, are
excluded. The questionnaire did not, however, provide for the reporting of many variables that
determine the level of monitoring effort and ultimately the cost of a monitoring program such as
number of designated receiving waters, aerial extent of storm drain system, status and type of
permit application, number ofco-permittees, and specific Regional Board dictates.
2.2 Municipal Programs (>250,000 population)
Alameda County: The Alameda County monitoring effort began in 1989 with storm monitoring
of 10 major drainage facility outlets representing the runofffrom various land uses, plus six
stream courses. As comprehensive data was Collected and the discharges characterized, the
number of sites was reduced to the present three sites, representing one industrial area source and
two mixed land use sources. In 1990, an additional program of sediment and water quality
'monitoring was started to evaluate a freshwater marsh as a stormwater treatment facility. A
separate study that commenced in 1992 involves monitoring 17 sites within the San Francisco
Bay. Monitoring is estimated to cost $800,000 annually.
Los Angeles County: The Los Angeles County monitoring effOrt is being implemented in three
phases: Phase One covers the 414 sq. mile Santa Monica watershed, Phase Two the 1100 sq.
mile Upper Los Angeles River/Upper San Gabriel River watershed, and Phase Three the 1000 sq.
mile Lower Los Angeles River/Lower San Gabriel River watershed. The costs for Phase One in
FY 93-94 are estimated to be $120,000 comprising $20,000 (sample collection and report
2
preparation) and $100,000 (laboratory analysis to be undertaken by the County Agricultural
Commissioner's laboratory). Equipment and installation costs for FY 93-94 are estimated to be
$400,000. Monitoring costs will increase as the monitoring effort is expanded to cover the other
watersheds.
Orange County: The Orange County monitoring program commenced in 1991 following
issuance of early permits by the Santa Ana and San Diego Regional Boards in July 1990. Prior to
permit issuance, however, a water surface water quality monitoring program comprising monthly
dry weather and storm sampling at 21 locations had been in effect for over 10 years. Annual
program cost is currently $325,000 including $195,000 (laboratory analysis) and $130,000
(sample collection and report compilation).
Riverside County: Riverside County,Flood Control District coordinates a phased Program based
on three major watersheds; the Santa Ana River Basin, the Santa Margarita River Basin, and the
Whitewater River Basin. The 'Santa Ana River and Santa.Margarita Basins, under the jurisdiction
of the Santa Ana and San Diego Regional Boards received early permits in July 1990. The
Whitewater River Basin, under the jurisdiction of the Colorado River Regional Board, which did
not participate in the early permitting process, is following the federal NPDES storm water
regulations. Monitoring program costs in FY93/94 are $28,000 (sample collection), $142,000
(laboratory analysis) and $92,700 (other).
Sacramento City/County: In FY 91-92, the extensive monitoring effort of the City and County of
Sacramento was budgeted at $980,000. This cost resulted primarilY from the initial lack of
'automated sampling equipment and consequent dependence on field staff to collect samples
during storm events. The joint monitoring effort for FY 93-94 is estimated to be approximately
$500,000 which includes; $120,000 (field work), $80,000 (laboratory analysis), $30,000 (Station
installation & calibration), $35,000 (Equipment lease), $130,000 (laboratory report & and data
summary preparation and equipment preparation). In addition to the storm water monitoring
program, the City and County of Sacramento contribute $200,000 toward a separate receiving
water monitoring program undertaken jointly with local sewering agencies.
San Bernardino County: The San Bernardino County monitoring program is in the process of
development. The cost for FY1993-94 is estimated to be $65,000 (equipment purchase and
installation) and $25,000 (laboratory analysis).
San Diego C°unty: The City of San Diego monitoring effort comprises two elements dry weather
field screening and storm sampling. Each co-permittee is implementing its own field screening
program which in the case of the City is estimated to be $5,000 annually. The storm sampling
locations are the receiving Waters of nine major watersheds (excluding the Tiujuana River) and
outfalls draining eight small, predominantly single land use, catchments. This element of the
sampling program, to be undertaken wholly by a contractor on behalf of all the co-permittees, will
cost $120,000 for the first year.
3
Santa Clara: The Santa Clara County monitoring effort that began in 1990 currently involves
eight sampling locations to characterize the runoff' from single and mixed land use catchments and
four receiving water sampling sites. The current annual costs are estimated to $400,000.
2,3 MuniCipal Programs (>100,000 population)
Bakersfield: The Metropolitan Bakersfield program was designed specifically to satisfy the
requirements of the Part I and II federal permit application-process. Bakersfield is notable fo~/ its
principal receivingwater, the Kern River, which is usually dry due to upstream diversions, and is
not listed as impaired. Further, prior monitoring efforts have shown, that only 5-10% of outfalls
exhibit dry weather flow. The $66,000 annual program cost comprises $35,000 (sample
collection),~ $15,000 (laboratory analysis) and $16,000 (other).
Fresno-Clovis: The Fresno-Clovis monitoring program is detailed in the Source Identification
and Monitoring Element of its Storm Water Quality Management Plan. In the Part 1 permit
application, the co-permittees successfully contended that the National Urban RunoffProgram
(NURP) study for Fresno met the criteria of the characterization plan required for Part 1 and the
characterization data required for Part 2. The source identification and monitoring effort is
therefore oriented toward meeting the objectives of the water quality management program. This
effort comprises four elements;· (1) source identification, (2) in-system storm water quality
monitoring, (3.) hydrologic modeling, and (4) receiving water assessment. The average cost of the
monitoring program, once implemented (and not including the cost of equipment) in the first
permit term is projected to be $315,000.
City'ofModesto: The City of Modest° monitoring effort that began earlier in 1993 involves one
drainage facility outlet from a predominantly residential catchment and four receiving water
locations. Field screening at fiReen sites is also performed. The annual cost of $500,000 is
estimated to comprise; 50% laboratory costs, 43% field costs, and 7% administrative overhead.
City of Stockton: This program, which will ultimately expand to include the unincorporated.areas
of San Joaquin County, involves a monitoring effort that began in 1991. Currently five drainage
facility outlets representing runoff from principally residential, commercial, and industrial land
uses and six receiving water locations are monitored. Field screening at 63 sites (13 sites per
year) is also performed. The current annual costs are estimated at $350,000.
3.0 FIELD SCREENING
3.1 Regulatory Requirements
Field screening denotes water quality sampling for the purpose of detecting gross contamination
arising from illegal dumping or discharges from illicit connections.
The methodology for field screening is. specified in Part I of the permit application, specifically, if
any flow is observed, two grab samples shall be collected during a 24-hour period with a
minimum of four hours between each sample. In addition to recordinga narrative description of
4
the sample location and sample, field analyses must be conducted to determine pH, total chlorine,
total copper, total phenol, and surfactants. EPA also sets limits on the extent of the field
Screening program which is to encompass no more than 500 or 250 major outfall locations for
large ormedium municipal separate storm drain systems respectively. The results of the field
screening effort were to be included in the Part I application submittal to EPA on May 18, 1992
(Medium municipal separate storm sewer systems).
The municipalities that obtained early permits had requirements for field screening that were less
clear. Order No. 90-71 (NPDES No. CA 8000180) issued to Orange County, for eXample, does
not discuss field, screening specifically but requires monitoring of the storm drain system to
identify illicit connections.
3.2 Field Screening Programs
The data in Table 3 shows considerable variability in the extent and intensity of field screening
efforts reflecting, particularly with the early permittees, the latitude municipalities have had to
develop monitoring programs unique to their storm.drain systems. Two general strategies are,
however, evident; either monitOring at predetermined locations or monitofi, ng at random locations
in response to a suspected pollution problem.
The Stockton and Bakersfield programs identified 63 and 64 sampling loCations respectively to be
completed over a five-year period. The Fresno-Clovis program also involves systematic field
screening of the drainage area. In this program, however, the field screening effort is prioritized
according to catchments and industries of concern. Orange County and the County of
Sacramento programs involve field screening at 89 and 150 locations respectively to be completed
in one year. Both efforts involve two site visits separated by a four-hour period. In Orange
County, however, an additional single site visit is' made during wet weather and the field screening
effort is to be repeated over each year of its current permit. The Sacramento program will be
re-evaluated after one year. Field screening at pre-determined locations is also undertaken by the
City of San Diego which has designated 45 sites for monthly visits during the first year of
monitoring.
The Riverside County and San Bernardino County field screening effort involves sampling in
response to suspected instances of water pollution being encountered during facility inspection.
All field screening programs involve determination ofpH and analysis for copper but not
surfactants, total phenol or total chlorine. A number of programs involve testing of additional
parameters including nitrate/nitrite/ammonia, BOD/COD, hardness, PCBs, and bacteria.
4.0' URBAN RUNOFF MONITORING
4.1 Regulatory Requirements
Urban runoff monitoring denotes sampling for the purpose of urban runoff characterization and/or
load assessment. EPA's expectation (EPA, 1992) is that data gathered for stormwater discharge
5
characterization will serve a number of purposes, including; creation of a baseline measurement of
pollutant concentration and loading; eValuation of BMP effectiveness; identification of control
priorities; identification of pollutant sources; and, prediction of receiving xvater impacts.
The level of monitoring effort to fulfill these purposes is stipulated in the Part 2 application,
specifically, quantitative data on physical and chemical characteristics of the discharge must be
collected from at least five to 10 representative outfalls. FUrther, that for each outfall, sample.s
must be collected from three separate storm events at least one month apart.
EPA specifies flow weighted composite samples be taken for the majority of the pollutants. Flow
weighted composite samples are defined as single unit volumes composed of a mixture of samples
collected proportional to flow throughout the entire runoff event or at least for the first three
hours. EPA further specifies that the composite sample must consist of at least three discrete
aliquots per hour.
4.~. Runoff Monitoring Programs
All monitoring programs involve storm event sampling of small predominantly single land use
catchments (residential, commercial, or industrial). Only one municipality is investigating water
quality in a "new" catchment, defined as one that is undergoing development, and four programs
were monitoring runoff from pristine or undeveloped catchments.
The survey showed some variability in the number of storm events that each program intended to'
monitor although five events annually was generally the goal for the larger county coordinated
monitoring efforts. Dry weather sampling reflected the lack of specific regulatory requirement
and sampling frequency varied fi-om annually to monthly for designated outfalls.
The Suite of chemicals/water quality parameters to be measured is liSted in 122.26(d)(2)(iii)(A)(3)
of the regulations and includes organics (volatiles, base/neutral compounds, and pesticides), toxic
metals, cyanide, total phenols and TSS, TDS, COD, BOD, oil and grease, fecal coliform, fecal
streptococcus, pH, Total Kjeldahl nitrogen, nitrite/nitrate, and phosphorus.
Each monitoring program's suite ~)fchemicals/parameters is presented in Table 2b. This table
shows consistency between programs with the exception of bacterial enumerations and total
organic carbon determinations.
Of the survey respondents who reported sampling methodologies, seven programs collected flow
weighted samples, one program collected time weighted composite samples, and two programs
reported using both methodologies.
Under the federal regulations, the methods for Chemical.analyses must be in accordance with 40
CFR 136 "Guidelines for Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of pOllutants" which refer
to EPA approved methods.
Information on specific analytical methodologies was requested in the survey but not generally
provided by the respondents.
5.0 RECEIVING WATERS MONITORING
5.1 Regulatory Requirements
Receiving waters monitoring denotes sampling of receiving waters to assess the impact of urban
runoff. This monitoring is also important for evaluation of compliance with water quality
objectives. "
The nationwide Urban Runoff.Program (NURP) study showed that discharges from storm drains
can adversely impact surface water quality. NURP also concluded, however, that the impact was
highly site specific and dependent upon many factors including type, size, and hydrology of
receiving waters, the designated beneficial use of the receiving water, urban runoff quality
characteristics, local land use, and local climate, notably rainfall patterns. To identify the full
range of chemical, physical, and-biological water quality impacts, EPA (1992) suggests; discharge
and receiving water monitoring to support water quality models, in-stream monitoring of water
chemistry, bio-assessments and bio-surveys, and, sediment sampling.
5.2 Receiving Waters Monitoring Programs
Table 4a summarizes the current extent ofblPDES stormwater related receiving water
monitoring. For most of the programs, the receiving waters for stormwater system discharges are
major rivers and each program anticipates monitoring 2 storms over the course of a year up to six
as the season permits. The most extensive program is that of Orange County reflecting a permit
requirement to monitor all designated receiving waters for the effects of storm water drainage
system discharges.
Table 4b shows the suite of chemicals/water quality parameters being measured under the
receiving waters element of each monitoring program. The table is consistent with Table 2b in
terms of the range of chemicals/parameters being determined and the use of toxicity testing by the
central California programs.
6.0 DISCUSSION
The federal regulations define a sequential process of water quality monitoring program
development that should result in a monitoring effort capable of supporting four specific goals;
discharge characterization, pollutant source identification, pollutant control '~valuation, and
receiving waters impact evaluation. Given a collective annual investment in monitoring of $3.6
million, consideration must necessarily be given to ensuring that current data collection strategies
are appropriate to these goals. The ratiOnale for such consideration is provided by Clark and
Whitfield (1993) who caution that data collected for one purpose may not be appropriate for
some entirely different purpose and that poor data is not better than no data.
Current monitoring efforts, particularly in Southern California, are tending to focus on intensive
storm event sampling of the runofffrOm small, predominantly single land use catchments. Such
focus supports the goal of discharge characterization but becomes .more questionable with respect
to other goals. Catchment discharge water quality integrates so many factors that the Specific
influence of a single determinant may be impossible to elucidate. Consequently the goals of
pollutant source identification and pollutant control evaluation may be unattainable using this
strategy alone.
The need for complementary monitoring strategies is particularly pertinent to the goal of receiving
water impact evaluation. EPA (1992), for example, recommend the use of bioassessments,
biosurveys, receiving water monitoring, and sediment testing. Lee and Jones-Lee (1992) note,
however, that the goal of defining receiving waters impacts in terms of ecosystem functioning or
biotic community diversity may, even with massive funding be rarely attained.
The general conclusion of this report is a need for examination of current monitoring strategies
particularly with respect to the current emphasis on watershed monitoring. Specific
recommendations include needs for:
* Wider consideration of alternative monitoring techniques notably b~iosurveys/
bioassessments, toxicity testing, and "non-conventional" data collection.
* Greater coordination between programs to ensure regional implementation of a
range of monitoring strategies rather than duplication of effort.
* Integration of quality assurance into all elements of monitoring to facilitate
exchange and comparison of data.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Clark M. J. P,.' and Whitfield P. H. - A Practical Model Integrating Quality Assurance Into
Er~viromnental Monitoring. Water Resources Bulletin, Vol. 29, No. 1. 1993.
EPA - National Pollutant Discharge EliminatiOn System Permit Application Regulations For
Storm Water Discharges, 40 CFR Parts 122, 123, 124. November, 1990.
EPA - Guidance manual For The Preparation Of Part I Of The NPDES Permit'Applications For
Discharges From Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems. 1991
EPA - Guidance Manual For The Preparation Of Part 2 Of The NPDES Permit Applications For
Discharges From Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (Pre-Print). 1992.
Lee and Jones-Lee - Guidance For Conducting Water Quality Studies For Developing Control
· Programs. For Toxic Contaminants In Wastewaters And Storm Water Runoff. 1992.
9
APPENDIX I
Program Contacts
APPENDIX 1: Program Contacts
1. Fresno-Clovis Storm Water Quality Management Program
Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District
5469 E. Olive
Fresno CA 93727
Contact: Ms. Melinda Marks (209)456-3292
2. Los Angeles CountY Storm Water Monitoring Program
Los Angeles County Department of Public Works
900 S. Fremont
Alhambra, CA 91803-1331
Contact: Gary Hildebrand (818)458-5948
3. San Bernardino coUnty Storm Water Monitoring Program
San Bernardino County Flood Control District
825 E. Third St., Room'101
San Bernardino .CA 92415-0835
Contact: Naresh Varma (909)387-2620
4. City Of San Diego
1010 Second Avenue, Suite 1200
San Diego CA 92101
Contact: Robert Cain (619)533-3773
5. City Of Stockton NPDES Storm Water Program
City Of Stockton: Municipal Utilities Dept.,
2500 Navy Drive
Stockton CA 95206
Contact: Glen Birdzell (202)9444-8734
6. Metropolitan Bakersfield NPDES
City Of Bakersfield: Public Works
1501 Truxton Avenue
Bakersfield CA 93301
Contact: Marian Shaw (805)326-3724
7. City/County Of Sacramento Storm Water Compliance MOnitoring
Sacramento County Water Agency
827 7th Street, Room 301
Sacramento CA 95814
Contact: Domta Dean (916)440-6851
8. City Of Sacramento: Dept.Of Utilities
5770 Freeport BI;vd., Suite 100
Sacramento CA 95822
Contact: DaVe Brent (916)433-6634
9. Orange County Storm Water Program
Orange County Environmental Management Agency
10852 Douglass Road
Anaheim CA' 92806
Contact Bruce Moore (714)567-63 73
10. Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control program
Santa Clara Valley Water District
5750 Almaden Expressway
San Jose, CA 95118
Contact: Keith Whitman (408)927-0710
11. Riverside County Storm Water Monitoring Program
Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District
1995 Market St.
Riverside CA 92501-1719
Contact: Don Tracy/Jason Christie (909)2 75-1327
12. -Alameda County Urban Runoff Clean Water Program
Alameda County Public Works Agency
399 Elmhurst Street
Hayward CA 94544
Contact: Andrects Godfrey (510)670-5575
12¸
Table I Annual Monitoring Program Costs
Number Co- Permit
Municipality Program Costs Permittees~ Statu..__~s
Fresno $300,000 52 Part 1
Los Angeles County $120,0003 89 Early
San Bernardino County N/A 17 Early
City of San Diego $120,000n 20 Early
City of Stockton $350,000 2 Part 1
City of Bakersfield $66,000 2 'Part 1
City of Sacramento $500,000 3' Early
Riverside County $263,000 24 'Early
Santa Clara $450,000 15 Early
Orange County ' $325,000 32 Early
Alameda $800,000 15 Early
City of Modesto $500,000 1 Part 2
$3,694,000
Excluding special districts
Includes California State University at Fresno and CalTrans
(Plus $270,000 installation costs) - First Phase Only
Excludes field screening
Table 2a Urban Runoff: Runoff Characterization/Trend Analysis - Sample Sites
Municipally Reaidenttal Commercial Ind~trlal New Undeveloptni Mlxtnl
F,~o 2 (5,0) 2 (5,0). 2'(5,0) 0 0 0
t~ Ange~ 2 (5,6) I (5,6) 1 (5,6) 0 I (5,6) 4 (5,6)
County
san~.~=d~o 1 (2,3) I (2,3) 1 (2,3) I (2,3) I (2,3) 2 (2,3).
County
cit9 of 0 0 0 0 0 0
San Diego
Clty otSto¢Uo,, 3 (6,0) 1 (6,0) 1 (6,0) 0 0 0
Cityof 1 (1 1) I (1,1) 1 (1,1) 0 0 0
Bake~4~eld '
Cityof 3 (2,1) 0 1 (2,1) 0 0 0
Sacramento
Riv~id~ Co-nV 10 (3,4) 3 (3,4) 0 0 3 (3,4) 0
~u, c~ 0 0 2 (5,0) 0 0 6 (5,0)
~g, County 0 0 0 0 2 (5, 12) 3 5 (5, 12)
o o 1 (5,0) o o 2. (5,0)
CityotMod~no 1 (4,2) 0 0 0 0 ' 0
rownt. 23 9 10 1 7 46
n (x,y) = frequency of monitoring
n = number of sample sites
x = number of storms
y = number of dry weather samples
Table 2b Urban Runoff: Runoff Characterization/Trend Analysis - Analyses
MtmicipalJty Field Metals Organics Convent~ Nutrients~ O&Gs TOC Bacteria
F~o X X X X
~ '~g~ X X X X X X X X
2ounty
gan Bernardino
~ounty
2ity of S~n
Diego , ·
City of S~k~o. X X X X X X X X
City of X X X X X X X X
Bake~field
C~yof X X X X X X X
Sacramemo
~i~i,~ Co,,.ty X X X X X X
s~m ci~ X X X X X X
o,~ co..ux X X X X X
A~m,~ X X X X X X
City of Modesto X X X X X X X
Sacramento - Toxicity (acu, chr, TIE)
Fresno - Toxicity
Santa Clara - Toxicity (acu, chr, TIE)
Alameda - Toxicity (acu, chr, TIE)
~Convent. - BOD/COD, TDS, TSS, hardness
:Nutrients - NO3, P
30&G - Oil and Grease
Table 3 Field Screening: Monitoring for the Purpose of Detecting Illegal Discharges
Municipality # Sites (Frequency) Parameters Tested
Fresno 0
Los Angeles County To be developed
San Bernardino Co. To be concurrent
with inspection program
City of San Diego 45 (x12 site visits) pH, Cu, Phenols, MBAS, Visual
City of Stockton 63 (20 percent yr'~) pH, Cu, Phenols, MBAS
City of Bakersfield 64 (20 percent yr'~) pHCu, Pest, PCB, BOD/COD,
NOz/NO3, O&A, Bact
City of Sacramento .150 (x2 site visits) pH, Metals, Phenols, COD,
NOz/NO3, NH~, Bact
Riverside County Random
Santa Clara 0
Orange County 89 (x3 site visits) pH, Metals, Hardness, NO~, Phenols
Alameda Unknown Visual
City of Modesto 15 (x3 site visits). Organics, Bact
Table 4a Receiving Waters: .Monitoring to Evaluate Compliance with Objectives
Municipality # of Sites (Frequency) Water Bodies Sampled
Fresno 3 (3 storms) Rivers - grab samples across river
Los Angeles County 0
San Bernardino Co. 3 (2 storms, 3 dryf) Rivers - to begin 8/93
City of San Diego 9 (2 storms) Rivers
City of Stockton 6 (6-12 annually) Rivers
City of Bakersfield 0
City of Sacramento 7 (2 storms, I dry) Rivers
Riverside County 5 (4 dry) Rivers and Lakes
Santa Clara 4 (5 storms) Rivers
Orange County 21 .(2 storms, 0-12 dry) Ocean/Estuary
Alameda 17 Contributor to coordinated program
City of Modesto 4 (2 storms, 1 dry) Rivers.
79
Table 4b Receiving WaterS: Monitoring to Evaluate Compliance with Objectives - Analyses
Municipality Field Metals Ovgani~ Convent Nuuien~ O&G TO<? Coliforms Toxicity
,:resno X X X X X~
Los Angeles
~ounty
gan Be~nardino
County
City of San X X X X X X X
Diego
City of Stockton X X . X X X X X~
City of
Bakersfield
City of X ' X X X X X X x~
Sacramento
Riverside County X X X X X X
Santa Clara , X X X X X X
3range County X X. X X X
~lameda X X X X X X
2ity of Modes-to X X X X X- X X
~ Toxicity (chr)
2 Toxicity (acu, chr, TIE)
Table 5 BMP Monitoring/Special Studies: Monitoring to Evaluate BMP Effectiveness
City/County of Sacramento Gas Stations
Santa Clara Valley Industrial BMPs
Orange County Detention Basins
City of Los' Angeles Parking Lots
Alameda County Wetlands, Source Identification
ann. League of California Cities.
~cal///ot rl,.a C .t ~l~es~ 1400 K STREET · SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 · (016) 444-5790 Work Together
November 18, 1993
TO: City Managers
FROM: John Goss, President, City Managers Department and
City Manager, Chula Vista
RE:~ Restructuring'Local Government Meetings
EnClosed are copies of three of the subcommittee repOrts submitted to Governor
Wilson's Restructuring Advisory Panel on November 18, 1993. These reports will give
you an overview of the recommendations to the Governor's Local Policy Council. If you
plan to attend one of the meetings on restructuring government in Burbank on
December 1 or in Oakland on December 8, please bring a copy of these reports with
you.
On December 1 and 8, we will be working towards developing a League position on
restructuring government. A well-thought-out position on restructuring government will
allow the League to work more effectively with the. Governor's Local PoliCy Council, the
Assembly Select Committee on Restructuring Government and the Constitutional
Revision Commission.
If you have any questions regarding the subcommittee reports submitted to the
Restructuring Advisory Panel please call Judi smith of the League Staff at
916/444-5790 x214.
RESTRUCTIJRING ADVISORY PANEL
REV~NIJE AaND DISTRIBUTION TASK FORCE
November 18, 1993
~hairman'
Bud Ovrom City Manager, Burbank
Members:
Bob Bartlett Mayor, City of Monrovia
Ron Bates Mayor, City of Los Alarnitos
Pat Castillo Mayor, City of Sunnyvale
Keith Comrie CAO, City of Los Angeles
foe Drew CAO, Kern County
Mike (3arvey City Manager, City of San Carlos
Nancy Hicks Finance Director, City of Lakewood
Sally Reed CAO, Los Angeles County
Ray RemY Executive Director, Greater L.A. Chamber of Commerce
Karen Smith City Manager, Union City
, Steve Szalay CAO, Alameda County
Resources:
Conni Barker Association of California Water Agencies
A1 Beltrami Deputy Director, Intergov. Affairs, Governor's Office
Bob Chase Asst. CAO, City of Los Angeles
-Diane Cummins Program Budget Mgr., State Dept. of Finance
Scott Mitnicl< Assistant to the City Manager, City of Burbank
lerry Roos Asst. CAO, Los Angeles County "
ludi Smith Legislative Representative, League of California Cities
Dan Wall - Legislative Representative, County Supervisors Association
of California
NOTE: This report of the Restructuring Advisory Panel Task Force on Revenue and
Distribution.represents the thoughts and ideas of its members. It does not
· represent the official position of any group or organization to which individual
members may belong; it is advisory to the Governor's Local Government Policy
Council.
REVENUE AND DISTRIBUTION TAsK FORCe;
A. INTRODUCTION
The structure of local government finance in CaJifomia is like a house which has
been built over a number of years by a succession of different owners. There
have been additions, modifications and deletions which have resulted in an end-
product which does not have a cohesive vision of what it is supposed to be.
The goal of this Task Force is to step back and. take a broader look at local
.government finance and to provide a report to the Governor's Local. Government
Policy Co~uncil on how to redesign this "house". The report will attempt to:
· Identify problems with the existing system of local government'
finance.
· Establish principles which should be followed on any proposed
reforms.
· Enumerate short-term recommendations.
· Outline long-term measures.
B. THE DYSFUNCTIONAl. ~Y~TE[M OF FtNANCINO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT
The February 1993 Legislative Analyst Office's report, "Making Government Make
.Sense", described California's system of government, and particularly
governmental finance, as "dysfunctional". As a patient might be able to tell a
doctor what a~is them without necessarily knowing what to prescribe to make it
better, local government can put forth the problems with the current system of
finance. The following problems will be discussed in this Section of the report:
· Lack of Predictable Revenues
· Revenues Tied to an Industrial Economy
Loss of Local Control
· Deterioration of Local Economic Base
· "Fiscalization" of Land Use Decisions
· Difficulty in Meeting Long-Term Infrastructure Needs
· Lack of Understanding by the Electorate of Government Finance
· Lack of Flexibility Due to Rigid Categorical Funding
· Lack of Nexus Between Service Needs and Available Funding
· Constraints On Efficient Local Management
1. Lack of Predictable Revenues
The most difficult problem which has plagued local government since the
passage of Proposition 13 has hQ! been only the reduction in revenues to
government caused by that initiative, but the increase in State control of
both local programs And revenues. While an uncertain economy has
hampered the ability of local agencies to provide needed services, the
State's ever increasing tendency to either shift program costs to local
government orto trAnsfer local revenue sources to the State has devastated
the quality of local government operations.
Various programs haVe been shifted from the State to local governments
· "- -., with inadequate-funding. AJthough the State constitution~requires the State
to reimburse local agencies for State mandated programs, it has become
common practice for the Legislature to include a "poison pill" in these bills
to ensure that local agencies do not sue the State for reimbursement of the
mandate.
Traditional local revenue sources have been trAnsferred to the'State General
Fund in order to balance the State's budget. Over the last'15 years, cities
and counties have permAnently lost about $400 million annually in
subventions for, liquor license fees, financial aid to local agencies (this short-
lived subvention reimbursed cities and counties for the foregone revenue
from the Court-prohibited business license tax on banks), highway carriers
uniform business license tax, cigarette tax, trailer coach fees, mobile home
fees and a portion of vehicle code fines. These are all tax Subventions
where the State took over what was once a local program and administered
the tax for ease of administration. In addition, there have been one-time
reductions in shared 'revenues of nearly $1 billion to. cities And counties
since 1978. This does not take into account any transfer of uncompensated
program responsibilities to counties. ~
In the last two fiscal years, the State has trAnsferred nearly $4 billion of the
local property tax to school districts. Because increased property taxes for
schools reduce the State's obligation for school apportionments, the State
now receives the benefit of over 50% of the property tax.
As a partial mitigation, the passage of Proposition 172 at the November 2,
1993 election made permAnent a one-half cent sales tax. AJthough this tax
is of major importance, it is not a permAnent solution. The revenue it
produces replaces less than 40% of this permanent shift of property taxes
from cities, counties, And special districts to schools. 'Furthermore, the
impact of this tax is extremely uneven, with some cities And counties being
nearly made whole, while some will receive only a small percentage of their
loss. This is because sales taxes and property taxes have distinctly different
tax bases. And special districts, which have lost heady $500 million in
annual property tax revenues, will receive no proceeds from Proposition 172
2
nor any other replacement revenues.~
The fiscal dysfunction of the State budget process Iias degraded local
government services. These actions have limited the ability of local
agencies to address the concerns of their residents. Many local agencies
have been placed in the position of rasing a tax for a specific service and
then having State budget actions take that revenue away. In these cases,
local officials have taken the responsibility for increasing revenues with no
resultant increase in service.
2. Revenues Tied to an Industrial Economy
Our .current. taxing system is outmoded;, it is based on an industrial
economy structured to ~ a manufacturing-based society. For example, the
current sales tax laws date back to 1933 and rely on. the taxing of retail
sales of tangible goods. This type of sales tax system was adequate over
the decades until the mid-1970s when it became evident that California had
become an increasingly service-based economy. As the graph below
illustrates, the nation's share of personal consumption spent on services
increased from 31% in 1950 to 51% in 1990! The actual percentage of
GroSs National Product spent on tangible goods decreased from 57% in
1950 to 39% in 1990!
Services and Tangible Goods in the National Economy
Percentage of Gross National Product, 1945 - 1990
Goods
10% ................
l!)4! 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1960 1985 1990
Source: U.S. OeOartment of C~mmarca
As the State's economic system continues toward shift to a service and
information based economy, the taxing system must also shift if we are to
finaJ3ce effective governmental services. A naturaJly expanding revenue
source is the best way to finance essential governmentaJ services. · Rather
than continuing the sales tax on tangible goods at its current rate, the rate
can be lowered and the base expanded to include most services (with the
intent of such an expansion of the base' of being "revenue neutral").
Examples of services which involve direct purchases that could be taxed
include: legal, medicaJ, dental, accounting, financial (inCluding ATM
transactions), consulting, engineering, design, and real estate services.
In addition, sales tax revenues have been diluted by the increase in
"' -.. '" Curchases by mail order or television shopping channels; rather. than in
retail establishments. MaJi order sales and television shopping purchases
are not subject to the sales tax, except in States where the business has a
physical presence.
The basic point is that as our economy changes, the taxing system must
change with it.
3. Loss of Local Control
History of Home Rule in California-
It was decided long ago by the people of California that residents of cities
should have the option of independence from the State Legislature on local
matters. Under the original provisions of the 1879 California Constitution,
a~d the amendments of 1896 and 1914, chsrter cities were freed from state
legislature interference in matters that were a "municiPal affair".
In the landmarI< case of Ex par~e Braun (1903) i41 Cal. 204, the State
Supreme Court held.that the State Legislature did not have the authority to
supersede a chaJ'ter city business tax and stated, without equivocation, that
taxation for revenue is a-municipaJ affair under the Constitution, and is only
limited by a charter or the constitution, and not by the State Legislature.
For nearly a century of I~igation, the courts were consistent in holding to
this home rule prin(~iple.
In 1991 the State Supreme Court, in connection with a State law change
that eliminated city business taxes on savings and loans in favor of State tax
increases, provided a more limited definition of the 'concept of "municipal
affairs" bY establishing a conceptual distinction between local matters
(municipal affairs) and those of "Statewide concern", and thus on the
supremacy of charter city tax measures oVer conflicting laws enacted by the
State.
4
Circumstances regarding the home rule status of'CaJifornia's counties are
equally serious. Under the California Constitution, Counties are subdMsions
of the State because they are responsible for the administration and delivery
of services req~uired by the State and Federal governments, but they also
have municipal and countywide responsibilities which argue vigorously for
the same home rule powers afforded to cities. Counties provide sheriff, fire,
parks, lighting, sewer, refuse, and other municipal services to the residents
of unincorporated areas in the same way that cities provide these services
to their residents. In addition, counties provide countywide services .like
libraries, coroners, voter registration, and weights &nd measures to all
'residents of the county.
Because counties'are both a branch of State government and local,
government, there has 'been an historic tension or competition between
these two roles. In fact, during the post-Proposition 13 era, the State
program obligations have forced counties to reduce resources directed
towards municipal and countywide programs. These facts argue strongly
for counties to have the same level of autonomy and home rule powers for
their municipal and countywide responsibilities as do cities. This would
including the power to tax and the ability to limit State intrusion into these
"local affairs".
Shift of LocaJ Financial Control to the State
In 1978, the State Constitution was amended to require the state Legislature
to establish a property tax allocation and distribution formula for all property
taxes collected in the State. The formula was originally established by the
enactment of Senate Bill 154 in 1978 which provided a proportional
distribution of property taxes based on the level of property taxes received
by the various taxing agencies (cities, counties, schools, special districts)
during the years preceding the constitutional amendment. The following
year (1979), Assembly Bill 8, referred to as the "long-range solution" was
enacted modifying the property tax allocation formula.
Fiscal Chaos
Throughout the 1980s, property taxes were aJlocated based on the formula
established by SB 154 and AB 8. However, when State revenues were
severely impacted by the prolonged recession starting in 1991, the State
Legislature modified the Property tax allocation formula for FY 1992-93 and
FY 1993-94 by shifting property taxes from local governments to schools.
Because of these unpredictable actions by the State, local governments
were reqUired on short notice to substantially modify budgets that had been
previously approved.
The uncertainty of the allocation of property tax' revenues is further
.compounded by other actions th. at have been taken by the State in
preempting local government control over other sources of revenue as well.
5
For example, the State has recently taken vehicle and parking fine revenues
from both counties and cities to partially fund the courts, preempted locaJ'
business taxes on financial institutions, and terminated the long-standing
. city and county share of Re cigare~e tax. ;
Loss of Home Rule
All 'of these actions are examples of the State turning to local government
to solve its budget problems at the expense of local government, The
home rule provisions of the State Constitution were established to protect
the rights of local governments to conduct "municipal affairs" without undue
interference by the State. The actions by the State during the last few years.
have thoroughly demolished the notion of the California Supreme Coup. in. .
Amador Valley Union High School v. State Board of Equalization (1978)
when it held that "...article XIII A does not by its terms empower the
Legislature to direct and control local budgetary decisions or program or
service priorities and we have no reason to assume that the Legislature w~l
attempt .to exercise its powers in such a manner as to interfere with local
decision makir~g." The Constitutional changeSenabted in 1978 requiring the
State Legislature,tO establish the prOperty tax aJlocation formula and recent
court decisions allowing State preemption of local governmentrevenues has
severely damaged the concept of home rule in California.
Traditionally, "HOme Rule," has referred to charter cities. However, a great
majority of California cities. are .general law cities. Although it has been said
that general law cities exist'only at the will and per.haps mercy of the State
Legislature; local government· could not exist in CaJifornia~without general
law cities. The'police.power to promote, the public heaJth, safety and
Welfare and the 'resolution and control of local problems can only be best
handled by city counCils directly responsible to the people who elect them.
As'the power of charter cities has' been eroded by the-State LegiSlature and
court decisions, we see with each session of the State LegiSlature a sedous
erosion of the power and authority of general law cities to' take care of their
own affairs without interference by the State Legislature. Inasmuch as
general law cities exist at the mercy of the State Legislature without any
char~er protection,-their plight .is 'in need of immediate attention by the
people to prevent this continuous erosion by the State Legislature.
4. Deterioration of Local Economic Base. . i
History will long record that one of the most significant accomplishments of
the 1990s was the collapse of communism and the end of the cold war.
Although the prospect of greater wodd' peaCe dwads any related negative
consequence, the blunt truth is that the California economy was heaw'iy
reliant upon military and defense.related aerospace spending.
6
Defense Ex~nditUres in California
As Percent of Gross Slate Product
1967 Through 1994
An economic transition of enormous proportions is now under way. In the
last five years, California has lost over 350,000 jobs. Most of those jobs are
not likely to return. This is not an economic slump. It is a major structuraJ
change in the economic foundation of thiSState.
California Employment Gains and Losses
By Industry
1992 Through 1993
(in Thousands)
Mining -5
M~ufa~dn~u~ies -116
M~u~nn~n~u~les
Re~I ~de ~5 -20
R~e, in~ce, ~d rea e~te -28 -7
Se~ces 19 58
Government -1
Totals .~9 -120
7
One'of the problems of the last three years has been the succession of
State budget "fixes" based on the premise that the economy wa recover
and the taxing agencies will literally "grow" their way back to fiscal health.
In point of fact, the continued downtUrn in the economy has only brought
to the surface the underlying problem. Only unrealistically high rates of
business expansion would be capable of generating tax revenues sufficient
to balance the State budget in the foreseeable future. The assumption that
the economy can continue to expand in such a way that per capita tax
revenues would generally be in excess of the cost of governmental
programs has proven to be untrue.. In short, absent structural reform, the
rate of revenue growth will not exceed the rate 'of cost increase. The notion
that if these fiscal problems can simply be forestalled for one or two more
years, we will grow our way out of the crisis thr_ough increased revenues
must be put .to' .rest once and for all
Part of the reason that realistic economic growth by itself wal not bring
California State and local government budgets back into balance is that a
greater component of the State's growing population is composed of tax
consumers whose relative ability to generate sufficient tax revenues falls
behind the cost of their service demands. As indicated in the table below,
the last two decades have produced a tremendous increase in California's
population. This fact alone would account for substantial increases in
expenditures at ail levels of' government in California; but, in addition, the
composition of California's population has changed dr.amattcally.
California's Rapid Population Growth:
Twice as Fast. as the Nation
1970 to 1993
~California Pol3ul~on
(right axis)
Califorma Annua
-- C~,ow~ Rate (left axis)
U.S. Annual
' Growt/~ Rate (left axis) .
A~,~ual , "~Ou~a~n
I=e~::en! C21ancje ...................................................... -(In Millions!
'
71 73 '75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91
In addition to the rapidly increasing population, the age composition of the
State's demographics has shifted so that there are more elderly people at
the same time that there are more children. Both of these groups generaJly
require more services than the portion of the population between the ages.
of 18 and 65. This change in demographics has caused the caseload and
entitlement driven programs (plus increasing costs for 'such programs.as
education and the continued funding of retirement benefits) to outstrip the
State's ability to generate the revenue necessary to pay for these
programs/services. The impact of the shifting demographic changes can
be illustrated by the skyrocketing increase in the State's Aid to Families with
Dependent Children (AFDC) caseloads, as ~lustrated below.
California's AFDC Caseloads
Have Been InCreasinga
Caseload
(In Thousands)
81 83 85 87 89 91 93 94
Aid to Familia wire CIeO~Ii:M~ Ghil~,en (AFDC ~) e~_~ f~ ~ ~
~ C~fo~ ~ive ~y~'s O~ce
Local government expenditures have also increased in the last decade due
to a variety of unforeseen societal changes and events (e.g. such as the
outbreak of AIDS). In addition, a number of policy decisions over the past
decade have been made which have significantly increased the cost of IocaJ
law enforcement, courts and jails. As illustrated below, California's prison
population is growing considerably faster than other program populations.
9
Prison 'pOpulation Is Growing
Much-Faster Than Other
Program Populations
~:~nt Growm
~ S~ce 198,3~4
2O0
~eo-:' : . i iii:i:i': i'i;:i ' .:"
-.- 120'" ':'.'.':::'r:,~r?r::.:.':~::'.:.:.,.:..~':::' ................. '-~.<,:,..-....:.:..:..~',~'-..,'.:,:.:-..:..:.:::-..'...., ~ ,..
?':~:::':~ :';~::":~'~:::~;.'.:,:.~.:.~:.::: ~;:~'~? ~:,:.: :'..:::~;:': ' '" {:.. '...'"'~: :: ::.:.F:':? ::::' :' g~:-..' ::.: '" :':~
80'
H~ & W~f~e
40- K-~2 ~mn
U~'C~
~4 ~6 87~ 8~ 91-92
o~= C~o~a ~i~e ~1~'s O~ce
... J
"l=iscalization" of Land use Decisions
Clearly .one of the most obvious distortions resulting from the. 'Current
system of local government finance is the advent of "cash box zoning".
With the continuing trend to take away property tax revenue from local
government and replace it with sales tax receipts, the State has created a
system that rewards cities and counties when. they attract high volume retail
businesses with minimum wage jobs, such as discount retailers and auto
dealers.' This system offers local government virtually no incentive for
attracting industries with high paying positions, because the property taxes
they pay often do .not offset the demands for Such services as police and
fire protection. -
As far back as '1978, U.C.'L.A. land use expert DOnald G.'Hagman.predicted
that. "The competition for development of new shopping centers and other
retail development will become frenzied. A developer of retail outlets will
have gold' carpet treatment in almost every community." His prediction
came 'true perhaps even more than he would have ever believed possible.
Cities now regularly twist themselves into pretzels trying to attract a "big
box". retail "power center" or an auto mall. Most economists agree that the ·
total retail sales of a region are a,relatively fixed-amount and that. no net
new increase in aggregate regional sales are created as a result of cities
having "bidding wars" to attract these outlets,
10
The cities are simply trying to work within the fiscaJ system which exists.
Moreover, the simplistic notion of merely switching from a 'point of odgin"
basis to a "per capita" distribution formula fails to recognize that there are
tangible costs associated with retail development which need to be covered,
such as traffic impacts, increases in certain types of crime,', etc. The last
thing the State's economy needs is for retail development to become
another "lulu" (IocaJly unacceptable land use). The economic incentives
must not be so totally taken away that it no longer even covers the cost of
services. ..
6. Difficulty_ in Meeting. Long-Term InfrastruCture Needs
CaJifomia is facing a cdsis which could 'grow to staggering'proportions due '
to its inability to meet long-term infrastructure needs. Streets, highways,
bridges, sidewalks,' sewers, jails,, police stations, fire stations, parks,
libraries, and other governmental buildings and facilities are deteriorating ali
around us. The problems associated with these essential faculties are easy
to-ignore in the short-term, because the consequences are only visible after
many years have passed. Elected officials have little choice but to address
the most immediate needs when they are left .with very limited resources..
Unfortunately, that passes on to future generations the' consequences of
deferred infrastructure maintenance and improvements.
However, the'practice of not adequately keeping up with infrastructure
needs is now heading toward its second decade. Ignoring or hiding Such
problems will no longer work. Years of deferred maintenance and
inadequate capital improvement programs are coming home to roost. If not
addressed now, the problems will only compound and the expense of finally
dealing with them will increase significantly with each passing year.
7. 'Lack of Understanding by the Electorate of Government. Finance
People will rarely accept that which they do not understand.-The CaJif°rnia
system of governmentaJ finance is cleady not understood by the people .-
and it is probably not understandable. Years (~f tinkering, without ever
undertaking a comp~rehensive overhaul, has left the State with an illogical,
antiquated and complex tax system which is riddled with inequities. We are
now left with a crisis of public Confidence.
California has evolved into an increasingly complex oveday of governmental
jurisdictions and responsibilities. Various polls taken dudng the last several
years indicate that public awareness of which level of government has
responsibility for specific services is relatively Iow. This polling also confirms
that this same public has an even weaker grasp of the methods and
mechanisms which finance those State and local government sen/ices.
11¸
A recent sampling of Southern California taxpayers by the Los Angeles
Times found agreement on one critical point, whatever the tax, they do not
believe they are getting their money's worth from government. This is a
marked departure from the California boom days of the 1950s and 60s,
when the State generally lead the nation in the-quality of services it
provided. Californians then largely believed that their money was well spent
on a first' rate educational system, the nation's best freeways, an excellent
State park system, the most modem libraries and the like.
Today the common belief, perha~3s correctly, is that special interest groups
basically rule the State's tax system.
;~, No reform of State and local govemmentfinance will succeedif it Cannot be
done in such a way that people will feel they 1) can understand it and 2)
that it is designed for the broadest public good.
8. Lack of Flexibility_ due tO Rigid Categorical Funding
Local governments, especially counties, are .faced with requirements to
provide specific services with restricted revenues without the flexibility
needed to integrate services and revenues to improve outcome. Over the
years, both the Federal Government and the State of CaJifomia have
developed new programs designed to solve specific aspects of health care,
social service, or. public protection problems without regard to how the new
programs would fit into existing local govemment organizational structures.
Many programs continue to exist side-by-side, isolated from each other due
to Federal and/or State inflexibility. Health care services inciude separate
and distinct programs within the categories of public health, indigent health,
mental health, alcohol and drug, and'environmental health services. These'
programs 'are funded by no less than 50 distinct revenue sources. 'For the
most: part, these revenues can only be expended for very specific services
and there is little or no incentive to integrate services to improve outcome
for patients~ ·
Social services include Aid to Families W'~ Dependent Children, Food
Stamps, In-Home Support-Services, General Assistance, Child Welfare
Services, Foster Care, Aging and Adult Services.. These programs are
funded by more than 30 distinct revenue sources that are restricted for use
only in those program areas.
There exists a tremendous need to break down these artificial barriers, to
· simplify program delivery and improve Services to clients by integrating both
services and revenues into a more coordinated delivery system. For
example, one of-the highest pdority programs for which counties are
responsible is children's services. In most counties, these services are
provided by at least four' different departments in over 12 separate and
distinct programs, utilizing 34 separate revenue sources. Funding
17_
constraints are the major reasons why.these children's sen/ices are not
integrated. Eliminating program and revenue restrictions would enable
counties to deliver children's services in a much more efficient and cost-
effective manner, thereby stretching limited ava,lable dollars.
Another example of the I&ck of-flexibility afforded to local governments is the
criminal justice system. Services in the existing criminal justice system are
performed by cities and counties with funding based not on need or
outcome, but rather on local economic conditions. Property, sales and
motor vehicle in-tieu taxes are used to finance public s~fety services,
although cities and counties have no ability to increase these taxes due to
increased caseloads. When an economic recession arrives, it's double
jeopardy and the safety of our communities is threatened.
The Clinton administration recently announced a new grant program to
place more "cops on the streets", which is certainly a laudable goal.
However, the mere act of increasing street law enforcement will not assist
the rest of the criminal justice system, which is the responsib~itY of cities,
counties and the State. Since California counties have been severely
impacted by the recent State property tax shift, the Clinton Plan would
eXacerbate the lack of prosecutors, public defenders, probation officers and
jailers to carry out criminal justice mandates. Once again, this is a well
meaning initiative that does not consider how service delivery systems and
revenues should be intertwined. Any effort to enhance one part of the
system should include funding to support the rest of system.
The Realignment program developed in 1991 was a step in the right
direction. Under this program, a group of health care and social services
were bundled and a few restrictions lifted that enabled counties to
administer them in a more flexible manner. The programs included mental
health, indigent health care, foster care, and In-Home Support Services.
Also, a portion of the State sales tax and motor vehicle in-lieu tax was
identified as funding for these services. However, Realignment did not go
far enough in two respects:
· All program _and funding restrictions should have been removed;
The State should have eliminated all of its administrative oversight
staff assigned to Realignment' programs at a substantial savings.
Similarly, the Trial Court Funding program was established in 1987 to
enhance funding and flexibility at the county level. Unfortunately, the multi
year r. ecession has stalled the achievement of funding and flexibility goals.
To improve program.flexibility and therefore program results, it is imperative
that the State systematically remove fiscal and operational restrictions from
all categorical health, social services and public protection programs. This
13
would aJlow counties to better integrate sen/ice delivery and stretch existing
dollars; It is understood that such' a State 'policy would require Federal
waivers in many program areas.
In summary, the Federal and State governments'need to be nhle tO.
continue shaping policy with categorical program funding, but withih the
categories of funding, restrictions need to be minimized. ·
9. Lack of Nexus Between Service Needs and Available Funding
The current separation between revenues and programs is leading to a'
breakdown of government in California. Officials at_ail levels of government
~are less accountable far their actions and" can blame, the problems, on
others' actions. Actions by State goVernment have created fiscal problems
at the local level and local officials have had t° take the "heat" for those
problems; Through the transfer of State fiscal problems to local officials, the
State has become less accountable for its actions. This has led to
decreased understanding by the taxpayer of'what level of government is
responsible' for what services and what the taxes they pay are, funding.
It is critical that any.proposal for restructuring government contains a nexus
between revenues and the services provided by each level and entity .of'
government. Program funding responsibility should be consolidated at the
level of government which has program control.
Placing control of program and revenues at the same level of government
would restore accountability and responsibility to government. Authorizing
each level of government to have control over its own revenue raising
authority would ensure that local governments have the capability to
generate the resources necessary to carry out' their responsibilities. It
would also allow officials to determine the level Of service for their residents
and the citizens to understand what services their taxes fund..-It would
increase the accountability of local agencies for revenue generation.
Combining the control of programs and revenues would have an 'additional
..benefit of diminishin_g unnecessary State oversight of local programs and
thereby reducing, the Overall cost of government.
10. Constraints on Efficient Local Manaqement.
Local governments in California (counties, cities, special districts, and
schools) operate under a broad range of State and Federal laws and
regulations. They must also function under the principles articulated in the
Federal and State Constitutions. In the case of the California Constitution,
the provisions affecting'the operations of government at ail levels are very
narrowly drawn and extremely prescriptive.
14
The combination of the State constitution and all of the laws and regulations
specifies the types 'and levels of services provided by State and local
government and constrains the ability of government officials to efficiently
manage service delivery. , This produces two serious problems for
government policy makers and administrators in CaJifornia, particularly those
· at the local level: (1) Particularly for counties, State and Federal program
obligations consume an increasing share of local fiscal resources which has
the effect of 'crowding-out" local programs and services and, (2) Federal
and State laws and regulations so narrowly constrain the ways and means
of service delivery that local officials are prevented from making decisions
which optimize service delivery at the lowest possible cost.
The first of these problems is Probably the most difficult to resolve. The
· solution most often advanced throughout california's histo'ry has been to
eliminate or greatly reduce State control over the delivery of services.
Unfortunately, the full consequence of implementing this remedy would be
to force California's legislative and exeCutive branches of government to
abdicate a significant portion of their basic responsibility to' assure access
to'and quality of service for ail citizens of the State. Put another way, the
elimination of State control would have the effect of turning the hierarchy.of
government upside down such that the highest authority would reside at the
lowest levels of government. ,
Clearly, this would solve the problem of State programs consuming local
resources and "crowding-out" local program initiatives, but it would surely
lead to another set of "intolerable" problems. This suggests an approach
which would be less radical and more achievable such as solving the'.
second problem of local management flexibility. This could be.
accomplished by a clear realignment of service responsibilities to match
program policy control with program financial responsibility, modifying State
oversight of local government to focus on output and reserving a portion of
locally imposed revenues for IocaJ program ir~itiatives.
15·
C. PRINCIPLES WHICH SHOULD. PROVIDI~ THE FOUNDATION FOR REFORM
This Task Force has not been able, in the time available, to provide a detailed plan
of action to remedy all of the ailments described above. However, we do believe
it is possible to set forth certain principles which should help guide the.
development of specific actions. The following issues will be discussed in this
section of the report:
Revenue Neutral
· Restoration of Home Rule
· Broad Based Tax Structure
e_ Understandable
· Nexus Between Revenues and Services Provided
1. Revenue Neutral
California has almost 7,000 units of local .government raising approximately
· $72 billion annually. Those very numbers are a large part of the reason
people are resistent to any new ·taxes and dis~iusioned 'by virtually all
governmental operations. No one is apt to believe that is the best way to
organize the government of the State! It is therefore understandable why
any restTucturing of local government, and rethinking of governmental
finance, are going to need to address these issUes before they can earn
credibility in the eyes of the people.
Of course, these gross numbers are open to argument. The almost 7,000
units of local government identified by a recent Legislative Analyst's report
:(Common Cents, October 1993)include:
Counties 58
Cities 459
Special .districts 4,883
Redevelopment agencies 375
K-12 school districts 1,070
Community college districts 71
TOtal 6,916"
Although these numbers are from an October 1993 report, they reflect
the number of governmental units as of FY 1990;91,)
16
Obviously, a case can be made that redevelopment agencies are, in almost.
all cases, simply an extension of the local City Council or BOard· of
Supervisors. Even more dramatic is the. situation with' special .districts..
While special districts account for an overwhelming number of the local
entities, 1,700 are, in fact, dependent districts governed directly by cities or~
counties. However, the point that these numbers are open to more precise
clarification is not as important as the fact that the very existence of almOst
7,000 units of local government is disillusioning to most people.
The old and worn out comparisons betWeen government and the private'
sector often do not provide much true insight. However, 'it is very true that
in the private sector there is a continuous process of takeovers, mergers,
failures, shake outs, etc. In California government that is almost 'never the
case. Inefficient,~ overlapping and r~und~i't ~elationships are merely
considered standard operating procedure.
The same can be said about governmental finance. The $72:billion cited in
a CSAC Foundation report (California In Crisis, 1993) includes all types of
taxes, charges, assessh~ents and enterprise (water, sewers, BART, etc.)
revenues. The officials in the bUreaucracy can distinguish between items
Which are clearly "taxes" as opposed to other sources of revenue.
However, John Q. Taxpayer seldom makes a distinction and does not care
about the jargon. People are not apt to accept new or higher taxes as long
as they are convinced that there are already enough governmental
revenues to go around and that the governing bodies simply utilize them
poorly. In point of fact, California's overall tax burden ranks about average
among all states as a proportion of personal income. Some California tax
collections rank as high as sixth in the nation - for corporate income tax -
but these are offset by others which rank far lower, including property taxes,
which are 29th.
The point here is simply that virtually all levels of government today do not
have enough credibility with people to be able to earn adequate support to
raise revenues. Maybe the case for higher revenues could eventually be
made to the voters' satisfaction. However, that is not apt to happen until
the current system_ is cleaned up. Until that time, it is important, and
politically realistiC, that any reform proposal be "revenue neutral". Surely,
changes and realignments can and should be made, but the cumulative tax
burden on businesses and residents must not rise.
2. Restoration of Home Rule
It is time to reestablish the traditional concept of home rule. Experience
over the past ten years leads to the obvious conclusion that the long-
standing traditional revenue sources of local government are in constant
jeopardy of being reallocated by the State. It is essential that the financing
mechanism for cities, counties, special districts and schools be clearly
17
defined. In order for local government ito' properly carry out its
responsibilities in providing high. pdority and criticaJ services demanded, it
must have stable and predictable sources of revenue and must have the
authority to control its own revenues. This calls for the reestablishment of
home rule in California through amendment of the State Constitution. Such
an amendment would recognize the importance of local govemment
services, would prohibit State action' to take local revenue sources or
mandate local government programs without funding such progr .ams, and
would restore home rule.
We conclude that amendments to the State Constitution must achieve the
following resul~ts:
'~- a. ReestabliSh the his{odcal home rule. concept for local government to
block encroachment into municipal affairs'by the State;
b. Provide a permanent formula .for the allocation of property tax
revenue;
c. Provide for the continued distribution to local government of the
major traditional State collected local government revenues such as
sales tax and vehicle license fees;
d. Prohibit the shifting by the State of locally levied general and special
tax revenues either directly or indirectly~
e. Prohibit the shift of responsibility for any program, service or activity
from the State to local governments or of any programs, sauce or
activity between governmental entities unless funding !s provided to
cover the added local government costs; and,
f. Prohibit the mandate 'of any new-or expanded service or program
provided by local government unless funding is provided to cover the
added local government costs of providing the service..
3. Bro~d B~sed Tax Structure
A.basic tenet of any tax system should be to try to keep tax levels, or rates,
a~ Iow as possible by spreading the tax over the. widest possible base.
LoopholeS, or exemptions, defeat that purpose'by Cutting certain taxpaYers
out of the base and thereby raising the burden on all of those left behind.
The California sales, tax is a classic example of a high rate resulting from a
narrow base. Just as-when it was adopted in 1933, the sales tax. applies
largely to tangible consumer'goods, such as clothing, autos, furniture,, and
electronic merchandise. The, sales tax levy has borne 'the brunt of
:Statewide taxincreases in recent yearS; to the Point that California now has
18
one of the nation's h~ghest rates, ranging up to 8.5% in some counties.
But, there are so many exemptions that the base is narrow and limited. The
net result: in i 991, California ranked 24th in sales tax collected relative to
personal income.
Many industrial States tax a wider range of services and entertainment
activities. A recent survey by the Federation of Tax Administrators shows
that the California sales tax is levied on only 19 out of a possible 160
services - fewer than aJi but 6 states.
A UC Davis study completed this year cor~cluded that California - by'
expanding the sales tax base so that more items are taxed -_could generate
enough new revenue to lower the high rate by nearly 3 cents on the dollar,
down to as !ow as 5.75%!
Other examples abound:
.- California is the only major petroleum producing state without a
severance tax on oil and gas extracted within the State. Levies in
other big oil and gas states range up to 12.5% of market value, as
in Louisiana. California does collect an extraction fee of about 21/2
cents a barrel - or about two-tenths of one percent of the value of
the oil.
- Under California's current system of property tax assessment, older
firms pay relatively lower property taxes than new companies trying~.
to gain a foothold. Ironically, given the vacuum created by the loss
of defense related 'manufacturing firms, it is these types of new
entrepreneuriaJ firms that the State should be enticing to California
rather than chasing them away with an inequitable tax system.
- .Overall, the alcoholic beverage industry has enjoyed such Iow rates
of taxation that a 1990 nationaJ survey ranked CaJifomia 49th in the
nation, ahead of only Wyoming, in the amount of.tax assessed per
thousand dollars of personal income. A ballot initiative aimed at
raising taxes on wine, in particular, failed in 1990. But, the
proposition prompted vintners to volunteer for an increase during the
1991 State budget crisis. California's new tax rate is still the lowest
among the 4,3 states that impose a tax on wine.
- California is among the minor~ of states that do not impose a tax on
tickets to professional sports events and tourist attractions, which
could raise as much as $1 billion annually.
California's banks benefit from a Depression-era constitutional
amendment that prohibits cities from imposing the sam® kind of
taxes on financial institutions that they levy on other businesses.
19
Instead, banks are assessed a State "in,lieu" tax that the Franchise
Tax Board estimated yields $100-190 million a year less than if they
were to pay IccaJ business franchise and other cOrPorate taxes.
Again, this Task Force is not necessarily advocating the imposition or
raising of any of the taxes cited above. They 'are merely intended to be
'examples of possible inequities in the tax structure of the State.
4. Understandable
California's tax system must be reexamined to eliminate the numerous
complexities which make understanding it problematic. Given the size and
diversity of the State, a certain level of complexity to .maintain such a
governmental system is necessary. However, .the Current system has been
continuously altered over the years to the point where it has become
extreme[y complicated a~d reliant upon an overly' perplexed maze of taxes,
forms, and filing requirements.
While each' individual tax, exemption, and special requirement.may have
made sense at the 'time they were'created, the cumulative impact of such
actions has been the creation of one of the most complex taxation systems
in the nation. Not only do decision-makers ovedOok the cumulative impacts
of such taxation decisions, they almost always overlook 'the increased
difficulties these decisions have on those who have to administer the new
tax provisions --local governments.
Such piecemeai revisions to the taxation system have aJso created a series
of'tax compliance burdens and problems for indMduals and corporate tax
payers. This is a Very serious problem forsm~! businesses.
In an effort to make the State's tax system less ambiguous and more
understandable, the.existing system should be streamlined and made easier
· to administer and understand,
5. ·'NeXus Between-Revenue~ and Services Provided
It is critical' that. any proposal for restructuring government contain a nexus
. between revenues and' the services provided by each level and' entity of
'government. The following ·principles should be used to evaluate any
restructuring, proposal:
a. Program funding responsibility should be consolidated at the level of
government which has program controi.~ ·
Increases aCcountability and responsibility to local
·. governments,
.2O
- Eliminates shifting, of program costs and tax increases.
- DiminiShes unnecessary State oversight· of local programs.
Maximizes accountability and responsibility of eleCted, officials.
- Improves taxpayer understanding of which specific taxes fund
which programs.
Maximizes taxpayer awareness of what level.of goVemmedt is
responsible for any increase or decrease in their taxes.
· b. Each level of government should have control over its own revenue
raising authority. Local governing bodies should have the authority
to increase revenues without a vote of the people,
- Restores accountability and responsibility to local elected
officials.
- Ensures that local governments have the capab~ity to
.. generate the resources necessary to carry out their
responsibilities.
- AJIows local officials to determine the level of service for their
citizenry.
c. Shared revenues among various levels of government should be
minimized.
improves taxpayer awareness of the correlation between the
'specific :~axes and types of services provided.
Reduces'the likelihood of tax shifts between different levels of
government.
21
D. THE SHORT-TERM MF___,ASL, IRE$
Having identified the problems and having set forth the underlying principles which
should guide the development of the solutions, the larger ta~k of actually' creating
specific financial reform measures must begin. The practical fact of life is that it
has taken us decades t° get into this situation and we are not going to get out in
a short period of.time or in a single report.
Hence, the'following.short term measures are recommended to guide a legislative
· strategy during FY 1994-95 and, perhaps, FY 1995-96. The expectation is that
these measures will "buy time" for the Governor and the Legislature to develop and
put in place the longer term solutions. The following issues will be discussed in
this section of the report: .. '~
· Maintain Current Funding Levels
· ProPose Benefit Assessment Reform
-· Allow for a Multi-Year Deficit ReductiOn Plan
· AlloW.for the Transfer of Dependent District Property Taxes
· Encourage ~Cooperative Programs Among all Levels of Local
Government
· Maximize Pursuit of'Federal Funds .
· Advocate Reforms at State and Local Level-
· Revise Super~Majority Voter Approval for. all Types of. General
Obligation Bonds.
· Improve Financial Reporting
· Allow Greater' Flexibility over Use of Local County Revenues
1. Maintain Current Ft~nding Levels
- Local governments must. be assUred that the State will not seek to balance
-the State budget through further cuts to local governments. It must-be
recognized that the downturn in the economy .that has plagued State
revenues is having .the same impact on local revenues, The State cannot
continue to turn to local agencies to solve its Own budget problems.
It is 'recommended that if additional' fiscal problems arise in FY 1994-95 .or
future fiscal years, ..the State must deal with those shortfalls within its own
budget. The State has made one-time .reductions to cities, counties and
· special districts of nearly' $1 billion and permanent reductions of over $4
billion since 1978. This does not take into account the hundred of millions
of dollars of uncompensated program responsibilities. shifted to counties.
It is Untenable to continue reducing the "local" property tax 'share or to take
a new local revenue source as a means of balancing the State budget wh~e
using the argument that the State is merely recapturing the AB 8 bail-out
which it can no longer afford. From the cities' and counties' perspective,
the State has air. early taken all of the AB 8 ba~l-out and many more dollars.
~ Some in Sacramento will argue that the State has not fully recovered its AB
8 bail-out money. The point is that both ,sides" need to stop playing a
numbers game and finally draw a double line in the ledger book to close
that issue. Whatever has passed has passed and there is no longer any
rational or equitable reason for any further revenue shifts, absent a
comprehensive reformation of governmental' structure and finance.
2. PropoSe Benefit Assessment Fl~fQrm ..._
Historically, benefit assessments have been used as a financing mechanism
to fund public capital improvements (infrastructure) and in some cases to
provide for the on-going maintenance of public works improvements. This
financing method has been expanded to cover certain local government
services previously funded by the General Funds of local government.
Since the assessment is based on the amount of benefit received, it is not
considered a tax.
Important Financing TOol
The availability of 'the use of benefit assessments allows local elected
officials and citizens to decide on the revenue mix best suited for their
community to finance critical and high priority programs. The ability of local
government to have the ability to tailor its taxes, fees and assessments to
fund services is basic to the concept of home rule. The responsib~ity to
provide critical services must be accompanied by the authority to decide on
the method and level of funding.
Benefit assessments are an attractive financing option for local government
because:
- Those who pay receive direct service or have direct access to the
service. -
- Decisionto levy an assessment is made either by the elected officials
of local government or directly by the people 'who-benefit and pay for
the service..
- The "pay for service" concept and the delegation of decision making
to local government is in accordance with the traditional home rule
principles enjoyed by the citizens of this State over the years.
23
Expanded Use of Benefit AsseSsments
The courts have held that a benefit assessment must provide a direct or
special benefit to the property above and beyond the general benefit
received throughout the area. ~.
The faltering economy and the use of local revenues to balance the State
budget have resulted in the increased use of benefit assessments, by local
entities. Statutes enacted in the last five years have expanded the. use of
benefit assessments to parking and business improvements, fire
suppression, and graJfiti abatement. As is the case with public ca43ital
improvements that provide a direct benefit to property within an assessment
district, these local government services alSO provid.e a direct benefit to
property within the immediate area of the se'rvice provider.
Benefit ASsessment Reform
Reform of the benefit assessment law can be viewed from several vantage
points. Local governments starved for revenues and pressured with
demands for services may want greater authority to use benefit
assessments to generate additional revenue for basic public services such
as police or libraries. This must be balanced by those who are actively
attempting to limit the ability of local agencies to impose benefit
assessments through increased vote requirements.
Options to consider for reform of benefit assessment include:
Disallow the use of benefit assessments for enterprise activities.
Require a majority vote of the people for all benefit assessments
levied, for public services, if ten percent of the voters protest the
imposition of.the benefit assessment.
Umlt the use of new benefit assessments for services to a core
r group of eSsential local services such as police; fire suppression,
· parks, and libraries._
Cap benefit assessments.
Need to Retain Local Options
Although some concern' has been voiced regarding the use of benefit
assessment financing for local government services, it 'still remains an
attractive financing option which reJies on the democratic process in its
development and implementation. It provides IocaJ legislative bodies and
citizens the opportunity to determine IocaJ government service levels and
the direct means for funding those services. We believe it is very important
that the elected representatives of local~ government continue to have the
24
discretion of imposing benefit assessments by a majority vote. of the local
legislative body so long as the citizens of the community are given an
opportunity to participate in the decision making process through public
hearings and a protest procedure.' We believe the local voters should have
the opportunity to decide on the implementation of benefit assessments by
a majority vote, if a protest of more than ten percent has been filed.
3. Allow for a Multi-Year Deficit Reduction Plan
The State did not get into this dilemma in a single year and it is unrealistic
to try to get out in just one or two years. It sounds "politically correct" to
demand that the State immediately cure itsPast budget practices'and adopt
.'~ a truly balanced annual budget. However,- holding onto that principle belies
the harsh realities we face and such an approach would in all probability
only further compound the problem. In point' of fact, the State has faced
budget deficits in each year since FY 90-91 and has been forced to 'solve
such deficits via the use of temporary stop-gap measures. The State does
not need another politically expedient, but fiscally unrealistic, quick fix.
California has historically turned to multi-year budgets during other times of
fin ~ancial hardship (the Great Depression and World War II). Moreover, it is
a perfectly normal private sector Practice to have a five-year business plan.
Rather than continue to pretend that the magnitude of the problem does not
warrant it, or to couch it in softer sounding words or unreaJisticaJly short
durations, the State should consciously implement a multi-year budget
approach. In essence, the multi-year deficit reduction plan could be a
reasonable method of long term financial planning and would "buy time" to
make the more fundamental reforms which need to be addressed.
4. Allow for the TranSfer of Dependent District Property_ Taxes
LOcally elected City Councils and' County Boards who also control Special
Districts ("dependent district") should be allowed to Shift property tax
revenue between the entities they control at their own discretion. The logic
is that the locally elected officials should be able to shape and influence the
local programs in the most reasonable manner in light of their local revenue
patterns.
5. Encourage CoOoerative Programs Among all Levels 'of Local
Government
The State should eliminate all barriers at the State level so as to encourage
and enable local agreements to consolidate or to operate cooperative
programs among cities, counties, school districts, and special districts, if
there is support for this concept at the State level, local agencies agree to
do the detailed research necessary to draft legislative proposals.
· ' 25
6. MaXimize pursuit of FederaJ Funds
The State should aggressively work with: California's Congressional
Delegation, the Clinton Administration, and key Congressional leaders to
increase Federal funding to CaJifornia for costs related to Federal
immigration policies. ·
The State should also aggressively pursue maximum Federal revenue in all
eligible areas where financing is currently being provided pdman~y from
State and local funds. Some of the areas which should receive immediate
attention for pursuing Federal revenue are:
- '. · T'rtle'XIX- Administrative Medicaid services provided by vadous State'
agencies to ·perSons who are Medi-Cal eligible (e.g., severely
emotionally disturbed children in foster care institutions);
-- -Title. 'XIX.- Direct Medicaid services for inmates of a public institution
(e.g.,' California Youth Authority and State prison facilities);
- Title IV-A - Service-related costs provided to youths being served by
_ the'. California Youth Authority;
- T'rtle IV-A - Services including emergency medical services for aliens
residing in California; and
- , T'rtie XIX - Rehabilitation services foryouth receiving mental health
services both in institutions and on an outpatient basis.
7. Advocate Reforms at' State and Local Level
The tasks performed by governmental employees can be divided in two
· categories: service delivery and administrative support. The former directly
provides service; the latter provides support designed to enhance the
-performance of. those who directly provide service, Examples of the former
are police officers, clinic nurses, and street workers. Examples of the latter
are personnel analysts, program planners, .and purchasing agents.
Administrative support employees exist for seVeral reasons, including: the
need to ensure fair, equitable, and efficient allOcation/delivery of services;
to assure the legal use of funds; and, the need to monitor/set program
policy on a broad basis,
In these times of unparalleled fiscal stress, when cuts must be made, where
should the cuts come? The thesis here is th'at we mvst retain service
delive~ and cut service bureaucracy. However, . the way we approach it is
important. Rather than take the negative view that cutting bureaucracy is
painful, .we should embrace such cuts as organizationally strengthening,.
26
because the result is that we will likely emPower someone (probably lower
in the organization) thereby enriching their jobs and cutting costs.
We are .challenged to optimize service delivery and minimize administrative.
support. This can be done in the following genera ways:
At the Local Level
a. We must Support those positions that are involved in
delive~ of 'the serVices for which the organization exists.
Separately, we should identify those positions that exist to supervise,
monitor, manage, or collaterally support those delivering the service,
and find ways to reduce their number. Our goal must be to properly
define and emphasize those providing the service (service providers),
and.reduce to a minimum those who work behind the service
provider (administrative support staff). Separately, under growth
conditions, we should favor adding positions on the front lines and
delivering the services, while requiring the addition of administrative
support positions subject to a higher showing of need.
b. We must analyze the burden of bureaucracy above us, and offer
constructive suggestions for cutting it. State and Federal agencies
that exist .mostly for overseeing the expenditure of funds and
.program operations at the local level must be reduced substantially
in size by ernoowering Io(;~tl cjQvernrnents and trustinq them.
At the State Level
a. Re-establish a sense of trust with all "lower" levels of government.
With all of the technological advances of the past twenty years, we
have not seen concurrent advances in organizational structure and
-communications. We must take adVantage of the information
highways available today. We must encourage change and.set forth
proposals to the Federal and State governments that confirm lOcal
government's willingness to be resoonsible, accountable, and
'.efficient.
b. .The State needs to re'define its role vis-a-vis cities and counties.
Specifically, the State should delegate serVice to the local level and
reduce its bureaucratic role to policy planning and to limited program
compliance auditing.
c. Because we can no longer afford the level of administrat~e support
that exists at all levels of government, we must be willing to
'change to really cut these types of positions. This is a particularly
challenging assignment for our public personnel professionals and
our unions.
27
d. Local governments should advocate a SERVICE BUREAUCRACY
DIVIDEND. When savings accrue'at the State or Federal level from
the cUts in administrative support staff, transition a portion of the
funding to service delivery units. ..
8. Revise Super, Majority Voter AD_Droval for all Tyoes of General
Obligation Bonds
~The State Constitution has long required that the issuance of General
Obligation bonds by local governments be approved by a two-thirds, super-
majority of the voters. General Obligation bonds can be used to finance
such infrastructUre .improvements as transportation projects, 'police stations,
fire stations, general governmental facilities, recreation, centers, .libra.des,
parks, schools, etc.- General Obligation bonds are rep=id over a number of.
years (usually 20 to 30 years) via increased property taxes.
The. historical justification for a two-thirds vote on property taxes is to
protect property, owners. When General. ObligatiOn bonds are passed,
some renters do not. immediately feel· the impact of increased property
taXes, especially in those communities where rent control is in effect. This
can end up causing property.owners to absorb a disproportionate share in
new property taXes. Since all voters are not propertyowners, the two-thirds
vote requirement is supposed to ensure that those property owners are
properly represented. . '
HoWever, the two-thirds vote requirement allows for a minority of voters to
deny the will of the majority. Such a requirement is often viewed as being
inher, ently undemocratic, since it gives the opponents two votes for every.
one received by the .supporters.
The two-thirds vote requirement has prevented ~numerous school .districts
.. from issuing General Obligation Bonds to pay for the construction,
reconstruction, or rehabilitation of school facilities over the years. 'Consider,
for example, that 145 General Obligation Bond measures proposed by
school districts since 1986 have failed to receive 'the required two-thirds
approval vote. Ho_wever, 123 (85%) of these General Obligation bond
proposals received a simple majority (greater than 50~'/.) vote in support!
Although it has almost become dictum for many levels of local government
to advocate reducing the General Obligation bond vote to a single majority,
the will 'of the people' expressed in the overwhelming defeat of Proposition
170. on November 2, 1993 must be respected.. The pdor insistence on
demanding a simple majority vote must give Way to compromise.
Previously introduced legislation, such as Senator Russell's SB 841/SCA 20,
which seeks to reduce the requirement from two-thirds to 60%, might afford
an appropriate vehicle to ,seek that compromise.
28
Local government must also be prepared to support the requirement that
General Obligation bonds be tied to specific infrastructure improvements
which include a long-term maintenance agreement and plan.
9. lmorove Financial Reoorting
Uniform financial reporting among local governments and the timely release
of accurate and reliable financial data from the State Controller's Office are
essential if elected officials at all levels of government are to make intelligent
budget decisions.
Uniform Financial Reporting Among Local Governments
All local governments prepare a COmprehensive Annual Financial Report
(CAFR) and related annuaJ financial reporting documents. However, there
.is no legal requirement as to how such financial 'reporting documents are
to be prepared. This makes it difficult for elected officials to compare the
fiscal health of local governments.' Elected officials are often forced to
compare apples to oranges.
Requiring all local governments to fully conform to the accounting standards
promulgated by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) and
the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) would ensure uniform
financial reporting and allow for .comparative analysis among local
governmental agencies. In other words, elected officials would be able to
compare apples to apples~
Timely Release of Financial Data from State Controller
Ail local governments are required to routinely submit financial data to the
State Controller's Office to assist in the preparation of the Annual Report of
Financial Transactions. The financial data contained in this Annual Report
is highly valuable to elected decision-makers at both the State and local
levels. However, it often takes the State Controller's Office up to two years
to prepare the Annual Report. This causes budget decisions to be based
'on old financial information, while precluding current financial data from
being taken into coosideration.
Requiring the State Controller's Office to prepare its Annual Report of
F'inanciai Transactions within six months of the financial reporting deadline
.will allow for budget decisions to be based on current and accurate
information.
10. Allow Greater Flexibility Over Use of Local County.Revenues.
A significant amount of local revenues of counties must, under State law, be.
dedicated as "maintenance of effort" or matches to State health and welfare
programs. These constraints, which have evolved over several decades,
29
fail to recognize the recent tax shifts, the inability of counties to raise
revenues, and other mandated or important responsibilities of counties. In
times of revenue shortfalls, these requir~ements place certain programs 'off
limits" for budget reductions or economies, distort pdodty setting at the local
level, and, unless changed, will force reductions in areas the public wants
to see funded, such as public safety, recreation, and Culture. The State
should suspend or reduce these requirements in light of the recent taxshifts
and the. fiscal difficulties facing counties.
3O
E. LONG-TERM MEASURES
The structure and financing of IocaJ government is in, or on the verge of being in,
a bona fide crisis. It is a system which will not adequately or equitably serve the
people of California as we move into the 21st Century. The short-term
recommendations listed above will only help "buy time" to develop and put in place
more fundamental reforms. The following long-term measures will be diSCussed
in this Section of the report:
· Work with the Constitutional Revision Commission (SB 16)
· Provide Rational Realignment of Revenues and Services'
· Continue the Work of the Restructuring Advisory Panel
1. Work with the Constitutional Revision Commission (SB 16}
Governor Wilson and the State Legislature took an historical step by
establishing the California Constitutional Revision Commission to review the
State's budget process and examine the structure and relationship between
State and local governments.
The 23-member Commission set UP in SB 16 by Senator Lucy K~lea will
consist of ten members appointed by the Governor and ten members
appointed by .the Legislature. The Chief Justice of the StAte Supreme.
Court, Legislative Analyst, and the Director of the Department of Finance will
also serve on the Commission.
The Commission is charged with studying four specific areas, including:
- The budget process and the manner in which the budget serves the'
future needs of the State;
- The structure of State governance and proposed modifications that
may increase accountability and improve the process creating and
passing the State bUdget;
- The current configuration of State and . local ' government duties,
responsibilities and priorities;
- The feasibility of integrating community resources-into ,service
delivery in order to reduce duplication and i~ncrease efficiency.
The Commission will report back to the Governor and the. Legislature by.
August 1, 1995 with its findings and recommendations. The Commission,
itself, will stay in existence until July 1, 1996.
This Constitutional Revision CommissiOn affords the first real forum in over
two decades to fundamentally revisit how'we structure and finance
government in California. It arrives in the nick of time. Surely, the way we
31
operate now cannot last. Will we tackle these issUes now, while there is still
precious little time t° address them in a rational fashion, or do we need to
wait until there is ;a collapse of our system and a crisis is imposed upon us?
The most immediate challenge now is for the Govem°r anti leadership .of
the Legislature ' to make a4~pointments of immensely quaJified individuals,
wh° will be able to rise above political partisanship and traditional
bureaucracy in order to bring some truly fresh and rationaJ thinking to the
process.
2. Provide Rational Realianment of Revenues and Se~ces
Any new structuring of State and local govemment should first assign the
responsibility for programs on the basis of .who can best provide the
service. These assignments of program responsibility should ensure that
the assigned level of government .is accountable to the public for the
performance of those· activitieS.. As a general rule,, any restructuring of
revenues and service responsibilities should emphasize local control as
preferable to State control.
Assignment of program responsibilities should be accompanied by a
modification of current law to establish clear performance standards, and
the responsible level of government should be' given the power to achieve
the performance standards bY whatever means it deems appropriate.
Without necessarily concurring with all of the specifics of lthe proposed
reorganization model put forward by the LegiSlative. AnalYst,s Office, the
concept being proposed is clearly on target. A fundamental reassessment
of which level of government is best suited for providing which specific
services must be undertaken: Old paradigms must be set aside and a fresh
look taken at what should be provided at the State. regional and local'
level.
Once services haVe been identified and realigned with the most appropriate
provider, reallocation of funding decisions must be made using generally
accepted budgeting_ principles, such as:
a. Revenue system should be fiscally adequate, broadly' based, stable
in its yield, and balanced in its final incidence.
b. Tax sYstem should be administratively simple, economicaj to
administer, with clearly defined and understandable tax bases and
tax rate structures.
c. Taxes should· have "'
m~nlmum adverse affects on economic
productivity, resource, allocation, .and. the levels of employment,
income, and output. .
It is also important to keep in mind that under the current system, some
local agencies can be in relatively good financial shaPe while other agencies
~e on the verge of being destitute. Some new means of determining and
establishing fisc~J equity must be instilled into the new system. Factors
such as "need" and ."fiscal. caPacity" must be .taken into consideration..
Traditional emp,hasis on "home rule" must recognize that some entities do
not have the economic foundation to support a greater taxing effort.
Simply granting greater taxing authority will not meet their .needs. Others,
even with a somewhat stronger economic base, might still have unique
social needs which outstrip their capacity to financially support.
3. Continue the Work of the Restructuring Advisory Panel
The Governor should be strongly commended' for creating his Local
Government Policy Council. It is hoped that the Restructuring Advisory
Panel, and the work of its various Task Forces, will prove to be of some
assistance.
Obviously, in just two months of work On such complex issues with such
diverse interest groups, it WaS not possible to fully explore all the relevant
issues and provide more comprehensive short and long-term
recommendations.
As the Governor and the Local Government Policy Council head down this
extremely critical path, the Restructuring Advisory Panel remains willing to'
help in whatever way possible.
Without meaning to sound ovedy dramatic, this effort needs to remain one
of the State's highest priorities.' The system which has serVed us so well
during this last century will n~t meet the needs of the people of California
as we head into the 21 st Century. Time is running out on making, the
comprehensive reforms which are absolutely essential.
RESTRUCTURING ADVISORY PANEL
GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE
Chairman:
Don Blubaugh City Manager, Walnut Creek
Members: ~
Jack Crist DePuty city Manager, Sacramento
H. Peter Klein CoUnty Counsel, Ukiah
John Kirlin Professor
Bob Leland Finance Director, Fairfield
Dave Mora City Manager, Salinas
Will Randolph County Administrator Officer', Fresno
Clayton Record
Harvey Rose Budget Analyst, San FranCisco
Richard Watson City Manager, Sausalito
Stan Yamamoto City Attorney, Riverside
Resources: ·
A1 Beltrami Deputy Director, Intergov. Affairs
Don Benninghoven Director, League of CA Cities
Tom Dithridge Asst. Program Budget Manager
Department of Finance, Sacramento
Steve Swendiman Executive Director, CSAC
Don Peterson
Carol Whiteside Director Intergovernmental Affairs
NOTE: This report of the Governance Committee of the ' ·
Restructuring.Advisory Panel represents the thoughts and
ideas of its members. It does not represent the official
position of any group or organization to which individual
members may belong; it is advisory to the Governor's LOcal
Government Policy COuncil.
RESTRUCTURING ADVISORY PANEL
GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
I. RETHINKING GOVERNANCE
* THE INITIAL FOCUS OF RESTRUCTURING GOVERNMENT SHOULD
BE ON "REDISCOVERING GOVERNANCE,~ AND ON CLARIFYING
AND REALIGNING GOVERNANCE AUTHORITY RATHERTHAN ON
MERGER/ELIMINATION OF LOCAL GOVERNM]~ UNITS.
Recent discussions surrounding the reinventing of government lead
most to think of downsizing, rightsizing, consolidations and
elimination of existing structures of government. However, the
real discussion should revolve around "rediscovering governance."
Given a clean slate and the ability to redraw the map of
California, no one Would create the existing patterns of cities,
coUnties, schools and special districts as they now exist.
Likewise, few would create a structural configuration of counties
as California presently supports. However, simply erasing
boundary lines and lines of authority will not guarantee better
services, more efficient or effective government or significant
savings to taxpayers.
Governance'is defined as the office, function or authority of
governing. -It is the authority that must be rediscovered and
realigned if we are to experience a true reformation of our
government systems. Those with authority must be willing to
assign or give up that authority to another entity or a newly ~
formed entity, such as a joint powers authority. Coordination of
services, restructuring government and reinventing government all
require the redistribution of authority and the willing,surrender
of parochial power for the more general good.
Governance Committee Recommendations
.Page 2
Much of the cry' for more efficiency, better coordination, less
duplication and a more friendly, customer=based goverQment is
achievable without the addition of new laws, new regulation~ or
the granting of permission by higher levels of government. What
is'necessary is Iocal political will. What is also necessary is
the elimination of unnecessary barriers to better management and
coordination 'of services.
We must look to the citizen-customer, and place emphasis on
service delivery and efficiency. Outcomes, not institutions,
should be the focus.. The rediscovery of governance Will lead to
better decision-making, greater service responsiveness and
political accountability.
The governmental.entities that thrive in this'competitive
environment will survive. Others will not. But form follows
function, and the structure of government will evolve naturally
over time, with changes reflecting the services provided and
improvements in service delivery and efficiency.
* CALIFORNIA MUST HAVE A STRATEGIC PLAN
There is no State strategic plan. There should be. Issues in
California are dealt with in a way typical of political systems.
There is little, if any, planning. The State Government is among
the largest Corporations in the State.' Imagine a.large private
corporation operating without a plan and strategies. The state
has so operated since its existence. When a problem devel°ps,~
legislation is advanced that focuses narrowly on the.subject at
hand. It is not uncommon to have one Solution become a problem
for a related area. Occasionally, the solution is often too
prescriptive, leaving little flexibility for implementing
agencies.
Governance Committee Recommendations
Page 3
In a time of shrinking'resources, it is imperative that there be
such a plan in place. A review of the State's budget balancing
program of the Past three years reveals the critical need to have
a strategic plan, to look at the cause of problems rather than
advancing proposals that only ~require further actions later.
Single-focus decision-making rather than comprehensive and
integrated problem solving is-rewarded in the state legislative-,~ ......
process. Legislation is considered by policy committees who
focus attention from their respective vantage points. No one
looks at the whole.
A State-wide Strategic Plan setting'forth the State's goals and
priorities in governance and service delivery for a. five-year or
other defined period should be advanced by the Governor, debated
by the legislature and become the blue print to guide the State's
actions during the Plan's'existence. All legislative proposals,
all gubernatorial initiatives, and all administrative regulations
would have to be consistent With it.
The Plan should be just that--a Plan-- and not an implementation
program. Detailed implementation strategies would be left to
agencies of state or local government responsible for service
delivery. These agencies would be held accountable for the
'achievement of measurable objectives set forth in the State Plan.
Examples of performance objectives are set forth in Exhibit 1.
The Strategic Plan would be internally consistent. This
proactive effort affords the opportunity for.administration and
legislative officials to look at issues in a more "global" way.
It also facilitates thinking of issues as part of a comprehensive
system rather than isolated problems to be solved. Finally, a
Plan would help in marShaling the vast but shrinking resources of
the~State and its local governments.
Governance Committee Recommendations
Page 4
II.~ SERVICE DELIVERY PERFORMANCE/ACCOUNTABILITY
pUblic agencies are facing-the following fundamental issues: what
goods and services government Can and should provide its
citizens; how effective are'the political' Structures; and how
effective are the linkages among public, private, and nonprofit
.organizations in addressing complex societal issues. Rapid
growth in demand for current program benefits is far outpacing
available resources.
Our current state-local government system has been labeled
"dysfunctional',; program responsibility, revenue capacity, and
service delivery are misaligned; and the governance model lacks
accountability. Lack of accountability has led to citizen
frustration and disbelief in government's ability to function
effectively.
our committee recommends the following to increase accountability
and restore citizen confidence:
* ARTICULATE pUBLIc POLICY GOALS AND ~.~INATE THE MANDATE
STRUCTURE
The current governance model is essentially a "top down" approach
wher~ the State tells thousands, of diverse local governments what
their public pOlicy should be and how to carry it out. This
mandate structure inherently lacks accountability since fingers
can easily 'be pointed when regulations are not followed or'
results are not produced.
Further the current model includes so much implementation "how to
do it" that the result is lack-of innovation~ inefficiency, and
fragmentation of public effort. Much of this micromanagement by
the State results from a lack of trust and the perceived need for
State-wide uniformity. If "real" performance, accountability and
achievement are to be accomplished, the State must focus on what
Governance Committee Recommendations
Page 5
needs to be accomplished and stop telling local government "how
to do it." Process .should not be allowed to triumph over
product. Instead, the State should articulate policies and
goals, not burden lOcal government with implementation 'details.
CLARIFY WHICH LEVEL AND UNIT OF GOVERNMENT ARETO BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR PROGRAM POLICY
The recent Legislative Analyst's'0ffice~(LAO) report entitled~
"Making Government Make Sense: A More rational Structure for
State and Local Government" did much to advance the discussion of
which services' are best delivered locally and which are best
delivered by the State. While not commenting on or endorsing the
specifics of the LAO report, we believe it is essential and
critical that clarity about who is responsible'for setting the
policy for'various programs be achieved. There can and will be
debate about who should be responsible for setting program
'policy. Decisions must be made so that accountability is
possible. We recommend that a process be established which would
enable specific recommendations to be formulated and adopted. In
addition to 'local and State responsibility, the discussion should
include'the appropriate role of the federal government. This
recommendation should also be referred to the newly created
Constitutional Revision Commission recently created by SB16.
* IT IS. IMPERATIVE THATTM BE A NEXS BETWEEN PROGRAM ·
RESPONSIBILITY AND REVENUE
It is critical that any proposals for restructuring government
provide a nexus between revenues and services provided by each
level and entity of government. Program funding responsibility
should be consolidated at the level of government which has
program control.
Governance Committee Recommendations
Page 6
The current separation between revenues and programs 'is leading
~to a breakdown of local government in California. Local
officials are less accountable for their actions and can biame
the problems of their jurisdictions on state actions. Taxpayers
have little understanding of what level Of government is
responsible for what and what ~he taxes they pay are funding.
Placing control~"of program and revenues at the same level'~of ~ .
government would restore accountability and responsibility to
local elected officials. Authorizing each level of government to
have control over its own revenue raising authority would ensure
that-local governments have the capability to generate~the
resources necessary to their responsibilities. It also 'permits
local officials to determine the program service levels, and for
taxpayers to understand what services their.taxes fund.'
* PROVIDE FOR MAXIMUMLOCAL GO~ FLEXIBILITY TO
ORGANIZE ITSELF
California is extremely diverse. What works in one area of the
state may not elsewhere. Uniformity prescribed from Sacramento
can interfere with ~ community's unique interests and needs.
Local creativity and accountability-are stifled. Specifically,
provisions of law requiring specific organizational structure,
creating particular offices, and specifying how they will be
filIed should be eliminated. For example, the syStem, of elected
county department heads diffuses authority and responsibility. ·If
we are to achieve government accountability, we must adopt the
"business model" approach of stronger executive, authority and
responsibility. A major recommendation of the National
Commission of the State and Local Public Se~vice~' (theY"Winter
Commission"), called for removing the barriers to stronger
executive'authority. Specifically, the Commission recommended:
"Strengthen executive authority to act.by reducing the number of
Governance~ Committee Recommendations
Page 7
independently elected cabinet-level officials." Making it clear
who is "in charge" is essential to establishing accountability
for what goes right or wrong.
* CREATE INCENTIVES FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO DEVELOP NEW
.ORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS AND STRUCTURES THAT MAKE
SENSEFOR EFFECTIVE SERVICE DELIVERY
Corollary to increasing the ability of local goVernments to
· organize internally, barriers'to allowing governments to
cooperate or to reorganize into new intergovernmental delivery
systems should be eliminated. Incentives for new, more effective
delivery mechanisms should be created. New structural
relationships should be. encouraged in those communities ready to
try new structures. Pilot projects can allow for
experimentation. Waivers of regulations can help local
innovations.
What is needed is flexibility and incentives for local, agencies
to reexamine and, if necessary, create new locally controlled
mechanisms for governance. Three examples seem pertinent:
1. Base Closure Model - Involved governmental agencies
and the private sector are left to their ingenuity to
develop a process and organizational structure for
achieving an agreed-upon goal (conversion of a closed
base). Incentives include federal funding, and an
improved economic and environmental climate. The
process, time-table, mix of government and private
sector actions are built around performance and
agreed-upon objectives.
2. Joint Exercise of Powers Agreements/Authorities (~rPAS)
There are numerous exCellent examples of JPAS where
services can be provided without regard to
jurisdictional boundaries, tailored to the performance
and service delivery .needs of the agencies either
Governance Committee Recommendations
Page 8
contracting with or being part of the JPA. .The
cafeteria of services, thus provided, can be as
extensive or as minimal as the Participating agencies
desire. Further, in the multi-purpose JPAS individual
agencies.have the flexibility to seek other services
elsewhere, if they so choose.
3. Th~ PoliCy 'Incentive Model - A most effec~'ive Policy
tool the State could use would be strong policy.
incentives for .intergovernmental Cooperation and
sharing of information as well as resources. A recent
example of this is Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) action concerning local government radio channel
allocation. The FCC wants regional 'cooperation. It
issued radio channel allocation regulations that
incorporate .incentives for cooperation. In the
Sacramento .region, three, counties, four cities and
several special districts (fire and transit) are
working cooperatively to develop a regional radio
network. The FCC did not'tell local government how to
do it. It made.clear what the policy was and produced
a strategy that incorporated .strong incentives for
cooperation.'
Another example would be to allow local agencies to
· " retain any state provided funds realized as a result
of reorganization, consolidation or coordination
locally among various agencies. While many instances
of agencies providing, similar services can be
provided, local public ~safety comes to mind. The
California Highway Patrol functions primarily on
freeways and county roads. Local police departments
work side by side in.incorporated areas. In the Bay
Area, BART has its own -police force .that functions
within scores of municipalities and the unincorporated
areas. State police officers provide service at State
Governance Committee Recommendations
Page 9
-buildings and campus police operate at both the
University and Cal State campuses. All agencies are
doing essentially the same thing for different
clients. Any impediments to coordination, cooperation
or consolidation should be eliminated.
As noted, there are already numerous cases where agencies (local,
state and federal)< have gotten together in areas and created-more
effective service delivery mechanisms. For example, a county
sheriff's department provided policing services for Federal
agencies on Indian reservations. Local law enforcement.personnel
are used by the State to patrol State water recreation areas.
These "success" stories need to be compiled, disseminated and
replicated.~
* DECATEGORIZE FUNDS THAT ARE TO BE USED BY LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS TO DELIVER SERVICES AT THE COMMUNITY LEVEL
Resources "earmarked" for particular narrow purposes inhibit local
flexibility and further blur lines of responsibility and
accountability. Citizen frustrations increase as counties, in the
same budget action, add eligibility workers and lay off critically
needed, sheriff deputies. City residents question why there are
not enough police while empty 50 passenger busses pass by.
Residents also question the expenditure of tax dollars for job
training for jobs that do not exist, especially when required job
skills exist within the current unemployed labor pool.
Categorical State and federal funds are available and are'being
used by several different, agencies for emploYment training and
related services-, but sufficient jobs are not being created for
placement. Under existing mandates, large allocations of GAIN and
OJTPA fund's must be used for training and preparing clients for
job placement. Use of these funds to CREATE jobs is severely
restricted. In many cases, local discretionary funds for economic
development are reduced, as large increases are made in job
Governance Committee Recommendations
Page 10
training dollars. This is a fragmented, costly and largely
ineffective use of limited resources to address unemployment
problems in local communities. Barriers to maximizing the use of
limited S~ate and federal ,funds for job 'creation and economic
development activities should be removed, restrictive
categorization of funds eliminated, and creative pilot projects
encouraged.
III. GOVERNMENT REGULATION
The 'Committee is also concerned about government regulation. We
offer the following recommendations:
* REGULATORY AGENCIES SHOULD BE REVIEWED TO DECIDE IF
MISSION AND RESULTS ARE BEING ACNTEVED OR WHETHER THE
FOCUS IS RULES'AND PROCESS
There is a tendency over time for institutions created 'for
specified purposes to begin to'function in ways that are not seen
as.helpful or useful for the accomplishment of the agency's
mission. Often, it is alleged that rules and processes have
.become so complicated, convoluted and time-Consuming that-there is
grid lock in the system; and.that the original purpose of the
'process is lost.
Using the. Political Reform Act as an example, and more
specifically'focusing upon'the conflict of interest area, the
purpOse of. the Act is clear: wealth or financial gain 'should not
be the basis for serving the needs of the public.~ In seeking to
comply with ~the Act;'.local officials must~not only meet the
statutory provisions of the law but be familiar with Fair
Political Practices Commission (FPPC) regulations, Advisory
Opinions of the same body, and individual advice letters given by
the Agency.. An opinion from local legal counsel'does not protect
one from a contrary Opinion issued by the Commission.
Governance Committee Recommendations
Page 11
The safest'course of actio~ for one who wants to comply with the
law is to seek a written opinion"to be certain one's participation
is' in full compliance with all that has been written. Often, time
does not permit this to occur and wise counsel'would be to
abstain. This may impede local action.
Looking at it from another way, state and regulatory agencies have
'traditionally relied upon their police power to compel compliance
with substantive and procedural rules and regulations which are
often based on unrealistic standards and goals. In many
instances, the technical or financial feasibility of complying
with a regulation is not attainable. The relationship between the
regulator and the regulated, instead of being based on the
mutuality of attaining the same goal, is characterized by all the
negative aspects.of an adversarial process'. It does not serve the
interests of the agency or the applicant if scarce resources are
expended on litigation and fines or civil penalties when those
resources 'could have been spent in mutually attempting' to problem
solve and reach the same goal. Such a mutually shared goal may
fall short of ~he regulatory ideal, but it would be one which
reflects the best efforts toward compliance and fosters a
cooperative environment.
Regulatory agencies must take into account specific economic,
social and-other considerations when enacting and enforcing
regulations. The regulatory process should embrace a concept
similar to that available'in CEQA whereby a statement of
overriding consideration supported by findings would provide an
acceptable method for complying with the intent of a regulation
without penalizing the person or agency for falling short of the
'regulatory ideal.
Governance Committee Recommendations
Page 12
* STREAMLINE PERMIT REVIEW
In addition to the question of whether regUlatory agencies have
lost sight of their original mission, so also is the question
raised as'to the effectiveness'of multi-agency permit review.
There are too' many examples of Projects requiring, multi-agency
permits spending years going through the maze. of rules, regulation~
.and analyses' Not only are the mission and Purposes of different
agencies sometimes at cross purposes thus creating a maze of
contradictory concerns, but reviews are sometimes seqUentially
scheduled adding further time to the process, california
businesses have indicated a desire to receive a "no" in 60 days
rather than a "yes" in three years.
While there has been recent legislatiOn addressing these concerns',
it is important that processes be developed to timely evaluate
projects, requiring multi-agency permits and ~o resolve in~er-'
agency differences. -Suggestions for further improvement inclUde
parallel processing of applications and third party, dispute~
resolution 'mechanisms with binding decision making poWer. The
point is that it should not take three or four years to process a
project to final decision time with many governmental agencies
operating in independent fashion. Societal colsts of interagency
independence are too high. ~
Governance, Committee Recommendations
Page 13
ATTACTfMENT NO. 1
PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVE EXAMP~S
The following are a few examples-of measurable performance
objectiVes that could be established by the State. The
objectives should be client-based, time bound, and not
procedure/process based. Annual incremental goals could be set
for each local government agency with each being given free rein
to utilize varying approaches 'to achieve specified objectives.
Functional Areas performance Objectives
General Ongoing voter surveys advisory
ballot measures indicate at least
xx% satisfaction/ confidence
levels in government performance.
Human Services By the year yyyy, at least xx% of
California residents' live above
established poverty'levels.
Health Services By the year yyyy, at least xx% of
residents are immunized against
specified communicable diseases.
By the year yyyy, average life
span of California residents is
at least xx.
Justice/Safety By the year yyyy, homicides do
not exceed xx per 100,000
population.
By the year yyyy, robberies do
not exceed xx per 200,000
population.
Education By the year yyyy, school drop out
rate does not exceed xx%.
Public Works By the year yyyy, road accidents
do not exceed xx per 500,000
residents.
By the year~y~,, fatal accidents
do not exceed xx 'per 100,000
population.
RESTRUCTURING ADVISORY PANEL
TASK FORCE ON COMMUNITY/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT·
CHAIRMAN:
Roger Fong
County AssesSor, Sacto. (916)440-5261 Fax: (916) 440-5669
MEMBERS:
Hal Conklin
Supervisor, Santa Barbara (815) 564-5321 Fax: ~564-5475
Nancy Flemming
MaYOr, Eureka (707) 441-4200 Fax:~ (707) 441-4138
Monica Florian
V.P., The Irvine Co~, Newport Beach (714) 720-2325
Fax: (714) 720-2450
Henry Gardner
Former City Manager, Oakland (415) 834-9000
Fax: (415)· 834-9220
Sherril Luke
SuperiOr Court JUdge, .Los Angeles (818) 356-5673
Fax:' (.818) 796-5706
Tom Mauk
City Manager, Whittier (945-8223 Fax: 689-8366.
Ray Remy
L.A. Chamber of Commerce (213) 629-0625
Fax: (213) 629-0780
Karen Smith
City manager,' Union Clty (510)'471-3232'
Fax: (510) 475-7318
Dan Young
Mayor, Santa Ana (714) 647-6900 Fax: (7,14) 647-6954
Ernie Schneider
CAO, Orange County (714) 834-6200 Fax: (714) 834-3018
RESOURCES:
Cliff Allenby
CA Building Industry Assoc. (916) 443-7933
Fax: (916) 443-1960-
REPORT OF TASK FORCE ON 'COMMUNITY/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
The task force %~as 'given a long list of issues~ to review and to
recommend any policy changes which would make local government more
responsive to their constituencies and foster economic development.
We believe the recommendations are consistent with our charge and if
followed will significantly improve economic development. The business
community does not have. to deal with the maze of permitting
requirements. There are a number of states which are willing to make
the process simple and are recruiting (successfully in many cases)
everyday to lure businesses away. Additionally, the recommendation
will provide for a local government that Californians Will understand
and be able to assign responsibility for governmental action, good or
bad.
The~first..secsion deals with short term recommendations. Zn addision,
we believe the CEQA changes can be short term, the remaining
recommendation are long term. It goes without saying tha~ they are
contrcversialo
NOTE: This report of the Restructuring Advisory Panel'Task Force
on Community/Economic Development represents the thoughts
and ideas of its members. It does not represenf the
official- position of any group or organization to which
individual members-may belong; it is advisory to the
Governor' Local Government Policy Council.
LOC~L GO?~NMENT POLICY 'COUNCIL
TASK fORCE ON CO~/~UNITy AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
INTRODUCTION
The CommunitY/Economic Development Comma=tee of the Governor's Task
Force, for purposes of reviewing government structure and financing in
California, has been assigned responsibility for reviewing areas
ranging from 'the intergovernmental planning process to services
provided by sDeclfic entitles 6uch as libraries, par~s and recreation
departments. The Committee discussed sUCh policy areas as the general
Dian process, environmental impact repoz-Cs, housing, redevelopment,
government reg~lations and special districts, within these
possibility for either snort or long term solutions as .opposed to
concentrating on areas that just were so complicated there were no
answers in the short.term.
The problem begins with the economy of.california in a deep recession
having enjoyed one of;" it= greatest periods of growth during' the
1980's. Job loss due to the'recession has.been f%Lrther exacerbated 'by
a perceptible loss in the quality of life that.once made California
the dream of people from around the world.
A complete overhaul of State and local government` must ta~e place for
communities t~ eff~ctlvely improve the quality of life iff their
neighborhoods an~ to expand employment to meet r_he. growing population
of this sta=e..., The. Community Development and Economic Development
Task Force recommends a redefinition and clarification of roles for
Stats and local government. Business owners complain of a maze of
permit requirements to do business 'in this State. Cities and counties
complain of too many mandates and too littlc authority t'o carry ~hem
out. The State complains of a loss of authority created by layer upon
layer of ballot initiative laws and a frustration wi~h local
In short, the system that has. evolved out of frustration is no
a= all. Rather, it is a dizzying,' overlapping set' of programs with
few clear' lines of authority.and each level of government playing bit
roles to the mass confusion of the puAlic. The confus.ion hms led in-
Dar= ~o the creation .of an entire new. system of government in t~e form
of 4000, plus or minus, special districts, little knowers the general
public and often times in conflict' wit~ the general units of
governmen=' (cities, counties, school, districts).
Our 'Committee recommend; a re-'separation of .government in California
predicated on certain broad principles.
l. A vast', reduction in special dis~ricts by revising. t~ei~revenuee
base and asking the critical question--o~ w~a~ essential service.~ey
provide, that cannot be provided by a single city, county, school
dis:tic= o= JPA.
2. Investing'authority in 'the State. to establish goals, policies and
o~jec~!ves f~ themselves' a~d U~u,~ .fur and with units of. local
3. Consolidating all perm==' .activity in cities or counties.
Dlves=l~,~ all special_ districts or unit~, of State government from the
au=hor~=y t~ i~sue ar r~viaw per,tm'. "
4. Re,irisg all cities and counties to prepare plans that are
consistent with the goals, .policies and objectives se~ by the Sta~e.
5. 'Investing in coun~ies the. authority to become r~gionai
agencies ~d to review plann~g doc~en~ .prepared by ci~es,
_coord~a~ing ~ fo~ ~e~ juris~i~ion.
6..-A ~mplete-revision of ~A to require eac~ 'city and
redevelopment agency (o= coun=y where ~ere is no ci=y} =o prop, s a
requiremen:'~ for an EIR for~ .. those projects, consistent With the g~eral
plan.
7. ~ansf~rring re~latory authority fr~ the ~ltiplici~ of
In all Of ,it =harm mus= be an ove~iding r~ason for a gover~en=' or an
agency tD exist, The Co~itt~e a~ed-tha~ the basic m:~~e of
government in California is a~d should be mta=e - county.- city -
schools. ~a: suggests tha~ ~ers is a great' deal of room to wor~ ~
contel= of .the-et~c=ure of governs= in Califo~ia. H~e ~le. is an
of gover~en= in cali~o~ia so that in'~eed,, pro,ams .are close to ~e
~so~le and there .is. accoun=amill=y and 'responsibility. The GOve~ance
Co~ittae is 81so 8ddressi~9 this area.
In kemDin~ wi~h the theme ~a= ~ere is too ~ch gove~en= in
overall stat~ - county - city - schools strucnur~ of gov~en= in
california could ~e s~iftsd , in dramatic fo~ wni~ would have a.
positive r~=ult in a numbsr of r~Dmc~. ~ shift is being
because co~=ins a=' ~e present t~e ~rrently se~e two f~ions.
~o~ ~e eider-an ~ of ~e Stats in d~liverinq' S~t~ pro~ Gu~
local se~ices to. ~$ uninco~orate~ ~as of .'~ c~n~
~m ~siness of provid~g "~nicipai.. s~ices. In' ~e ~=ime,
'rs~lato~ ages=ires in aA1. of ~kifo~ia. I= SOU=~e~- ~li~o~ia.
alone ~s~ are' agenclss su~ am ~s Southern califo~ia
o~ .s~e~en=s (S~G), ~e Congestion .~agem~= Pla~inq'
Metropolitan Transit' Au~ority, SOil= Was~ M~ag~sn='Board,
~lifO~ia Air Q~li~ Mmnm~emmn~ Die,lc=' (SCALD) ·
kecome the regaonal plannln~ agencies in California. This woul~
eliminate the.overlap the= lies within the regional planning agencies
It 'is' further recommended that the responsibility for regula~or'~
programs in subareas of the state be shifted from single purposi
regula=ory agencies =o the coun=y Boards of Supervisors. The. Boar~
of supervisors and elected officials from ma]or cities sit on
regional boards (for'example, SCAG and SCAQMD) so it im basically
overlap to have separate boar~s, separate staffs, separate rules and
regulations and, of course, separate b~reaucracies. If t2~ose
rssponsibilitlas were .shifted ~to counties and' ~he agencies were
substantially downsizsd no become su~uni=s under t_he coun~-y Boards of
Supervisors~ direction for pur~omes 'of enforcement' or ~limina=ion,
California would have elected, accountable.boards in coun=y hails' of
administration running t~ese agencies. Also, if ~ey were downsized
hy a virtue of the s~i~t, t~srm woul= be signiflcan= r=sour=es saved
as 'a result of .the elimination of the necessity for these variou~
agencies (often ti=es to support'themselves throug~ les structures
~rocaases).
Under .this concept Single purpose agencies as mentioned above would
begin to be eli=inated and Subs=an=Jelly downsized. I/~s=ead' of
raper=lng to separate boar~s, the reduced'staff which will basically
b&=Ome enforcemen= scarf rar~er than policy ma~ing and r~le setting
s~affs would come under the direction of ~he county Board of
Supervisors and =he county administrative office. Califoz'nia would
phaseout these single ~urpose agencies. There must baa measure of
success and, therefore, t~a='would be, aC least i~ ~e first i~stance,
by virtue of the reductions in the number of employee~, agencies and
.budgets as a paz-C of the shrinking process. A corollary measure of
success, o~ course, 'would be =~e ongoing monitoring of planning and
environmmntal issues.. It would also be necessary for t~e' Federal
govern, men= to change its policy and r~cognize the counties as the new
regional' planning .agencies.
CounUies could join together in join= power agreement arrangements or
join= county arrangements to bstt~r perform the r~a~signed func:ions
and particularly t_he regional planning and r~qulatory
resDon~ibilltles. Finally,.. it' may be necessary to use financial
incmn~ives if apprupria=s =o accomplish t~e restructuring.
REDUCTIO~ IM SPECIAL
It is recommended that ='wo significant revisionm be made to special
distric=z.
i. All general taxpayer subsidies be ~aken away (pr~pez-ry ~ax, sales
tax) m~/~.~ th~ entirely, dependent on user fees. (water ra~ss, fare
charge~,
2. All Permit au=hcrity be taken away and gran:sd, uo u~e logical
city or County. Jurisdiction.
The"intent is to force special districts to go back to their original
purpose of being service providers, not re~ulators. Too of~n,
receiving a portion of sales or property revenue and by engagzng in
regulatory permitting,-they become indistinguishable from units of.
general purpose government .(cities and.
counties), Th~r~ are nunUreUs of stories of 'warring 'special districts
with cities or counties, 'ba=tlinq over land use policies or
fiscalization of land use issues.
As stated above, the Committee believes'~.~hmre nee~'s to' 'be an
overriding reason for a qovernm.nt agency =o exist. In t~e case of
,thousands of special districts in California there appears to be no
Such overriding reason. They were formed at the time California
an agrarian society for dealing With issues of that day. They do not
carryover to a suburban society .otHer than to pro~ec= their existing
s~ruct~res-and responsibility.
This-will no= be accomplished except th_rough financial .amendments
which will. drive the issue o~ consolidation or' elimination
privatizatiOn of special distri~t~, The Statm Legislature and the
~overnor'~-off-it= should adoD~ such f£nanCi'al dis'incentlv~s-for the
existi~%g ~p~uial districts, it is our intent t~ move ~o governmen~
that is-more Understandable.and accountable.
STATE AUThOrITY FOR PLANNIN~
The Committee believes the State has a legitimate role in i'den=lfying
goals, policies and objectives of statewide importance and reguirin~
unita of local gover~ment to prepare plannling documents'
wf=h t2%ese goals, policies a~d o~Jectlves. The State must force
itself to not g~ beyond thi~ role by either preparing the planning
documen= itself .for a co.unity o= group of .co.unit!es or engage in
actual pe~tting activities that reach into specific co~ities.'
For example, i= ma~es no sense for a development' project to
an ZIR process, be a~rcved by the city it ls located in, receive all
of its local 9s~zt~ to build, only ~o have t~ go to th~ Sta:~ for a
!601 ps.it from steam Fish and Game, or an air ~ality permit from
AQMD or-if it involves a road project, a con~is=ancy finding from
'SCAG.
.Cities or 'counties wher~ ther~ is no city should be r~ired to car~
ou= the planning and ps~it=In~ functions without-' the i~o~itlon of
another pm~itting layer by t~e State or some regional body created by
LO~ P~I~I~ AUTHORITY
The C~ittss r~co~nends t~at all pe~its b~ consolidated to either
~e. city leve[ o=, in t~e case of no city, the county i=vel. Special
dim~'icts, regional authorities, the Statm, JPA's would no= be allowed
Ci~i~s would become tam fr°n= l~e for dete~ining whe=~er a projeo=
can go fo~ard in its co.unity. ~ls would el~ina=e t~e prac:ice
varioum', levels o~-gover~ent' us~g the pe~itting p~ces~ as a 'fund
rais~g technique. ~s r~vismd role cf count'!as descr!ked a~ove would
facili~te ~his change.
'P~ANNING REQUIREMENTS
If..we are to consolidate permitting into the hands of cities and
counties, they must exercise that authority within the bounds of
prescribed'goals,, policies and objectives. Today, cities and counties
prepare a myriad of planning documents to guide their regulatory
decisions from general plans, to local coastal plans,i~.air quality
.plans, congestion management plans, etc. It is "fair game" to.require
that these plans be prepared consistent with state goals, policies and
objectives if cities and counties are to control the full extent of
permitting authority.
'CEQA REFORM
Our Committee considered it important- to the discussion of economic
development to recommend changes to CEQA.. and the EIR process.
Consistent with the theme of this report, we recommend a similar reform
of CEQA.
An Environmental Impact Statement is an important tool for the
community to understand what natural resources are contained in the
community and the impacts the communities development plan will have on
them. However, CEQA has evolved to a statewide discussion of virtually
every "project" proposed in the State burying government in paperwork
and business in costs and delays.
We recommend that cities and counties be required to formulate a new
(or updated) general.plan every five years and that a full EIR be done
with that update. The innovation here would be that no other EIR's
would be required fo~ those projects that conform to the general plan.
Hence, a residentially zoned parcel would require an EIR only if it Was
proposed to become a fac. tory. However, .projects of any size would not
require an EIR if they were consistent with the general plan.
This would force' the focus on environmental concerns to a city's or
county's general plan.and not specific projects. The quality of
environmental review would increase while the 'unfairness of project
level challenges would be eliminated.
It is not the intent to revisit approved uses except when environmental
changes dictate review.
INFRASTRUCTURE
One of-the reasons for the fragmentation of local government has been
'Proposition 13 and subsequent court decisions.
Some of the fragmentation occurred to meet the general special tax
hurdles set by the courts. The latest Supreme Court decision (Rider v.
County of SanDiego) has added uncertainty to the previous rules of the
game.
The.Committee believes that the State Constitution should be changed to
clarify the general special tax definition. In no event should any tax
be authorized by more. than a majority vote of the electorate. The
committee believes that the majority vote should be extended to general
obligation bonds for infrastructure. This would include bonding for
cities, counties, and school districts. Additionally, there, should be
=. limit on- the amount of- bonding which could occur- against any
prope=ty. The-actual limit would be. subject to negotiation..
The ¢Ommit~me~n work baa been necessarily limited Co those ideas for
improvin~ communi=y and economic development. We ars interested in
the work of o~her committee's thaC could make our' suggestions more ~
¢ompreh~ns£ve and, hence, mor~ meaningful. For example, we ~ave given
shor~' discussion =o revenue issues s~nc~ =~are is a comm%=~se devoted
re' chis purpose. However, an effective economic deve%opmenC' sC~eCeg~
'would give unica of local ~ovsrnmenc an uncesc~icCed source of revenue
w~Cn which iC- could aC=race e~ployers or- engage £n community
development projects.. Wa are sc~on~ suppo~C~ oC radeveiolmenc,
local govexm:~c can uae to engage in economic development.
Our hope ia ~haC' ~he b~oad suq~eaCione fr~m our- ~ommiC~ae. can be
in~agTa~ad imco t~a ochers co form a clear, conaiacan~ se~ o~ reforms
for $~aCe and local ~ovarnmen~.
-6--
SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVING THE PERMIT PROCESS
· Combine all operations related to planning and building services under one
administrative organization and establish an operations division to bridge the gap
between building and planning permit processes;
· Establish a One Stop Center that consists of the following elements:
Merge zoning and building p~n,it counters to provide'for consolidated services;
ConSolidate engineering and fire plan check services;
- Centralize cashiering services;
· PrOvide Process Coordinators as a single point of contact with project sponsors for all
complex, major projects. Process Coordinators are responsible to facilitate and monitor
projects from initiation through completion;
· Provide Specialty/Combination Inspectors for residential and small commercial
projects, which expedites inspection, as a single inspector is responsible for a project..
This provides continuity on a project and eliminates the nied to call for separam
building, plumbing, electrical, and mechanical inspections:
· Establish an information station where planning and building questions of.any
complexity., can be answered, relieving permit counter staff from diverting their attention
to this effort:
· Provide for ongoing training, including weekly training of counter staff:,and facilitate
cross functional sessions with all'staff involved in any aspect of permit processing to
enh,'mce cooperation and collaboration;
· Find ways to hear from your customers --' comment cards, meetings with the
development community; etc.;
· Provide automation that facilitates tracing of permits and allow the public easy access
to this info .rmation:
· Continue to work on improving customer services and promote an understanding that
facilitating permit processing does not connote that thc department is ."pro
development".
BAKERSFIELD
MEMORANDUM
December 3, 1993
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUI~31Lj~
FROM: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER . _---¥'
SUBJECT: GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Responses to Council Referrals are enclosed regarding merit step increase actions,
California Avenue widening and billing system for parking tickets.
2. The next couple of weeks will probably represent the most critical time period on
the Hotel project. The firming-up of marketing the bonds should take place, as
well as the adoption of the DDA on December 15th. There will also be a large
number of bond-related documents on that Agenda, both for the PFA and the
Council. Several "pounds" worth, I'm afraid. The prospects for getting the bonds
marketed are looking better and better - not for sure, but we are optimistic.
3. We are experiencing significant problems in several parts of the organization in
paperwork flow. The Planning Commission has expanded its number of meetings
that require formal minutes to double what was done before. The Clerk's Office
is receiving unprecedented levels of requests for transcripts of Planning
Commission and Council meetings. Finally, we are having to prepare for the
Brown Act, which will necessitate advanced notice and more comprehensive
minutes on all of the Committees, for .the Council, Planning Commission and
CDDA. I forewarn you that we will probably develop a plan to add some clerical
staff within the organization to deal with these problems. We are not meeting the
timelines required of Councilmembers, either in production of Committee minutes,
or of Planning Commission minutes. If you want the desirable timelines met, you
may need to accommodate us with some staff assistance, or a consulting contract
of some kind.
4. We have agreed, administratively, to go along with a downtown business
promotion and make the parking garage free for nine days around the Christmas
holidays. It is a very small revenue loss and a cooperative gesture being made
towards promotion with the DBPOA.
5. Enclosed is a copy of a flyer from ACCEL showing some insurance-related
information, including a significant rebate we received.
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL " ?'"
December 3, 1993
Page -2-
6. You will find enclosed a copy of the anticipated schedule for the Bikepath
Extension construction proposed in the northeast.
7. You will find enclosed a copy a document which provides the costs for the Bank
of America trustee services on our pool bond issue, which was requested at the
last Council Meeting.
8. Enclosed is a memo discussing the possibility of televising Council Meetings. We
do not know how much time and effo~ to put in to resolve the potential technical
and other problems that exist with this concept. It is probably closer to being
brought to successful conclusion than it has been in the past, but there are still
obstacles. We do not know what priority the Council places on this. You may
wish to give us guidance in some form on that topic.
9. A response to a Council inquiry is enclosed regarding processing time for parcel
map waivers and lot line adjustments. It is in response to concerns receiVed that
the processing has been slow.
10. Enclosed isa letter we received regarding preliminary traffic studies for the
proposed Amtrak Station.
AT.a[b
Enclosures